Negative income tax/basic income vs minimum wage

[epiphany]

So there would be conditions which would have to be met ... hardly an unconditional income.

 

I interpret it as receiving an income being unconditional, not the amount of income. These are two separate factors subject or not to condition.

 

http://www.citizensincome.org uses the words 'unconditional' and 'payable to each individual as a right of citizenship'.

 

Infants are individuals, as are children, teenagers, adults and OAPS. If 'age' is used to determine whether an individual receives the income - or if age is used to determine the size of the income - it is not an unconditional income. It has conditions.

 

No, it's a guaranteed income, not a guaranteed set amount of income, although some groups do advocate that, yes, children should get the same as adults.

 

The BIEN site says 'A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement.'

 

If it is an income UNCONDITIONALLY granted to all, then everybody gets the same amount. If people do not all receive the same amount, then that can only be for reasons of discrimination, arbitrary reasons or because there are CONDITIONS attached.

 

Again, it is AN INCOME that is unconditional, not the amount.

 

"Some restrict basic income, by definition, to adult members of the population, but then tend to propose it side by side with a universal, i.e. non-means-tested, child benefit system, with a level of benefit that may or may not be differentiated as a (positive or negative) function of the rank of the child or as a (positive) function of the child's age. Others conceive of basic income as an entitlement from the first to the last breath and therefore view it as a full substitute for the child benefit system. The level of the benefit then needs to be independent of the child's family situation, in particular of his or her rank. Some also want it to be the same as for adults, and hence independent of age, as is actually the case in the modest Alaskan dividend scheme and as would be the case under some more generous proposals (for example Miller 1983). But the majority of those who propose an integration of child benefits into the basic income scheme differentiate the latter's level according to age, with the maximum level not being granted until majority, or later."

 

http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html#children

 

The GBIF site says: "...A Global Basic Income (GBI) will have to be introduced gradually, starting, for example, with an amount of $10 a month. This means that a family of five would get $50 a month. "

 

It appears that they do mean that everybody would receive the payment and that everybody would receive the same amount (irrespective of age or where they live.)

 

Yes, the GBIF propose that.

 

Perhaps, to be eligible for handouts from the developed world, the developing nations should first sort out their internal wealth sharing problems?

 

I don't want to speak on behalf of the GBIF, but I'm sure they're well aware of that prerequisite.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I interpret it as receiving an income being unconditional, not the amount of income. These are two separate factors subject or not to condition.

 

No, it's a guaranteed income, not a guaranteed set amount of income, although some groups do advocate that, yes, children should get the same as adults.

 

Again, it is AN INCOME that is unconditional, not the amount.

 

So:" If we pay you one penny a week, that's an income and we did what we promised!"

 

Add to that statements such as "...without means test or work requirement" and the proposal looks like a non-starter... "Just sit back and enjoy your free income! - Let somebody else do the work for you."

 

Surely somebody somewhere is going to have to do the work? - Even if the money does grow on trees, somebody will have to pick it.

 

Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr

Perhaps, to be eligible for handouts from the developed world, the developing nations should first sort out their internal wealth sharing problems?

 

I don't want to speak on behalf of the GBIF, but I'm sure they're well aware of that prerequisite.

 

There's a difference between 'being aware that the developing nations should sort out their internal wealth distribution problems' and 'requiring them to do so as a prerequisite for receiving aid.' Nobody (AFAIK) has ever turned round to the developing nations and told them that they must re-distribute their own wealth (and stop building nukes) or they won't receive aid.

 

When people in the UK say 'Charity begins at home' they usually seem to mean "I've got some money, we've got some poor people here (though they don't actually make a link between the two) and I don't want to give you my money."

 

Charity should indeed begin at home - but it should begin at home in the developing world too.

[epiphany]

So:" If we pay you one penny a week, that's an income and we did what we promised!"

 

Add to that statements such as "...without means test or work requirement" and the proposal looks like a non-starter... "Just sit back and enjoy your free income! - Let somebody else do the work for you."

 

Surely somebody somewhere is going to have to do the work? - Even if the money does grow on trees, somebody will have to pick it.

 

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Why do you assume people wouldn't be willing to work to earn above subsistence income? It's the current system that deters people moving off benefits into work, because you are essentially working to gain back, at least, what you've lost in subsistence income. For unskilled, low income workers, there is little reward (apart from "pride" and all that ********) in moving from welfare to work.

 

Seeing that even hardcore free market libertarians and economic pragmatists such as Milton Friedman advocated the basic income, that suggests to me that there must be something at least economically viable in it.

 

Do I support basic income? I don't know yet. There are many conditions preceding its implementation that must first be addressed, one of them being the organisation of our banking system. I just think we should consider alternatives. This thread was initially about alternatives to the minimum wage. Since many respected economists claim(ed) basic income is a viable alternative, it should be part of the debate.

 

There's a difference between 'being aware that the developing nations should sort out their internal wealth distribution problems' and 'requiring them to do so as a prerequisite for receiving aid.' Nobody (AFAIK) has ever turned round to the developing nations and told them that they must re-distribute their own wealth (and stop building nukes) or they won't receive aid.

 

I don't understand what your argument is here. Who is saying that? Isn't the GBIF merely stating these are the conditions, imposed or not, that are required in order to implement a global basic income? They are, of course, idealists.

[chem1st]

Issue 3 now available...

 

http://www.citizensincome.org/resources/newsletter%20issue%203%202011.shtml

[BritPat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you never hear debates on mainstream platforms regarding viable alternatives to the minimum wage. All you hear about is how terrible the country would be without it.

 

The basic income (or negative income tax) has been advocated by several Nobel economists from both the "left" and "right". Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the debate surrounding its implementation is not encouraged by the media and government - it spoils the illusion that policy making is concised to an over simplified, linear, left-right spectrum of partisan ideologies.

 

I'm not saying that a basic income would be the answer to our economic problems, but if nobody even knows about the alternatives to what seems to be a very inefficient way of dealing with poverty and exploitation, how do we expect to make truly informed decisions regarding the election of our political leaders?

 

If the only debate that is being sparked and encouraged is "minimum wage vs laissez faire", then we are doomed to be stuck in an extremely narrow, dichotomous way of thinking.

 

So if an employer exploits his workforce I should pay the employers wage bill while he takes the profits of his exploitation?

 

The perverse incentive also exists where it is in the employers interest to pay his workforce nothing, all employers could follow suit and the state would pay all the private sector wage bill with a zero income tax receipt !

 

That dog don't hunt !!!