Should America Pay People for Being Alive?

[seleka]

YES! I just want a plot of land to raise food and be. Watching this now. I know I have heard the name Thom Hartmann before but I am unfamiliar with his 'doctrine'. I like the idea of being able to eat well each month and a warm home... money to live sounds good.
uqE0KY4EQ6M

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

This is a very interesting idea. :)

Money is a rather outdated concept; it's quite literally the symbol used to describe the taking and hoarding of human lifeforce.
In my opinion, stockpiling and hoarding money, is fairly evil. It equates to withholding the energy of a shared system from others.

Now, we all know that the foundation of human civilization is not money, but communication.
What is that old saying, ah -- "Talk is cheap" -- hence the displeasure of the elite toward sites like this one, where human beings still feel sorry and responsible for one another.

Did you know that in Christian mythos, Cain is the man who invented money, the concept of town, and measurements?
Although these were clever inventions, they established a false authority: blind materialism over humanity's gift of free will... i.e. something always hanging over your head, and it's called a weighing scale.

Did anyone ever wonder why tithe is an even 10 percent, when God admittedly works in mysterious ways and not in textbook ones?
It's a human system, and accordingly, broken!

[christian]

I think this idea of giving everybody money for nothing doesn't create real wealth or security. It rather increases dependency and impedes the development of self-responsibility, even though some people might use their free cash in a wise way. But in general, I think we'd be better off if everybody would be given (or rather: would demand and take his or her) freedom, not money. The creation of money should simply be free, not in the hands of a criminal cartel as it is now.



I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

—Benjamin Franklin


Let people pursue their own wealth and happiness freely and it's all gonna work out, imho.

[Deega]

That is one great initiative, I sincerely hope that it goes through.

In Canada, politicians have talked about it back in the '70, but I think that the corporate world wouldn't get in the gamble of it at that time. Once in a while, we hear people engaging conversation on the topic! but not more than that!,

Great initiative from the Swiss!

[mosquito]

Chavez did this in Venezuala and almost eradicated prostitution. I also note that Switzerland is considering it too.

A substantial amount of crime is directly linked to poverty. Why NOT pay people a decent allowance and prevent them having to steal just to eat. Think of the money saved in the long run, it costs around 4,000 pounds per week to keep someone in prison in the UK.

Those that CAN pursue their wealth and happiness remain free to do so.

Society needs poets, artists, philosophers and musicians just as much as it needs bankers (errrm, more so !!). So why should creative people be forced onto the treadmill ? If it's OK to pay members of the royal family vast sums of money just to open 2 supermarkets per year (or whatever they do), then I'm sure we can justify paying a living allowance.

But I can imagine the reaction in America.......

[Flash]

This would be true socialism at its best, with a huge capitalism side too. Just enough money not to starve and live in your car, but not enough not to have ambition. Artist would want to be artist, and ingeneers would want to build bridges and businessmen to make more money.

The other alternative would be to provide basic free from GMO food to everyone, enough for subsistance and basic rent, but still let the market free for anything above (we do not want to turn into a North Korea either where those obeying the state have a better rent). No money involved here, just direct help.

[Nanoo Nanoo]

Chavez did this in Venezuala and almost eradicated prostitution. I also note that Switzerland is considering it too.

A substantial amount of crime is directly linked to poverty. Why NOT pay people a decent allowance and prevent them having to steal just to eat. Think of the money saved in the long run, it costs around 4,000 pounds per week to keep someone in prison in the UK.

Those that CAN pursue their wealth and happiness remain free to do so.

Society needs poets, artists, philosophers and musicians just as much as it needs bankers (errrm, more so !!). So why should creative people be forced onto the treadmill ? If it's OK to pay members of the royal family vast sums of money just to open 2 supermarkets per year (or whatever they do), then I'm sure we can justify paying a living allowance.

But I can imagine the reaction in America.......

Here here ! theres not much hope of growth in a population working all the time. Its not conducive to self exploration.

N

[Tesseract]

I like the idea, and I hope that people can appreciate the depth of the vision here. I often think about what kind of accomplishments would be made by ordinary people if they were not constantly worrying about how to meet their financial obligations for essential items (rent, food etc). Imagine if all that attention and energy were turned elsewhere. Far too much precious thought is wasted on money in this world, it's really an insult to the human mind. Even people with jobs spend time worrying about what they would do if they lose employment. I remember an old school science teacher explaining that as the disorganisation and peril of the dark ages came to an end, and people had the luxury of thinking about more than just basic sustenance and survival, there was a great explosion of philosophy and this became known as the renaissance.

There are issues of course. In Australia, for example, the biggest 'cost of living' item is accommodation, which is not generally government provided. Residential real estate has become quite the fertile field for profiteering. I can see landlords jacking up their rent prices in order to confiscate a certain amount of the grant, although the extent to which they could get away with that would depend on total housing supply, anyway, housing might have to be regulated. I think the housing 'market' should be more regulated in Australia anyway, but I won't go into that here.


Instead of the implementation of this idea resulting in people sitting around doing nothing all day (although even here we may discover the next Descartes), we might well see people actually become for more endeavoring, since some of the risk of failure is removed.

[noprophet]

I'm really happy to see support for this.

I see economy as a game, not as a form of evolution. You shouldn't force people to play your game.

[rgray222]

On a conceptual basis I get what this group is attempting to do but on a practical basis I see this as a major problem. Once you start "giving" people money they would always want more. The pressure to increase the amount over time would be enormous. In a two party system, or for that matter, a three, four or five party system who do you think would always win elections, of course it would always be the party that promises to "give" the most amount of money to the people.

If the objective is to put money into the hands of people, the easiest and fastest way that it could be accomplished around the globe would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. I am not a supporter of a lot of new laws, but I would strongly support one that prevents governments, groups or organizations from centralizing the banking system ever again.

[Mike Gorman]

Now this is getting somewhere near what Human life should be about. It has always struck me that the idea
of having to pay to exist on your native planet is quite twisted. As the Swiss Gentleman said, it is all in how we
'look at it', the collective wealth of this world belongs to you and I -the gold, diamonds, coal, oil, water, land
it belongs to us all. How absurd that we have allowed small groups of aggressive, predatory families to bully the rest of us
into accepting their hallucinogenic fantasy that they should 'Own' it all and dole it out to us as long as we cooperate and go along with their
views. This might sound strange, but it is not the way we should be living -our labor and intelligence could be shared, and everyone taken care of
at least on a basic level (nope, not socialism, but enlightened use of the Earth)-how refreshing this should be being voted on in Switzerland.

[GlassSteagallfan]

More here at shtf.com

Establishment Proposes: “Have the Government Give Every Adult a Basic Income” (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/establishment-proposes-have-the-government-give-every-adult-a-basic-income_11182013)

[Hughe]

I've seen all advanced civilizations don't have money. Mature society provides basic necessities for all members through technologies and infrastructure. It's feasible and only way how the civilization moves forward not being destroyed by continuous in-fighting.

