zaph

Swiss to vote on universal basic income

28 posts in this topic

The often-dreamt of prospect is being posed as a serious question to people in Switzerland this weekend, with the country set to vote on a universal basic income scheme that could see every citizen paid a wage by default.

The monthly payment — undecided as yet but slated to be around 2500 Swiss Francs or $3500 — would be paid to every citizen, for their whole life, no matter where they live.

Those with a job could still work but would have the monthly income deducted from their salary.

 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/switzerland-to-vote-on-universal-basic-income-in-referendum-on-sunday/news-story/37385386f57f383576cd9689afd13d5e

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The often-dreamt of prospect is being posed as a serious question to people in Switzerland this weekend, with the country set to vote on a universal basic income scheme that could see every citizen paid a wage by default.

The monthly payment — undecided as yet but slated to be around 2500 Swiss Francs or $3500 — would be paid to every citizen, for their whole life, no matter where they live.

Those with a job could still work but would have the monthly income deducted from their salary.

 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/switzerland-to-vote-on-universal-basic-income-in-referendum-on-sunday/news-story/37385386f57f383576cd9689afd13d5e

 

 

 

Hate to ruin the marxist utopia,  but where will there be an incentive for many people to work and hence how is it going to be funded?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to ruin the marxist utopia,  but where will there be an incentive for many people to work and hence how is it going to be funded?!!

The quoted figure sounds like heaps, but for Switzerland it seems to be something between the dole and a state pension. Still lots off incentive to work. It seems to just be simplifying welfare payments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last bit worries me. Seems likely people with jobs they don't like and earning not much more than AU$60K p.a. would just quit. Especially during the period when people don't realise that not having a job is a serious psychological issue for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a social stigma in Switzerland about being on the dole. So it may not be an issue in the short-term but more in the long-term, particularly with the current wave of economic migrants (refugees) to Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think long term it won't be an issue; high income people losing their jobs via automation will be forced to take the crap jobs for the extra few bucks a week :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a social stigma in Switzerland about being on the dole. So it may not be an issue in the short-term but more in the long-term, particularly with the current wave of economic migrants (refugees) to Europe.

I'm sure the tax paying citizens will like that as we'll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly sure that a huge number of people working in switzerland are paid in other currencies and "live" across the border. All the business I have with the swiss is multi nationals based there hiring poles and czechs "living" in germany.

 

They wont be eligible for this money (and given the franc moves a year back this may actually be interesting in terms of personal contracts).

 

If the companies actually have to pay tax I am pretty sure that a concerted effort by all governments would far and away cover the costs.

 

Remember I am the guy that now pays about 200K a yr less tax into the Australian coffers and I am a teeny tiny company no one has heard of. If all the governments work together to stop the big fish (I can just say f*ck it fine I am not operating anymore, goggle can't, they have shareholders) then the tax revenue on current rates would be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

76.9% opposed it. Shows the Swiss have brains!

 

link

 

I think it would have been abused by locals as wells as economic refugees.

 

 

...The reason for the opposition isn't what you'd expect, either. Most aren't worried that a universal basic income would disincentivise workers from finding jobs or turn Switzerland into a Marxist dystopia.

The fear is the guarateed income would make the country too attractive to economic migrants.
Luzi Stamm, who represents the right-leaning Swiss People's Party in parliament, said to the BBC, "Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island, the answer is yes. But with open borders, it's a total impossibility, especially for Switzerland, with a high living standard."
"If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland," Mr Stamm said.
Switzerland is not part of the European Union, but it is a signatory to the Schengen Agreement, which means that those who are members of other signatories to the agreement can travel freely in and out of the country....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

Finland have apparently ended their experiment with universal basic income:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-24/finland-abandons-universal-basic-income-experiment-after-two-years

Read that elsewhere. Looks like they discovered that 'free money' is quite expensive!

That poster about Bernie Sanders sums it very well, together with Finland being one of the highest taxed countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/04/2018 at 2:27 PM, Mr Medved said:

Finland have apparently ended their experiment with universal basic income:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-24/finland-abandons-universal-basic-income-experiment-after-two-years

If the aim was a study, it was a poor one. It's very difficult to research UBI without putting everyone on it - which the Finish experiment was not. 

IMO this is a very difficult area to study/research. If you only put some people on the program then you don't get a societal wide analysis. 

Here is an OP Ed about it - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-01/finland-universal-basic-income-welfare-reform/9709798

How many people on UBI will aspire to work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zaph said:

If the aim was a study, it was a poor one. It's very difficult to research UBI without putting everyone on it - which the Finish experiment was not. 

IMO this is a very difficult area to study/research. If you only put some people on the program then you don't get a societal wide analysis. 

Here is an OP Ed about it - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-01/finland-universal-basic-income-welfare-reform/9709798

How many people on UBI will aspire to work? 

We could simplify things. But politics and Alan Jones would not allow that.

We could save billions by only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it. Why do pensioners need to spend 4 hours on the phone to incompetent centrelink workers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, zaph said:

We could simplify things. But politics and Alan Jones would not allow that.

We could save billions by only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it. Why do pensioners need to spend 4 hours on the phone to incompetent centrelink workers?

Exactly what do you mean by 'only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it'? Anybody who registers for the dole/pension or any other social welfare scheme is effectively asking for money. BTW are you aware that social welfare accounts for one of the largest (if not the largest) components of the federal's budget expenditure?

There are still people who have spent their entire life living on the dole, who are mentally and physically able to work. Others on public housing, childrens' allowances who are working and earning an income that does not entitle them to such welfare.

There would probably be more monies saved by spending more monies investigating & clamping down on those who abuse the welfare system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Exactly what do you mean by 'only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it'? Anybody who registers for the dole/pension or any other social welfare scheme is effectively asking for money. BTW are you aware that social welfare accounts for one of the largest (if not the largest) components of the federal's budget expenditure?

There are still people who have spent their entire life living on the dole, who are mentally and physically able to work. Others on public housing, childrens' allowances who are working and earning an income that does not entitle them to such welfare.

There would probably be more monies saved by spending more monies investigating & clamping down on those who abuse the welfare system.

Whilst on the subject matter:

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Exactly what do you mean by 'only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it'? Anybody who registers for the dole/pension or any other social welfare scheme is effectively asking for money. BTW are you aware that social welfare accounts for one of the largest (if not the largest) components of the federal's budget expenditure?

There are still people who have spent their entire life living on the dole, who are mentally and physically able to work. Others on public housing, childrens' allowances who are working and earning an income that does not entitle them to such welfare.

There would probably be more monies saved by spending more monies investigating & clamping down on those who abuse the welfare system.

Sorry, my post was very vague. 

Quote

Exactly what do you mean by 'only giving assistance to the unemployment that wanted it'? Anybody who registers for the dole/pension or any other social welfare scheme is effectively asking for money. 

I wasn't referring to the direct dole payment. I was referring to the compliance, job seeking assistance and admin costs.

I know someone who works for one of the govt funded job agencies. They are mostly church run businesses costing taxpayers billions. For what? What assistance they can give is determined by the govt. eg - no assistance for the first six months/weeks(?) on the dole x period then this then that. Which is not really assistance at all but punishment. eg - on the dole for x period made to turn up to useless workshops, y period - work for the dole etc. etc. So when a very competent <insert professional> shows up, but is not very good at selling themselves they get no help job searching until x period when they're likely to have accepted life on the dole. The multi generational dole recipient turns up and knows exactly how to get the dole with minimal effort.  

My friend rekons a better system would be:

  • So you're happy getting the dole and earning another few hundred a week slinging meth? Fine - we'll do nothing for you. We won't waste resources on a lost case.
  • You're an astrophysicist with terrible job search skills. Ok, we'll spend the next week helping you find a job. 
Quote

 BTW are you aware that social welfare accounts for one of the largest (if not the largest) components of the federal's budget expenditure?

Yes.

Social security and welfare accounts for around 35% of federal govt spending. 

63% of the welfare spend is on aged, disabled, and veterans. 25% is on families. Just 7.5% of the welfare spend is on the dole - yet dole bludgers are always the target. 

Quote

There would probably be more monies saved by spending more monies investigating & clamping down on those who abuse the welfare system.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Clamping down on the welfare system is always popular on radio and TV shows. I just don't know if it would save a dollar. If I was Tsar I'd want some evidence, not just Allan Jones' opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zaph said:
  • So you're happy getting the dole and earning another few hundred a week slinging meth? Fine - we'll do nothing for you. We won't waste resources on a lost case.
  • You're an astrophysicist with terrible job search skills. Ok, we'll spend the next week helping you find a job. 

Regarding the first example, I'd cut free welfare altogether and make them work for the dole - cleaning parks, etc.

Regarding the second example, I agree, but there is a bigger issue regarding the federal government promoting tax payer subsidised tertiary education, including degrees that are useless at finding jobs and incurring a HECS debt.

Quote

...yet dole bludgers are always the target. 

 as per example, I posted later, I was referring to all forms of social welfare rorts, not just the dole. You cannot truly say that there is more money wasted in investigation and compliance than what is saved, because if you didn't have it, the system would be heavily abused. Similarly, can you imagine how many people would pay tax if the ATO said they would never undertake investigations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government job agencies are a complete waste of time and money.

Last time I used one was over a decade ago when I applied for the dole after returning to Australia broke. Unfortunately had no choice to take the dole at the time, else starve. You were mandated to attend their sh*tty "training" courses that were completely useless. You were also forced to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight. It didn't matter which ones either.

Since then I've never applied for the dole even though there has been a few occasions when I've been between jobs and could have received payments. It's just an uber-depressing thing to go to Centrelink and jump through the hoops. I figure if people actually want to be on the dole then let them and cut out all the bullsh*t that is costing billions of dollars.

Bashing those on unemployment payments is just cannon fodder for talk back shock jocks and politicians. There are very few that are "dole bludgers", most are either between roles or unemployable. I honestly think it's a waste of money, just give them the meager amount they receive. It's much cheaper than prisons or dealing with the social costs, and all the unnecessary process and compliance, etc. is a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr Medved said:

The government job agencies are a complete waste of time and money.

Last time I used one was over a decade ago when I applied for the dole after returning to Australia broke. Unfortunately had no choice to take the dole at the time, else starve. You were mandated to attend their sh*tty "training" courses that were completely useless. You were also forced to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight. It didn't matter which ones either.

Since then I've never applied for the dole even though there has been a few occasions when I've been between jobs and could have received payments. It's just an uber-depressing thing to go to Centrelink and jump through the hoops. I figure if people actually want to be on the dole then let them and cut out all the bullsh*t that is costing billions of dollars.

Bashing those on unemployment payments is just cannon fodder for talk back shock jocks and politicians. There are very few that are "dole bludgers", most are either between roles or unemployable. I honestly think it's a waste of money, just give them the meager amount they receive. It's much cheaper than prisons or dealing with the social costs, and all the unnecessary process and compliance, etc. is a waste.

The problem goes back to rorting of the system if it is made easy to get. There would be no shortage of people joining the Q if it was easy to get without the compliance.

I went on the dole for a short period of time when I got retrenched in the early 1980s. As I recall, all I did was fill in a form and started getting paid until I told them when I got a job. Otherwise, they would have kept paying me. Presumably with better computerised system now, it would be easier to data match. But there are still people who manage to rort social welfare (dole, public housing, child allowance, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Regarding the first example, I'd cut free welfare altogether and make them work for the dole - cleaning parks, etc.

Regarding the second example, I agree, but there is a bigger issue regarding the federal government promoting tax payer subsidised tertiary education, including degrees that are useless at finding jobs and incurring a HECS debt.

 as per example, I posted later, I was referring to all forms of social welfare rorts, not just the dole. You cannot truly say that there is more money wasted in investigation and compliance than what is saved, because if you didn't have it, the system would be heavily abused. Similarly, can you imagine how many people would pay tax if the ATO said they would never undertake investigations?

Build a wall! A big expensive useless wall. Lets punish dole bludgers. After all dole bludgers cost the budget 1/10th of oldies, or 25% of families. 

What;s your number Alan?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, zaph said:

Build a wall! A big expensive useless wall. Lets punish dole bludgers. After all dole bludgers cost the budget 1/10th of oldies, or 25% of families. 

What;s your number Alan?

 

 

The oldies who worked all their life are entitled to their pension. Families on low income can get benefits, those who abuse the system can go and get f....

You may want to support your local meth junkie - I'd send him to the desert for a year to dry out!

Perhaps you can volunteer extra income tax to the ATO to support your local junkies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

The government job agencies are a complete waste of time and money.

The actual cost seems to be a state secret. Last I read it was almost $2b (mostly given to christian church businesses). That's 2b paid to churches to make $8b dole bludgers do as they are told. What a complete waste of money. 

Quote

 

Last time I used one was over a decade ago when I applied for the dole after returning to Australia broke. Unfortunately had no choice to take the dole at the time, else starve. You were mandated to attend their sh*tty "training" courses that were completely useless. You were also forced to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight. It didn't matter which ones either.

Since then I've never applied for the dole even though there has been a few occasions when I've been between jobs and could have received payments. It's just an uber-depressing thing to go to Centrelink and jump through the hoops. I figure if people actually want to be on the dole then let them and cut out all the bullsh*t that is costing billions of dollars.

 

 

Bashing those on unemployment payments is just cannon fodder for talk back shock jocks and politicians. There are very few that are "dole bludgers", most are either between roles or unemployable. I honestly think it's a waste of money, just give them the meager amount they receive. It's much cheaper than prisons or dealing with the social costs, and all the unnecessary process and compliance, etc. is a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cobran20 said:

The oldies who worked all their life are entitled to their pension.

That's a matter of opinion not fact. What about someone who has spent their life on the dole? - should they get their benefits doubled because they managed to live to 65? What about someone who has saved (super) - should they be denied the pension till they spend their super? 

Quote

 

Families on low income can get benefits, those who abuse the system can go and get f....

You may want to support your local meth junkie - I'd send him to the desert for a year to dry out!

 

How will the lawyers get meth if all the meth 'junkies' are in the desert?

Families are worthy of benefits but singles are not?

You're now equating people on benefits to 'junkies'. Is it just people on the dole who are junkies, or are disabled and aged junkies as well?

Once I'm supreme leader there will be a more pragmatic approach. 

Quote

Perhaps you can volunteer extra income tax to the ATO to support your local junkies?

I tried, they wouldn't accept it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zaph said:

That's a matter of opinion not fact. What about someone who has spent their life on the dole? - should they get their benefits doubled because they managed to live to 65? What about someone who has saved (super) - should they be denied the pension till they spend their super? 

How will the lawyers get meth if all the meth 'junkies' are in the desert?

Families are worthy of benefits but singles are not?

You're now equating people on benefits to 'junkies'. Is it just people on the dole who are junkies, or are disabled and aged junkies as well?

Once I'm supreme leader there will be a more pragmatic approach. 

I tried, they wouldn't accept it. 

The oldies are generally unemployable, especially for hard physical jobs. So there is a limited benefit in investing tax payers monies there. I'd have no problems with a tiered pension based on years in employment.

You can worry about lawyers getting their meth - I don't give a f! I just think that those on drug habits, who are inflicting on the community, need to be hanged out to dry until they're over it. The bleeding heart approach clearly does not work.

Never specifically said about families vs singles - just rorting of any welfare .

But don't worry, when governments start going bankrupt because they can meet the recurring spending promises, reality will force its way. Keep an eye on Europe - probably the first western countries to have to face the consequences.

In the meantime, why don't you give all your monies to the local beggars/junkies to support their habits, like a good, concerned citizen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

The oldies are generally unemployable, especially for hard physical jobs. So there is a limited benefit in investing tax payers monies there. I'd have no problems with a tiered pension based on years in employment.

Most people spend most of their lives working or studying. Perhaps people who spend their whole lives on the dole don't deserve a pay rise just because they turn 65/67? What about a woman who spends half her working life raising kids - should she get half the pension of a spinster? Should a high income earner (and high tax payer) get more pension than a low earner? I'm not having a go here - they are genuine questions. 

My parents have a belief that they worked their whole lives paying taxes and deserve, yes, deserve a pension regardless of their means. 

Quote

You can worry about lawyers getting their meth - I don't give a f! I just think that those on drug habits, who are inflicting on the community, need to be hanged out to dry until they're over it. The bleeding heart approach clearly does not work.

You introduced 'junkies' into the discussion of welfare. I presume that is because you think drug use is over represented in welfare recipients? 

I believe in harm minimisation regarding drugs. Legal or illegal.

  • Harm reduction - eg we supply needles to users to reduce blood borne viruses.
  • Supply reduction - eg we limit the sale of alcohol. 
  • Demand reduction - eg we have programs to get 'junkies' off drugs. 

I have no idea what a bleeding heart approach is. I know that illegal drug use is VERY widespread and most drug users use occasionally and responsibly. Not all of course.

Quote

Never specifically said about families vs singles - just rorting of any welfare .

Ok.

I don't hold the Alan Jones approach that we should hunt down dole bludgers, tax cheats etc at any cost. If it's going to cost more to catch a cheat than they are receiving then just let it be. 

Quote

But don't worry, when governments start going bankrupt because they can meet the recurring spending promises, reality will force its way. Keep an eye on Europe - probably the first western countries to have to face the consequences.

Countries with their own currency don't go bankrupt. Australia is a currency issuer. 

Quote

In the meantime, why don't you give all your monies to the local beggars/junkies to support their habits, like a good, concerned citizen?

Quote

 

I'm selling up and moving to Cuba. If they'll have me. 

Edited by zaph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now