‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

a reply to: ScepticScot


I've been reading some of your posts and I have a question for you or any other member.
If an approximate payment of $2.5 Trillion dollars was paid to about 320 million people in Europe yearly what would happen to the European economy?
There is a economist concept of "the velocity of money" which is how many times the same money goes through the economy in a year. The poorest in Europe as well as everyone else will get this money I think the velocity will be very large but how does that equate to tax earnings in member countries?
I'm proposing an increase in the VAT rate Europe wide to pay for it, and there will definitely be an increase in spending so some of this money will come directly back to help fund the next years basic income. What else can be said?

Hoping someone can help...

a reply to: Peter Brake

Well 2.5 trillion directly into the economy would be a very very large stimulus. You are right that there would a significant increase in economic activity and therefore a corresponding increase in tax revenue.

Your point about how it should be paid for is complicated by the existence of a shared EU currency.

On a Europe wide level (and likewise within countries that have there own currency) the question shouldnt be how is it paid for but, how to stop the economies overheating as a result of increased demand.

The current structure of the EU/Euro doesn't give a satisfactory answer in my view as what is to much demand for Germany could be far to little for Spain.

One of the problems with a basic income is that they are potentially pro cyclical. People continue to get the money as other incomes increase which could over time be inflationary. They would need to design in stabilisers which again would be very difficult in the current set up.

If you are talking about a EU wide income programming then you would therefore also need a far greater amalgamation of tax powers within the EU as well.

I guess what I am saying is that in my view the issues are more political than straight economics.

Hope this makes sense, typing well suffering from very bad cold.

a reply to: Peter Brake

Most money actually does return to the tax pot one way or another, VAT brings 20% of it back then theres all the wage taxes of the workers paid back and then they pay 20% of whats left in VAT for most things along with fuel duties and a shed load of other taxes so i'm pretty sure at some point or another over 90p in the pound will cross the taxmans fingers.

The problem would be people from less well off countries turning up and getting what would be a months wage every week to send back home making the more developed countries see a drain on the system.

The overall system has legs, but theres so many problems that need sorting out first it'll probably remain one of those 'good ideas' thats on the shelf for a long time.

a reply to: Davg80

Other countries, including India and Malawi, have tested basic income in the past, but the most famous experiment was one carried out in the Canadian town of Dauphin, in Manitoba. Between 1974 and 1979, The Mincome program gave a stipend to the entire population, varying depending on how much money each person earned. Evelyn L. Forget, an economist at the University of Manitoba, studied this experiment and wrote a report called “The town with no poverty,” published in 2011. Her conclusion? Basic income reduced Dauphin’s poverty and alleviated several other problems. Although working hours dropped, as skeptics had predicted, it happened mainly among young men, who instead continued their education, and mothers who used the financial freedom to focus on childrearing.

A Dutch city is giving money away to test the “basic income” theory

only 4% said they would stop working.

Check the Mincome program, it's quite realistic. And given this success story from Utrecht I don't see any reason not to give it a try on a much bigger scale.
It would cost not half as much than our current system of red tape madness and it's obviously a blessing for the crippling economy, peoples health and their wellbeing.

In other words: recent poll says 36% of Europeans didn't research this topic thoroughly.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


In other words: recent poll says 36% of Europeans didn't research this topic thoroughly.

I am not so sure. I have watched and taken part in debates and conversations on this theory with friends, people who are educated and have looked into it. There is some reason to hesitate when you consider that such experiments did not take into account (as far as I can tell, perhaps I am mistaken?) the problem of immigration.

In France, for example, we currently have a problem with many maghrebis living and/or working here who take their income or financial aid back to their country of origin, to their extended family. Down here in the south, you can watch them around you on the freeway with vans piled high with goods they are taking over on the weekend.
Those, with the workers we get from eastern Europe who are doing the same, means there is a "leak" of money growing steadily.
There is the risk of that growing even faster in such a system...

It has also been brought up that the french people (I do not know about other europeans) like to save money. Memories of world wars, and focus upon familial heritage has installed a habit of saving money instead of spending it, which means it doesn't go back into circulation. This also, is a problem, and the media is trying to encourage people to spend more, but the cultural habit is not yet changed, and would influence how such a system would work out.

In all these debates on economic or political systems, the culture, habits and values of the peoples within it is a key factor to outcome!

a reply to: Bluesma

There is some reason to hesitate when you consider that such experiments did not take into account (as far as I can tell, perhaps I am mistaken?) the problem of immigration.

Perhaps you are.

For some reason, the largest single cost stemming from Europe’s closed immigration policy has been off the radar, until now. It isn’t hardware, nor is it software. It’s bureaucracy. Red tape is very expensive. Since 2000, the 28 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland have deported millions of people. This has cost an enormous sum, at least 11.3 billion euro.

www.themigrantsfiles.com...

It would be way more efficient to just accept every asylum seeker and provide them with shelter and a basic income, yes. Just take a look at those billions wasted.

It's a problem of red tape madness we're talking about. And I always have to wonder why small governance advocates tend to shy away from this one. This isn't about culture at all, at least not if you don't perceive this epic mismanagement as an integral part of our cultural heritage.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That link refers to "Europe" but I cant get more precision from it? In France, we have had a totally open border- we don't control it all. That is why the people work here and go back to their country on the weekend.

So far we have not turned away any asylum seekers, as far as anyone here knows.. perhaps it is being done in secret, and the public is being kept in ignorance? I will try to research more.

But I've gone over those borders myself, no one stops you, there is no controls, at least here on the border of Italy and Spain.
Most people don't know there is any legal justification for controlling the border. This is the EU- people have the right to circulate through the borders.. (?)

a reply to: PublicOpinion

OKay, I've looked more extensively in on that, and it seems there has been big costs in the past for deporting illegal immigrants.
For those who refuse to become legal citizens, they were giving them financial aid when deporting -300E for adults, 100 E for children if they were european, and for non-european, they were set off with 500 E for each adult, 250 E each child.
That's insane. Do we do that in the US, when we send mexicans back over the border?

That is a big cost... it has been cut down to a bit less, but yeah, it could be cut out entirely, in my opinion.

In any case, I was refering to legal immigration- people who get papers and the legal right to live here, and continue to send back money to their country of origin. They are getting financial aid and salary, and it is leaving the country.
A system such as this would mean they'd be getting MORE , and it would continue to leave, not circulating within the country.

The only way you could stop that leak is to reinforce the borders and make laws to stop them from traveling back and forth?

I don't know.. something will have to change but I have no solutions.

It's a good thing to talk about though, this needs to be thought and talked about.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yeah.. let's just invite the whole god damned World.. don't you people care about your culture or your ethnic heritage at all? I care about ethnic and racial sovereignty, I don't give a damn how expensive they say it is. As far as I know immigration is a net loss for society on so many levels it's not even funny. We'll be lucky if society doesn't collapse into tribal warfare with the way things are going.

I don't understand these people that think money is the be all end all of everything of value. There's more important things than money. Besides, if we didn't cater to or basically invite these immigrants with all the free handouts, they wouldn't take the risk to come here. We could do a lot more for them in their own countries than we can here.

This century will be wild..

a reply to: Bluesma

Dunno where you've got those numbers from and I'd guess you refer to France. Care to elaborate?

Besides, I don't think the roots of this problem with immigration could be solved via reinforced borders, just the same mistake the Romans did before. But that's a wider topic, I just intended to bring this point of red-tape-madness across.
We could simply pay all immigrants a basic income and we would save buckloads of money to get our basic income rather easily as well. How fricken awesome is that?




a reply to: TheLaughingGod

your culture or your ethnic heritage

Which one? The one from my grandparents, who fled from Prussia to Germany during WW2, or the one from my Hussite forefathers somewhere in Bohemia?
You catch my drift, immigration is part of my cultural heritage. Now please spare me this racial eugenics pseudo-science and consider me a blond and blue-eyed refugee as well, if ya like.
Welcome to Europe, a meltingpot of migration!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Bluesma

Dunno where you've got those numbers from and I'd guess you refer to France. Care to elaborate?

Damn, I didn't bookmark the site. It doesn't matter. It's going slightly off the topic anyway- I was just amazed to find that out.

Oh yes, I said I was referring to France. I was pointing out that different countries would have to consider this idea within the context of their particularities. I was using France as an example because I live there, and have discussed this concept with friends starting about ten years ago, when a popular book came out on such a theory. We've looked at some specific challenges in our own case.
I cannot speak so much about the specific problems other countries might have to consider, being less aware of what those are.

I just intended to bring this point of red-tape-madness across.
We could simply pay all immigrants a basic income and we would save buckloads of money to get our basic income rather easily as well. How fricken awesome is that?

So... in the case of the legal immigrants, who come here and receive an income here, but then take it back to their own country on weekends,
The amount lost to our economy would still be less than what is being lost currently in red tape?

I really think, as I said, that depends upon the country.


(even red tape costs stay in the system- they pay state employees, who spend their income - here!)

Each country would have to look at the specifics of their own system and culture, in analyzing the idea.
Not all European countries are the same. Far from it.

For example, countries farther north do not have the same problem I am referring to, of the maghrebins who go back on weekends, because they are not on the mediterranean coastline, where one can drive back to Morocco easily.
In Germany for example, their immigrants stay there, and spend their income there. -It remains in the same country.

(ETA- I think, a couple posts back, you misunderstood my point when I mentioned immigrants, thinking I was referring to illegal immigration, so we're talking about two different things entirely.)

originally posted by: Maxatoria

The problem would be people from less well off countries turning up and getting what would be a months wage every week to send back home making the more developed countries see a drain on the system.
.

THIS is what I am talking about. It is already a big problem in France and Spain. I don't know if it would get bigger in the case of such a system being implemented.

a reply to: Bluesma
im from Scotland and,
i worked with legal immigrants from Poland and much of there money got sent home, it is after all just a matter of a simple bank transfer, its not as though they need to travel to send the money out of the country. They also did contribute to the economy through taxation at the least, you did see the younger ones out at the clubs and pubs, but they are very savvy with their money, after all it is a lot of money if it is sent back home and used wisely. The only way to make it fair as far as im concerned would be to introduce a higher rate of tax for migrant workers of poor countries, yet helping them with costs of living so they are not getting stung from both ends. They would still have plenty to take home if they were even getting taxed at 50% of their pay, and it would also make more jobs available to people of countries that need it the most, you would likely get less actual Europeans of poor Counries because it would take your Poles and such like EU members out of that bracket, and the jobs would be available to those people of poor African countries, for example.

a reply to: Bluesma

THIS is what I am talking about. It is already a big problem in France and Spain.

Yeah, more fear please! So all the 'guest-workers', who came to Germany after WW2, actually drained the system and didn't (help to) achieve another Wirtschaftswunder? Let's crap into some pants and run in circles just in case they didn't!

There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant', I'd call that Newspeak combined with Bollocks. Look up the UN-charta for human rights in case of doubt, we are free to travel and stay where we want to.
Anything else is just illegal with regards to possible criminal activity involved, which is rather a side phenomena when you take a closer look at the overall number of all immigrants.

(even red tape costs stay in the system- they pay state employees, who spend their income - here!)

Nothing ever happened. Mismanagement is fine as long as it 'somehow' supports the system? Guess what, they'd do so as well if everyone would get a basic income. What's your point?

In Germany for example, their immigrants stay there

You're being hilarious right now, I'll give you that.

Tell me, why do we Krauts spend billions for deportation then? Get your facts straight and please stick to the topic at hand if you're unable to share your sources for this ot-debate. Just in case you've got any and didn't just make up a whole plethora of factoids...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Peter Brake


Your point about how it should be paid for is complicated by the existence of a shared EU currency.

On a Europe wide level (and likewise within countries that have there own currency) the question shouldnt be how is it paid for but, how to stop the economies overheating as a result of increased demand.

The current structure of the EU/Euro doesn't give a satisfactory answer in my view as what is to much demand for Germany could be far to little for Spain.

One of the problems with a basic income is that they are potentially pro cyclical. People continue to get the money as other incomes increase which could over time be inflationary. They would need to design in stabilisers which again would be very difficult in the current set up.

If you are talking about a EU wide income programming then you would therefore also need a far greater amalgamation of tax powers within the EU as well.

I guess what I am saying is that in my view the issues are more political than straight economics.

Hope this makes sense, typing well suffering from very bad cold.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, most of which lead back to financing this through a rise in VAT as being a viable answer.
I'm still trying to iron out a couple of things but the VAT rate would need to at least double European wide to pay for this which means costs of food/living probably just went up a least 20% over night.
This would constrain spending somewhat. If you are not a European citizen and you are living there, then life just got harder for you. Also travellers in Europe will have a large increase in cost.
A European wide VAT increase would all received by a pan European organisation which administers the accounts of the members. Or trouble shoots as the money transfers will be automatic. This is greatly simplified by having one currency, though the English pound still needs to be dealt with. Their is no tax powers needing to be setup this already exists within the EU funding structure, but I do agree the main hurdle is political. I hope I'm tackling this correctly to keep all parties close to happy.
I'm asking economists to comment on the velocity of the money (how many times the money goes through the economy in one year) and how that equates to taxation increases in VAT and member states income tax. Maxatoria is the only reply so far (appreciated). Her 90% I feel comfortable on a straight line basis ie 90% of this additional money will be spent. This would mean 20% VAT earnings for the kitty as well as local income tax.
This helps my case and lowers the VAT rate required to finance this. I don't think this is all though the high velocity of the money means higher income spreading out from local economies through many hands to the big companies in England, Germany & France. This is what I need to get a handle on.
Thanks for the assist

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: Peter Brake

Most money actually does return to the tax pot one way or another, VAT brings 20% of it back then theres all the wage taxes of the workers paid back and then they pay 20% of whats left in VAT for most things along with fuel duties and a shed load of other taxes so i'm pretty sure at some point or another over 90p in the pound will cross the taxmans fingers.

The problem would be people from less well off countries turning up and getting what would be a months wage every week to send back home making the more developed countries see a drain on the system.

The overall system has legs, but theres so many problems that need sorting out first it'll probably remain one of those 'good ideas' thats on the shelf for a long time.

Thanks for the post
The 90% spend getting to the tax man I feel comfortable with on a straight line basis ie 90% of this additional money will be spent. This would mean 20% VAT earnings for the kitty as well as local income tax.
This helps my case and lowers the VAT rate required to finance this. I don't think this is all though the high velocity of the money means higher income spreading out from local economies through many hands to the big companies in England, Germany & France. This is what I need to get a handle on.
As too people working in Europe and sending money home - well good on them, my system makes life harder for them though. As their personal cost of living just got higher unless they have managed to become an EU citizen they have to stomach the increase costs without receiving the basic income. They and travellers will feel the pinch.
Thanks again

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Bluesma

Yeah, more fear please!

Oh for Chrissakes! When people get together to analyze an idea, it is customary and necessary to bring up all possible pros and cons....to consider potential challenges , put thought into how specific areas can be dealt with effectively..... I've started out in this thread with a clear positive position on this. I think it is really worth considering seriously and has potential. Stop the melodrama. We're grownups, no?

There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant', I'd call that Newspeak combined with Bollocks. Look up the UN-charta for human rights in case of doubt, we are free to travel and stay where we want to.

In France, they are also termed "sans papers", a juridic statut in which they are living here but without official papers, identification or carte de sejour. They have the right to certain aid, like free medical care, but they do not have the right to work.

That is what determines the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant.

I am speaking of people who have citizenship rights ro live and work here.

Nothing ever happened.

What...? Where?

Mismanagement is fine as long as it 'somehow' supports the system? Guess what, they'd do so as well if everyone would get a basic income. What's your point?

Your response to the problem of the drain of money to other countries was that "much money is already wasted in red tape" I am trying to understand the connection you make between these two problems. How does red tape effect workers who send their salary out of the country? Would there be less red tape if these people got the salary without working? Would that make them cease to send it out?

You're being hilarious right now, I'll give you that.

Tell me, why do we Krauts spend billions for deportation then? Get your facts straight

You mean to say they DO work during the week in Germany and drive back to Africa on weekends, like they do here?

If so, what does deportation have to do with that?

I find it hard to believe, considering that Germany has a list of safe countries it won't accept immigrants from, (which includes Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria) and that are the ones immigrants go back and forth to. (naturally, since unsafe countries, they don't want to go visit).

a reply to: Peter Brake

The problem with using VAT is that it is regressive. For the poorest in society the UBI would represent most or all of their income. Any increase in the cost of living would have an higher impact than on those who receive the UBI on top of an already above average salary. Paying for it via indirect taxation you would effectively be funding a tax rebate to the top earners.

No one would be tell you with any accuracy about the velocity of money as it is not a fixed amount. This can be demonstrated by the QE process where funds where injected into the system but held largely as Bank Reserves so having little ongoing economic effect. It would be safe to assume that the multiplier effect here would be quite high as this would be direct to income government spending, However it is also replacing a lot of existing spending.

The key would be what affect it has on current lower middle income earners as those are the ones who would benefit most from a UBI. (low income earners would probably find little net change or possibly slightly worse off when other payments are removed)

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
if you're unable to share your sources for this ot-debate. Just in case you've got any and didn't just make up a whole plethora of factoids...

Since it is apparently super important to you, I went and found it for you.

Here is a link to the information I wrote on the funds given to people when they are deported
France cuts aid for repatriating immigrants

The aid of €300 for adults and €100 for children will be reduced to €50 and €30 respectively. 2) There will also be cuts to funding for voluntary assisted repatriation, which is aimed at helping non-European citizens facing expulsion. The funding, reduced to be in line with other EU countries, now offers €500 to adults and €250 to minors. In 2011, 4,726 people, including many asylum seekers, benefited from this state funding. French home office minister Valls added that the French state will continue to pay the travel costs of repatriating illegal immigrants.

By the way, this is what Germany is paying to those they deport-

Each migrant then receives what is called travel aid. This is 200 euros for anyone over the age of twelve and 100 euros for any children. There has been some abuse of this by migrants from the western Balkan states like Kosovo and Albania leading to a suspension of payments after large amounts of people saw the scheme as a way to travel to Germany with multiple children, earn a few hundred euros and go right back to their country almost like getting paid to go on holiday.

Another scheme is called “jump start.” For many migrants from selected countries, they receive 500 euros per person regardless of whether they are an adult or not. Migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ghana all qualify for this program though currently Syrians do not and receive far less money.

Many migrants from these countries tend to have large families and costs can add up quickly if a family of six or seven wishes to return they could be looking at a windfall of 3,000 to 4,000 euros. This programme is also not available for migrants from the western Balkans region due to the already existing abuse of the travel aid.

The cost of these programmes is paid for by German state and federal governments who have currently budgeted 10.1 million euros for migrants who wish to return home. If every migrant who came last year wished to take advantage of the program the cost would be much large, with at least 600 million euros for jump start costs alone.


The costs of accommodating migrants in Germany is much higher than sending them back to their countries leading to the push to get many to return home voluntarily. The IFO institute calculated that residence and care costs alone for migrants total 21 billion euros for the German taxpayer.

www.breitbart.com...