IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bistud/v11y2016i2p133-137n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A National Dividend vs. a Basic Income – Similarities and Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Heydorn M. Oliver

    (The Clifford Hugh Douglas Institute for the Study and Promotion of Social Credit, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada)

Abstract

The following article will briefly compare and contrast the Social Credit proposal of a National Dividend, which was one of the three key planks in C.H. Douglas’ monetary reform proposals, with the contemporary call for the introduction of a basic income. In some ways, the National Dividend and the basic income (as typically conceived) are quite similar. One of the basic purposes of each is to eliminate or at least reduce poverty by providing each citizen with a secure income that is independent of employment. However, when it comes to the structural nature of the proposed benefit, its relationship to the existing social structure, and, finally, the methods that have been proposed for financing it, there are significant differences between the National Dividend and a conventional basic income that must not be overlooked.

Suggested Citation

  • Heydorn M. Oliver, 2016. "A National Dividend vs. a Basic Income – Similarities and Differences," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 133-137, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:133-137:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/bis-2016-0019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2016-0019
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bis-2016-0019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:133-137:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.