SaxoBank Predicts Universal Basic Income For Europe 412
jones_supa writes: Saxo Bank, an investment bank based in Denmark, has released a list of its outrageous predictions for 2016. Among these predictions, economist Christopher Dembik claims that Europe will consider the introduction of a universal basic income to ensure that all citizens can meet their basic needs in the face of rising inequality and unemployment. This will come on the back of increased interest in basic income from Spain, Finland, Switzerland, and France.
Yeah, sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, sure (Score:4, Insightful)
By "no way", I assume you mean it would be unacceptable to you, not that there's no way it could happen. Because we can probably agree that Brussels is capable of being that stupid.
Re: Yeah, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
since free movement of people is one of founding principles of EU - it can't happen.
That's free movement of workers within the EU [europa.eu], i.e. if you already live in an EU state, you're free to pick up and go seek employment in another EU state. If you're not already living in an EU state, you don't fall under that principle.
Re: (Score:3)
- make it high enough to live in 'expensive' countries - whole eastern part of EU goes bankrupt within 2 years
- make it low enough to avoid breaking the east - it is total joke for residents of western countries
- allow each country to set it independently - mass migration from east to west
Re: (Score:2)
And since free movement of people is one of founding principles of EU - it can't happen.
Its going to happen anyways, and it will be many years before it becomes unsustainable, and at that point the E.U. will go through an autonomy crisis where a big decision is made regarding the authority of the E.U. over its member States.
Re: Yeah, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
There are too big differences between wealth of western and eastern countries.
This is already a fact currently, so what difference would adding a base income make to it?
The basic income in each country means getting the bare minimum to survive in that country. So it would make no difference whether you are living in a rich or poor country; your living standard would still be basic level. People generally don't go through the upheaval of moving country just so they can live in the same basic poverty level some place new. It usually takes something like avoiding a war to force them into that.
The main attraction of a universal basic income is that it removes, at a stroke, the need for a complex benefits system, with all its costs, overheads, impenetrable rules, loopholes and exploits.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only free movement to work. You can't just move to another country, you have to work if you want to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how everyone seems to "know" that benefit tourism exists, well by everyone I mean those who read The Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph, but the actual evidence seems to be harder to find [bing.com].
Maybe my experience is atypical but everyone I'm acquainted with who is from elsewhere in Europe is either a student or has a job and everyone I know on benefits was born here.
Re: (Score:2)
Your experience is probably both typical -- of a native -- and misleading. Do you spend much time in places where immigrants tend to cluster together and form fairly closed communities? Limiting your experience to immigrants who are trying to integrate is a definite filter, and you're not going to see the full spectrum. (To some extent, the fact that they immigrated in the first place filters out some of the lazy people, but you are probably still applying a filter to those who did immigrate. And, of co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it would require one government for the whole region collecting and disbursing monies, which is what the EU has been pushing towards all along anyway. And frankly, the only thing which makes sense from a logistics standpoint. Too bad we've made no progress on human nature throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: Benefits to be paid by orignial country until 2 years income tax paid to new country. (income tax shared to original country over those 2 years to equalise fairness).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basic income is about the same level as a full-time minimum wage job and they'd still be being paid this on top of their salary (just by their home country). Would you expect them to really decide to drop back to half of the income that they'd become accustomed to?
Re:Yeah, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could link the basic income to the number of years as a legal citizen in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's already the case that some countries have much more generous benefits than others, but it doesn't really encourage people to migrate in huge numbers. Certainly not the whole of Eastern Europe.
The reasons are many. The right to free movement only applies if you work, or are the family of someone who works. Most countries limit benefits to people who have just arrived. Although the benefits are a higher Euro amount, the cost of living is higher too. Some people just don't want to abandon their original c
Wrong. I mean, really wrong. (Score:2)
This would first require ending of right to free movement (otherwise whole Eastern Europe would move to countries with ubs) and then really dealing with immigration to prevent whole Africa from moving to Europe. In other words: no way.
Wrong.
For at least to reasons:
Right now, lots of people move within the eurozone (taking advantage of the freedom to move inside the EU privilege) *because* they expect better income somewhere else. If all get the same default CBI (Conditionless Basic Income), then there is no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Member States may require the persons concerned to provide evidence that they have:
(a) stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain themselves and the members of their families, without recourse to the social assistance of the Member State concerned. For each of the categories referred to in Article 14(2), Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions;
(b) sickness insurance covering all risks in the second Member State normally covered for its own nationals in the Member State concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[...] Also note that a similiar mechanism is well established already: Those without other income can get money from social services. [...]
That's different from country to country, for instance in Spain, when you don't have a job and are out of the unemployment aid (maximum two years), you are on your own. Last time I read something about this it was stated that in Spain there are around 2 million persons without any kind of official income.
For some definition of Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU may propose it, and "Europe" may adopt it, but after the mass muslim invaderism that has occured, lots of countries will leave the EU in order to not adopt it.
How did their past predictions turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that bothers me is when news articles make a big deal out of predictions made by a group without giving you any idea of how well that groups previous predictions turned out.
Re:How did their past predictions turn out? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just an invitation to have a discussion. That's what Slashdot is about.
Re:Already here (Score:5, Funny)
I can't see why it's an "outrageous prediction".
They are referring to the illustrations and the general colour scheme, I think.
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Automation and adoption of AI is replacing human labor at an accelerating rate, and not just for menial labor. Computers can now do much of work of doctors, lawyers, financial analysts, and a wide array of service occupations. Touch screen vending machines will soon replace counter and kitchen workers in fast food restaurants. This increased productivity (production per person-hour) means higher profits for the companies but that money goes to the owner class, not the general population. So how are people going to survive.
There are two possibilities and only two. A luddite revolution reverses automation so that we return to the economy of the 20th Century.. or... a socialist revolution redistributes the wealth so that the majority of people have a way to have a meaningful life. The either of those revolutions can be peaceful but probably won't be. And this does not mean just Europe. It's the trajectory of the human race. Coming to a continent near you.
Re:Inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
Automation is replacing human labour, but its not free - the cost is being passed back onto the customer.
Automated grocery checkouts have *you* scan and bag groceries while machines weigh and cross-check everything. McDonalds ordering touchscreens have you enter data entered by employees earlier. The bank phone line has you authenticate ID and passcode while on hold - versus employees in a branch checking IDs.
Instead of augmenting humans, big capital is getting greedy and opting for replacing them. There's only so much clerical rubbish the customer will accept before pushback. I eat better and shop at farmer's markets now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
it just goes straight up my ass, the thought of paying someone for doing nothing more than processing oxygen after being born.
Beside the sad fact that this seems to be the only thing some people know to do properly, what is your plan to stop automation that leaves less and less to do for human workers? Reducing population to match the remaining jobs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Natural selection would be reducing population to match available resources.
Which brings us right down to the problem: Our system has been working so far because the availability of resources (not limited to natural ones, but including produced food, houses, cars....) was closely tied to the amount of human work put into their production. More resources were only available if more people were working to produce them. Declining jobs in producing resource A (like: corn) have been offset by increasing jobs
Re: (Score:3)
Well, less jobs and money should naturally thin the herd.
#1: Why?
#2 How?
#3: naturally???!?!
Have you ever seen a natural herd with jobs?
Do you eat money? Do you live in your office?
It's not "natural" to starve in an over-sbundance of food just because you have no "job".
Granted, a job gives you money and money has been a well-tested way to distribute food, goods, "wealth", or anything scarce in general based on how much someone is contributing to produce them. But production is hardly connected to work or effort anymore. That's where this system starts to tear apar
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
But oddly you don't seem to be protesting spending trillions of your hard-earned tax dollars to bomb people in other lands.
I would rather my tax dollars go to helping people, INCLUDING those who don't work. I have friends who had jobs that have been replaced by automation. Hell, I'm an automation specialist and I probably helped put them there. The fact that my company makes scads more money because of it shouldn't mean they have to suffer.
And you know what? Some day my job may get replaced by a particularly clever bit of code. So I have no problem with Universal Basic Income.
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the US the need for this is pretty clear. Fiat currencies including our depend on inflation to function. Currently we can't manage to create inflation even with an effective zero interest rate (the fed creates money on demand and effectively gives it to banks for free or even at a loss should there be inflation over the loan term). Basically, as a nation our wealth is growing so fast we can't inflate the dollar despite refinancing virtually every mortgage, student, and auto loan in the country but the growth is not at the middle or the bottom (think 0.001% top not 1%).
This is not charity, this is a transition step on our path to a world where people no longer need to work. The "first world" has developed and advanced the technology. The elite class who largely no longer HAVE to work or need do so minimally would be expanding from a small sliver of the first world population to a small sliver of the global population, which is essentially the entire current first world. We developed and built all the technology for the foundation but we can't compete with the sheers numbers of the third world to build on the technological foundation we built for them. It's time to pass the labor on to the third world and let the first world enjoy the benefits of what they've done.
The minimum income shouldn't be paid for with taxes though, it should paid with new inflation dollars from the Fed. Normally we'd be terrified of out of control inflation but this provides no danger as I said before as we are actually at risk of numerical economic stagnation due to a tangible risk of deflation. The only result is those with entrenched wealth have to assume slightly more risk on investments but the resulting inflation rate is highly unlikely to be higher than at most times through the last 20 years. In fact, we could completely fund universal healthcare alongside this without much risk of that.
You don't object to some people getting enjoy retirement? Think of this as earned retirement for the collective workers of the first world. Eventually the class who need not work will grow to include currently developing nations as well until everything is automated and people work to pursue goals they want and occupy their time rather than because they need do so to fulfill basic needs.
Re: Inevitable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't they be? Being single definitely sucks if you like companionship, but it's a lot better than being stuck in a toxic relationship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Like which countries?
Only I can think of right now is that Switzerland is still planning it and the Dutch city of Utrecht is experimenting with it.
Re: (Score:3)
'In some way or another' probably refers to the various general social security systems that are in place. Technically it pretty much should be hard to starve in many European countries. In practice, many 'normal' will probably kill themselves rather than go through the hoops necessary to ensure payout, while exploiters can make a very decent living off abusing the systems.
Personally I'm in favour of universial basic income, provided all other benefits are removed at the same time. You get what you get, and
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'm in favour of universial basic income, provided all other benefits are removed at the same time. You get what you get, and no, that won't let you live in a decent area of a major city, there won't be any extra payout for special needs, etc.
So once you're in that "basic income" system of yours, I guess you're stuck living in some ghetto and would have no way of getting out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
You can still better yourself and get a better paying job, just no free cable TV, smartphone, etc. You buy what you can afford on your income rather than living above you means.
You want a better lifestyle?
Do what the rest of do and EARN it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still better yourself and get a better paying job, just no free cable TV, smartphone, etc.
I think "smartphone" is a poor example on your list, as it is slowly becoming a critical piece of technology to be able to do anything.
Just like "a computer and a working internet conection" has been in recent times.
It's not just a piece of entertainment (like a TV), but a critical piece of technology to get access to maps, tools of communication (both voice and text messages), reading mail while on the go, getting information, etc.
There are lots of jobs where you basically need a smartphone to be able to w
Salary (Score:3)
So once you're in that "basic income" system of yours, I guess you're stuck living in some ghetto and would have no way of getting out of it.
1. It's European countries you're speaking of. Here around, what you call "some ghetto" are way nicer place than any of you ghettos on your side of the altrantic pond.
2. They idea is: "this buys you minimal living accomodation in the more modern parts of a big cite / or in a really small village lost in the back country, now it's up to you to earn anything more you would need to be able to access anything more that you would want"
Deciding to get a paying job is basically *THE* way of getting out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... the way the GP states it, pretty much. Unless you manage to create extra income on top of the universal basic income of course. And nowhere does the GP say that having a universal basic income prevents you from generating extra income. Extra income can be had from a lot of resources:
-You're healthy/motivated enough to generate it yourself by working (the traditional way) and someone else is (still) willing to pay you for it.
-You're healthy/motivated enough to generate it yourself by working (the tr
universal health care also needed! (Score:2)
universal health care also needed as there are a lot of other issues with health care (at least in the USA the EU is much better)
Re: (Score:2)
Switzerland is not planning it at all. This is just a popular initiative that will maybe be voted by the citizens in the future, and the response is actually granted to be no.
Popular initiative is a normal political process in Switzerland. There can propose surprising changes to the constitution, even if the government don't like it. Most of them are in fact a way to group together the peoples that have a new idea on how the law should be and stay only a this stage. This allow to have political discussion i
Re:Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:2)
Many Americans and not only see that as unfair approach (also applies to systems such as universal healthcare), since people who work are paying for those who don't.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this POV.
Re:Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullets are cheaper than universal income, although people in gun-grabby states might not realize that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basicly gun ownership is a protection system with a 90% false positive rate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you had a family like mine, you'd understand.
Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns are a deterrent.
If a criminal trespassing on your property leaves because you're pointing a gun at them, then your gun has successfully done its job.
This is what occurs 99.99% of the time. Shooting someone (or yourself) with a bullet is really the exception, not the rule.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guns are a deterrent.
If a criminal trespassing on your property leaves because you're pointing a gun at them, then your gun has successfully done its job.
This happen if the trespasser didn't expect to meet someone pointing a gun.
If this behavior is normalized the trespasser will bring a gun of his own. Then it is just a matter of who shoots first.
Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument is based on the faulty equation of "willingness to commit a specific, non-violent crime" with "willingness to murder all of the occupants of a house".
I'm sure that there are some burglars who would be ok with committing several counts of cold blooded murder for your TV and jewelry, but don't pretend that most people are ok with that. Most burglars leave a house once they discover that anyone is home.
Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:4, Insightful)
Most gun uses in the US do not result in deaths. Why do you suggest they do? Even the lowest estimates (usually promulgated by gun-control advocates) are 50% to 100% higher than the firearm death rate, many more suggest they occur 15 times as often as firearm deaths, and some estimates put defensive gun uses at about 150 times the firearm death rate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullets are cheaper than universal income
They are, but they're also cheap enough that someone who was trying to steal some food might decide to use a few preemptively to make sure you don't get a chance to use yours.
Personally, I'd rather live in a place where people have access to the basic necessities of life and aren't gunning each other down over whatever scraps are left after the 1% have hoarded everything else for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
My gun has less to do with wanting to shoot anyone who tries to break into my house, though. I have a gun so my wife has a chance if someone tries to break in when she is home. The only time it will ever get used is if someone breaks in through a window or
Re: (Score:2)
If bullets are cheap, that means poor people can get them too.
Didn't think of that, did you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*sigh*
Great, except you fail to take into account the number of people who will now just live off the 'basic' income since they no longer have any incentive what so ever to stop being lazy douche bags.
Taking care of all those people, is not cheaper than sending some smaller amount to prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Why all this hate against lazynes?
Lazynes is a virtue. It helps me find simple solutions.
My lazynes is so well cultivated, that sometimes when I see overcomplicated solutions I have kind of a lazy-spider-sense tingling, telling me "there has to be a more simple way"
War may be the mother of all inventions but Lazynes is its father ;)
Re: (Score:2)
You will pay for them nonetheless. Either you pay them directly, or your pay burglar alarms, private guards, the police, courts and prisons necessary to keep them away from plundering you. As it seems, especially the court and prison system can get quite expensive, much more expensive than just handing out a basic income to everyone. What you save in welfare, you have to spent several times in protection.
I just witnessed that first hand in Africa. Everyone has electrified fences on their houses and an armed response security system. Well, everyone but the people living in the shanty towns. There are areas on the motorways through town with big electronic signs telling you not to stop for accidents, flats, etc. You just keep driving until you can stop at a gas station or somewhere else away from the shanties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score:5, Insightful)
While I sympathize with the sentiment, the fantasy of being able to just redistribute the 'wealth' of the top 100 doubling the standard of living of everybody else is rooted in the mathematical fiction of 'wealth' (as we model it today).
Wealth is an assessed value of their assets and their money. Assets including cars, land, bulidings, stocks, etc. If Steve Balmer one day said 'I want to trade in my 15 billion dollars of microsoft stock for some cash', he wouldn't get 15 billion dollars of cash because the share price would tank. If you took the resources that go into building a 400,000 exotic car, you could not take those same and just build 20 family sedans, though the 'math' says you could.
On the flip side, a lot of homeless folk are technically more 'wealthy' than some pretty comfortable folks. In the early part of his vice presidency, Joe Biden had negative net worth. By the same standards that establish the top 100 as being able to elevate the rest of the world, Joe Biden was a more pitiable man than people in cardboard boxes (he had plenty of assets, but more debt than assets). Incidentally this scenario applies to most young families with a house and a car or two, but they wouldn't trade that in for a cardboard box to get wealthier.
