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:
“You were born into a different world that will present you with different gifts and challenges. A new vision of manhood will be called for that does not tie so closely into the more aggressive and competitive residues of our male character. You will need to search out new ways of expressing strength, showing mastery, and exhibiting courage—ways that do not depend upon confronting the world before you as an adversary.”
—Kent Nerburn (20th century)
“There is all the difference in the world between the criminal’s avoiding the public eye and the civil disobedient’s taking the law into his own hands in open defiance. This distinction between an open violation of the law, performed in public, and a clandestine one is so glaringly obvious that it can be neglected only by prejudice or ill will.”
—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)
“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)
“Some rough political choices lie ahead. Should affirmative action be retained? Should preference be given to people on the basis of income rather than race? Should the system be—and can it be—scrapped altogether?”
—David K. Shipler (b. 1942)
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”
—Philip K. Dick (1928–1982)
“... if a person is to be unconventional, he must be amusing or he is intolerable: for, in the nature of the case, he guarantees you nothing but amusement. He does not guarantee you any of the little amenities by which society has assured itself that, if it must go to sleep, it will at least sleep in a comfortable chair.”
—Katharine Fullerton Gerould (1879–1944)