It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 11:39 PM

originally posted by: flice
This Swiss initiative is a glorious one….

Did you also know that people in Schwitzerland can demand an election regarding any passed law if they can amass 20.000 signatures? Now that's true democracy for you.

Which is easy when you are not subjected to multiculturalism and are homogenous for the vast majority of your society.

I would applaud such measures here in the States, but considering that we do not desire to have a culture or a single reference in which new persons must adhere to; I will inherently distrust this ideal. In terms of the Swiss; bravo!

I also question this "law"...can you provide evidence of it? Considering you presented false information regarding the "12:1" attempt that I have proven to be false, I question even this.....

Also, they have a law preventing company owners earning more than a specific ratio between boss and worker. I think it's 12:1.
In other words, it generates real growth rahter than money bins.

Do tell where you are getting this information from...

You neglected to note that the "12:1" referendum was rejected by the voters....democracy in action; save it isn't in your favor I suppose. Swiss reject to limit executive pay...

I stop there, since your post presented the ideal as fact...when it is otherwise.
edit on 20-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:00 AM
I can see the price for everything else would go up. The landlord that knows everyone is making more money would then charge more for rent. A $10 haircut would go to $25. A prostitute would want more money for her services. And the government(state/city/etc) would want more taxes.
The only way for anything like this to work is for the government to let people keep more of their own money in the first place by lowering taxes.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:10 AM
I just ran the numbers on working age Americans receiving $2000 per month and I like the idea in theory but Mr. Buffett and his peers are going to have to start paying more in taxes than their secretaries do in order for this to have any chance of working.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:44 AM
a reply to: Blueracer

But there isn't any need for them to raise his prices because he get's it too. Besides, why would a landlord raise prices just because his renters are making more money, that doesn't make sense??? If your renter gets a raise at his job does that mean you'd automatically raise his rent???

Again, why would the barber raise his prices just because the guy sitting in the chair has more money to spend now then he did the last time he sat in the chair???

Also, the prostitute, which was an interesting example btw, might actually be able to quit selling herself because she wouldn't be in such financial need. With the money she might be able to stop selling herself and improve her life.

The money would most likely come, at least in part by shutting down whatever Welfare system is in place now and using shifting it over to this. The rest would either be pulled from somewhere else or taxes. This is just a guess on my part though, I don't know how they plan on doing it. Maybe someone can get more detailed info on that cause I'd kinda like to know myself how they plan to pull it off.

The Tax increase would be spread out among everyone and only be needed to make up what the shift from other current welfare programs are already using so it shouldn't be much of a raise on taxes. Plus most people aren't going to be hording this money, they'll be spending it which means it goes right back in the system which is all money ever really does if you think about it. All we do is just pass the money back and forth to each other and exchange it for stuff back and forth.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: Goteborg

You hit the nail on the head with that statement for sure!!! For something like this to be possible would mean Huge Corporate Tax Havens and Tax Shelters would have to be stopped. Which is something that should stop anyway so unless you're a corrupt corporate criminal who's cheating on your taxes that shouldn't be a problem. The fact that the big corporate devils in America actually pay little or no taxes here because of loopholes is why our financial system is so F*cked up now. Some even get money back which blows my mind. The Swiss on the other hand don't seem to have that problem so we'll see what happens.

I kinda wonder if the reason that they seem to think they can pull this off isn't somehow related to the fact that they are one of the places where big corps. send all their money when they want to hide it???

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:03 AM
a reply to: mOjOm
Why would they? Because they may want even more money. Some would think that if you can afford more, you can pay more. It happens.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:50 AM
This is Brilliant.

Honestly, it would work anywhere.

The first statement here is "people wouldn't work" look lets get real, 2,000 a month would eliminate what? Fight or flight? Fear? that's fantastic, there will always be a portion of people who are... base individuals. Do we really need them running amok in a constant state of fight or flight? No... no money will be lost because these same people are going to spend every last cent right back into the economy.

Now lets address this, actual productivity.

How many of us "enjoy" our work, particularly if given the chance t pursue what we wish without fearing if we will make enough? That would be A LOT of us. It gets old doing nothing, I know this from personal experience, but pursuit of ones dreams can be extremely difficult when you HAVE to do something meaningless to pay the rent...

Now factor in the dangers... yes I said dangers of having to work with people who don't want to be there... we all know them, the guy who is supposed to hold the ladder that has ADD, the fast food kid who picks his nose a lot or just gosh darn doesn't care if he washes his hands after going no 2, the really stoned cab driver, (okay he can be kind of cool) but still... how about the toxic waste driver going through a divorce, the teacher who just really wants summers off?

The list is infinite... the truth is it's worse to force people to work than to let them go home and do shots or whatever until they find something they like to do... and ahhhh it would be nice if all the drunks always had cab fare, no?

This is Brilliant, it truely is.

Somewhere back there some one said the tech isn't there yet...

Yeah it is, I'd much rather fast food be cooked in a vending machine than handled by some of the cracker jacks I see at a drive through window, there is a model for this, it's called japan. We are on the cusp of this being viable, Google is inventing self driving vehicles... way superior to truckers on Meth Amphetamine, Robots basically do build cars and when they don't you get the infamous over priced American automobile, Germany is going all solar at this point, way better than Homer at the nuke plant...

I know personally... my love of science and travel will keep me doing stuff for the vacations, luxury items and the joy of what I like to do. I know i'm not alone... but damn it would be nice to do what I love to do with out being coerced or starving or fearing a sick day or whatever.

Go Switzerland

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:09 AM
a reply to: onequestion

Fantastic idea, hats off to the Swiss.

Personally, this is the definitive answer to that question; What the hell is wrong with kids these days?

The thing that is wrong doesn't start with the kids, it starts with bad parenting. Bad because both parents have to work just to get by and pay the rising bills each month and have virtually zero time to do the most important job they will ever a good parent and inspire and encourage the next generation of society - their children.

Well done to the's about time.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:12 AM
a reply to: Blueracer

Right. But you typically sign contracts for things when you'll be making continuous payments for things in which there are limits or something where increases in price are controlled. Otherwise there wouldn't be any protections against price gouging and stuff like that. But sure, I suppose they could raise the rent because you can afford more now, but since they also get the extra money I doubt they would. Since not landlord would do something like that, most likely you'd just find another place to rent without such a greedy landlord.

The key thing here is that since it's across the board, nobody would be getting cheated so nobody would automatically need to raise prices to compensate for it. Almost all of that money would also be sent right back into the system too.

I wonder if raising the sales tax on things just a little would also help pay for it??? Since most if not all of this money would be going right back into the system every month as people spend it for their basic needs, raising the sales tax a bit would then automatically build up the next months payouts.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:18 AM
Free money for all, good. Obamacare, bad. I don't understand.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:18 AM

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
Free money for all, good. Obamacare, bad. I don't understand.

I'm not sure what you mean. What don't you understand??? Wanna elaborate???

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:05 AM
a reply to: mOjOm

Good point. What I mean is that the Swiss proposal (albeit put forward by a group of citizens rather than the Government itself) is being hailed, almost without criticism, on these pages as a great innovation which will improve the life of Swiss residents. On the other hand, Obamacare is regularly slated as a communist plot that will bankrupt the US. OK, so I'm not exactly comparing like with like, and slightly exaggerating for effect. However, both schemes have the potential for great benefit (one in more general "well being" terms, the other in more specific health-related terms), and both involve expenditure that must be financed in no small way out of the public purse. So why the difference in reaction to them?

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:07 AM
a reply to: Blueracer

That's okay because I see wages for many going down!! After all we all have incomes of at least $2000 a month why should we need much more outside of the industries competing for those workers who aren't off on a permanent vacation?
It would probably kill some companies like Mc Donalds!
I still like the idea though since we are probably probably spending more money on the various welfare programs than it would cost to do this. I think I would put in a mandatory amount of hours one would have to work doing something! Be it flipping burgers volunteering at a hospital whatever. Along with maybe some placement services for those who would find it hard to find something to do such as the handicapped!

The fact that we all would be obligated for far less hours would enable all of us to contribute something to society!

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:10 AM
a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale
We started out with a system that we could not afford not at the individual level not at the business level and not at the government level! Obamacare did nothing to make the system as a whole more affordable and more than likely made it more expensive and then told us all tough crap find the money!!!

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:31 AM
a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

Good question. I'd say that a large part of the difference in opinion is because one is happening here while the other isn't so it won't actually effect many of the folks here if this fails. That plus all the massive and constant media which has been used to convince everyone how Social Healthcare won't work. There is obviously a huge Anti-ObamaCare movement, both honest and deceptive, as well as political resistance. Personally the idea of Social Healthcare seems like a great idea and doable for a nation like the US with all it's wealth. However, I don't think the way it was done was the correct way to do it either. But it doesn't really matter how it was handled because with the system the way it is now and the division within the political body, there isn't much of a chance for real compromise anyway. Everything is pretty much fubar at this point and IMO is still getting worse and not better.

I'm actually shocked that so many have supported this idea around here actually. I expected way more people insisting that this is a bad idea and I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet. My guess is that it will though. Should this idea actually start catching on you'll see lots of people start railing against it. If it starts catching on and looks like it might actually work, well then that is when you'll see everything from negative media to actual attempts at sabotage.

I have no idea whether or not something like this will work but on the chance that it might work if done correctly I would hate to think that it was lost all because we lacked the courage to at least try. Imagine how amazing something like this could be and the benefits that it might bring. At least trying has a chance of success, but to not try is always automatic failure.
edit on 21-4-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:46 AM
a reply to: dawnstar
What you just suggested is the worst possible scenario.

I'm on an iPhone so I'll has to elaborate later but you literally just have us the hunger games scenario.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:16 AM
On paper, this sounds really good -- but there are a couple of issues I see that would need to be worked out.

I agree with Ownbestenemy about the problem of funding this concept. The money has to come from somewhere. The only way I can see it working is a much higher income tax on the job salary -- something like 50% tax. For the lower paid people, they would still come out ahead with the added 24K per year automatic income. If you have a job that pays 48K/year, you would pay 24K in tax, but you get the 24K from the government. That's a wash for the government, but the individual actually comes out ahead, compared to our existing tax system. You make 48K, you keep 48K - sounds great. If you have a job making 300K, you would have to pay 150K in taxes. With the 24K, that leaves you with 174K net income. That's probably a wash for the individual, compared to the old tax system. But the higher paid people will be worse off, I think. If you have a job making 500K, and you pay 250K of that as tax, you only get a total of 274K (250 plus the 24K). Now, you're starting to suffer compared to the old tax system. The more you make, the worse off you'll be. Maybe some kind of reverse percentage system would work, like the higher your salary, the lower your tax percentage. You pay 50% income tax on salaries up to a certain amount, then you gradually lower the percentage, the higher salary you make. So, someone who makes 2 million would pay something like 30% tax. That should keep everyone happy at doing better or the same as they were before. But would that tax system be enough to fund this?

The other issue I see is - all those menial labor jobs that no one really wants to do, but is currently forced to in order to pay basic bills. Jobs like digging ditches and cleaning public toilets. Under this new system, those people would probably rather be doing something else, and they could afford to. So who will dig our ditches, flip our burgers, sack our groceries and clean our public toilets?

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:19 AM
I think this is great! America is far away from such a concept. Too many have been brainwashed by politicians that doing something good for people is akin to Communism (which is EVIL...why? IDK).

Every person on Earth should have their basic needs met. In this day and age it is irresponsible to have people starving. Regardless of your circumstances you should at least be able to feed yourself and children.

Only when we stop worrying about what the neighbors are doing and quit buying into political ideologies will we as a world reach our full potential.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:25 AM

originally posted by: kaylaluv

So who will dig our ditches, flip our burgers, sack our groceries and clean our public toilets?

We know the answer to that. The real question is: how long will it be before someone accuses them of stealing "our" jobs?

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:33 AM
a reply to: onequestion

well in my perfect world the people who would work in the placement service would be more interested in helping the people fit their interests and abilities with the positions available and considering just how many jobs there are compared to how many people who could be working the mandatory hours wouldn't be much!
I am sure that there are some disabled people who really couldn't do any job but there are also many who could be doing something if society would just give them a chance! And for many of those they would love to have that chance!!
Continuing learning could be considered doing something! And we have the ability now with online courses to make it very low cost! Playing baseball with a group of children a few days a week would be considered doing something. Helping out in your child's school would be considered doing something! Walking through the parks picking up litter would be considered doing something and would have the extra benefit of keeping the cans which you can get money from!

It's not the plan that is bad it's people! The system would have now would be working okay if there just wasn't so many people businesses and governments gaming it for their benefit!
If it led to a "hunger games" scenerio it would only be because some people chose to lead it in that direction! And quite frankly I think we are well on our way there now!

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in