Comments on: The Basic Income ‘What’s in it for me’ Series: Employed people

By: Toni Pickard

Toni Pickard — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:56:06 +0000

I’m joining this conversation late, but would like to support Roderick’s position this way. As he says, the top-up model will be much less expensive to fund from the get-go and for that reason is way more palatable politically – hundreds of billions of dollars less expensive. Were we to choose the Universal Demogrant model, which would mean everyone would get the money and those who arecomfortably off would have it clawed or taxed back, we would have to increase tax rates, perhaps substantially, and not only on the wealthiest Canadians. At this point in our national history, after at least 30 years of anti-tax rhetoric, any program that will increase tax burdens, no matter which ones and no matter on what bases are up against major resistance right off the bat. Unfortunately, we’ve lost the sense that taxes are the way we pay collectively for things we can’t pay for alone and so tax ought not to be a ‘four letter word’! Imagine Canada with no roads, airports, schools, etc…. There are some very strong advantages to a Universal Demogrant model, but none will materialize if the program is never implemented because seen to be way too expensive! (It’s worth noting however, that most European basic income advocates are arguing for a Universal Demogrant. I don’t know why the enormous initial outlay is not seen to be the impediment there that it’s believed to be here.)

By: Roderick Benns

Roderick Benns — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:01:53 +0000

Mark, I’m not sure that you have absorbed what I said earlier. Allow “this Roderick Benns” to be more clear, then. I would be happy with either basic income model. I believe the negative income tax model is more politically palatable, that’s all. You shouldn’t equate my advocacy for a negative income tax with a lack of understanding on my part for your demogrant model. Proponents of basic income can talk about both models and let governments decide what they’re most comfortable implementing.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:13:29 +0000

I completely agree with you Ronee. The topping-up idea that Roderick Benns proposes only works to decrease productivity. Once productivity decreases, oppressors will then say “You see! Basic income doesn’t work!” when they didn’t even try a true basic income yet.

Providing a flat basic income to all REGARDLESS of what one currently earns will encourage people to keep working.

For Roderick Benns’ topping-up idea where all low incomes are topped-up to $20,000, janitors and people working at McDonald’s aren’t going to work there if they are going to make $20,000 one way or another. The only incentive for people to keep working such jobs is that they get the flat $20,000 plus whatever that particular job pays.

The topping-up concept will completely sabotage what basic income is truly all about. A true basic income is elegant economics and is even easier to implement than the topping-up idea.

I have no idea why this Roderick Benns is incapable of understanding that.

By: Ronee

Ronee — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:21:35 +0000

By giving everyone a Basic Income, charities and non-profits will have a great number of people willing to help them.

However driving a school bus is classified as on-call driving. We get paid when there’s work. So to increase our pay, we jump in to cover open routes due to bus break downs or lack of drivers. We already don’t have enough drivers for our routes now. I’m sure if we get this top-up idea, most of us won’t be answering any calls to cover bus break downs. Helping in those situations is tough because we don’t know the route plus it’s late and we want to go home etc. With my idea of universal basic income, any extra work would add to the person’s income.

By: Roderick Benns

Roderick Benns — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:35:13 +0000

Ronee, most people are wired to work in some form or another. In your scenario, you may indeed choose to earn that $14,000 per year and then not worry about other, formal work. However, I am willing to bet you are ‘working’ (being useful) in many other ways, to your family or to society. Caring for children, an elderly parent, helping a neighbour, volunteering, participating in civic life…there are many ways we work and it is ‘work’ that needs to be re-defined in 2016 and beyond. It is one of the great challenges to sell this social policy, no matter what method of income distribution is chosen. Our society’s Protestant work ethic, infused over decades of expectation that we labour for someone else in order to qualify as useful, is what needs to change.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 04:22:08 +0000

You could also set it up in a way so that individuals making less than 250k a year would get that 15 grand off their yearly taxes.

By: Ronee

Ronee — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 00:15:07 +0000

The problem with the top-up idea is why would any of us do extra work? I drive a school bus now and make about $14,000 a year. I could make another 2,000 if I drive extra lunch routes. With your scenario, I wouldn’t be interested in extra driving. Then again, why drive the bus at all? Stay home and get the full amount.

I agree with Mark, we need to give everyone a basic amount regardless of their situation.

By: Roderick Benns

Roderick Benns — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:07:10 +0000

I would say it’s the pure demogrant model.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:41:16 +0000

What terminology would you use for the approach that I am describing?

By: Roderick Benns

Roderick Benns — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:25:57 +0000

It’s still a basic income, Mark — whether universal demogrant, negative income tax, etc. It may indeed be superior but it would also be more difficult to sell, politically. It would also require a larger, more immediate outlay of money. I think it’s better to support the idea of a basic income first and foremost and then have a good debate on how to set it up.