Swiss Voting Today On "Basic Income For All"
http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20160605-money-nothing-swiss-vote-basic-income-all
"In a global first, the Swiss will vote Sunday on a radical proposal to provide the entire population with enough money to live on, no strings attached.
Voters are being asked whether they want all Swiss citizens, along with foreigners who have been legal residents in Switzerland for at least five years, to receive an unconditional basic income, or UBI.
Supporters say providing such an income would help fight poverty and inequality in a world where good jobs with steady salaries are becoming harder to find.
The idea is controversial, to say the least. The Swiss government and nearly all the country's political parties have urged voters to reject the initiative -- advice which 71 percent are inclined to follow, according to the latest poll.
Critics have slammed the initiative as "a Marxist dream", warning of sky-high costs and people quitting their jobs in droves, to the detriment of the economy.
"If you pay people to do nothing, they will do nothing," Charles Wyplosz, economics professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told AFP.
Proponents reject that, arguing people naturally want to be productive, and a basic income would simply provide them more flexibility to choose the activities they find most valuable.
"For centuries this has been considered a utopia, but today it has not only become possible, but indispensable," Ralph Kundig, one of the lead campaigners, told AFP.
The amount to be paid has yet to be determined, but the non-political group behind the initiative has suggested paying 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,500/2,300 euros) a month to each adult, and 625 francs for each child.
That may sound like a lot, but it is barely enough to get by on in one of the world's priciest nations -- leaving plenty of incentive to work, campaigners say.
Authorities have estimated an additional 25 billion francs would be needed annually to cover the costs, requiring deep spending cuts or significant tax hikes.
Supporters of the initiative however suggest the UBI could replace a range of other expensive social assistance programmes and could be easily financed through slight increases in sales tax or through a small fee on electronic transactions.
There is little chance of the initiative passing, but Kundig said that "just getting a broad public debate started on this important issue is a victory"."
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
Within this century this will become a worldwide issue as automation/robotics ends 60-70 percent of all jobs.
Technology that doesn't lead to quality of life for all, will lead to revolution eventually. Not only because it replaces humans depriving them of income; but, in myriad ways. Pollution and destruction caused by technology ruins air, water, and food. Technology deprives humans of the very essence of life and beauty in nature, by creating the illusion that we are separate from nature. We are the creators of our technology, and continue to believe that Utopia is to be found in our science, and the manipulation of nature to our favor (that is the basic definition of technology, the application of science to manipulate nature).
Look where that has led us. We developed technology to allow us more leisure, yet Americans work more hours now than ever to obtain the same things. We are promised that the progress of science will bring more equity of basic needs like food, water and shelter; we have less of all those things for the masses, because we require people to trade paper or digital currency representing riches, for something to eat. The miracle of modern science is said to someday attain more alternatives for valuable living; instead there are no alternatives for the largest number of slaves ever in the history of our planet, being used right now.
We are the masters of tool usage on the planet; how wisely we use them is clearly wanting.
Preliminary results suggest as many as 80% of voters are rejecting the handout proposal.
I sure hope so. They need to firmly reject it.
The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson wants to end all poverty programs. I wonder how many of his prospective new voters know that?
Most likely very few.
Gary Johnson: Yes, adults who receive government benefits should be required to work
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would cut welfare funding by 43% and would impose time limits on benefits and an income cap for all welfare recipients.
Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton's largest campaign donor is James Simons, founding partner of Euclidian Capital, a hedge fund.
I wonder how many of her potential voters know that?
Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton's largest campaign donor is James Simons, founding partner of Euclidian Capital, a hedge fund.
I wonder how many of her potential voters know that?
Our political system as it is necessitates that candidates for the most part must be whores and pimps; until/unless we have public elections in which MONEY's role is significantly reduced and restricted, IMO, the best we can hope for is that the most qualified pimp/whore wins the day.
Even then, as long as Boobus americana votes solely or primarily on the basis of race (any/all), religion (any/all), gender or special interest … money aside … we will still be best served by the best qualified whore/pimp candidates.
The first known reference to the concept of "The Dumbing of America" was written in 1837 by Ralph Waldo Emerson (and I doubt that even he could have envisioned how right he was and how dumb we have become).
Overwhelming rejected good news for the Swiss. It really would have been a disaster had this passed. A rare victory for the makers and a smackdown for the takers.
Good news indeed.
Overwhelming rejected good news for the Swiss. It really would have been a disaster had this passed. A rare victory for the makers and a smackdown for the takers.
Hell yeah! It's much better to outsource the good jobs, insource cheap, illegal labor, have high unemployment a WORKING poor, high desperation and crime. (SARCASM for those who can't tell)
And with all the people having money on which to live (at a basic, low level), there would be more consumerism, more jobs consequently, less unemployment and less welfare … hence, for every dollar the government would give, roughly $1.70 would be returned via tax payer increases, business profit taxes, etc. .
When things are looked at through a biased, sloppy, myopic, zeal-without-knowledge pair of glasses, facts and details don't matter.
Fortunately very few of the voters were wearing those glasses you speak of.
Fortunately very few of the voters were wearing those glasses you speak of.
Of course you interviewed enough of them to validate your implication that they voted based on a full understanding of the logistics of such a phenomenon.
Possibly, you can refute my case for a "yes" vote …
Far from disincentivizing work, basic income can actually boost productivity.
The so-called ‘Mincome Programme’ ran from 1974 to 1979 and saw the system implemented in Dauphin, Manitoba in order to ascertain whether or not guaranteed income would inhibit productivity. The results proved the only two groups whose work rate dropped by a significant degree were new mothers, who spent more time with their children, and teenagers, who largely dedicated more time to studies and further education.
What is going on that advocates who have introduced this vote think it's up to those working to support those not working? This is the most asinine solution to poverty I've ever heard aside from the trickle down theory. Look for gaps in the economy, look for areas that are in dire straits of attention and offer to train and educate people rather than giving hand outs.
I'm relieved to hear that most people don't think this is a good idea but the issue of unemployment isn't going to go away. This is an issue that many countries are facing including the US.
I was looking at a chart of the US poverty rates since 1959. In the past 56 years indicated on that chart, the poverty rate has been at least 12% every year and usually higher. Prior to 1959 it was almost always higher.
Capitalist economies produce poverty. It is a fact of life. You cannot get rid of 'welfare'. Ever. In the future, because of automation, it is certain that 'entitlement' spending on social safety programs will increase dramatically.
The day WILL come when people are paid for not working.
Just like Farmers are paid to NOT grow anything.
The greater efficiencies of the capitalist system will eventually require people to be paid for not working.
It's inevitable and is one of the things Marx reasoned was the worst things that would result from it capitalism.
Idle mouths to feed.
This reminds me of an interaction I had over the weekend with a young family member. He joined in a minor discussion where we were talking about Bernie Sanders, and snidely said "yeah, great idea, give everyone free college and expect they will learn how to work hard." Mind you, this kid has a free college education at an exclusive private college, has never paid an insurance premium or a phone bill, and got a free new car when he got his drivers license - all from mommy and daddy. He is a hard worker, but I wonder where he would be in life right now without any of those advantages.