Handout or no? Swiss mull $2,500 monthly income for all

a reply to: Aazadan

Where are you getting these numbers? The federal budget is $4 trillion per year (to include military), you are saying it will only cost a little more if we spend over twice as much? I make a little over $80k, I'm already pumping out more than $15k in various taxes and mandated deductions (not to include my $1,050 Obama care insurance per month).

The vast majority of illegal aliens returned home on their own prior to the start of welfare in the U.S.. If giving away free money starts we will have 25% of the U.S. population probably being over 125 years old. This is crazy talk.

a reply to: Oouthere

You forgot the part where a UBI would allow us to cut the 44% of the federal budget currently spent on Social Security and other assistance. That's where the money to pay for it comes from. At 80k you pay a tax rate of around 17% (quick estimate on my part, likely off slightly), increasing that another 2 percentage points to 19% would cover the rest of the revenue needed.

And no, I did not say twice as much, I was referring to a plan to spends much less. $11k/year in UBI and half that if you're making over 30k/year which averages to about $8k per person, contrasted with the Swiss plan which was proposing 3.5 times that per year.

so they voted against it. It would have been interesting to see them do a 2 year pilot study

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: avgguy

Yes, and once again, the burden falls on the backs of the working people.

Possible ways of paying for it would include fees on salaries of people who earn more than the minimum, savings from welfare programs that would be discontinued and taxes or spending cuts in the state budget.

Seriously, who would continue to work?

I would because some people like Me are not satisfied with minimum wage.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: makemap

It's soviet-style communism. I'm not playing any damned definition game about what is true communism and what isn't.

The government would have to own everything and tax 100% just to pay out the "living wage" to it's population.

You could mean Stalin's fake communism after killing Lenin. Lolz

And Swiss says no with a lot of more than 50% votes for no.

This means that we are far from no currency world if when you offer people to have money they say no.

This reminds of a story were people or was they monkeys in story, when facing the unknown they say no and when finally they drop them in unknown they are lost.

And you say there is no mind control and social engineering.

In other words like many folks said if there will be no money nobody will work. Well many will work because they love what they do...

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Oh well. Their country, their choice. The interesting thing about the Swiss is that it probably failed to pass because there's no need for it. They're a very wealthy country with a low unemployment rate and high GDP. They also have a small wealth gap. They don't really have an underclass of citizen that a UBI is designed to benefit.

originally posted by: opethPA
It's like those people don't see that one country is substantially smaller in every single way so when it's not going to be sustainable in the smaller country it certainly wouldn't work in America.

That's a cop out. Just because it gets posted often doesn't make it true.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Free money. No greater contradiction has been fathomed. It will be ruinous to entire economies.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Oh well. Their country, their choice. The interesting thing about the Swiss is that it probably failed to pass because there's no need for it.

Either way what is cool is that they got to make that choice and it wasn't the "mob rule" that is often thrown out there.

It sure beats what is going on in the US with people sucker punching each other over a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Free money. No greater contradiction has been fathomed. It will be ruinous to entire economies.

It's not free money. It's money paid by the lords to the peasents to keep them from burning things to the ground.

Someone earlier said it is money just for existing and I'm thinking, as above, it's money to guide what someone does while they exist.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: avgguy

Yes, and once again, the burden falls on the backs of the working people.


Seriously, who would continue to work?

Cutting out the costs of the bureaucracy involved in welfare funds it largely! I don't think people grasp how much is spent on that- it really is huge.

This sort of idea is being examined in many part of Europe and has been thrown around for a while.
There is some real logic to it, which is why this is so. Despite the knee jerk reactions of those unfamiliar with it.

For one, I know I found it a life changing revelation, but in some parts of the world, people are not motivated to work because of fear for their survival!!!!!

In the US, that is what motivated me- I always had the threat behind me. I actually believed the propaganda "If you had a sense of security, you would sit on your butt and do nothing all day. It is necessary for humans to be constantly in a state of stress and fear, in order to remain active".

Lies. Got out, found out that people who have a secure safety net still work. It's weird and amazing. It is not fear and stress , but something else mysterious that causes them to be active and productive. Like a desire to feel useful and co-creative, part of an effort larger than oneself, needs for self expression and development, interaction with others, and to expand life experiences (to afford travel for example).

Two more things-

This sounds like a large amount for some, but Switzerland is extremely expensive. Over the border, a small bottle of Coke costs 7 dollars. Seriously.

Also , from reading the many posts on these threads on this subject, I get the idea that no one in other countries are feeling the problem of lack of jobs due to automation?
Unlike lots of other problems we hear about on the news, like economic crises of which we never see any evidence in our immediate lives, this one is obvious and we are actually grappling with it.
I don't know the number, but it seem like 3/4's of our shops and businesses in the town went out of business. Internet killed them. For sale signs on the windows.

Kids used to be able to get their first jobs at places like McDonalds, or the grocery stores, but this year they can't. At McDonalds (and the few other fast food equivalents) you cannot order from a person, you have to go to the machine, and that means ours went from having nine employees to three maximum. (Two in down times).
The big grocery stores now have order online, and drive thru pick up which meant they cut out their need to employ cashiers. They didn't take on any kids this summer, when in the past they have been the biggest employers of young people in summer!

This is just an example, but we're in a crisis this way. I personally have a college student who could not find any work for summer, and know many others who couldn't either. These changes all happened rather quickly and are getting worse just as fast.

I understand people not liking this idea, but I'd really like to see them come up with another then, to respond to this serious problem!!

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: avgguy

Yes, and once again, the burden falls on the backs of the working people.

Possible ways of paying for it would include fees on salaries of people who earn more than the minimum, savings from welfare programs that would be discontinued and taxes or spending cuts in the state budget.

Seriously, who would continue to work?

Why on earth do you think that. I suppose you think its because its your taxes that are funding it I suppose.

Suggest that you research how money is created, how banks create money out of thin air. Suggest you consider that had govt retained for itself ie, and you and I, some the capacity to create money out of thin air; it gave to the banks, govt could create all the money it needs using the same method the banks use, for their own use.

suggest that you consider the economic impact on jobs if that monthly injection of economic stimulus packages was not made by bouncing it through the back accounts of the old, the sick the unemployment which enables them to survive.

How much does the security of your job depend on that monthly economic stimulas package into the local economy?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
so they voted against it. It would have been interesting to see them do a 2 year pilot study

Heard on the radio today that a few other countries are trying pilot studies. Finland for example is starting with a basic one. The idea is gaining a lot of traction, but in typical government fashion things are slow to change. I suspect it's going to be a more popular opinion 10 years from now. Lets be honest, if anyone implements it, it's going to be a pretty big change, the responsible thing is to go about it slowly. If the reality pans out similar to the theory, I bet it's standard in developed countries in 20 years.