Switzerland votes on giving citizens $2500 a month

[TiLT]

There are those of us that don't want to be entrepreneurs.

Yes? I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Brings to mind one of Churchill's most famous aphorisms:

“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

[Alefroth]

Universal Basic Income is an idea that deserves some discussion, but you should really start it in R&P.

Economics isn't really political unless someone makes it that way.

Yeah, that would never happen.

There is no way any gov't jobs in all those different free hand out branches of the gov't are EVER going away, so they'll never be able to do it. It would probably be cheaper with less fraud and waste than what we have now. The right would never go along with it because there's no way they would trust the left in regard to the amount that the gov't would shrink. Somehow the left would find a way to keep all those Federale jobs too.

I'm pretty sure that when folk blew thru their $2500 we'd start looking for ways to help them all over again.

[em2nought]

Universal Basic Income is an idea that deserves some discussion, but you should really start it in R&P.

Economics isn't really political unless someone makes it that way.

Yeah, that would never happen.

There is no way any gov't jobs in all those different free hand out branches of the gov't are EVER going away, so they'll never be able to do it. It would probably be cheaper with less fraud and waste than what we have now. The right would never go along with it because there's no way they would trust the left in regard to the amount that the gov't would shrink. Somehow the left would find a way to keep all those Federale jobs too.

I'm pretty sure that when folk blew thru their $2500 we'd start looking for ways to help them all over again.

That was pretty evenly stated I thought, saying that both sides would screw it up. Maybe I needed a bit more vigor against the current "right".

[Alefroth]

I didn't say it was partisan. It was definitely political. Nearly the entire discussion has been.

[Kraken]

Remus, in Switzerland, they are going to give money to EVERYONE if the measure passes. Not just those in need. Everyone. That's why Cheeba is making those calculations.

Guaranteed minimum income and universal minimum income are two different things. If you're talking about the latter, it also replaces most of Social Security and Medicare. The former is essentially just a negative income tax.

There was a podcast on this recently.

It would be for everyone and it does two really good things. It completely simplifies welfare. It also doesn't end benefits for working.

We are going to have something like it eventually. It's just a matter of when.

Yeah, it's a question of whether/when we do it openly or below the boards. Right now, Social Security's disability program is absorbing a lot of people who can't otherwise get any money anywhere.

I think you underestimate how strongly that would be opposed by the conservative base in this country. If it ever happens, it would have to follow a seismic shift in the political environment. I'm talking the near complete destruction of even the most tenuous right wing movement.

Nixon was one of the strongest proponents in modern times. Conservatives like the way a guaranteed income sweeps away huge swaths of bureaucracy and gives the poor control over their own lives. It only works if the guaranteed income replaces other redistributive programs, not if it supplements them.

Money inevitably rolls uphill. Virtually all of those minimum income payments will eventually wind up in the pockets of the rich. Conservatives like that, too.

[Jeff V]

Yeah, it's a question of whether/when we do it openly or below the boards. Right now, Social Security's disability program is absorbing a lot of people who can't otherwise get any money anywhere.

Getting rid of administrative costs is a big requirement -- I don't think you can do it piecemeal. It would seem to me that Social Security probably has the closest (and large enough) infrastructure to handle it, The rest have just got to go.

I don't know what sort of effect this will have on inflation though. The whole minimum wage concept is fucked up because it doesn't keep pace with inflation. If the idea is to provide a minimum security blanket defined by the purchasing power of $2500 per person per month today; if it doesn't scale with inflation, soon it will not be enough and again there will be a need for supplemental programs. While I'd love to have an additional $6250 in my budget, if it translates to only $2000 in purchasing power today, then my normal income would be commensurately devalued and in the end the whole thing wouldn't work out so well.

[The Meal]

I nearly posted this link when I read it a month ago. Seems like a fascinating concept... for some other population to try out first.

[Zarathud]

Republican support will evaporate the moment checks are delivered. Inevitably a check will go to the wrong person or address. Or even worse an illegal or terrorist. Then Rip and the GOP will be OUTRAGED!

The idea that the US government will agree to pay people trillions as an entitlement and then stop collecting income tax is laughable. It's an illusion posing as a Republican policy.

[gbasden]

Here in the US the government would rather pay $1000 for a toilet seat than give back tax money.

Give it back or redistribute it?

I did think that comment was rather interesting given that from what I've gleaned Daehawk is definitely a beneficiary of government assistance, rather than someone who is paying confiscatory taxes. The government is "giving back" that tax money all the time.

[noxiousdog]

I nearly posted this link when I read it a month ago. Seems like a fascinating concept... for some other population to try out first.

Thanks for that. It was interesting.

[The Meal]

I nearly posted this link when I read it a month ago. Seems like a fascinating concept... for some other population to try out first.

Thanks for that. It was interesting.

Here's the update.

[Moliere]

Swiss reject free income plan after worker vs. robot debate

Provisional final results showed 76.9 percent of voters opposed the bold social experiment launched by Basel cafe owner Daniel Haeni and allies in a vote under the Swiss system of direct democracy.

Haeni acknowledged defeat but claimed a moral victory.

"As a businessman I am a realist and had reckoned with 15 percent support, now it looks like more than 20 percent or maybe even 25 percent. I find that fabulous and sensational," he told SRF.

"When I see the media interest, from abroad as well, then I say we are setting a trend."

[Max Peck]

Will Finland's basic income trial help the jobless?

"I was so surprised when I got the letter, and a bit sceptical too," says Liisa Ronkainen, one of 2,000 Finns chosen for a government experiment to provide unemployed people with a basic income.

Out of work for half a year, Liisa, 26 and from Helsinki, has been looking for a job without success.

"While I'm unemployed I will only get €36 more per month with the basic income. I've always been positive about the idea, though, so it was nice to be one of those who were chosen."

Basic income has frequently been suggested as a way of cutting welfare bureaucracy as well as poverty.

But one of the main reasons why Finland's social insurance agency Kela is trying out the monthly tax-free payment of €560 (£490; $600) is to see whether providing a basic income will make the unemployed more eager to go into short-term jobs.

Finland has some 213,000 unemployed, a higher rate than its Nordic neighbours, and a working population of 2,413,000. Short-term contracts here have steadily become a key feature of Finland's labour market.

The benefit system in many cases provides people with little incentive to go into low-income jobs because welfare is generally cut back if you start earning.

"Every single euro that a person earns diminishes his or her social benefits," says Olli Kangas, head of society relations at Kela.

"In some cases an unemployed person is afraid of losing their benefits in the future, if he or she receives a temporary employment."

Apparently the Ontario provincial government plans to conduct a pilot guaranteed minimum income project this year.

An Angus Reid Institute poll this summer also found broad skepticism among Canadians, with almost two-thirds of respondents indicating they would not be willing to pay more taxes to support a program providing $30,000 guaranteed annual income.

Ontario's own proposal is mindful of net costs. The February budget said the proposed pilot would "test whether a basic income would provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas, such as health care and housing supports."

Segal says his forthcoming report will lay out a balanced calculus of risks and benefits. But it's clear he's sold on the idea, having grown up in an impoverished working-class family in Montreal before the advent of universal health care.

[gameoverman]

I think it's an interesting idea but there are some issues with giving out a guaranteed income.

One, any system can be exploited and gamed. I don't care what kind of income system you create, someone will find a way to commit fraud. So all the people who freak out over welfare fraud, for example, will have a cow when they see what happens with a guaranteed income system.

Two, it needs to be part of an overall social system that accounts for the 'income' way of doing things, as opposed the social safety net system we have now. If you add the costs of the income to what we have now, it's impossibly expensive. If you cut what we have now in favor of the income, then that income is making people worse off than they are now. What good is getting X dollars in income if now you have no access to medical care, etc unless you pay for it with that income? Good luck coming up with such a huge overhaul of our social systems without alienating vast numbers of people and thereby facing insurmountable political obstacles. We can't even all agree people should have access to healthcare, and that's a baby step compared to what people would need to agree on.

Lastly but not leastly, people will do ridiculous things with their money, they do it now when they have some. There's no stopping that, there's no fixing that. If something like this is instituted, be ready to see lots of new car driving, 4k tv owning, two hundred dollar sneaker wearing poor people. Hopefully people won't get mad, because I also think a lot of people would use their resources to improve their lives, so there's actually a net gain there. It's just that the most obvious bad apples will get all the attention, and they would get A LOT of attention.

[Kraken]

It's just that the most obvious bad apples will get all the attention, and they would get A LOT of attention.

Particularly true in the US with our ingrained work ethic. I wonder if the same can be said of the Scandahoovian countries. We are more inclined to favor a make-work approach here.

Some sort of basic support system will inevitably be necessary as automation makes more and more people redundant and our hodgepodge of restrictive aid programs grows more and more unwieldy. I like the simplicity behind the basic income idea and hope these pilot projects show encouraging results. The US will be among the last countries to get on board with that approach, though, just as we cling to our overpriced and underperforming health care system based upon private insurance in the face of ample evidence that it's a failing approach. We're just pigheaded that way.

[Paingod]

I'll add that I'm more worried about what attitudes people will have about it more than the actual process and distribution. There seems to be a staggering number of people (probably still a low percentage) who feel like they're simply entitled to government aid and taxpayer dollars. Doubling down on that, a good percentage of these folks are the most ignorant, rudest, and/or vilest customers we get. I don't want to see more of that.

The cynic in me doesn't see "Basic Income" as a means to enlighten and enrich anyone, but it seems like a great way to let people slide further into overall decay; too many people see free money and would just stop trying. I still don't see a way around it, either, unless we revert to Communism and bread rations once computers and robots perform 95% of our labor.

What form of government and guidance best supports a population that doesn't need to work anymore? I wish we'd get all Star Trek Federation and everyone would set out to become the best "Me" they could be, but I just don't see it. I see us being more like Wall-E, only less clean and far less polite.

[Max Peck]

Ontario is moving ahead with the guaranteed minimum income pilot project.

Canada's largest province is experimenting with giving poor people a basic income with no strings attached.

The three-year study will test whether this basic income is better than current social welfare programmes.

Randomly selected participants living in three communities in Ontario will be given at least C$16,989 ($12,600, £9,850) a year to live on.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said it is time to be "bold" in figuring out how to help society's most vulnerable.

"This is no time to retreat, this is no time for government to cling to the status quo," she said when the pilot was announced on Monday.

Ontario is not the only one trying this policy out.

Finland recently launched its own trial in January, and the Scottish government has expressed interest.

The idea is popular with both progressives and libertarians alike because it has the potential to reduce poverty and cut out red tape.

Ontario's pilot project will roll out in Hamilton and Thunder Bay this spring, and Lindsay this fall.

The program will cost C$50m a year, and will include 4,000 households from across those three communities. Participants must have lived in one of the areas for over a year, be between 18-64 and be living on a lower income.

Single adults will be given a yearly income of C$16,989, while couples will earn C$24,027, minus 50% of any income earned from a job.

By allowing people to keep part of their earnings, the government hopes people will be encouraged to work and not rely solely on assistance.

"It's not an extravagant sum by any means," Wynne said, noting that many people who are struggling in the province are employed part-time and need additional assistance to make ends meet.

[LawBeefaroni]

So it's based on need and there is an incentive to earn an income, at least up to the cutoff amount.

Will be interesting to watch.

[stessier]

I think the best way to handle the phase out is to not cap how much you can earn, just that you only collect the amount minus 50% of your earnings. So you'll get assistance right up until you've doubled the initial assistance. That way, there is no incentive to stop trying to earn more.

This isn't really the same idea as Switzerland, though. They planned to just give it to everyone. This plan is really just assistance to the low incomes.

[LawBeefaroni]

I think the best way to handle the phase out is to not cap how much you can earn, just that you only collect the amount minus 50% of your earnings. So you'll get assistance right up until you've doubled the initial assistance. That way, there is no incentive to stop trying to earn more.

It's not clear if the cap is just to qualify for the initial trial or if it's a requirement of continued participation as well. I would hope just the former.

[Vorret]

2500$ per month is more than I make I'm slightly jealous right now

[Isgrimnur]

Cost of living in Zurich is 102% that of Montreal.

Swiss Info

The cost of living in Switzerland is among the highest in the world, with the cities of Zurich and Geneva recently named the most expensive worldwide.
...
It costs a Zurich family of three more than $3,600 (CHF3,569 in February 2016) a month to live, based on a basket of 122 goods and services that doesn’t include rent, the report shows. Geneva comes in second at $3,500 per month, followed by New York with $3,340. Rent for a two-bedroom unfurnished apartment averages around $2,390 a month in Zurich.

[Vorret]

Cost of living in Zurich is 102% that of Montreal.

Swiss Info

The cost of living in Switzerland is among the highest in the world, with the cities of Zurich and Geneva recently named the most expensive worldwide.
...
It costs a Zurich family of three more than $3,600 (CHF3,569 in February 2016) a month to live, based on a basket of 122 goods and services that doesn’t include rent, the report shows. Geneva comes in second at $3,500 per month, followed by New York with $3,340. Rent for a two-bedroom unfurnished apartment averages around $2,390 a month in Zurich.

Yeah I do live in a small town with a relatively low cost of living that obviously affect salaries in general, I can't expect to make 50K working in IT here.

[Isgrimnur]

Guardian

Europe’s first national, government-backed basic income experiment did not do much to encourage recipients into work but did improve their mental wellbeing, confidence and life satisfaction, according to the first big study of a Finnish scheme that has attracted fresh interest in the coronavirus outbreak.

“The basic income recipients were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain than the control group,” the study, by researchers at Helsinki University, concluded. “They also had a more positive perception of their economic welfare.”
...
Finland’s two-year scheme, which ran in 2017 and 2018 and attracted widespread international interest, paid 2,000 randomly selected unemployed people across the country a regular monthly income of €560 (£490), with no obligation to seek a job and no reduction in their payment if they accepted one.
...
The researchers also noted a mild positive effect on employment, particularly in certain categories, such as families with children, adding that participants also tended to score better on other measures of wellbeing, including greater feelings of autonomy, financial security, and confidence in the future.
...
It also encouraged some participants to get more involved in society, by undertaking voluntary work, for example. “Some found the guaranteed income increased the possibility for them to do things like providing informal care for their family or their neighbours,” said one of the researchers, Christian Kroll.
...
Kroll said the results of the study could support arguments both for and against basic income. “But as we’ve all learned in the early part of 2020, insecurity is not a good way to live,” he said.