In loving, living memory, John Melançon 1928 – 2007
This comment follows up on this blog post, "the political left", and following discussion, wherein it is determined that all love blankets, and all should have blankets, but the method of obtaining them is in dispute. The original author, Mikkel, said in his last comments that yes, 'we should give them money-- by giving them a job.'
Let's give people money, by giving them a job, by making sure everyone has money.
As long as the money isn't conditioned on not having money, there's no more disincentive to work than faces the sons of millionaires. And just to ensure that we don't do those folks the disservice of leaving them with no incentive to contribute to the economy, we can relieve them of some of their unearned wealth. That's a little unfair, though– what is the distinction between earned and unearned, really, in an economy with gross inequities? No, from a moral and purely technical standpoint, it makes sense to share everyone's wealth– wealth that only exists, that could only exist, in the context of society.
The very conservative change of a 2 to 6 percent annual wealth tax, globally redistributed without discrimination, would have a radically positive effect on economies and societies everywhere. Income taxes that pay for services could be cut or dropped, because people could purchase their own services. The more powerful effect though is the opportunity we would all have to earn livings creating new ways to meet people's needs, because everyone would have the resources to meet their needs. Even the rich countries, better set up to be productive, would benefit from the opportunity to meet needs in poor countries, although over time all communities would have the resources to build up their own infrastructure.
I also think whole new structures for organizing ourselves economically would arise, because many of the centralized, hierarchical models only have their advantage due to the monopolization of capital.
Relevant: Why I loan with Kiva.