Guaranteed income

[hobbyguy]

The problem is how to structure such a concept so that:

A) you don't provide a disincentive to work
B) don't provide a disincentive for people to better themselves (night school etc.)
C) don't set it up so as to be open to "gaming" by either employers or employees

For example: if you say that the GMI is $24,000 (pick a number), where is the incentive for a part time worker to accept more hours that would take their income $10,000 to $11,000? They would be working for nothing.... or to step up to harder job, same hours, another $1/hr? Doing more to make the same.....

I see it as a nice notion, but how do you make a guaranteed minimum income work in practice?

But they wouldn't be doing more to make the same. In your example above, their income would be made on top of the GMI. So, $24,000 + $10,000 = $34,000, or $35k if they pick up the extra hours. The incentive to work more / increase earnings would be no different than today, increased income.

So everybody gets welfare? Lets suppose when I was working that applied, I made good money, so my salary was $100k+. Now I would get another $24k from the government??? How does that make sense???

[CapitalB]

There is a cap on receiving the funds. Its called Guaranteed minimum income for a reason. It guarantees you get at least that amount. If your already over that amount you get nothing. There are a number of ways to implement this so there isn't an income dead zone where earning more gets you nothing. The most functional way seems to be to incorporate a reverse income tax, though thats just what I've read from other places trying this.

[Jflem1983]

So it will encourage people not to work ?

[GordonH]

So it will encourage people not to work ?

Well, those that are lazy or have total lack any ambition. So that would include most if not everyone currently on welfare.

before anyone jumps all over my post, I'm not talking about those on disability. Disability & welfare are 2 totally different things.

Added: society has always had lazy people... they want something for nothing

[Verum]

So it will encourage people not to work ?

Would a relatively small guaranteed income, just enough to live on, which you could top up by working and which wouldn't go away if you did work, be enough to encourage you to not work? In fact, wouldn't a system which rewards you for getting any work be better at encouraging you to get out and work than the system we currently have which takes away benefits and income if you do go out and get a job? Why would you assume others are hugely more lazy than you are?

[Gilchy]

There is a cap on receiving the funds. Its called Guaranteed minimum income for a reason. It guarantees you get at least that amount. If your already over that amount you get nothing. There are a number of ways to implement this so there isn't an income dead zone where earning more gets you nothing. The most functional way seems to be to incorporate a reverse income tax, though thats just what I've read from other places trying this.

The broad theory is "Universal Basic Income" which yes, everyone (regardless of earned income) would receive. It would be taxable income, so if you're in the highest bracket, you'd give half of it back in income taxes. The theory is the replacing Welfare, EI, Disability, etc, with this would cost roughly the same once paid income taxes are factored back in. Ensuring everyone gets it is the best way to not create a disincentive to work.

[Jflem1983]

So it will encourage people to hide income and assets.

[Gilchy]

How is that any different than today?

[Jflem1983]

My personal beef with handouts like this. It takes personal responsibility out of the equation.

[Jflem1983]

How is that any different than today?

Your right. Its not

[hobbyguy]

There is a cap on receiving the funds. Its called Guaranteed minimum income for a reason. It guarantees you get at least that amount. If your already over that amount you get nothing. There are a number of ways to implement this so there isn't an income dead zone where earning more gets you nothing. The most functional way seems to be to incorporate a reverse income tax, though thats just what I've read from other places trying this.

Can't see how you will ever achieve a system that neither provides an incentive not to work, nor winds up with such a dead zone.

The other self defeating thing about the guaranteed mincome is that it will inflate the very base costs that affect the need for basic income in the first place - like rents.

You also run into various "gaming" options for mincome.

C has parents with a big house, and they let him live in the basement for free, scrounge meals. C has almost no basics costs. So C is quite happy to sit back, collect $24k in mincome. If C took a part time job, yes C would have more - but C has $20k in discretionary disposable income, which ain't bad. C would rather use the time to take advantage of a golf club membership and play golf every day. To heck with that education stuff and that yucky work stuff, between golf and online gaming (gets free internet wifi from mom and pop) C is comfy.

M doesn't have accommodating parents, they rent a small apartment, and are barely able to keep up and save a few pennies for retirement. M has to go out and find a place to rent, pay heat, light, food etc. etc. The mincome leaves M with $0 in discretionary dispsoable income. M would like to get an education, but the mincome doesn't allow for that option.

So silver spoon C gets a nice free ride, and reality facing M struggles to get by on the same. M pretty much must find work of some sort, while C laughs at M.

'One size fits all solutions" like mincome are not workable.

What is workable? Proven solutions that are out there.

Make the income redistribution more progressive (yes, higher taxes on the wealthy) and then fund:

A) a broad merit based bursary system for education (trades, technical and traditional academic)
B) a high availability of social housing
C) indexed minimum wages
D) mincome for the disabled
E) other tailored social programs

All of that designed to provide a basic support, and opportunity. That's the fundamental philosophical question, society should provide opportunity, and it is up to the individual to knock on the doors of opportunity.

[CapitalB]

A) a broad merit based bursary system for education (trades, technical and traditional academic)
B) a high availability of social housing
C) indexed minimum wages
D) mincome for the disabled
E) other tailored social programs

I mean sure I'm all for making canada into a socialist utopia too but I really don't think the powers that be and the far right (Socially fiscally conservative and deliberately aggressively ignorant) wind bags that support them will be into social programs. I'm more inclined to think that when automation really starts eating jobs in the next few years a basic income of some sort (not splitting hairs over UBI GBI) will look like the easiest quickest path to propping up our lopsided economy.

[Mitch85]

One thing I like about GI is that all the government employees of disability, welfare, EI will have an income still.

[Veovis]

So what do people think will happen should a basic income plus working will mean?

I'm betting on this scenario.....

Guy makes 50K a year. New system has 25K GI so his company changes his to 25K annual. HE makes the same 50K business keeps higher profits.

Yes yes, the argument will be to just tax the crap out of companies (some recovery will happen) certainly people would argue no one would then work for the reduced salary (but 50K total a year is still better than 25K and I bet the bulk does)

Some will just see a small addition of 25K a year, but they are the ones who find that money cute and spend it on 1 bet in Vegas.

[twobits]

So what do people think will happen should a basic income plus working will mean?

I'm betting on this scenario.....

Guy makes 50K a year. New system has 25K GI so his company changes his to 25K annual. HE makes the same 50K business keeps higher profits.

Yes yes, the argument will be to just tax the crap out of companies (some recovery will happen) certainly people would argue no one would then work for the reduced salary (but 50K total a year is still better than 25K and I bet the bulk does)

Some will just see a small addition of 25K a year, but they are the ones who find that money cute and spend it on 1 bet in Vegas.

I don't agree with a GAI but I don't see this above scenario playing out. While there are no rules laid out for what this GAI might look like, if there isn't a clawback of GAI if you earn more than the GAI, it is just not possible as few would have any incentive to work period. Can't see that as a workable model.