The current tendencies of capitalism to widen inequality and devour nature would be self-corrected. Instead of plutocracy and climate change, our market economy would generate widely-shared, earth-friendly prosperity. And it would achieve these goals automatically, without much need for government intervention.
Barnes is arguing that by supplying these dividends, we can start bringing down the wealthy from the pedestal they have made for themselves.
plutocracy
A society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.
Consider what $5,000 per person per year would mean. If a child’s dividends were saved and invested starting from birth, they’d yield enough to pay for a debt-free college education at a public university. In midlife, $5,000 per person would add 25 percent to the income of a family of four earning $80,000 a year. In late life, it would boost the average retiree’s Social Security benefit by about 30 percent. Thus, dividends from common wealth would provide a badly-needed boost for poor and middle class families during what promises to be a lasting shortage of good-paying jobs.
Even with $5000 just being a suggested number, I feel any amount of money the state would be willing to provide to its citizens would be in immense help in all of these areas.
In this regard, it’s worth noting that Alaska’s dividends are immensely popular. Politicians in both parties sing their praises, as do the state’s voters. One attempt in 1999 to transfer money from the Permanent Fund to the state treasury was trounced in a referendum by 83 percent. Nationally, Alaska’s model has been lauded by Fox News commentators Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs as well as liberals like Robert Reich.
If the method is this popular and highly praised, why has no other state attempted it?
What’s needed is a system that continually refreshes consumer demand from the middle out—something like periodic dividends to everyone that can be spent immediately.
It makes sense to me that by giving citizens money that they can spend on non-essentials, you help local businesses and boost the economy.
In unionized industries like autos and airlines, two-tier contracts are now the norm, with younger workers paid substantially less than older ones for doing the same work.
I understand companies will pay older workers more because they have had time to show their worth and have gained raises through their time working there. This still is unfair because it makes it harder for new hires to get their foot in the door while having to support themselves and their families.
In the heyday of our middle class, jobs at IBM and General Motors were often jobs for life. Employers offered decent wages, health insurance, paid vacations and defined pensions. Nowadays, such jobs are rare.
What is the reason for such a drastic change in the way employers take care of their workers?
Americans think dimly of all these things.
Why are Americans so against raises taxes on the individual if it would benefit their own community in the long run?
In Hammond’s model, the money comes not from taxes but from a common resource: North Slope oil. Using proceeds from that gift of nature, the Alaska Permanent Fund has paid equal yearly dividends to every resident, including children, ranging from about $1,000 to over $3,000.
Using Hammond's method, would other states be able to do the same with their respective common resources?