Talk:Guaranteed minimum income/Archive 1

message: DESPERATE 
85% of people in India are desperate working slaves in an informal economy and their lives oscillate between fear and frustration. 
EVEN MORE DESPERATE 
The remaining are always in search of collusion mostly in the form of caste to enhance their wealth. 
SOLUTION 
A nationwide credible minimum income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion.
Such system will prevent all socioeconomic issues in India viz farmer suicides, dowry deaths, child labor, fear, frustration, corruption, bribery, prostitution, terrorism etc.
In Germany, Portugal, Brazil, USA, Belgium, UK etc this system is implemented.
Known 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Income taxes are a very bad way of supporting guraranteed minimum income because they are so easy to cheat on, so expensive to collect and so damaging to the economy. Far better to use land value taxes which are difficult to cheat on, can be cheaply and efficiently collected and do not damage the economy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: As I added in the "arguments contra" section, the plan is wishful thinking, but completely impossible. There is no way to pay for it. Barney Gumble 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're probably right, your argument added to the article relies on the per capita amount needed being less than the per caputa average income to prove mathematical impossibility.  As an arithmetic mean is not the same as the income each member of the population makes, the fact that the per capita funding requirement exceeds the mean per capita income does not, in itself, prove your assertion.  I'd like this argument to stay in the article, but with better support.  --Ssbohio 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I actually made a miscalculation & a new factor, making it go from the impossible to the impractical and ridiculous. (The 57K for the top 25% is the mininum wage to make it into that bracket, not the average.) F103 is the total income of the top 25%, $4 billion, and F123 is the total tax collected from the top 25% of wage earners, $627 billion. So the average pre-tax income of the top 25% is $126K. The new factor is that you cannot include the taxes people already pay. So you need to collect from the top 25% of people, over $3 trillion ($627 billion + 2.4 Trillion + an estimated 200 billion in social security & medicare taxes) which is about 4/5 of what they make on average. Leaving an average of $26 leftover. You can't take the guy making $57K 80% because he is left with $11400, less than the bottom 50% makes. However, that is an instanteous snapshot. What would happen is that revenues decline...people stop working overtime or don't bother going to medical school. Many might even emigrate.  Barney Gumble 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an argument, not certain fact. The "arguments for" also lack economists concurence or even a sense of provability. For example, "It would give enough money for every citizen to be able to receive a good education and proper healthcare." Really? we are all certain that $11K would do all that? Barney Gumble 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:No original research. You can't make your own arguments. You have to give other peoples. So I've reverted, please find an economist that states this. I added  and  tags to the parts that are in desperate need of citation. If you feel it necessary, please remove those sections which you feel are particularly egregious. - FrancisTyers · 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually come to think of it, the whole "pro/contra" sections should be removed. Feel free to add them back with sources. - FrancisTyers · 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not do original research. I used a source and divided. Dividing is not research. I will reduce the verbage to eliminate all possibilities of estimations. However, I do think the pro/con section should be include if kept minimal.Barney Gumble 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the policy, "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" and "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Please read the policy carefully and realise that what you are doing is original research. I have no problem with including criticism (the more the better), but find reliable sources. - FrancisTyers · 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible