Talk:Guaranteed minimum income

Fiscal resources

Why is there a list of all possible sources of government revenues? I think it goes without saying that any kind of income supplement would be funded out of general government revenues, which in turn implies the various means listed here. Maybe there should be a link to the wiki article on taxation or public finance, but it's unnecessary to list every possible method of raising revenues. Further, I understand that certain varieties of the GMI (like a negative income tax) are intricately intertwined with the tax system, but I've never heard of, say, a Tobin Tax imposed specifically to fund a GMI. Why are all of these obscure and marginal means of revenue generation listed here? -- wrote someone who didn't sign with ~~~~

I would guess that it's because one of the questions that always comes up for GMI is "How would this be funded ?". And once one source of funding has been added the normal Wikipedia "tweaking" process means that the list will just grow and grow. By all means prune it back. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be copacetic to replace the existing list section with a prose passage such as -

"Tax revenues would fund the majority of any GMI proposal. As most GMI proposals seek to create an earnings floor close to or above poverty lines amongst all citizens, the fiscal burden would require equally broad tax sources, such as income taxes or VATs, in order to fund such expenditures. To varying degrees, a GMI might be funded through the reduction or elimination of other social security programs such as employment insurance. Though neutral with respect to government finance, Milton Friedman also proposed a GMI in the context of abolishing minimum wages, which he argued unduly distorted labor market economics. The extent to which a GMI is designed to reduce or supplement existing social security programs can be seen as one of the unresolved cleavages amongst GMI advocates; more economically conservative seeking to replace the bulk of welfare spending with a GMI while more social or egaliarian proponents see the GMI as a component of a broader social welfare system. "-- [dave] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.8.35 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait

So a high school dropout working at bk would get the same amount of pay as a person who went to college to be a doctor? 174.20.184.100 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GMI isn't pay. It's a tax refund of, say, $7,800 per year that every adult citizen gets, whether they are rich or poor, teaching or learning, working or golfing, taxpayer or not. If someone is getting pay, that's on top. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And here we see Derek display the complete lunacy and ignorance of basic economics that are necessary to buy into the "guaranteed minimum income" scheme: it's not a "tax refund" if one isn't holding a job and earning an income that can be taxed. It's simply being provided money that was taken away from those who do work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.192.187 (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And here we see some anonymous idiot display the capacity to insult which makes up for his lack of insight. Even people with no income pay taxes. Sales tax? Property tax? Heard of those? And as for taking money from people who work, that's an issue with the tax system not with a GMI system. If you want to stop taking money from people who work, then replace the taxes on earned income with a tax on unearned income. That's what they do in Alaska where the GMI is funded by a resource tax. But whatever, for the 80+% of people who work, a GMI payment is basically a tax refund; for the 20-% who don't, it's part-tax refund, part-welfare payment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article should perhaps be "Basic income with conditions"

According to BIEN, Basic Income Earth Network, there is two kind of guaranteed income-systems, basic income and negativ income tax. Both are per definition without conditions (except for citizenship). So it is by definition not a pure basic income nor a negative income tax if there are conditions, for example the condition to stay ready for the labour market while not working, or to have readiness to work "for free" for the comune while not having a paid job. So, what Im trying to say is that this article may have a place, because of this, but that it may be wiser to call the article something else, for example "Basic income with conditions", as this seems to be what is meant. Or?--Mats33 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the definition may be, "Guaranteed minimum income", is a well known phrase that people will seek out on the internet. When they do so, they will find our GMI article which can discuss the points that you make (if it doesn't already). "Basic income with conditions" is not a well known phrase and people are unlikely to search for it. They are more likely to sarch for "Basic income" which will lead them to our BI article. Hence it would not be a good idea to change the name of this article from "Guaranteed minimum income", which people will be searching for, to something else, which they won't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I´m not sure that "Guaranteed minimum income" is a well known phrase, can you convince me? --Mats33 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about you, so I can't really answer that. Are you easy to convince? Or next to impossible? If the former, I would say yes. If the latter, I would say no. The phrase, "Guaranteed minimum income", returns 162,000 results on a Google search (many of which are convincing in their own right) whereas "Basic income with conditions" returns 9 results (none of them particularly compelling) and "Basic income" returns 2,510,000 results. So the GMI phrase appears to be less well known than the BI one but better known than the BIWC one. If this argument convinces you, then I can convince you. If not, then I assume that I cannot convince you without putting in more effort than I am prepared to do. However that is neither here nor there since I do not have to convince you. The onus is on you to convince me (and any others who may take an interest) that it would be an improvement to make the change that you have suggested. Otherwise no change will be made. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is confusingly named, it should refer to supplementary welfare schemes for when a person doesn't qualify for normal unemployment benefit. Does anyone know of an appropriate article to merge it into? - 109.79.88.221 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

This article seems to be incredibly vague and not really about anything specific. The introduction says "Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services.", why can't this be included under employment insurance schemes then? Also, I can't speak for other countries but the Irish 'Supplementary Welfare' is not a guaranteed income, you have to meet varying conditions not dissimilar to 'Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit', it's basically a last resort if you don't fit into other payments and they decide you still deserve payment, if you quit your job or otherwise don't fulfill their conditions, they leave you with nothing. - 95.44.48.43 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Addition: Or at least it should be clarified how this is different from employment insurance schemes. - 95.44.48.43 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed 'advocacy' and 'funding' sections

I also put this in the edit summary, but anyway, I removed those sections because they used the term 'guaranteed minimum income' but were actually talking about basic income or negative income tax, which is not what the article, as per it's intro paragraph, is about. - 109.79.88.221 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Some comments/issues

There's the MLK piece, which besides linking to another WP article, is also referenced at Basic Income. So which was MLK talking about, Basic Income or GMI? There doesn't seem to be a source for the "American" section which asserts the US has "multiple social programs that provide guaranteed minimum incomes," the two listed are both Social Security programs. A) We need an RS which asserts that SS actually is considered GMI as defined, and B) If that is true, we should rephrase it to make clear that there are two SS programs. There seems to be some conflation between this article and Basic Income, as I think the Nixon "Family Assistance Program" would be more appropriate in this article than that one. There are a few other examples of this. Is it a clear case that GMI (as most sources refer to it) actually exists in the US and has since the 70s? It seems that most sources (on both articles) are under the impression that GMI would constitute an overhaul of the current welfare system, rather than a description of things as they are now. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)