• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income taken care of, for life. Thoughts?

foadi said:
US$2500-3500/mo isn't much. Honestly though, if I was receiving that, would not work that much. Would probably spend most of my time living in cheap countries.
Click to expand...

It's more than I've ever made, working full time, in my entire life.
 
Gaius46 said:
So people who decide to up and quit working get supported by those who continue to work? Aside for the sheer wrongness of that idea what do you do if a significant number of people decide to take the free ride? Where does the money come from with a much reduced working class? What do you do when you reach the tipping point and people are taxes to the point where they don't even bring home the basic stipend? Or do you just pray that that doesn't happen? Praying is not a way to plan a budget.

This seems like idiocy.
Click to expand...
Those are some pretty good questions. I know... Lets ask the Greeks, they know how this movie ends.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk
 
roman-reigns-dean-ambrose-seth-rollins-shield-090215-wwe-ftrjpg_1vn25o9cq54oa1nxzn8v2pjdim.jpg
Winchester said:
517770364.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I support the Universal Basic Income, but I can't help but appreciate the irony that the Greek finance minister is endorsing it. That's a sign of quality fiscal management!
 
Arcana XV said:
All the polls so far indicate that it will not pass. Personally, I'm voting against it. Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because now is not yet the time to implement anything like that.

Eventually, though, most industrialized countries will have to figure out a way to deal with all the job losses that advances in technology and robotics will inevitably bring. There's going to come a time when machines will do almost everything humans do, including maintenance and repairs, and millions of people will be out of a job.

Then what do we do?...
Click to expand...

Hopefully they will realize that investing in and buying and selling and owning of machines and raw materials will be how to make a living in new market.
 
Lutherf said:
From the article -


Sure sounds to me like there won't be any double dipping.
Click to expand...

The article is wrong. The whole point of such schemes is that the income is a floor from which you work to achieve your goals, safe in the knowledge that your basic needs are taken care of whatever you earn. Removing the income as you earn more causes a "poverty trap" as we see with benefits. If your benefit is 100 units, and they're cut pro rata to your earnings, your incentive to take a job paying less than 200 units is lowered. If the floor stays, you'll double your income with a 100 unit job
Whole government departments can be swept away as the need for constant juggling monitoring and recalculation of the present benefits labyrinth is dispensed with. Taxation will have to be adjusted too.
 
Lutherf said:
From the article -


Sure sounds to me like there won't be any double dipping.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with it you cant double dip, therefor the incentive is to NOT work whereas if you could double dip then working is an advantage that provides benefit.
 
PirateMk1 said:
That's the problem with it you cant double dip, therefor the incentive is to NOT work whereas if you could double dip then working is an advantage that provides benefit.
Click to expand...

If it's means-tested, it's not really universal income.
 
I can envision such a thing working sometime in the distant future when human labor is all but obsolete.

And if you were to do such a thing you can't take dollar for dollar from people who choose to work. That is asking them to work for free. Maybe 50 cents on the dollar or something so at least people who work for that base amount walk away with more money than people who don't work.

As for why would people work if they had a guaranteed income? Many wouldn't. But those people aren't they type of people who advance society in the first place. History has shown us that the greatest innovators don't just quit once their innovation makes them enough money to retire comfortably. Yes, they love the money but they continue to be driven by the challenge.

Granted, most humans aren't great innovators. Most humans play a very small role in advancing us technologically. We just provide the labor that puts the innovation of greater minds into action. And a day will come when that labor is not needed.
 
I can't think of anything more destructive to a society than to eliminate the need to take care of yourself and your family with as little governmental assistance as possible. This scheme would only create a group of dependents, and not real contributing members to the society.
 
I support Universal Basic Income, as a (1) means to eliminate the alphabet soup welfare programs, (2) address the inevitable redundancies we're going to see as the consequence of globalization and AI/automation taking off and (2) ensure that every person has access to the financial means to support themselves.

However I would vote against this proposal because that's a pretty astronomical sum per month. It's Universal Basic Income. 'Basic' stands for an income sum that translates to "keep people off the street and fed," and not an income that's meant to supplement a person's salary.
 
BrewerBob said:
And if you were to do such a thing you can't take dollar for dollar from people who choose to work. That is asking them to work for free. Maybe 50 cents on the dollar or something so at least people who work for that base amount walk away with more money than people who don't work.
Click to expand...

One would presume that in a country with universal basic income, earned income would be taxed starting at the first dollar. As far as I am concerned, that is enough "reduction" in their "benefits".

BrewerBob said:
As for why would people work if they had a guaranteed income? Many wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Many people work to benefit society in fields that are not economically rewarded, like home-making and the majority of the arts. The universal basic income would free them to continue doing that work without an additional source of income.
 
Most people are not going to be satisfied with a basic income that only keeps them fed, housed and not much more.



People get bored and want something to do; they see things they want and experiences they desire and want more money. I think most people would still seek work.


The thing about means-tested aid is that it gives people very little, if any, motivation to take a low-paying job. If getting a job flipping burgers at McD's means you lose all your bennies, you're about as well off one way as the other and you don't have to put up with a boss, a schedule, burger grease and so forth.

But if a low-paying job and a UGI were ADDITIVE, there would be motivation to TAKE that low paying job, and a lot of people would because they want things more money can bring. As long as the UGI isn't too luxurious (and it wouldn't be) there will be motivation for work of some kind.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's more than I've ever made, working full time, in my entire life.
Click to expand...
Switzerland is a lot more expensive than Wyoming, I would imagine. That's why I said I would gladly take the money, but would try to spend my time in a place where $2500-3500 goes a lot further.
 
foadi said:
US$2500-3500/mo isn't much. Honestly though, if I was receiving that, would not work that much. Would probably spend most of my time living in cheap countries.
Click to expand...

average salary in Switzerland is about equivalent to 95k usd. so 3500 a month there isn't so much as you said.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Universal Basic Income Switzerland referendum due on June 5
Click to expand...

It is probably the best solution for a modern democracy, if the payment is not too high, which SFR 2.500 probably is. After all, it eliminates all social programs and their bureaucracies, while leaving the desire to drink beer instead of water to motivate people to work. ;)

In all seriousness, we experimented with a similar model (negative tax) and the results were not bad at all. Probably the Swiss are jumping the gun though and should put more study into the thing. We will know more, when the results from the experiments in Finland are in.
 
imagep said:
If that is per person, then that's not bad. I have three adults living in my household, so at $35/mth, that would be over $100k a year.
Click to expand...

But when a loaf of bread rises to $22.50, what's the point?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's more than I've ever made, working full time, in my entire life.
Click to expand...

brothern said:
I support Universal Basic Income, as a (1) means to eliminate the alphabet soup welfare programs, (2) address the inevitable redundancies we're going to see as the consequence of globalization and AI/automation taking off and (2) ensure that every person has access to the financial means to support themselves.

However I would vote against this proposal because that's a pretty astronomical sum per month. It's Universal Basic Income. 'Basic' stands for an income sum that translates to "keep people off the street and fed," and not an income that's meant to supplement a person's salary.
Click to expand...

CHF 2500.- a month doesn't get you very far in this country. It really barely covers the basic necessities. In some cantons, like obscenely expensive Geneva, it's nowhere near enough to cover the monthly costs of rent, health insurance and food.

foadi said:
Switzerland is a lot more expensive than Wyoming, I would imagine. That's why I said I would gladly take the money, but would try to spend my time in a place where $2500-3500 goes a lot further.
Click to expand...

Except you would not be entitled to anything if you don't actually reside in the country. And it would not be just for Swiss nationals, legal foreign residents would also receive the basic income. Which is why many people are voting against it for fear it would attract more immigrants.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Hopefully they will realize that investing in and buying and selling and owning of machines and raw materials will be how to make a living in new market.
Click to expand...

Multinational big corporations will gobble the bigger part of that market. That won't leave much for mom and pop. Same old, same old...
 
Arcana XV said:
CHF 2500.- a month doesn't get you very far in this country. It really barely covers the basic necessities. In some cantons, like obscenely expensive Geneva, it's nowhere near enough to cover the monthly costs of rent, health insurance and food.



Except you would not be entitled to anything if you don't actually reside in the country. And it would not be just for Swiss nationals, legal foreign residents would also receive the basic income. Which is why many people are voting against it for fear it would attract more immigrants.
Click to expand...

The bigger objection would seem to be that one doesn't get any benefit if they now earn (at least) that amount by working. More people should be concerned with the fact that any job paying nearly that amount is getting, in effect, a huge pay cut. If one now makes $4K/month and must spend about $500/month for commuting/job related costs (including the added rent needed to live near that job and time lost while commuting) then they are actually no better off by continuing to work. In order to keep one interested in taking/keeping that $4K/month job then the employer may have to raise the pay to $5K/month - where will those added costs fall?
 
Goshin said:
Most people are not going to be satisfied with a basic income that only keeps them fed, housed and not much more.



People get bored and want something to do; they see things they want and experiences they desire and want more money. I think most people would still seek work.


The thing about means-tested aid is that it gives people very little, if any, motivation to take a low-paying job. If getting a job flipping burgers at McD's means you lose all your bennies, you're about as well off one way as the other and you don't have to put up with a boss, a schedule, burger grease and so forth.

But if a low-paying job and a UGI were ADDITIVE, there would be motivation to TAKE that low paying job, and a lot of people would because they want things more money can bring. As long as the UGI isn't too luxurious (and it wouldn't be) there will be motivation for work of some kind.
Click to expand...

To support a guaranteed income the tax rates would need to be astronomical. If you get $40k/yr for sitting on your ass and can make another $100k by doing some engineering on the side but that $100k is taxed at 70% so you really only make another $30k for 40 hrs/wk it won't be long before you decide that sitting on your ass isn't such a bad idea.

What will happen is that people will quickly decide that the basic income isn't enough and they'll start asking for more. The unskilled will never take another job and the skilled will be taxed to death on any extra they are capable of earning. More unskilled will move to that country for the benefit thus putting more pressure on the program. Manufacturing will move out of the country because they can't find reasonably priced labor and are being taxed up the wazoo. The plan will collapse.

However, after the plan collapses some bright bulb will see the error of their ways and announce that the problem came from giving people free money instead of just giving them the essentials for life. People will get free housing, free food, free clothing and free basic "quality of life goods". They will be assigned jobs and expected to meet various quotas all in the interests of providing for the society that provides for them. It will be the new Marxist/Leninist utopia complete with bread lines and a black market for toilet paper.
 
Arcana XV said:
CHF 2500.- a month doesn't get you very far in this country. It really barely covers the basic necessities. In some cantons, like obscenely expensive Geneva, it's nowhere near enough to cover the monthly costs of rent, health insurance and food.
Click to expand...

We Americans are at parity with the Franc currently. I have a hard time imaging in the schweiz that the cost of living is that high?
 
I would love to see this pass, so we could watch it crash and burn. Man, that would be the final nail in Socialism's coffin.
 
Arcana XV said:
Multinational big corporations will gobble the bigger part of that market. That won't leave much for mom and pop. Same old, same old...
Click to expand...

That will always be. Corporations don't do personalized and niche applications well, that's where small business rule, the other thing that is little known large Corporations require medium and small business to survive. A lot of medium and small business service Large corporations. There is always plenty of opportunity for small business.
 
I think this is one of the dumbest ideas ever imagined by man. The market distortions this would create would have exactly the opposite effect that is intended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom