Swiss to vote on $2,800 monthly income for all adults

[Left2Tackle]

Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis.

A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs — about $2,800 — per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.

http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults?stay=1

Good for them. It'll be interesting to see how this vote goes.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. Someone gets it! Too bad it isn't us.

[TheDebbieDee]

132. The Swiss, and most of Europe for that matter, has always "gotten" it.....

In one of the northern European countries (Denmark, perhaps) last year, crime had fallen to such levels that they actually had to SHUTDOWN a few prisons!

[awoke_in_2003]

137. That would, sadly, never fly here. nt

[Sunlei]

138. would love to retire there but they want immigrants with citizenship ideas to come with some $$ :)

[Avalux]

2. Wow. The Swiss are doing it right. n/t

[steve2470]

3. Good for the Swiss

Maybe one day we can follow their example. Less misery for the poor = better life for everyone.

[dkf]

4. But it's over "pay inequality" so do you have to work? Is this basically a minimum wage?

[jeff47]

15. Well...the summary says this:

A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs — about $2,800 — per month from the state

And requiring work would make it "conditional" income instead of "unconditional"....

[dkf]

20. Boy I'd retire. Or can I not use savings?

[jeff47]

23. "Unconditional"

As for actually retiring, I have no idea what costs are in Switzerland. So I have no idea if that's the equivalent purchasing power of $100 or $1000. (Exchange rates don't really tell you purchasing power)

[dkf]

34. Do they give you $2800 and tax $1800? Lol.

[Left2Tackle]

75. We'll see. That would defeat the purpose though.

[dickthegrouch]

57. Completely meaningless without a cost-of-living comparison

How long does it take someone on minimum wage to earn a pair of shoes, a loaf of bread, fill their car with gas, pay for their housing?
Those figures allow for a real apples-to-apples comparison.

Exchange rates, taxation, cost of living and pay scales are completely different all around the world. I hate meaningless so-called comparisons like this.

[Left2Tackle]

81. Here's a start...

Money, while it cannot buy happiness, is an important means to achieving higher living standards. In Switzerland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income is 30 060 USD a year, more than the OECD average of 23 047 USD a year. But there is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn nearly five times as much as the bottom 20%.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/switzerland/

http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/wages_and_prosperity/

[LukeFL]

156. Are you saying there's no rich people

There and that everyone is equal? Or the rich gap is wider than the US that they had to increase the unconditional salary of the lowest paying workers/ retirees or ppl living under government help!?

I don't get it. I have a fam member who lived in Spain. When she comes to visit she pretty is stunt at the amount of "stuff" we have here.

You know, TVs in every room of the house, grocery shopping is endless and "a lot" for her, shoes, I have many pairs ( I won't deny)

So, i don't get it. Age works in Spain's but goods there are so expressive to obtain.. A purse or shoe or watch is pretty much a dream..

[Left2Tackle]

163. No, the links I gave were just showing the cost of living in Switzerland,

and what the average income there is. As a reference.

[Ed Suspicious]

201. Well, the CEO to worker pay inequality in the states is something on the order of

365 to 1 so 5:1 seems pretty reasonable really. Much more close to equality that the US.

[a2liberal]

170. Wow

So they have the top 20% earning 5 times as much as the bottom 20%, and are up in arms about income inequality. Here our top 25% make almost 6 times as much as the bottom 50% and we're supposed to be happy about it. (Sorry, I couldn't find top/bottom 20% numbers in a quick search, I'm sure they're much worse) http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-where-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

Edit: found the numbers, the top 20% make 10 times as much as the bottom 20% here (that's income, not wealth, which is a much larger disparity) http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. The OCED Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate for 2012 was $1=1.39 Swiss francs

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=SNA_TABLE4

so, by that, 2,500 SF/month is more like $1800/month.

[JDPriestly]

106. It would barely cover your essentials in Switzerland.

I don't think anyone who could work will decide to retire on that.

[stevenleser]

133. Agreed. Switzerland is horrifically expensive.

Prices for goods are considerably more than in Manhattan.

[dkf]

147. Worse than Hawaii? Oh boy it is....

moments:


CHF 12,90 ($13.99) for a small container of ice cream? Quite the champagne price for vanilla, don't you think?
CHF 39,90 ($43.27) for 116 Pampers…oh, wait, this is the SALE PRICE (Originally CHF 59,90–$64.96)?
CHF 39,90 ($43.27) for laundry detergent?
CHF 3 ($3.25) for a dinner roll that’s in a basket on the table even though my entrée costs CHF 29 ($31.44)?
CHF 5,90 ($6.39) for a miniscule bag of nacho chips?
CHF 1,19 ($1.29) a minute to call customer service for the honor of giving them my business?
CHF 1600 ($1,735) for a baby stroller?
CHF 500 ($542) for a USED baby stroller?
CHF 159 ($172) for a nursing pillow?
CHF 35 ($38) for two foot-long Subway sandwiches (no chips or drinks), but a real deal considering: CHF 35 ($38) for a club sandwich (side of veggies costs more).

http://www.onebigyodel.com/2012/02/cost-of-living-in-zurich.html

[LukeFL]

158. A baby stroller cost US$1K!!!!!!

I will ship the one my baby is no liber using to whoever you think needs one there!!

Gosh!!

[CTyankee]

181. If the swiss hate the cost of living, they can try emigrating to the U.S!

I'm sure there will be a huge swell of Swiss immigrants to our shores DEMANDING their right to low costs/low incomes, "living the dream" in the USA!

[quakerboy]

118. I wouldnt. I still have things to do

I could now do them. Ive always wanted to make something. Maybe really solid furniture, of the type you cannot now buy for anything remotely resembling a reasonable price.

And I could go back to hanging out with elders who dont really have family to care for them.

There are a number of other things I still want to do with my life. The things I have always wanted to do if I had money and didn't have to worry about making rent and groceries.

[seveneyes]

111. Unconditional would imply those making six figures already would get it too

That makes no sense to me.

[jeff47]

124. Political benefit.

A large part of why Social Security is popular because everyone gets it.

If you only give it to the poor, opponents of the program can demonize it as giving money to "those people".

[Sunlei]

136. That's really a good idea. Country doesn't have to hand out any basic aid like food stamps, housing

In the long run that would save a country billions in administration costs alone.

[quakerboy]

140. Why?

How many 6 figure types are there? Are they going to pose some sort of undue burden on the system?

[seveneyes]

154. My thinking is that there would be more available to those more in need

If those that did not need it withheld from taking it.

[quakerboy]

176. Nope.

Its the same amount, its a guaranteed income. Thats the point. Like Social Security, you get your amount regardless of what your other retirement income is. Its not a program for the poor, its a program for everyone

Or, another direction, Once you start putting qualifications, and then you will just keep adding them. Only if you make under 6 figures. Only if you make under 2800/month. Only if you have kids. Only if... fill in the blank.

Or, you can look to the numbers. If its 1 in 100 who is making 6 figures, who you want to disqualify and redistribute out to the others(though, its not a pot portioned out, its a set number, so you would have to completely rework that), then thats 2800/100= 28. if its 1 in 1000, then its only 2.8. I dont know what the breakdown is over there, but given that average income is reportedly 30,000 ish, its not likely there are enough to make a difference in the program. The way these things usually seem to work, it would probably end up costing as much to means test everyone every few months, verify all the income, create all the paperwork, as it would to just make it universal.

[sharp_stick]

5. I don't know the Swiss system at all

How do they control inflation doing something like this? Do they have price controls on everything, just the basics?

[jeff47]

18. Minimum wage hikes demonstrate that giving more money to poor people

doesn't necessarily cause inflation.

There was no appreciable inflation in the US states that raised their minimum wage compared to states that did not.

[sharp_stick]

31. Is this a small increase

as most minimum wage hikes are or would this be a major jump?

Minimum wage hikes and the wage in general in this country is so paltry that even after they occur the people getting it are so far below the poverty line that I'm not surprised inflation doesn't move.

I should look into this more first, I might just be spouting pointless questions.

[jeff47]

58. Don't know the exact amounts off the top of my head. But the amounts were significant.

$7/hr when the national is $5.15, for example. Plenty to cause measurable inflation, if it was going to.

[Ghost in the Machine]

168. Dalton, Ga, back in '86-'87, McDonalds and Burger King were paying $8.00-$8.50/hr to compete with

all of the carpet and textile mills. Dalton was really booming then..."The Carpet Capital of the U.S." *EVERYWHERE* was having to pay the high wages to even keep workers on, and people were living good.

Peace,

Ghost

[Hydra]

150. Inflation usually starts bubbling when labor is near 100% and demand outstrips supply

That's why we haven't even had a hint of that in the US. Labor utilization is probably 70% at most, while demand is sluggish since people want things but either can't afford it or are hesitant to spend right now.

That's normal inflation though- food and fuel inflation have been crazy for years and will stay that way because they are necessities.

If we did something similar to the swiss idea, everything would start moving immediately, but wouldn't set off any major (normal) inflation because we have a glut of services and products. I can't speak for the unnatual inflation stuff, because that's not related to how much money is in the economy.

[Cleita]

6. Good idea. I hope it spreads. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

7. Even if the vote fails, I am envious that they have a government

that would even consider such a thing.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. exactly. Thank you. I get so tired of hearing we can't vote on that. We don't have enough votes.

Who cares if there aren't enough votes? It still needs to be part of the conversation, part of the fight. Did Martin Luther King Jr. say we can't fight for civil rights because there aren't enough votes for it? Hell no. He and many others fought for it until the support for it was there. We need to be fighting for things like fully funded SS, Medicare, education, living wages, single payer health care. I don't care if the votes are there or not. We still need to be fighting for these things.

[PoliticAverse]

11. The promotors got enough votes for a ballot initiative, kind of the same way people get propositions

on the ballot in California.

[PoliticAverse]

8. Two more detailed articles on the issue...

http://www.revue.ch/politik-05-de3

From June: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Old_utopian_ideal_revived_on_Swiss_streets.html?cid=36104780

[StrictlyRockers]

16. I read the whole article, and I wholeheartedly support this plan.

This is an idea for our times. This is what Occupy Wall Street wanted without being able to articulate it well. This is something our country could easily afford. Our neanderthal opposition party would stand in the way, but the way I see it, it's still only a matter of time before we implement this here. Will it take ten years? Twenty? One hundred? It will happen.

[Luminous Animal]

97. Actually, I was in many discussions online and in real life about a guaranteed living wage from

cradle to grave. Quite a bit of community organizing and educating resulted including a call to action and "Occupy Midsummer: Global Festivals for the Universal Living Wage "

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-midsummer-global-festivals-universal-living/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089852/-Occupy-Wall-Street-Calls-for-Universal-Living-Wage-Proclaims-New-Holiday

Forbes, Fox, Glenn Beck and The Wall Street Journal found the idea ludicrous, of course.

[StrictlyRockers]

135. Thank you for filling me in.

I remember hearing about it a little bit, maybe once only. But, perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention to this movement. I very much supported them. I remember hearing more about student loan forgiveness. I also think this is a great idea.

[Left2Tackle]

83. Much more info in this article, thanks.

[bossy22]

10. im confused

Is this like a minimum wage type thing or a social security check?

[PoliticAverse]

13. It's a check to everyone every month. So it's like a Social Security check to everyone regardless of

age or income or employment. (Edit: On further research apparently children will receive 1/4 of the full amount).

"The popular initiative for an unconditional basic income (UBI) calls for everyone to receive a sum of 2,500 Swiss francs a month from the cradle to the grave with no conditions attached."

http://www.revue.ch/politik-05-de3

[bossy22]

17. who is going to pay for this

I see many issues with this. I have no problem with financial assitance for unemployed people or the poor but an unconditional 2500 a month is going to have some negative effects. I can see a significant number of young people not working and living off this amount.

[jeff47]

21. Damn lazy kids!!! Get off my lawn!! (nt)

[liberal_at_heart]

22. My husband is receiving disability(legally blind) and he is still trying to start his own business.

This means giving up his disability, but that's okay with him. He wants to work. Assuming that people will stop working because they have a guaranteed income is incorrect.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Assuming that all people will stop working is obviously incorrect, assuming that many people might

could turn out to be true. Best wishes to you and your husband.

[bossy22]

27. not all people will srop working

But you have to assume some will. Especially those younger individuals who might have very few expenses. I'm talking about those in their late teens early 20s

[DJ13]

84. So?

Any number that drops out of the labor pool reduces unemployment, which then increases competition for the remaining workers, which will lead to improved wages.

Wheres the downside?

[dkf]

36. Heck I would stop working. In a second.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. some people probably would. Hell we have people who chose not to work now. You will always have

some who will either chose not to work or cannot work no matter system you have. And maybe our attitude towards those who chose not to work or cannot work needs to change. Maybe our attitude that every person should work is an unrealistic expectation. Because like I said you will have those who won't work no matter what system you have. But there will also be plenty of people who want to work either for more money or because they have a passion for what they are doing.

[bossy22]

44. but you would inadvertantly shrink the work force

Causing the remaining workers to support a larger amount of the population. This would then cause even less incentive to work. It would have a snowball effect

[liberal_at_heart]

53. our workforce is already shrinking due to the new global economy. That is the new reality.

[bossy22]

61. no it isnt

Even if it is...why would we want to make the situation worse.

[7962]

82. Careful, you're asking too many good questions!

[liberal_at_heart]

104. just how many conservative democrats and republicans do we have posting on this thread?

FDR democrats and liberal independents will fight to return this country to the people whether other people like it or not.

[7962]

126. His/her questions should be valid regardless of where you stand politically

The things bossy and others asked have merit. But merely asking them here gets you labeled.
If you think paying people without requiring them to EVER do ANYTHING is wonderful, then YOU play right into the GOP's hands.

[Kingofalldems]

145. Republicans period.

[dkf]

45. People may have a passion for what they are doing but free time is still more fun.

I wonder what % of the population would work if it were a choice. And is there a point to educating everyone if they don't intend to work?

[PoliticAverse]

55. Because they still would vote (not that the current education system here is producing informed

voters).

[Hydra]

85. We still need to educate people, even if they aren't working

I'd be one of the first non-workers if we had this, but I'd also volunteer, go to school or independent study, possibly teach a bit and work on open source projects.

The education would be critical because people would need to be aware of the things the system needed to continue in that way- like people who don't vote for Republicans or people who respect fact based science.

[Nimyth]

96. Some would

because they hate their jobs - in US workers have very few rights and little or no work flexibility, but most of those people will NOT stay idle, they will take their experience and skills and start business's, co-ops, volunteer for a cause that is important to them etc.. etc.. most will find something to do and most of those somethings they do will create revenue and generate new job opportunities.

[treestar]

161. Upthread it barely covers essentials

so the point is so that no one falls down so far they are in complete discomfort.

Most people would work so they could have more.

This is one of those memes of Republicans that is wrong. Having a bottom like that would just preserve people from want. They could build on that.

[PoliticAverse]

24. That's a good question, I think how to pay for it is something they haven't completely specified.

2,500 SF a month is about $2,761.82 US ($33,141.84/year). I think that would provide a great
deal of disincentive to work. I doubt this initiative will pass because of the many uncertainties involved.

[bossy22]

32. thats what im saying

If ur take home pay is that much your salary would be around 45,000. That's a decent wage...especially among younger individuals who have few expenses. I know if I was making that much I wouldn't have worked straight out of college. I would have taken a few years to enjoy myself before entering the work force

[dkf]

43. Why enter the work force at all?

Starting off I didn't get nearly that much. It took over 10 years to get there. So is it that you do not get a pay raise til you hit $45000 and exceed that floor? You really would be working for no reason.

[bossy22]

67. for almost all college grads there wouldnt be

[liberal_at_heart]

70. oh, bullshit. Many college grads either went to college because they want to either make more money

or because they want a career that makes a difference in this world. Many of our college grads are forced to take any job they can because their debt is too high and wages are too low. If they had a guaranteed income they could pursue that career they are passionate about but would otherwise not pursue because of their debt and low wages. Maybe we would have a resurgence of liberal arts majors. I think that would be great for our country. Many people don't pursue liberal arts because it does not pay enough and because college costs are too high. A Renaissance of thought, of intellectualism, of philosophy, of music, of art. It would be beautiful.

[bossy22]

76. or they could pursue their passion for partying all the time

You haven't been to college recently have you? You have an unrealistically utopian view of human nature. Yes, there will be those who follow the route you speak of, but there will also be those who follow the route I speak of. Most college students know they won't be making making 6 figures when they get out and would be extremely happy pulling in a take home pay of 2800 a month. Many of them live at home with little or no expenses and even with loans they would still have a sizable amount of disposable income.

[liberal_at_heart]

79. I have a daughter in college. She is studying to be a veterinarian. I also have a son in high school

who wants to own his own ice cream store. They are following their passions. If I didn't have debilitating anxiety I would follow my dream to become a biologist. My husband is pursuing his dream of owning his own business. Yes, there would be people who would chose not to work. There are hundreds of millions who would chose to work.

[bossy22]

92. there would be millions who wouldnt work

You would be giving people the equivelent to the national household income for no work. There would be a lot of people who didn't work.

[liberal_at_heart]

99. I'm done arguing with you about this. You can think whatever you want. I support it.

[gollygee]

121. Well if you get $2800 from the gov't and make $2200

You have $4000, which is better than $2800. That's a reason to work.

[bettyellen]

164. because you'd have more money to spend on your 8 week vacations, a nicer place to live....

And lots off people enjoy their careers, and we'd all be better off if those who showed up for work resentfully just stayed home.

[stevenleser]

200. But in Switzerland that is the equivalent of $15K/yr in most of the US. Or $22K/yr in NYC

That is not a disincentive to work. It's barely scraping by. Check out dkf's reply to me above where she asks if it is more expensive than Hawaii... and comes to the conclusion yes it is. Look at the prices she notes there.

At that income level in Switzerland, you can pay rent in the poorest neighborhood, and pay utilities and buy cheap food from the supermarket if you are really careful. That's it.

[Duer 157099]

25. Yeah, the lazy bums

Maybe they'll produce art or music or something that doesn't have to be sold

[bossy22]

28. true

Or they could sit around getting drunk and high and play video games all day. It happens now even without such support

[Duer 157099]

33. Exactly. People that want to work will work; those that don't won't

A happier society for all. Some might sit around getting high all day because they feel pressure. What if that pressure were removed and they discover some creative force within them? Civilized societies want this sort of thing to happen, imho. At least my version of civilized society.

[bossy22]

41. and society could collapse

Do you ever watch dirty jobs with mike Rowe? Look at how many disgusting terrible jobs that someone has to do in order for our modern life to function. Someone has to pick up the trash, someone has the clean sewers, somebody has to enforce the law.

This is the reality we live in. Yes, civilized societies want what you say, but they can't happen unless some people do the above things.

[leftstreet]

51. $25 an hour to pick up trash might do the trick

Rich people don't do shit, and society hasn't collapsed

[bossy22]

54. NYC already does this

Any way that amount comes out to about the same amount you would get paid under this swiss plan. So why would you pick up trash?

[leftstreet]

59. Is NYC getting its trash picked up?

Has the city found a correlation with good wages and filling jobs?

[bossy22]

65. yes they fill jobs, but i dont think the service is any better

In fact I find that the garbage service where I live is a lot better...and they aren't paid nearlyvas much as NYC

[seveneyes]

114. Yes, NYC is picking up its trash

I think we don't know the outcome in NYC if suddenly everyone got 2800.00 bucks for not working every month. I certainly don't know what would happen.

[Betty88]

195. What would happen is people would still work

You would not be able to sit around and get high and play games all day. Do you have any idea what pot costs in this place? and BTW video games are like 50-60 bucks a pop. Put on top of that the monitor, gaming system, nice chair to sit in all day. We haven't even put in the cost of munchies.

