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 want you to consider this distinction as you go forward in life. Being male is not enough; being a man is a right to be earned and an honor to be cherished. I cannot tell you how to earn that right or deserve that honor. . . but I can tell you that the formation of your manhood must be a conscious act governed by the highest vision of the man you want to be.”
—Kent Nerburn (20th century)
“After decades of unappreciated drudgery, American women just don’t do housework any more—that is, beyond the minimum that is required in order to clear a path from the bedroom to the front door so they can get off to work in the mourning.”
—Barbara Ehrenreich (20th century)
“Strictly speaking, every citizen above a certain level of income is guilty of some offense.”
—Max Frisch (1911–1991)
“The “universal moments” of child rearing are in fact nothing less than a confrontation with the most basic problems of living in society: a facing through one’s children of all the conflicts inherent in human relationships, a clarification of issues that were unresolved in one’s own growing up. The experience of child rearing not only can strengthen one as an individual but also presents the opportunity to shape human relationships of the future.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“Beyond the horizon, or even the knowledge, of the cities along the coast, a great, creative impulse is at work—the only thing, after all, that gives this continent meaning and a guarantee of the future. Every Australian ought to climb up here, once in a way, and glimpse the various, manifold life of which he is a part.”
—Vance Palmer (1885–1959)