Swiss may get Unconditional Income

[undercoverbrother]

Interesting:

http://www.businessinsider.com/behin...iative-2013-10

Recently, there has been a spate of popular initiatives designed to curb inequality in the country. Earlier this year Swiss voters agreed to an idea proposed by entrepreneur Thomas Minder that limited executive (in his words, "fat cat") salaries of companies listed on the Swiss stock market. Next month voters will decide on the 1:12 Initiative, which aims to limit the salaries of CEOs to 12 times the salary of their company's lowest paid employee.
There's a crazier proposal than this, however. Earlier this month an initiative aimed at giving every Swiss adult a "basic income" that would "ensure a dignified existence and participation in the public life of the whole population" gained enough support to qualify for a referendum. The amount suggested is 2,500 francs ($2,800) a month.
While most observers think that the vote is a longshot, it has certainly sparked debate — and not just in Switzerland. Writing for USA Today, Duncan Black said that a "minimum income" should be considered for the U.S.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Canada! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Interesting:

http://www.businessinsider.com/behin...iative-2013-10

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

I am not sure that I believe in a "cap" for execs, but I could get behind a "floor" for workers. One thing I have believed in my whole life is that anyone in a wealthy and developed country who has full time employment; should be able to afford their own home and property. I find it somewhat disappointing that most people in Canada can work 40 hours or more a week for their whole lives and never get that security due to the fact that very wealthy people (from Canada and overseas) raise house values to levels that most ordinary people can't afford.

I would never support a system that limits how far people can get ahead, but I would support one that at least tries harder to bring up the status quo.

[CaptainCrunch]

The executive cap is just plain stupid.

On top of that where are they going to get the funds to pay the basic salary? Oh let me guess, they'll jack up corporate rates to 80% and tax rates on anyone earning over $100,000 per year to 80%.



And if I was getting paid $2800.00 a month by the government, why would I even bother working?

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am not sure that I believe in a "cap" for execs, but I could get behind a "floor" for workers. One thing I have believed in my whole life is that anyone in a wealthy and developed country who has full time employment; should be able to afford their own home and property. I find it somewhat disappointing that most people in Canada can work 40 hours or more a week for their whole lives and never get that security due to the fact that very wealthy people (from Canada and overseas) raise house values to levels that most ordinary people can't afford.

I would never support a system that limits how far people can get ahead, but I would support one that at least tries harder to bring up the status quo.

I get what you're saying, but isn't that the point of a minimum wage? Of course, a minimum wage does not have a guaranteed number of hours per week, but should companies be forced to guarantee full time hours for every employee?

I don't believe everyone has a right to property, but they have a right to own property. If everyone has a right to property (hmm, sounds a bit communistic), then it could possibly take the incentive for people to work harder and better their lives.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The executive cap is just plain stupid.

On top of that where are they going to get the funds to pay the basic salary? Oh let me guess, they'll jack up corporate rates to 80% and tax rates on anyone earning over $100,000 per year to 80%.



And if I was getting paid $2800.00 a month by the government, why would I even bother working?

Because inflation will make that $2800 have a lot less spending power.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And if I was getting paid $2800.00 a month by the government, why would I even bother working?

[blankall]

Switzerland, I agree with you... in theory....In theory, communism works...in theory.

[GGG]

I like the ratio of income to lowest worker though in practice you just outsource all of your production to a shell company. Its switzerlands case you would outsource it all to Poland. And 12 to 1 is pretty punative. If you lowest employee makes 40k a year the max would make 480k. I don't think Switzerland would have many doctors yet.

I would set the cap at 100:1 and that might work. Effectively that would cap CEO pay at around 2-3 million a year.

As for a minimum living amount that is essentially a kick ass well fair program. At 2500 per month per person I would quit my job each summer. With a spouse that is 60k per year. If I was administering anykind of program like that it would be based on a top up where if minimum wage did not provide enough income the government would top up that amount. So at $10 per hour you make 20k per which is 1666 per month so the government would top up the remaining 800 or so dollars.

I would definately support a program like that if it slowly weened people off government money as their income increased. It would provide incentive to improve your situation and a requirement to work

[MarchHare]

And if I was getting paid $2800.00 a month by the government, why would I even bother working?

For the same reason that you aren't on welfare today?

I haven't read enough about this issue to say if I support Switzerland's proposal or not (I'm tentatively leaning towards not), but there is at least some merit in believing that people will be motivated to work because they want to have more than the bare minimum. I don't know how the cost of living over there compares to Calgary, but $2800/mo ($33.6k/year) doesn't get you very far in this city.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

For the same reason that aren't you on welfare today?

I haven't read enough about this issue to say if I support Switzerland's proposal or not (I'm tentatively leaning towards not), but there is at least some merit in believing that people will be motivated to work because they want to have more than the bare minimum. I don't know how the cost of living over there compares to Calgary, but $2800/mo ($33.6k/year) doesn't get you very far in this city.

You might keep working, but there are lot of people who wouldn't. As it stands now, there already are many able bodied people who avoid working and collect various forms of social assistance. The more you increase "welfare" the more incentive you provide to avoid working.

You're also speaking from the perspective of an upwardly mobile individual. What if your career prospectives involved mopping floors or moving boxes?

I agree, that most of the people would continue working. It only takes a small proportion quitting their jobs to totally upset everything. It leads to a cycle where productivity is decreased, goods become less avaialble, inflation sets in, more people go off work, etc...

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by GGG

If I was administering anykind of program like that it would be based on a top up where if minimum wage did not provide enough income the government would top up that amount. So at $10 per hour you make 20k per which is 1666 per month so the government would top up the remaining 800 or so dollars.

The only problem with a top up system like this is if your salary falls below the threshold why would you even bother working in the first place?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

You might keep working, but there are lot of people who wouldn't. As it stands now, there already are many able bodied people who avoid working and collect various forms of social assistance. The more you increase "welfare" the more incentive you provide to avoid working.

You're also speaking from the perspective of an upwardly mobile individual. What if your career prospectives involved mopping floors or moving boxes?

I agree, that most of the people would continue working. It only takes a small proportion quitting their jobs to totally upset everything. It leads to a cycle where productivity is decreased, goods become less avaialble, inflation sets in, more people go off work, etc...

Sources?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sources?

You serious?

You're saying there isn't a single person in Canada who abuses social assistance, EI, etc...I know several people who work 6-8 (whatever the minimum EI qualfication period is) months a year during the summer and then spend the winter "looking for work".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

You serious?

You're saying there isn't a single person in Canada who abuses social assistance, EI, etc...I know several people who work 6 months a year during the summer and then spend the winter "looking for work".

You said many, and then used it as evidence to suggest that the program was wasteful or not worthwhile. Do you have any stats to back this up, or just anecdotal testimony?

[RougeUnderoos]

Bill Maher was talking about this kind of thing the other night...

In the States, the average worker at McDonald's or Burger King is 29, so these aren't kids getting some spending money. They work a full time job but don't get paid enough to actually pay the bills, so they rely on food stamps or some other sort of social assistance to make ends meet. So basically, McDonald's isn't paying them enough to live, so taxpayers are making up the difference. I don't know if I'd call this "subsidizing" of McDonald's wages, but it sure sounds like it.

Not a lot of motivation to work a full time job that won't cover the basics, so that motivation thing probably works both ways. "Why should I work when I can get welfare" vs. "Why should I work, when working doesn't even put food on the table".

[TurnedTheCorner]

Unconditional income, like from Nazi gold?

[DuffMan]

I've been there a couple of times and have yet to see any poor people, slums etc. matter of fact I have never been asked for spare change anywhere.

It's a pretty well off country.

[SebC]

While it does disincentivize work, the flip side is that a basic level of economic security allows people to take more entrepreneurial risks... and some of those might be rewarding for society as a whole.

[RisebroughRuinedMyYouth]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The executive cap is just plain stupid.
On top of that where are they going to get the funds to pay the basic salary? Oh let me guess, they'll jack up corporate rates to 80% and tax rates on anyone earning over $100,000 per year to 80%.

If you think this, you must have not paid very much attention in school.