Guaranteed minimum income

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, and I'm proud to live in a country that has it.

[Frodo]

Don't we already have it, albeit in an unorganized, embryonic state?  The basic elements of it are already in existence. 

[Franzl]

Generally support the concept, especially in place of certain state programs. (In a German context. There's not much to replace in the States.)

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, I would support this instead of the current hodgepodge of safety net measures.

[© tweed]

generally support but fear it could be a stealthy privatization scheme, a la Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher coupons.

[Redalgo]

Aside from being fair and compassionate from my perspective, which is honestly what I care most about in this facet of public policy, a guaranteed minimum income seems to be good for everyone.

The poor can satisfy their basic needs, the disadvantaged can ante up the resources needed to join in on the "game" that is economic competition, working class folk get greater peace of mind since they would no longer be teetering on the verge of losing much (if not all) that they own in perpetuity, people in the middle class get quality of life improvements too since giving everyone ways to succeed in life can at least in part undercut a number of social ills plaguing communities, and the well-to-do benefit from knowing their taxes won't bounce all over the place as politicians bicker over which of their country's complex, targeted social programs ought to be cut, expanded, or modified (not to mention, it'd discourage leftist militancy, and the charitable among the affluent could also focus their contributions on some different causes than they feel compelled to today!).

I also think a guaranteed minimum income could reduce the perceived need for us to impose a number of burdensome regulations on businesses as well, since workers who become victims of controversial acts in the workplace would still have a social safety net (one not riddled with holes) to catch them and ensure that they can continue to find ways to contribute to society; and since I suspect a minimum income guarantee would be less difficult and complicated to implement at the ground-level than what the States has now, such a welfare policy could very well force recipients, firms, and public workers alike to jump through fewer procedural hoops. That in itself would be a valuable improvement in the quality of service government agencies provide, in my humble opinion.

Furthermore, I've read in the past that taxpayers get more bang for their buck from social democratic welfare policies as opposed to their liberal counterparts. Can anyone here speak to whether that assertion tends to be correct? It'd be interesting to know which approach is more efficient if the people insist on their government providing a system of social welfare.

Then again, all of this is simply my intuitive response to the question. Any corrections are welcome.

[k-onmmunist]

difficult for me, but i think i'd prefer to abolish the minimum wage and similar measures and replace it with strong unions - let business, unions and the state act as checks on eachother.

[© tweed]

difficult for me, but i think i'd prefer to abolish the minimum wage and similar measures and replace it with strong unions - let business, unions and the state act as checks on eachother.

a liberal fallacy -- the problem with these balancing act schemes is that one side becomes strongest, wins, and removes the checks.  something approaching your scheme existed at the outset of the post-War and look what happened: 'business' won. 

one must pick the side he likes best and vaunt it to a level above all things.

[k-onmmunist]

difficult for me, but i think i'd prefer to abolish the minimum wage and similar measures and replace it with strong unions - let business, unions and the state act as checks on eachother.

a liberal fallacy -- the problem with these balancing act schemes is that one side becomes strongest, wins, and removes the checks.  something approaching your scheme existed at the outset of the post-War and look what happened: 'business' won.  

one must pick the side he likes best and vaunt it to a level above all things.

i wouldn't call myself a liberal really, i was thinking along the german co-determination style model. i'm a strong advocate for reducing working hours though, so any minimum income level would reflect that ideally (if i ran the country, which i don't, but eh).

[Antonio the Sixth]

You've gotta admit, making decisions through the negotiation of the interests involved is an inherently liberal principle. In the case you mention, it's Liberalism at its best.

[k-onmmunist]

i'm being pragmatic, more than anything. ideally there would be no need for the state and we'd work together in perfect harmony, but i'm a little too cynical about human nature to believe that could happen. not for a long time anyway.

[stegosaurus]

Milton Friedman (i think...) had a similar idea that he called the Negative Income Tax, which was intended to replace the minimum wage and all forms of welfare, including unemployment benefits. It was tested in a community and failed largely because it disincentived searching for employment. I always thought the idea would have been sound, and certainly less bureaucratic had there been an employment requirement and a fixed rate unemployment period for those who lost their jobs.

Update: Just saw the other thread.

[Icehand Gino]

Yes, and I'm proud to live in a country that has it.

[Supermariobros]

Republican-Yes. Better then the Welfare abused system we have now.

[© tweed]

Milton Friedman (i think...) had a similar idea that he called the Negative Income Tax, which was intended to replace the minimum wage and all forms of welfare, including unemployment benefits. It was tested in a community and failed largely because it disincentived searching for employment. I always thought the idea would have been sound, and certainly less bureaucratic had there been an employment requirement and a fixed rate unemployment period for those who lost their jobs.

Update: Just saw the other thread.

yes Hayek and Friedman liked this sort of thing because it is a way to privatize all important social services while not necessarily having people starve in the streets left and right.

[Simfan34]

I'd prefer a means-tested system, not like in Germany. Something along the lines if your income was i and the national income was x, the goverment would make up for the difference, x-i. Which is pretty much a Negative Income Tax.

[Supermariobros]

I support a negative income tax with.

-a flat tax of ten percent for all americans except for the ultra ultra elite which is under one percent.
-abolshing welfare,food stamps,rent subsudes.

Thats my position.

[RI]

Income floors are really good at encouraging people to not work at all, hence why TANF, for example, has the benefit reduction rate which begins to mitigate this problem. I would not support a pure GMI, no. Modify it a bit and get back to me.

[angus]

No.

[nclib]

Yes, for many of the reasons listed. Also, even though pieces of the safety net add up, the current system puts too much burden on the individual (who potentially just became sick/disabled/unemployed/etc.) to navigate the system.

[DemPGH]

Absolutely support it (D), and I think it should be adjusted [up] periodically for inflation. It simply is not healthy overall to a country to have no protections for people and for it to be legal to force people to work under what would amount to Wal-Mart type conditions.

[opebo]

Don't we already have it, albeit in an unorganized, embryonic state?  The basic elements of it are already in existence. 

Are you joking?

[pbrower2a]

Yes -- when capitalism is successful at churning out income for a few but grinding poverty for the many. Such is possible when productivity is high yet pay is low and prices are high. Consider that the two alternatives to social justice are either a fascistic regime that enforces inequity with savage brutality or a Socialist revolution modeled upon those of Lenin, Mao, etc.

[Frodo]

Don't we already have it, albeit in an unorganized, embryonic state?  The basic elements of it are already in existence. 

Are you joking?

No.