[LanternWaste]

62. Additional income

Additional income

That's why I would do it. But I don't pretend to speak for, or have insight into the lives, incentives and desires of others, or why or why not anyone else does or does not a thing-- even if from a different culture. That pretense is much better illustrated by those who imagine they are clever...

[bossy22]

63. there is probably a significant amount of people

Who feel their loss of free time is not worth the extra income

[liberal_at_heart]

56. "rich people don't do shit and society hasn't collapsed." good point.

[Decaffeinated]

179. There's nothing wrong with pressure...

There should be an incentive to do something.

Getting paid to sit on your ass, doing drugs and fucking off is not something to be encouraged...

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

203. Well, in fact, this thread is about how, despite what you may believe, you just might

be wrong.

[Jamastiene]

78. So, the support isn't causing the ones who do the things you describe

to do what they do. Why blame the support?

[CTyankee]

183. I'm sure you are right! Those Swiss are known for their lazy goldurned ways! Never doing anything!

Once they find out about how good we have it in the US of A they'll be here in boatloads! I'll bet they are fighting to get to our Embassy/consulates there to get immigration information! Er, if those offices are even operating normally since our government can't seem to er, govern...oh, never mind...

[liberal_at_heart]

35. we can't have that. We have to force people to be tech engineers so our slave drivers have

worker bees.

[bossy22]

42. no

But the truth is someone has to do it. Society can't function without it

[dkf]

47. Or producing posts on DU!

[Dragonfli]

127. There is a less archaic point of view than work as slaves or deserve to die.

Suppose, for a moment, we challenge the Calvinistic mind-set. Let us regard wage-work—as most people do, in fact, regard it—as a curse, a drag, a nuisance, a barrier that stands between us and what we really want to do. In that case, your job is the disease, and unemployment is the cure.

"But without working for wages we'll all starve to death!?! Won't we?"
Not at all. Many farseeing social thinkers have suggested intelligent and plausible plans for adapting to a society of rising unemployment. Here are some examples.

1. The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived with some modifications by poet Ezra Pound and designer Buck-minster Fuller. The basic idea (although Douglas, Pound, and Fuller differ on details) is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year. Estimates differ as to how much this would be for each citizen, but at the current level of the GNP it is conservative to say that a share would be worth several times as much, per year, as a welfare recipient receives—at least five times more.
Critics complain that this would be inflationary. Supporters of the National Dividend reply that it would only be inflationary if the dividends distributed were more than the GNP; and they are proposing only to issue dividends equal to the GNP.

2. The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been urged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less; if your wages fall below that level, or you have no wages, the government makes up the difference.
This plan would definitely cost the government less than the present welfare system, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy: a point worth considering for those conservatives who are always complaining about the high cost of welfare. It would also spare the recipients the humiliation, degradation, and dehumanization built into the present welfare system: a point for liberals to consider. A system that is less expensive than welfare and also less debasing to the poor, it seems to me, should not be objectionable to anybody but hardcore sadists.

3. The Negative Income Tax. Even this Milton Friedman idea makes a case, a less radical variation on the above ideas. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Friedman, who is sometimes called a conservative but prefers to title himself a libertarian, points out that this would cost "the government" (i.e., the taxpayers) less than the present welfare system, like Theobald's Guaranteed Annual Income. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody (not even your banker) would know if it was supplementary income due to poverty or a refund due to over-payment of last year's taxes.

4- The RICH Economy. This was devised by inventor L. Wayne Benner (coauthor with Timothy Leary of Terra II) in collaboration with the present author. It's a four-stage program to retool society for the cybernetic and space-age future we are rapidly entering. RICH means Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis.

Stage I is to recognize that cybernation and massive unemployment are inevitable and to encourage them. This can be done by offering a $100,000 reward to any worker who can design a machine that will replace him or her, and all others doing the same work. In other words, instead of being dragged into the cybernetic age kicking and screaming, we should charge ahead bravely, regarding the Toilless Society as the Utopian goal humanity has always sought.

Stage II is to establish either the Negative Income Tax or the Guaranteed Annual In-come, so that the massive unemployment caused by Stage I will not throw hordes of people into the degradation of the present welfare system.

Stage III is to gradually, experimentally, raise the Guaranteed Annual Income to the level of the National Dividend suggested by Douglas, Bucky Fuller, and Ezra Pound, which would give every citizen the approximate living standard of the comfortable middle class. The reason for doing this gradually is to pacify those conservative economists who claim that the National Dividend is "inflationary" or would practically wreck the banking business by lowering the interest rate to near-zero. It is our claim that this would not happen as long as the total dividends distributed to the populace equaled the Gross National Product. But since this is a revolutionary and controversial idea, it would be prudent, we allow, to approach it in slow steps, raising the minimum income perhaps 5 per cent per year for the first ten years. And, after the massive cybernation caused by Stage I has produced a glut of consumer goods, experimentally raise it further and faster toward the level of a true National Dividend.

Stage IV is a massive investment in adult education, for two reasons. (1) People can spend only so much time fucking, smoking dope, and watching TV; after a while they get bored. This is the main psychological objection to the workless society, and the answer to it is to educate people for functions more cerebral than fucking, smoking dope, watching TV, or the idiot jobs most are currently toiling at. (2) There are vast challenges and opportunities confronting us in the next three or four decades, of which the most notable are those high-lighted in Tim Leary's SMI2LE slogan-Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life Extension. Humanity is about to enter an entirely new evolutionary relationship to space, time, and consciousness. We will no longer be limited to one planet, to a brief, less-than-a-century lifespan, and to the stereotyped and robotic mental processes by which most people currently govern their lives. Everybody deserves the chance, if they want it, to participate in the evolutionary leap to what Leary calls "more space, more time, and more intelligence to
enjoy space and time."

What I am proposing, in brief, is that the Work Ethic (find a Master to employ you for wages, or live in squalid poverty) is obsolete. A Work Aesthetic will have to arise to replace this old Stone Age syndrome of the slave, the peasant, the serf, the prole, the wage-worker—the human labor-machine who is not fully a person but, as Marx said, "a tool, an automaton." Delivered from the role of things and robots, people will learn to become fully developed persons, in the sense of the Human Potential movement. They will not seek work out of economic necessity, but out of psychological necessity—as an outlet for their creative potential.

("Creative potential" is not a panchreston. It refers to the inborn drive to play, to tinker, to explore, and to experiment, shown by every child before his or her mental processes are stunted by authoritarian education and operant-conditioned wage-robotry.)
As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are delivered from wage-slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?" The answer to that question, coming from millions and then billions of persons liberated from mechanical toil, will make the Renaissance look like a high school science fair or a Greenwich Village art show.

The above is just a portion of a larger argument put forth by Robert Anton Wilson which can be found as the reprinted article, "the Rich Economy" found in
"The Illuminati Papers" (1997) from Ronin Publishing.

