Paul: I like the Minimum wage idea but I don't think it should be guaranteed. There should be a minimum wage so that workers aren't abused and paid a very low wage by their employer. However, there are no guarantees in life. A guaranteed wage will only encourage some workers to slack off and be lazy.

The economic foundation of a citizen's dividend ( as first proposed by Thomas Paine) is land value taxation as public revenue. One example: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/karl-widerquist/alaska-model-citizens-income-in-practice

https://www.theglobalist.com/thomas-paine-dividend-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

No. Who works (contributes to society) for the resources that compose the minimum? or, who pas for it? Whatever the source, resources are being diverted from a situation where there is a return to society (a good investment) to a situation where it only contributes entropy to society.

However, the problem is that there are many who contribute minimally or negatively. Technology brings efficiency of contribution. But this displaces the lesser contributors. These folks can represent a threat to the whole - they can organize and violently revolt. Such revolt will aim to cause collapse in a society. But we see today such organization may not have to be violent in a democracy, but collapse is still the outcome. The era of kings saw a king actively trying to reduce technology to keep the population employed. Argentina had many employed by fiat which made it non-competitive. But technology wins wars, hence, technology advance must happen.

Malthus was correct. Nowadays, birth is not the only source of increasing unskilled population - emigration. Nature's answer is draconian but effective. Can humankind avoid nature's law? Certainly not by any social-economic policy so far devised by humans. A bleak future unless the prime problem can be solved. Otherwise nature will prevail and humankind can experience another "dark age" only to try again. We've been undergoing this cycle for at least 5,000 years.

A Universal Basic Income has a long history and has many proponents. The Basic Income Earth Network (https://basicincome.org/) is an association that campaigns for it. Their website is always worth checking out.

There are many benefits.

Since it is not conditional on income, it does not create adverse incentives for work, which are present in almost all welfare systems today.

Since it is not conditional, it is also much simpler from the administrative point of view. There is no need for an army of social workers to check incomes and living conditions. In countries with relatively high informality, such as my country Brazil, this is definitely a positive point.

There is an argument that it is an automatic Keynesian stabilizer. Since its payment is automatic there is no lag between people and families losing jobs and income and the benefits being paid. I am not 100% convinced of this, though.

We may be entering a new Engel's Pause, which is the name given to the period during which an industrial revolution displaces old jobs but new ones have not yet appeared.

The most important objection is fiscal. For a UBI to make sense it must be a living wage, which means that any serious UBI must be a considerable percentage of GDP in any country. This makes the UBI politically a very hard sell.

An alternative is to go with categorical Universal Grants such as for children or the elderly. I have a proposal for a universal child grant for Brazil which I will soon upload to ResearchGate.

Nature does not grant life automatically to all beings. Life is NOT a "right" to anybody. The creation of societies must enforce nature's law or die. Even great societies in the past have grown by obeying nature's law and have died when they abandon nature. One of the first steps to spurn nature is such things as support those who only take resources from a society with no hope of payback.

Article Survival is the only moral goal of life

Such policies as the guaranteed income may have a place in society IF there is a some hope of those receiving payment to return at least equal value to society. For example, soldiers may protect from other societies or be a readily available marginally skilled work force in event of emergency. How about a guaranteed JOB (of soldier or standby unskilled workforce) ? Britain and others grew an empire with this type soldier/sailor in the 16th and 17th century. Of course, the individual had to be fit for duty. What about the others? They died. Back then, nature took care of the killing. Today, technology offers the chance to grow but also removes the process of nature. Humans must act as nature would or die. Hence, the human world finds itself facing nature's judgement - and is failing.

The UBI answer to "How can we differentiate between those who seriously cannot find a job, and those who are lazy and just want to be free riders?" is that we should not try to make this differentiation. If we accept that everyone should have a basic income, it no longer matters what they do with their spare time.

But the great John Rawls, whose views form the basis of much welfarist thought, did not look kindly upon this view. According to Rawls:

“[T]wenty-four hours less a standard working day might be included in the index as leisure. Those who are unwilling to work would have a standard working day of extra leisure, and this extra leisure itself would be stipulated as equivalent to the index of primary goods of the least advantaged. So those who surf all day off Malibu must find a way to support themselves and would not be entitled to public funds.”

In other words, people who are unwilling to work must count their additional leisure time as a UBI and thus should not be fed by public funds.

Philippe van Parijs, one of the best known supporters of UBI, disagrees. In his article “Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income” (https://cdn.uclouvain.be/public/Exports%20reddot/etes/documents/1991l.Surfers.pdf) van Paris argues that if someone choses a low consumption low work lifestyle he should have the liberty to choose it in the same way that people who choose high income high work lifestyles should also receive their own UBI. This is also, by the way, Milton Freidman´s point of view.

My own view is that, in practice, trying to differentiate between deserving and undeserving poor is very difficult. There are those who are lazy, those who are incapable, those who are crazy, and even those whose circumstances are so bizarre as to be barely understandable to a social worker. Trying to sort out the reasons behind human decisions is very hard. This means that the best is to provide a UBI to all or at least a negative income tax (which is equivalent to a UBI whose benefits are taxed away).

But I agree that to say this publicly is to guarantee the loss of political support.

These suggestions are beautiful but naturally unjust and, perhaps, unmerciful for the workers and their families. Accordingly, the result to a society will be a weakening to the point of being overwhelmed by competitors (all other nations). When the support from Other People's Money (OPM) is withdrawn, collapse follows.

Agnieszka

In nature those who deserve to survive do survive. So, a worker contributes to the family (next generation) and to society for the society's return for helping the worker (including the mother and caregiver of the children) survive. The minimum income to non-contributors must be paid by the worker thru taxes (the government takes at the point of a gun - extorts) resources to help someone survive who is not helping the worker and has no hope of ever helping the worker. Nature will re-enforce those who survive. Hence, the unproductive ranks will grow if funded. The burden will become too great for a society and collapse happens. Previous society collapse have seen 30% or more of the people of a such a society die.

To make the system obey the justice imperative, a reason to hope the recipient will contribute to the worker and society. Perhaps by being a soldier, a reserve worker for better times, etc.

Agnieszka

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Money to non-contributors should not be provided. The non- providers should be allowed to die. Certainly, the injustice of taxation of the workers should be stopped.

You and I are alive today because of heritage included those who kill. If you don't choose to be one of those who kill, nature will assure you to be one of those who are killed. If you choose beauty (funding the non-contributors and those who will never contribute), nature will place your progeny in the ranks of those who are killed.

Welfare states will collapse and most of their population will die.

I have followed Ayn Rand's suggestion.

It is a statement of where the money comes from. It is a set-up to the idea that welfare is unjust to the worker. a mere description of the system. I'm not sure how you can read only a small piece and not get the sense of the whole. I'll have to be more cautious in the future.

Although I understand the opponents' scepticism regarding exclusively positive effects of a UBI on our society, I think that our human nature forces us to work : humans will always be guided by the ambition to better their lives and consequently will even generate new work. We just need to reward people's desire to feel and be useful. A rethinking process should focus less on people as factors of production, and more on treating people like humans.

Furthermore, addressing poverty as a multi-dimensional problem that affects all areas of life - from individual well-being and dignity, to macro-level policies in terms of economics, social systems, freedom and security - should be our highest priority . In this fight, it seems to me that the introduction of a UBI is the most appropriate tool and also an "human right with emancipatory potential", as said by Casper Hughes."UBI is more like a share in the economy than welfare: it’s a recognition of everyone’s part in society". Ignoring that, in my opinion, could lead to the collapse of our human society.

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

The issues of the economic, financial, material and housing situation of households against the background of the state's economic policy have been described in the publications:

Article FAMILY 500 PLUS PROGRAMS AND FLAT PLUS WITH KEY INSTRUMENTS ...

Article Ability to Generate Financial Savings by Households in Poland

Article ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SITUATION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN POLAND – A...

I invite you to discussion and cooperation.

Best wishes

Minimum income is something for those who are in misery, that is, with pressing needs. Several countries have programs with this focus, including the United States.

Interesting ideas here:

Chapter Análise do Programa Bolsa Família – PBF – à luz da redução d...

In some countries a minimum guaranteed income for citizens is introduced. In individual countries, various arguments are given for such a socio-economic policy. I described the key arguments in favor of introducing the Family 500 Plus Program in Poland, which is a kind of social policy instrument of this kind.

Article FAMILY 500 PLUS PROGRAMS AND FLAT PLUS WITH KEY INSTRUMENTS ...

I invite you to discussion and cooperation.

