Topic: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult - page 3. (Read 4897 times)

True, eventually 2500 francs will have so little purchasing power that people will start working again. Unless they peg the handout to CPI.

There was in the past a small scale experiment done which went quite well, although not sure how it will go on a larger scale like for a country;

The following you can also read at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


Mincome was an experimental Canadian Basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.

It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit, with every dollar over the benefit amount taxed at 60%.[citation needed] The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women. [1] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary. [2] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.[3][4]

A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget [pronounced 'for-zhay'] conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2001.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Dr. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]

I posted here, quoting a message, saying it was beautiful.
Then I read page 2, and I noticed more and more great messages, every one of them finding new problems, and new solutions.
Sometimes just talking works great, gg Internet.

In Switzerland, you won't be able to get by on $1500/month unless you stay at the weird and wonderful Null Stern Hotel in Teufen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, an anti-nuclear bunker converted into a no-frills underground hostel that is slightly tricky to find even when you know the address! (I'm sure the Riklin twins won't mind the free advertising; mind you, when I was living there, bitcoin was still embryonic and worth nothing.) And probably not even then.

I would. Just don't overspend and it should be enough.

The questions are :

Will you stop working if you where to receive 1500$/month ?

Do you think other will stop working if they receive 1500$/month ?

Where did government get all the money from? Printing and loan ganna get the country into trouble

USA! USA! From a small centralized government were the president used to be a dude (respected of course) and the WH was open for anyone to visit because it was the people's WH. Now trillions in debts later, untouchable, with a sign in front saying "Keep Off the Grass" and the National park service acting like the Gestapo http://www.700wlw.com/articles/national-news-104668/gestapo-tactics-yellowstone-park-rangers-held-11723357/

Learn something new everyday! 

I've noticed a trend; the more powerful any central government is, the more lawlessness ensues.  I wish I was alive during any period of time when a nation had a very small government so I could say, beyond any doubt, that an increase of law and order occurs the less powerful a state is--all I'm seeing in my lifetime is a ton of crime happening beneath (and yet especially with, and within) these magnificently powerful states.  And then you have people begging for more.

The interesting thing about Robin Hood, is that he almost certainly didn't exist, but rather was an icon that embraced the spirit of the times.  The govt in England was throughout most of it's history truly a gang of thugs.  Pre-industrial revolution, when resources were scarce, the government used force to steal and keep wealth concentrated in itself and it's cronies.  The rich were the thugs for the most part and people had no problem with outlaws stealing from the rich thugs to give back to the poor.

Post-industrial revolution, there are many people who got rich from their own hard work.  Yet, the tradition of stealing from the rich persists.  Except, now it is stealing from the mostly innocent.   "Steal from the rich, give to the poor" is a tradition that comes to us from a different time that has no validity in the here and now.  It is clear that the free market and charity works and must be allowed to work.

Okay so...

You pay taxes, and then you get your taxes back.  Minus all the fees to make the taxation system work.  I know there are people on this planet who are nodding their heads as if nothing is wrong with this picture, but I'll say what's on my mind:

1. If the economy in which this is taking place was healthy, people would have no need to receive "free money"; there would be more than enough work to go around.  Because this is even taking place, I'll assume this isn't the case, leading to the next point:

2. If the economy is not healthy and people are going hungry/homeless, the solution is to improve the economy, not take from the wealthy (who are using the very same force the people are to get "free money" to remain wealthy) and then give to the poor Robin Hood style; while Robin Hood was celebrated among the people, he didn't solve the problem of the wealthy having an incredible amount of power, who would then, even after Robin Hood's passing, and even while the man was alive, still be able to exploit the impoverished.

3. You're still stuck with a bad economy and are now increasingly dependent upon the state as a child is dependent on his mother.  The visage that the state is the "good guy" and big wealthy business owners are the "bad guys" is perpetuated, despite the two entities being inseparable.  The citizens are then happily ignorant and have no reason to oppose those in power.  You're still not allowed to immigrate to Switzerland, and thus:

4. Switzerland increases the pressure of other nations to follow its lead.  Switzerland is then on a pedestal, the model state; with the prospect of "free money", the poor of other nations will demand from their states the same.  The state would then increases control (or in my language, eliminates liberties) to comply with these demands--not as though they aren't already doing this.  Some people then cry "1984 isn't supposed to be a manual for the future" and most people won't hear it when they're getting paid with stolen cash to stand by while their liberties erode.

---

Anyway, the more apparent solution is to fix the underlying problem as to why the economy can't support everyone: this evolves from questioning how one man can live as though he does the work of a hundred men, while a hundred men cannot earn enough to live the life of one.  The solution is split into two directions, as I see it: workers will either take control of business, i.e. syndicalism, or they will ask for the scraps of the wealthy and receive a pat on the head for playing their game named politics.  By the looks of it, the people of Switzerland are losing this fight, and worse yet, cannot even see it for themselves.  If they were at least aware they were getting sucked into a trap, it would be one thing, but they're accepting it like it's one step closer to a utopia.

There's a fine line between a utopia and a dystopia; the difference is in whether you live in one, or you're allowed to live in one.

Obviously, I don't think this is a wise idea.

I've lived in Switzerland a bit, though, and can happily inform you that 2500 CHF really does not stretch very far. Switzerland is one of the most expensive countries on earth, up there with Norway, Japan and Australia, or close enough. Zurich and Geneva are insanely expensive, especially for foreigners holding debased junk fiat (CHF isn't as bad as most fiats).

Eventually it will reach a balance. Then the whole system will be cheaper than existing system and everyone have incentive to work to gain more than minimal standard of living.

People will not be forced to work and clean their own pub and serve other people all the way late at night when they can spend more time with their children and spouse at the beach when you get a check every month for being alive. They will brew their own coffee and make their own beer for themselves not for others for a living as it will not be necessary anymore. They will do it for fun, or not.
Simple really.

Yes, things cannot be the same. Maybe there will not be Starbucks in Switzerland. But there might be, for example, small local caffes and restaurants where people (owners and workers) will work because they just like it. If there was a need for a place to hang out with my friends, I would open something like an Irish pub, for example. But my motivation for that would not be strictly to profit (or to break even).

A 100 of such caffes and restaurants are just as good as a 100 Starbucks.

Different scenarios are possible, but "nothing will matter anymore"? There are things that matter unrelated to making profit or accumulating wealth... yeah something like Star Trek (why is it so hard to acknowledge that maybe people like to work if you let them work what they like?).

I hope my country give me free money, ganna eat, sleep and computer game (just like my nick).

They are not planning to immediately give 1,800 - 2,500 francs per month. They will most likely gradually increase the amount from zero to 2,000 while decreasing other social expenses.

People who work shi**y jobs for low wages will quit (consequently, such jobs will be paid more). People who are just afraid of losing job (but still like it) will be more relaxed and creative, which will benefit them and their employers in the long run. People who are currently not productive can start their own business. It is more freedom to everybody.

The basic premise here is that people (if they have some basic income) want to work, and that money is just not important for most people after some amount (I was told that in some research somebody even found the figure, but I don't have the source). This means that attractive jobs (attractiveness not being measured by earnings) will be less paid than today, while unattractive jobs will be paid much more. Number of volunteers will increase vastly. A teacher will have the same wage as a garbage collector. Still, the most wanted skills will be rare as they are today and people possessing such skills will earn about the same amount as today (adjusted for possible inflation).

Not many people would just sit at home all day watching TV. They would soon get bored. Watching TV after stressful day at work is not the same as watching TV when you are not tired nor under stress; just gets boring after a day or two. Everybody is lazy until brainwashed that being lazy is bad, so "work ethic" will mean something else: when you work, you will try to produce best quality (because you like what you do), not try to maximize quantity (because you are forced to).

I am not sure the above premise is true or false; people who push basic income idea think that it is.

It is assumed that total work output will be better with people relaxed and creative and willing to work (even counting in those who don't work at all). Consequently, it will be good for businesses.

It might be bad for some rich people if they tax them; some money will flee Switzerland, but nothing bad can happen (they can adjust the basic income - it is the simplest implementation of communist idea of redistribution).

Obviously you will have to be born in Switzerland or be a citizen for at least a decade or two to receive the basic income (so people will not be massively moving to Switzerland and be homeless there for a decade...).

Basically: if people are secure AND like to work AND majority don't care much about money, then communism is possible. I can't wait to see what happens (maybe the Switzerland will not be the first; but some other country will be).

This is why I like Direct Democracy so much, if this passes and the law goes into effect causing the whole economy to collapse, only the people have themselves to blame, they also have the power to overturn it if they realise it's a huge mistake, if Direct Democracy is as good as I think it is though, I don't think it will pass at all.  I really wish we had their kind of Democracy here in the UK, there's so much I'd be glad to vote on, whenever there's a referendum I'm happy to go out and vote on my ideology ( I voted against Alternative Voting ) but I refuse to vote for a bunch of assholes in a rigged election just because the other side is terrified they might win.

This is nuts. Surely there's no way the Swiss would be foolish enough to fall for this.

From what I read elsewhere, the basic income is meant to be unconditional. Which means passing this would have immediate, drastic and far-reaching consequences.

Many people would quit working immediately. More would follow over time. Meanwhile, should the taxes on the rich be raised to provide for this, they'll start to leave (or just move their money elsewhere and live off their "entitlement" themselves.) Should taxes be raised on banks or financial assets, money will flee Switzerland, and depositors will start preferring Austria, the Cayman Islands, or any other place with banking laws similar to Switzerland but with fewer fees. The impact on the work ethic and general mentality of the masses will be absolutely corrosive.

This is something I would have thought would come from The Onion, not from an actual Swiss legislative proposal.

But I guess it's proving the point: democracy can only last until the populace realizes they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury.