Basic Income - The first step to end poverty?

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
reply to post by sarra1833
 





Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?


It was me who said that. Since i read somewhere that on an average a US household gets 45k a year.
So i was just taking that ammount and added a bit on top of it so that everybody can feel what it would be like when the extreme rich get's capped. I even read somewhere that if the rich 1%'s money gets divided over the globe that everyone will get more less 70million!!! We all could be millionairs lol but if we all are millionairs then there will be no one working anymore. If you just can pay the bills to live, then you are motivated enough to go to work for holidays, recreation and luxury


None of this"basic wage "happens in a vacuum. the economy will find its' mean again.if everbody got 45k a year; sitting home. What do you think a basic small car will cost? Or a loaf of bread? or milk?

You are just resetting the baseline from $0 to $45k

If everybody paid $20.00(little to no difficulty or effort required for affording that);

for a new car today; how many would be on the lots waiting for a buyer?

Surely All cars would cost more than the $45k(a years wages) would not even be a stretch.It would certainly be a lot more.

as for"safety net" we have shelters and food stamps and welfare(and soup kitchens)now: basic food and shelter IS ALREADY AVAILABLE!
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: spelling




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
reply to post by sarra1833
 





Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?


It was me who said that. Since i read somewhere that on an average a US household gets 45k a year.
So i was just taking that ammount and added a bit on top of it so that everybody can feel what it would be like when the extreme rich get's capped. I even read somewhere that if the rich 1%'s money gets divided over the globe that everyone will get more less 70million!!! We all could be millionairs lol but if we all are millionairs then there will be no one working anymore. If you just can pay the bills to live, then you are motivated enough to go to work for holidays, recreation and luxury


None of this"basic wage "happens in a vacuum. the economy will find its' mean again.if everbody got 45k a year; sitting home. What do you think a basic small car will cost? Or a loaf of bread? or milk?

You are just resetting the baseline from $0 to $45k

If everybody paid $20.00(little to no difficulty or effort required for affording that);

for a new car today; how many would be on the lots waiting for a buyer?

Surely All cars would cost more than the $45k(a years wages) would not even be a stretch.It woud certainly be a lot more.
asfor"safety net" we have shelters and food stamps and welfare(and soup kitchens)now: basic food and shelter IS ALREADY AVAILABLE!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
reply to post by sarra1833
 





Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?


It was me who said that. Since i read somewhere that on an average a US household gets 45k a year.
So i was just taking that ammount and added a bit on top of it so that everybody can feel what it would be like when the extreme rich get's capped. I even read somewhere that if the rich 1%'s money gets divided over the globe that everyone will get more less 70million!!! We all could be millionairs lol but if we all are millionairs then there will be no one working anymore. If you just can pay the bills to live, then you are motivated enough to go to work for holidays, recreation and luxury


None of this"basic wage "happens in a vacuum. the economy will find its' mean again.if everbody got 45k a year; sitting home. What do you think a basic small car will cost? Or a loaf of bread? or milk?

You are just resetting the baseline from $0 to $45k

If everybody paid $20.00for a new car today (little to no difficulty or effort required for affording that much);

how many would be on the lots waiting for a buyer?

Surely All cars would cost more than the $45k(a years wages) would not even be a stretch.It woud certainly be a lot more.
asfor"safety net" we have shelters and food stamps and welfare(and soup kitchens)now: basic food and shelter IS ALREADY AVAILABLE!
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
reply to post by sarra1833
 





Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?


SORRY Double post...]
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE
I stand for a NEW system global wide. My thought about this is: combine all the positive points from each system to make a new system.


I personally believe that system is a Resource Based Economy.Check it out if you haven't already.






posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasloBig private capital is important for the advancement of humanity. Billionaires often invest into things that noone else will.


You mean it's important for the advancement of SOME select people, and billionaires rarely invest into things noone else will.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 





I personally believe that system is a Resource Based Economy.Check it out if you haven't already.


Yes, this is definitly a good video!

Next to that, nice site in ur signature!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
asfor"safety net" we have shelters and food stamps and welfare(and soup kitchens)now: basic food and shelter IS ALREADY AVAILABLE!

Not world wide.

The main idea is to make it global.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by 46ACE
asfor"safety net" we have shelters and food stamps and welfare(and soup kitchens)now: basic food and shelter IS ALREADY AVAILABLE!

Not world wide.

The main idea is to make it global.

What a bunch of' "unicorn fart": wishes...
Imagine: "whirled peas..."
Ever heard of "UNICEF"??????There are many charity organizations providing worldwide food relief.

Here: 5(.pdf) pages of worldwide food relief organizations: pick one and support it:www.globalcorps.com...

Just because the local warlord hijacks the shipments with a bunch of armed 14 year olds doesn't mean it will be any better under your new &improved communism!
and it will certainly be far worse for the "developed" countries.
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
the problem is that when people get a higher income the cost of living inevitably rises shortly after



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Here: 5(.pdf) pages of worldwide food relief organizations: pick one and support it:www.globalcorps.com...

Just because the local warlord hijacks the shipments with a bunch of armed 14 year olds doesn't mean it will be any better under your new &improved communism!
and it will certainly be far worse for the "developed" countries.

Charity is not a built in safety net.

So, even if they are unicorn fart wishes, no, the safety nets discussed in the OP don't exist globally.

Whether they would work or not is beside the point.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


The second video is very very well done. Brief, clear and to the point. It's a must watch for everyone reading this thread. Worth every second of its 19 minutes length. I already knew the "Venus Project" and this video is perfectly chosen info.
How can there be anyone in this world who disagrees with the message of this video? To all you "capitalists" - please watch this video. Redesigning our society is the key. It's no option - it's a requirement. Get rid of your stereotypes you have in your head and lets make a concept of how to mange the world so that not only we but all the coming generations will thrive.

I repost the video as it must gain more attention. Have posted it also on Facebook and elsewhere and encourage you to do so, too.



I loved the picture from the video with the quote: "Q: What is democracy? A: Democracy is the freedom to elect our own dictators." Epic.

Also please check out the website of the Venus Project:
The Venus Project

Spread the word. We MUST work together else we all will suffer. Get rid of capitalism and all the other deadlocked concepts. WE are change - no one else.
edit on 17-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
dear all
Only yesterday I discovered this discussion that started with a post which is referring to the website of the GBI Foundation, an organization that I started in the year 2000. I first of all want to thank the person who started this topic, and secondly all the other contributors.
I took the time to read all of the posts, as well as some of the suggested links. I got the impression from what I’ve read that most participants in this discussion haven’t looked at our website or only a tiny bit. Many of the questions and criticisms in this discussion are addressed on the first three pages of our website (Home, GBI and BI worldwide) and the FAQ page.

I want to reply to the most frequently voiced criticisms and also clarify what the GBI Foundation stands for, and what is not part of the (global) basic income idea. I apologize in advance for the length of my post, which is caused by the fact that I attempt to answer all, or at least most, of the previous posts simultaneously, and by the desire to do justice to the pros and cons of different views, instead of just throwing another opinion in the debate. And also, I must admit, because I am a political scientist by education, and I can’t stop myself from writing a bit more about the theories on and history of capitalism and socialism, in an attempt to break the dichotomy that makes any meaningful discussion virtually impossible.

I believe a majority of the posts are about this, the ‘battle’ between capitalism and communism/socialism, where most critics put basic income in the socialist category which is basically defined as “a dictatorship that robs money from hard working people and gives it to lazy people”. Other posts define capitalism as “a bunch of greedy manipulators who try to collect all the wealth for themselves at the expense of everyone else and our planet.” Or something like that. I think it is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if we stereotype each other’s views in these ways.

Capitalism can be positively defined as a plea for individual freedom and freedom to produce, trade and consume goods. But it can also be defined in another way, which points more to the negative side of capitalism, as an ideology which promotes individual selfishness and aims at a never ending increase in production and consumption. This other side of capitalism has negative consequences for the ‘losers’ in the competitive world economy, as well as for our planet, as we can all see around us.

Communism/socialism is more difficult to define, I think, because it encompasses very diverse and conflicting views. Often, though not always, in public debates in Europe communism and socialism are clearly distinguished. Communism then refers to the former dictatorial/totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe, as well as North Korea, Cuba and China today. Socialism and social-democracy are on the other hand used mainly to refer to democratic countries that have a certain level of social security and government regulation.
This distinction is not an invention of socialism in an effort to get rid of the stain of communist dictatorship. Socialism has been very diverse from the start. The totalitarian communists regimes were strongly influenced by Marxism. Whether or not Marxism itself inevitably leads to dictatorship, or that it was interpreted wrong by the communist regimes, is a question open to debate. Personally I’m not sure, but I do think that Marxism is an ideology with too many absolute assumptions, that certainly give it a tendency to degenerate into dictatorship.
However, there have been and are many other socialist theories and movements, some of which existed before Marxism. Most of these emphasize democracy, freedom, human rights and moral values. To those who equal socialism with government interference and dictatorship I would like to say further that there are socialists what are even more opposed to government interference than most supporters of capitalism. They see governments essentially as protectors of capitalism, ensuring with military and police force that capitalism can survive, despite the appalling inequality and misery it creates.

In fact, I doubt there is a big difference between capitalism and socialism as far as democracy is concerned. There have been and still are many capitalist dictatorships, as well as capitalist democracies. The same is true for socialism: apart from the few remaining communist dictatorships most of the current governments in the world with a socialist of social-democratic signature are democratic. I even dare to suggest that many of them are more democratic than the USA, where there is only a choice between two big parties that don’t differ much in their fundamental views, and where money exerts a strong influence on elections. The USA IMHO is not the best democracy in the world. There are many countries nowadays that have more parties, i.e. more differing views to choose from, and fairer elections with more ..



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
.. equal chances for everyone, without such a strong influence of wealthy corporations and individuals. Which of the two, socialism or capitalism, is more favorable to democracy still remains to be seen.

Personally I also don’t like the word capitalism, because this puts money and growth at the center. But I am very much in favor of a free market economy, so if you equal capitalism with a free market, then I am a supporter of capitalism. However, in my opinion a market can only be free, if everybody has a fair chance to participate and if there is not such an imbalance in power, that one group of people can dominate and exploit another group of people. I do believe that some solidarity between people and some rules are necessary to ensure everybody a fair chance to participate and to prevent extreme poverty and starvation. And that is what the best spokespersons of socialism aim at. So I consider myself to be a free market supporter and a socialist as well, if you take both in their positive essence, just as in the original post of the debate. But I consider myself to be neither when I look at capitalism and Marxism in their ideological extremes. Therefore, a debate which is only about denouncing opponents by calling them selfish capitalists or dictatorial socialists is in my opinion useless and beside the point.

What we can seriously discuss is how much solidarity is needed to give everybody a fair change and to end extreme poverty and hunger. And how we can best organize this, what the responsibility of governments is in achieving this, and what part we can best leave to private initiative and free market play.
I must say that I am a little bit shocked by the contributions of those of you, who immediately denounce any plea for solidarity as communist and dictatorial, as ‘robbing from the people who work’, without offering any alternative way to end poverty and hunger and save our planet. As if you simply don’t care. Some even explicitly argue that poverty will always exist and that it is a fact of nature or even ordained by God. By which God? Certainly not by the God of Jesus that I was told about in church, who always stressed the importance of helping the poor and warned those people who where only interested in their own wealth, that they would never enter the kingdom of God.

Another post was confusing relative and absolute poverty. Of course, if you define poverty in relative terms, and define it as being a certain percentage below the average income, then there will always be poverty as long as there will be differences in income. But we are talking about absolute poverty here, not relative poverty.

To me basic income is a simple and powerful idea that balances solidarity and freedom; it’s a radical but soft method to move our societies in the right direction. Yes, it will force a little bit of solidarity upon everybody, but the limits it puts on the freedom of one group to amass as much wealth as possible at the cost of other people and the planet, is insignificant compared to the freedom it gives to a much larger group of people who now live in poverty and semi-slavery: the people that have to struggle for basic survival and are forced to accept any job, however dirty, unhealthy and ill paid.
A basic income will only provide everybody with a basic minimum, and it will not rob anybody who wants to work, earn and consume a lot more. In fact, it will increase the opportunities for billions of people to work and earn a decent wage. It will also free all of us from the forced participation in the rat race that imprisons us all in a restless effort to achieve a continuous increase in production and consumption. It will enable everybody to make a conscious choice about the work we want to do, the contribution we want to make to society. And as several of you also wrote already, if this means that some people will prefer not to do paid work and are satisfied with the basic minimum, that would be perfectly okay. The problem today is not that there are not enough people who want to work, the problem is, on the contrary, that we work, produce and consume too much.

Of course, if nobody would want to work anymore, that would be a problem. But is that fear justified? Would you stop working? If not, do you think you are so much better than others? I’ve read very different expectations in this discussion about what would happen if people wouldn’t have to work anymore. Empirical findings suggest that in rich countries people on average would work a little less in paid jobs, maybe 5% or 10%. Would that be a problem? I don’t think so. In poorer countries however, people would work much more if they would receive a basic income, because the basic income would improve their work opportunities: they will partly use it to start their own small businesses, to provide better education and job opportunities for their children, or to go and look for work (transport costs etc.). In Namibia a pilot project was ..



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
.. conducted in 2008 and 2009 where more than 900 people in a rural area got a small basic income for two years. The positive results were impressive. You can read all about in a report: www.bignam.org...

Basic income is not a leftist or rightist idea, it has had diverse spokesmen like Martin Luther King and Milton Friedman. Alaska actually already has a partial basic income, the so-called Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which was introduced by a conservative senator. You can read more about this on the “BI worldwide” page on our website: www.globalincome.org...

The report of the pilot project in Namibia also answers another criticism that was voiced several times in this discussion, i.e. that 10 or 30 dollars a month would be just a sad tease to a poor person. The amount the people in Namibia got was only 12 dollars a month, and it made a huge difference to their lives. (There are also videos about this project on YouTube.) And what the GBI Foundation proposes is not a GBI of 10 or 30 dollars as a final goal, it would only be a first step. Some of you argue that it is not enough, others that it already is too costly: perhaps this shows that this would be a very good first step, balancing the costs and benefits. Of course, a poor person in the USA wouldn’t be helped by such a small amount, but for the poorest two or three billion people on our planet it would make a big difference. You can read more about our ideas about the gradual introduction of a GBI, which should finally also be enough for people in rich countries, on the FAQ page of our website.

Moreover, a GBI should not necessarily be the same in all countries. I must admit that, because of several reasons that are explained on our website, that was the first idea. However, we have no dogmatic views about the level a GBI should have, nor about how it should be implemented. What we propose is just a suggestion to start the debate. We don’t pretend to know how everything should be done. A very different option that we’ve also included in the last brochure that we published, would be that countries would only agree on the goals, the minimum requirements and a financing mechanism to help out the poorest countries, but that every country or state would decide on the specifics of the level and implementation themselves. We don’t need a world government to introduce a GBI. In the same manner as countries have agreed upon some rules to save the ozone layer, a GBI could be introduced. And in my opinion no country should be forced to participate. A group of countries could take the lead, with others joining later. And every country would have the option to leave the GBI coalition if they wanted to. Though I am in favor of a GBI and other worldwide agreements and institutions, because I think we need them to regulate the global market and save our planet, I’m as afraid as many of you for too much concentrated power on the global level.

I want to write a bit more about the financing of a basic income, and about the idea that those who work have to pay for those who don’t. It doesn’t have to be like that. First of all, a basic income can be financed in many different ways. In the BI literature there are many different models. A lot of them include taxes, such as taxes on income and/or wealth. There are also models that only finance a BI from consumption taxes. But the Alaska Dividend shows that it is even possible to fund a BI without any taxes. The dividend is funded by the sale of royalties to oil and gas companies. So the dividend is funded out of a source of wealth – natural resources in this case – that belongs to everyone. Likewise a BI, global or national, can be funded through the selling or auctioning of ‘commons’, which could include oil, gas and other natural resources, as well as fishery permits, use of the atmosphere and oceans/seas, radio frequencies etc. Also a CO2 cap-and-dividend system could be used to finance a basic income.

So being in favor of a basic income doesn’t automatically also mean being in favor of higher taxes. Neither is the idea of a basic income generally tied to proposals of a maximum income or wealth limit. It’s only about a basic, minimum income level, freeing people from starvation and enabling them to live with dignity and participate fully in the political and economic life of society.

A last objection that I briefly want to address is the idea that a basic income, just as a minimum income, wouldn’t help the poor, because all the benefit would quickly disappear through inflation. Prices would go up. I can tell you from the experience of living in a country with high minimum wage levels and a relatively generous social security system, that it is perfectly possible to design an inflation proof basic income system. Of course, if you suddenly and massively increase the purchasing power of large parts of the population, then inflation will ..



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
.. be inevitable. This is why a basic income has to be introduced gradually, especially in low income countries. But generally speaking, if a basic income is financed through some kind of redistribution and/or if the supply side of the economy is very elastic and/or when the increase in buying doesn’t exceed the increase in productivity, then inflation will not be a big problem.

Probably many if not all of you who have criticized the basic income idea will not be convinced by my post. My personal experience in the decades that I have been discussing this idea with many people, is that people are very emotional about this because the idea of a basic income raises fundamental questions about how we view ourselves, other people and the world we live in. It touches our basic values and beliefs. And arguments can’t change these. We are all not as rational as we often think we are. In general, people with a more positive concept of man, who believe in the essential goodness of all people, are in favor of ideas like basic income, whereas people with a more negative concept of man, believing that people are essentially selfish and prone to take advantage of others for their own benefit, are against. So if we are discussing the financeability of a basic income or the political consequences, then most of the time we are, I believe, voicing our underlying convictions about ‘human nature’ and our fellow human beings. Probably at the end of this discussion the best we can do is to agree to disagree. But still, we have to have these discussions again and again, in trying to find better ways to live together as people and nations on this planet.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GlobalBasicIncome
 


Hi there and welcome to ATS!
I give you a thumbs up on your great initiative by starting a foundation aiming at helping people.
The world needs more people like you!

Thanks for the link to the report of Namibia, I'm gonna read it later when i got more time.
Keep up the good work!



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I don't think a basic income would work. First, there are those who will always be in poverty because they don't have the capacity to adequately plan for their futures. As soon as they get their check, they would go on a spending spree and be broke by the fifth day of the month. They would make poor decisions such as purchasing $200 sneakers rather than paying their water and electric bills. They would drink all their cash and end up on the street. They would use their money on drugs or gamble it away. There is at least 10% of the population who would be poor no matter how much you gave to them because they are, frankly, dumb as dirt.

Next, you have those who would need to spend it all on their health and still be broke. Some medicines are costly. Do you propose to give more to the elderly and those with disabilities to help them with their needs? Is this fair? Soon, you will have everyone claiming disabilities and taking loads of pills in order to prove they can't pull their own load but need government assistance.

Or, consider those who have many children might need more money. But, if you give more to those with larger families, some of the "dumb as dirt" crew listed above would have more additional children in order to get more money. They would spend all their money on themselves and neglect those children (who would likely inherit their parents' faulty dumb as dirt genes). The last thing we need are even more dumb people and fewer smart ones procreating.

Oh - on second thought - this is what's happening now when we give people Welfare, SSI, Food Stamps...

That's why I hate those government handouts. It gives people a reason not to perform. Once they have some label they become needy. Years ago such people moved in with the grandparents and siblings. Their families watched over them and took care of them and made sure they did the right thing or they were kicked to the curb where they either took care of themselves or perished in the cold of winter. I know this sounds tough, but handouts don't work, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mjfromga
 





Or, consider those who have many children might need more money. But, if you give more to those with larger families, some of the "dumb as dirt" crew listed above would have more additional children in order to get more money. They would spend all their money on themselves and neglect those children (who would likely inherit their parents' faulty dumb as dirt genes). The last thing we need are even more dumb people and fewer smart ones procreating.


This is a very valid concern. Thats why I dont agree with unconditional worldwide basic income. It should be implemented on a national scale, and one of the conditions of receiving it should be to not procreate recklessly while being unemployed. Or the basic income should be only for those 15 years and older, so those who would have children wont receive any immidiate boost in income.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   


I don't think a basic income would work. First, there are those who will always be in poverty because they don't have the capacity to adequately plan for their futures. As soon as they get their check, they would go on a spending spree and be broke by the fifth day of the month. They would make poor decisions such as purchasing $200 sneakers rather than paying their water and electric bills. They would drink all their cash and end up on the street. They would use their money on drugs or gamble it away. There is at least 10% of the population who would be poor no matter how much you gave to them because they are, frankly, dumb as dirt.


Hope this works, I'm trying to find out how to paste in quotes...

You are right on this. No system, not even an unconditional basic income can eliminate poverty 100%. There will be people who would squander part of the money they get for basic necessities. That would be their own responsibility and a BI would not take this responsibility from them. However, at present, billions of people have little or no chance at all to lift their lives out of poverty and hunger. This would be changed by a basic income system.

What I don't agree on is your estimate of the percentage of people that would not be able to spend the BI wisely.



Next, you have those who would need to spend it all on their health and still be broke. Some medicines are costly. Do you propose to give more to the elderly and those with disabilities to help them with their needs? Is this fair? Soon, you will have everyone claiming disabilities and taking loads of pills in order to prove they can't pull their own load but need government assistance.


No, I would simply propose a universal health care system for everyone. We have had such a system in the Netherlands for many decades now, and it works fine! The Dutch health care system is overall more efficient and cheaper than in the USA, and the same is true for universal health care systems in other countries.



Or, consider those who have many children might need more money. But, if you give more to those with larger families, some of the "dumb as dirt" crew listed above would have more additional children in order to get more money. They would spend all their money on themselves and neglect those children (who would likely inherit their parents' faulty dumb as dirt genes). The last thing we need are even more dumb people and fewer smart ones procreating.


Again, empirical findings prove you wrong. Countries with more generous child benefits don't have higher birth rates. This question is also adressed in the FAQs on our website: GBI for children also?



That's why I hate those government handouts. It gives people a reason not to perform. Once they have some label they become needy. Years ago such people moved in with the grandparents and siblings. Their families watched over them and took care of them and made sure they did the right thing or they were kicked to the curb where they either took care of themselves or perished in the cold of winter. I know this sounds tough, but handouts don't work, in my opinion.


This certainly is a psychological mechanism that can happen. However, I think a basis income would reduce this kind of behaviour compared to existing social security systems - where it often doesn't pay to work because you immediatly lose the benfits. This is one important contributing factor to the so-called poverty trap.
Also compared with a 'no social benefit's' system, I'm sure people would be much more active and productive, simply because they would have much more opportunities for work, education and personal development, and for making well thought-out decisions. I think that a basic income system, compared to the system we have now, would change the way people view work, and then this kind of response and behaviour would happen less and less.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join