Best wishes

Dear Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek nice answer

If the minimum wage set by the government shows itself above what would be the market, there will be distortions and informality.

In Poland, the Family 500 Plus Program fulfills the guaranteed income function. Jenak because this program has been conducted for only 3 years so it can not be objectively checked whether it fulfills its key, strategic functions regarding the issue of fertility as an effect contrary to the economically and socially disadvantageous demographic process of an aging population. However, at the moment it has been shown that the additional guaranteed income slightly increased consumption and acts as one of the countercyclical factors activating production and services, so it may mitigate the possible slowdown in economic growth that could occur if the global economy began to slow down. I wrote scientific articles on this subject.

No. The minimum mandated by Government income is an indication of a declining society. The last decades of the 1800s in US had no such program and the was growing. after 1970 and JFK and LBJ's socialism, the US has been declining and income inequality increasing because the rate of income growth of the lower percentiles slowed.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Hello everyone, thank you for participating in the discussion. I would like to add the following question to this discussion: Can guaranteed income be an important element of anti-crisis socio-economic policy aimed at revitalizing economic processes and restoring optimal economic conditions following the economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19)?

There is growing evidence that the direct impact of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (causing Covid-19 disease) on the economy is less than the indirect impact of applying specific interventionist anti-crisis socio-economic policy, including budgetary, fiscal, monetary, etc., including specific instruments activating entrepreneurship, social financial support instruments of citizens, tax and para-tax reliefs applied to enterprises, possibilities of deferring bank loan repayments used, reduction of interest rates on loans, possibility of cost-free suspension of business activity, subsidies to remuneration employees from budget funds to reduce the scale of unemployment growth, etc., the scale of costs charged to public finances, the scale of public debt growth relative to GDP, the scale of the deficit increase in the state budget, the scale of the decrease in the central budget's specific reserves of the country, the scale of issuing additional domestic money for the central bank to buy unsupported lost loans and junk securities from commercial banks, etc. Analysis of all these components of anti-crisis, interventionist socio-economic policy, its effects in reducing the scale of the decline in economic growth, halting the increase in unemployment, falling income, etc. costs in public finances of the state of these anti-crisis programs, allows to assess the impact of these activities on the national economy and also the indirect impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic on the economy. In some countries, a minimum guaranteed income for citizens is being introduced. Different arguments are given in individual countries for the socio-economic policy pursued in this way. I described in the publication below the key arguments for the introduction of the Family 500 Plus Program in Poland, which is a kind of social policy instrument of this kind. Income guaranteed as an essential element of pro-development social policy can stimulate consumption and act pro-cyclically. Therefore, guaranteed income may be an important element of anti-crisis socio-economic policy, the aim of which is to revive economic processes and restore optimal economic conditions after the economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19).

In view of the above, I ask the following question: Can guaranteed income be an important element of anti-crisis socio-economic policy aimed at revitalizing economic processes and restoring optimal economic conditions following the economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19)?

What do you think about it?

Please reply.

I am asking for an answer and invite you to a discussion,

Thank you very much and best regards, Have a nice day

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In the context of a normal economy, minimum income programs are important for the least favored population. In times of severe economic crises, such programs are crucial to keep millions of families above the poverty line and to sustain the economy.

Universal credit can have a good multiplier impact.

Dear John Hodge,

Yes, but the model of social market economy in the US and Europe has been around for many years and is still significantly different. The level of marketization of the US economy has tended to be higher. On the other hand, many synergies have emerged since the 1990s. for example, with regard to the anti-crisis, lenient monetary policy applied by the US Federal Reserve Bank and the European Central Bank in the Eurozone. a lot of this synergy has appeared in particular since the 2008 global financial crisis. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that even more synergies will appear in the future in other aspects, including budget and fiscal policy, and the role of the state's public finance system in the context of shaping anti-crisis, pro-development, interventionist, Keynsian socio-economic policy in the future. Anyway, this process is already happening. It is an element of economic globalization and the unification of global financial systems. Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Roberto - Minadeo,

Yes, I fully agree with you. In times of severe economic and financial crises, these types of social programs are essential to keep millions of families above the poverty line and to maintain consumption at an optimal level in the national economy. Guaranteed minimum income programs of this kind may be one of the important anti-crisis factors, preventing a drastic decline in consumption and domestic production in the face of global recession and decline in exports. Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz