I have been trying to follow the Basic-Income-for-all discussion while pushing my agenda for Fully Funded Public Transit .
The thought strikes me: Why not do away with all payments for objects or service of an individual nature?
Probably not feasible.
But suppose instead of a price per item expressed in Currency Units such as Dollars, Pounds, or Euros, Payment was made as a Percentage?
How would that work?
Well, suppose that my net annual income is stated as $20,000 (my pension, let us say) while your net annual income is stated as $60,000. Right now, you have $60,000 a year you can spend on things that you want or need, while I have only $20,000, and must do without some things, such as expensive ice-cream or expensive cheese.
Cheers is about $1 per 100 grams right now, so you could buy 6,000 Kg of cheese this year, while I could buy only 2,000 Kg of cheese.
Instead of stating the price of cheese as “One dollar per hundred grams”, express it as a percentage of stated income.
In my case (casein?) cheese represents 0.01% of my stated annual income per hundred grams.
If cheese prices were stated as “0.01% of stated annual income per hundred grams” then you and I would each be required to pay “0.01% of stated annual income per hundred grams”. In effect you would be paying three times as much in the old dollar-currency system, but in theory we would each have the same amount (one hundred percent of our stated annual income) to spend on whatever we choose to spend it on.
I might forgo cheese and ice-cream so that I could spend a week in France each year. You might forgo red meat so that you can spend more time driving your Lamborghini around Ontario.
No need then for a scheme to implement basic income.
Oh yes, and while we are at it, a Parking Ticket would be enforced on a percentage basis. That means that both you and I would feel the same crunch at, say 0.05% (that’s a $10 find on my $20,000 pension, and a $30 fine on your $60,000 income), and for a delivery firm (such as Canada Post, UPS or FedEx or a Shredder Truck) with a net income of $100,000,000 it would be a cheque drawn for $50,000.
Might make a difference ...
How did Constable Clint Stibb slip through the net and get to be employed by the Toronto Police Force? This is the first rational thing I’ve heard out the Toronto Police Force since they started shooting mentally ill people on the streets.
Stibb is absolutely right:
(1) Stibb talks of “collisions” not accidents. An accident is an unforeseen event, but contact between a vehicle and a pedestrian can always be foreseen when they aim to make use of the same space.
(2) Stibb says that people must be responsible for their own safety. Je suis d’accord.
France is built on a system of politeness. This starts with saying “Bonjour” to the bus driver when you board the bus, to people in the little shop when you enter from the street, to strangers you pass in the street, and to everyone with whom you would converse.
The politeness extends to interactions between vehicles and pedestrians (and also between pedestrians and pedestrians!).
In Toronto the game is “Which one of us will get to use this road space before the other?”.
In France the attitude is “I’ve just met a complete stranger! Now, how can the two of us work together to avoid calling the police and doing a tonne of paperwork”.
It is not that the French police are bad, not at all. It is an attitude that suggest that to co-operate with strangers is the reason for being on this planet.