[seleka]

I think this idea of giving everybody money for nothing doesn't create real wealth or security. It rather increases dependency and impedes the development of self-responsibility, even though some people might use their free cash in a wise way. But in general, I think we'd be better off if everybody would be given (or rather: would demand and take his or her) freedom, not money. The creation of money should simply be free, not in the hands of a criminal cartel as it is now.



I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

—Benjamin Franklin


Let people pursue their own wealth and happiness freely and it's all gonna work out, imho.

o my I wrote a long reply and hit a bad key, lost it. Must've been for a reason. I have read about a resource based economy, and that resonates with me. People forget that money is a representation of energy, by keeping it all to the top they are vampiring. (wow this is coming out way different than the first one).

If you keep the poor struggling to eat like the freemason BF said, then you keep them from noticing the prison bars. If it is constantly on your mind what you will eat or if you will have shelter, you cannot be the creative being as easily as if your physical body were being properly nurtured. It is a really harsh thing to be hungry and know there is nothing to be done about it, other than drink water.

I would prefer it to be a land distribution program, seeds, goods... and do away with the little bits of green paper altogether. But even if this program turns out to happen and some die because they foolishly spend it on heroin or whatever, those of us wayshowers could have the next enlightened period. information sharing, research sharing, resource sharing.... it is the only design which is sustainable given the current status IMO. I know I have invented things, thought up ways to make things better, many of us have, if we had food and shelter, more innovations would appear.

The problem is not inflation or raising a debt ceiling, or any of it.... it is recognizing that money does not exist at all. Moving into the reality where everyone knows, 'there is enough' and therefore does not mind giving a brother a banana, since he has a million of them in the basement... the hoarders played a good game, but it is up. If this money distribution thing is a stepping stone to a true resource based economy, then I am down with it.

This got too long, but I will mention my trepidation when I hear politicians in US are actually getting behind this idea however, like will it require us all to be microchipped to receive our chits? Is this the way the plan to get us all safely ensconced in the govt provided existence akin to the fema camp scenario?

I am my own debater, looking at all the sides I can. But I can't lie, the thought that I could be a part of creating a place to gather natural mothers, children and elders, to create a village where we could all help each other... to relearn how to raise children the way that will set the human race free, it makes my heart warm.

[seleka]

More here at shtf.com

Establishment Proposes: “Have the Government Give Every Adult a Basic Income” (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/establishment-proposes-have-the-government-give-every-adult-a-basic-income_11182013)

It seems that most people that disagree with things like this have never actually been hungry, or homeless, or had the power shut off because your mom didn't have enough money to buy food and pay that too. No one on a planet that has all needed for life should be hungry! It is a barbarian, controlling thought. If a child was actually standing in front of you and was hungry, just the child, of course you would feed it. This is normal human behavior, normal for mammals and other animals too. I love bonobos btw, they really know how to run a society... So just because we cannot see the child because of all these walls and electronic devices.... they are still there. and those that have billions and say "you can't just hand things out" are PSYCHOPATHS. They have forgotten who they really are and are operating an old program. I believe they are re membering now too... so when they start giving anyone that wants a banana, and having big open stalls of bananas for us all to come eat whenever.... and stop poisoning them with gmos and shots... well then we will be unity. redistributing the wealth is part of unity. I deserve the same for being alive as anyone else, we are all important and special.
and one more thing lol.... in order for this to not harm the earth worse through people buying so many plastic goods.... all goods must be made biodegradeable or recycled. (but thats another thread)

[araucaria]

karika, if words were money, then you'd have a hole in your pocket! In my and others' experience, if you're planning to write more than a couple of sentences, better to copy and paste from a word processor.

[christian]

No offense, but I find what I read here alarming! Your arguments are that people should not be in poverty or forced onto the treadmill and that basic goods should be there. That's all fine, but how on Earth do you think that this will be accomplished by the government handing out cheap money? That's totally diverting attention away from removing the true fundamental blocks of human creativity—control systems. Having a state money-for-everybody plan is another control system. I don't want to receive any handouts from criminals that rob the people and want to control me. I see through that scheme, it's not what leads me towards true self-empowerment. None of us has to be in the treadmill if we do away with suppression of useful technology, if we do away with crippling regulations, if we don't continue to allow criminals to run their operations, and if we take our lives into our own hands.

When I read "distribution program," I'm in shock, same goes for "resource based economy." Both means strict control, absence of private property. It means robbing people and assuming the authority to decide who may have what and do what. This is not an approach I'd ever use. I want self-empowered and free people, not tightly controlled people. But how about a "freedom to create" program? Forget the scarcity paradigm, remember that we can easily create abundance if we have freedom.

This video very nicely explains why freedom is the only way to go and how well-intended ideas like a resource-based economy are doomed to fail. It's not like there couldn't be such a thing as a society acting responsibly with its resources, but you do not bring this about through a central planning authority that forces peaceful citizens to comply or else.

8Zq4f6WYmHU
No disrespect to anyone, I'm just very passionate about my freedom, and I don't want to be forced to be part of this cheap money scheme, it's a very sweet trap in my eyes, an illusory short-cut solution. Venezuela is a mess, worse than many others.

All these problems that you want solved are not there because people do not yet receive these handouts, these problems are there because we are being suppressed and controlled. So where is the solution to the problem? Do away with suppression and control!



I'm really happy to see support for this.

[...]

You shouldn't force people to play your game.

Do you see the huge contradiction? This handout scheme would be another game, one that everybody would be forced to participate in. I don't want any part of it.



It has always struck me that the idea of having to pay to exist on your native planet is quite twisted.

I completely agree. So how can the solution be to force everyone into this paradigm?

-------

Again, I don't want to offend anybody, but it could seem from what is written here that handouts are more important to you than freedom.

[seleka]

to me the breakthrough is realizing that the ones hoarding all the money(energy) got it by tricking everyone else. They did not 'work for it', or if they did, that doesn't matter either. Once everyone realizes the game is rigged, there is no way around that elephant. There is a system set up which has at its core, a funnel to gather all resources, money etc regardless of the others breathing the same air (which they would prevent you from doing if they could... unless of course later you will invent a perfume they like...). It was never fair and it has never been equal to all. There were secrets kept amongst the few that set up empires. As long as there is a money (or barter)system, there is no such thing as free trade... or fair enterprise. I just went to far for this vid though I see, since it is about money... but starting somewhere to stop the degradation of humanity is a good step.

[seleka]

karika, if words were money, then you'd have a hole in your pocket! In my and others' experience, if you're planning to write more than a couple of sentences, better to copy and paste from a word processor.
Please explain this further? Does it appear disorganized to you? Are you referring to something like this?
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65520-Organizing-thoughts-into-concise-comments&p=758980&viewfull=1#post758980

I tried to organize it, I spent time fixing it into paragraphs... I write in stream of consciousness usually and I like it. I am passionate about this because I have had enough (as in lived a comfortable lifestyle), and I have been homeless. There really is a spiral you go down.... no credit, can't get a job, no job, can't get an apt.... having a floor would help. As in, a place that we can all agree on as humans that no living being should have to be beneath. food, shelter and clothing should be a given....

[christian]

karika, I agree with what you start off with. But why is free trade not compatible with money? If you say, "you may not trade with money," how would that still be free? Why not let people create and choose currencies freely (and hopefully on an informed basis)—unlike now where people use robber barons' FIAT garbage unquestioningly. Of course, prohibiting barter in general would not only not be free trade, it would be no trade.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Yay, more money to buy GMO foods, sponsor big pharma, phones that bake pancakes and game consoles that can see you are in immediate need of Preparation H, I want the free money, gimme gimme gimme, maybe, just maybe we need to solve some other issues at the same time too, the people on this forum have a pretty good idea of how do things right and what to avoid but I am not so sure about the larger public AT ALL.

[seleka]

No offense, but I find what I read here alarming! Your arguments are that people should not be in poverty or forced onto the treadmill and that basic goods should be there. That's all fine, but how on Earth do you think that this will be accomplished by the government handing out cheap money? That's totally diverting attention away from removing the true fundamental blocks of human creativity—control systems. Having a state money-for-everybody plan is another control system. I don't want to receive any handouts from criminals that rob the people and want to control me. I see through that scheme, it's not what leads me towards true self-empowerment. None of us has to be in the treadmill if we do away with suppression of useful technology, if we do away with crippling regulations, if we don't continue to allow criminals to run their operations, and if we take our lives into our own hands.

When I read "distribution program," I'm in shock, same goes for "resource based economy." Both means strict control, absence of private property. It means robbing people and assuming the authority to decide who may have what and do what. This is not an approach I'd ever use. I want self-empowered and free people, not tightly controlled people. But how about a "freedom to create" program? Forget the scarcity paradigm, remember that we can easily create abundance if we have freedom.

This video very nicely explains why freedom is the only way to go and how well-intended ideas like a resource-based economy are doomed to fail. It's not like there couldn't be such a thing as a society acting responsibly with its resources, but you do not bring this about through a central planning authority that forces peaceful citizens to comply or else.

8Zq4f6WYmHU
No disrespect to anyone, I'm just very passionate about my freedom, and I don't want to be forced to be part of this cheap money scheme, it's a very sweet trap in my eyes, an illusory short-cut solution. Venezuela is a mess, worse than many others.

All these problems that you want solved are not there because people do not yet receive these handouts, these problems are there because we are being suppressed and controlled. So where is the solution to the problem? Do away with suppression and control!



I'm really happy to see support for this.

[...]

You shouldn't force people to play your game.

Do you see the huge contradiction? This handout scheme would be another game, one that everybody would be forced to participate in. I don't want any part of it.



It has always struck me that the idea of having to pay to exist on your native planet is quite twisted.

I completely agree. So how can the solution be to force everyone into this paradigm?

-------

Again, I don't want to offend anybody, but it could seem from what is written here that handouts are more important to you than freedom.

I am so happy you are writing in this thread! I need to really read this again slowly, but wanted to thank you right now! I agree btw that govt handing out money sounds like fema camp type nanny state scenario.... but there is a solution I am positive, another way to do redistribution and sanity. We will think it up. Maybe there are already 100 threads about it here though....

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I was reading about the treatment of black slaves in the USA tonight,
and one of the things that struck me as interesting was that along with being forbidden from reading, slaves were not given much free time at all in which to foster intellectual growth.

But when George Washington Carver was given time and an opportunity to explore a loving environment, he made many discoveries and inventions.

Capitalism capitalizes on things staying the same, with "progress and reform" remaining as remote as the moon, while the earthly treadmill turns forever :(

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

This measure is proved to be efficient, but it will highly depend on how well educated the population is.

They did experiments with it in Canada in the past, with very positive results. The opposition first thought that that it would make people lazy and dependable of the State, but it didn't happen.

Here it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/to-end-poverty-guarantee-everyone-in-canada-20000-a-year-but-are-you-willing-to-trust-the-poor/article560885/?page=all) is:


The idea of a guaranteed annual income has been tested before in Canada - in the mid-1970s, in Dauphin, Man., a farming town with then about 10,000 residents.

In the only experiment of its kind in North America, every household in Dauphin was given access to a guaranteed annual budget, subject to their income level. For a family of five, payments equalled about $18,000 a year in today's dollars.

Politicians primarily wanted to see if people would stop working. While the project was pre-empted by a change in government, a second look by researchers has found that there was only a slight decline in work - mostly among mothers, who chose to stay home with their children, and teenaged boys, who stayed in school longer.

Evelyn Forget, a researcher in medicine at the University of Manitoba, reports that Dauphin also experienced a 10-per-cent drop in hospital admissions and fewer doctor visits, especially for mental-health issues.

The project was called Mincome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome):


Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.

It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women. However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.

A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals

Another article about the experiment:

Dauphin's great experiment - Mincome, nearly forgotten child of the '70s, was a noble experiment (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html)


Dauphin -- Thirty-five years ago, this pretty town surrounded by farm land and far from big cities was the site of a revolutionary social experiment.
For five years, Mincome ensured there would be no poverty in Dauphin. Wages were topped up and the working poor given a boost.
The experiment, a collaboration between Ed Schreyer's provincial NDP and the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, would cost millions before the plug was pulled.
The program saw one-third of Dauphin's poorest families get monthly cheques.
In 1971, at a federal-provincial conference held in Victoria, Manitoba expressed interest in being the testing ground for a guaranteed income project. The Schreyer government applied for funding. In June, 1974, Mincome was approved.
The program quickly grew from modest origins. The NDP thought it would cost slightly more than $500,000 and involve somewhere between 300 and 500 families.
The project ultimately cost more than $17 million and helped 1,000 families.
Cheques were issued based on family size and income. That is, the minimum cheque would presume the recipient had no other source of income. From there, it was scaled back in proportion to the household's earnings, but it did not claw back everything the family earned above the minimum needed to keep body and soul together.
In that way, it differed from standard welfare, or social assistance. And for that reason, it's fondly remembered in the town that tried it, because it rewarded initiative and standing on your own two feet, qualities highly regarded in rural Manitoba, then and now.
The basic minimum income experiment ended when both Schreyer and Trudeau lost power. In the inflationary times of the early eighties and with the installation of Conservative governments in both Manitoba and Canada, Mincome quietly faded away.
No money was spent to study the results of this government-funded utopia.
"Most people have forgotten about it," says Dr. Evelyn Forget, a researcher at the University of Manitoba. "People were very excited about it in the social science community but outside of Dauphin no one really knew about it."
Forget wants to know more. She's getting access to nearly 2000 sealed boxes kept in Winnipeg's National Archives. She hopes to discover what sort of impact Mincome had on Dauphin's residents.
"We already know that hospitalizations went down and people stayed in school longer," she says. "This was a very important social experiment."
Forget believes a guaranteed minimum income is a good idea, one that gives money directly to those who need it instead of funneling the cash through top-heavy social programs.
The people who lived in Dauphin in the mid-seventies agree.

Thirty-five years ago, Hugh and Doreen Henderson stretched each dollar until it snapped. He was a school janitor, she stayed at home with their two kids.
They lived out in the country, raised chickens, grew a lot of their own food and had no money for luxuries.
Mincome was a blessing from above.
"A couple of people came out and talked to us," says Doreen, 70. "We filled out forms, they wanted to see our receipts. We got to keep our family allowance."
It was their children who benefited most.
"You know how kids are," she says. "They like new clothes. They like to have a few extra things."
Hugh, 72, says he regrets not being able to send his children to university. His daughter managed on her own.
"If a kid wants an education and he's willing to pay for it, I think the government should help," he says. "If we'd have had more money, I'd have loved to pay for university for my kids."
Doreen says the government should establish a similar program for seniors and young families.
"Give them enough money to raise their kids. People work hard and it's still not enough," she says. "This isn't welfare. This is making sure kids have enough to eat."
The Hendersons insist Mincome was not a handout. They still worked plenty hard, scrimped and weren't spending money on restaurant meals or fancy clothes.
"They should have kept it," she says. "It made a real difference."

Amy Richardson is now 83.
Back in the mid-'70s, she ran the Dauphin Beauty Parlour out of her home. She and her husband Gordon were raising six children.
He worked for the telephone company but health problems led him to retire at 53.
There was only so much money a woman could making setting hair.
"It was kind of a slump at that time," says the widow. "When you have six kids it's hard."
Richardson thinks it was her husband who heard about Mincome and applied.
"It was to bring your income up to where it should be. It was enough to add some cream to the coffee."
The Richardsons used the extra money on things like school books.
"Everybody was the same so there was no shame," she says.
She was old-school, the way people tend to be when they're living in tough times. She baked her own bread, canned vegetables and put up jams. She didn't waste a cent because she didn't have one to waste.
"They really need a school to teach the basics now," she says. "Kids need to learn how to cook, how to do things from scratch. You could live on a lot less."
For the Richardson and their six children, Mincome was a way to afford a few more of the necessities.

Barbara Livingstone, 83, wanted nothing to do with Mincome.
She moved to Dauphin in 1973, a single mother of one. She was a housekeeper in a personal care home, earning minimum wage and had no interest in government handouts.
"A friend had something to do with it. He asked me some questions and told me I qualified. He urged me to take it. To me it was a form of welfare."
The decision to accept the cheques was hard on her.
"I was raised on a farm. You don't ask for help. It was sort of like in our family it was shameful to ask for help.
"To me when a person's working and making a fair wage they should take care of themselves."
She felt guilty applying for the program.
"Mind you, my friend assured me it wasn't welfare, it was an experiment."
The idea behind the program, she remembers, was to take the money and spend it in the community.
"It was supposed to be a way to kick-start the economy."
She says the money was a bonus but didn't change her life.
"Most of us didn't have anything much but we got by."

Rick Zaplitny, 63, was already a chartered accountant when Mincome began. He didn't qualify for the program, but he supported the idea.
"We always felt the problem with the welfare system is it was punitive. You made money and they took it away from you.
"It seemed to us that Mincome was for the people who were on that line. They weren't deadbeats. They needed a bit of a boost."
The money wasn't taxable, something Zaplitny thought was a positive move.
"It's the best program of this sort that I've ever seen. I'm guessing that the administration was quite stringent. There was monthly monitoring. It was onerous."
Zaplitny says all that would be easier in the age of computers.
"The concept would work now. I'd be in favor of it. Helping someone have a decent living wage is hard to argue with."

As Forget studies the results of the program, she expects to find the benefits of a guaranteed minimum income were far-reaching.
Teenagers stayed in school longer because they didn't have to get jobs to support their families. People could afford medical and dental care. Stress was down because people didn't have to worry about providing for their families.
As Zaplitny says, these people weren't deadbeats.
They were no different that the thousands of people in this province who work and still live at or below the poverty line. They use food banks to supplement what they buy or go hungry so their children can eat.
Mincome did more than top up the income of the poor. It gave them dignity.
Surely that's an idea worth investing in.


Now, I'm sure it will work in Switzerland because people are highly educated and civil up there.

In the US, we would have to wait and see...The US is a very consumerism centered country, so, there's the possibility that a lot of people will spend the whole money on video-games, big plasma TVs and similar stupid things, instead of using it for a better purpose.

The way I see it, if this experiment works in the US as it worked in Canada and will probably work in Switzerland, it will be an investment instead of a loss of public money. Short term, it would lead to a drastic reduction in criminality and hospital costs. Long term, it will lead to more educated and humane citizens, which are much more productive for the State and for the economy as a whole.

Raf.

[araucaria]

karika, if words were money, then you'd have a hole in your pocket! In my and others' experience, if you're planning to write more than a couple of sentences, better to copy and paste from a word processor.
Please explain this further? Does it appear disorganized to you? Are you referring to something like this?
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65520-Organizing-thoughts-into-concise-comments&p=758980&viewfull=1#post758980

I tried to organize it, I spent time fixing it into paragraphs... I write in stream of consciousness usually and I like it. I am passionate about this because I have had enough (as in lived a comfortable lifestyle), and I have been homeless. There really is a spiral you go down.... no credit, can't get a job, no job, can't get an apt.... having a floor would help. As in, a place that we can all agree on as humans that no living being should have to be beneath. food, shelter and clothing should be a given....
No no, you seem to be replying to a post I just made on another thread :) I am not referring to content at all.

All I'm saying is, to avoid losing one's wisdom, use a word processor, rather than take a risk with the forum reply box, which tends to swallow it up now and again. You can both save your post for later reference and insure against immediate losses by setting your backup function to save every 1 or 2 minutes.

[christian]

karika, if words were money, then you'd have a hole in your pocket! In my and others' experience, if you're planning to write more than a couple of sentences, better to copy and paste from a word processor.

Please explain this further?

All I'm saying is, to avoid losing one's wisdom, use a word processor, rather than take a risk with the forum reply box, which tends to swallow it up now and again. You can both save your post for later reference and insure against immediate losses by setting your backup function to save every 1 or 2 minutes.

Another way is to install Lazarus (https://www.google.com/search?q=lazarus+form+recovery), a form recovery tool. You could just go back to where you had typed whatever it was, right-click, and restore what you had typed.

[Ikarusion]

A substantial amount of crime is directly linked to poverty. Why NOT pay people a decent allowance and prevent them having to steal just to eat.
a good point!

here, most social security instances would cease, once this unconditional basic income is initiated.
also, if you do not work (have an additional income) it should really just cover the cost of living.
meaning everyone that desires more, will seek work.

it also means that poor immigrants dont have to take up 2-3 minimum wage jobs to take care of their families.
or that you could easly work part time and therefor have more time for self-development, friends, or simply living. :)

i welcome the idea and feel that with enough time, there would be more equality in our society.
people could gain freedom on many levels actually..

more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income


to the initial question: yes, why not?
but its hard to imagine this system being implemented in the states.
it actually seems to be the opposite of the american way. of how your goverment indoctrinated you.

[East Sun]

The basic concept is ideal, but of course it would need to be fine tuned so as to motivate everyone to do their part at their own pace. It is something to really think about and we would be interested to see how it works for Switzerland if it is implemented there.
I would love to see the greed oriented reaction to this.

[Bubu]

This is a good idea to start with but let's not forget that the real problem is when some people is in control of other people. As pointed above this will "ease pressure on people to play your game". I mean what the heck why should I play their game if my family is not hungry. This is actually the idea of keeping people in survival status so that they can force the masses to play their game. So hopefully this will be a good start in dismantling the control system.

[norman]

This reminds me of all those futuristic predictions of the 1960s telling us that in the future technology was going to replace our jobs and our lives would be lives of leisure.

Oh, and, where's my flying car?


edit:

So where's my flying car ? - Mick Wilsons Bloonoise :
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=4535905

[ceetee9]

With all due respect, paying people for being alive is just an attempt to pacify those who recognize that every human has a right to survive while still enabling the controllers to maintain the corrupt monetary system that has enslaved mankind for thousands of years.

There have been many threads and discussions on Avalon that attempt to address the inequalities, poverty, and suffering on this planet, but most suggestions are just patches to the current monetary system or recycled old failed systems.

A completely new paradigm is what is needed if we seriously care about all life and about creating a truly free and equitable society with abundant resources for everyone. I highly recommend you all listen to what Michael Tellinger has to say regarding this issue.

qIo2etWlnDM
Here is his Ubuntu Contributionism (http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.php) proposal.

[christian]

Here is his Ubuntu Contributionism (http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.php) proposal.

I love Michael Tellinger, and I love the Ubuntu thing in general, but when I read something like this I can't help but crave for a beer for the sake of humanity.


· Money is the obstacle to all progress and the cause of all misery on Earth.
· Money is the major contributing factor to the gross separation and segregation in society.
· Money is the cause of 99% of crime.
· Money causes families to fall apart.
· Money is the driving force behind ego, gluttony, jealousy, greed, envy and all the ugliest aspects of humanity.

The solution is quite clear. REMOVE the problem.

Remove MONEY from society.

The instrument is inherently evil? I don't think so. It's merely a current (http://ascension101.com/ascension-tools/19-five-minute-mp3s-for-the-workplace/51-self-growth-audio-tools.html), like water. Money can exist in many variations and can be used in many ways.

Michael, how to "REMOVE MONEY" in a peaceful way, how to deal with those who would prefer to trade with money amongst themselves?

Common sense questions!

[Nanoo Nanoo]

No offense, but I find what I read here alarming! Your arguments are that people should not be in poverty or forced onto the treadmill and that basic goods should be there. That's all fine, but how on Earth do you think that this will be accomplished by the government handing out cheap money? That's totally diverting attention away from removing the true fundamental blocks of human creativity—control systems. Having a state money-for-everybody plan is another control system. I don't want to receive any handouts from criminals that rob the people and want to control me. I see through that scheme, it's not what leads me towards true self-empowerment. None of us has to be in the treadmill if we do away with suppression of useful technology, if we do away with crippling regulations, if we don't continue to allow criminals to run their operations, and if we take our lives into our own hands.

When I read "distribution program," I'm in shock, same goes for "resource based economy." Both means strict control, absence of private property. It means robbing people and assuming the authority to decide who may have what and do what. This is not an approach I'd ever use. I want self-empowered and free people, not tightly controlled people. But how about a "freedom to create" program? Forget the scarcity paradigm, remember that we can easily create abundance if we have freedom.

This video very nicely explains why freedom is the only way to go and how well-intended ideas like a resource-based economy are doomed to fail. It's not like there couldn't be such a thing as a society acting responsibly with its resources, but you do not bring this about through a central planning authority that forces peaceful citizens to comply or else.

8Zq4f6WYmHU
No disrespect to anyone, I'm just very passionate about my freedom, and I don't want to be forced to be part of this cheap money scheme, it's a very sweet trap in my eyes, an illusory short-cut solution. Venezuela is a mess, worse than many others.

All these problems that you want solved are not there because people do not yet receive these handouts, these problems are there because we are being suppressed and controlled. So where is the solution to the problem? Do away with suppression and control!



I'm really happy to see support for this.

[...]

You shouldn't force people to play your game.

Do you see the huge contradiction? This handout scheme would be another game, one that everybody would be forced to participate in. I don't want any part of it.



It has always struck me that the idea of having to pay to exist on your native planet is quite twisted.

I completely agree. So how can the solution be to force everyone into this paradigm?

-------

Again, I don't want to offend anybody, but it could seem from what is written here that handouts are more important to you than freedom.

Hey Christian

I have to agree and also disagree with your view point, i disagree only because there is a way to make this system of hand outs work but it has not been realised ( as far a s i can see )

It would be advantageous for a group to have government aupport and then free up time to work on them selves and other worthwhile projects however is would be nessesary to relieve government dependatcy by having an extrra income stream running in tandem. So in other words accept the hand out but establish bata trade or cash work so you have also an indipendant income stream and support network.

This gives autonomy while being supported. This system can work but we need to obviously look at the hooks involved. If its fairly straight forward then id say its an opportunity to strengthen communities with incentives to build small localised networks of local trade and support.

The video you present is very good , i enjoyed the material. It also speaks of creating local support groups etc.

Within every system there are always loop holes to exploit and benefit from.

Without assuming that living like this means you have to have your umbilical chord attached to a central computer then its a great idea.

N

[thunder24]

I've seen all advanced civilizations don't have money. Mature society provides basic necessities for all members through technologies and infrastructure. It's feasible and only way how the civilization moves forward not being destroyed by continuous in-fighting.


Felt like this needed to b highlighted....
peace

[christian]

It would be advantageous for a group to have government aupport and then free up time to work on them selves and other worthwhile projects however is would be nessesary to relieve government dependatcy by having an extrra income stream running in tandem. So in other words accept the hand out but establish bata trade or cash work so you have also an indipendant income stream and support network.

How about this: Those who are interested volunteer to set up a this basic income spread out as far as they can do it, like to everyone within a country or region. All these people are merely being supported by the volunteers, nobody is being forced to do anything in return. The volunteers try their best to make the beneficiaries realize that they should support that particular basic income thing freely. Thus, the most efficient and best organized basic income will be established, and only those who want to be part of it will be part of it. Of course, in a real market situation, you'd explain your basic income idea to the people before you apply it so that you could jump start the whole endeavor with those who would like to be part of it.

That's why freedom is so important in the first place. Don't force one system unto everybody. When you have freedom, you could have a widely used and appreciated basic income, but those who wouldn't want to be part of it—for whatever reasons—wouldn't have to.

[ceetee9]

· Money is the obstacle to all progress and the cause of all misery on Earth.
· Money is the major contributing factor to the gross separation and segregation in society.
· Money is the cause of 99% of crime.
· Money causes families to fall apart.
· Money is the driving force behind ego, gluttony, jealousy, greed, envy and all the ugliest aspects of humanity.

The solution is quite clear. REMOVE the problem.

Remove MONEY from society.

The instrument is inherently evil? I don't think so. It's merely a current (http://ascension101.com/ascension-tools/19-five-minute-mp3s-for-the-workplace/51-self-growth-audio-tools.html), like water. Money can exist in many variations and can be used in many ways.Exactly, and that is Michael's point. Since it is people who determine whether money is used for good or evil and since we've thus far been unable to prevent the negative behaviors instigated by money (such as greed, corruption, crime, class systems, haves versus have nots, etc.) then does it not make sense to eliminate the "instrument" that enables people to indulge in these negative behaviors?


Michael, how to "REMOVE MONEY" in a peaceful way, how to deal with those who would prefer to trade with money amongst themselves?
Common sense questionsMichael does propose a way to remove money in a peaceful way by starting with small groups/communities who wish to work toward this goal. Money would still be needed to seed the projects to get them off the ground before it could be phased out.

As for those who wish to continue to use money, I think that's fine. They don't need to participate in the Contributionist system. Anything that is truly worthwhile does not require coercion. It will stand on its own if it is truly good.

I agree with you that there are many questions that need to be answered. I have many of my own, but I believe the concept is a noble one and worth considering.

[christian]

Since it is people who determine whether money is used for good or evil and since we've thus far been unable to prevent the negative behaviors instigated by money (such as greed, corruption, crime, class systems, haves versus have nots, etc.) then does it not make sense to eliminate the "instrument" that enables people to indulge in these negative behaviors?

I think it's even more important to go to the root than to the triggers. Work on ourselves first, because how could troubled people ever come up with any working economical system?



Michael does propose a way to remove money in a peaceful way by starting with small groups/communities who wish to work toward this goal. Money would still be needed to seed the projects to get them off the ground before it could be phased out.

As for those who wish to continue to use money, I think that's fine. They don't need to participate in the Contributionist system. Anything that is truly worthwhile does not require coercion. It will stand on its own if it is truly good.

I agree with you that there are many questions that need to be answered. I have many of my own, but I believe the concept is a noble one and worth considering.

I'm all for it! :thumb:

[mosquito]

..... Work on ourselves first, because how could troubled people ever come up with any working economical system? ....

Bingo !!!! And the whole point is Chris, many people never get to work on themselves because :


1) they are too busy slaving for others just to make ends meet, and
2) nobody has told them they CAN work on themselves !!!

The currents system doesn't encorage spiritual/personal growth, as it's anathema to the system itsself. Slaves that think and grow ? No way.

This seems to be developing into a nice, friendly discussion. Makes a pleasant change !

[ceetee9]

Since it is people who determine whether money is used for good or evil and since we've thus far been unable to prevent the negative behaviors instigated by money (such as greed, corruption, crime, class systems, haves versus have nots, etc.) then does it not make sense to eliminate the "instrument" that enables people to indulge in these negative behaviors?

I think it's even more important to go to the root than to the triggers. Work on ourselves first, because how could troubled people ever come up with any working economical system?Without question, i agree that attacking the root cause is the prudent thing to do. However, as I inferred in my previous comment, we have made precious little headway in thousands of years with regard to resolving the root cause of the problem and, as evidenced by the fact few Avalonians have even acknowledged this problem, I think the chances of resolving the root cause are highly unlikely in our lifetime--and probably unlikely for countless future generations--assuming that we survive that long.

The vast majority of people are not self-critical and are either unaware of their class bias or are unwillingly to acknowledge it. They refuse to examine whether they themselves could be part of the problem.

Every class believes they are entitled to more than those beneath them even though they had little or nothing whatsoever to do with their good fortune (e.g., they were born into a "democratic" society, a country with plenty of resources and jobs, and/or an affluent family that afforded them the ability to attend institutions of higher education without having to worry about if they had food to eat, a roof over their head, or if they would be alive in the morning to live another day).

Few people in America, at least, have had to worry about those kinds of things. You can look at some of the comments in this and previous threads addressing these issues to see the class bias and brainwashing that we have all been exposed to that permeates the thought patterns.

And this doesn't even address the "entitlement crowd" who believes that because they have not had the advantages of the classes above them that they are entitled to the same level of existence without having to lift a finger to achieve it.

Neither of these belief systems are correct, IMO. Those who were fortunate enough to be born into situations that made life relatively easy for them are no better or more entitled to anything than those who were less fortunate and, as such, should be as entitled to the same lifestyle without having to do anything for it.

A Contributionist system truly levels the playing field and provides everyone with everything they need to survive comfortably and frees them to contribute to society by doing the things they love to do and/or do best. Everyone benefits because society, for the first time in history, does what is the most beneficial and efficient for everyone and the planet rather than what is the most beneficial and profitable for the few who own the corporations and/or pull the strings that controls the 99%.

[Nanoo Nanoo]

It would be advantageous for a group to have government aupport and then free up time to work on them selves and other worthwhile projects however is would be nessesary to relieve government dependatcy by having an extrra income stream running in tandem. So in other words accept the hand out but establish bata trade or cash work so you have also an indipendant income stream and support network.

How about this: Those who are interested volunteer to set up a this basic income spread out as far as they can do it, like to everyone within a country or region. All these people are merely being supported by the volunteers, nobody is being forced to do anything in return. The volunteers try their best to make the beneficiaries realize that they should support that particular basic income thing freely. Thus, the most efficient and best organized basic income will be established, and only those who want to be part of it will be part of it. Of course, in a real market situation, you'd explain your basic income idea to the people before you apply it so that you could jump start the whole endeavor with those who would like to be part of it.

That's why freedom is so important in the first place. Don't force one system unto everybody. When you have freedom, you could have a widely used and appreciated basic income, but those who wouldn't want to be part of it—for whatever reasons—wouldn't have to.

I agree , but where are they ? we have the freedom to do this now. But these communities are few... unless i have missed them which is totally possible.

One fine spanner in the works that been planted well is the mind set of hopelessness for awake communities hampered by the possibility of war or turrany. While the yearning is great to have such things , the wanton is not there ... propoganda puts a huge foot over inspirations.

The abject negativity propogated everywhere is almost like a computer virus to anybody that isnt a super man. Its Cryptonite ... ive seen so many good ideas go to waste .. nothing done .. no impetus to try.

A government initiative can be inspiring. Because it comes from the ones who apparently want us dead, it gives us hope and the impetus to try. Our fear is deeply set that once you get into a scheme that you are bound to it forever but thats just not true. The fear stops us trying , the fear stops us taking advantage of hand outs that will only ever succeed into louring those with no foresight.

Question: if the government is giving out mony to survive then what do they expect in return ? what is the legislation surrounding this ?

[Deega]

Hey folks,

This measure is proved to be efficient, but it will highly depend on how well educated the population is.

They did experiments with it in Canada in the past, with very positive results. The opposition first thought that that it would make people lazy and dependable of the State, but it didn't happen.

Here it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/to-end-poverty-guarantee-everyone-in-canada-20000-a-year-but-are-you-willing-to-trust-the-poor/article560885/?page=all) is:


The idea of a guaranteed annual income has been tested before in Canada - in the mid-1970s, in Dauphin, Man., a farming town with then about 10,000 residents.

In the only experiment of its kind in North America, every household in Dauphin was given access to a guaranteed annual budget, subject to their income level. For a family of five, payments equalled about $18,000 a year in today's dollars.

Politicians primarily wanted to see if people would stop working. While the project was pre-empted by a change in government, a second look by researchers has found that there was only a slight decline in work - mostly among mothers, who chose to stay home with their children, and teenaged boys, who stayed in school longer.

Evelyn Forget, a researcher in medicine at the University of Manitoba, reports that Dauphin also experienced a 10-per-cent drop in hospital admissions and fewer doctor visits, especially for mental-health issues.

The project was called Mincome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome):


Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.

It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women. However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.

A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals

Another article about the experiment:

Dauphin's great experiment - Mincome, nearly forgotten child of the '70s, was a noble experiment (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html)


Dauphin -- Thirty-five years ago, this pretty town surrounded by farm land and far from big cities was the site of a revolutionary social experiment.
For five years, Mincome ensured there would be no poverty in Dauphin. Wages were topped up and the working poor given a boost.
The experiment, a collaboration between Ed Schreyer's provincial NDP and the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, would cost millions before the plug was pulled.
The program saw one-third of Dauphin's poorest families get monthly cheques.
In 1971, at a federal-provincial conference held in Victoria, Manitoba expressed interest in being the testing ground for a guaranteed income project. The Schreyer government applied for funding. In June, 1974, Mincome was approved.
The program quickly grew from modest origins. The NDP thought it would cost slightly more than $500,000 and involve somewhere between 300 and 500 families.
The project ultimately cost more than $17 million and helped 1,000 families.
Cheques were issued based on family size and income. That is, the minimum cheque would presume the recipient had no other source of income. From there, it was scaled back in proportion to the household's earnings, but it did not claw back everything the family earned above the minimum needed to keep body and soul together.
In that way, it differed from standard welfare, or social assistance. And for that reason, it's fondly remembered in the town that tried it, because it rewarded initiative and standing on your own two feet, qualities highly regarded in rural Manitoba, then and now.
The basic minimum income experiment ended when both Schreyer and Trudeau lost power. In the inflationary times of the early eighties and with the installation of Conservative governments in both Manitoba and Canada, Mincome quietly faded away.
No money was spent to study the results of this government-funded utopia.
"Most people have forgotten about it," says Dr. Evelyn Forget, a researcher at the University of Manitoba. "People were very excited about it in the social science community but outside of Dauphin no one really knew about it."
Forget wants to know more. She's getting access to nearly 2000 sealed boxes kept in Winnipeg's National Archives. She hopes to discover what sort of impact Mincome had on Dauphin's residents.
"We already know that hospitalizations went down and people stayed in school longer," she says. "This was a very important social experiment."
Forget believes a guaranteed minimum income is a good idea, one that gives money directly to those who need it instead of funneling the cash through top-heavy social programs.
The people who lived in Dauphin in the mid-seventies agree.

Thirty-five years ago, Hugh and Doreen Henderson stretched each dollar until it snapped. He was a school janitor, she stayed at home with their two kids.
They lived out in the country, raised chickens, grew a lot of their own food and had no money for luxuries.
Mincome was a blessing from above.
"A couple of people came out and talked to us," says Doreen, 70. "We filled out forms, they wanted to see our receipts. We got to keep our family allowance."
It was their children who benefited most.
"You know how kids are," she says. "They like new clothes. They like to have a few extra things."
Hugh, 72, says he regrets not being able to send his children to university. His daughter managed on her own.
"If a kid wants an education and he's willing to pay for it, I think the government should help," he says. "If we'd have had more money, I'd have loved to pay for university for my kids."
Doreen says the government should establish a similar program for seniors and young families.
"Give them enough money to raise their kids. People work hard and it's still not enough," she says. "This isn't welfare. This is making sure kids have enough to eat."
The Hendersons insist Mincome was not a handout. They still worked plenty hard, scrimped and weren't spending money on restaurant meals or fancy clothes.
"They should have kept it," she says. "It made a real difference."

Amy Richardson is now 83.
Back in the mid-'70s, she ran the Dauphin Beauty Parlour out of her home. She and her husband Gordon were raising six children.
He worked for the telephone company but health problems led him to retire at 53.
There was only so much money a woman could making setting hair.
"It was kind of a slump at that time," says the widow. "When you have six kids it's hard."
Richardson thinks it was her husband who heard about Mincome and applied.
"It was to bring your income up to where it should be. It was enough to add some cream to the coffee."
The Richardsons used the extra money on things like school books.
"Everybody was the same so there was no shame," she says.
She was old-school, the way people tend to be when they're living in tough times. She baked her own bread, canned vegetables and put up jams. She didn't waste a cent because she didn't have one to waste.
"They really need a school to teach the basics now," she says. "Kids need to learn how to cook, how to do things from scratch. You could live on a lot less."
For the Richardson and their six children, Mincome was a way to afford a few more of the necessities.

Barbara Livingstone, 83, wanted nothing to do with Mincome.
She moved to Dauphin in 1973, a single mother of one. She was a housekeeper in a personal care home, earning minimum wage and had no interest in government handouts.
"A friend had something to do with it. He asked me some questions and told me I qualified. He urged me to take it. To me it was a form of welfare."
The decision to accept the cheques was hard on her.
"I was raised on a farm. You don't ask for help. It was sort of like in our family it was shameful to ask for help.
"To me when a person's working and making a fair wage they should take care of themselves."
She felt guilty applying for the program.
"Mind you, my friend assured me it wasn't welfare, it was an experiment."
The idea behind the program, she remembers, was to take the money and spend it in the community.
"It was supposed to be a way to kick-start the economy."
She says the money was a bonus but didn't change her life.
"Most of us didn't have anything much but we got by."

Rick Zaplitny, 63, was already a chartered accountant when Mincome began. He didn't qualify for the program, but he supported the idea.
"We always felt the problem with the welfare system is it was punitive. You made money and they took it away from you.
"It seemed to us that Mincome was for the people who were on that line. They weren't deadbeats. They needed a bit of a boost."
The money wasn't taxable, something Zaplitny thought was a positive move.
"It's the best program of this sort that I've ever seen. I'm guessing that the administration was quite stringent. There was monthly monitoring. It was onerous."
Zaplitny says all that would be easier in the age of computers.
"The concept would work now. I'd be in favor of it. Helping someone have a decent living wage is hard to argue with."

