I personally do not like distinctions between deserving and undeserving poor as they try to suggest that poverty is self selected. I think that poverty has structural causes and not everybody who wish to work is able to find employment. In the USA there is also the phenomena of the working poor, meaning that at times an income does not take people out of poverty. Not sure, if it is correct, but I heard of cases where people need at least two jobs to escape poverty. Maybe those who are more familiar to conditions in the USA can contribute....

I would say whatever and which ever policy is made in this regard especially in developing countries sustainability needs to be looked into. Capability of the system to be able to sustain it for a long time is required. Another thing that comes to my mind is that it is better give the required education and skill to earn money rather than just monetary benefit. It may also be a disincentive to those who pay taxes. (My discussion is based on specifically the Indian situation)

Would this minimum income be linked to some kind of employment? Would there be any responsibility, duty or obligations for receiving this income?

The Bible says that "the person who does not work, shall not eat."

If we give minimum income with zero obligations, then we create disincentives. Not easy to solve the problem of disincentives. Depends on the social norms in the society.

The South African governnment has passed legislation regarding this particular issue. Perhaps this could be a useful case study.

I would say it is the most simple and an effective method to improve the socio-economic status of the poor. It would be simpler to implement in countries where the population is near homogeneous than in a diverse country like India.

Kindly find our work in the attachment.

Speaking only about the US, I think that a minimum income (ie a "floor") is inevitable over the long run. As technology erases jobs and job categories, the public sector will have to provide a basic income for the poorest of the poor. This will only work if the wealthiest are taxed more heavily, however (ie a "ceiling"). Revenue from taxing the top one-third can help subsidize the bottom one-third. This, of course, is a simplistic summary of a much more complicated discussion.

In light of the high levels of poverty and unemployment in developing countries like Zambia. I would rate it as a very progressive idea which will benefit the poor laborers through prevention of exploitation by the capitalists. The policy will attain high levels of social economic development in third world countries.

I am a bit skeptical about what Joseph Tham wrote as it might imply that people are lazy and when there are no incentives they just would just take the money and the economy would suffer. Reality is that world-wide there is a huge access of workforce. Tens, if not hundreds of million people that are unemployed or underemployed and of whom many would like to have a decent job, but are not able to get one. I therefore argue that we do not have an individual problem, but a structural one and if societies are not capable to organize work in ways that all people can earn a decent livelihood then there is still a responsibility of governments to assure that people can lead a decent life.

It needs to consider how and when the benefits will end up. There are many problems when the government tryg to finish some benefits. In Brazil, who are able to receive benefits often think that all benefits are their rights, forever.

Many social security systems are financed by the employees and employers. At times governments provide subsidies. Whoever is covered by such systems has an incomes once retired. In many countries however demographic changes make it more difficult to maintain pensions schemes at high levels as in the past. Old age poverty can be the result, meaning in 40 years employment people did not earn enough pension entitlements that allow them a decent life.

In a tiny few countries such systems also cover times of unemployment. Also here membership is not universal, it depends on contributions paid during working years and it often also ends after a few years unemployed received support.

Having lived most of my work life in developing countries challenges are much bigger. Relatively few are members of Provident Funds or other pension schemes, much emphasis still lies on family support for social security (looking for the sick, the old, the pregnant mothers and children,....) , but increasingly families cannot provide sufficient support so that challenges can be avoided or at least minimized. A minimum income would be great, but it is difficult to finance. Still I am sure that it is worth looking for ways to achieve it.

Guaranteed minimum income is thought to be a formula to support the population living in extreme poverty in accordance with the right to social assistance and social protection. It is a social right that theoretically should guarantee an individual the necessary resources for an acceptable standard of living, being a prerequisite for joining the EU.

Progressive legislation but requires caution in an informal sector dominated economy. For example a private company employing 10 people may lay-off 4 people to comply with the minimum income thereby increasing those without employment/income at all. I would rather have all the 10 sharing the little available because private companies may not have to overstretch beyond their profitability.

Cornel Ionescu May I conclude from your answer that the guaranteed minimum income would not be appropriate for the U.S., for example?

Joseph Tham , why US?

Fred Moonga I guess the question is: should the guaranteed minimum income be linked to some form of employment, or should it be independent of whether you work or not? In the U.S, there would be strong resistance against "handouts" to the undeserving poor, as opposed to the deserving poor. However, this is a very difficult practical distinction to make in terms of implementation. Furthermore, should the guaranteed minimum income be for ONLY citizens, or any resident in an area?

Joseph Tham ,

I did not say what you insinuated. It is a social policy and concerns every state. Although it is not easy, extreme poverty and social exclusion must be eliminated in a way all over the world. It is enough to list the 17 Objectives of Sustainable Development (ODD), also unified informally as Global Objectives, to address the challenges faced by mankind today. Through them, an ambitious action agenda (Central Agenda 2030) was set for the next 15 years to eradicate extreme poverty, combat inequalities and injustice and protect the planet by 2030. But let's not be too optimistic; let’s remember what happened with the First Report of the Rome Club in 1972 entitled "The Limits of Growth". It's been 40 years since then, almost all the predictions have come true, but it seems that people do not really take into account the lessons of history. The nature of the debate has shifted from "the limits of growth" to the concept of sustainable development. But the Western world is marked by a huge illusion. There are more, but this one is essential: "laissez faire". The economic model that tells us that the market is regulating everything and, as a result, the economy expects to make a qualitative leap, towards knowledge and innovation, that this is the future. The fact that the market does not think strategically, except where it sees profits, is ignored.

I personally do not like distinctions between deserving and undeserving poor as they try to suggest that poverty is self selected. I think that poverty has structural causes and not everybody who wish to work is able to find employment. In the USA there is also the phenomena of the working poor, meaning that at times an income does not take people out of poverty. Not sure, if it is correct, but I heard of cases where people need at least two jobs to escape poverty. Maybe those who are more familiar to conditions in the USA can contribute....

https://www.givedirectly.org/ demonstrates what happens when monetary support is accessible.

Also, as to "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, can the same distinctions not be applied to the rich?

One need only Google poverty's link to IQ to find a wealth of data that supports the position that people cannot even have a chance to escape poverty (through application of labor) if their basic needs are not met.

It depends on the development of the state. All states are not the same.

What is possible in peaceful rich states is not possible in unequal, turbulent, poor ones.

So the policy probably is rated with high correlation with health and prosperity.

But this does not imply causation.

Paul: I am a firm believer that wages and incomes should be set by the supply and demand of the labor market. I oppose government intervention in setting prices, including the price for workers. An artificial wage set by the government makes the labor market less efficient, in my opinion.

Dariusz. You ask a complex question and a short reply will probably not do full justice to it. Apologies if you've seen it already a 2015 paper from the European Commission (attached) and a paper by the European Parliament on this issue (link below) might be helpful to you in your consideration.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595365/IPOL_STU%282017%29595365_EN.pdf

First of all, I would caution that it is easy to confuse minimum income schemes with basic income schemes. While both approaches seek to address socio-economic objectives (most notably poverty reduction), basic income seeks to do this through a tax-funded universal payment (demogrant) to all without conditionality or income-test. MI approaches can vary in their structure but typically might combine income tested safety net payments (often including family supplements) together with statutory minimum wages. The level of guarantee is set to ensure the remains an incentive to work at the minimum wage especially for those who have dependent children.

The efficacy of both approaches might be tested by using some form of microsimulation model (EU has Euromod but countries very often have their own) to assess the impact on coverage, poverty reduction, employment incentives to find a better balance than current approaches. Typically, there are trade-offs and the issue of a MI becomes one of cost and design rather than getting into the issue of who deserves assistance and who doesn't.

Hope this helps

John

Dear Paul, if we strictly follow your advice then millions of people in the so-called developed work would become unemployed as they are flooded by products from countries such as China. One cannot speak in favor of free market liberalism and the invisible hand and deny that countries use their comparative advantages. This is exactly happening when Trump shuts imports from China down. I am aware that this is not necessarily an answer to the question, at least not directly. However, if the invisible hand is given absolute preference then we would have a race to the bottom, which also would happen regarding people's income levels.... We cannot separate labor markets and commodity markets....

To Paul

Do you believe in the international free labour market?

Do you believe in unlimited immigration as third world citizens seek first world pay?

Do you believe in letting people starve to death as losers in a market place?

Most people accept a minimum wage and regulation and the only difference with most people is one of degree.

Firm believers should stick to religion.

I think that Roger Steer mentions important aspects; he does not mention that today many speak in favor of free international trade, but are just not practicing it.

In this line I think a liberalization of labor migration should go hand in hand with trade liberalization: why to speak in favor of free movement of commodities, but not of free movement of people......?

I would say it is a welcome development. However, it would not solve d problem if it applies only to those working in the formal sector.

There are millions of people who have the ability and desire to work but can not secure any in the formal sector.

If this policy is to cushion extreme poverty, such social policy must extend to those not formally engaged

Thank you very much Maria, your contribution is crucial. Indeed are those working in the informal sector usually excluded. There are schemes which try to deal with this, but such schemes are rare and usually have a rather low level of protection.

In the Romanian Constitution it is stipulated that: The government through its policy must ensure to every citizen the possibility of obtaining a decent living. In this sense, they are basically in agreement with the minimum compulsory wage.

I think poverty is the problem of laziness because people want to eat without earning money. So government should not give fish but should give fish hook then they will catch enough amount and they have make an effort to catch fish. So the government should generate employment opportunities for the people then they can work their and they can earn and eat that is the way of reducing poverty. If we give some assistance they will be discouraged to work and poverty exist forever.

In the context of the above interesting discussion, it is worth considering and scientifically analyzing the issues of functionality and legitimacy of introducing guaranteed income for citizens in modern developed knowledge-based economies. In several countries in Europe, permanent or pilot solutions of this type have already been introduced, which are an important element of socio-economic policy. At least a few other countries are considering introducing this type of financial support program for citizens. The determinants of introducing a specific level of guaranteed minimum income include:

1. Social and social policy.

2. Changes in the labor market in connection with the ongoing technological progress associated with the current ICT information technology revolution and Industry 4.0.

3. Activation of consumption, production and economic growth.

In view of the above, I am asking you the following questions:

- What is the legitimacy and functionality of introducing a guaranteed income for citizens?

- Can guaranteed income be introduced in any type of national economy or only in economies in a particular technological development situation, at a certain stage of development, in a specific situation of the labor market?

- Should the guaranteed income for citizens be introduced only periodically, e.g. in the event of an economic downturn, a decrease in consumption, production etc. business cycle phases?

Please reply

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this topic?

I invite you to discussion

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Due to the current trade wars waged between the largest economies of the world for a year or so in a number of countries and on a global scale, there has been a decline in economic activity in business sectors, a decline in economic growth, income, production and investment. In the context of the deepening global economic downturn, internal markets are activated in many countries by developing socio-economic policy programs aimed at activating the consumption of citizens and activating entrepreneurship, investment and employment growth in the enterprise sector. One of the elements of pro-development, interventionist, Keynesian socio-economic policy is the implementation and development of programs activating the consumption of citizens. One of the key instruments of this type of pro-development socio-economic policy is establishing and providing citizens with a minimum level of guaranteed income and ensuring by the state from public funds the payment of certain guaranteed income to citizens. In my publications I described this issue on the example of the Family 500 Plus Program. In addition to this second program supporting consumption, providing citizens with an optimal minimum subsistence, functioning in society, improving financial status, living conditions of citizens, and improving the housing situation, the Flat Plus Program (Flat Plus Program) is being developed in my country. I described the pro-development socio-economic policy programs in my publications, which are available on the Research Gate website. These programs have been implemented for over 3 years and already bring positive effects both in terms of improving the life and economic situation of citizens and are also an important factor in the activation of domestic, internal economic growth. In this way, if these programs are effectively developed, they may be one of the key determinants limiting the negative effects of the global decline in economic growth, which through financial, trade, etc., reach specific national economies to a certain extent.

I conduct research in this area. The conclusions of the research I published in scientific publications that are available on the Research Gate portal. I invite you to cooperation.

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

In connection with the above, I am asking you the following questions:

- Is social policy based on the implementation and development of guaranteed income programs ensured for citizens an important factor in stimulating consumption and improving domestic economic growth?

- Is the development of socio-economic policy consisting in improving the material, housing and financial situation of citizens an important factor in the development-oriented, interventionist and anti-crisis economic policy that can significantly reduce the negative effects of the global decline in economic growth?

- What other types of socio-economic policy programs, in addition to those discussed in my publications, Family 500 Plus Program and Flat Plus Program (Flat Plus Program) can be used as important factors for stimulating economic growth?

Please reply

I invite you to discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I am nit sure if it is good, but I see it is becoming increasingly apllied.