In general don't look too hard at the ostensible numbers of wealth, because in aggregate it's a situation with many hacks to workaround this nonsense. A lot of the high-dollar things are more like 'high scores' than some indicator of meaningful value that is accurate relative to the experience of most. One would hope there's a better way than just increasingly playing make believe with numbers, but we haven't really come up with something that works in the way modern life goes (no, a return to gold standard or something in the same spirit wouldn't help, it would just limit the ability to do the 'workarounds' to fix things when the behavior of the participants in the economy goes nuts).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I sympathize with the sentiment, the fantasy of being able to just redistribute the 'wealth' of the top 100 doubling the standard of living of everybody else is rooted in the mathematical fiction of 'wealth' (as we model it today).
Wealth is an assessed value of their assets and their money. Assets including cars, land, bulidings, stocks, etc. If Steve Balmer one day said 'I want to trade in my 15 billion dollars of microsoft stock for some cash', he wouldn't get 15 billion dollars of cash because the share price would tank. If you took the resources that go into building a 400,000 exotic car, you could not take those same and just build 20 family sedans, though the 'math' says you could.
On the flip side, a lot of homeless folk are technically more 'wealthy' than some pretty comfortable folks. In the early part of his vice presidency, Joe Biden had negative net worth. By the same standards that establish the top 100 as being able to elevate the rest of the world, Joe Biden was a more pitiable man than people in cardboard boxes (he had plenty of assets, but more debt than assets). Incidentally this scenario applies to most young families with a house and a car or two, but they wouldn't trade that in for a cardboard box to get wealthier.
In general don't look too hard at the ostensible numbers of wealth, because in aggregate it's a situation with many hacks to workaround this nonsense. A lot of the high-dollar things are more like 'high scores' than some indicator of meaningful value that is accurate relative to the experience of most. One would hope there's a better way than just increasingly playing make believe with numbers, but we haven't really come up with something that works in the way modern life goes (no, a return to gold standard or something in the same spirit wouldn't help, it would just limit the ability to do the 'workarounds' to fix things when the behavior of the participants in the economy goes nuts).
When you convince the wealthiest 1% with this then I'll buy into it.
In the meantime I'd rather be part of that 1% and suffer the indignities associated with being super rich.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe we should "sacrifice" 100 people for the general good as soon as you sign up to be first.
In reality, 1% of the world's population holds approximately half of the world's net wealth. But how will moving a doctor from a hospital or successful practice into the poorhouse help anyone? Are you going to tell the 60-year-old couple who spent decades paying their mortgage with paychecks from classroom and office jobs that they have to start from zero because a kid is starving in Bangalore, or because
Re: (Score:3)
The conditionless basic income is quite different. It's a fixed amo
Re:Already here (Score:4)
Which seems to me why it would be eminently doable - it can be implemented as a far more streamlined replacement for benefits, rather than something set in place on top of benefits. Welfare, government pension plans, subsidized housing, and on and on - there's no need for it with a basic income system. If so desired it can even replace minimum wage... with the benefit to companies being offset by new corporate taxes to help hike the basic income further, and removing the distorting market influence of minimum wages. Your basic income *is* your minimum wage.
We've basically as a society already decided that we don't want people just starving in the streets. But this patchwork of programs we've built as a consequence, with their huge overheads, hurdles everyone has to jump through and gaps to fall between** is not the solution. Basic income is. And once you've got it then all of the debates between the left and right get much simpler - the left tries to raise the basic income at the cost of higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, while the right tries to do the opposite.
**In my experience, the gaps in current systems are the most likely to hit the vulnerable. For example, a guy I know has long had trouble working because of some serious psychological issues, huge social anxiety problems among others. To get on benefits he has to be certified by a doctor. But because of his anxiety he's terrified of doctors; even when he can get himself to go he usually says as little as possible and plays everything down to get out of there as soon as possible and not have to answer questions. And doctors visits cost money (even where everyone is insured), which people who have trouble working generally lack. Which gives him even more excuse to give into his fear and not go. It's sad, I've seen him at times go hungry so that he could feed his kids, and at one point was living in a tent until it got crushed in a storm (with him in it).
We don't need this mess. Just give everyone a basic income. Sure, you'll need to have some variations, such as a credit for those with children, maybe something extra for those who get certified for long-term disability, etc. But *something* for everyone. We're not talking about ensuring everyone a life of luxury. We're just talking about enough to:
1) Pay for basic groceries (not going out to eat, nothing fancy)
2) Cover basic transportation (bus fare or operation of the cheapest junker on the market)
3) Keep a roof over one's head - either a single rented room for a single person, or a small shared apartment for two.
4) Pay for medical copays, basic clothing, and the other random expenses of life
Benefits cliffs penalize work (Score:2)
Benefits cliffs penalize work there are cases where people are better off not working then just getting any job. Also most mc jobs don't want people who will just quit as soon as a better job opens up.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and universal income prevents benefits cliffs. They're such a perverse incentive to work.
Re: (Score:3)
A universal basic income also discourages marginal workers from working, though. The marginal benefit of (low) wages gets balanced against time and money spent finding a job, looking presentable, getting to work, and actually working, and often the rational choice is to do things besides work. There's also a good economic argument for scrapping minimum wage laws when UBI is implemented, because they both function to put a floor on an individual's income, but few advocates would accept that exchange.
Perhap
some kind of minimum wage like laws are needed (Score:2)
some kind of minimum wage like laws are needed maybe with UBI but still to stop the docking of pay, unpaid OT, high cost uniforms / tools needed to do the job.
Re: (Score:3)
In experiments, what actually happens is the only people who stop working are those with very good reasons not to - for example, mothers with new children, or people wanting to take care of a dying relative, or people who want to pursue higher degrees, and such; people willing to live a poorer life in order to do something that's very important to them. And probably very important to society as a whole. As a general rule, though, it does not affect the percentage of people who continue to work. Because t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They can't afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these basic income articles always get these "free moneys" comments, while the actual plan is not about giving unemployed people more money than what they now receive. The idea is to make taking any work always beneficial compared to unemployment. The current system - where you have to demonstrate that you have no work - has the problem that taking a short gig may you may end up losing money before you can again show that you are unemployed.
Also hopefully we will get less bureaucrazy etc.
Even now, every refugee that is granted refugee status will start receiving unemployment benefits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The basic income would replace a lot of benefits, so the tax bill wouldn't go up, or would only go up for people on high incomes by as much as the basic income (so net zero).
The situation isn't nearly as bad as you make out.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Every time people like you say some new entitlement program will be cost neutral... it isn't.
The track record of people like you to accurately predict the consequences of your programs is horrible. Where as the track record of people like me to cite what will happen with stuff like this is actually quite good.
But again... I DON"T CARE. I don't live in Europe so this really isn't my problem so long as it is understood that when you inevidably blow your brains all over the ceiling... I am under no obligation
Re:They can't afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, you are unaware the US discussed having a National Minimum income system over 40 years ago. Both the President and the Congress of the time thought it was a great idea...that President being that filthy pinko socialist/commie....Richard Nixon.
The pilot program for it is still in place...we call it "EIC"
The reason why we DON"T have the full version of it, or single payer Universal Health care (which Nixon was also in favor of)....is Watergate.
The thing is, NMI saves money and time because you reduce the paperwork because it also replaces all other forms of assistance. No more Section 8 housing vouchers, no more "food-only benefit cards" There's no forms that need to be filled out or documentation on expenses or income...EVERYONE gets it. And because it puts money at the bottom of the economic ladder, said money circulates more times through the economy Wage stagnation is a killer, and this is the cure.
However since NMI wasn't enacted, Wall Street invented it's own fix to keep people spending like they were still middle class (even if they weren't)...they're called credit cards. Bank credit cards are basically Wall Street's/Fortune 500's way of keeping people spending while STILL keeping wages low.
That is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, it costs a lot to accurately work out who should be earning each of the benefits, for every one of those 64% of UK households:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> We're already seeing the system buckle and fail. Greece crashed, Germany, France, Sweden, etc are cracking under the migrant issue to say nothing for a turning economy.
Random bullshit assertion without argumentation. None of them "crack" under the migrant issue, specially not in term of economy. The only migrant concern people have is about integration and potential security issues.
> And amongst all this... you want to dramatically expand government expenses and raise taxes?
If you would have read a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you want to dramatically expand government expenses and raise taxes?
[citation needed]
Most of the people advocating UBI point to the fact that the gains from reducing the bureaucracy concerning welfare to approximately zero means a dramatically reduced governmental expense, not an increase.
Whether taxes would need to be raised or not depends on many factors, not the least of which is how large the UBI needs to be. Some sectors could see raised taxes, some could see lowered.
Re:They can't afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever the subject of a basic income comes up, this same argument is made. But it's simply not true:
There's already scores of people who -for whatever reasons- aren't part of the work force. Usually they do have an income. Be it a retirement allowance (65+), some disability provision, some temporary allowance between jobs, etc, etc. Replace that with a basic income, and the net financial result is the same. Minus the overhead.
People who do have a job, often get various allowances too: low-income rent subsidies, health care benefits, child support, the list goes on. Replace that with a basic income, adjust tax levels such that [previous net income + allowances] = [basic income + new net income], and again net result is the same. Minus the overhead.
As a poster in a previous discussion remarked: this can be done gradually by giving a basic income to select group(s) of people, and then one-by-one, roll various other groups into the same regime. Reducing the governments' administrative overhead at each step along the way.
Bottom line: yes, western countries can afford this, period. Because in one way or another, they already do. Plus the overhead, that is. What's missing is the political will (or balls ;-) to turn it into reality.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the political will that is missing. The problem is that a basic income has opponents on both the left and the right.
The left would hate it because it would mean an end to many many state jobs. The kind of jobs such as assessing whether people ought to be on benefit or not. They would also hate the idea that rich people would also get this income, and would demand that it be means tested, thereby negating a large proportion of its benefits. (This is not just theoretical - here in the UK, there is al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're already seeing the system buckle and fail. Greece crashed, Germany, France, Sweden, etc are cracking under the migrant issue to say nothing for a turning economy.
Except that these nations are actually benefiting from the influx of refugees. This is because of subsidation by the state in short term, of course, but will support itself as soon as the refugees start working and contributing to society. We're seeing these effects in Germany already. If I were King of Germany, I'd ask for more refugees (~3
Re: (Score:2)
This is mindless propaganda and rather insulting to the skilled labor in Germany. You're suggesting that the skilled labor in Germany isn't that skilled and that any yak farmer in north Africa can replace them given five minutes with a wiki on operating complicated machinery.
What you're not allowing yourself to face is the reality that many of these people are illiterate on top of all the other f'ing problems. They many can't read or write in their native tongue much less speak/read/write german.
The entire
Re: (Score:2)
As long as money can only be generated by banks committing creative bookkeeping for usury ("interest"), nothing can be afforded at all. But when the government itself can issue money, it should be perfectly feasible. Even then, I would suggest that most of the money is generated in exchange for effort for society, simply for the fact that taxes are hardly needed then anymore. The taxes then only serve to maintain financial balance and to stop inflation.
But it is a good thing when society itself (represented
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why you bothered with examples from Communism (in particular, the central planned economy), I never suggested it. You still seem stuck in the strange part of the 20th century where people forgot that an economy is a social construct to serve the people, never the other way around.
As for welfare, Rowling was on the dole when she wrote Harry Potter. Since then, she has brought BILLIONS into the economy. Produced nothing, huh? Your ideas would have kept a potentially successful author too busy bei
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, UBI payments are set at a level where you can meet your basic needs of food, housing and shelter without working at all. So employers who reduce pay to account for UBI basically won't get any employees at all, as they will choose to not work.
The other idea is that UBI is retained even if you get a low paying job -- it just becomes a net increase in income, so it serves as something of an incentive to work because even flipping burgers is financially beneficial.
As I've read about, most theorize t
Re: (Score:3)
In the short term a jobs guarantee and decent minimum wage are better solutions.
However, in a few generations we will have a world in which 1/2 to 3/4 of people are literally unemployable because there is nothing they can do a robot can't do faster, better and more efficiently. At which point the choices are going to be a "UBI" set at a level high enough to approximate a solid working-to-middle-class lifestyle (single income being enough to support a family, buy a house, take a holiday once a year, etc), o
also a cut in what is full time is needed as well (Score:3)
also a cut in what is full time is needed as well as more and more robots take over jobs we need to start cutting down the full time hours to 32-30 (over the next few years) to down to about 20 (longer term). Right now we have to many others are pulling 60-80 hour weeks. Now lets say about 20-25 years from the now most jobs are just looking over robot systems and being there to fix something / unjam something it will be better to have 2 people covering an 40 hour week vs just 1.
Re: (Score:2)
All in all, this is one of the most dangerous policies out there, due to how people only seem able to see the upsides of this policy, and not the potential dangers.
Indeed. A UBI is basically a public subsidy for business. It goes straight into profits and hence promotes more upwards wealth transfer. A jobs guarantee is a better and more equitable solution.
That said, in a few generations some sort of UBI (/"Citizens dividend") will be necessary simply because 50-75% of the population will be literally une