>If no one will do a job that pays less than $2800 per month, then how will those jobs get done?
Then we will have to pay more than $2800 per month (or the job simply won't get done, which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
Then we will have to pay more than $2800 per month (or the job simply won't get done, which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
You can work a job that pays $1200 a month, and the program will chip in the rest to top it up.
This is not so people will do crappy jobs that pay very little, but instead so they can pursue things that otherwise don't pay very well, like working at a charity or other non-profit with a very slim budget.
I think this could pose a problem for truly awful jobs like at slaughterhouses, because nobody would be desperate.
I think this would pose a great solution for awful jobs: in order to attract workers you'd have to dramatically improve your working conditions.
Take Amazon's practice of hiring temps to work in their warehouses - Amazon might have to pay to introduce air conditioning and heating to their stockrooms, give their employees actual breaks, raise wages, etc.
Alternatively they'd invest more heavily in automation to replace employees, driving technological innovation while not displacing human labor.
Bit of a win/win.
It might drive up the price of meat until you could pay people enough to work in a slaughterhouse (or make it cost effective to automate them), but is that a bad thing?
GMI means you get $2800 unconditionally. If you do a job that pays $1200 a month you get paid $4000 a month.
The way these programs are paid for is because most people would be making more than $2800 a month anyway, so their net cost to the government is zero.
There are a few approaches to solve this problem - in some cases a negative income tax is applied, and in others the government actually issues a 'citizens dividend'.
Neither case necessarily mandates a 1:1 decrease in benefit as your other income sources go up. It all depends on how things are structured... someone with a significant monthly income could have a high enough tax as to effectively remove the base payment, where a particularly poor worker may not lose any.
And unfortunately I don't speak enough French to read the petition, and none of the sources in English I can find actually spell out the details.
Poor reporting wins again.
Mincome worked differently from this, but the OP talks about Basic Income, which just gives a fixed amount to everyone.
You just instituted a 100% marginal tax rate on the working poor.
Who? Who does this?
Earn $13,000 a year and get a $5,000 bump up.
Earn $15,000 a year and get a $3,000 bump up.
That's a 100% marginal tax. It is the worst possible design.