This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I hereby propose to merge ‘Negative income tax’ into ‘Basic income’. There is no generally accepted distinction between the concepts, and those distinctions which have been adopted do not correspond to the division between the articles. Given that the lack of a clear distinction may not be evident to visitors, the split encourages a misunderstanding.
There is a problem of size, but it can’t justify an illogical division of the topic. Colin.champion (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
== Activism warning
NO - UBI and NIT are completely different and they are not comparable. What you are doing is wilful and intentionally misleading people for political purposes. First merge "Obama's tax plan" and "Trump's tax plan" - since according to you they are the same as they are both tax plans - they are certainly world's closer than the ideas of NIT and UBI.
This is absolutely wrong. NIT should only be in this article to explain how different they are - you are going against all ideas of wikipedia and you know you are being misleading, this is unconscionable to pervert ideas like this for political activism --author (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
How about, alternatively, adding A Negative income tax subsection to the Examples of payments with similarities section (there must be a better title for that section), treating it here as a WP:SS detail article? Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Bill – because if there’s no real distinction between NIT and BI, then the former isn’t a system ‘with similarities’ to the latter... and if there is a distinction, it might be possible to retain the separate articles (perhaps with some reorganisation). Colin.champion (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Then delete UBI and become a proponent of NIT. What you are doing is shocking and outrageous. NIT is entirely different to UBI and Milton Friedman absolutely opposes UBI. Tell me how there is no distinction when you do not support NIT. This is activism and has been going on for a long time on this article. Giving some people some money is not the same as giving all people all the money. NIT is an idea that works - UBI is an idea that is designed to not work, and be sold like it's an idea that does work. --author (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't looked closely enough to see that, but I understand NIT to be one of a number of alternative means by which a Basic Income system might be implemented; the current third para of the lead section there says as much, and the current subsections of the Examples of payments with similarities section describe other alternatives. I am not and don't mean to become a regular editor of this article, though; just making a drive-by suggestion. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Bill – it’s certainly true that BI could be implemented by sending people cheques through the post, and that it wouldn’t then be called NIT, but that isn’t a very significant distinction (and isn’t one that economists have put any weight on). I don’t understand the statement that NIT can ‘supplement a GMI system’ – why on earth would anyone have both? Colin.champion (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a question for the merger discussion beyond my suggestion re WP:SS, I think. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Support the merge. Maybe a section for NIT describing "Implementations of BI"? @Colin.champion: your VERY well researched post just above: [[1]] should be listed as an argument as to why they are the same. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Avatar. There’s a section in the NIT page on ‘Flat tax with NIT’ which could be carried across and modified to carry the meaning you suggest. Colin.champion (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there no diffrence in the fact that Basic Income is universal and negative tax only affects people under a certain income?
This seems like a serious diffrence to me.
BelgiumFury (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Converting a tax allowance into a negative taxI think this is two different ways of describing the same thing rather than two different things. In the diagram the solid line shows the net flow of money from an individual to the state as a function of his pre-tax wage under a conventional system. UBI/NIT moves to the broken line below θ. This can be described as a fixed stipend s and a proportional taxation, both applied to everyone; but it can also be described as modifying the conventional system by adding a negative tax payment to everyone whose pre-tax income is below θ. Certainly the change ‘only affects people under a certain income’, but it does so by making the system more rather than less consistent. At least, this is my understanding from the sources I’ve consulted. Colin.champion (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a completely different system. 3DNewEra (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
the two policies work very differently. Although there is some overlap between them, the differences lead some people to support one and oppose the other. Although many people confuse the definitions, an encyclopedia should add clarity. We should concentrate on explaining the differences. --Karl Widerquist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widerquist (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Widerquist: can you say what the distinction is? Did you see my list of references generally implying that there is no significant difference? For what it’s worth, this is the explanation I would like to add (click on ‘show’):
Fundamental principles
Two ways of looking at basic incomeThe working of basic income/NIT is illustrated by the diagram. The orange line shows a person’s take-home pay y ' as a function of the pre-tax salary y paid by his or her employer. The relation between pre- and post-tax pay can be described in two different ways.
In the red description, y ' is obtained from y by the deduction of a tax proportional to the pre-tax pay, compensated by the payment of a fixed stipend. This is the viewpoint of basic income; the stipend is the total income of someone who has no salary.
In the blue description, y ' is obtained from y by the deduction of a tax proportional to the excess of the pre-tax pay over a breakeven point; if the pre-tax pay is less than the breakeven point, then the excess (and so the tax payable) is negative. This is the viewpoint of negative income tax. If the pre-tax pay is zero, the negative tax paid is the same as the basic income stipend.
The advantage of the red description is that it is the size of the stipend, rather than the location of the breakeven point, which is the critical parameter of the system.
The advantage of the blue description is that it makes clear that the payments can be made for most people through the income tax system, streamlining administration. When the name ‘negative income tax’ is used, it is always assumed that this will be done; but the same assumption is often made when the system is described as basic income.
It is not essential that the orange line should have constant slope: Milton Friedman proposed a system in which the marginal tax rate would be 50% below the threshold and 14% above it.[1] Other people might expect the taxation rate to be an increasing function of income. It is also not essential that the parameters of an existing system (ie. the thresholds and marginal rates) should be preserved unchanged.
I’d be equally happy to retain the split if there was a significant distinction supported by the literature, but people in favour of doing so need to say what it is. Colin.champion (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The core idea behind UBI is that it's not means tested. The core idea behind NIT is that it is means tested. These are major differences that make them two completely different systems. SpoonLove (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s true that NIT is means-tested. There’s no mention of means testing in the NIT page. Friedman, in proposing NIT, made no mention of means-testing and wrote unconditionally: ‘If the family had a zero pre-tax income, it would... be entitled to receive $1500’. I haven’t seen any mention of means testing when surveying papers. Of course you may just mean that the transfer between an individual and the state depends on the individual’s pre-tax salary, but this applies equally to basic income, though it might be described differently there. Colin.champion (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I read your well researched article above. It says multiple times in your sources that there is a difference. I did a quick google search and these are the NIT definitions from the first 5 entries:
"The negative income tax is a way to provide people below a certain income level with money." [2]
"But unlike other filers who would make payments to the IRS, based on the amount by which their incomes exceeded the threshold for tax liability, NIT beneficiaries would receive payments ("negative taxes") from the IRS, based on how far their incomes fell below the tax threshold." [3]
"NIT proponents assert that every American without income above the threshold for tax liability should have a basic income guarantee and that NIT is a means to subsidize the needy at less cost than the welfare system." [4]
"NITs, essentially basic incomes that phase out as you earn more" [5]
"The NIT is easy to describe. “The basic idea,” Friedman wrote in a 1968 Newsweek column, “is to use the mechanism by which we now collect tax revenue from people with incomes above some minimum level to provide financial assistance to people with incomes below that level.”"[6]
The last one is a quote from Friedman himself. As you can see, they all talk about it as decreasing based on earnings, and being means tested, which basic income isn't. Some article authors use the term "basic income" but it's rarely used in a way similar to the definition of basic income as is the subject of this article. Also widespread confusion by the press, and their occasional misuse of terms in order to dumb things down shouldn't be grounds to confuse the two as the same thing. SpoonLove (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand basic income. Pre-tax salary would not apply to basic income. Systems that are basing what you receive based on means figure calculate your means by using your pre-tax salary. Basic income ignores all forms of income/assets, including pre-tax income. SpoonLove (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I completely understand the confusion though. While researching my answer I also looked up basic income. I found that all scholarly articles and studies refer to basic income as not being means tested and completely regardless of wealth or income, while about half of the news media articles use multiple different terms that mean completely different things interchangeably, one using the terms guranteed minimum income, living wage and basic income completely interchangeably within 2 paragraphs. It's further confused by the fact that government organizations that do these "basic income pilot" projects are also using the term incorrectly, as they're "enhanced" guaranteed minimum income, not basic income. SpoonLove (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, but I still don’t agree.
