Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#101

Post by grecy »

gnerd wrote: post #98
grecy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think what is being discussed here is guaranteed unconditional income, not the dole. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference.

Just because you say welfare is the same as an unconditional basic income system, doesn't mean it is. Did it ever occur to you this movement started in some of the safest welfare based nation states on earth? The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety t…

> The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety the dole does not.

The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn. If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic income.

If you earn less than the basic income (~12k/yr) you do get it, to top you up to that amount.

It's cash deposited into your bank account, you can spend it on whatever you want.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

grecy wrote: post #95
gnerd wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of countries have that and I don't think Australia implemented any of those measures first. I think what is being discussed here is guaranteed unconditional income, not the dole.

> I think what is being discussed here is guaranteed unconditional income, not the dole. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference.

For the intents and purposes for which UBI is offered -- e.g., eliminating the administrative overhead and inefficient central determinations of ideal behavior that come with means-testing and behavioral participation conditions that need to be monitored and enforced -- the dole and other means-tested, conditional welfare programs are not only "different" from UBI, but exactly what UBI is proposed as an alternative to.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

adventured wrote: post #83
forrestthewoods wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd genuinely like to see your numbers because I've not seen a single napkin math calculation that makes is even remotely feasible. (for the United States)

It's very feasible for the US. Not everyone would get a basic income however, it would have to erode as you earn more income. And note, this is just the Federal Government's portion. http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/201... "Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per…

> Not everyone would get a basic income however, it would have to erode as you earn more income.

Then its not a basic income. If it is a basic income, everyone would get it.

You could, of course, have a similar net effect to tapering off with income simply by adjusting the progressivity of the income tax system, which is what UBI proponents usually propose. Since you changing the rates of the tax system, but not the behavior of the system, doesn't add complexity or administrative overhead, but eliminating the means-testing on the benefit side does reduce complexity and administrative overhead, this is seen as a net win even though (overhead aside) the net effect to recipients is the same.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

grecy wrote: post #101
gnerd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you say welfare is the same as an unconditional basic income system, doesn't mean it is. Did it ever occur to you this movement started in some of the safest welfare based nation states on earth? The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety t…

> The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety the dole does not. The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn. If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic…

> The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn.

Every article I can find about the Australian dole references other exclusion and participation requirements like a "mutual obligation requirement" that has various ways that it can be satisfied, one of which is "Work for the Dole", and indicates that if those requirements are not met, you don't get anything. [1]

> If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic income.

No, the definition of an unconditional basic income is that you get it -- with no direct reduction based on other income or wealth [2] -- no matter what your income level is, and without other participation requirements besides membership in the served population (usually defined by legal residency within the jurisdiction, but possibly by citizenship instead.)

[1] including the ones you cited upthread, but also, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/13/young-australia... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole

[2] this does not exclude the potential for a reduced effect through operation of, e.g., a progressive tax system, however.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

grecy wrote: post #99
gnerd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the unconditional part? Some implementations might have a mean test for who gets what (so a lot like welfare in Anglo and/or European countries) but there is an unconditional part that means in the UK, an ASBO isn't going to be used as a custom law against people needing help or in the US, instead of giving rules about what people can or can't buy with food stamps. For me, that is the interesting part. That is the…

If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional. So it's a guaranteed basic income. The money goes into your bank account, you can spend it on beer and smokes if you want to.

> If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional.

No, its not, even per the official-source article you cited in your other post describing it [1]. In addition to "earning enough money" (income test), you must:

1) Also meet an "assets test", and 2) Be "looking for paid work", and 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work".

And that's just the short version: the linked "Eligibility Requirements" page [2] has a longer list.

[1] http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...

[2] http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink...

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#106

Post by grecy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #105
grecy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional. So it's a guaranteed basic income. The money goes into your bank account, you can spend it on beer and smokes if you want to.

> If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional. No, its not, even per the official-source article you cited in your other post describing it [1]. In addition to "earning enough money" (income test), you must: 1) Also meet an "assets test", and 2) Be "looking for paid work", and 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work". And that's just the short version: the linked "Eligibility…

> 1) Also meet an "assets test"

Yep. If you have lots of assets, you don't get this money. I'll bet any Guaranteed basic income would work the same - i.e. you don't want to pay it to people that have a $300k house.

>2) Be "looking for paid work"

You fill in a form every 2 weeks that takes 5 minutes.

> 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work".

Again, it takes 5 minutes every two weeks.

It's hilarious to see so many people debate Minimum Basic Income as financially not viable or that it would destroy the economy because nobody would be motivated to work. Here I am pointing out that Australia already essentially has it, and those two problems are not real. And here you are nit-picking the fine details. Look at the big picture here. It works, Australia has it.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#107

Post by grecy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #104
grecy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety the dole does not. The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn. If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic…

> The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn. Every article I can find about the Australian dole references other exclusion and participation requirements like a "mutual obligation requirement" that has various ways that it can be satisfied, one of which is "Work for the Dole", and indicates that if those requirements are not met, you don't get anything. [1] > If you already earn…

> No, the definition of an unconditional basic income is that you get it -- with no direct reduction based on other income or wealth

Sorry, you're right, it's called Guaranteed Minimum Income which is what the original linked article is talking about.

Re: Activists push for guaranteed minimum income for Canadians

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

grecy wrote: post #106
dragonwriter wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional. No, its not, even per the official-source article you cited in your other post describing it [1]. In addition to "earning enough money" (income test), you must: 1) Also meet an "assets test", and 2) Be "looking for paid work", and 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work". And that's just the short version: the linked "Eligibility…

> 1) Also meet an "assets test" Yep. If you have lots of assets, you don't get this money. I'll bet any Guaranteed basic income would work the same - i.e. you don't want to pay it to people that have a $300k house. > 2) Be "looking for paid work" You fill in a form every 2 weeks that takes 5 minutes. > 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work". Again, it takes 5 minutes every two weeks…

> ll bet any Guaranteed basic income would work the same - i.e. you don't want to pay it to people that have a $300k house.

An unconditional basic income would, by definition have neither an assets nor an income test.

A guaranteed minimum income would only actually be a guaranteed minimum income if it had an income test, but not asset test.

> You fill in a form every 2 weeks that takes 5 minutes.

The amount of time spent is not the issue. The fact is that you have to be looking for work, prove that you are looking for work, and not turn down work. Its essentially an program to protect against involuntary unemployment, not either a basic income or a guaranteed minimum income. Its essentially a guaranteed employment program with some other conditions.

> Here I am pointing out that Australia already essentially has it,

Australia has neither a guaranteed minimum income nor an unconditional basic income. It has a fairly generous means/asset/behavior-tested welfare program, which is not the same thing at all.

Post reply on HN