Aggressive Distinction With Minimum Income or Basic Income Guarantee
Some proponents of basic income speak aggressively against minimum income. This wiki page's history used to forward to Basic income guarantee, and that page has an excellent list of example implementations, and other sources, but unfortunately repeatedly conflates basic and minimum income. The core basis for opposing minimum income is its effect on work disincentives as per this example:
A Guaranteed or minimum income of $15000 means that every eligible recipient receives a socially funded cheque equal to ONLY the difference between their other income sources and $15000. So, they receive nothing if their income is $15k or more, receive $1k if their other income is $14k, and receive $15k if they have no other income.
To understand why basic income and guaranteed income are drastically different, in the context of work:
- Basic income (of $10k) is identical to giving every full time (40 hour/week) worker a $5/hour raise, and every half-time worker a $10/hour raise.
- Guaranteed income (of $15k) reduces every full time worker wages by at least $7.50/hour, and every half-time worker wages by at least $15/hour. In exchange for a $15k payment.
The other main criticism of guaranteed income is that it sounds very good as a political slogan if no one considers affordability. It reflects well on the compassion of the proposer. Guaranteed income offers greater promises than basic income to organized labour and those that refuse to work, but it has no funding predictability, and no basis for sustainable economic stability due to the fact that the impact of refusal to work rates cannot be predicted.
Basic income avoids all work disincentives by not basing the benefit on income level, and has predictable funding costs.
Read more about this topic: Basic Income
Famous quotes containing the words aggressive, distinction, minimum, income, basic and/or guarantee:
“When parents fail to set appropriate limits, children may feel more vulnerable at night: the aggressive urges that have not been “tamed” by day may be terrifying to a small child alone in the dark.”
—Cathy Rindner Tempelsman (20th century)
“I realized early on that the academy and the literary world alike—and I don’t think there really is a distinction between the two—are always dominated by fools, knaves, charlatans and bureaucrats. And that being the case, any human being, male or female, of whatever status, who has a voice of her or his own, is not going to be liked.”
—Harold Bloom (b. 1930)
“There are ... two minimum conditions necessary and sufficient for the existence of a legal system. On the one hand those rules of behavior which are valid according to the system’s ultimate criteria of validity must be generally obeyed, and on the other hand, its rules of recognition specifying the criteria of legal validity and its rules of change and adjudication must be effectively accepted as common public standards of official behavior by its officials.”
—H.L.A. (Herbert Lionel Adolphus)
“There are few sorrows, however poignant, in which a good income is of no avail.”
—Logan Pearsall Smith (1865–1946)
“Not many appreciate the ultimate power and potential usefulness of basic knowledge accumulated by obscure, unseen investigators who, in a lifetime of intensive study, may never see any practical use for their findings but who go on seeking answers to the unknown without thought of financial or practical gain.”
—Eugenie Clark (b. 1922)
“A wise architect observed that you could break the laws of architectural art provided you had mastered them first. That would apply to religion as well as to art. Ignorance of the past does not guarantee freedom from its imperfections.”
—Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971)