Talk:Basic income/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Useless info

>A first assessment of the experiences in Iran is provided by H. Talabani (2011).[22]

And? What information was included in this paper source? I think this should be removed for lack of content. (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Basic income in India

There does not seem to be enough information/stuff happening in the world about this to justify its own article. Every political position in every country does not need its own isolated article if it can be included within the larger context of the general idea, I would think. anamedperson (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Green Party source

Unless someone has a source saying the Green Party supports this policy I intend to remove it. Wilson (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: Guaranteed Livable Allowance. There are others. You can find them using this amazing tool called Goggle or Google or something like that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Effects on inflation

I think the criticisms needs to include a section on the effect on inflation. If everyone has more money to spend, then prices for goods will go up where the supply of those goods can not expand fast enough to match the new demand, a good example of which is housing- land is fixed in supply, and whilst we can (and should) increase housing density to accomodate more people, ultimately it will drive up the price of living. This then negates many of the benefits of increased disposable income. See inflation - I've found this so far: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why a proposal for a Basic Income is often paired with a proposal for a Land Value Tax. However be careful. This is an area which is not theoretically well understood. There is little agreement over the outcome of implementing a BI. So reliable sources are more likely to state opinion as if it was fact than usual. You would be best to use sources which describe historical examples where a BI caused inflation (or not) and those could be difficult to find. If you do use a source which describes theory, it is important to state that "So-and-so says that..." in order to maintain the Neutral Point Of View. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Article contains opinion

In the section which mentions 'refusal to work', there is an analysis which appears to be original work i.e. the view of the writer. I see no issue with including views from experts in the field when they are appropriately balanced to include pro and con positions, but they ought to be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Protecting the Proposed benefits section

It is essential that the page contains a proposed benefits section. The sourcing of the arguments should not be essentially important, but proposals critical of the sourcing need to make a strong effort at improving the proposed benefits section rather than just vandalize it away. There is no obvious deficiency with the source, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page is in rough shape

With the recent purge of content, the page is not as informative as it once was. The biggest problem is the first section which had the "proposed benefits of basic income" topic removed. One editor may appear to hate, since the reason for removal was declaring that site to be a blog. Also removed were affordability calculations that were researched and verified with working links, but also published on a platform that can be declared to be a blog. Meanwhile the content left in the top section has poor references that do not appear to match the content. For instance there is no reference for any conclusive argument or data that basic income creates a disincentive to work, and the link to reciprocity is not online, and the topic not a major issue. Both of those topics have good quality "blog classifiable" sources available.

In order to Be Bold, I would recommend that eligible source material be broadened to include any quality content, including from sources that are not government funded. Basic income is after all not within any traditional government agenda, and so limiting information to sources funded by interests against basic income harms the quality of the article, and prejudices/suppresses the article from being informative and enlightening. Barring this broadened content eligibility, we all need guidance for what is eligible content, and perhaps what makes ineligible. (The content there was written in 2011, and has been adopted, whether independently or without attribution, by other authors)

Here is the major recent deletion . Specifically the proposed benefits section should be reproduced. Some of these can be sourced elsewhere, but we need a clear understanding of why it was originally deleted: Godspiral (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you have to ask this shows why you're having trouble.
Try reading WP:VER. In a nutshell, you want academic sources, also books (NOT self published books), NOT self published websites, NOT blogs, NOT necessarily government sites either unless they're well respected and apolitical, that have been through a decent editorial process.GliderMaven (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There are quite a few issues with that. Books are less verifiable than web links. To be clear, Government funded sources include academia, and they are also less verifiable if not freely accessible. What makes basic income special is that, unlike virtually every other political proposition, the Champion of basic income gains no privilege whatsoever over other citizens, and so the only reason to champion UBI is to provide freedom and dignity to everyone. The relevance is that there is no business model for power accumulation behind it, and that affects the sources available. Limiting information sources to entrenched power sources (Government, academia and corporate) stacks the deck with biased point of view in favour of power structures, or in the case of the state of this page, makes it impossible to describe UBI. There is great content available on the web for UBI. Academic work is more timid, less accessible, and often of lower quality than other research on UBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talkcontribs) 01:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No page can be an exemption from basic policy. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be some priomordial quality mandate. Wikipedia should want quality verifiable references. If [WP:VER] is intended to be weaponized then a bot could be made that deletes pages and sections based on whether the section contains an insufficiently prestigious reference. Treating WP:VER as an intentional algorithm would allow an attacker to delete perhaps as high as 90% of wikipedia without even needing to look at the content. No one could invoke any objection to the mass deletion if the literal interpretation of WP:VER is the most important rule on wikipedia. Vandalism becomes impossible if criteria for removal applied to a science page can be robotically applied to a philosophy page.
The above attack would meet a common sense interpretation of vandalism. The only possible protection from the mass deletion attack is if [WP:VAN] is considered to have higher priority for literal interpretation than WP:VER. There should already be a common sense acceptance that Vandalism is more dangerous and objectively assessed than the quality of referenced material, and as shown above, rejecting the statement binds wikipedia to a suicide pact. Its my view that the recent deletions are indistinguishable from robotic vandalism and they deleted high quality and verifiable references based only on the content hosting platform.
If Vandalism and Verifiability are to be equally considered in actions, then restoring the content and tagging it as needing better sources should be done. Also if there is to be a defense from robotic deletion of the majority of wikipedia, then "deletors" that have shown no previous contribution to the page should be treated more suspiciously than those who have helped build it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talkcontribs) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BURDEN. No algorithm can possibly work, and you continue to show a refusal to show good faith - see WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be misunderstanding. Surely a section titled proposed benefits need only prove that the benefits have been proposed, and have cogent arguments made at the reference. If there are counter arguments, there is room on the page for them, but I don't believe that anyone sensible denies that the benefits have been proposed and have a high degree of plausibility. The key point is that only evidence that they have been proposed is needed. You may wish to explain your accusation of "refusal to show good faith", but hopefully you see that it is inappropriate. Godspiral (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Plausible is good. Right is better. Even if nobody knows what's right and wrong, who says they have a high enough degree of plausibility to be included in the article? The point of Wikipedia is that by tying everything to reliable sources, the reliable sources say whether something is plausible and important for us, and we simply summarise. If you can back these 'plausible' points up with reliable sources, fantastic, and then by all means add them back to the article, but with the references for them.GliderMaven (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Its 100% right and certain that the benefits have been proposed, and self evident from any reference that have proposed them. There also does not exist any reliable refutation of any of the list of proposed benefits. The standard for inclusion as proposed benefits is (or should be) that they are debatable. There is no evidence that they are implausible, and the points are clearly argued. It is the most critical section of the entire article after all, and has been up on the page for about 1 year, for the scrutiny of the entire community. Its likely that any feeling you may have that the information is wrong is misguided, and if you expressed those feelings, you'd have an opportunity to learn from the community why those feelings may be in a weaker debating position than some of the proposed benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talkcontribs) 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if correct, this is a moot point unless a reliable source for the proposed benefits is added to the article. (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No. We need expert opinions, not just the opinions of some random-ass people that cobbled together a website. You can find them in reliable sources.
Now we've pointed you to Wikipedia's rules. If you want to edit Wikipedia you have to follow them. If you fail to follow Wikipedia's rules, which seems to be practically certain given your expressed views on its rules, you will very probably be blocked again.GliderMaven (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Benefits describes several purported benefits of social dividends and basic income:[1]

