Talk:Basic income guarantee/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2|
I have revived the article to distinguish basic income form guaranteed minimum income, which is really a much broader term. Both articles still need a lot of work. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Re-merged. From what I could tell the difference between the two concepts is eligibility only. I've added a sub-section at GMI on basic income and edited the lead to reflect this. otherwise the page was a nearly total content fork from guaranteed minimum income - the section were identical from what I could tell, right down to the external links. Please draft a new version on a sub-page that clearly demonstrates the difference between the two. WLU (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is a lot bigger than that. A basic income is an income just large enough to be on the poverty line. It has an agreed value but there is no commitment on anyone's part to provide it to anyone else. It's really just a yardstick which can be used to gauge whether someone is above or below the poverty line in a given environment. A guaranteed minimum income on the other hand is an sum of money which a government has agreed to pay to its citizens. It may be above or below the basic income for that country. All countries have a basic income. Only one or two have a guaranteed minimum income. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the concept you are discussing is different from how it was used on the old page. You seem to be talking about a threshold, below which someone could not survive (like a poverty threshold, but at the point of 'able to survive' rather than 'maintain a standard of living' as discussed in that article). Basic income, at the point I merged  and its recreation from a redirect , was about providing individuals with an unconditional sum of money.
- Can the basic income be expanded with reliable sources before re-redirecting? My main problem with the old BI page was that it was a near-duplicate content fork of this one; as it was it didn't make sense to have two separate, but nearly identical articles. Right now BI is differentiated from GMI from the information I've seen in the one section (an unconditional rather than conditional sum supplied); if the section expands to the point it's unweildy, then it can and should be spun off into a main article again. Otherwise if it's moved back to the BI page, it'll be a three-sentence introduction, a see also leading to this page, and a stub notice. At least here there's overall context of the general topic and an explicit comparison. WLU (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that "Basic Income" can be used in the "Poverty Threshold" sense or in the "Guaranteed Minimum Income at the Poverty Threshold" sense. It's a rather ambiguous term. "Universal Basic Income" and "Basic Income Guarantee" are attempts -- successful ones -- to lose that ambiguity and thus preferable terms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Basic income has two main ways of implementation, one a guarantee and the other a transfer (see article); GMI usually has several more (not yet included in article). 'Universal basic income' is the same as 'global basic income'. Note further that the poverty treshold is not a firmly connected notion; bi is rather at subsistence level which in western countries is slightly lower. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A reminder that external links should be kept to a minimum. Links should be useful world-wide, and the BIEN link is an excellent one for this reason. Linking to every single country's BI network is not needed. If the links contain information, they should be used as footnotes, not dumped in the external links section. Linking to a single country's legislation, and a non-english text at that, is not a good idea. Non-english sources are not accessible, and a single country's legislation isn't really useful or informative. Put it in as a citation that Brazil has a BI, don't dump it in the EL section. Advocacy sites are also poor choices. These can be sources for the presence of advocacy in the separate countries, but are bad choices for external links. There is a fundamental difference between a source, and an external link. WLU (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of addressing this concern; the list is already much shorter than it was. It is not helpful, however, at this time to remove almost all the links. Be patient; Wikipedia does not need to be finished today. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Incentive for working
- Understood, Guido. This discussion would be better placed on the GMI page (although technically it isn't really suitable for Wikipedia at all since it is not a discussion on how to improve either the Basic income article or the GMI article). David, If we can shift the discussion to the GMI page, I do have sensible answers to your questions. What do you say ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Talk:Guaranteed minimum income, a more appropriate location. If you wish to read it or contribute to it, please do so there.
Both this page and Negative income tax cover the same concept. A fixed payment given to each citizen to alleviate poverty. As far as I can, the term "Negative income tax" was coined by Milton Friedman for political considerations. However, for Wikipedia, that shouldn't matter. As both pages cover the same topic, they should be merged and the information consolidated. LK (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Basic income and Negative income tax are not conceptually identical. The tax idea works more like current social security systems in that below a certain threshold you'd receive taxes instead of paying them. The Basic income idea is independent of whatever money you earn through whatever method, you get x amount of (currency) no matter what. It is an important difference in implementation and motivation (in negative income tax systems, going to work will reduce your government-supplied income, while in a basic income you get a straight linear additive income curve). The two articles should definitely point to each other as "similar ideas", but merging them would be a disservice to both. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Aren't Kuwait and Brunei examples of basic income and/or guaranteed minimum, based on redistribution of large oil revenue to small populace? Can someone clarify and quote sources?Martindo (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a criticism section. It's identical to the criticisms section on the Guaranteed Minimum Income article. Also, i'd like my above GMI link to link to the GMI discussion page. How do I do that? MutantPlatypus (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure that this section should be in either article? These articles are about basic income and guaranteed minimum income, not about socialism per se. Perhaps if it's reworded a bit to make it "criticisms of the concept of basic income"?
- Also, I've linked your GMI link to the "Criticism" section on the GMI Talk page.
- — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Neat! Thanks. In that other talk page, I mentioned that almost all economic policy articles I've seen have criticism sections. I wasn't willing to find criticisms of the BI myself, so I went to the closest thing I could. Rewording my text (a direct copy from the article mentioned) could be construed as misquoted or synthesis. The authors of the quotes don't argue against a BI per-se, and it would clearly be synthesis to say that BI = socialism. The equivalence is clear to me, (all the funding sources are other people) but I have no sources to support it.
- MutantPlatypus (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- With the greatest respect, I have removed the criticisms section. Not because I believe this idea is a wonderful utopian idea without any criticisms, but because it deserves an intelligent detailed look at the concept rather than a broad sweep at "socialism" in general. Some would argue that the support of people like Hayek and Friedman is indicative of it not being socialist in nature at all. Questions of cost, implementation and impact are all ripe for criticism and I think that would be far more effective and what this article needs than a disjointed critique of socialism popping up. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the criticism section is back along with refutations to the criticism taken from other areas of the article. Now, I don't really care one way or another, but it seems to me that if there IS to be a criticism section it ought to only contain the criticism (as the title of the section would suggest) and not the immediate refutation of that criticism. That seems to be pushing an agenda IMHO. As this is my first time even thinking about editing a wikipedia article, I'll leave the changes in someone else's capable hands. - Matt 11/27/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge with GMI?
I don't see the difference between this and a Guaranteed Minimum Income, which we also have an article for. I move that we merge these two articles. CapitalistOverlord (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Me neither. But other people do. That's why we now have two articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is different; in a basic income system, everybody (rich or poor) receives, let's say, $20. In a Guaranteed Minimum Income, everybody who earns less than $20 receives the difference between $20 and their other incomes.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)