"When a policy can't be justified on pragmatic grounds,
its supporters often seek to justify it by inventing rights."
I do not see Citizen's Income as a realistic contender as a
policy option (yet) but Andrew Smith does seem to dismiss
fairness, equity, morality etc. But perhaps ther is more
in the word 'pragmatic' than I realise.
He also seems to say that cutting the cost of low-paid labour
would not increase demand for it. Surely this is incorrect:
If my favourite restaurant pays less for its labour and
it is in competition with other similar restaurants, then
it will cut its prices. Then I will eat out more often
and increase demand for the labour of the cooks and waiters.
One further point : The cost of CI would be high, but I am
suspicious of 'high cost' / 'low cost' arguments in
this context. This is because the duality between 'tax break'
and 'subsidy'. For instance, should the personal allowance
on my income tax be considered as a govenment expenditure
or as reduced taxes?
The proposal that Kim Swales and myself have put forward
for changing VAT into an employment friendly tax exploits
this duality (see the section on taxation and jobs on
http://www.faxfn.org). We can certainly claim this scheme
creates jobs and cuts taxes. I think it is for mostly
terminological reasons that the same cannot be said for CI.
(ie. it is hard to call CI a tax break).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing