I think that depends on how exactly this plan would be carried out. I don't think I'm fully understanding. If someone makes $24,000 already do they get an additional $24k?
That was the Trad's proposal. But I think that's unworkably excessive, and unnecessary. I would propose a guaranteed minimum survival income of say 24K/year going to anyone who earns less than 50k a year. That way the least yearly income would be 24K, but if one is willing to work, even part time and/or for a lower wage, they can keep what they earn and it won't cut off their guaranteed minimum income. Thus, encouraging people to work to whatever degree they are willing and able.
After the 50K level of income is reached, however, the guaranteed minimum income could be discontinued, and a moderate progressive income tax would begin. Very low for 50K to 75K. A little higher for 75K to 100K, and so on. Up to a very high tax rate for the million+ incomes.
The goal would be to guarantee a minimum survival income, and still allow people to keep whatever they can earn beyond it: up to a point. After that, we'd have to start paying income taxes. And those taxes will become quite high for the really big earners.
Or do they get $0 because they already make the minimum? If they don't get anything then you might be right, it won't have a big impact. But if this is going to be given to people no matter what then I do think there could be an impact. And it wouldn't just be spent on the basics. Since Trad was saying all other social programs (except universal healthcare and free schooling) would be cut out I'm thinking he meant everyone would get this money, regardless of what they currently make.
Yes, he did. But I think that's unnecessarily excessive. And I agree that it would probably drive up prices to have that much disposable income in everyone's pockets.
There is a difference between this proposal and current minimum wage laws though. Currently the businesses have to bear the cost of the min wage which can lead to increased costs. In this proposal it would be the gov't, so businesses are shielded. They wouldn't have that basis for increasing costs.
I agree. If a person has a guaranteed survival income, and he doesn't lose that income for working part time, or for a small wage, then business may find this system provides them more cheap labor, instead of less.
Like what? If a company is making a product then there must be some demand for it.
This is actually a little bit different issue, I think. If paying workers a survivable wage really does cause the products they are producing to be 'too expensive', then the product is not economically viable, and we should not produce it. Because the whole point of economic enterprise is to serve the well being of the people engaged in the enterprise. If the enterprise can't do that, then it should not be engaged in.
