Wow! The author’s bigotry against the poor shines through. Let’s look at your two conditions:
First, large sections of the population would have to be mired in absolute poverty: So all the malnutrition deaths don’t mean anything to you? What exactly is your definition of ‘absolutely poverty’? Your contempt for the 70 million people you mention in your article, is obvious. So according to you, they can die from hunger for all you care? That the government should not care about the subsistence of that 5% and should only bother about the aspirations of the other 95%? You say “No basic income guarantee will be able to address rising aspirations unless it’s a very large sum of money.” The objective of any basic income scheme is not to fulfill aspirations. It is to ensure no one goes hungry, so that they have the energy to fulfill their aspirations. No one is trying to create a people who do not have to work. That you assume so, says more about you.
Second, all other subsidies and welfare programs for them would have to be abolished in order to free up the necessary funds without completely blowing open India’s fiscal deficit, which is already strained: Yes, obviously. There are any number of subsidies that are wasteful expenditure either because they do not benefit those it is intended to, or they benefit the wrong people. Fertilizer subsidies, for example only benefit the rich farmers who don’t need such benefit. Such subsidies can be abolished.
And what makes you say it distracts from creating jobs. No one says MIG is the only solution. No one says jobs needs not be created. MIG is just one measure in several needed. So, don’t let your political biases keep you from thinking rationally, will you!
Well said Sundar, I am in complete agreement with you.No wonder with people like Shekhar Gupta at the helm the inequality in the country is increasing by the day with their top down development approach of main emphasis on high growth trickle down effect to poor.For more equitable growth it should be the other way round of bottom up approach of a balanced growth based on ‘Human Development Index’ allowing more equitable distribution of wealth. That makes poor oriented UBI or its modified versions for poorest poor of Income Guarantee Scheme to go hand in hand with developmental works for the aspirational class.My problem with RG or for that matter past Cong govts. so far is they think of it only just before election when they are out of power. Take it from me once they come to power they will forget all this and Mukesh ambani will be the first to open his ‘Cong. Shop’ as he famously said in the Radia tapes.
Wow! The author’s bigotry against the poor shines through. Let’s look at your two conditions:
First, large sections of the population would have to be mired in absolute poverty: So all the malnutrition deaths don’t mean anything to you? What exactly is your definition of ‘absolutely poverty’? Your contempt for the 70 million people you mention in your article, is obvious. So according to you, they can die from hunger for all you care? That the government should not care about the subsistence of that 5% and should only bother about the aspirations of the other 95%? You say “No basic income guarantee will be able to address rising aspirations unless it’s a very large sum of money.” The objective of any basic income scheme is not to fulfill aspirations. It is to ensure no one goes hungry, so that they have the energy to fulfill their aspirations. No one is trying to create a people who do not have to work. That you assume so, says more about you.
Second, all other subsidies and welfare programs for them would have to be abolished in order to free up the necessary funds without completely blowing open India’s fiscal deficit, which is already strained: Yes, obviously. There are any number of subsidies that are wasteful expenditure either because they do not benefit those it is intended to, or they benefit the wrong people. Fertilizer subsidies, for example only benefit the rich farmers who don’t need such benefit. Such subsidies can be abolished.
And what makes you say it distracts from creating jobs. No one says MIG is the only solution. No one says jobs needs not be created. MIG is just one measure in several needed. So, don’t let your political biases keep you from thinking rationally, will you!
Well said Sundar, I am in complete agreement with you.No wonder with people like Shekhar Gupta at the helm the inequality in the country is increasing by the day with their top down development approach of main emphasis on high growth trickle down effect to poor.For more equitable growth it should be the other way round of bottom up approach of a balanced growth based on ‘Human Development Index’ allowing more equitable distribution of wealth. That makes poor oriented UBI or its modified versions for poorest poor of Income Guarantee Scheme to go hand in hand with developmental works for the aspirational class.My problem with RG or for that matter past Cong govts. so far is they think of it only just before election when they are out of power. Take it from me once they come to power they will forget all this and Mukesh ambani will be the first to open his ‘Cong. Shop’ as he famously said in the Radia tapes.