Too good to be true?

[Wyvern]

General discussion thread

Switzerland Will Vote to Give All Adults a Guaranteed $2,800 Monthly Income

Swiss residents will soon vote on an initiative that would guarantee a basic monthly income of 2,500 Swiss franks ($2,800) for all working adults in the country to combat income inequality across the nation.

Can it work? Well here's someone who thinks so:

What is..... Universal Basic Income?

It is clear that the underlying principle of a universal bureaucracy-free welfare system has a great deal of appeal to people from either side of the political spectrum, given that it has supporters from either extreme (from Bertrand Russell to Fredrich Hayek) and many in between.

One might assume that the concept of universal welfare is completely at odds with free-market capitalism, but it isn't. Universal Basic Income would increase the competitivity of the market by freeing people from concerns over their basic human needs, and giving them the liberty to start their own businesses. A rise in the number of small businesses would increase market competition and promote greater efficiency.

If the free-market capitalist believes in any form of welfare at all, then the logical form to support would be the form that involves the least government interference and the smallest amount of costly bureaucracy, which would quite clearly take the form of some kind of universal income, rather than a bureaucratically administered means-tested benefit.

the absurd idea that the only way in which it is possible to contribute to society is through paid labour. The idea that the individual is incapable of contributing anything at all to society apart from through submission to capitalist exploitation. This stance is ludicrous nonsense, not only because the individual would contribute to the economy every time they spent or saved their Universal Basic Income, but also because non-remunerated activities such as bringing up children, caring for elderly or disabled relatives, volunteering for charities or investing time in unpaid endeavours such as education, writing or the arts are all clearly contributions to society, it's just that they are much less easily monetised by the "cost of everything, value of nothing" brigade, so they are dismissed as worthless "non-contributions".

 

[TheKnightWho]

Isn't this just a massive disincentive for people to do anything other than the most basic of jobs?

 

[ainsworth74]

Depends on how much money you want. If you're happy living on around £1,700 per month (and I assume that's going to be it in terms of benefits so no extra's on top) then I suppose so but that seems to be the idea. Work if you want to and earn more or focus on doing other things that might not make loads of money but have other value less financial value.

 

[Wyvern]

So long as people can resist complicating it. What used to be called Parkinson's Law (the version in his book)

 

[SS4]

Isn't the cost of living much higher in Switzerland?

 

[Butts]

Isn't the cost of living much higher in Switzerland?

On my annual pilgrimage to The Geneva Motor Show I can verify the above statement.

The only cheap things are the free Train Ticket to the City on arrival by Air and the Free Public Transport ticket issued at your Hotel valid for the duration of your stay.

Mcdonalds Meal about £8-£9 twice the price of the UK

The plummeting value of the pound against the Swiss Franc has not helped, it used to be over 2 to the pound but is about 1.30 or 1.40 these days.

 

[455driver]

£1700 a month, f##k working for a living, where do I sign on!

 

[Wyvern]

You're a train driver and you think £20,000 odd a year is enough for you?

 

[TheKnightWho]

£1700 a month, f##k working for a living, where do I sign on!

This is exactly what I meant.

 

[Wyvern]

I can think of hundreds of people who receive much more than this and still go on working.

If £1700 a month was all you wanted you could do the most basic jobs,which after all need doing, leaving others free to go on to earn higher money in other jobs.

 

[WestCoast]

You're a train driver and you think £20,000 odd a year is enough for you?

It is probably more like £11,000 - £13,000 if you take the cost of living Switzerland vs UK into account.

 

[Monty]

All this initiative will achieve is to drive up the cost of living further in a country where it is already absurdly high.

 

[Wyvern]

This I think, is the main possible problem.

Back in the 'sixties in this country, not many wives worked and most families could get by on one income.

Over the years, both partners have continued working and the economy has shifted so that families struggle with only one partbner earning.

 

[beeza1]

This I think, is the main possible problem.

Back in the 'sixties in this country, not many wives worked and most families could get by on one income.

Over the years, both partners have continued working and the economy has shifted so that families struggle with only one partbner earning.

Back in the day, early seventies I think, when equal pay was starting to be introduced I remember an "old boy" telling me "women get paid less than men because then when they give up work to have children the household budget won't be affected as much", he also reckoned "if they do get equal pay it will mean less money for us men". Bit sexist I know, based on fact? I doubt it, but I did find it quite amusing.

 

[Wyvern]

I mentioned that (slightly off topic) as example of how the balance of the economy can change unxpectedly.

Another was when Thatcher gave everyone massive tax reductions which led to a housing bubble.

Classical free market theory is that competition drives prices down. In fact what happens is that companies will charge "as much as the market can bear." In this case,clearly, if the suggested scheme was adopted then measures would be needed to control inflation.

 

[radamfi]

This I think, is the main possible problem.

Back in the 'sixties in this country, not many wives worked and most families could get by on one income.

Over the years, both partners have continued working and the economy has shifted so that families struggle with only one partbner earning.

I'm not entirely convinced that you need to have both partners working to avoid 'struggling'. People just spend expand their spending to the available income so when one income stops they 'feel' poor.

 

[Wyvern]

Well I guess it depends how much each partner is earning.

Its not really relevant to the OP. I just used it as an example of how slight changes can have unexpected consequences