> The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it entirely?
Usually basic income is intended to be irrespective of any other income source. This article about Finland states the same.
It's the key difference from other kind of welfare.
The other being that you don't have to prove and thus nobody has to check anything.
By removing the marginal disincentives it gives the ability to accept any job opportunity, no matter how temporary, non continuous or whatever; you can only gain
by doing something.
It's not clear how this would affect the whole society. Especially since now everybody has X bucks more, will the prices go up for everybody, thus excluding the poorer and thus making the system counterproductive ?
> Especially since now everybody has X bucks more, will the prices go up for everybody, thus excluding the poorer and thus making the system counterproductive ?
This is the big question for me. I have yet to read about a trial being run long enough to determine this.
Usually basic income is intended to be irrespective of any other income source. This article about Finland states the same.
It's the key difference from other kind of welfare. The other being that you don't have to prove and thus nobody has to check anything.
By removing the marginal disincentives it gives the ability to accept any job opportunity, no matter how temporary, non continuous or whatever; you can only gain by doing something.
It's not clear how this would affect the whole society. Especially since now everybody has X bucks more, will the prices go up for everybody, thus excluding the poorer and thus making the system counterproductive ?