None of the points you mention is a distinction, just an observation about NIT. Basic income provides people below a certain income level with money, just as NIT does. Basic income recipients would receive payments just as NIT beneficiaries would (but really this point reduces the argument I made in the collapsed table – the same transfer can be described in different ways). Basic income is a means to subsidize the needy just as NIT is. Friedman’s comment refers to the mechanism of payment; BI can be paid in the same way. The Vox article isn’t authoritative (and possibly copies from Wikipedia).
I think your point about means testing is slightly mis-stated and also ultimately erroneous. The verbal error is that means testing is generally understood as testing a person’s total ability to pay; no one calls a tax allowance a means-tested deduction. The substantive point is that under BI and under NIT a person’s gross income depends on his or her net income in exactly the same way (ie. they can be governed by the same formula). The difference is purely one of description: in one case a positive tax component is described as varying with income, in the other it is a negative component which is so described. But it works out the same. ‘Basic income’ does not ‘ignore all forms of income’: the stipend is independent of net income but the total tranfer depends on it (through taxation) in just the same way as the NIT total transfer does. Colin.champion (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, I think you mis-understand basic income. Basic income provides everybody, regardless of income, employment status, assets, etc. with the same stipend, while NIT varies that stipend based on pre-tax income. This is a significant distinction not only in mechanics, but in the core ideology that basic income is, well, basic. SpoonLove (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example how they'd be different. John makes $0 a year, Jack makes $30,000 a year, and Jane makes $600,000. Under NIT, John would receive his basic personal amount in cash. Jack would reduce his income by his personal amount and then pay a percentage of his taxes. Jane would reduce her income by the personal amount and then pay a percentage of that in taxes. Under UBI, John would receive $1500 a month, Jack would receive $1500 a month, Jane would receive $1500 a month. They're then taxed according to their total income. They're two completely different systems. You're right, they're both means to subsidize the needy, but dictatorships and democracies are both forms of government, that doesn't mean they're not distinct. SpoonLove (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Either way, at the end of the day, the core idea behind BI is that it's unconditional. The fact that NIT is conditional creates an obvious and immediate distinction. SpoonLove (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, one of us is misunderstanding something. It seems to me that you have missed the point I make in the collapsible table, but I can’t explain it any better, and if that’s not what’s happened, then perhaps there’s something I can’t see myself. Colin.champion (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
"then perhaps there’s something I can’t see myself." - the proof is simple - you do not support NIT, but you claim it is identical to UBI, which you support. This is false. So you should ignore NIT and keep you political activism of UBI going without trying to claim it is NIT. Milton Friedman absolutely did not support UBI and his ideas of NIT are absolutely not comparable to NIT. A Bank Robbery is not the same as giving your nephew $20 for their birthday. Feeding every dog in a dog park is not the same as giving your dog a treat as they caught a frisbee. Just because "people got money" in one example and another, they are not the same things. You already know this; you're being misleading, intentionally. If you support NIT, support NIT. Revert all UBI pages to just talk about UBI, and start talking about Milton Friedman's NIT. No, you don't have to justify two articles on two entirely different things, you have to justify why to merge them, but everyone knows it's for sinister weird political activism. Why are you concerned that there's an idea that differs to the one you support - but then go to such lengths to say you want to destroy it "because it's identical to the one you support"? --author (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
One way to resolve the question (referring to the collapsible table) might be this:
Do you disagree that the blue description is a faithful account of NIT?
Do you disagree that the red description is a faithful account of BI?
Do you disagree that they are equivalent?
If the answer is No each time, then you accept that NIT is equivalent to BI. But if you disagree at least once, then we reduce the dispute to a smaller question. Colin.champion (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
They are not equivalent, and the drop down table also helps demonstrate that. The difference between the different systems (guaranteed minimum income, NIT) is how the system is designed, not the amount given out. You can dole out money in many different fashions. Just because the result of different systems may be net neutral, doesn't mean they're the same or have the same impact/effects. Like I, and many others have said multiple times on here. The point of basic income is that it isn't means tested. NIT does require means testing, therefore it is different. You keep saying it's equivalent, yet point out the many differences between the two systems. The main point of UBI being "means irrelevent" is that it is net neutral to other schemes, but doesn't remove any incentive to seeking employment. Even if other schemes have a way to maintain an incentive to become employed, that doesn't make them the same. I think we can agree the GMI and UBI are two different systems. If UBI is setup so total payments are the same as current payments under GMI, they're still very different systems. SpoonLove (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because I might answer no to the first two doesn't mean it's a no on the third. For example, My Tesla is a red car, with an electric engine, manufactured in 2020 and road legal. Your Prius is a red car, with an electric engine, manufactured in 2020 and road legal. I don't think either of us would agree that they're equivalent. SpoonLove (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There’s a danger that we bang away at cross purposes. I should say that there is no mention of GMI in the drop-down table and I fully agree that it is fundamentally different from BI and NIT. The graph here shows UBI/NIT as a pink line and GMI as an orange one. The difference in the systems is reflected by their different shapes in the graph. It is the flatness of the GMI line which removes incentives to taking work, so if BI and NIT have the same slope they equally succeed in not removing ‘any incentive to seeking employment’. If you are saying that NIT and BI give out the same amount, then it cannot be the case that one is means tested and the other not. If they give out different amounts, then they cannot both be represented by the same line in a graph. Of course it might be the case that the net income for one system was a function of some other variable in addition to gross income, and that for a certain value of this variable the two systems were the same, but then you should be able to identify the additional variable. Colin.champion (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Methods are not outcome dependent. Just because you observe the same outcome, doesn't mean the method used to get there wasn't different. SpoonLove (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
At the end of the day, every source that you supplied showed a difference between the two. The issue seems to be whether you see that difference as being important or not is up to opinion. Sources that share this opinion are scarce and in no way consensus among experts. I think merging these two based on purely opinion would definitely be a POV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLove (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. It’s an interesting article by Sarten. As I understand it in part he’s saying that the distinction is presentational, and in part he’s just plain wrong. He shows at the outset that BI and NIT can have ‘identical outcomes’ but expects them to ‘affect behavior’ differently. He says correctly that UBI needs higher taxation at the top of the range, and that the money could come from carbon taxes rather than income tax, but if the outcomes are the same, then NIT must require the same increase, which could equally come from carbon.
I didn’t think that most of my references made any more than a presentational distinction between NIT and UBI. People sometimes say that exact synonyms never exist in any language, since once two terms exist they acquire different connotations from use. This is certainly the case here. The presentational differences are politically important. To my mind there is a stronger expectation of unconditionality from BI than from NIT, and a stronger expectation that implementation will be through the tax system in the latter case. But economically informed supporters of UBI are likely to favour implementation through taxes without mentioning it, while most supporters of both systems probably regard conditionality as a secondary issue. But in terms of having two Wikipedia articles rather than one, it’s a question of whether the content of the articles would be the same or different. Colin.champion (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Suppose BI had never been invented – what would my ideal NIT article be? Suppose NIT had never been invented – what would my ideal BI article be? They would be the same with one difference: the BI article would say that many advocates favoured unconditional payments, and give a sketech of the issues arising, and the NIT article would pass over the topic in silence. So one article would be an extended version of the other. Given that both systems have been invented, and that duplication is undesirable, I would have a single article saying that the conditionality wasn’t accepted as desirable by all advocates. Does anyone have a better suggestion? Colin.champion (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
As you've mentioned, there's presentational difference. There's different connotations. Supporters of one may not support another. Supporters of one may prefer one over the other. There's different tax implications. There's different social implications. There's a different psychological impact. I think these differences are more then enough to justify different articles, and would only risk limited duplication. They're also just as different from each other as many other schemes, so you'd risk having all different ideologies being represented on the page meant just for basic income. Supporters of both may regard conditionality as a secondary issue. That doesn't change the fact that the majority views conditionality as the core difference, and a major one (this is pointed out multiple times by other authors above, as well as in most articles referenced on this page). If conditionality is the core issue, NIT might actually make more sense on the GMI page, as it shares conditionality as one of the core ideals.
Either way, whether or not a scheme is means tested or not is one of the main components of any system designed to help with poverty. The fact that this main component is different between the two systems, and regardless of the end result, it's a fundamentally different system, as stated by almost every author and reference on this site. SpoonLove (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I've followed both of your comments throughout this thread and here's my two cents opinion: In a country WITH an income tax, NIT vs. BI seems like a distinction without a difference (just between which government agency runs the program and the timing of payments, maybe), however, in a country WITHOUT an income tax, there wouldn't be a NIT, so they clearly would not be equivalent in that case. In the US state of Alaska, which doesn't have an income tax, people receive a "citizen's dividend" from state lands oil revenue which could also be termed a Basic Income, although maybe the semantics take into account the intent: Basic Income being meant to help the poor, while that's not the intention behind a "Citizen's dividend".
I don't have a problem with a separate NIT article, hopefully much smaller than the BI article. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I would be happy with that (and happy to make the changes if the discussion settles in that sense). Colin.champion (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
References
^Milton Friedman, ‘The Case for the Negative Income Tax: a View from the Right’ (1966).
The only reason Negative Income Tax should be in this article is to highlight how it's nothing to do with UBI and that people are intentionally and fraudulently claiming Milton Friedman supported "UBI"
NIT and UBI are not comparable and there is an active politicization of this on here, there needs to be a vote to stop this editing.
NIT is a universal rule that provides PROPORTIONAL funds to SOME people.
UBI is a universal rule that provides EQUAL funds to ALL people.
Conflating these is like saying a bank robbery and giving your nephew $20 for his birthday are the same things as "money changed hands".
They are not the same, the ideas and the outcomes are very very different. Proof is nobody who advocated for UBI would be happy with NIT (the proof of that is they are here, not in the NIT article, but I would say that has probably been edited to sound like UBI)
You can't say "Obama supported Trump's tax plan because they were essentially both tax plans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes you are correct NIT and UBI are different. But shouting about it won't make your edits acceptable. Also I'm afraid you will need sources to back and document this. Assertive and self-referencing statements such as "Proof is nobody who advocated for UBI would be happy with NIT " are, by definition, not acceptable. As a proof of that, I know some UBI proponents who are happy with NIT :-) Stanjourdan (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Too many sections in "Perspectives in the basic income debate"
Here is roughly how I envision the subsections post-merger:
Economic impact. Includes "Economic growth," "Economic critique," "Employment," "Children," "Health and medical costs," "Welfare trap," "Transparency and administrative efficiency," and "Poverty Reduction."
Social impact. Includes "Automation," "Bad behavior," "Basic income as part of a post-capitalistic economic system," "Freedom," "Gender equality," "Morality," and "Wage slavery and alienation."
The subsections, as currently written, are too big to fit into two chunks. Many of the larger sections are technical and slightly opinionated, so the trimming would likely happen there. A third subsection could be added to the plans if it seems impossible to trim enough.
Before I get too into this I wanted to see if there were any objections or comments.
I agree. If you can fix it, it would be good. It isn't good now. That much should be clear anyway. This section for example... "It is usually assumed that a stipend will be paid in respect of dependent children, sometimes equal to roughly a third of the sum given to adults of working age.[19] [35] This would increase the marginal tax rate needed to support UBI by about 2 1⁄2% over the figure implied by the costing below, offset by any saving in child benefit (roughly 2⁄3% in the UK"... should be changed or removed. Its better to just say that some basic income proposals include children and some don't. And that when children are included in the proposal their basic income, which obviously goes to their parents, is usually set at a lower level... --62.84.194.134 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The article is better now, I hope. But more still needs to be done. --Mats33 (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
"The normal working of basic income/NIT is illustrated by the diagram. The orange line shows a person's take-home pay y'as a function of the pre-tax salary y paid by his or her employer. The relation between pre- and post-tax pay can be described in two different ways. In the red description, y' is obtained from y by the deduction of a tax proportional to the pre-tax pay, compensated by the payment of a fixed stipend. This is the viewpoint of basic income; the stipend is the total income of someone who has no salary. In the blue description, y' is obtained from y by the deduction of a tax proportional to the excess of the pre-tax pay over a breakeven point; if the pre-tax pay is less than the breakeven point, then the excess (and so the tax payable) is negative. This is the viewpoint of negative income tax. If the pre-tax pay is zero, the negative tax paid is the same as the basic income stipend. The advantage of the red description is that it is the size of the stipend, rather than the location of the breakeven point, which is the critical parameter of the system. The advantage of the blue description is that it makes clear that the payments can be made for most people through the income tax system, streamlining administration. When the name 'negative income tax' is used, it is always assumed that this will be done; but the same assumption is often made when the system is described as basic income. It is not essential that the orange line should have constant slope: Milton Friedman proposed a system in which the marginal tax rate would be 50% below the threshold and 14% above it.[15] Other people might expect the taxation rate to be an increasing function of income. It is also not essential that the parameters of an existing system (ie. the thresholds and marginal rates) should be preserved unchanged. Moreover it is possible to fund basic income in ways not equivalent to taxation. An example is a state whose revenue comes from the sale of exploitation rights, and which hands out its surplus as a per capita bounty. Most discussion of basic income addresses the more controversial issues which arise when the funding needs to be raised specifically."
Are their social benefits claimed for universal basic income? It seems like it could reduce crime rates, reduce civil unrest, reduce economic inequality, and provide other social benefits. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Basic income and Covid 19
I wrote this piece under that headline:
"The CARES Act was passed in Congress during March of 2020. The historic stimulus and rescue package included several parts, money to households, companies, state and local governments etc. It also included a historic UBI of sorts. In short it was a one time lump sum of $1,200 checks for most American adults and $500 for most children under age 17. Another such stimulus package, or one time basic income, passed in Congress in December 2020 after a bipartisan agreement. President Trump signed the bill into law on December 27, 2020 after a length delay
But it was recently removed (see the history), because these two-times-payments might have not been labelled "basic income" in the press. But I think that this piece of text should be put back. What do you folks say? Perhaps, if necessary, by changing the headline slightly. From "Basic income and Covid 19" to "Basic income-influenced responses durng the Covid 19-pandemic" or something like that? These two payments are perhaps the closest any country have come to real basic income at a national level in a developed country. Even though it was only two payments. Most other basic income pilots, or so called basic income pilots, has only been local. Not national. --Mats33 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
For YOU to call this "Basic Income" when our Reliable Sources do NOT call it Basic Income is Original Research, which is what I said in my edit summary. Please better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. Thanks!! ---Avatar317(talk) 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand. But basic income is seldom pure in reality. One could solve it in a better way, with sligthly changing the headline. One could call it "Quasi basic income responses during the Covid-pandemic", or whatever. We also mention several other systems which are related to, but not pure, basic income in the article. Which seems quite relevant. From Bolsa Familia to negative income tax. One could argue that there is no example of real basic income in the world, now or in history, or one could argue that there are several examples that are at least related, more or less. --Mats33 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I see your points, but it would be a very difficult argument to claim that ONE or TWO, ONE-TIME payments even remotely qualify for the general concept of "basic INCOME", which is an ONGOING stipend to allow a person to meet their "basic needs." A one-time "citizen's dividend" proposed to be paid when one becomes an adult has never been called a "basic income". ---Avatar317(talk) 01:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right, but I think its still logic to mention these two payments, for example under a headline such as the one I just mentioned, "Quasi basic income responses during the Covid-pandemic". The Spanish Covid 19-response, which has been labelled "basic income", is by the way not a real or pure basic income either. Far from it. The Finnish pilot 2017 to 2019 was not a pure basic income. The Alaska Permanent Fund is too low, and the level varies. Almost nothing mentioned in the article "Basic income pilots" is a pure basic income either, it is in most cases only quasi-basic income. It is true, however, that most of these so called basic income-trials, have been more than just two payments. But on the other hand they are in most cases just local, and also in many or most cases only gives money to unemployed people, and then also in many cases with conditionalities... Apart from this I have changed the whole article substantially during the last week or two. So you are welcome to look it through, and make more changes or comments or suggestions. --Mats33 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think that the US Covid-19 payments belong in this article, as I stated above. These payments are more like what they are named: "economic stimulus payments" rather than basic income...like the tax-refunds in the US after the 2008 recession to try to get people to spend more, not with the goal of taking care of the poor or those in need, as is the goal of most basic incomes. Japan did several vouchers for "durable goods" (appliances, etc. but NOT food) as economic stimulus during their 1980's recession, but those were also more "economic stimulus" than "basic income".
I did follow all of your other changes to the article, and a big THANK YOU for doing such a good job improving and restructuring the article!! Overall, it is significantly better, thank you again!!!---Avatar317(talk) 05:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Then its only on this minor point that we tend to disagree a bit. --83.255.107.64 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
tone
much of this article seems tonally off, rather unencyclopedic. rhetorical questions, breaking the fourth wall, not business like etc. i do not have the time right now to clear it all up, but if anyone else does, it would be useful to edit the page to make it more tonally encyclopedic Farleigheditor (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You can cite a reliable source if you have any. Andrevan@ 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"More than 472 million payments totaling $803 billion in financial relief went to households impacted by the pandemic." 803,000,000 * 2 = 1606000000. Only 1.6 trillion. Round it toward 2 trillion United States Dollars. 2603:7000:B901:8500:ACAA:A395:E9CA:E167 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Universal basic income is a reality, which is related to utopia since 1516
@Ritchie92:Wikipedia:I just don't like it Universal basic income is a reality, which is related to utopia since 1516 and nothing else writen in the utopia sidebar. The relationship to utopia is not discussed, but stated in an affirmative tone in the scientific works. Please, prove the opposite. --Geysirhead (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"Being related to utopia" does not make it part of a "Utopia series" on Wikipedia – if there were such a series. As I said already in an edit comment, the word "utopia" is not even mentioned once in the whole article (except for the title "Utopia" of Thomas More's book which is mentioned, again, once). There are not enough sources justifying the inclusion of this article in a Wikipedia series on utopia-related articles; indeed, the Template:Utopia table was created by yourself a few months ago, and you just added UBI to it two days ago. This looks like it's all your personal WP:OR, and as a matter of fact it is you who must prove that UBI is part of a series on utopia. By your standards of "being-related-to" topics, the article Snake should include the Template:Bible sidebar because the snake is mentioned once or twice in the first pages of that book... I am reverting your edit, until you find consensus among editors about your inputs. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Ritchie92:, thank you very much for replying me! Sorry, the name of the animal in the bible is Serpent (symbolism). If there would not be any article named Serpents in the Bible, Template:Bible sidebar would appear there. I would put the sidebar Template:Utopia into Utopian universal basic income, once that exists. But, what is the difference between utopian universal basic income and non-utopian universal basic income, if the later can actually be a thing? Neither does the article UBI offer any functioning examples to split non-utopian universal basic income out ouf it, nor does a literature research provide anything like that. This article lists opinions and social experiments. Rather call them utopian experiments as already done in science and news:
"One of the most fascinating essays proposes precisely such a utopian experiment. Michael Strong and Zachary Caseres, in their article “BIG in free cities” (pp. 201–220), make the case for the implementation of a BIG in a liberal city state or an economic free zone."(Lehto, O. (2015). Otto Lehto:“Better welfare, better markets?”: A review of “Basic Income and the Free Market: Austrian Economics and the Potential for Efficient Redistribution”(ed. Guinevere Liberty Nell, 2013, Palgrave MacMillan: Printed in USA). Basic Income Studies, 10(1), 157-160.)[2]
"Socialist Utopia: A City in Brazil Experiments with the Unconditional Basic Income."(Headline of Spiegel international)[3]
