Today, the Switzerland vote for or against a universal income (the result will be against, but ...). You would like the creation of a universal income ? What is your opinion about it ?
General / Off-Topic The universal income
- Thread starter Patrick_68000
- Start date
From the little I've read I think it's a neat idea. The current bureaucracy costs for evaluating and distributing welfare are horrendous, it would practically do away with that.
It would also help to do away with all of that stigma that surrounds people receiving disablitity/unemployment welfare.
It would also help to do away with all of that stigma that surrounds people receiving disablitity/unemployment welfare.
Minonian
Banned
Economically is a diseaster, and politically is stupid as hell.
Its buying votes.
And where you got the money for it? somewhere else? Well... That money is going to miss in there. Or you just keep printing money, and doing so water it down? Because the money only worth as much than the work or value behind it. And if everyone get money for free, without even giving work or something valuable in return guess what's happens?
Socially?
Don't get me started! But its a bad idea, what happens with you if get everything for free? You became an unviable sloth.
Its buying votes.
And where you got the money for it? somewhere else? Well... That money is going to miss in there. Or you just keep printing money, and doing so water it down? Because the money only worth as much than the work or value behind it. And if everyone get money for free, without even giving work or something valuable in return guess what's happens?
Socially?
Don't get me started! But its a bad idea, what happens with you if get everything for free? You became an unviable sloth.
Last edited:
The Swiss have said no. They had already said no, to extend the paid leaves of four weeks to six weeks. The human stupidity has no limits
The notion, in itself would work quite well in principal, but as you point out, buying votes.
Our Social Security system for example, originally sought to achieve that aim. Then 1968, then PM Wilson tried to buy votes by introducing Family Income Supplement, which quickly morphed into Supplementary Benefit.
That attracted so many add-ons for claimants, council house rents reduced to a pound a week, public transport for almost nothing, access to public facilities such as sports for 10P, for example, that it quickly became uneconomic to work. That directly cause the financial collapse of the late 70s.
A guaranteed income in itself would more than pay for itself by ensuring the money supply continues to circulate.
But a minimum income would, by definition, be set at the minimum needed to survive and that would price many jobs out of the market, since a significant section of the workforce lives of the absolute minimum.
Last edited:
No, but Supplementary Benefit became so easy to get and continue to claim for years on end not to mention so profitable that it was effectively a minimum income.
Minonian
Banned
So you saying its messed up, and used to buy the votes of the lover class instead of giving them the chance to became better, rise up? typical socialist mistake. They thinking they are helping you, and the same time they getting your vote.
Well, they are actually giving you money what is liberate you from the burden of work. And if you don't need to work, than you don't. Why waste your time into something what's unnecessary right?
The problem with this they are also making you addicted to their help, their money, without the hope to say no, because you getting used to do nothing and have money.
"Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime"
Last edited:
The problem is that in Europe (and in the world), there are tens of millions of unemployed and hundreds of millions of poor workers and slaves, because there is no work. 1% of the world population owns 90% of global wealth. They are thieves and parasites. The big bosses, the bankers, the speculators ect ... They should return the money to the people, and a universal income is an intelligent solution. These hundreds of millions of poor people, now do not consume and do not participate in the economy. A universal income would stimulate the consumption and create jobs. The universal income without conditions, would also allow people to release itself, from the blackmail to the employment and of the social dumping. And mechanically would force the employers to propose the quality jobs and well paid.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Newspaper article, interesting. It would be also necessary to take back the 90 % of the world wealth that the 1% of the thieves and the parasites have stolen on the back of the workers slaves. And forbid the monthly salaries superior to hundred times the minimum wage
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
than make!
The problem is within the economic system it's allows the wealth, to sit idly while is do nothing. One of the best resolution is negative interest if in long term you do nothing with your money, than its began to shrink and this effectively forcing you to use another form of wealth saving method, like wealth creating investments. This is necessary because as its sits idly its still exists and missing from the global market. what leaves 2 option the poorer are either did not get paid, or you start printing money. what causes the money lose its value. Still better resolution than let the money where is, but its resolves almost nothing. Because?
1, most of the money goes to this 1% so you do nothing else just keeping the money pump working.
2, the thin money is worthless.
Aye!
One of the 7 deadly sin! The green eyed monster. Jealousy, in his red version (neo)communist / marxist revolution. Know what? THX! But no THX! We east Europeans very well know the real worth of the communist bullsh**. Allow me to demonstrate.
I already said everything about universal income, whats needed to know, and with that i'm also answered your intelligent resolution. Its not creates job its makes the people addicted to the state money.
Last edited:
This is wrong on a number of levels.
No. The costs are more than offset by the benefits, namely keeping the money supply moving.
Conjecture. Offset by making participation in the workforce more attractive than living on a universal income.
The principal can work if the level is set low enough to make working attractive.
But what has been missed, seemingly, is that here in the UK we already have a universal income. Those with no means of support can receive income support and assistance to return to the workforce.
It is true that it is complicated and it is more easier to speak than to make. But it is true also that the current economy is clearly unsatisfactory. The solution will pass necessarily by a redistribution of the wealth, a work sharing and a revolution of the mentalities concerning the importance of the work in the life of a person
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
It's cannot be forced.
And here is a thing about the equality nonsense of the reds. We must be equal in the face of law, but we are not equal in any other terms, abilities, luck, wealth, birthright, ects ects ects...
Now tell me, how just is to take something away from the others what is rightfully theirs?
So, no you can't take it away from the others what they have just like that! All you can do, is the iron out the problems from the economical system, like the one what i mentioned.
Though strangely, it already has.
Minonian
Banned
I'd vote yes. I'm not gonna get into the economics of it all because everyone says something different and I don't know who to believe - besides, I can't be bothered getting into an argument...but I think you've gotta look after your neighbour if you want a healthy world. Give everyone food, a home and medical care...and if you want more, try to contribute to the world that's keeping you at the very least, alive and healthy.
Technology changes everything.
Things I think should be free for everyone, regardless of how much of a lazy bum they are:
- Food and water
- Housing
- Heating
- Electricity
- Communications (phone/internet)
- Medical care
- Mass transit systems (bus or train)
- Basically stuff to keep you alive and reasonably sane/happy/healthy
etc
Things I think are fair that you should work for:
- Consumer electronics (TVs, computers, etc)
- Luxury goods (designer clothes or whatever)
- Luxury transport (planes and boats)
- Personal vehicle and fuel
- Holidays
- Fancy house
- Alcohol and party goods
- Basically things which make life fun and interesting
etc
Now, I don't think we're actually too far from this situation at the moment. The two main changes that would make this possible are first of all, we take all of the billions and billions and billions of dollars which are in the bank accounts of the stupidly rich (where it's just sitting there not doing anyone any good) and redistribute it back into circulation...and secondly, we just don't threaten a person's survival if they're unable to find a job (by providing them with their basic needs).
One other thing, I also wonder whether some of the less desirable, crappy or stressful jobs should pay significantly more. After all, having a nice, comfortable job is kinda a reward in itself.
Technology changes everything.
Things I think should be free for everyone, regardless of how much of a lazy bum they are:
- Food and water
- Housing
- Heating
- Electricity
- Communications (phone/internet)
- Medical care
- Mass transit systems (bus or train)
- Basically stuff to keep you alive and reasonably sane/happy/healthy
etc
Things I think are fair that you should work for:
- Consumer electronics (TVs, computers, etc)
- Luxury goods (designer clothes or whatever)
- Luxury transport (planes and boats)
- Personal vehicle and fuel
- Holidays
- Fancy house
- Alcohol and party goods
- Basically things which make life fun and interesting
etc
Now, I don't think we're actually too far from this situation at the moment. The two main changes that would make this possible are first of all, we take all of the billions and billions and billions of dollars which are in the bank accounts of the stupidly rich (where it's just sitting there not doing anyone any good) and redistribute it back into circulation...and secondly, we just don't threaten a person's survival if they're unable to find a job (by providing them with their basic needs).
One other thing, I also wonder whether some of the less desirable, crappy or stressful jobs should pay significantly more. After all, having a nice, comfortable job is kinda a reward in itself.
Last edited: