I’ve written elsewhere about the many hurdles standing between the beautiful idea of a guaranteed income and its actual implementation in a way that takes care of all the people.
Briefly, all approaches to a guaranteed income (universal, basic and minimum) share certain characteristics. They propose that everyone in the society–or at least all of those in a broad class such as adult citizens–are assured of some minimum level of monthly cash.
This is an inherently confrontational, scarcity-based solution to a problem that is best answered from the context of abundance. First, all such schemes are proposed on the basis of somehow taking away money and other assets from those who are wealthy, have a high income (not the same as wealthy), or who own the means of production. Without passing moral judgment on the rightness or wrongness of such a concept, I simply observe that it is a substantial hurdle.The very people expected to pay for this are those most adroit at avoiding taxation , getting laws passed or modified to suit them, or moving their assets abroad.
Second, this is not a hurdle in a single nation, but in every nation. In our interconnected world, as conditions continue to destabilize due to accelerating change, greater numbers of people will be seeking to relocate from one country to another.
Imagine if a city implements such an income, as has been proposed. What will keep people from leaving other cities that lack such an income? It’s not just a problem with cities within nations. In Europe, the rules allow EU residents to freely travel across borders. If any EU nation institutes a guaranteed income by itself, it had better prepare for an upsurge in immigrants. This will strain the social fabric.
The availability of such an income, even if delayed for a time due to citizenship requirements, would be an almost irresistible attractor. Already, there is much nativist sentiment arising in Europe and United States. It will get far worse with a guaranteed income.
Essentially, those who advocate a guaranteed income are attempting to solve a problem associated with the uprising of planetary abundance from within the context of the Scarcity Game.
It may work in wealthy, homogenous nations, if they can protect their borders. But in divided nations, the reaction will be quite different. In such nations, for many years to come, a guaranteed income will be derided as socialism, and for many recipients there will be a sense of shame in accepting the money. This is not a way to create meaning.
All these problems with the guaranteed income can be addressed within the Celebrationist model. First, the entire society will be a consensual co-creation of the various residents/owners. If some kind of guaranteed income were to exist in such a society, no one would be able to say that it was imposed upon them from above.
Second, in a Celebration Society, Citizen will be a hard-won office; a position of respect. While this office will potentially be available to every resident, not everyone will seek it nor qualify for it. The income will be paid not just for holding the office of Citizen, but for one’s sworn availability to be of service in the government.
Only Citizens will have roles in the government . Duties will include jury duty, occasional service via lottery selection as members of Parliament, and-most vital – a deep knowledge of the Charter and the society’s laws, and vigilance about assuring that these are respected and that the government has integrity.
If a Citizen were called upon to work several hours per week, which would, in my estimation, ordinarily be the case unless one were serving a single term in Parliament, no one would ever call such a situation welfare. Such service would be respected, and even esteemed. It would be meaningful, and useful to the society.
This income would be paid from the two basic sources of societal revenues. First, as a tourist destination, the society would charge most visitors a daily fee equivalent to DisneyWorld. Second, those people as well as residents and Citizens would purchase things. Since a consumption tax favors savings and long term investments, and treats everyone the same based on their consumption levels, I’d favor that a simple flat consumption tax be charged on all transactions. This should be limited by Charter to some modest level such as 15%, with no exemptions. (That fact plus an all-electronic monetary system would largely eliminate tax system manipulation.) Eventually, with full Celebrationist systems of production, even those taxes would likely be phased out.
No forced redistribution of wealth would be required, and this might even be a culture wherein those Citizens who did not need the Citizen income would be encouraged to return it to the General Welfare Fund, so that others such as residents who are in need would be cared for. This is part of the whole societal concept of “paying it forward”.
A guaranteed income is at best a palliative; at worst a mirage. We can do better, and we must.