As Forget studies the results of the program, she expects to find the benefits of a guaranteed minimum income were far-reaching.
Teenagers stayed in school longer because they didn't have to get jobs to support their families. People could afford medical and dental care. Stress was down because people didn't have to worry about providing for their families.
As Zaplitny says, these people weren't deadbeats.
They were no different that the thousands of people in this province who work and still live at or below the poverty line. They use food banks to supplement what they buy or go hungry so their children can eat.
Mincome did more than top up the income of the poor. It gave them dignity.
Surely that's an idea worth investing in.


Now, I'm sure it will work in Switzerland because people are highly educated and civil up there.

In the US, we would have to wait and see...The US is a very consumerism centered country, so, there's the possibility that a lot of people will spend the whole money on video-games, big plasma TVs and similar stupid things, instead of using it for a better purpose.

The way I see it, if this experiment works in the US as it worked in Canada and will probably work in Switzerland, it will be an investment instead of a loss of public money. Short term, it would lead to a drastic reduction in criminality and hospital costs. Long term, it will lead to more educated and humane citizens, which are much more productive for the State and for the economy as a whole.

Raf.



Hey Raf great of you to dig this up. In my first post for this Tread, I mentioned, I have heard that in the '70, this type of experience was talked over, but it didn't come to fruitition on a large scale meaning Federally.

Thanks for the link, the experience seem to show what came out was good for the people at lease Locally. And thanks for the correction!

[seleka]

I haven't yet gotten to read this thread all the way through, but I liked what Tellinger had to say. All shared by all! Tribal/ Rainbow. I am feeling so scattered right now, but this related article just popped up and it looks like the Swiss have decided on a max income! http://www.globalresearch.ca/switzerland-shows-u-s-how-to-handle-ceos-voters-create-maximum-wage-policy/5359076

[Franny]

Is the govt paying people to live on better or worse than the people paying the govt to live?

How about an entirely different model or one with some significant adjustments? Check out the one below that has been working rather well in Spain.

“The Village Against the World”
A book by Dan Hancox

The most expensive government on the planet—ours—was shut down over budget concerns, health insurance and passive-aggressiveness. The inane partisan squabbling most acutely affected those with the most to lose—the people at the bottom of the economic pile. Meanwhile, grossly unequal division of wealth and power is a growing blight on the face of humanity. Dangerous mechanisms of financial ruin are nurtured by governments while they spew rhetoric about helping citizens. A future in which reckless economic exploitation will diminish seems highly unlikely.

But what if another world were possible? One in which the spoils of predatory capitalism, subsidized by central banks and federal policy, aren’t rapaciously consumed by a tiny minority at the expense of the vast majority of global citizens?

In his captivating new book, “The Village Against the World,” Dan Hancox shows, in lyrical and penetrating prose, that not only is it possible, but “an observable fact.” And so begins his tale of the alternative.

Nestled in farmland about 60 miles from Seville, Spain, in the region of Andalucía, exists Marinaleda, a village of 2,700 people. The cry OTRO MUNDO ES POSSIBLE—another world is possible—adorns a metal arch over its main avenue. For 30 years, the citizens of this tiny pueblo have fought and won a struggle to create a utopia in which everyone has a job and a home. Communism seems too dismissive and combative a term for Marinaleda’s ability to exist in defiance of a system that has shattered surrounding towns, and entire countries around the world.

“The year 2016,” Hancox writes, “will mark the 500th anniversary of Thomas More’s Utopia … But … how do you go from a fevered dream, an aspirational blueprint, to concrete reality?”

The answer unfolds as Hancox takes us on a trip that inspires one’s visual senses as he depicts the white-washed beauty of the village, one’s taste buds as he describes simple meals capped with thick bread doused in fresh local olive oil, and invites us to envision a collective life freed—as much as possible—from global crises, acquisition and power plays.

In Marinaleda, the Che Guevara stadium houses sporting events, oversized placards of doves decorate streets named for left-wing idols like Salvador Allende and Pablo Neruda, and “profits” from the local vegetable canning factory or olive oil co-op are used to enhance the village. Marinaleda’s main housing “development” consists of 350 casitas—modest homes self-built by their inhabitants, with materials furnished by the village. Mortgages are 15 euro per month. The village has, and needs, no police force.

For eight years, Hancox was fascinated with Marinaleda’s “miracle struggle,” transforming from “abject poverty” in the late ’70s (60 percent unemployment, and people going without food for days at a time) to the functioning “utopia” that it became.

Beyond Marinaleda, the economic suffering of Spain at the hands of a speculative overdrive unleashed by big U.S. banks and adopted by European ones, remains acute. It is made worse by austerity measures that punish citizens, while providing banks and bondholders with EU subsidies.

Youth unemployment sits at a sickening record high of 56.1 percent, second only to Greece’s 62.9 percent. Spain’s adult male unemployment at 25.3 percent tops all other EU countries.

The Spanish housing market remains in tatters, after catastrophic levels of overbuilding and leverage, complementing America’s housing bubble before it burst in 2007-2008. Just as in the U.S., Spanish banks foreclosed on slews of properties for which the population had been forced to overpay during the bubble, increasing homelessness.

The current economic crisis has left Spain with 4 million empty homes, and ghost towns on the outskirts of Madrid. In contrast, “Marinaleda brims with excitement and festivity during its famous annual ferias and carnivals,” though most of the time, “it is incredibly peaceful.” No one there has experienced a foreclosure.

“Even before the crisis descended on Spain, the wealth gap in Andalusia was a chasm,” Hancox informs us. “It has been so forever. It is a region where mass rural pauperism exists alongside vast aristocratic estates—the latifundios. It’s an oft-repeated bit of southern rural mythology that you can walk all the way from Seville, the Andalusian capital, to the northern coast of Spain without ever leaving the land of the notorious Duchess of Alba, a woman thought to have more titles than anyone else in the world. While 22.5 percent of her fellow Spaniards survive on only €500 a month, the duquesa is estimated to be worth €3.2 billion—and still receives €3 million a year in EU farm subsidies.”

It’s important to note, as Hancox does throughout the book, that the rich get more government subsidies than the poor do. This is, of course, not unique to Spain, which is one of the things that makes this book so important, and so timely.

Central to Marinaleda’s history, and Hancox’s book, is its mayor, Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo. He is a modern-day revolutionary, reminiscent, in appearance and inner fire, of Che Guevara. Sánchez Gordillo has been employing resistance techniques, including hunger strikes and occupations, for years. In 2012, he was dubbed the “Robin Hood of Spain” after he and a group of laborers refused to pay a supermarket for shopping trolleys filled with food, which they then distributed to local food banks. The action made headlines worldwide.

Read the rest of the review here (http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/the_village_against_the_world_20131108)