Idea of paying citizens a yearly stipend is gaining support in Switzerland
pbs.org
pbs.org
The direct consequence of this otherwise excellent system is that basically anyone can collect 20,000 signatures and introduce his or her idea to the public voting, no matter how crazy it looks like. This is one of such cases.
We already had law suggestions like make all public transportation free (didn't pass), abolish Swiss army (many times — didn't pass), disallow construction of minarets (passed), etc.
The guaranteed basic income law has been rejected with a huge margin — because Swiss people have basic understanding of who would have been paying for this, and who wouldn't.
You realize that this is a good thing? Power is unjustly concentrated among the rich in a representative democracy. This occurs because only the rich have enough money to campaign and advertise the "representative."
No, it occurs because there is a system which can be abused. A system which is open to abuse can and will be abused.
Those who have resources will bribe their way to favorable laws, and those who don't will vote to take others money for themselves.
The voting population is way too big for any meaningful bribe to be offered to a voter. Lets be honest, rich people work that system, voters only vote for candidates picked by rich people. The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people.
It's not specifically a bribe. It's policy designed to take money from those who earn more and give their money to those who earn less. In order for politicians to be elected they need to gain a majority vote, in order to get that vote they need to offer policies which claim to aid to largest number of people.
This already exists, in a variety of different forms.
>The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people.
Let's assume that's the case. What should we do?
This isn't a bribe. You describe democracy working as it should. Policies are SUPPOSE to be made to aid the largest number of people. This is the point. In societies where the system works, rich minorities often feel this is unfair when they get taxed to hell. (It's not, and currently in our society, the rich are taxed less than poor people)
The system as it exists today does not benefit the majority. It benefits the elite. The elite choose who gets elected, by choosing who has necessary money to campaign. At the end of the day the politician owes more allegiance to the person who funded his campaign then the people who voted for him. The people live with it because said elected official utilizes charisma, complexity and politics to disguise the true nature of many things.
>Let's assume that's the case. What should we do?
I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself.
Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism.
Policies aid the majority, they let the 51 rule the 49.
Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income?
>I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself. Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism.
So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?
The people who control most of the world's wealth (over 50% of it) are equivalent to (or less than) 1% of the population. That 1% is what abuses the system. It's not 51 vs 49. It's the 99% vs. 1%.
That is not to say that there are no problems with the 51 vs 49, it's just a different set of problems entirely distinct and extremely lower in severity from the problem of rich people abusing the democratic system. In short the 51 vs the 49 percent is more of an acknowledged minor disadvantage of democracy rather than the unexpected critical flaw I describe above.
>Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income?
Because you are illustrating an extreme that isn't the reality. The rich can't abuse the system to the point where it becomes a fascist empire. In the end it's still a democracy, and structurally there are certain limits to how far anyone can twist that concept.
The rich abuse the system to the point where they have MORE power, not ultimate power. To do so would ruin the economy structurally. They need laborers to spend and work in order to keep their status. All people, the kings and emperors included, are fully aware of the violent and economic repercussions when you only tax poor people. The rich therefore can't completely eliminate their taxes, instead they use complexities to disguise their alternative tax advantages. The majority know the term as "tax loopholes."
>So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?
Yes I do see the problem. More laws equals greater complexity, and a system with too much redundancy. Perhaps replacing existing laws are a better alternative, but that is not how our system works. Other than that there is no problem.
Law making is done by the two chambers of parliament, National- and Ständerat. General constitutional amendments as well as particular laws can make their way to the electorate but that does not happen automatically.
Edit: If by "introducing his or her idea to the public voting" you mean constitutional amendments.. they require 100k signatures, not 20k. Why don't you look these things up, patriot?
> because Swiss people have basic understanding..
> Many journalists don't understand how Swiss political system works..
> this otherwise excellent system..
Obviously swiss people are not born smarter than the rest of the world, but the education standard is quite okay and even though populism exists (as everywhere), Switzerland is doing better than any of it's neighbors right now, thanks to the decisions that the people have made.
The child-slavery thing is a black stain in our history, and we're aware. You can stop throwing rocks down from your glass house now.
It doesn't sound so crazy to me :)
> Swiss people have basic understanding of who would have been paying for this, and who wouldn't
Can you be more specific?
Source please? I've seen several people say this, but inevitably they were conflating the basic income proposal with the 10x salary-cap proposal, which indeed was rejected by a substantial margin. I was under the impression that the basic income proposal had not, in fact, been voted on yet.
In the "Would you be willing to fight for your country?" image [1] that's been circulating, Switzerland comes in at 39% (and the US at 44%). That said, I cannot account for the methodology used in this alleged poll.
Many state legislatures themselves (the bar for entry in some cases can be very low) often have absurd proposed laws that journalists tend to exaggerate the reality of because a small number of nutjobs manage to get themselves elected.
The only country I've ever visited that gave the same impression of having the same level of organisation and competence as Switzerland was Singapore.
Maybe universal basic income is the paradigm switch that we need.
For it to work, we should move away from taxing production (income) to progressively taxing consumption (sliding scale from basics -> luxury).
Until the "punish the rich" (left) and "eat the poor" (right) finger-pointing politics is removed, we're not going to be able to solve problems.
For more information on the reasoning behind these ideas, see the works of Henry George and Thomas Paine.
This happens when you have an asset class that is absolutely backstopped. Governments have made it clear that the entire economy will be sacrificed to prevent real estate from ever falling significantly in value. Here in the USA at least it's political -- home owners vote, and home owners often have most or all of their savings in their home.
But I get it, as long as the politicians have their hands in the property market as well, it will be, and remain, a broken system until eternity.
Oh and yes - UK politicians too really do have their hands in the property market. Over a third of them report rental income on the register of member's interests.
That is a very strange statement to make. I live in Germany and I am pretty sure I am paying my landlord every month some money. If fact, she owns my whole building of 6 apartments. Many of my colleagues are in the same situation as me.
What was your experience when you were living in Europe? did you live with your folks until you are ready to buy your own place?
This opinion piece goes into some detail of the differences: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/bagwell-australian-a-n...
The one thing that I like about German style is that you almost "own" the place you are living in. Eg, it is expected that you would give the place a coat of paint every 7 years, the kitchen is for you to fit out, (yes, you have to provide your own kitchen), repairs that cost less than 400€ are your responsibility, the rental agreement does not have an end date etc.
The conditions for renting here are so good that I have family friends that have rented all their lives. However the low interest rate in Germany makes it more financially attractive to purchase a place.
Rent is devised through a point system and therefore everyone who lives in similar housing pays the same rent (more or less, I think it also has to do with how long you've been living there).
Over here in Australia the rent is based on pretty much two things; a) the mortgage of the landlord and b) what they can get away with. Not to mention the 6 month "inspections" you'll submitted to, you know, just because.
Renting in Australia seems to have a lot of emotion involved in it. If something is broken in the house it can take ages to get fixed. Not all landlord are created equal and it's very difficult to police hundred of thousands of individuals, so they get away with it. Real-estate agents are pretty much glorified banks and there mostly the serve the landlords, I mean, it's more difficult to get a landlord on your books than it is to find a tenant. I.e. path of least resistance.
Disclaimer; I haven't lived in the Netherlands for over 10 years so they might have f'd up the system just as well. In that scenario, it "was" a pretty good system.
I'm not arguing this would work or not in Switzerland with that huge basic income (to my Brazilian standards) but basic income might be an interesting concept for developing countries where hunger is still a problem. Well, exactly like in Brazil.
I don't believe we'd have the Australian problem -- that someone else mentioned in here -- of rents going up and the basic income of people being diluted in the economy making general prices higher. It has been proposed before a basic income of between 50-75 USD per month and I believe currently there's only a single city in the whole country where it's effectively in use; that's never been approved in country-level, that's why.
That may seem an extremely low income but when you're starving that's a LOT of money, specially in the country side, and it's enough to make a huge impact in the economy and the development of the country in the long term. I don't think anyone who makes 20x more money than that monthly would worry about it, so no evil landlords to mess with the plan... in theory. Also, because that would apply for ANYONE who lives in the country (even foreigners), there wouldn't be this "they get it, I don't" feeling that could generate hatred between classes. And honestly, to the middle-class 50-75 bucks is nearly nothing.
PS: there's a country-level law in Brazil that institutes some social security for poor families (the so called "Bolsa-Família"), but it's not treated nor seen as a basic income law by all means
PPS: sorry for the lack of supportive links, but Google is your friend as this subject is pretty popular in the Brazilian media. Search for news mentioning the former senator Eduardo Suplicy, the first to propose all that
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8792192Also, a bowl of rice a day really is fundamentally different to a guaranteed income that can be spent as the recipient wishes. It is more like food stamps in the US.
Just walk away. Because you won't win any argument with that type. A very convinced yet insecure type.
Sadly. I'd really like to see this being implemented somewhere during my lifetime. A society in which survival is no longer a problem might be just what we need in a time when the biggest problem in european agriculture is overproduction and many houses are empty yet we still worry about putting food on the table and a shelter over our heads.
What would people do with this new freedom? An acceleration of technical innovation? An art renaissance? How would relations change in the workplace once you no longer need to work in order to survive? Would volunteering take off as a socially acceptable alternative to paid work? Would it cover areas ignored by the current market?
But people dreaming of free energy are mostly harmless, the only problem being the grant money spent on cold fusion and the like. People dreaming of free money have created worst bloodbaths in history.
So, right now you only receive unemployment benefits when you are unemployed. This means you are effectively rewarded for not doing any work, which means that you also need people who check that you are really not doing any work (which would not be fair towards those that do work). And that is a schizophrenic situation, because you usually want people to work.
Also, it means you can't employ people for an income below or around these unemployment benefits, because why would they work for this small increase in income compared to not working?
Therefore: unconditional basic income. Whatever you do, whoever you are, you get this fixed income. So you receive it, even if you work! If you want to have an income higher than this (and you do), you'll have to work for it. But whatever you earn extra, will be extra.
It effectively eliminates income poverty and the unemployment trap. It makes lowly paid jobs more attractive, at the cost of higher paid jobs (who will need to pay more taxes). However, from a labor point of view, it incentivizes every single member of society to work, which means that as a society we will be able to produce more and offer better services as a whole.
It however might disincentivize people to go work for their money, if they feel their income for not working is high enough.
A better alternative would be to offer the possibility of a guaranteed government job with a guaranteed minimum pay. This sort of thing was done on a massive scale in the united states during the great depression. See the PWA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration
That's actually an explicit goal of many basic income proposals. The fear of high unemployment as we automate industries faster than workers can retrain is a driving force behind the growing popularity of BI.
Please read my comment again. I suggested a method similar to a guaranteed base salary which eliminates freeloaders: Guaranteed work.
Think about it: If you can't find a job, you're down on your luck, the government can guarantee that you will have a job and have a wage during such times as part of some public works administration. The skills of the unemployed will be put to good use AND they will be helped.
Please note the hoover dam was the result of such an endeavor.
Even with the public works projects of the New Deal era, there were still a lot more unskilled workers than there was work to be done. That didn't change until WWII, and we definitely don't need another one of those.
There will be less and less room in this brave new world for unskilled labor. Either accept that a lot of people will never work again, or as you suggest, another WWII.
As long as freeloaders don't harm the economy, they're a small price to pay in the overall scheme of things. We won't know until we see it happening somewhere.
But please read the second paragraph of my original post. I suggest Guaranteed government WORK as a better alternative to Guaranteed PAY. Freeloading may be a small sacrifice that is the result of base income, BUT freeloading is virtually non existent if you change base income to guaranteed public work.
The unemployed can be set to work on community projects that benefit the entire economy. The hoover dam was built using this technique during the great depression.
BTW, that's what they did in communist Romania: everybody had a job, but most of the jobs where bullshit. There was even a saying: we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.
We don't need to dig holes and then fill them in order to survive. We need food, water, shelter, medical care and so on. The sooner we get past the mindset that any work, no matter how useless to the society, entitles us to have what we need, the sooner we stop wasting our resources.
We'd really be better off without useless jobs. And the people doing them would have a chance to do something better with their time.
As for natural resources, I believe centralized planning can often yield better allocation of natural resources then the free market. See the internet, national freeway system, and the hoover dam.
When I talk about wasting natural resources I'm thinking about electricity for the office/plant, fuel for the commute, etc. Pretend-work is not without costs.
Volunteering is a weak argument. Generally people with free money and free time don't go to volunteering gigs. They go on vacation.
>When I talk about wasting natural resources I'm thinking about electricity for the office/plant, fuel for the commute, etc. Pretend-work is not without costs.
"Pretend-work" isn't an emergent flaw that arises out of putting people to work. You're describing bad management, which is a different sort of problem.
Secondly, if you think "pretend-work" is the result of an oversupply of workers, I have to say that there are plenty of potential public projects in the United States that are targets human capital can be direct towards. The demand far exceeds the supply. Our country has the most inefficient urban infrastructure in the first world, so you can imagine how much can be done.
Also note that there doesn't need to be demand in order for a public project to be filled. Before the internet was created there was virtually no demand for it. Public works projects can be directed towards ideas that improve society in general even if demand is nonexistent.