Kristian Kongshøj
{"title":"Borgerløn: Kan det nu betale sig?","authors":"Kristian Kongshøj","doi":"10.7146/POLITIK.V21I3.113011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of basic income has been revitalized in the international debate as a solution to certain problematic trends, including labor market polarization or segmentation. This paper discusses two dominant issues in the debate, namely financing a basic income, and its ability to alleviate labor market segmentation. This means that the normative logics behind basic income with regard to justice, liberty and ecological sustainability will not be discussed. Following insights from the most recent international debate, the paper discusses the dilemma between the adequacy or generosity of basic income on the individual level, and its economic feasibility via taxation. A low or partial basic income model in combination with traditional income benefits could be feasible within the framework of existing tax levels. However, the paper also concludes that segmentation in terms of inequalities in exit and voice opportunities on the labor market is not solved by basic income by itself. Particularly low or partial basic income models may even support such inequalities. ","PeriodicalId":32549,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Politik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Politik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/POLITIK.V21I3.113011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基本收入的概念在国际辩论中重新焕发活力,作为解决某些问题趋势的办法,包括劳动力市场两极分化或分割。本文讨论了辩论中的两个主要问题,即基本收入的融资及其缓解劳动力市场分割的能力。这意味着基本收入背后关于正义、自由和生态可持续性的规范逻辑将不会被讨论。根据最近国际辩论的见解,本文讨论了个人层面上基本收入的充分性或慷慨性与通过税收实现其经济可行性之间的困境。在现有税收水平的框架内,结合传统收入福利的低或部分基本收入模式是可行的。然而,本文也得出结论,基本收入本身并不能解决劳动力市场退出和发言机会不平等方面的分割问题。特别是低或部分基本收入模型甚至可能支持这种不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Borgerløn: Kan det nu betale sig?
The idea of basic income has been revitalized in the international debate as a solution to certain problematic trends, including labor market polarization or segmentation. This paper discusses two dominant issues in the debate, namely financing a basic income, and its ability to alleviate labor market segmentation. This means that the normative logics behind basic income with regard to justice, liberty and ecological sustainability will not be discussed. Following insights from the most recent international debate, the paper discusses the dilemma between the adequacy or generosity of basic income on the individual level, and its economic feasibility via taxation. A low or partial basic income model in combination with traditional income benefits could be feasible within the framework of existing tax levels. However, the paper also concludes that segmentation in terms of inequalities in exit and voice opportunities on the labor market is not solved by basic income by itself. Particularly low or partial basic income models may even support such inequalities. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Electoral System and Party Survival: The Case of Indonesian Democracy 1999-2019 Educational Intervention Program for Young Voters: Improving Political Knowledge and Voting Behavior in the 2020 Simultaneous Local Elections Role of The State Intelligence Agency in Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia The Incumbent’s Curse, Party Institutionalization, and Competitive Factionalism in the Candidacy for South Halmahera Election in 2020 The Views and Movement of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Movement towards Global Capitalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1