Swiss Plan to Pay Basic Income – Regardless of Job

reply to post by MALBOSIA


I am not discounting your fervor, but how will it be maintained since you don't see difficulty in that manner? Who is going to pay for it? Currency has to be derived from someplace and Governments, unless they own industry, do not receive income save that of taxes, fees and tariffs. So where is this income going to be derived from to pay the basic income?

For a place like Switzerland, with only 8 or so million and a highly homogenous people, I can see this working. Place it into a more "multi-cultural" Western Nation such as the United States, it runs into problems.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Oh yeah, was the study an actual country and what parameters did they preclude?

The results of this experiment will be conclusive IMO.

greencmp

As long as you are aware that the trade-off is the removal of social services. It isn't clear that that is specified in the Swiss plan but, it is the only way to achieve the goal so some variant of that must be the caveat.

Some years ago I got into this idea and would debate it with my lefty friends in Cambridge and to a person the only argument against it was that people are stupid and will do drugs and be dead on the street within hours. I think that sentiment is shared at the national level on all "social" issues; that people can't be allowed to make decisions for themselves. On the right, my friends would say the same thing most of the time though not to a person.

As I said before, I like the idea as compared to the status quo but, would prefer much smaller government with much less power and much much lower taxes.

I do feel I need to restate that Friedman's purpose was to expose that very little of the money designated for the poor actually makes it to the poor. The welfare system's beneficiaries are the welfare system's employees.

edit on 15-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Good points. I like this idea, if for nothing else than an experiment. I don't care if it's been tried before either. Just because it was once tried and failed doesn't mean it WILL ALWAYS fail. I'm sure many others tried to fly before the Wright Brothers made it work but had they looked at the past attempts and decided they too would fail we might still be grounded to this day.

Your points are a good look into how it might work though. Obviously something has to be given up to adjust for it. Social Services, Massive Military Spending, or whatever would have to be switched over, so to speak. Since you say you spent time already on this issue, how far did you take it and what were the obstacles that you came to that you couldn't figure out how to solve???

reply to post by AzureSky

People aren't lazy. People who don't want to work won't, and those that do, will. Most people want to work, even with a basic guaranteed income, there isn't a person i know that would quit their job.

Yeah ok,

Do you think for one minute that i'm going to go to work and bust my arse, wearing my body out, exposed to the elements, when the guy that sits at home next door and gardens and makes the same amount of money as me?

No thanks, I work extremely hard for my money, as many people do.

This system would collapse because in the end the crappy blue collar jobs keep it all running.

As a tradesman there is no way that people in the industry would still work while everyone else gets the same pay.

Not everyone gets to sit a computer desk in the AC while it is 98 degrees out.

It will never work. Granted I make over $24,000 a year, but after taxes it about equals out in the long run.

reply to post by mOjOm


I agree with you. A simple, even complicated experiment is nothing compared to actual live testing in a real economy.

reply to post by onequestion


I am not your brain...you decide. I gave you the link. I have already said it was applied here in the States so you can infer how that plays out. Even then though, the studies and writing upon it afterward explain how the poverty line -- the line in which this thread thinks such a plan would elevate -- is the biggest player in this situation.

For example, if any Government has decided that $2000/month was to be given to each of its citizens (and they would have to be actual citizens; verifiable somehow....another subject probably) and another that is making $2700/month, with a small enjoyment of luxury and possible savings amount -- they begin to wonder and calculate why they are putting in hours of labor to barely make more than their neighbor who is living virtually the same lives as themselves.

reply to post by liejunkie01


How are you going to refute the results if this turns out to be a cultural changing mechanism that fuels innovation and actually gets results?

Ill tell you what, our current system didn't work so how about a solution?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


My plan is to wait and see. Part of the creative process is live testing your results. Even if this doesnt work, maybe it will spawn a moment of novelty in which we can see the birth of a new process.

reply to post by onequestion


Easy to wait and see when you are not part of the "solution" -- regardless of outcome. It is imperative that such an economic model be completely embraced by the People that wish to employ it.

I have still yet to receive any speculation on the following though: Who is going to pay for this basic income? Where is the Government going to derive the monies to pay for it? Tariffs and taxes are fickle and change so the assumption that a Government will just pay out to its citizens a fixed amount regardless if they can actually do so sounds similar to where we are at now no?

ownbestenemy

onequestion
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I guess were really going to find out what the end result will be, my question to you is will you ignore the results?

I don't know, are you going to assume I am not interested in it? Studies have already been done on this and it doesn't bode well. You can continue to believe I am so narrow minded without actually knowing me though.

I am with you, it is still socialism and will fail for that reason alone because it ignores (or actively mistreats) the wealth creating power of a truly free market which creates more pie.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


But according to this article what is being discussed here isn't being means tested. It is 2k a month stipend being applied uniformly, unless I am reading it wrong. Not that I don't agree with you there are plenty of pitfalls for this well intentioned idea. And really outside of the whole laziness comment I agree with you. It isn't a sustainable idea unless you want the Government exercising lots of control over your life which they would eventually have to do to make it sustainable.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Never claimed laziness. My implications were towards incentive....completely different animal and the notion of laziness has been applied ignorantly....from both sides

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Why dont we drop the economic incentives and work on replacing them with cultural and social incentives?

I'm totally loving the whole idea.
This is the type of approach humankind needs to attain the next level of evolution, no doubt about it.
Don't let the fear of the unknown and change scare you and you will undeniably see so many benefits.

onequestion
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Why dont we drop the economic incentives and work on replacing them with cultural and social incentives?

Are you saying humans can find the drive to work for something else than money?!!??

Blasphemy! :p

What could work in Switzerland with a population of 8.5 million would not work as well in a country of 953 million. Switzerland enjoys generally a low taxation rate however they do have a bunch of them....federal tax....income tax....vat tax....canton tax....municipality tax and it all adds up and again only 8.5 million people to worry about which is why health care fairs better as far as being "free".

reply to post by DJMSN


Does the size of the population change the percentages?

What is it exactly that makes it so it cant be scaled?

onequestion
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

How are you going to refute the results if this turns out to be a cultural changing mechanism that fuels innovation and actually gets results?

Ill tell you what, our current system didn't work so how about a solution?

If it turns out to be a cultural changing event, then sign me up.

But we need to see the results first.

We can start cleaning up our system that we have by first getting big business out of Washington. Big business should'nt make the rules, but they do. Secondly crooked politicians, all of them need to be held accountable for their actions. Welfare recipients should have to do community service to be eligible for benefits. There is something everyone can do that would benefit society. Free trade needs to be abolished and foreign goods needs to be taxed accordingly, regardless how some see it, there is a problem with getting materials shipped abroad, manufactured there, and shipped back at a cheaper rate than we can make it here. It is not our wages that do this, it is the lack of accountability by other nations that allow slave labor, we should not condone this. Cut wadteful spending from the government, if everybody in Congress acted accordingly we could trim the budget tremendously, therefore tax less and people would have more money to spend. Also without crooked politics we wouldn't be funding ignorant wars and trying to police the darn world. While it is ok to help other nations, it is not up to the US to be the police, economic backbone, or prop to any other nation. Sure there is wrong, bad people in the world, but how can a broke economy nation keep policing and being the security backbone of other nations without first taking care of our own.

There is "fixes" that can happen, but big business needs to be run out of Washington. Without this it will only be the same bs over and over again.

Of course this is my opinion and if my ideas were implemented, wecould also see cultural advancements with the absence of coruption, or it could be a massive failure.

reply to post by liejunkie01

But we need to see the results first.

Great place to start, now how do we get everyone else on the same page?

I agree with the rest of your post completely.

onequestion
reply to post by DJMSN

 

Does the size of the population change the percentages?

What is it exactly that makes it so it cant be scaled?

Exactly. These are the questions needing to be not only asked but answered. Scale cannot be an issue or it's a failure. At the same time it also can't rely on "People Being Nice to Each Other" or any other Utopian Conciousness kind of ideas either. Humanity becoming enlightened and Acting Responsible as a whole isn't going to work. The reason is because such wonderful ideas like that, like Star Trek, are a possible Result but not how to get there. In other words, Utopia or Star Trek society, if ever possible, is the result of a correct functioning system, rather than the means to get there. A correctly functioning system, in time would produce that kind of culture, maybe, but it would go in that order only. The functioning system, over time, would start producing the populace that would, Work Together, Be Kind, Supportive, etc. Not the other way around.

So it would have to be able to be scaled to any reasonable size.

It couldn't rely on People to change themselves into some All for One attitude, but may perhaps result in that attitude after a while if done correctly.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by onequestion
[more

For example, if any Government has decided that $2000/month was to be given to each of its citizens (and they would have to be actual citizens; verifiable somehow....another subject probably) and another that is making $2700/month, with a small enjoyment of luxury and possible savings amount -- they begin to wonder and calculate why they are putting in hours of labor to barely make more than their neighbor who is living virtually the same lives as themselves.

Exactly. Why are they selling the hours of their very lives? For a small enjoyment of luxury? What is that? A bigger TV? A new couch like the neighbor has? Sounds like he or she should quit that "job" they resent having to drudge through every day and DO something worthwhile with what little time they have in their life as a human being on Earth. Grow your own food. Spend time with your loved ones. Create something. Appreciate being alive. I would love to see my children living in a society where that was possible.