Talk:Universal basic income/Archive 1

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. 71.208.227.105 (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: http://www.usbig.net/papers/189-Smith--inflation.doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.63.66 (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 151.225.76.216 (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 216.48.171.46 (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 naturalfinance.net, 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 naturalfinance.net 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basic_income&diff=595677190&oldid=595667344 . 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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. 172.56.19.35 (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

naturalfinance.net describes several purported benefits of social dividends and basic income:

• 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.
• 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.

Naturalfinance.net 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 Naturalfinance.net 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. 98.127.119.21 (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. 98.127.119.21 (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. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-end-of-labor-how-to-protect-workers-from-the-rise-of-robots/267135/?single_page=true

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.

70.83.138.182 (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 (talk • contribs) 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

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/3318/2012-09-11-bihowandwhyinirelandbiencongressmunich20121.pdf

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

http://basicincome2013.eu/en/press-28112013.htm

Can I go ahead and add these new links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 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. - 109.79.189.66 (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. - 109.76.76.17 (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: http://wol.iza.org/articles/is-unconditional-basic-income-viable-alternative-to-other-social-welfare-measures#link.

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, 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.

2.220.124.253 (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 109.78.68.250 (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. 71.197.166.72 (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.) 71.197.166.72 (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: http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/BI29.pdf , 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. 71.197.166.72 (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. 71.197.166.72 (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? 71.197.166.72 (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)

Criticism

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. 129.72.136.213 (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. 129.72.129.41 (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.188.27.70.226 (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", (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM), Dr. Friedman explicitly states that the subsidy is unconditional and uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InpoliticTruth (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

References needing titles

The following references need titles:

http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/katada.pdf No title is found

https://www.gcu.ac.uk/wise/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/centresprojects/wise/90324WiSE_BriefingSheet.pdf No title is found

[https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/petitionen/_2008/_12/_10/Petition_1422.abschlussbegruendungpdf.pdf 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 76.112.100.21 (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There are not many opponents, but here are four opposing views I know of: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/business/economy/a-future-without-jobs-two-views-of-the-changing-work-force.html?_r=0 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601019/the-danger-of-the-universal-basic-income/ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/don-t-fall-for-universal-basic-income-it-s-a-utopian-fiction-that-wastes-public-money-on-the-rich-a6945881.html http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11610662 149.254.51.238 (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.188.27.70.226 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811200007/http://bigkahunabook.co.nz/universal-basic-income.aspx to http://www.bigkahunabook.co.nz/universal-basic-income.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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 <http://fortune.com/2016/11/06/elon-musk-universal-basic-income/>, 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 (talk • contribs) 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: --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

grantcoin may be the first realistic implementation of basic income

http://www.grantcoin.org/get-grantcoin/basic-income/?referral-code=m6p5uqyel1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmal (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lopsided

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 - 2¢ 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 - 2¢ 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Need for separate page from BIG

Yes most of the content here was taken from BIG page. Basic income guarantee is a form of guaranteed or minimum income. It simply is not the same as basic income. There is some content improvement on this page. The arguments section is better than the BIG page, and the clarity for why the 2 are different is better made.

I fail to see any justification behind your decision to split the 2 pages. Please at least provide sources that prove that BIG is different from BI. Also, when splitting the pages you could have done it properly, ie. take the good stuff from the BIG page (implementations, worldwide movement...). Stanjourdan (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources used to be on the page. http://www.naturalfinance.net/2013/03/basic-income-real-definition-and.html shows that they are completely different philosophies. Guaranteed income is payment to not work, and can be abused by any item in the long list of example abuses. Basic income is freedom to do any work. The same payment is received regardless of other income. To advocate for minimum income instead of basic income is to recognize that you would prefer more free money than less free money, but hope that no one sees how broken and unaffordable the policy would be. The stupidity/objectionability of minincome causes no one to have nice things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.171.46 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive Distinction section

It seems strange to me to have this be the first major section of the article, but, more importantly, the example used to compare basic income and guaranteed income doesn't make sense. When talking about basic income, the example talks about the policy as giving an effective wage increase to workers as a way of pointing out that people take home more money. It's not obvious from the example that a basic income actually doesn't change the effective marginal pay someone receives for an additional hour of work; I'd say the example misleadingly suggests that marginal pay increases. When talking about guaranteed income, the example seems to be saying that a guaranteed income reduces marginal pay for everyone, but this isn't true. A guaranteed income reduces effective marginal pay to $0/hr until a worker has earned more than the guaranteed level given his/her nominal pay rate, and then effective marginal pay is equal to the nominal rate after that. This is really important since concerns about incentives are central to arguments about a basic or guaranteed income. 72.177.123.14 (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A decent graph is probably the best way of making this clear. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The marginal pay calculation was correct at: http://www.naturalfinance.net/2013/03/basic-income-real-definition-and.html. For basic income, marginal pay is equal to any actual work pay. For guaranteed income, it might be 0 for the first 6 months of the year, then your actual pay for the rest of the year. If you lose your job midway through the year, then you receive no pay. If you were out of work for first half of the year, then there is no reason to get a job until the start of next year. If you can get your employer to pay you once every 3 years, then you can make much more money abusing the system that way. Basic income has no possible abuse/disapointment. Minimum income is a scam that is poorly thought out, has a cute political ring to it, but will (and should) not actually win a political vote because it is a corrupt scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.171.46 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet it is the system which is being used, apparently quite successfully, in Brazil. Perhaps we need to look at that and see what the actual rate of abuse is rather than talking about theoretical means of abusing it which may actually be quite rare in practice. It is not Wikipedia's mission to judge which method is worthy and which unworthy. We should only be setting the facts in front of our readers and letting them decide which is best for themselves. Those facts may of course include the fact that others hold opinions (which we may describe) on Basic Income but that's it. Like yourself I think that a Basic Income is far better than a Guaranteed Income and for the same reasons. But we need to make people aware of the pros and cons of each so that they can make their own minds up. -- Derek Ross | Talk 10:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The contrast to Guaranteed income is necessary because of the common confusion between the two. Its also relevant to prevent this page from reverting back to a forwarding link to guaranteed income, and guaranteed income proponents and basic income opponents hijacking the page to leave readers confused.

Friedman and BI

Friedman didn't advocate for BI

Negative income tax - while a fiscal model that could be used to graduate taxes and provide incentives to enter there market place in many forms of economic society, are not the same as being those forms of economic society.

You could have negative income tax in a communist society, a high welfare society, a fully capitalist society. Therefore by definition negative income tax is not "basic income"

It further differentiates itself thusly: Basic Income isn't welfare, since we already have welfare, claiming they are the same would obviate the need for this article entirely: the differences that are often not cited are the compulsion to work, which is brought about two fold: the repayment of the investment from education, the social stigma attached to not working when able (there is a work pool that isn't being filled) and the prestige of success / possessions / ability to life a better life. That's the third element that goes amiss: How does BI differ from welfare? Welfare is MEANS TESTED - it means those who really are unable to work can have a lifestyle that isn't arduous.

Those who are temporarily out of work, but otherwise able to work, are means tested to receive less.

This distinction is readily ignored by those dreamers proposing the nightmarish fantasy of BI because they don't want people to realize that we're talking about a non-means tested level of living that offers less incentive to work - because you are below a certain level of living of the other people in your society.

Friedman merely suggested a TAXATION ALGORITHM that wasn't punitive to those seeking to earn more money, but encouraged them - and these levels would be set based on human-factors, pricing of desirable goods and costs of living.

It is these details that are intentionally glossed over. Like Bastiat says, that which is seen and that which is unseen.

The idea that BI can provide a high standard of living with no compulsion to work (due to high standard, implied lack of social imperative) does not in any way equate to a taxation model that can be used in almost any social economic model, designed to ENCOURAGE work through minimizing punishment.

These ideas are not equal, therefore including the endorsement of such a different idea is no more than proponents of this political scheme co-opting Friedman's status in economics to support an idea that he hasn't supported and likely would never support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Friedman and BI redux

People are trying to use wikipedia as an evidence to support the idea that Friedman was a proponent of BI - putting someone's name in a wikipedia article will not change facts. If Friedman was a proponent of BI: then we already have BI. It's a simple trick of conflating ideas and false equivalencies that boils down to net effects and means testing. Giving money to everyone is very different from calculating tax differently for a few - and even this idea streamlines the idea of means testing welfare.

The idea of _everyone_ getting money versus those on welfare is a huge difference and part of the disingenuous and hidden elements of BI - and why people are trying to use wikipedia articles to back up deliberately falsified claims that "this is just what Friedman suggested".

Friedman did not suggest: - giving people fixed money regardless of other factors - giving everyone money (negative tax calculations apply in a minority of cases) - removing the incentives - Friedman's system was about ensuring people can move from support to self-support without penalty, not the other way around

These are factors of BI, if this article equates this to BI then you cannot use a tax incentive scheme to LIBEL people who do not have the opportunity to point out the false narrative.

Therefore this is an invalid assertion, and it's been shown that people are trying to use wikipedia to provide support for this invalid, manufactured and politicized assertion. If you want to find support for a BI scheme, find support, don't lie and conflate it with schemes that are very much different just because to the lay person the idea of "people and money" all looks the same. author (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Social control is opinion

The section titled "Social control" is opinion, not fact. I don't know enough about basic income to change it, but I can spot editorial when I see it. Pintsnpurls (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's OK for an article to have opinion. The problem is that it's unsourced opinion -- possibly just an essay (albeit in bullet point format) by a Wikipedia editor. I removed the entire section. Famspear (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621140909/http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html to http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection from Garnishment

Protection from Garnishment http://www.netnewsledger.com/2017/09/22/basic-income-pilot-project-raises-serious-concerns/ 216.16.236.69 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Brian Bernard Beharry, 705.LAW.LURE@GMAIL.COM216.16.236.69 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 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 (t•c) 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is already an article titled "List of basic income models" which is actually a list of alternatives to basic income. I'll propose a title change there. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Criticism-section: NAIRU

Hello,

I dont understand the first paragraph of the economic critics. I can not see the argument in this statement about the NAIRU, how does it relate to the basic income?! The paragraph reads like the author just does not like the idea of the NAIRU and the ideological concept behind it (neither do I :D) but this is obviously not of interest! So people supporting the NAIRU concept believe that we need some level (the "natural" level) of unemployment to prevent inflation, right? But how does this relate to the basic income?! It reads like the author implies that the basic income eliminates any unemployment? Even though mainstream economists would rather argue that a basic income increases unemployment in the classical term, the actual effect is debatable and unknown.

KHeinz (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that paragraph seems nonsequitur. Perhaps the intended connection is that, like full employment, a basic income would cause inflation? If so then thhat connection needs to be made much more clear. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This section doesn’t make sense

"Basic income pilots: As of 2017, there are no well established and ongoing basic income programs."

- Wrong.

However, many countries have well established cash transfer assistance programs that are means tested or provide for less than basic needs.

-Cash transfer is common yes. But Why mention these under this headline?

For example, the Permanent Fund of Alaska in the United States provides a relatively small cash "oil dividend" to nearly all state residents,

-Yes, a partial basic income, and not selective. Its not a pilot either since its permanent since 35 years.

and the Bolsa Família program in Brazil provides means-tested partial assistance to the poor.

-also not a pilot or real basic income.

Additionally, several other countries have tested, implemented, or begun planning the following basic income experiments".

-Well.

--Mats33 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The text under the headline "automation" is bad...

Do we need the text under the headline "automation" if arguments linked to automation are mentioned in the beginning, under the headline "arguments for..."?

i agree. i think the section "automation" can be boldly removed, especially since part of it has not citations and a subsection of it is not even related to basic income. it would be great to cite more basic studies about the impact of automation in the "arguments for" section about, e.g. [2013 Frey Osborne "The Future of Unemployment", web: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf].--Mangostaniko (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Erase this?

From: "Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises" to "The phrase "social dividend" was commonly used as a synonym for basic income in the English-speaking world before 1986, after which the phrase "basic income" gained widespread currency."

In the beginning... --Mats33 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

maybe we could move that to the history section. the intro generally needs some cleanup, especially regarding different approaches to the primary motivation of basic income of different groups (emancipation, power redistribution, economic participation, elimination of poverty, simplicity of administration, etc etc).--Mangostaniko (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

GDP growth

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
US GDP = 18 trillion dollars. At 3% yearly growth it will increase 540 billion next year. Thats enough to send every adult 4500 dollars (conservatively assuming that half end up paying that much back in increased taxes). Thats 375 dollars a month. In some places that's enough for rent. Many government programs could be greatly reduced or even eliminated entirely and there would be no need to increase minimum wage. With more incentive to work more people will choose to work. Reduced unemployment would help offset the cost of the program. Just granpa (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) There are 125 million households in the US. 20% make less than 20,000 dollars a year. Giving each of those households $8,000 a year would cost 200 billion dollars. Thats 666 dollars a month. Just granpa (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Basic income cryptocurrency Manna?

Is this significant enough to list in this article? I don't know if it has much press coverage for references. I have received some Manna, since it is a basic income cryptocurrency. Michael Ten (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Prominent advocates

I have created List of advocates of basic income and have moved all the name to that list. Firstly, it keeps growing and growing and make the article larger than needed to educate the reader as to the meaning of "basic income", and secondly, while it is interesting to know who supports it, those individuals are actually secondary and don't really add any meaning to "basic income". Keeping a list within the article borders on advocacy, so it is best to just create a separate article to contain ALL names, where obviously they are advocating the concept. I've had to trim that section several times, and this makes it more manageable, while fixing the problem with a large list being undue in the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect "livable/enough to live on" edits

Over time this article has received definition dilution. It appears that a specific subgroup with an agenda has been trying to make the "general case" with their "specific case" preferences. If you check the current version of the article, you'll see that it specifies that the amount must be a "liveable" amount of money. That's factually incorrect. Go back to previous versions of the page and you'll find that they don't contain that qualification. Yes, they state that "sometimes" people distinguish between more or less than enough to live on as being "full or partial" basic income. But "sometimes" people making that distinction doesn't change the definition of the term. Apples and oranges are both fruit. "Sometimes" when you're talking about fruit, you're talking about apples. That doesn't make an orange not a fruit. Similarly, "sometimes" somebody might discuss a basic income that meets whatever arbitrary payment threshold they personally want, but that doesn't mean a basic income below that threshold is suddenly no longer a basic income. If you look up a definition for basic income, it says nothing about having to meet arbitrary thresholds.

For that matter, Iran actually HAS a basic income program, and it's $40, which is not enough to live on in Iran. Nevertheless, it's still a basic income. Here's a pilot program in Finland that's only $587/month, which again I'm pretty sure isn't "enough to live on" in Finland and it's not "the poverty level" or anything else that's being artificially inserted into the wikipedia article.

I almost suspect it's a US-centric bias that's been inserted into the article, but even in the US there are basic income proposals at the $500/mo level, which is below the official poverty threshold, not "enough to live on," etc. business insider, new york times, etc.

The recent edits are simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:877F:B570:E988:CF12:C72B:94E5 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is correct: a BI doesn't have to be "livable." B^e——C_ritical

No. If it's not possible to survive then it's a 'partial basic income'. This article is about basic incomes, not partial basic incomes. Many places already have a partial basic income.GliderMaven (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect, as I have often seen articles referring to beginning with smaller BIs of very little money. At any rate, I would like to see the sources you have for this assertion. B^e——C_ritical 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

BI does not fit the definition of welfare

My edit was undone [4]. Edit summary explained why the definition does not fit. B^e——C_ritical

Your edit was undone because it was unreferenced, and wrong. e.g. [5] GliderMaven (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't subtractions, but additions to an article which need referencing. The video you posted above to support your reversion does not say anything whatsoever about whether or not BI should be called "welfare." Do you have any other references for your addition? UBI is often referred to as a replacement for the welfare system, or as a means of reforming it. But I don't see sources referring to it as welfare. The closest analog in the USA is Social Security, which is not referred to as welfare. BI would be an entitlement, and entitlements are seldom referred to as welfare. B^e——C_ritical 03:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Welfare itself carries a heavy stigma. Maria Campbell, a Canadian métis, wrote in 1983 that a friend admonished her to "act ignorant, timid and grateful" on her first visit to the welfare office: "They like that." Campbell, wearing her friend's ragged "welfare coat," described feeling "humiliated and dirty and ashamed." Proponents argue that a universal benefit would remove the need for recipients to grovel.

Excerpt from Kansas Law detailing that TANF cash assistance cannot be used for certain purchases.

Universal benefits are also perceived as more politically durable. "There's an old saying that benefits for the poor tend to be poor benefits," Widerquist says, adding that Social Security "has remained strong while other parts of the U.S. system that are supposed to be for the needy – whoever we determine to be needy they somehow vilify them and then cut the program."[6]

The above quote shows two problems with calling a BI "welfare." First, the term carries social stigma, second, "welfare" is defined as being only for the poor. Calling it an "entitlement" would be NPOV. B^e_^-|^-_C^ritical 17:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So I'll be changing the article accordingly, if no one has any response or objections. B^e_^-|^-_C^ritical 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Detailed cost analysis

A basic income program would give every single person in the United States enough money to meet their basic needs. On paper this looks it would cost a great deal of money. But in reality the vast majority of people would end up paying it all back in taxes. Only the very poor would keep all of it.

Income	Households	×	Basic income	=	Cost
$5,000	4,571,000	×	$13,000	=	$59 billion
$10,000	4,320,000	×	$11,000	=	$48 billion
$15,000	6,766,000	×	$9,000	=	$61 billion
$20,000	6,779,000	×	$7,000	=	$47 billion
$25,000	6,865,000	×	$5,000	=	$34 billion
$30,000	6,363,000	×	$3,000	=	$19 billion
$35,000	5,857,000	×	$1,000	=	$6 billion
$40,000	5,430,000	×	$0	=	$0
$45,000	5,060,000	×	$0	=	$0
Total cost =					274 billion

Just granpa (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad Source

https://basicincome.org/news/2017/10/us-new-politicomorning-consult-poll-finds-43-americans-favour-ubi/ This was a survey of ~2k people. Remove the section that references this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.120.66 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Poverty reduction -

There is not any statistics in regards to poverty reduction from programs that are already done or are ongoing and how it changed the lives of people in these pilot programs. I am trying to update information regarding the Give Directly program that is going on in Kenya, where poverty action lab has done a randomized controlled in the Rarieda District, Kenya

https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/The-long-term-impact-of-conditional-cash-tranfer_Kenya_Haushofer_Shapiro_January2018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya akhil 10 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

India

India seems to implement basic income this year, in one or many states. If so it should be mentioned more. --Mats33 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Automation tone and neutrality

I severely shortened the paragraph about Andrew Yang in the automation section. I believe that the paragraph read as somewhat biased and not in an encyclopedic tone. (See WP:NPOV and WP:TONE.) I believe that tone and neutrality may be an issue throughout other parts of this article, but if anyone disagrees just let me know! Andrew Yang in particular was just on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about basic income in the US, so I want to make sure the coverage here stays neutral and well-sourced. Rwbogl (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Perspectives in the basic income debate" Issues

Serious lack of content from alternative viewpoints and opponents of Basic Income. One section, "Economic Growth", talks about the viewpoints of Basic Income and the viewpoints of the Degrowth movement, but provides no specific information or links to those who have argued that Basic Income will hurt economic growth. Furthermore, although advocates such as Erik Olin Wright and Philippe Van Parijs are prominently situated, the article provides no prominent opponents of Basic Income such as Joe Biden, Jason Furman, or Mark Cuban. Finally, this article fails to go into specifics about why politicians in Europe (specifically Switzerland), voted against a Universal Basic Income, instead relegating the failures of Basic Income to a small list at the end of the article. This article reads much more like a defense of Basic Income, rather than an objective look at its values and the debates surrounding it.This article reads much more like a defense of Basic Income, rather than an objective look at its values and the debates surrounding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.213.117 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to change the article, add content etc, whatever you feel necessary to improve. --Mats33 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I second the motion to add critics to this article. The lack of criticism is problematic. Beefster09 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few possible articles for criticism: (Mind you, I simply found these from a Google search)

• https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/universal-basic-income-inequality-work - a left-moderate criticism of UBI
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/18/universal-income-no-panacea-labour - left-moderate? Not sure. Didn't read it or skim.
• https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/why-libertarians-should-oppose-the-universal-basic-income/ - simple right-libertarian criticism

More academic sources would be better, but hopefully this is a good starting point for someone actually putting in the time to write a quality section of the article. Beefster09 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole section feels like kind of a mess right now. It's got way too many overlapping subsections which could probably be merged, and there's a whole different "Criticism" section which lacks citations. Is there any objection to restructuring the "Perspectives" section into something like "Perspectives for..." and moving some of the criticism it contains into the "Criticism" section? Rwbogl (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Welfare Trap" trimming

I trimmed the Welfare Trap section considerably. The second paragraph cited a source that didn't support its claim and a primary source, went way too in depth for a topic that already has its own article, and did not seem neutral in context. It also sounded self-contradictory, saying at once that basic income helps eliminate the welfare trap and that welfare with no requirements causes a welfare trap. I replaced the second paragraph with a short paragraph that proponents claim basic income can eliminate welfare traps. Rwbogl (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I have added a template about the POV of this article being heavily in favor of the subject matter, with the Criticism section an uncited paragraph. There is no lack of criticism as a simple google search will show you. (Also praise disguised as criticism is rampant)

Some reading

• https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/05/31/universal-basic-income-wont-fix-problems-but-will-create-new-ones
• https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-basic-income
• https://fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/
• https://www.ft.com/content/100137b4-0cdf-11e8-bacb-2958fde95e5e
• https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/13/universal-basic-income-why-so-called-solution-disappearing-jobs-makes-serfs-us-all
• https://fee.org/articles/the-real-cost-of-universal-basic-income/
• https://fee.org/articles/andrew-yang-s-math-doesn-t-add-up-on-universal-basic-income/

Wqwt (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of your links don't meet WP:RS, including fee.org | Also, regarding the criticism section, see WP:CRIT, second paragraph of the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In more detail...

The part of the History section named "In more detail" is misplaced, apart from that which specifically deals with basic income... --Mats33 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

capitalisation

Consistent capitalisation would be nice. Is it "basic income", "Basic income" or "Basic Income"? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No kidding. It should be "basic income" as I don't see how it is a proper noun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's quite a good idea to capitalise a phrase which will later be written as an acronym even when the phrase is not a proper noun. Doing so makes it easier for people to connect an unfamiliar acronym to the correct phrase. But sure, consistent capitalisation would be nice... -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is "BI" a common acronym for "basic income"? I would be in favor of consistently using lower case and eliminating any use of "BI" or related acronyms, on the grounds that it isn't a proper noun. Rwbogl (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the Manual of Style would have us capitalize it just because someone may use BI as an abbreviation. In fact, I wouldn't recommend using BI as an abbreviation as it hasn't been established in reliable sources that it is a commonly used abbreviation. We don't do things out of personal preference or convenience in an encyclopedia, we want consistency. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Basic Income is a proper noun, it doesn't refer to a basic amount of income, it refers to a specific policy proposal. eg. people say something like 'I believe in Basic Income', if it were not a proper noun it would be 'a basic income' and would need some kind of qualifier like 'for everyone' at the end. For that reason it should always be 'Basic Income', abbreviated as BI or UBI 37.165.74.233 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Quasi UBI payments

The three programs which are described in more detail are really forms of 'Conditional Cash Transfer' already included in the above bullet point list. Are they really necessary? Can't the user go to that topics main article for more information, it's kind of tengential to UBI. However there's a lot of info there and I'm not quite bold enough to just wholesale remove it all. Looking for some feedback from other editors.

Even the Alaska Permanent Fund is a Sovereign Wealth Fund and could possibly be included in the below list under that title (I think Norway has something like that too). It might make the article more logical and readable. - 37.171.53.153 (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mention of prominent advocates in the opening section

It reads poorly (and suggests weakness of argument) to list prominent advocates in the opening/summary section (especially when there is a section dedicated to it at the end of the article.) I am going remove this part but open to discussions of why it is important to keep it there.

    It provides relevant context about public opinion. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. InteryCreeper (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Relation to crime

As topic of "basic income reduces will to work" returns over and over,should it not be put into sepatate phenomenon, like "mean world syndrome"? then it could be described separately - the concept of universal basic income is a fact, while attitudes toward it are separate facts.

in the separate article known facts about dispute could be summarized, perhaps linking with other topics "advocates" and other generators (like news agencies) try to peddle and then it csn be put into larger matrix of content creation franchise (like pokemon and nintendo articles)

f.e. mere argument basic income discourages from work is pictured as negative phenomenon, while from criminal perspective t(if it really worked, like free energy) it could solve problem of criminals viewing their criminal activity as "work" and taking pride of it. question is who wants to picture unproven effect painting it as "negative" ? i do not want to discuss that but such bias in current article suggests there is conflict of interests pending and measures to neutralize article (without censorship) should be actively attempted.

92.184.110.107 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

The two sections "Prominent Advocates" and "Prominent Critics" are clearly different, with the latter merely listing names. This is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. There may be issues elsewhere in the article, but it's most obvious in the comparison between these two sections. Scott McNay (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that there's a linked list of advocates, while there's no separate list of critics. Perhaps the critics section could be rewritten to include their reasoning, but I would say the issue is a temporary one of neglect, not POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rather than just naming specific critics, would it make sense to expand it to a broader Criticism section, to provide a clear summary of the main critiques of basic income? There is some criticism highlighted throughout the "Perspectives in the basic income debate" section, but that makes that section a little hard to follow since it jumps back and forth between arguments for and against basic income, so I'm thinking it might be better to have the "Perspectives" section focus predominantly on the arguments in favor of basic income, and list the main opposing arguments in its own separate section? Stonkaments (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to avoid separate sections on critics or criticism. See Wikipedia:Criticism for suggestions on better ways to handle it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 12:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. I see that they do make an exception: "For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle." I guess it's up for debate whether basic income would be considered a political outlook, but I think it would probably qualify. Stonkaments (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Policy aspects seems like a booring way to start the article...

Isnt it better with a more fluently written text. "Policy aspects" gives a too technical and too booring start to the article. Doesnt it?

OK. I have started a new section called "History...". That could make the article more fluently written in the beginning and less booring.

I would like to help edit this page. I agree the introduction needs to be shorter and more interesting. I am an experienced writer/editor but new to this space. Would it be best if I placed my suggested (bold) edit of the introduction on a sub page? Or should I go ahead? KeurboomsPK (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Spain just approved a basic income

As of today, the Spanish Parliament approved a basic income law, with all parties voting for it or abstaining but none against and effective inmediately. Can I edit or add this information directly? HansenBCN (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You can. Just make it clear what type of basic income it is. It's not a universal one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Relation to Negative Income Tax

Hello – it seems to me that there has been a content split between this article and the one on negative income tax – indeed the latter article is at risk of becoming an overflow. I’ve argued the terminological point elsewhere. I think the right procedure is to merge NIT into this article and replace it by a redirect.

My interest in this comes from the point of view of the wage subsidy, for which I’ve contributed an article. The ‘basic income’ articles have sometimes implied that the ‘wage subsidy’ topic was covered by NIT, and this dissuades readers from looking in the right place so I’d like to remove the implication where it occurs, which includes correcting some of the definitions.

There’s a risk of duplication in the arguments for and against these systems. I think the ‘Perspectives’ could do with being more systematic; also I think there’s an unwillingness to leave anything unsaid, although the raising of weak or peripheral arguments is more distracting than helpful. It might make merging easier if the presentation was straightened out a bit. If I make changes I’ll give a rationale for them here.

I have made a start with the short section on ‘Automation’. I added a discussion on the same topic to the wage subsidy article (which isn’t brilliant but includes a diagram and a reference), mentioned it on the basic income page in the section on the welfare trap (which is where it arises), and then deleted the separate mention (which was just a stub with a box calling for amplification). Colin.champion (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The same continued

A little while ago I attempted to correct the definition in the lead para and had the change reverted on the grounds that the article was ‘more accurate before; BI differs in that everyone is paid regardless of wealth’. I had floated the change in advance, citing references for what I believe to be the correct definition, and giving people a chance to respond if they had evidence to the contrary. My references are here. It seems to me unconstructive to ignore the references I provided and then revert my change without adequate justification.

In particular I do not believe it to be true that NIT is characterised by payments whose size depends on income. The name is due to Friedman and therefore his own use of the term has a certain priority. If you read the first few pages of his ‘view from the right’ you see that he looks at a conventional system with a break-even point of $3000 and a tax rate of 50% and says that currently a worker’s take-home pay would be y – ½ max((y–$3000),0) where y is his pre-tax pay, and that he proposes to replace this by the simpler formula y  –½ (y–$3000), which, when the pre-tax pay is 0, gives the worker a ‘negative tax’ of $1500. But this second formula is equivalent to $1500+y /2 – ie. a stipend of $1500 independent of wealth together with a 50% tax on all income. Have people not understood this simple point or is there something I am missing? Admittedly Friedman only looks at the ‘first tax bracket’ but the same argument applies through the entire range.

He also refers to the change being ‘directed specifically at poverty’ but this doesn’t mean that he’s adopted a formula which introduces a dependence on wealth: rather he has changed a previously existing formula in a way which only leads to different results at low incomes.

Now Friedman was only concerned with the net transfer between the government and a citizen. The same net transfer can be described by infinitely many different formulae for the stipend so long as the tax formula is modified to compensate. For this reason, even if he had proposed a non-constant formula for the stipend, it wouldn’t make sense to view the formula as the defining property as NIT. But in the case of his specific proposal, there is no reasonable way of describing it except in terms of a fixed stipend.

So I have reverted the reversion. I’ll be happy to go back to the words as they originally stood if people can provide sufficient justification for doing so. Colin.champion (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change this definition, please provide sources that prove your CLAIM that NIT=BI and is not just a sub-category as we discuss it now. Your above statements are Original Research, we need sources that state that NIT is equivalent to basic income always, and I haven't seen those yet. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I cited Atkinsons’s words: ‘Such a cash credit is a basic income, and it was proposed in the United States under the title of a “negative income tax”... ’ I wouldn’t call these words decisive, but they’re enough to acquit me of performing original research.

The definition quoted from the NIT article makes a different distinction from the one in the BI article. The BI article says (with no supporting evidence) that the characteristic property of negative income tax is that ‘the government stipend is gradually reduced with higher labor income’ and I’ve shown that this is a misunderstanding of Friedman’s words.

‘Gap-filling’ GMI (orange line); y and y' are income before and after tax

The NIT article offers the definition of NIT (with no supporting evidence) that ‘...people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government.’ This definition applies equally to the ‘gap-filling’ Guaranteed Minimum Income which Friedman discussed in his ‘view from the right’ paper, in which he says that ‘though superficially similar to negative income tax, such a plan is in fact radically different’. So the NIT page defines NIT as including something which Friedman, NIT’s proposer, actively rejected. (Specifically, the defining feature of ‘gap-filling’ GMI is that take-home income as a function of pre-tax wages is constant up to a certain point and then increases, leading to implicit 100% taxation at the bottom and the destruction of incentives.)

Thus it seems to me that the two pages make different, inconsistent and unsupported distinctions between NIT and BI, both attributing to NIT properties which its originator repudiated; and that the resulting content fork can only cause confusion.

Note that the Wikipedia guidance on content forking says that ‘if the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.’ This puts the onus of proof onto justifying the split, not onto proving that two topics are identical. Colin.champion (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is abject fraud, I can say take Apple and Oranges articles and tell you to justify forking them. If NIT and UBI are the same, as you contend, then merge UBI not NIT without changing the NIT article. You can't, therefore you are wrong. There's a billion people proposing NIT, and then there's the people proposing UBI who are also saying it's identical to NIT - ok, then propose NIT instead. Go on. At the levels and spirit of the original. You can't - but can you tell me why not? Everyone knows your goal is to bolster the idea of UBI by pretending Milton Friedman was a proponent, and everyone knows you entirely disagree with Milton Friedman on everything - so why is there this Emperor's New Clothes scenario where we're pretending you genuinely believe NIT and UBI to be comparable when you yourself do not support NIT as described in the spirit it was talked about by Milton Friedman? NIT is not UBI, UBI is not NIT, it's clearly political and activism that you're engaged in, they will not be merged and they will not be retconned and memory-holed to be the same. If you truly believe in UBI and genuinely still want to claim that you're being honest, genuine and with good intentions, then argue UBI by its own merits and leave NIT out of it - don't try to claim you are being something you are not.

And one extra comment... an incorrect definition does damage beyond the scope of the article in which it occurs: it distorts the entire conceptual space. The incorrect definition of NIT embraces the wage subsidy as well as ‘gap filling’ GMI, and therefore undermines a distinction important to my own article. Colin.champion (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And a further comment – if you wanted to make a distinction between NIT and UBI, you could put it in unconditionality. I don’t think Friedman mentions the topic, but I don’t imagine that he’d have favoured paying surfers. This isn’t the distinction between the articles as they stand, and there isn’t much to be said about conditional basic income except that it’s the same as UBI only conditional. Colin.champion (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On further thought... Friedman doesn’t seem to take sides on the question of conditionality, so though it’s attractive to align the UBI/NIT distinction with unconditionality it might be an innovation rather than a summary of existing knowledge. But apologies for expressing myself too harshly. Colin.champion (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

For these definitions, we don't rely upon how ONE scholar chooses/chose to define basic income at one time, we define it as the way it is generally used by MOST people in the field today, from multiple references. It would be acceptable to say: "Friedman defined NIT in his work 'view from the right' as...."; that definition shouldn't be in the lead, but could be in a section discussing definitions and evolution of the terms. Just because the originator of a term used it one way doesn't mean that it is still currently used as the originator wanted or coined it.

Your supporting statement: ‘Such a cash credit is a basic income, and it was proposed in the United States under the title of a “negative income tax” says that NIT is a subset of BI, but not that both names are equal. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest pausing for a couple of days. I’ve ordered Capitalism and Freedom (which I haven’t read) in case it sheds any light on the topic. Colin.champion (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Converting a tax allowance into a negative tax

Well, I got hold of Capitalism and Freedom and it breathes not a word about whether Friedman considered NIT to be unconditional.

I can see from it why people imagine that Friedman was advocating a tapering stipend. He says things like ‘these expenditures would have financed grants of nearly $3000 per consumer unit to the 20% with lowest incomes’ which can easily be understood as meaning that he was contemplating a stipend to the lowest 20%. But what he actually means is that the tax system should be adjusted so that its effects on the low-paid change from the continuous line in the diagram to the broken line for pre-tax incomes <θ. Only the poor are affected, but the result is to convert an allowance which benefits only those who are paid above θ into a stipend s which is paid to everyone alike.

Returning to the general question, Avatar317 says that the references I quote don’t prove their point because on Wikipedia ‘we define it as the way it is generally used by MOST people in the field today’ which might have had some force if at least one example had been given. I very much doubt that anyone will find a reputable source supporting the definitions in the NIT and BI articles because they don’t make sense.

Nonetheless, ~~I have tried to verify whether there is a consistent distinction between BI and NIT in the literature~~. I looked at roughly the top 25 Google hits for ‘Negative income tax’, which of course vary enormously in quality. There is no support for the definition in the NIT article, and no support for a distinction based on conditionality. To my surprise I found four (low quality) references (two by the same author) which support the definition in the BI article, and apart from this, no support for any distinction corresponding to the division between the articles as they stand. There were about 10 references (generally of high quality) saying that NIT provides a fixed stipend.

On this basis, assuming that no satisfatory arguments are provided to the contrary, I intend to replace the definition in the BI article by one along the following lines:

The expression ‘negative income tax’ (NIT) is used in roughly the same sense as basic income, sometimes with different connotations in respect of the mechanism, timing or conditionality of payments.

Here’s a summary of what I found.

The low-quality support (journalism/blogs) for a tapering distinction comes from the articles

• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/20/15821560/basic-income-critiques-cost-work-negative-income-tax which says that NIT is ‘basic income that phases out as you earn more’.
• https://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-income-tax-questions-explain says that relative to UBI, NIT imposes ‘a tax that gradually eats up the cash transfer’.
• https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained says that the distinction between UBI and NIT is that UBI is a constant payout and NIT falls off with income. This is illustrated by an example which quite obviously falls into the same mistake as I mentioned earlier, when Friedman’s paper was interpreted as implying a tapering stipend.
• https://smartasset.com/taxes/negative-income-tax-explained says that under NIT ‘The amount of the payment will vary based on household size and need’. This seems to repeat the same mistake of not distinguishing a diminishing stipend from a diminishing benefit.

Some of these articles might, for all I know, have got their information from Wikipedia.

Two high-quality academic articles say that NIT provides a fixed stipend and also point out that recipients get reduced benefit as their wages increase owing to their increasing tax liability. These articles are not making a distinction from BI.

• https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/04/art3full.pdf defines NIT by a fixed stipend G on p24.
• https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/14/download/ says that ‘A negative income tax can be looked at as having two parts – a lump-sum grant (G) and a reduced wage (Y-tY)’. The lump sum (ie. stipend) is wage-independent.

Several articles of varying quality say that NIT and UBI are identical except for the timing or mechanism of payment.

• https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-negative-income-tax-and-basic-income-are-pretty-much-the-same-thing (medium quality – ‘think tank’ blog) says that the only difference is in whether the payment comes up front.
• https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/No-Strings-Attached-050417-1.pdf (medium quality; independent think-tank) puts the distinction in whether payments are implemented through the tax system (p6). The paper also says that the ‘cash transfer’ decreases with wages, but this refers to the combined effect of stipend and taxes.
• https://www.euromod.ac.uk/sites/default/files/working-papers/em15-17.pdf (medium quality – government working paper) says that ‘The main difference between a Universal Basic Income and a Negative Income Tax can be explained by the timing of the benefit disbursements to the recipients: it is ex-ante under UBI and ex-post under NIT’.
• Van Parijs (high quality – academic workshop) is quoted by the Tondani paper as saying (p3) that ‘the economic equivalence between the two programs should not hide that the effect of the two alternatives on the recipients is not the same because of the different timing of payments’.
• https://medium.com/@martin_farley/how-a-negative-income-tax-could-more-effectively-deliver-a-basic-income-ec6e14d24c22 (low quality: journalistic blog) has the title ‘How a Negative Income Tax could more effectively deliver a Basic Income’ and says that NIT is basic income implemented through the tax system.

None of these articles implies that the difference between NIT and UBI merits separate treatment; rather it’s a practical distinction worth bearing in mind.

A paper by Tondani says that NIT and UBI are distinguished by using different formulae, each of which makes the stipend independent of pre-tax income, which can be reconciled by appropriate choice of constants (his equations (4) and (5)). His paper seems confused to me, but I guess it ranks as medium quality.

• https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213887433.pdf

Atkinson (high quality) is quoted by Tondani as saying that UBI differs from NIT in having a flat rate of income tax. Tondani blames him for introducing a ‘lexical confusion’.

Therefore, in summary, if I add my reference to Friedman to the list and count each author only once, I have 3 sources, all of low quality, associating a tapering stipend with NIT and 10 (1 low quality, 4 medium quality, 5 high quality) denying that the stipend tapers. 5 of the 10 explicitly place the distinction between NIT and UBI in the means of delivery. The low quality references are certainly not reliable in Wikipedia terms, so the verdict of reliable authorities is unanimous in rejecting a tapering stipend. Colin.champion (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is fraud - UBI and NI are not comparable at all.

Requested move 16 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to Universal basic income :per consensus, please note that during my move I must have created a whole new mess and I have fixed it, if you notice something wrong please alert me. (non-admin closure) Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Basic income → Universal Basic Income – The name "Universal Basic Income" is the more commonly used term, and hence should be the one used for the article title as per WP:COMMONNAME. It would also remove the ambiguity of the term "Basic Income", as this could refer to any programme which provides benefits to a group of people, including those subject to certain requirements, while as stated in the opening paragraph, the subject of this article is the "theoretical governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement." Alex the weeb (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Colin.champion (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• support, except the correct capitalization is Universal basic income. Mass media sources overwhelmingly use this term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad. The correct capitalization should be used. Alex the weeb (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.VR _talk 22:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hesitant support. I think the definition the proposal refers to is open to criticism. The article assumes that basic income is necessarily unconditional, which I think is incorrect as a matter of usage and undesirable as a matter of organisation (since there should not be separate articles on conditional and unconditional BI). This is not a fatal objection – the article could make clear that conditional BI is within its scope, but the ephiphet ‘universal’ does rather suggest the opposite. Colin.champion (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC) [I should add that I don’t know of anyone who positively favours conditional BI, but many writings on the subject make no mention of unconditionality, suggesting that it should be seen as an optional extra rather than an essential feature. Colin.champion (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More citations needed?

Is this warning template justified? A crude count indicates that the article has 1.47 references per kilobyte, as against 1.36 for minimum wage, 1.04 for income tax, and 1.29 for unemployment, none of which has the same warning attached. Colin.champion (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The article has 164 sources for ***** sake - the tagbombers have been busy. I propose deleting the "citations needed" tag. Tammbeck^talk 07:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You will have my blessing. Colin.champion (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Tammbeck^talk 07:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Request that we re-name the relevant WikiProject and the relevant category universal basic income

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Now that this page has been re-named to universal basic income to keep consistency and to make related pages easier to find for Wikipedia readers, I propose that we should re-name the WikiProject from, WikiProject Basic Income to WikiProject Universal Basic Income and the category from Category:Basic income to Category:Universal basic income. I have made requests on the talk pages of both of these pages, as can be found here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basic Income#Request that we re-name this project and the relevant category universal basic income and here - Category talk:Basic income. Other editors feedback would be much appreciated for both of these issues on the relevant talk pages given via the links provided. Helper201 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201, please make a properly-formatted WP:RM nomination, so that the discussion gets listed at WP:RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, I thought this would fall under "Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, be bold and do it yourself! If you can't, see § Requesting technical moves." What type of move on the requested moves page would you recommend filing this under? Helper201 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, just a ordinary requested move with a consensus-forming discussion. The undiscussed move of the project and changes to the project banner template left the template populating non-existent categories, and the categories can't be speedily moved without a RM consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, would that be adding the template under WP:RM#TR to the WikiProject? Helper201 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201, no. See WP:RM#CM. But to avoid confusion, please wait until my RMTR request to revert the undiscussed move has been processed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For any and all editors of this page

To any and all editors of this page, or anyone with an interest in universal basic income, please consider joining and/or helping Wikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic Income. The project is currently inactive and could do with new members to help kick start it again. There are many pages that are tagged with the WikiProject Universal Basic Income banner on their talk page and/or in the category of universal basic income that could do with expanding and/or updating. Any and all help would be much appreciated. If you have any questions please feel free to ask here. Helper201 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This doesnt make sense...

I suggest moving or erasing this. Because now it doesnt make any sense:

"During the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak rejected..."

It might make sense if you move it though... --217.214.152.4 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)