It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Swiss Plan to Pay Basic Income – Regardless of Job

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Source

Initial thoughts from reading the title?



But to alleviate this issue and provide opportunity beyond basic growth, the Swiss have devised a plan. Whether one is working or not, Switzerland may start paying its citizens the equivalent of about $2,000 per month. This procedure is based on the idea that citizens will have more time to devote to things they are intrinsically interested in, rather than spending the majority of their time worrying about how they are going to survive. Read More: www.trueactivist.com...


What would you do?

I would go to college and learn computer programming.

Now, as far what i think about this idea, well i agree with doing this more then i agree with spending all our tax dollars on other countries and waging wars, funding prisons, and everything else we do.

What do you think?




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


That's the start of the startrek economy works. People in startrek don't have to work if they don't want to, and all material wants provided for still.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Where are they going to get the revenue from to continue the payout of this amount when more people choose to not work then? That would be my first question and I find it interesting that this is the second thread on this notion that just popped up on ATS....



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


A mincome sounds pretty good, but I would never institute such a thing without machine based labor to back it up.

Sounds crazy, but I'd be all for it at that point.

I'd write. I'd lift. I'd write some more, and I'd continue learning coding along with spanish.
edit on 15-4-2014 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by onequestion
 


Where are they going to get the revenue from to continue the payout of this amount when more people choose to not work then? That would be my first question and I find it interesting that this is the second thread on this notion that just popped up on ATS....


It isn't a new idea, my first encounter with it was as a hypothetical put forth by Milton Friedman called reverse income tax.

He was attempting to reveal just how much waste there is in social services. By taking all of the money spent on social services in any given year and dividing it by the number of adult citizens in the country, a very large figure appears. A figure that far exceeds what the average welfare recipient actually receives and everyone would get it without changing anything but cutting off all social services.

I would prefer to keep my money rather than have a massive redistribution regime but, I have to admit that at the moment, negative income tax seems preferable to the status quo.
edit on 15-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by onequestion
 


Where are they going to get the revenue from to continue the payout of this amount when more people choose to not work then? That would be my first question and I find it interesting that this is the second thread on this notion that just popped up on ATS....


People aren't lazy. People who don't want to work won't, and those that do, will. Most people want to work, even with a basic guaranteed income, there isn't a person i know that would quit their job. They might ask for less hours, therefore opening up more positions for people who do want to work. Its just more wealth for the person working. That basic income would pay all of my bills every month. And then i could work to buy the things i -want- to have, and have the money to -do- the things i want to do. Just like i do now. Only without worry about my survival every second of every day..

This would eradicate poverty.
People would be happier
The economy would be stronger (as people have more money to spend)

Not to mention the other possible ramifications. More art. More and better music (as all the artists tied up in crap jobs would be free to expand their horizons). Couple this with cheap/free secondary schooling. And all of a sudden you have a whole lot of people wanting to learn. It would be great. But can't have that in a world dominated by greed and power
edit on 15/4/14 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

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


Oh okay. I am sated that the people you know wouldn't quit their job. I am guessing though that they do not number in 7.9 million as does Switzerland does. I am not disagreeing with you because I tend to surround myself with like thinking individuals that value work -- but since you and I both do not know anyone who would possibly substitute work for the same basic stipend just given because of citizenship; it must mean it cannot possibly be true.


They might ask for less hours, therefore opening up more positions for people who do want to work. Its just more wealth for the person working. That basic income would pay all of my bills every month. And then i could work to buy the things i -want- to have, and have the money to -do- the things i want to do. Just like i do now. Only without worry about my survival every second of every day..


But where is this money going to be coming from? That is my basic question. My guess is the Government and since the Governments don't produce anything (unless they own industry), they must retrieve such revenue from taxes or tariffs. Eventually businesses cannot keep up a payroll though if people have conceded they can "do what they want" and sustain a nominal lifestyle -- means businesses recede in my opinion.


This would eradicate poverty.
How? Please explain.

People would be happier


Of course, I mean I would be pretty happy if I didn't have to work as hard as I do to do the things I wanted to. I put in extra hours for my summer trip but those extra hours are realized elsewhere. If I didn't do them, my guess is your flight would have been delayed...but at least I am happy.


The economy would be stronger (as people have more money to spend)


Again, how? "Money" is finite...unless of course you believe it can just be printed and backed by nothing.
edit on 15-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by onequestion
 


Where are they going to get the revenue from to continue the payout of this amount when more people choose to not work then? That would be my first question and I find it interesting that this is the second thread on this notion that just popped up on ATS....


More people may initially choose to not work, I won't waste time arguing that point. As this isn't a means tested welfare program that disincentives work but is instead a flat endowment there will always be those people that will want better that won't take a penalty for doing better. That isn't to say I don't foresee problems with it. The first problem I see is housing and rent costs spiking quickly because people have a guaranteed 2k a month to spend. Followed shortly by every other business raising prices and dropping wages at the same time because people have more to spend and lowering wages for cost saving because that is 2k a month per employee that they really could get away without paying.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 





It isn't a new idea, my first encounter with it was as a hypothetical put forth by Milton Friedman called reverse income tax.


Ill have to look more into that.

And really good point that i agree with. I would love to be able to go to school.
edit on 4/15/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


The interesting thing about this idea is it's potential. Right wingers will point to it and say it's unsustainable and yammer on about welfare and their own wallets and working hard and blah blah blah, but what they will probably miss is what could happen once the dust settles and this system is in place for awhile.

People will gravitate towards ingenuity. In a purely capitalist society, ingenuity doesn't mean much if you don't have the capital to not only turn your ideas into a viable business model, but also to sustain yourself while you further develop those ideas. I honestly believe that a system like this will allow people to naturally gravitate towards societal contributions they are passionate about. There will of course be an adjustment period and people will likely take some time to figure out what they want to do in life or just relax, but eventually they will get tired of sitting around having their rent paid for them and will naturally gravitate towards either increasing their income or (if they are comfortable with their standard of living) finding ways to find fulfillment in other aspects of life, be it through volunteer work or entrepreneurial pursuits.

The funny thing about the natural reaction to this idea from right wingers is that they will criticize it while constantly talking about freedom. Well what happens when you give everyone true freedom? I think the Swiss economy could suffer initially, but will eventually explode. Human ingenuity knows no bounds, and once it is freed and people are able to focus on their natural inclinations instead of how they will put bread in their baskets, we will see another renaissance.

The Swiss are not stupid people and have done extremely well for themselves. Their ideas have not always been conventional but they have largely benefited Swiss society. If anything, this will be an extremely interesting case study of alternative ways of viewing economic growth in about 25 years.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





People will gravitate towards ingenuity. In a purely capitalist society, ingenuity doesn't mean much if you don't have the capital to not only turn your ideas into a viable business model, but also to sustain yourself while you further develop those ideas. I honestly believe that a system like this will allow people to naturally gravitate towards societal contributions they are passionate about. There will of course be an adjustment period and people will likely take some time to figure out what they want to do in life or just relax, but eventually they will get tired of sitting around having their rent paid for them and will naturally gravitate towards either increasing their income or (if they are comfortable with their standard of living) finding ways to find fulfillment in other aspects of life, be it through volunteer work or entrepreneurial pursuits.


I completely agree. People need to stop worrying about what everyone else is doing unless of course its hurting someone and just focus on their own creativity.

I think your right though i think it would just be generally a better place. I mean, this is direct socialism but without the super dictatorship tyrannical leaders, but i dont know anything about the Swiss...

Any Swedish people around?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

AthlonSavage
reply to post by onequestion
 


That's the start of the startrek economy works. People in startrek don't have to work if they don't want to, and all material wants provided for still.


I really wish people would stop with the whole Star Trek economy kick. The Star Trek economy is built on two as of yet unrealized discoveries. Abundant, safe, reliable and cheap sources of energy. And the ability to transform matter into other forms.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


I did say the start implying there is still a way to go before we get to Deep space 9.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


It was mean tested when it was first theorized. Negative Income Tax


...researchers in the Office of Economic Opportunity, the brain trust for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the midsixties, began planning a large-scale field experiment of the idea. Several sites in New Jersey were ultimately selected for the test, which was launched in 1968 with the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty in charge of the research and a Princeton-based firm, Mathematica Inc., in charge of field operations and data collection.


What they concluded was it wasn't sustainable, but again, this was applied against the prevailing American model of the time.


The experimenters—and the planners in what was then called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (myself included) who drew upon their work in designing President Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan of 1969 (FAP)—quickly encountered a host of problems, both conceptual and administrative. These continue to haunt negative tax advocates to this day.


The problem lies at the bottom of a given "poverty line". The line in which people choose not to work and just live off the basic income they will receive no matter if they work and those that are working to obtain a slight advantage of those just below them that are not.

I still would like to know the following: Where will the revenue from any given State that employs this method be derived from?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

AzureSky

People aren't lazy. People who don't want to work won't, and those that do, will. Most people want to work, even with a basic


Some people aren't lazy and some are.
I know people that would choose to sit home getting drunk and watching TV everyday vs actually contributing to society or pushing themselves in some way. Just like their are rich people that exploit the system their are poor people that would just see this as a free ride and take advantage of it.

I haven't read all the threads yet but is their an annual salary requirement the denies or allows this possible wage? Seems to me that you couldn't do that and to be fair everyone , including financially successful people, should have access to it.

Also where would the funding for something like this come from?
edit on 2014pAmerica/Chicago3011ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


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



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



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by onequestion
 


The interesting thing about this idea is it's potential. Right wingers will point to it and say it's unsustainable and yammer on about welfare and their own wallets and working hard and blah blah blah, but what they will probably miss is what could happen once the dust settles and this system is in place for awhile.

People will gravitate towards ingenuity. In a purely capitalist society, ingenuity doesn't mean much if you don't have the capital to not only turn your ideas into a viable business model, but also to sustain yourself while you further develop those ideas. I honestly believe that a system like this will allow people to naturally gravitate towards societal contributions they are passionate about. There will of course be an adjustment period and people will likely take some time to figure out what they want to do in life or just relax, but eventually they will get tired of sitting around having their rent paid for them and will naturally gravitate towards either increasing their income or (if they are comfortable with their standard of living) finding ways to find fulfillment in other aspects of life, be it through volunteer work or entrepreneurial pursuits.

The funny thing about the natural reaction to this idea from right wingers is that they will criticize it while constantly talking about freedom. Well what happens when you give everyone true freedom? I think the Swiss economy could suffer initially, but will eventually explode. Human ingenuity knows no bounds, and once it is freed and people are able to focus on their natural inclinations instead of how they will put bread in their baskets, we will see another renaissance.

The Swiss are not stupid people and have done extremely well for themselves. Their ideas have not always been conventional but they have largely benefited Swiss society. If anything, this will be an extremely interesting case study of alternative ways of viewing economic growth in about 25 years.


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

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

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

I do feel I need to restate that Friedman's purpose was to expose that very little of the money designated for the poor actually makes it to the poor. The welfare system's beneficiaries are the welfare system's employees.
edit on 15-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 





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


One word,

Darwinism.




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


Good point as well.
edit on 4/15/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I completely agree with this idea and I don't see how it is all that difficult to maintain. The trouble I see is how do we get to THERE from HERE. An idea like this cannot even be heard if you don't have mountains of cash to buy the media's attention. And I think of all the currently powerful will give a great deal of resistance, obviously. Because that is what this system is all about. Money is just a means to gain more power. Any of you that have had a promotion can attest to the change, power can bring over your character.

If we can CHOOSE to keep active at something that we feel is productive and maintain a stable society, then we would need to CHOOSE to live without the obligations we hold so dear today in order to actually get there. There is NO way were are ever going to convince the current powers to establish a similar economy, and if we did there is no way we could trust it.




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join