Requested move 29 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus on this proposal at present. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic income models → List of alternatives to basic income – Most, if not all, of the items in the list do not match the definition of a basic income. The title should reflect this. Any of these that may be a full basic income (it's not clear that any are) can be placed in the article Basic income. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for that? Many of the names in the list were made up by the editors who added them and are not names used by the creators/promoters of the plans. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@64.105.98.115: What title would you suggest? The current title is untenable as there is virtually no limit to the list if there is no clear criteria for inclusion. And the title should reflect the criteria. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is such a problem with the current title, but perhaps rename to List of basic income proposals and limit it to schemes that have been seriously proposed for implementation somewhere, not only in blue-sky academic papers. If the problem with that is that the current article omits full basic income, then you could simply add a mention of full basic income. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article scope / renaming article[edit]

Since the specific structured discussion above seems to have been premature, yet there remains the problem of defining the scope of items to include in the article, please use this thread to discuss possible alternate titles or other methods to define the scope of the article. Here is a list of possible scopes for the list of items in this article:

Refer to individual articles listed above for definitional scope. (Note that some of the articles may not currently include an accurate definition for their subjects and further reseach may be necessary.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of basic income models. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes (June 2020)[edit]

Firstly, I added an entry for Wage subsidy: its omission was a serious defect. I did this having previously created a Wage subsidy article to make the distinction clear.

Secondly I removed entries for alternative names for UBI, instead mentioning in the main entry those most likely to be misunderstood as different systems.

I think Wikipedia articles have been written in confusion as to whether Negative Income Tax was another name for UBI or a different system completely, namely the one unambiguously referred to as Wage Subsidy. As evidence, see the list as it preceded my change, in which NIT had an entry as an ‘alternate’ to ‘full basic income’ whose defining property lay in being ‘dependent on work income’. Also see the entry for ‘Basic income for households’ ‘in the form of UBI or NIT’ and the entry for ‘Basic income + negative income tax’ described as ‘a combination of BI and NIT’. I haven’t known what to do about these.

I was only able to resolve the distinction in my own mind by referring to the primary literature. Firstly, the term NIT is due to Friedman and in his presentation is unambiguously UBI. Secondly Atkinson wrote in his book (p207) that:

Such a cash credit is a basic income, and it was proposed in the United States under the title of a “negative income tax”...

Obviously if someone has more authoritative references showing that NIT is in fact the same as Wage Subsidy, or is something else significantly different, then I’ve taken the wrong direction.

I removed Atkinson from the list of spokespeople for ‘UBI + flat tax’ since he advocated a wage subsidy rather than UBI and was no friend of flat tax (see Chapter 7 of his book). Colin.champion (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories