FACTOID # 10: The total number of state executions in 2005 was 60: 19 in Texas and 41 elsewhere. The racial split was 19 Black and 41 White.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Universal Basic Income

A guaranteed minimum income is a proposed system of income redistribution that would give each citizen a certain sum of money independent of whether they work or not. It is sometimes known as a universal basic income or just a basic income, but these systems also often include a method of paying for the income as well.


The system would be a government administered one that would allot every citizen a sum of money large enough to live on. A common amount proposed is 20% of per capita GDP. The wealthiest as well as the poorest citizens would receive this. Salaries from employment would be a supplement to this government income. A common way of paying for this system is through a negative income tax where a government flat income tax would be charged to all citizens. The current model of progressive income taxes used throughout the western world could be eliminated, but the system would still be progressive, since those at the lower end of the wage scale would pay less in taxes than they would receive in guaranteed income. For the most wealthy members of society the few thousand dollars of the guaranteed income would only make a small dent in the taxes they have to pay.


Proponents of a guaranteed minimum income argue that the system has a number of advantages:

  • It would simplify the welfare state. The introduction of a guaranteed minimum income could also see the elimination of traditional welfare, the minimum wage, much of unemployment insurance, government pensions, and benefits for the disabled and ill. This would eliminate large amounts of government bureaucracy. It could also see the elimination of the progressive income tax with no adverse effects on the poor, as explained above.
  • It would prevent any citizen from falling into abject poverty. With a guaranteed minimum income, starvation and homelessness would be all but eliminated.
  • It would cure some of the major problems of the modern welfare state such as the welfare trap, that is assumed to discourage people from working.
  • It would give enough money for every citizen to be able to receive a good education and proper healthcare.
  • It would give each citizen the freedom to select jobs that are more pleasant (assuming they are available), thus potentially eliminating unpleasant tasks that the economy would thus be forced to automate.
  • It would allow citizens to do work that is productive but cannot provide income, such as caring for children or the elderly within one's own family, or providing public goods.

The system has many opponents as well, however. They raise a number of objections:

  • The most common of these objections is the so called Malibu surfer problem, where a certain section of the population would certainly elect not to work at all.
  • It involves a transfer of resources from the rich to the poor, which critics find objectionable as a matter of principle.
  • It would increase wages dramatically for the very large category of workers who are doing unpleasant, menial but essential jobs, thus potentially damaging the economy.
  • It would cost a large amount of money, which would necessitate raising taxes.

No country in the world has ever implemented a full guaranteed minimum income system. Portugal is by far the closest, with a guaranteed minimum income a legally enshrined right for the entire population since 1997. However, the amount guaranteed is well below the poverty line and other programs such as the minimum wage are thus still in place. The system also forces participants to attend social integration sessions.


Brazil has also just recently announced a limited system that will apply to the poorest members of society. Some European countries have reoriented their taxation systems to more closely reflect a guaranteed minimum income system, including Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.


Many other countries have political parties that advocate such a system, such as the Canadian Action Party and the New Zealand Democratic Party.


The world's most noted advocate of the guaranteed minimum income system is the Belgian economist Philippe van Parijs. Other advocates include Keith Rankin (New Zealand), Herwig Büchele (Innsbruck) and Hans A. Pestalozzi. The system is supported by both left wing and right wing thinkers, but it is more popular among leftists and socialists. Right-wing advocates generally prefer the negative income tax model.


A negative income tax, proposed by Milton Friedman, came close to implementation in the United States under Richard Nixon. Also, the U.S. does have the GMI inspired Earned income tax credit. The citizen's dividend is a similar concept, but the payment made to individuals is based upon the revenues that the government can collect from leasing and selling natural resources.


External links

  • Basic Income European Network (http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/Index.html)
  • Canadian pro-GMI advocacy site (http://basicincome.com)
  • New Zealand UBI paper (http://pl.net/~keithr/rf98_UBI_core.html)

  Results from FactBites:
 
The Universal Welfare State (6142 words)
The basic income would be regarded as a dividend, not a hand-out, and should be indexed.
In the short term, the introduction of a universal basic income would be likely to see an increase in labour supply as people now on benefits (excluding GRI) and parents with partners who receive the GMFI would find their effective marginal tax rate halved.
The provision of a universal basic income financed by a moderately high flat tax is an effective means of distributing incomes in a modern industrialised society.
MichiganDaily.com (723 words)
The economic feasibility of instituting a sustainable Universal Basic Income program hinges on an empirical question: Since such a proposal would probably be financed by a heavy progressive income tax, enough people would have to want to pursue work that would generate an income that could be taxed so that the system could be perpetuated.
Universal Basic Income would also compensate people who perform socially beneficial (but unpaid) labor and give people who might be more useful volunteering the opportunity to share their valuable skills with society.
Universal Basic Income would also erode the coercive aspects of marriages where only one partner is the "bread-winner." When one person controls the income two people live on, that person potentially has more control over the relationship than the other.
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m