re: You're presuming a shared address means shared finances (a "family").

Yes.

In SA lessees of housing trust accommodation are obliged to inform the authority of additional , money earning, residents so that they may contribute to the rent.

Dear Rusty,

At first glance, Douglas's concept seems too extreme and unworkable to me. My idea is to provide unconditional subsistence-level income to all - not to make (or hope that) some people work for the luxuries of others.

Otherwise thanks for your contribution - I agree.

Dear Joe,

There are not enough among us who are willing to voluntarily live frugally, more-or-less at current dole-levels which is all that the unconditional allowance will provide. The majority, desiring comforts and luxuries would still choose to work for their comforts and luxuries (provided they are able to find an ethical job which they feel is actually contributing authentic benefits to others) while the minority will blessedly reduce their environmental footprint. Many people will also be likely to rotate, without anxiety, between periods of work for their luxuries and periods of frugal rest.

No one should have to work 12/7 (unless they fancy this lifestyle). Instead, unethical and useless jobs will disappear, which currently only exist because people desperately scramble for jobs.

Dear Shockadelic,

Personally, I totally agree with your suggestions to eliminate government projects, have a flat tax-rate and remove exemptions. However, others do not agree, so I wouldn't want to tie together the negative-income-tax with the issues you mentioned. Negative-income-tax can be implemented separately ASAP with wider community acceptance, to replace the current corrupt welfare system, without the need to wait longer until people come to also appreciate your other suggestions.

"charitable services?"

Even if all material needs are ever provided by robots (which I doubt), I believe that there will always be a need for services that cannot be measured in money or done mechanically.

Great essay! I thought the comments section would be full of hard right-wingers screaming about entitlement and laziness and taking responsibility and all the usual stuff. But virtually all the comments so far have been excellent - especially Yuyutsu's.

Perhaps that's the beauty of an idea whose time has come - shouting it down is futile.

The great obstacle of course is to overturn a few thousand years of conditioning that the greater mass of the population was put on this earth to work their butts off all their lives for the benefit of a very small few and that poverty and wealth are moral consequences of one's own choices.

I notice the Swiss voted down a recent referendum to put a cap on executive salaries. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.

where base wages SHOULD/be
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/where-the-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-the-earnings-of-the-1/

Killarney,

Your interesting point, that " .... the greater mass of the population was put on this earth to work their butts off all their lives for the benefit of a very small few .... "

sounds like a paraphrase of this proposal. Why should any able-bodied person NOT work ? If they are skilled, then they get some training. They study towards the sorts of jobs that an economy might be crying out for, not for study for its own sake, and not (Yuyutsu's slightly irrelevant point) for jobs which are unethical.

Otherwise, yes, we are positing a society where there might as well be money trees for some, who don't have to do anything but put their feet up all day and watch DVDs. while others do the work for them.

And a flat tax ? I'm beginning to suspect this thread is having a lend of us. But let's look at a flat tax which Shockadelic says is so equitable. I'm not so sure: imagine for argument's sake, a hypothetical two-person economy in which one works and the other doesn't, but gets an allowance. The first pays a flat tax on income she has earned, and the second person pays the same tax on income that the first person has earned, NOT the second person. In a sense, the working person not only pays her own tax and supports the second person but pays his tax as well as her own.

And probably the second person would get all aggrieved if he had to pay any more tax, for which he has been getting paid anyway for free, by the first person.

Nice work if you can get it :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe,

<<Why should any able-bodied person NOT work ?>>

First, I believe the question to be inaccurate. Did you mean to ask "why should any able-bodied person not undertake formal work for money?"?

People's reasons are too many to list. Just a few examples, one could be a carer, another a free-thinking inventor, another in order to punish an unethical boss, another because they cannot stand a boss, another because they cannot stand the smell at work, another is growing vegetables in their back-yard then invite others to eat for free, another undertakes informal studies, another plays music for free, another because they are chronically tired, another because their kids need special-attention, another is a saint, a Buddha meditating under a tree and teaching people how to overcome their existential pain, while another is the student of that saint.

<<They study towards the sorts of jobs that an economy might be crying out for>>

- Which they often do out of fear rather than out of love. Is that what you want to encourage, Joe?

I care for the crying of real people, not for the crying of an inanimate mechanism such as "economy". The pursuit of economy is full with cruel and unethical situations. While we need to eat, the least we can do is allowing people some respite from having to be 'economical' come what may. That by itself should weed out many of the flaws and excesses of economy.

<<who don't have to do anything but put their feet up all day and watch DVDs.>>

Hopefully no one is ever forced to watch DVDs!

With the frugal income from negative-income-tax, those who do like watching DVDs, will soon run out of them, so they may choose to work to earn them.

I rather discuss the issue of flat-tax independently, because negative-income-tax can be implemented with or without a flat-tax.
In combination, it means a tax-system with only two numbers: a threshold (T), and a percentage (P). Those with income (I) above the threshold pay (I-T)*P as tax while those below receive (T-I)*P as negative-tax.