  • Wealth redistribution is the best possible economic development program because the wealthy don't spend as great a portion of their income as the poor do.
  • Basic income is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution because there is no bureaucratic overhead needed to filter recipients, or find and punish abusers.
  • Basic income as an alternative to public retirement pensions (such as social security in the US) is the only possible prevention of generational theft that will occur if the funding sustainability of future retiree pensions and care is threatened
  • Reduced crime as a result of lower levels of desperation.
  • Balanced power in the labour market as a result of not needing work out of desperation, and better competitive position of workers if some people choose not to work.[2]
  • Better work opportunities as a result of people better able to afford an education or business start up.
  • Smaller government made possible and attractive by the alternative of increased basic income to offset any program cost reduction. Viewed this way, the cost of every government program is paid for equally by each citizen, even if the source of government revenue is progressive income taxation.
  • Social justice is achieved efficiently and automatically, with less requirement on charity and welfare.
  • It is easier for volunteer home owners to help the poor and secluded through group homes by being able to rely on their certain income. Its possible and easier for the disadvantaged to group up and help themselves in the same manner.
  • Natural finance's definition of social dividends (variable basic income: tax revenue surplus over social program expenses) essentially allows the level of basic income paid to citizens to rise with economic, productivity, and automation growth. The affordability of basic income adjusts automatically to the performance of the economy. is not a reliable source, and, as well, pro-con sections are deprecated in Wikipedia. A summary of an unreliable source will and should ultimately only be deleted from any article. What you ideally want is something like a paper in an economics journal you can refer to.GliderMaven (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If the editor really thinks is a reliable source by our criteria, he can go to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from Affordability section

>To estimate affordability of basic income in the US, the starting point of 265M adult citizens and $6.3 Trillion in estimated federal, state, and local government spending means that replacing all US government spending can provide nearly $25k per citizen in basic income. Several people have used the simplicity of a flat tax to demonstrate affordability. Someone has even hosted a UBI calculator.

This entire section is original research, uncited, and confusing. I've removed it from the article, if someone wants to clean it up and find sources feel free to put it back in. (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up your claim that it is original research? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I... I.. What? That's not possible. How could I possibly provide a source proving this is original research? By definition, it's original. It's on someone who thinks that information is correct to find sources backing that information up. I guess I could google that section? Well, I did, and the only hits found cited wikipedia. It's completely unsourced, I don't think it even conforms to style guidelines, and I think it needs to stay out of the article unless someone can prove a professional study has been done that backs up those facts. (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional category in affordability

"Taxing Robotic Labor" is an idea I've seen pop up lately in reference to the economic balance for providing a basic income.

If this concept already fits inside another category please feel free to delete.Cameronarndt (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich von Hayek

Why do we have to informed on all issues economic, about what Friedrich von Hayek thought? This is propaganda. The only reason the 'Austrian School of Economics' gets any attention, is because it is massively supported by the oligarchic Koch Brothers. Even a separate section on von Hayek, on the issue of Universal Basic Income is inappropriate. You might as well include what Chuck Norris thinks. And by the way, this propagandistic pollution of Wikipedia is not limited to this issue. It is very hard to sift out the garbage included by the minions of the billionairs. I quote: "It is clear, however, that Friedrich Hayek did not advocate that any modern nation act to implement a minimum income." So why is Friedrich Hayek included in this article? Are we going to include everyone who had nothing to say on Universal Basic Income?MrSativa (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph on Hayek has been removed, in part per your comments and in part because it was misplaced (the classificiation of Hayek as "right wing" is highly questionable). That said, he was a notable economist who endorsed a form of basic income, and as such warrants mention somewhere in the article. (albeit a less lengthy one than was previously included, to maintain due weight). The question is where, perhaps a separate section on free market economists? So I've listed him among the other economists & notable advocates listing under the "Advocacy" header (without the puffery of aforementioned paragraph).--JayJasper (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Useful information hard to find in this article

The #1, most important thing this article needs is a clear, easily found description of where and when basic incomes have actually been implemented, and how they have worked / are working in practice. (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The structure itself of this article seems unconventional and - at least to me - confusing. I suggest we restructure it, making it more like the Negative income tax (article about negative income tax) and then adapt the structure to better fit this article if needed. Otippat (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

It is clear that this article lacks a neutral POV and should be revised until it complies with the NPOV principles of Wikipedia.

Neither "ending wage slavery" nor "less cruel" are neutral ways to express the benefits of a basic income. Also note that there is little criticism against basic income in this article and the little criticism that exists is buried under the long (un-cited) list of positive impacts of basic income followed by a rebuttal of the criticism. It should be clearly marked as criticism, favorably it should have its own section and furthermore it should be expanded.

Regarding the numerous un-cited claims: I have gone ahead and added "citation needed" tags to most of them until they are either verified, removed or rewritten to exhibit a balanced view of the topic. I've also gone ahead and marked unclear references to non-specific individuals and studies as such.

I propose the whole Properties section should be completely rewritten because of the clear bias displayed. The headline could perhaps be changed to "Implications" and the section split into two subsections, "Positive" and "Negative" for a more balanced view of basic income, but you might have a better idea of how to structure this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otippat (talkcontribs) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing your tag, among other problems with your edits, neither the term 'less cruel' nor 'ending wage slavery' appeared uncited in the article; they were commented out.GliderMaven (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find the citations for these phrases. However my main point about them was that they are clearly opinionated and should be distinguished as such if this section is uncommented again in the future. Feel free to let me know what the other problems were, it'll help me improve as an editor. Otippat (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I originally commented the section out because the editor that added them stated that they were going to reference them; but they never did. They've never returned and I've deleted the commented out section completely.GliderMaven (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Namibian study overall relevance

The article proper does not go to efforts to distinguish the difference in effects of basic income (BI hereafter) on developed nations and developing nations. In fact the article implicitly deals almost exclusively with developed nation points of view, before touting the positive effects of BI in a Namibian village described by one source (inline) of suffering "dehumanising levels of poverty" before the introduction of BI. These positive effects cannot be presented as universal as the flow of the narrative implies - in reality it's comparing apples to oranges.

Ld1331 (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

More information has now been published from the Mincome experiment. Perhaps this could be added to counterbalance the Namibian one. As it happens the outcomes weren't actually that different. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Ireland and Irish MEPs in favour of UBI

I think this is the affordability study that the dead link originally cited

Also the list of Irish (and any other EU nation for that matter) MEPs who support a UBI can be found here

Can I go ahead and add these new links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Basic Income Earth Network advertising?

The article contains no fewer than 12 mentions of this organisation - i.e. the article seems to be being used to advertise it. I'd have thought one or two mentions would suffice. Ben Finn (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. I don't know how many 501(c)(3)s & (4)s in all of BIEN, but USBIG is becoming a (3), and the new (4) has yet to be named, they have been dismissive of a global system, but recently I have experienced what seems to be overt hostility at suggesting the notion. My concern is allowing moneyed interests to control the conversation about basic income, to exclude the third world from what should be a benefit for all humans. Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Global System

I understand that no recognized person is advocating a global system, but I strongly believe the possibility should be recognized, particularly since the justifications for a BI are drawn from perceived and recognized human rights and the potential benefits can not be fully realized through patchwork state handout programs.

Turns out I am proved wrong... [[1]] thanks so much by the way, so now I'm curious if this can be linked to from the main article.Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A collection of state programs continues the disadvantage of being born poor, in a poor place, and facilitates the continued corporate exploitation of third world resources. (likely reason for not discussing this)

An international banking regulation, that requires sovereign debt to be backed with Commons shares, with the interest payed on that debt distributed to the shareholders, and prudent restrictions to safeguard the capital, could provide a global BI.

For example: A Commons share valued at $1M could then be distributed to each adult human on the planet, for deposit in trust at local banks, without significant cost to anyone.

Each sovereign entity would need to make the interest payments on their debt, possibly raising taxes, but that would be required for a BI of any kind. This distances the taxing arguments from the BI arguments.

Practical example: A country with a population of 1 M, along with state, municipal, and some level of individual participation*, could borrow a maximum of $1T (equivalent) against it's citizens shares. With a debt, and a treasury of $1T, the country can develop a financial plan to increase revenue to cover the $12 B in annual interest payments.

  • Individual sovereign debt, as secured loans against that portion of Commons share that would be used for housing, to purchase a home or farm, and/or secured interest in workplace.

Presented as universal economic enfranchisement, it is no longer a hand out, but a reasonable return on commonly owned property, and since the property commonly owned is the globe, the system to recognize and distribute that property is reasonably global. *Even the definition provided by BIENreferences "common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress," along with other universal concerns, referring to "all," when their actual concern, and single minded focus is single state programs. Further reading, [2] suggests that a global system is still the primary focus. A search of ,basic income definition, returns primarily references to BIEN, and OR. If BIEN is to be the reliable source for this article, then a global system should be the main focus, and single state proposals would properly be included with partial basic incomes. At a minimum, "citizens or residents of a country," in the lead definition should be deleted or changed to people, to be consistent with the BIEN definition. [3] While it can be shown that the list of advocates support a basic income, it is clear that some advocate for a global system, and may not advocate for this restricted definition. Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the POV that BI on a global scale is unthinkable can be considered neutral. Nor can I see how to include the notion of a global system with acceptable sources.

What seems a very large amount of money created by this new debt, really only provides a functional level. With the new money held primarily in cash reserves and secure investment, the actual increase to money supply is likely to be offset by increased production and asset valuation, since the spending of new money is restrained by labor and material availability. *Observing that this limit also defines "full employment," that would also be a reasonable expectation.

Tying all fiat currencies to one base stabilizes exchange, particularly with proportional increases in flow.

Additionally, increasing the total amount of recognized wealth/available credit, can functionally dilute the current corporate control by enabling groups of humans to compete.

And this utility doesn't care what government is in control, just that each person gets to spend a share, and cast a vote in what gets produced.Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop undoing my added citations

If you have a problem with my citations, talk about it here, stop just undoing them. - (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple statements or opinion pieces by advocacy groups on their websites don't usually meet the requirements of WP:RS. Research might be reasonable to cite, but even then it would have to be cited by a third party such as a newspaper or a book.GliderMaven (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Books are fine too, unless they're vanity publishing efforts.GliderMaven (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There was no opinion in any of those citations. One was a list of associated affiliates of BIEN, the other was a well-researched, sourced article which in part looked at the electoral prospects of the political parties discussed. The last wasn't a direct source but certainly showed the existence of the FAP. If you can find better sources (though I can't think of a better possible source for the first one), then I'ld be happy to replace them, but until then, these sources are more than enough to verify the information. - (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
They might be 100% correct, and well written. But Wikipedia requires certain standards, they have to have gone through an editorial process, and the organisation has to be well regarded etc. etc. Advocacy groups don't usually meet these standards, but what they write might be true anyway, but we need WP:RS for them to become references.GliderMaven (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there conceivable situation where the Wiki staff and contributors would be considered a similarly capable and valid editorial review? This particular subject is still theoretical, and the direction of it's evolution is of significant interest to all, but of course, the ones with the money have significantly more control over editorial perspective, and recognition. (rhetorically, I understand your valid position)Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Colombino's comment on this article

Dr. Colombino has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

To Further reading, you might add:

Erik Brynjolfsson , Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age, Norton, 2014.

Fabre, Alice & Pallage, Stéphane & Zimmermann, Christian, 2014. "Universal Basic Income versus Unemployment Insurance," IZA Discussion Papers 8667, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA

Colombino, U. (2015) Is unconditional basic income a viable alternative to other social welfare measures? IZA World of Labor, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., February 2015:

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Colombino has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Colombino, Ugo, 2014. "Five Crossroads on the Way to Basic Income: An Italian Tour," IZA Discussion Papers 8087, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

USA pilot

I've cut this bit as it's about negative income tax, which though related is not the same thing at all:

A number of negative income tax experiments took place in different places in the USA. While there is some controversy, Alicia H. Munnell, examining experiments in Indiana, Seattle and Denver,[3] explains that Gary Burtless found a moderate reduction in work effort (17% among women, 7% among men). She also found that the money was not squandered on frivolous products such as drugs and luxury goods. There was an increase in school attendance, but otherwise, no noticeable improvements to health and well-being and a negligible effect on homeownership rates. (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Condense 'Worldwide' section

I think we should condense the 'worldwide' section into one or two paragraphs giving an overview of the most advanced cases and move the entire section to a new page called 'Basic Income by country', or perhaps a more standard name if anyone has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Condense. --Mats33 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Assertions of support from Nobel winners

The article currently contains this text: "Winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences who fully support a basic income include Herbert A. Simon,[155] Friedrich Hayek,[156][157] James Meade, Robert Solow,[158] and Milton Friedman.[159]"

But of the citations here that I'm able to read, it appears that all of these statements are supporting a minimum income, which is not the topic here. According to the clarification at the start of the article, "This article is about a system of unconditional income to every citizen. ... For social welfare based on means tests, see Guaranteed minimum income."

So I'm inclined to remove that entire paragraph and any other assertions regarding endorsements that don't apply to the subject of this article. Comments welcome. (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"basic income" and "unconditional income" are the same thing. But "guaranteed minimum income" has a test condition of some kind, and is different.GliderMaven (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. So do we concur that statements advocating a minimum income are off-topic here and should be removed? Or should those statements be separated and the difference explained? (I don't favor that solution, but at least it would show that basic income is part of a family of proposals that has received some favorable attention.) (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't agree on anything, these people, to the extent I have been able to check, all support basic income.GliderMaven (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Really? Hmm. Okay, let me check again now. ... The reference for Krugman in the current version of the article (added since my quote above) is very specific in describing a minimum income guarantee, so that fails. I find clear evidence that Simon supported a basic income in 1998 here: , so he's in. Hayek's famous quote on the topic said he supported "a certain minimum income for everyone", and his other text agrees, so that isn't support for basic income. Meade was also clearly a minimum-income guy, since he proposed that payments should stop above a certain level of income. The Solow reference only addresses his opinions of past experiments in this area; it doesn't say anything about his own opinions, and indeed I can't find anything he's written that does. And finally, as the reference clearly shows, Friedman was all about a negative income tax, which is a minimum income plan, not a basic income plan. So, from this review of the references, it's clear to me that only ONE of these Nobel laureates supports basic income in the sense of an unconditional payment to everyone. I see someone added the weasel words "or a similar policy" but without more explanation that's deliberately misleading. Please provide new references if you care to continue the discussion, otherwise I'll revise the paragraph appropriately in a few days. (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, not cool. You had time to comment, instead you waited for me to make the edit I described and then instantly reverted. I am restoring my edit. Discuss it, don't re-revert it. (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that it's deliberately misleading and there's no difference between negative income tax and basic income. If you have zero other income then you receive a basic income from a negative income tax system.
Even more accurately, negative income tax is a basic income scheme, since it can take slightly different forms.
So Friedman 100% was talking about, and supporting, basic income.GliderMaven (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But you said yourself, just a few lines ago, and entirely correctly, that "basic income" and "unconditional income" are the same thing. But "guaranteed minimum income" has a test condition of some kind, and is different. Basic income is about an unconditional payment. The article intro says "This article is about a system of unconditional income to every citizen." A minimum income tax is a way to guarantee a minimum income, but it is a conditional payment. Clear now? (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I have no clue what you are talking about. You seem to be wrong. A negative income tax doesn't require you to do anything, and if you do nothing, you still receive an income. Whereas, a "guaranteed minimum income", as described at that page, is a code phrase for a particular scheme that requires something from you, like you have to be available for work. However, some people will use that phrase accidentally when they simply mean "minimum income", and so you have to read their comments in context to find out which they mean.GliderMaven (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I am therefore reverting your changes.GliderMaven (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the Nobel guys were thinking of negative income tax or both NIT and BI.

"Meade was also clearly a minimum-income guy, since he proposed that payments should stop above a certain level of income." Refers to negative income tax f.ex. --Mats33 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Guaranteed Residual Income

Is a "basic income" & "guaranteed residual income" considered the same thing? So residual means some is leftover (do some work once & that generates a sort of permanent income that never stops). Pepper9798 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


This article could really, really use a criticism section. I'm somewhat in favor of a basic income and it still read as rather one-sided to me. (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers to avoid criticism sections if possible. Could you point out the particular sections, paragraphs or sentences that need attention? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The article has an advocacy section which consists of explanations of why a bunch of people from various groups like basic income. It starts by listing all the Nobel prize winners who like the idea. Even when factually accurate, without a discussion of who doesn't like basic income and why it really comes off as trying to sell something. (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right. If we have a list of advocates we should have a list of opponents too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The list of opponents are perhaps less well known. Those who don't like the idea usually dont research it. --Mats33 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The current criticism section is outdated as trials have debunked five the seven arguments in that section. Wayne (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Bolsa Familia

The Bolsa Familia program of Brazil is by no means a basic income program. It is a program of conditional cash transfer given to poor families. It is very generous, does not require proof of looking for work, or other requirements usually seen in welfare programs. But it is not, in any way, a basic income, because it is not for everybody, neither is it condition-free (ie. it requires keeping children in school, vaccinations of children etc). Neither is it a "partial basic income", which is defined by the lede of this article as "An unconditional income transfer of less than the poverty line is sometimes referred to as a "partial basic income"."I removed it from the section on worldwide examples. (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Negative Income Tax was Basic Income (Provision of the Necessities) combined with a flat tax

The Wikipedia entry cites an erroneous, online article in characterizing Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax as a guaranteed minimum income. In "Capitalism and Freedom" and on an appearance on William F. Buckley's "Firing Line", (, Dr. Friedman explicitly states that the subsidy is unconditional and uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InpoliticTruth (talkcontribs) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

References needing titles

The following references need titles: No title is found No title is found

[ Petitionen: Verwendung von Cookies nicht aktiviert No title is found

A Basic Income for Rural Areas? No title is found

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Nomination

After reading the page multiple times, I don't feel like this really conforms to an encyclopedias neutrality. It comes off as more of a sales pitch as to why basic income is good and fails to address concerns of the model and it's disadvantages. In the section about disincentives, the article does a fair job at explaining some of the issues but I feel it breaks the neutrality by providing its own counter-arguments directly after. The entire point of a neutral article is to give the reader all the information on a topic, the good and the bad. Another user in the talk page has pointed out that there are no shortage of advocates listed, but where are the opponents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There are not many opponents, but here are four opposing views I know of: (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposition to basic income is almost a fringe view now academically. Wayne (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
If opposition to basic income is a fringe view, then why is it that almost no jurisdiction has implemented it?! Let's respect WP policies of WP:SOAP and WP:POV. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I second the nomination for a re-write to more neutral language. There are many instances in a basic read-through where subjective statements clearly are at work, including exclamation points (!) to cheerlead particular points. We turned to the article for background on the Swiss vote and got enmired in trying to separate out factual from stipulated opinion. MariaMitchell (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been a number of improvements to the article recently, including a well-cited section laying out criticism of basic income. Do people feel this article still needs work on its neutrality? Jdshutt (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Improving this article

On July 27, a group of people will be getting together in San Francisco to work on this article. Might be helpful to express the most pressing problems with the current draft, or suggestions for improvement, leading up to that date. See event announcement here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon July 2016 -Pete (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Great initiative. Did you come up with any sort of plan? I'd be happy to see it and think whether I can help. Stanjourdan (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The etherpad notes for it are here. Jdshutt (talk · contribs) did some additional trimming. I expect we will continue to circle back to this article again. One of the ideas we kicked around was merging with Guaranteed_minimum_income. Nobody really uses that term to refer to a "means-based model of social welfare" (i.e., welfare capitalism). II | (t - c) 06:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basic income. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Advocates addition

Hi. I'd like to add Elon Musk to the Advocates section per <>, but the section is divided by geographical region for some reason, so this seems tricky. Mr. Musk is a South African-born Canadian-American. Which sub-section should he go in? Or should we divide by industry instead? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Basic Income Guarantee redirect

I have tried to remove the redirect "Basic Income Guarantee," which currently directs to this page. I tried to replace it with short article clarifying the difference and similarities between the terms "Basic Income Guarantee," "Basic Income" "Negative Income Tax," and "Guarnateed Minimum Income," with links to those pages, but my article always disappears--apparently automatically--and the redirect reappears. Can someone tell me how to make my removal and replacement of the redirect stick? --Widerquist (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Karl Widerquist

Based on the versions that have been reverted in the past, I'm not getting the sense that having a separate article is a healthy right now. I'd advise trying to improve Basic income and perhaps adding a section for BIG. For what it's worth, Widerquist, you might also get a little more traction if you familiarize yourself with MOS:ABBR; if your writing feels right to other editors, it'll be less likely to be discarded out-of-hand. Cheers —jameslucas (" " / +) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, here is the article that I want to write (if I can get the code right). I want to cover the diversity of ways in which Basic Income Guarantee is used--most of them not synonymous with Basic Income. I think we're a lot better off with this than with a redirect that ignores the way so many people use BIG as a different concept than BI.

Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a generic name for any policy that has the effect of ensuring that every member of a political community has some, regular, non-zero income regardless of their circumstances or willingness to work. There are two main ways to create a BIG: with a negative income tax or a basic income. The negative income tax provides a supplemental income to all people whose other income is below the guaranteed minimum level, reducing their supplement as their income increases. Basic income provides a uniform grant to all members of the political community--regardless of other income--taxing other income (but not reducing the grant) as other income rises. The two policies sound very different, but a negative income tax and a similar-sized basic income have very similar distributional effects.[1]

The use of these terms is not always uniform. Sometimes they are used equivalently. Other terms, such as guaranteed minimum income are also used, sometimes to mean BIG, sometimes to mean negative income tax, or sometimes to mean basic income. The movement for BIG was dominated by the negative income tax in the 1960s and 1970s, but as the movement has has increasingly become dominated by basic income in the 2000s and 2010s.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widerquist (talkcontribs) 17:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed Bernie Sanders from supporters...

Its somewhat unclear whether he is a supporter or not. The link was this: [4] --Mats33 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

But there is a video on youtube where he answers YES, I support, on a direct question, but then very quickly goes on to say that its too radical for US at the moment. Its not on his agenda anyway. --Mats33 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


grantcoin may be the first realistic implementation of basic income — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmal (talkcontribs) 01:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


I've removed a bunch of names from the advocates section, will look at other stuff. This shouldn't be every person who has ever been quoted as saying they are for it. WP:WEIGHT comes to mind, as does the fact that we would only include people who are notable, not just someone who received a quote in the paper. The article on the whole is very tilted but I think some clean up can fix it. Dennis Brown - 19:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

However, you can't equate not having an en:Wikipedia article to not being notable. Wikipedia is incomplete. Reversely, not every person with a Wikipedia article made a notable contribution to this topic. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Having a Wikipedia article demonstrates notability, so it is a convenient metric. Since the goal should not be to list every person who endorses the concept (that would be a serious WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT violation) and it is inconvenient to prove notability for those that don't have articles, it makes sense to restrict to those that do. If anything, it still has too many listed. It should be a sampling, not an exhaustive list. Dennis Brown - 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives section

Unless I hear a good reason not to, I'm going to add a section titled Alternatives to include a short discussion of the categories of alternatives to BI, such as traditional welfare, guaranteed income, guatanteed employment, etc. Each one could include a sentence or two explanation with a link. Sparkie82 (tc) 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)