Talk:Guaranteed minimum income/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This is ridiculous. There is nothing saying that a Guaranteed Minimum Income system has to be linked to an Income Tax system of any sort. In fact many of those who approve of GMI also want to abolish Income Tax. Minimum Income systems are more commonly linked to resource taxes such as the LVT. Secondly the sensible way of implementing GMI is as a supplement to wages, not the other way round as the article states. That way it acts as a subsidy for employers, allowing them to pay lower wages, thus making higher profits. Thirdly this mention of cost. Opponents say it would cost a lot according to the article -- true enough. Proponents say it would cost nothing (and once the reasons for this startling claim have been explained most people can see why -- basically employers pay more in tax but less in wages and on average it should balance out) but this has not been mentioned making the article rather unbalanced. -- Derek Ross 05:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've heard proposals for a sort of "basic income" as part of a national sales-tax plan, but it is only supposed to be enough that poor persons can approximately recover the money that they paid into the sales tax system. AdamRetchless

1. There is a major difference between a Guaranteed Minimum Income system and a wage-subsidy, because the former is universal and the other is limited to people who are already employed.

2. Many people who support a GMI want it to replace some or all other government social programs, which will balance some or possibly even all of the cost.

3. I don't understand what you mean by "employers pay more in tax but less in wages and on average it should balance out" -- are you saying the entire program will be financed by increases in payroll taxes, and that employers will cut wages to make up for the higher taxes? Caliban 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Agreed. All that I am saying is firstly, that a GMI would have the same effect on employment levels as a wage-subsidy; and secondly that during the transition to it, it would have to be paid to the employed as a subsidy to their employers so that their take-home pay came out about the same in order to avoid massive inflation -- the unemployed would receive it directly.

2. That makes sense. In fact it should reduce the cost because the expensive detective work that is currently required to check entitlement to welfare would no longer be necessary.

3. I am saying that the entire program could be financed by an increase in payroll tax, although I don't think that it should be since payroll taxes cause a decrease in the employment level. That decrease would likely be approximately balanced by the increase in employment caused by the wage-subsidy effect but even so I don't think it's a good idea. There may be other effects which cause the balance to be unstable. A definite increase in the employment level should occur if the money comes from a slightly different but unrelated tax on employers, corporation tax, but even that might have negative effects. So my first choice would be finance via a resource tax such as Land tax which is unrelated to the level of employment. I am not a fan of payroll tax, corporation tax, sales tax or of income tax all of which are extremely inefficient taxes to administer and each of which has unwelcome effects on the economy. In answer to your last question -- yes, employers will have to cut wages to make up for the higher taxes otherwise they will go out of business. But as long as the cut in wages is balanced by the extra from the GMI payment no employee should be any worse off in practice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It would damage the economy by increasing the wages dramatically for the very large class of workers who are doing unpleasant, menial but essential jobs.

This isn't strictly true. It depends upon just how essential the job really is. In general it is impossible to increase the wages for any job above the market level of profit for that job. Any individual who tries to do so will quickly become bankrupt unless they can cross-subsidise from another revenue stream. If the job is absolutely essential, the cost will rise until it reaches its market value. However most "essential" services have alternatives (one of which is "doing without") and more often the price will rise until the price level of the alternative is reached and a new market equilibrium is achieved. -- Derek Ross

As questions are being raised about the neutrality of this article, I applied the NPOV tag. I'm going to look at beautifying the article, maybe pulling arguments into pro & con or topical sections so that a more neutral presentation can be achieved. -- Ssbohio 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ssbohio. I guessed that that was the reason that you applied the tag. I suppose that I should have sorted it out myself given the length of time since I made the above comments but there always seemed to be something more interesting to do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I am fairly certain that Nobel-prize winning economists Tobin and Simon also supported Guaranteed minimum income, but I don't have the time to look this up right now. AdamRetchless 19:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

As far as I can tell, the reference/link given for "However critics have cast doubts over whether the scheme would work at all. [2]" is not particularly relevant for that passage; instead, it's an interview with Van Parijs explaining how/why it *would* work. Did I miss something in the article? Caliban 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Doesn't Saudi Arabia pay its citizens some money every month from oil revenues? Is this similar? If so, should it be mentioned in the article? VarunRajendran

It should

India

DESPERATE 85% of people in India are desperate working slaves in an informal economy and their lives oscillate between fear and frustration.