PDF

[sabrina 1]

29. Well, put it this way. They are not spending trillions on the Military, which some

people wonder about here: 'How does this work, where do they get all that money to start all these wars', wouldn't that have some negative effects'?

Instead, they are proposing putting money back into the economy because poor people SPEND their money rather than hoard it and stash it away in offshore accounts, taking it OUT of the economy.

So imagine if we did something like this. Crime would probably go down for one thing. All that 'war money' wouldn't be going to giant Defense Contractors with the work being outsourced in many cases. It would be recirculating in this economy.

It is the reason I support INCREASING SS Benefits which would be a Stimulus Package which wouldn't be coming from the Fed Govt Funds.

It's strange that people here don't see the total failure for millions of Americans of the system WE live under.

I would much prefer WE emulated THEM than the other way around.

Not to mention the morality involved. I know, that is a word used only by the 'weak' here in the US. Strength here equals kicking people when they are down and shooting anything that gets in our way and paying in the trillions to do so and to make sure all that money emanating from our Government, goes to just a small % of the population.

[PoliticAverse]

50. US spends about 4.4% of GDP on the military, Switzerland about 0.7%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[liberal_at_heart]

60. 4.4 %? Wow. Think of what we could do if we weren't spending that much on military.

[Egalitarian Thug]

108. If we cut counter-productive military expenditures by 2/3, we would have a trillion dollars

to put into our economy. That's about $8,500 per household, spread it among the lower 80% and it becomes $10,500 a year.

Want to jump-start the Main Street economy? Here's a good start.

[liberal_at_heart]

110. The next time there is a bank crisis and you know there will be, we should demand that we get sent

the checks directly. Let the banks fail, and send the money they would have sent the banks directly to the people.

[bossy22]

52. it would cost roughly 6 trillion to do this in the u.s.

More than the entire federal budget

[sabrina 1]

141. Where did you come up with figure? The whole country would not need it.

And many of those who would, would not need it forever. It wouldn't cost anywhere near that and the more jobs we created here the fewer would need it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. But the point of it is that it goes to every adult, unconditionally

You don't worry about who need it, you just give it to every resident (one of the articles linked from this thread does specify its 'resident', not 'citizen'). You adjust the 'fairness' with how you finance it, I presume (eg tax all income above that fairly heavily).

[dipsydoodle]

175. Yes - their tax scale must have some bearing on this

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2013, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

and I'm guessing that to cover it the top marginal rate would become similar to what ours was back in the '70s i.e. c. 90%.

I could see it working IF they've got an equivalent of our monthly PAYE - give with the left hand and take with the right.

I saw your point elsewhere re. where recipients money would actually be spent and yes it doesn't follow it would be spent in Switzerland. If its like the UK, never mind holidays abroad or breezing over the border on shopping trips to France, Italy or Germany, some would go straight out to eastern Europe and Asia as bank transfers.

edit to add : no their tax is paid annually. Be interesting to know where the starting is if this goes ahead.

[dipsydoodle]

174. Did you do the maths based on their pop. be c. 8 million

and proportion it to the US ?

[hunter]

37. It's a "share" in the overall economy, sort of like the shares non-working wealthy people own.

This is probably the only way we'll keep things running as more and more things become automated.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[leftstreet]

48. +1

[TBF]

64. They are not going to live very well -

and when the alternative is Walmart for minimum wage (and you still have to get food stamps because that doesn't get you to the poverty level) - I wouldn't blame them at all for not working.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. That is the difference between us and other countries though. Many other countries have better

wages, strong unions, single payer health care. Believe it or not there are countries where corporations don't own the government like they do here.

[TBF]

152. I know - I am old. Grew up in the 70s and my dad was union.

Back in those days we actually had manufacturing jobs in the midwest (I grew up in Wisconsin). Folks could graduate from high school, maybe do a stint in the military & then many came home and took factory jobs. Everyone owned their own homes, cars, and did a vacation occasionally or went camping. It wasn't a bad way to grow up. At least you had a chance at a job with "piece work" and could support your family.

[kwolf68]

68. Maybe people will work...but not traditional work

The thing about this plan that interests me is it allows competition FOR labor.

Many of us work certain jobs because 'we have to'. This now allows people more options when choosing where to work.

If I was given money and didn't have to "work" for it I wouldn't sit around, I'd get involved with philanthropy. Building houses for the poor, transporting an elderly person to the doctor or would partake in my love of the environment and animals. I could partake in more uplifting modes of employment because I wouldn't need as much because of the subsidy.

Our quest to obtain that 3rd BMW, to provide for our kids or to have a comfortable living actually enslaves many of us from doing what we really would rather be doing. Sure, there are some people who are doing exactly what they want to do and make a good living doing it, but those people are the anomaly.

This opens up the possibility for cultural, spiritual, emotional growth...less stress, happier people and possibly a greater world. Utopia perhaps, but I am not a fan of unbridled pirate capitalism either. No matter how wonderful one waxes eloquent about it, that economic system debases humanity and at its base levels is perverse (which is why government regulation is needed for the system to actually function at all).

[liberal_at_heart]

72. exactly.

[Jamastiene]

89. Exactly.

Imagine a world where "work" can be an activity people choose to do on their own to help the community. And there are a lot of people in this world who, if they could do some of the things you describe, would do it if only they had the time and money. That unconditional money going to each citizen would provide for the most imaginative programs to start. It would be very interesting, to me, to see that economy/community dynamic.

[Skeeter Barnes]

69. Yeah, people not having to rent themselves to some wealthy business owner... what a nightmare.

[Left2Tackle]

90. I look at it as something like the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Where residents get a share of the wealth produced by the oil industry. Although here we are talking about all production across an economy.

[bossy22]

107. one key difference

An economy doesn't have "equity" in the business sense. Every dollar an economy makes is dispersed to atleast someone that participates in the economy. For this swiss thing to work the economy would have to produce 30,000 more francs per capita than it is currently. Unless the swiss economy can grow 50% in one year this is a realistic financial impossibility

[Left2Tackle]

134. What I took away from the article was that this was to reduce income inequality.

As progressive as Switzerland is there is still a huge income gap. The money would come from tax levies.

[WinkyDink]

102. I suspect the SWISS know.

[SoCalDem]

153. The money gets RECYCLED thoughout the economy.. everyone "wins"

When rich folks get a "windfall" they hoard it.. when "lessers" get it , they SPEND it. and boost the economy for all...

[muriel_volestrangler]

157. You hope it gets recycled through the economy, but some might choose to spend more time elsewhere

Spend a lot of your time somewhere a bit cheaper (several ex-Eastern bloc countries not that far away), and just go back to satisfy whatever residence requirement they put on you - which you might make a very basic, relatively cheap, rented room. If you don't have a job, or 'available for work' requirements, to keep you in the country, why not take loads of cheap vacations around Europe, rather than staying in the most expensive country?

[bread_and_roses]

184. There are not enough jobs for everyone

If, right now, we could magically make every adult in the country "job-ready" - skills, work ethic, etc. - would there be a job for all of them? No. Not to mention jobs with decent wages.

So what matter if some don't work? And don't you think that many tiring elders would leave the work force? What's wrong with that? Is it written in stone somewhere that everyone should work till they're sixty-five? Which is crazy anyway. Try doing any kind of real, hard physical labor day after day - labor like road work, or standing on your feet all day behind a cash register - when you get into your fifties, even. A few can, yes. Many others can't. And many of those who can still hit the wall well before sixty-five. How about our crazy idea that single parents receiving assistance ("welfare&quot MUST work (or be seeking work) once the infant is three months or so? Those parents could stay home if they wished.

And how about jobs that are repetitive and unpleasant? Like factory jobs or call center jobs? Perhaps those people would choose to work only four hours a day, giving other people some "jobs." (I put jobs in quotes, because particularly call center jobs are not meaningful work or work that the world needs doing - they are just mostly moving money around).

The word "work" above is used to mean a job. There's plenty of real work in the world to do, but we don't pay anyone to do it, so it's not a "job." We could have all the jobs we need if people were paid to do all the real work that needs doing. You know - like retrofitting all buildings for energy efficiency, like putting enough teachers and aids in classrooms, like hiring enough nurses so they work reasonable shifts ... I could go on and on.

I find your post peculiar in that the assumptions underlying it seem to have no relationship to much in the real world.

Oh, and in this country there was a time when we talked about a "guaranteed national income." When Nixon was president.

[LukeFL]

160. Where will the money be funded from?

Will this money be taxed? Itsnt Swiss one if the nations which high taxation?

Also this sounds vey similar to one currently in Alaska? I think Akaska gives it's citizens a check every month. I heard about this during the plain saga in 08.

[liberal N proud]

12. The Swiss take care of their own

[hughee99]

14. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

I wonder what will happen with the people who are currently working and making about 2500 francs now. Will they keep their job and make about the same amount of money as they could get if they were not working at all? Will those jobs start paying considerably more than the do now? Will they find some loophole that enables employers to find people who don't get the 2500 and need to take the job?

[liberal_at_heart]

30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?

I could be a zoologist and not have to worry if my paycheck would be enough to support my family. People could pursue their passion and follow careers they felt would make a difference in this world instead of which ones pay the rent.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. priorities. It's amazing what you can do when you have the proper priorities.

[7962]

87. If this passes, they'll have PLENTY of them. No worries.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

88. Switzerland isn't homogeneous.

They have FOUR national languages and a beautiful mix of cultures.

[displacedtexan]

38. I've spent quite a bit of time in Switzerland.

It's very expensive to live in the cities, and the people I know there are thrilled that their kids would be able to save for a house if this passes. They told me that Denmark (or some other country) already has this guaranteed income, and it's proving 100% positive for all. The only catch is that once you deplete your monthly income from the government, there is no recourse. You mismanage your income at your own peril.

I think it's great. Imagine the savings account you would have if you don't live off of it for a while, and imagine how helpful it would be for those who don't have jobs or aren't able to work.

[PoliticAverse]

46. The system in Denmark is more akin to a very strong social welfare system than the

system being discussed in Switzerland (where you would get 2,500 regardless of your
financial situation).

[Paulie]

71. It's cheaper than prison. And the negative externalities like crime would likely drop like a stone

It would likely be a net savings plus the economic multiplier for all those people who have nothing to now being able to like and eat.

And the economies of scale for social security would make implementation not much more costly.

Question is who gets it. Citizens and resident aliens. One consequence would be the undocumented could be come a slave labor force with monies from this plan. Buy that money would still get into the economy.

Interesting thought exercise. Wouldn't pass here without a cloning machine and having Bernie Sanders in every position in government.

[bossy22]

77. it would make it extremely costly...to the tune of 6 trillion a year

Or almost 40% of GDP. Who will pay for it?

[Hydra]

93. You're acting like that money disappears down a hole or something

Once it's in the system, it multiplies and creates demand. Right now in the US, the 1% are sitting on trillions that could be in the economy doing things. Instead, they're looking for ways to multiply it without getting anything useful done.

The decreased demand is strangling the economy, because the people who would buy things and services can't, and the ones who could aren't.

An investment in the people like this would turn things around overnight...but then the 1% would be pissed off, and we simply can't have that.

[Paulie]

122. Excellent response.

Econ 101 states a 10 time multiplier as the velocity of money.

[Hydra]

125. Thank you!

As long as we have an underutilized labor pool, no inflation should occur either.

As other have stated in this thread too, this would fund a lot of human and environmental improvement projects by allowing people to work on things that may not be lucrative or pay at all but have definite benefits to our society and world. We'd be getting benefits from 3 directions or more from the investment, while investing in the 1% is getting us an embarrassingly small flow from 1 direction.

[Jamastiene]

73. Why the fuck did I have to be born in America?

Europe is so much more advanced in their thinking. And here we are stuck in America with these asshole Teabagger Republicans who do not even want people to have access to health care with reasonable rates.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. I know, right? I heard someone on the radio the other day say they had hit the geographic jackpot

by being born in America? Maybe that was true in the past, but there are so many other countries that are so far ahead of us. They are ahead of us because they think ahead. All we think of is the next Congressional crisis. We can't think past our nose.

[City Lights]

101. I echo your sentiments!

Please, Europe, take me back! I'm sure I have relatives there somewhere!

[MrsKirkley]

202. I wish every day I'd been born in another country.

[Paper Roses]

80. Nice to know some countries care about its citizens.

Sometimes I wonder about ours.

I could live nicely on $2800. a month. I, like many others have only Social Security. If Washington screws around with that, I am sunk. Maybe I'll buy Lederhosen, an alpine horn and move to Switzerland.
My congratulations to a very progressive country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. I remember in the 70s a bunch of us radical hippy types passing a doobie and going all "13th"...

An interpretation of the 13th Amendment is that no person should be forced into working against their will.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

This was written at a time when the country was mostly rural and homesteading was common so living off the land was common. As was barter. A citizen could stake a claim and clear some fields and start farming. A farmer could raise enough to sell surplus produce for cash to get other things and the harder you worked, the more you produced and the more money you made. That doesn't work anymore. You work harder and the pay is the same. There is no more free land out there being offered for those who want to build their log cabin out of trees you chop down with your non-lazy, rugged individualist ax. To live now means cash and the implication of the 13th is the government has an obligation to it's citizens to see to it that they are not required to work for the sake of survival.

Imagine if an employer couldn't use fear. There are a LOT of people in this country who live for 8 hours or more under what amounts to living under a dictatorship and some even a tyrant. Imagine the attitude shift if you literally had to be respected for your contribution because you were there more or less on a voluntary basis because you loved the job. Suddenly the salary would be based on an incentive basis with sewer workers being paid the big bucks.

[Jamastiene]

95. I wish there were more of you "radical hippy types passing a doobie"

in our government here in the U.S. The country would be better off for it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. Yeah, we had a lot of wild ideas,....like doing away with money since it was the root of all evil.

[Doc Holliday]

180. Actually, it's the

love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself.....but you were stoned at the time,
so the confusion is understandable.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

199. That was one thing about Star Trek was the future has no money.

[liberal_at_heart]

109. I hear some people on hear posting about a time when the state of CA paid college tuition.

We need that again and nation wide.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. A degree is an example of buying your way into a job.

[liberal_at_heart]

113. true but it doesn't have to be. Gaining knowledge is never bad. It is what you do with that

knowledge that is important.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

115. Actually, the bigger issue is degrees are being used to keep the poor OUT.

[liberal_at_heart]

116. We could definitely stand to incorporate different education models.

Many countries put more emphasis on vocational schools and apprenticeships. We need more of that also. But there are some career choices that a degree is kind of a must have. My daughter wants to be a veterinarian. You kind of need a degree for that. My son wants to own his own business and he will need knowledge for that but won't necessarily need a degree.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

149. There is a diference between a degree and getting certified....

Some of these schools only teach you how to pass the state run test. It's like a truck driver training school where you STILL have to go through the DMV and even then you STILL have to get a job. The sad thing is when you actually get the job, the pay could end up being a joke.

Look at how the airline pilot pay was exposed in "Capitalism A Love Story".

[Hydra]

128. As long as the internet stays free

You can learn a ton about any subject you'd like. I started learning SQL that way, even though I wound up out of the job where I could have used it in 2008.

I haven't done it yet, but I heard you can find the classes for various colleges for free online now.

No Degree/Certification, but it's all there to learn if you want it.

[David__77]

91. Richard Nixon advocated this.

It's interesting that Nixon was so progressive in many respects, of course only by comparison to today's gangs of free traders that infest both parties. Nixon said:

What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself—and wherever in America that family may live.

For a family of four now on welfare, with no outside income, the basic Federal payment would be $1,600 a year. States could add to that amount and most States would add to it. In no case would anyone's present level of benefits be lowered. At the same time, this foundation would be one on which the family itself could build. Outside earnings would be encouraged, not discouraged. The new worker could keep the first $60 a month of outside earnings with no reduction in his benefits; and beyond that, his benefits would be reduced by only 50 cents for each dollar earned.

By the same token, a family head already employed at low wages could get a family assistance supplement; those who work would no longer be discriminated against. For example, a family of five in which the father earns $2,000 a year-which is the hard fact of life for many families in America today—would get family assistance payments of $1,260, so that they would have a total income of $3,260. A family of seven earning $3,000 a year would have its income raised to $4,360.

[Hydra]

98. Amazing how far right and crazy we've gone as a nation

Now...? How about the little guy? Let him die.

[ProSense]

94. I'd settle for the U.S. emulating Australia

with at least a $17 per hour minimum wage.

On minimum wage, U.S. lags many rivals

By Chris Isidore



President Obama's proposal to hike the U.S. minimum wage to $9 an hour would still leave the lowest-paid American workers trailing their counterparts in several other major industrial countries.

The world's highest minimum wage is paid in Australia, where workers are paid at least 15.96 Australian dollars, or $16.91, an hour.

Canada does not have a national minimum wage, but the lowest provincial minimum wage is in Alberta, where workers must be paid at least 9.75 Canadian dollars, or $9.73, an hour, while workers in Yukon get at least $10.27.

Figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a multinational research body, show nine countries around the world where the minimum wage is more than the $9 President Obama is proposing.

- more -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/news/economy/minimum-wage-countries/index.html

It would be great if we could match Australia or lead the developed countries.

Love the Swiss plan.

[JDPriestly]

103. Exemplary. Now, Republicans, put that in your pipes and smoke it.

If it passes, we shall see how it works out.

Very interesting experiment in my view.

I don't have an opinion, pro or anti yet. I want to see how it works out if it is enacted.

[Live and Learn]

117. I love the second initiative too.

A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24.

[liberal_at_heart]

119. They really have it together.

[Live and Learn]

129. I have advocated both of these positions before

(as have others on DU) but never in my wildest dreams did I think either would make it this far anywhere in the world. Just getting the initiatives is amazing.

[BelgianMadCow]

120. Wonderful news, hadn't heard of it. There's a similar initiative EU-wide

which is trying to gather the required 1 million signatures for a basic income for all.

http://basicincome2013.eu/ubi/signup-page/

And there was also a report of such an initiative that not only passed, but has worked well and is gonna increase in scope, in India. Lemme dig up the link.

[Starry Messenger]

123. I would love this.

I could save for a house and go back to doing studio art work.

[SunSeeker]

130. K & R

[meaculpa2011]

139. It sounds like a good idea, except...

$2,500 per month will become the new ZERO.

The rationale behind this kind of program would be to provide everyone with an income floor and then do away with public housing, WIC, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, etc.

[PoliticAverse]

169. Right there's a question as to how much the other programs will be cut

(I've seen pensions mentioned being cut also) and whether this will actually result in a reduction
in benefits for many.

[davepc]

144. How do they keep inflation from skyrocketing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. I wish the critics could make up their minds.

"How do you pay for it?" and "Won't it cause inflation?" are arguments which presume answers to the other.

If you pay for it by taxing the rich, then no it won't cause inflation, it will simply move purchasing power down the economic ladder.

If you are unworried about inflation, you borrow, and let inflation and the growing economy take care of the resulting deficit.

Either solution works. Inflation is a boogeyman which only seriously attacks sequestered wealth.

[PoliticAverse]

167. If you finance it from taxation it wouldn't really effect inflation.

If you finance it by increasing the money supply it would increase it. Based on the articles
I've read on the Swiss proposal they seem to advocate the taxation method.

[SoCalDem]

148. This is how you tackle "personal responsibility"

As a "state", they are responsible to their citizens, and if every citizen has a basic minimum income they can count on, they can afford to support the economy of the state.

It's an unbroken economic CIRCLE....

