Talk:Guaranteed minimum income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
Archive
Archives

/Archive one — Archive


[edit] Title

The title of this article should be Basic Income which is the universally accepted term. Guido den Broeder 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In German the title means translated something like "Unconditional Basic Income". But I really don't know, what the scientific term is in English. I also think, this article has to be much longer. In the German article for example tells about different models of the Unconditional Basic Income, criticism, ethics and history. Maybe anybody who has a better English than me can upgrade this article. I would appreciate that! --DidT
The thing is, that a guaranteed minimum income need not be unconditional, as in the Romanian example where community service is obligatory.[1] Otoh, a basic income is by definition unconditional. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case the foreign language references should be corrected. All the foreign language sites point to this one instead of the site about Basic income. (That's why I put them in) -- Máté
I understand, but at the time the article Basic income had not been created yet. The other Wikipediae haven't noticed this yet. I.e., we chose a different solution than the proposed move. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial GMI

The elderly. Deliver the GMI to all those above age 60, about 50 million Americans. The universal pension will replace existing age pensions, so the cost is not as high as it seems. $1,250 billion, about 11% of US GDP. Age distributions and GDP figures are readily available.

Women. Deliver the GMI to all women over the age of 18. This age group includes the fertile age group, so the GMI will replace any tax offsets or welfare aimed at supporting child rearing. $2,750 billion, about 25% of GDP.

This possibility is subtler than it seems. A young woman turning 18 will look forward to a lifetime GMI of a thousand dollars a month, indexed for inflation. (Sorry, should be a thousand dollars a fortnight - David 124.176.126.98) The GMI will pay for groceries, rent and power. She will eventually marry. If her husband is temporarily out of work, or suffers a long bout of illness, the grocery bill is still paid. If she leaves the work force to look after children, the grocery bill is still paid. GMI for women only delivers a lot of income security for a married couple.

Women and old men. $3,375 billion, about 31% of GDP.

It is important to understand that these costs are gross, not net. GMI replaces a lot of existing welfare, relief and social security measures. Rich women and rich elderly will also receive the GMI but will pay it back in an adjusted income tax regime.

David Erskine

124.176.126.98 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other websites

There is an excellent German site with a dauntingly long German compound word, which means Freedom not Full Employment. Search on the English phrase. There is even an International Journal on Basic Income Studies.

The German site states explicitly that GMI is only logical, seeing that machines are taking over so much work. Good to see that what scientists have been talking about for fifty years is finally appearing at a political and economic level.

David Erskine 124.176.126.98 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Machine slaves and Guaranteed Minimum Income

When the possibility of automated economies emerged in the fifties, those advocating automation painted a picture of a society where people live comfortable lives with only a small amount of work.

All through history, landowners and nobles have had unearned income, and in more recent times this independent class has emerged as lords of creation, moving about the world and living the good life.

Machines take the place of slaves, something that has been known for a century. A slave owning society arranges for a boss class and a slave class. In the future, the boss class will be all people in a society, and machines will be the slaves.

Take Mississippi, about 1850. Whites did little heavy lifting, leaving that to the slaves, as policy. The more slaves there are, the more work is offloaded on to them, as policy, until the boss class does not work much, but still receives income.

Take any advanced society, about 2015. As machines emerge as slaves, it is appropriate for the boss class, that is people, to offload as much work as possible on to the machine slaves, as policy, until a point is reached where the boss class does not work much, but still receives income.

Enter Guaranteed Minimum Income.

David Erskine 124.176.126.98 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Old name: Guaranteed minimum income
  • New name: Basic income

Basic income is the universally accepted name for what is described in this article. Guaranteed minimum income (gmi) is not adequate, since a gmi can be conditional as in the case of Romania (community service).[2] Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The term 'guaranteed minimum income' is more descriptive, while 'basic income' appears to be a politicized term. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How is that relevant? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia, not the Dutch one. You haven't shown that 'basic income' is the 'universally accepted term' in English. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the names of the international organizations. But what does this have to do with your initial comment? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose "Basic income" is a novel word for an older proposal. It is ambiguous; several other possible meanings suggest themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a different proposal. E.g., Thomas Paine proposed a one-time lump sum ('stake'); basic income is periodical. The article explains what it means, so that should not be a concern. You can find the differences between the various proposals explained in a historic overview here: [3] The idea of a minimum income guaranteed by the government to all the members of a particular community is far older than the more specific and radical idea of an unconditional basic income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to discuss Paine (whom you misunderstand). King and Friedman are not quoted as using this term; what's the earliest citation you can find? We should not employ a novel term, which we will need to disambiguate for other articles, when a clear, precise, and unambiguous term is usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Basic income is my no means a new term, but that is completely irrelevant. Whether the present term is unambiguous or not, it is simply not the correct term for what is described in the article. It would be the same if you had given the artile cat the title animal. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Modify If nobody else shows up, I will do it the other way around, and turn Basic income from a redirect into a proper article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "GMI" is the common term used to describe this topic in English. On the other hand, "Basic income" is generally used to mean an income which is only just large enough to cover a person's survival needs whether that income is a rent, a dividend, a wage, a government allowance, or a mixture of the four. While the GMI might form a basic income it could equally well be worth less than or more than a basic income. In fact none of the GMI's so far implemented or about to be implemented are large enough to form a basic income. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'move' template, i.e. we will have two articles. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Portugal

  • Portugal is by far the closest a country has come to actually having fully implemented such a system. This is because the Portuguese government made a guaranteed minimum income a legally enshrined right for the entire population in 1997. The policy remains at present. However, the country's income security policy is rather residualist, with an amount guaranteed well below the poverty line, and other income security policies such as the minimum wage are thus still in place as a consequence. The system also forces participants to attend social integration sessions.

This sounds to me like a full implementation of a safety-net-type GMI similar to the Dutch system (bijstand), unless there is more to tell? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)