> Andrew Smith says with regard to Citizen's Income
>
> "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.
All I mean is practical considerations. I'm just observing that when a
policy is unworkable people can claim that it has to be done anyway by
inventing a "right" that obliges government to do it. That doesn't mean I
in any way dismiss fairness, equity or morality as the guiding principles
for policies.
> 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.
Presumably a firms demand curve for labour already takes your preferences
into account. Cutting the cost of low-paid labour shifts the supply
curve. Obviously there will be movement along the demand curve,
but the demand curve itself won't actually shift.
> 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?
Even if you use tax breaks to give CI to the better off you are still
talking about a prohibitively expensive policy.
Andrew Smith
It will get worse before it gets worse.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing