4 ms·

Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.

by jre 13y ago

ilikehummus 13y ago
I did not see this anywhere in the article and most models of basic income i know do not do this. They instead only fill you up until you got amount X of money.
- jre 13y ago
  It doesn't seem to be available in English, but the organisation that wrote the initiative say so on their website[1]. They say "It is added to other revenues". So yeah, the intention is really to have an unconditional basic income for everybody and not some sort of negative income tax scheme as has been proposed elsewhere. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    It makes sense to me to do that way, if you're going to do it at all. Then there's no disincentive to work.
    - backprojection 13y ago
      There's still an incentive to work with a negative income tax. This is an interesting discussion about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
- Dewie 13y ago
  The article says "a basic income for all adults", not a basic income for all adults below a certain income threshold.
- mdda 13y ago
  The problem is that guaranteeing a minimum means that a low-paying job that potentially pays a little more may result in no increase in total income : The pay being offset exactly by a withdrawal of the government handout. This is equivalent to a huge implicit tax rate for poor people, and is common effect in developed countries with so-called safety nets. By giving the basic income to everyone equally, everyone has an incentive to earn more money at every point on the wage spectrum. Higher earners will still pay higher marginal rates (likely everywhere else). But the situation of the highest marginal rates being experienced by the poor (which is common) is eliminated, as are the expenses of administering complex benefits and means-testing regimes.
- thedufer 13y ago
  You are talking about Guaranteed Minimum Income, which is very much different from a Basic Income (more descriptively known as an Unconditional Basic Income, emphasis on "Unconditional").
drone 13y ago
How does this financially make sense? I'm neither an economist nor a mathematician, but how do you give a tax credit to everyone earning money (giving them $30k from the government is largely equivalent to eliminating $30k in taxes for everyone who pays more than $30k) and at the same time give the same, from the tax coffers to everyone earning nothing, or less than $30k? (Numbers here just for illustration...) Basically, how in the world do you account for the massive drop in actual realized revenue? Where does the money come from without raising the taxes further up the chain? Extremely simple example: Person A pays $0 in taxes per year. Person B pays $1 in taxes per year. Person C pays $5 in taxes per year. Person D pays $10 in taxes per year. If we give each of them $1 back from the tax coffers, the total tax paid now goes from $16/year, to $12/year. Does the elimination of existing welfare programs entirely cover this gap, or does one have to raise the tax rate on the higher earners to cover the spread, and would not simply withholding payments from the top earners make more sense than forcing them to give up their income only to give it back to them at the end of the year? Personally, I'd be upset if I was forced to give my money to the government at 0% interest, only to know they were going to give it back to me at the end of the year. From the first quarter's contribution, I would have lost money on that due to inflation without the opportunity to offset it via investment. (Which is why I pay the penalties for failing to make estimated payments in the U.S., as I generally outperform the penalties in real rate of return for my cash.)

Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.

by jre 13y ago

Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.

I did not see this anywhere in the article and most models of basic income i know do not do this. They instead only fill you up until you got amount X of money.

jre 13y ago
It doesn't seem to be available in English, but the organisation that wrote the initiative say so on their website[1]. They say "It is added to other revenues". So yeah, the intention is really to have an unconditional basic income for everybody and not some sort of negative income tax scheme as has been proposed elsewhere. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  It makes sense to me to do that way, if you're going to do it at all. Then there's no disincentive to work.
  - backprojection 13y ago
    There's still an incentive to work with a negative income tax. This is an interesting discussion about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
Dewie 13y ago
The article says "a basic income for all adults", not a basic income for all adults below a certain income threshold.
mdda 13y ago
The problem is that guaranteeing a minimum means that a low-paying job that potentially pays a little more may result in no increase in total income : The pay being offset exactly by a withdrawal of the government handout. This is equivalent to a huge implicit tax rate for poor people, and is common effect in developed countries with so-called safety nets. By giving the basic income to everyone equally, everyone has an incentive to earn more money at every point on the wage spectrum. Higher earners will still pay higher marginal rates (likely everywhere else). But the situation of the highest marginal rates being experienced by the poor (which is common) is eliminated, as are the expenses of administering complex benefits and means-testing regimes.
thedufer 13y ago
You are talking about Guaranteed Minimum Income, which is very much different from a Basic Income (more descriptively known as an Unconditional Basic Income, emphasis on "Unconditional").

drone 13y ago

How does this financially make sense? I'm neither an economist nor a mathematician, but how do you give a tax credit to everyone earning money (giving them $30k from the government is largely equivalent to eliminating $30k in taxes for everyone who pays more than $30k) and at the same time give the same, from the tax coffers to everyone earning nothing, or less than $30k? (Numbers here just for illustration...) Basically, how in the world do you account for the massive drop in actual realized revenue? Where does the money come from without raising the taxes further up the chain? Extremely simple example: Person A pays $0 in taxes per year. Person B pays $1 in taxes per year. Person C pays $5 in taxes per year. Person D pays $10 in taxes per year. If we give each of them $1 back from the tax coffers, the total tax paid now goes from $16/year, to $12/year. Does the elimination of existing welfare programs entirely cover this gap, or does one have to raise the tax rate on the higher earners to cover the spread, and would not simply withholding payments from the top earners make more sense than forcing them to give up their income only to give it back to them at the end of the year? Personally, I'd be upset if I was forced to give my money to the government at 0% interest, only to know they were going to give it back to me at the end of the year. From the first quarter's contribution, I would have lost money on that due to inflation without the opportunity to offset it via investment. (Which is why I pay the penalties for failing to make estimated payments in the U.S., as I generally outperform the penalties in real rate of return for my cash.)