EVEN MORE DESPERATE The remaining are always in search of collusion mostly in the form of caste to enhance their wealth.

SOLUTION A nationwide credible minimum income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion.

Such system will prevent all socioeconomic issues in India viz farmer suicides, dowry deaths, child labor, fear, frustration, corruption, bribery, prostitution, terrorism etc.

In Germany, Portugal, Brazil, USA, Belgium, UK etc this system is implemented.

Known 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Income taxes are a very bad way of supporting guraranteed minimum income because they are so easy to cheat on, so expensive to collect and so damaging to the economy. Far better to use land value taxes which are difficult to cheat on, can be cheaply and efficiently collected and do not damage the economy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Impossible

As I added in the "arguments contra" section, the plan is wishful thinking, but completely impossible. There is no way to pay for it. Barney Gumble 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While you're probably right, your argument added to the article relies on the per capita amount needed being less than the per caputa average income to prove mathematical impossibility. As an arithmetic mean is not the same as the income each member of the population makes, the fact that the per capita funding requirement exceeds the mean per capita income does not, in itself, prove your assertion. I'd like this argument to stay in the article, but with better support. --Ssbohio 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I actually made a miscalculation & a new factor, making it go from the impossible to the impractical and ridiculous. (The 57K for the top 25% is the mininum wage to make it into that bracket, not the average.) F103 is the total income of the top 25%, $4 billion, and F123 is the total tax collected from the top 25% of wage earners, $627 billion. So the average pre-tax income of the top 25% is $126K. The new factor is that you cannot include the taxes people already pay. So you need to collect from the top 25% of people, over $3 trillion ($627 billion + 2.4 Trillion + an estimated 200 billion in social security & medicare taxes) which is about 4/5 of what they make on average. Leaving an average of $26 leftover. You can't take the guy making $57K 80% because he is left with $11400, less than the bottom 50% makes. However, that is an instanteous snapshot. What would happen is that revenues decline...people stop working overtime or don't bother going to medical school. Many might even emigrate. Barney Gumble 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The foremost objection is that the plan is mathematically impossible, even in the US. If the GDP of the US is roughly $12.4 trillion and there are approximately 225 million people over 18 in the US, then the guaranteed income (20% of GDP) is about $11,000. Since it would defeat the idea of the plan to give the lower wage earners money and then take it all back in taxes, that $2.4 trillion (20% of GDP) must come from other earners. In 2003, there were $128 million return filed. The top 1%, 1.28 million people, make an average of $295,000 and pay about 50% of the taxes. If they financed the project, it would cost them $1.93 million each, significantly more than they make. The top 25%, 32 million, paid 84% of the total taxes and made an average of $57,000. The $2.4 trillion cost divided by 32 million equals $77,000...more that the people who are supposed to pay, make. If the financers of the program was expanded to the top 50%, who normally pay 96.5% of the taxes and make an average of $29,000, the program would cost over $38,000 each. Thus there is no possible way to pay for the program.

This is straight out of original research. I'm going to remove it until you find some economist who has said that (it should be pretty easy). - FrancisTyers · 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an argument, not certain fact. The "arguments for" also lack economists concurence or even a sense of provability. For example, "It would give enough money for every citizen to be able to receive a good education and proper healthcare." Really? we are all certain that $11K would do all that? Barney Gumble 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. You can't make your own arguments. You have to give other peoples. So I've reverted, please find an economist that states this. I added {{verify}} and {{fact}} tags to the parts that are in desperate need of citation. If you feel it necessary, please remove those sections which you feel are particularly egregious. - FrancisTyers · 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually come to think of it, the whole "pro/contra" sections should be removed. Feel free to add them back with sources. - FrancisTyers · 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not do original research. I used a source and divided. Dividing is not research. I will reduce the verbage to eliminate all possibilities of estimations. However, I do think the pro/con section should be include if kept minimal.Barney Gumble 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy, "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" and "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Please read the policy carefully and realise that what you are doing is original research. I have no problem with including criticism (the more the better), but find reliable sources. - FrancisTyers · 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policies, WP:V and WP:CITE before you readd the information. - FrancisTyers · 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)