Anyone whose ONLY income is that $2800USD , will undoubtedly spend EVERY penny of that money, and MOST will use it as a stipend they can count on while they also work. There will be very few who CHOOSE to no work for more income....but for the ones who are disabled, ill or elderly will have enough to at least provide for themselves

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. A blog on this, from last year:

Switzerland: An Initiative to Establish Basic Income for All

The grassroots initiative “for an unconditional basic income” proposes that “the establishment of an unconditional universal benefit” be written into the federal constitution which would “allow the entire population to lead a dignified existence and participate in public life”.The law will address financing and set the amount of the benefit (the proposers suggest around 2,000-2,500 Swiss francs per month (or 2,200-2,700 US dollars per month), which is about the same as the maximum current social security payment, but they have not written this into the text of the initiative (fr)). The basic income does not come with any conditions attached: it is not subject to any means testing. It is universal (everyone will receive it) and egalitarian (everyone will receive the same amount). It is also personal (it is paid out to individuals, not households).It is not income to replace a lost salary. Rather, it replaces all inferior income support (unemployment benefit, pensions, family allowance, student grants, disability payments). How will it be financed? Through direct taxation of income and wealth, indirect taxation on consumption (VAT), taxing financial transactions, and most especially through the reallocation of resources currently allotted to financing state pensions and unemployment payouts, social security and other welfare payments lower than the amount of the basic income.
...
His analysis is controversial, as can be seen from the comments thread under his post. From a French perspective, Jeff Renault explained why the left are “dead set against” (fr) an unconditional basic income:

The left of the end of the 19th and the 20th centuries was forged on the values of work and defending workers. This fight centres around the never ending defence of the salaried worker and the Holy Grail of permanent, salaried contracts, even through this “status” only applies to the minority.

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/05/07/switzerland-an-initiative-to-establish-basic-income-for-all/

[PoliticAverse]

166. "it replaces all inferior income support (unemployment benefit, pensions, family allowance,

student grants, disability payments)"

If this is true for some people it will result in a cut in benefits. As far as I could gather the Guaranteed Basic Income
initiative doesn't specifically call for it to replace all of the above it is just assumed that that will happen.

[gopiscrap]

159. I agree, we should do that here also!

[LiberalElite]

162. Could they gather up

some allies, invade us and take over? Seems to me Europe owes us a solid.

[killbotfactory]

165. They might have to pay people a bit more to perform shitty jobs!

Their nation is doomed!

DOOOOOOMED!

[GReedDiamond]

171. Wow! $2800 a month, plus, the Govt Cheese is...

...Swiss!

[silvershadow]

173. Your story is full of holes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

172. Didn't Nixon push for this? A guranteed annual income?

[Cicada]

178. Nixon proposed govt supplement for low wages

he proposed the earned income tax credit, a govt supplement for wages of the poor, especially those with kids. The idea was that encouraging work is cheaper than paying welfare. Nixon was creepy but was a thoughtful guy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

191. He was a thoughtful guy? Excuse me, but I think that it was somebody else's thoughts.

[Recursion]

189. So did TR and Taft. It used to be a plank of the Progressive platform

Back when Progressive meant something somewhat different.

[livingwagenow]

177. If only America could stop dragging its knuckles.. ah fuck it why bother. knr nt

[durablend]

182. Pffft...never see that here

If anything I expect Republicans (and likely some Democrats) will eventually propose the poor and middle class pay the rich $2800 a month for the privelege of living in this country.

[Recursion]

186. I don't know; it's on the order of current per capita transfers

I agree politically it's a non starter in 2013, but I don't think it would fundamentally change our economy.

[Recursion]

185. I'm a fan of the idea

Do away with SNAP and Section 8 and unemployment insurance and SS; you might even end up saving money with a simpler system like that.

[yellowwoodII]

187. What's their military budget?

Think about what our military budget would provide for our citizens if we weren't out trying to bomb the world into submission.

[Recursion]

188. EDIT: math is hard

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2013, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, I had the numerator and denominator wrong there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says it's very low

(I think you got their population wrong)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Switzerland: $4,829,000,000 0.7% of GDP (about $600/person, for pop of 8 million)
cf.:
UK $61b 2.5%
France: $59b 2.3%
Germany: $43b 1.4%
Italy $34b 1.7%
and
USA $682b 4.7% (about $2200)

[Recursion]

194. Yep, you're right, I inverted that.

It's still the second-largest military per capita.

[Why Syzygy]

190. Alaska

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a constitutionally established permanent fund managed by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC).[1] The fund was established in Alaska in 1976[2] by Article 9, Section 15 of the Alaska State Constitution[3] under Governor Jay Hammond. From February 1976 until April 1980, the Department of Revenue Treasury Division managed the state's Permanent Fund assets, until, in 1980, the Alaska State Legislature created the APFC.[4]

Shortly after the oil from Alaska’s North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the Alaska Constitution. It was designed to be an investment where at least 25% of the oil money would be put into a dedicated fund for future generations, who would no longer have oil as a resource.[5] This does not mean the fund is solely funded by oil revenue. The Fund does not include either property taxes on oil company property nor income tax from oil corporations, so the minimum 25% deposit is closer to 11% if those sources were also considered[citation needed]. The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans. Many citizens[who?] also believed that the legislature too quickly and too inefficiently spent the $900 million bonus the state got in 1969 after leasing out the oil fields[citation needed]. This belief spurred a desire to put some oil revenues out of direct political control.

[Dash87]

192. I'm 50/50 on this.

I don't disagree with giving money, but I wonder if this wouldn't be better spent guaranteeing jobs for the population. This would lead to them making even more money. It's better for an economy if everyone works (This, imo, is very possible with the right social programs).

I'm a little confused about this, though. are they giving everyone $2,800? This should just be for the poor, imo. Is it a guaranteed income, where the government will cover the difference if companies don't pay you as much? Either MSN didn't explain it or I missed it.

If everyone is getting the money, then that's a terrible idea. Rich people will never need this money, so it's just going to waste (probably into their bank accounts never to be spent). There's zero gain to the economy because, to the rich, this is a minimal amount of cash and they don't need it. I'm also afraid of the inflation that this plan would cause, negating the point of giving the money out in the first place.

[Politicub]

196. The Swiss approach to health care is similar to Obamacare

Because they have the requirement that people get health insurance. And insurers must allow all citizens to sign up, regardless of medical condition.

I'm sure that Switzerland's overall HC policy has some more progressive components than the US, but I thought the similarities between the two countries' general approach is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

[PasadenaTrudy]

197. Very few homeowners there

because so expensive. Fine with me, I'm a life-long apt dweller.

[War Horse]

198. I guess it's like the 'guaranteed minimum income'

the Norwegian Liberal party (centrist/slightly center-right) suggested. One of their arguments for it was that it would cut down on bureaucracy immensely and thus save all of us money, while ensuring a modicum of quality of life for the needy. Most of them, anyway.

It's a good idea on paper. But while some would benefit immensely from this, others would lose out. It's not a horrible idea, but a fully functioning safety net system is better.