Petition to the European Union ("Citizen initiative") for Basic Income
basicincome2013.eu
basicincome2013.eu
And where is the need for this in Europe? Where is the poverty? I grew up in what is referred to as one of the richest countries in the EU and am now living in what is on paper the poorest EU country. Down here, young people drive better cars, have bigger homes, eat and drink well, go out more, go on the same vacations to Dubai and Thailand, and have access to free health care and education.
Sure, the bottom of the income ladder, which in South East Europe is (roughly speaking) comprised of Romas, of the elderly people and of what is left of rural population, is certainly poorer than the bottom in Scandinavia, but giving everybody basic income would just hit these groups with more expenses. You wouldn't be able to buy a meal for less than two euros if everybody had 20 euro to spare.
Well southern states are in a pickle and there but there are problems brewing practically everywhere PIGS and non-PIGS alike.
Thing is in part southern states aren't only to blame for their own problems. In general case, without the euro, they could let their currency take a dive and become a better opportunity to invest. However while they have Euro and have strong economies like Germany tied to the Euro, the Euro won't sink enough for them to be profitable and whenever it does sink, it just makes Germany more concurrent than them in the global market. Their industries simply can't match Germany's and their currencies can't adapt.
According to OECD in 2011. here are some statistics people worked yearly on average: Germans 1413 hrs, South Koreans - 2090 hrs, Greeks - 2023 hrs. Of course statistics can be deceiving and some jobs might have been in buerocracy, or less efficient than in advanced countries, but I don't think it's possible to generate all that extra time solely from pushing papers around.
Scandinavia is also experiencing a crisis of sorts, with inequality rising and riots breaking out like the last one in Stolkholm. Though they are for a different reason.
> South East Europe is (roughly speaking) comprised of Romas, of the elderly people and of what is left of rural population
True, but this is mostly due to the fact that technical people that had skills/knowledge emigrated to western contries (like Germany, UK, US) or Scandinavia. Western countries have in a way been exporting their unemployment to South-eastern countries. Why this is important, when people finish their work (i.e. retire, they take their western pensions to their hometown, where you can live off it decently).
As for Scandinavians, I can assure you they aren't going to bed hungry.
Here is the other half: http://www.voxeu.org/article/are-germans-really-poorer-spani...
TL;DR The gist is that first they looked at median, while mean housholds are of much greater values. Also figures seem to indicate that a lot of wealth of Germany is located in their state and not in their household ownership. Basically most German households don't have money for bailouts but Germany does.
Yes, many South Eastern Europeans have left for the US, UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain (not so many for Scandinavia, though). So far, few have returned. I am not sure it's fair to say that Western countries export their unemployment to Eastern Europe, thougn. There is also a lot of Western jobs being outsourced to Eastern Europe.
I grew up in a reasonably rich EU country (IT), and now live in a theoretically poorer EU country (HU).
Of course, most of the people I know in budapest speak two or three languages, have one or more university degrees, live in the city centre, work for multinational companies or have their own.
This doesn't mean that the hungarians are all rich and educated and live in budapest city center, it means that I don't meet the others.
Compare with my friends from the old home town: plenty of them only have only a high school degree, don't speak a word of english, can't afford a house and live with their parents, have an insecure job and when they'll lose it they'll not necessarily get unempolyment benefits.
It's not being poor as in "I can't eat", it's being poor as in "I can't plan my life beyond this season, and don't see a future for myself".
I have for the first time, seen shops selling yesterday's bread, because they can sell it for a lower price, and they started charging people for cheese crusts (which you would usually get for free to make soups or feed animals) because people were freeloading those.
If it does get more expensive, that means that demand went up, which meant that more people now have housing & food than before. That's a good thing, which far outweighs any negative from the price going up slightly.
And it would be only a slight price increase. After all, the vast majority of people in Europe already have housing and food so the demand increase would be relatively small.
"where is the need for this in Europe?"
If what you say is true, it's true because of the existing social safety nets. BI would replace many of the welfare programs already existing, so the impact on the finances of the EU or on the non-working poor should be minimal.
The big benefit for BI is its impact on the working poor along with the employers that depend on them. BI will allow governments to eliminate minimum wage along with the regulations that make it difficult to fire people in certain European countries. This should drastically increase the number of jobs available which is good for both the poor and their employers.
Or it just means that the currency has inflated, which is, of course, the more likely outcome of handing out money to everyone.
By way of introduction, basic income is very similar to welfare or negative income taxation. Welfare already exists, and can be made completely unconditional on everything but income should governments choose. All of these methods can be thought of as a map from pre-govt-intervention earnings, to post-govt-intervention earnings, i.e.
after_tax(income) = income - tax(income) + welfare(income) + basic income = income - effective_tax(income)
The problem with basic income is that it is a barrier to thinking holistically about the above equation.
For example, a claimed benefit of basic income, is that unlike welfare, it does not decrease when you start to earn money (i.e. it is not conditional on income), and therefore does not provide a disincentive to work. In terms of the above formula, the derivative of effective_tax at 0 is close to 0. However, the cost of this is that the derivative of effective_tax must be higher at some other points. So while the poor have more incentive to work, the middle class and rich have less. The perfect system would be a balancing act between these forces, and the idea of basic income confuses the issue by suggesting there is something special about what is essential an arbitrary effective tax rate.
Another issue is that welfare can be targeted to certain groups, and have strings attached. I personally am not a big fan of targeting welfare towards particular groups, with the exception of the disabled and certain ethnic minorities. However attaching strings to welfare is a complex political, social and economic question for which there are no easy answers. I don't believe that "no strings attached" is the optimal solution.
Therefore I think that while making welfare more streamlined, less conditional on things other than income, and not dropping off too fast with income, are all ideas that need further investigation (and all of these are well studied by economists), advocating a basic income has a negative effect on both the political debate, and our conceptual understanding of the issues.
The middle class and rich will receive the basic income also. To these groups, the money will be a bonus and effectively a partial refund of their income taxes. It may encourage more people to try starting a business as they have some income to sustain them during the development phase.
Otherwise we will just under produce, the state will have more support burden, we will come under debt, we will then be owned by the bank owners who usually are always there as state lenders. Then we will be taxed for this by inflation as the state create new money to pay of the creditors, stealing from the savers.
People should read the book "Economics in one lesson" - highly recommended Chapter: Minimum Wage Laws
What we really need todo is to abolish fractional reserve banking and central banks. The really rich likes socialism as that makes the state come under more debt which is good for them as they are the lenders. We cannot have capitalism based on ever increasing debt, saving the bad banks and the bad debt. In nature most exponential growth systems indicate a disease such as cancer, thus we cannot have a financial system based on exponential growth in a world with linear resources.
(That being said, the link doesn't have a lot of context.)
The idea of basic income is that everyone has a minimum stipend from the government. But if you have that, then there is no need to require that jobs pay you enough to keep you alive, and therefore there is no need to have a minimum wage. Which in theory would be a boon to employers who can now pay employees less.
That is why the concept is supported by economically knowledgeable libertarians such as Milton Friedman. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee#Advocacy... for confirmation of that.
On a side note, this is why I'd recommend anyone looking to learn something in a different field to read at least 2 books from different authors, lest the authors of a single book agree with themselves too much.
With basic income, I would not have any barriers to starting a business. This reform would do so much good.
- Beggar (native) with a cardboard with "I'm hungry" written on it. Couple of girls pass him, offer him a sandwich, he declines.
- Lots of native beggars asking for money (they are usually overweight)
- Several immigrant beggars, these ones really look like they're in need of help
Bottom line: the natives usually have some form of welfare so their objective is to get money for drinks.
you are not talking about a basic income, because a basic income covers housing and food, so if this gets more expensive, the basic income gets higher:
The amount should provide for a decent standard of living, which meets society’s social and cultural standards in the country concerned. It should prevent material poverty and provide the opportunity to participate in society. This means that the net income should, at a minimum, be at the poverty-risk level according to EU standards, which corresponds to 60% of the so-called national median net equivalent income. Especially in countries where the majority have low incomes, and therefore median income is low, an alternative benchmark (e.g. a basket of goods) should be used to determine the amount of the Basic Income, to guarantee a life in dignity, material security and full participation in society. http://basicincome2013.eu/ubi/question/what-is-the-unconditi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
I'm not very impressed with the "yeah, but those countries are different" reasoning, especially when it's not made clear why the difference is in any way relevent. It does, however, seem to be the go-to excuse for not doing things these days.
These people have enough money that they can have a basic guaranteed income (actually much more than that) for life from safe investments anytime they want. If your assertion were correct, they would all have retired long ago.
But does that mean we all just take up art and poetry all day? Or augment ourselves with a CPU and then we slowly become robots (and live forever)?
In niche media this idea is talked about a lot, and I've read some stories about it in mainstream papers/seen stories on the big tv channels. I suspect it will be a while before it's implemented, but it is getting traction. Just my .02€ :)
To much ressources are used for our way of life, to much unnecessary goods are being consumed, or thrown away. > consumption needs to cool down.
The gap between an elite, adding their interest rates to all goods and the actual work force widens daily. > social inequality is simply counterproductive, disabling citizens to participate, innovate ..
Needing several jobs to live keeps citizens from participating in politics spurring a detached elite to corrupt society. > buying power/influence with money is corruption
and so on
Basic incomes are roads, to liberty.