Big 'thank you' to all editors, who honestly call themselves socialists on their profiles!--Geysirhead (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the fact that some authors call it utopian does not mean that it is indeed a utopia. Also, if we had to insert banners for all related topics to each articles, all articles on Wikipedia would be 90% banners and 10% actual content. On this article, we should indeed also add the Template:Economics sidebar, Template:Socialism sidebar, Template:Politics sidebar and so on and so forth, because they are all related to the topic! Actually, all of these that I mention look to me more pertinent than a generalized "utopia" sidebar! But this is not how it works. It's also interesting that you added the POV template to the lead section because you think that this page missing a Utopia banner is a violation of WP:NPOV :D I would say the exact opposite! Adding that sidebar adds WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that UBI is a utopia, while there is definitely no consensus among authors about this. It's misleading for the reader who opens the article on UBI and finds that it is in the category of Utopia on Wikipedia, together with Eden garden and Arcadia... Having this is a much stronger POV push on this topic than not having your banner on this page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
UBI actually has more in common with Eden garden and Arcadia than with the socialist ideology and real socialism that's obviously your personal opinion, and you cannot really say UBI as a utopia based on a stereotypical view on UBI. In result, socialism is neither the source of UBI idea according to the history section nor the source of the funds for its implementation, all of this is certainly debatable, but also then: Is utopia instead the source of the UBI idea or the source of funding for a UBI implementation? Not really, or surely not only, and not in every publication about it. I only read a series of WP:OR arguments here, not enough to define UBI as an utopia on Wikipedia. But let's agree to disagree, and see what other editors think about this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree, the source of funding for a UBI implementation is an enigma.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not correct. There are many ways if funding this social security reform.
But that discussion can not make sense if the larger context of economics is omitted. For example, identifying streams of unearned income currently captured privately is one possible source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income .
"it has never exceeded $2,100" - wording under the Alaska Permanent Fund section
I changed "it has never exceeded $2,100" to "it has not exceeded $2,100" under the Alaska Permanent Fund section and someone changed it back. The word never means: at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever, so that wording is incorrect. 216.243.58.119 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes I changed it back, and I've done so this time too. "It has never" is standard English, and it implies nothing about any possible future values. Leave it alone please. Meters (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
nev·er
/ˈnevər/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
1. at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever. 216.243.58.119 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
hello
i am interested to make additions to this article over the coming months especially how it affects poverty because there is only a single line till now under the subsection of this article for poverty reduction. so better watch out so you can look at the changes i make
mention Basic income cryptocurrency more?
mention Basic income cryptocurrencies more? bless up. Michael Ten (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
More about Spence...
"In the late 18th century, English Radical Thomas Spence and English-born American philosopher Thomas Paine both had ideas in the same direction.
Paine authored Common Sense (1776) and The American Crisis (1776–1783), the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution. He is also the author of Agrarian Justice, published in 1797. In it, he proposed concrete reforms to abolish poverty. In particular, he proposed a universal social insurance system comprising old-age pensions and disability support and universal stakeholder grants for young adults, funded by a 10% inheritance tax focused on land."
So, if we describe Paines ideas, we should probably also say something about Spence´s ideas. Also because Spence proposed a real basic income, a regular one, which Paine did not. Mats33 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:I just don't like it Universal basic income is a reality, which is related to utopia since 1516 and nothing else writen in the utopia sidebar. The relationship to utopia is not discussed, but stated in an affirmative tone in the scientific works. Please, prove the opposite. --Geysirhead (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)