5 ms·

This article appears to confuse guaranteed income (means-tested top-up) with basic income/basic income guarantee (which you get unconditionally) One of the maj

This article appears to confuse guaranteed income (means-tested top-up) with basic income/basic income guarantee (which you get unconditionally) One of the major criticisms made of Speenhamland (a means-tested top-up) is that pay was reduced because employers knew employees could claim it back via the state top-up. That could happen under guaranteed income, as it apparently does here, but is not relevant to basic income. Wikipedia clearly points out this difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Difference_from_guaranteed_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Difference_from_g... A very poor article.

evanpw 12y ago
A one-to-one means-tested top-up means that the effective tax rate on all income below the guaranteed level is 100%. That is pretty obviously a terrible idea.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
That is a very common confusion. Whenever I mention basic income and people say "That will never work, its been tried!" I ask them to explain what they think a basic income system would be like, and so far it is always some form of means tested supplemental income rather than just basic income.
- Retra 12y ago
  A civil responsibility-tested income would be another reasonable alternative. That is, if you do your taxes, are not currently a criminal, vote in some elections, obey basic health and safety requirements, exercise responsible finances, recycle, etc.. There are lots of things worth considering along this line of thought. You are essentially being paid to be a responsible citizen. EDIT: When I said there are a lot of things worth considering, I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. For one, it wouldn't have to be all-or-nothing. Surely if you have to pay a traffic ticket, it will already be coming out of your income. But if you chose to gamble your income away and you have children to feed, why should you keep getting it?
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy. For example: Some consider it absolute basic rock-simple common sense that a marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom were born with those genitals, period. Completely inarguable, as in if you try to argue the point, they will scream at you until you give up. Therefore, they conclude in their inarguable fashion, no same-sex couples should get benefits, because it is contrary to basic intelligence that the government should fund such things. There. Now you have a political dispute which is completely immune to negotiation, because if you give one red cent to same-sex couples, one side has utterly lost the argument. There is no Overton-Window-Approved middle ground. That's why Basic Income needs to be no-strings-attached and unconditional for it to work.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I don't see what that has to do with basic income. I never mentioned paying people based on their sexual orientation, but upon things that we almost unanimously agree to.
      - cbd1984 12y ago
        > things that we almost unanimously agree to. My whole point is that this might as well be the empty set, for all the good it's going to do you, and if you make Basic Income contingent on this, people opposed to Basic Income for whatever reason will work hard to make it the empty set.
        Retra 12y ago
        You could say the same thing about the "human right to live." Sure, some people might disagree that we have a right to live. But that is not really relevant to the scale of national policy. If I said you don't have a right to a fair trial, that is not a reason to abolish fair trial laws.
      - learnstats2 12y ago

evanpw 12y ago

A one-to-one means-tested top-up means that the effective tax rate on all income below the guaranteed level is 100%. That is pretty obviously a terrible idea.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

That is a very common confusion. Whenever I mention basic income and people say "That will never work, its been tried!" I ask them to explain what they think a basic income system would be like, and so far it is always some form of means tested supplemental income rather than just basic income.

Retra 12y ago
A civil responsibility-tested income would be another reasonable alternative. That is, if you do your taxes, are not currently a criminal, vote in some elections, obey basic health and safety requirements, exercise responsible finances, recycle, etc.. There are lots of things worth considering along this line of thought. You are essentially being paid to be a responsible citizen. EDIT: When I said there are a lot of things worth considering, I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. For one, it wouldn't have to be all-or-nothing. Surely if you have to pay a traffic ticket, it will already be coming out of your income. But if you chose to gamble your income away and you have children to feed, why should you keep getting it?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy. For example: Some consider it absolute basic rock-simple common sense that a marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom were born with those genitals, period. Completely inarguable, as in if you try to argue the point, they will scream at you until you give up. Therefore, they conclude in their inarguable fashion, no same-sex couples should get benefits, because it is contrary to basic intelligence that the government should fund such things. There. Now you have a political dispute which is completely immune to negotiation, because if you give one red cent to same-sex couples, one side has utterly lost the argument. There is no Overton-Window-Approved middle ground. That's why Basic Income needs to be no-strings-attached and unconditional for it to work.
  - Retra 12y ago
    I don't see what that has to do with basic income. I never mentioned paying people based on their sexual orientation, but upon things that we almost unanimously agree to.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      > things that we almost unanimously agree to. My whole point is that this might as well be the empty set, for all the good it's going to do you, and if you make Basic Income contingent on this, people opposed to Basic Income for whatever reason will work hard to make it the empty set.
      - Retra 12y ago
        You could say the same thing about the "human right to live." Sure, some people might disagree that we have a right to live. But that is not really relevant to the scale of national policy. If I said you don't have a right to a fair trial, that is not a reason to abolish fair trial laws.
    - learnstats2 12y ago