Opinion of Switzerland's "minimum income" proposal
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:35:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Opinion of Switzerland's "minimum income" proposal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Would you support adopting something similar in the United States?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Opinion of Switzerland's "minimum income" proposal  (Read 2420 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:49:39 PM »

Switzerland will soon vote on an initiative to provide every Swiss citizen an unconditional income of roughly $2,800 per month.

Would you support scrapping Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance and minimum wage laws and replacing all of these with a $2,800 payment, indexed to inflation and given to every American over the age of 18 every month?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2013, 08:59:22 PM »

$2,800 per month seems a bit high for the cost of living in the United States.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2013, 09:41:21 PM »

$2,800 per month seems a bit high for the cost of living in the United States.

Yes, but it's only given to adults. So most households would ostensibly be splitting one or two payments among the adults and their dependents. It's not all that high taken in that context.
Logged
Kitteh
drj101
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2013, 09:51:13 PM »

$2,800 per month seems a bit high for the cost of living in the United States.

Yes, but it's only given to adults. So most households would ostensibly be splitting one or two payments among the adults and their dependents. It's not all that high taken in that context.

In which case it would effectively amount to the government incentivizing against having children? Personally as someone who hates kids I like that idea, but it'd only work if we also greatly eased immigration restrictions (which needs to happen regardless, but yeah).
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2013, 10:30:36 PM »

$2,800 per month seems a bit high for the cost of living in the United States.

Yes, but it's only given to adults. So most households would ostensibly be splitting one or two payments among the adults and their dependents. It's not all that high taken in that context.

In which case it would effectively amount to the government incentivizing against having children?

no moreso than the present, holding the tax code steady -- there is an intrinsic dollars-and-cents incentive against having children.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2013, 03:07:20 AM »

This sounds like what Huey Long was proposing pre-New Deal.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2013, 10:02:02 AM »

A horrible idea which will fail at the ballot box.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2013, 10:41:55 AM »

I actually have a friend with dual US-Swiss citizenship.. could be end up getting checks?  (ironically he's very much on the populist from-the-bootstraps right wing in his attitudes)
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2013, 01:30:35 PM »

Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment. This leads to people being laid off and hours cut from jobs among the working class. Now unemployment goes up and more people are on welfare and food stamps. As a result we go further into debt. Taxes are then raised to pay for our debt. In turn even more people are laid off to pay for another loss of revenue. The cycle continues with the value of the dollar continuously s dropping due to the fact that a dollar buys much less as prices are also raised in order to keep up with lost revenue. It's all in the name of the "vote for me and you'll have a better life" trick politicians use to get elected to office. Remember politicians will do and say anything in order to get your vote even if they have to give the impression that they'll make your life nearly perfect. Be aware of this when voting. Don't let them fool you.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2013, 08:31:40 PM »


This, basically. In a country the size of Switzerland I suppose one could get away with a uniform level of basic income delivered but in the U.S. things would need to be a bit more complicated for it to work well.


Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment.

I think you are confusing this with the minimum wage. A basic minimum income is basically a government check one gets regardless of whether they are poor. Income from work would be in addition to this sum from the state. Businesses would not be paying workers more than they already do.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2013, 09:11:31 PM »


This, basically. In a country the size of Switzerland I suppose one could get away with a uniform level of basic income delivered but in the U.S. things would need to be a bit more complicated for it to work well.


Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment.

I think you are confusing this with the minimum wage. A basic minimum income is basically a government check one gets regardless of whether they are poor. Income from work would be in addition to this sum from the state. Businesses would not be paying workers more than they already do.

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2013, 09:33:58 PM »


This, basically. In a country the size of Switzerland I suppose one could get away with a uniform level of basic income delivered but in the U.S. things would need to be a bit more complicated for it to work well.


Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment.

I think you are confusing this with the minimum wage. A basic minimum income is basically a government check one gets regardless of whether they are poor. Income from work would be in addition to this sum from the state. Businesses would not be paying workers more than they already do.

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.

In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not have a "livable income", especially in the cities.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2013, 09:36:44 PM »

Switzerland will soon vote on an initiative to provide every Swiss citizen an unconditional income of roughly $2,800 per month.

To clarify: Is everyone receiving $2800/month regardless of income or are incomes being topped up to $2800/month?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2013, 10:04:18 PM »


This, basically. In a country the size of Switzerland I suppose one could get away with a uniform level of basic income delivered but in the U.S. things would need to be a bit more complicated for it to work well.


Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment.

I think you are confusing this with the minimum wage. A basic minimum income is basically a government check one gets regardless of whether they are poor. Income from work would be in addition to this sum from the state. Businesses would not be paying workers more than they already do.

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.

In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not have a "livable income", especially in the cities.

Which is great. The government shouldn't do what Switzerland is doing.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2013, 10:38:54 PM »


This, basically. In a country the size of Switzerland I suppose one could get away with a uniform level of basic income delivered but in the U.S. things would need to be a bit more complicated for it to work well.


Most in the private sector wouldn't like this. Minimal income proposals actually hurt the economy because the more money a company has to pay an employee, the less they have for further employment.

I think you are confusing this with the minimum wage. A basic minimum income is basically a government check one gets regardless of whether they are poor. Income from work would be in addition to this sum from the state. Businesses would not be paying workers more than they already do.

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.

In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not have a "livable income", especially in the cities.

Which is great. The government shouldn't do what Switzerland is doing.

...I meant that they literally cannot live on what they earn.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2013, 11:42:49 PM »

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.

I suppose it depends on how one implements it. I don't think it necessitates an increase to the debt or even more printing of money, however, if implemented wisely in concert with reforms to other policies. The liberal welfare regime the U.S. already has is very unattractive to me for several reasons, though I suppose to be fair there are much worse ways to go.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2013, 12:56:31 AM »

Switzerland will soon vote on an initiative to provide every Swiss citizen an unconditional income of roughly $2,800 per month.

To clarify: Is everyone receiving $2800/month regardless of income or are incomes being topped up to $2800/month?

My understanding of the Swiss initiative is that every single Swiss adult, from the person who is unemployed and has no income or assets up to the multibillionaire, will receive the same $2,800 per month.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2013, 01:11:25 AM »

I understand what they're proposing, but it's going to put them very far in debt. If our country provided everyone with a livable income, then it would no longer be a livable income because inflation would skyrocket. It's not literally the same as minimum wage, but it's the same concept which would kill our dollar and cause prices to go up. Now a country like Switzerland might be able to get away with such a thing. I'm not sure. Basically, the idea is the exact opposite of my economic philosophy. This isn't to say we should end programs of benefit such as social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and even some entitlements such as food stamps and WIC. Just giving people money is another story.

I suppose it depends on how one implements it. I don't think it necessitates an increase to the debt or even more printing of money, however, if implemented wisely in concert with reforms to other policies. The liberal welfare regime the U.S. already has is very unattractive to me for several reasons, though I suppose to be fair there are much worse ways to go.

I'm ok with welfare programs as long as there are rules and limits to prevent fraud. We want the best for our society. 
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2013, 10:19:50 AM »

So this scheme affords an option in life to just sit on your butt doing nothing, and get $2,800.00 a month?  No. It is not so much about the money (heck it might actually end up being cheaper dollar for dollar than going the more complex route in fashioning social safety nets); it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients (e.g., the impact on the recipients of the AFDC program that Clinton finally interred). It's bad enough having to endure the antics of the relatively small cohort of the trust fund babies out there.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2013, 11:18:24 AM »

So this scheme affords an option in life to just sit on your butt doing nothing, and get $2,800.00 a month?  No. It is not so much about the money (heck it might actually end up being cheaper dollar for dollar than going the more complex route in fashioning social safety nets); it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients (e.g., the impact on the recipients of the AFDC program that Clinton finally interred). It's bad enough having to endure the antics of the relatively small cohort of the trust fund babies out there.

This is exactly what would happen if such a thing happened. No one would work and there would be no productivity. We'd have a country of lazy pot heads.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2013, 12:03:10 PM »

it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients

Never seen any medical literature saying people became afflicted with mental illness when given a living wage... actually quite the opposite.

Not sure how this scheme would work.  Details do matter.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM »

it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients

Never seen any medical literature saying people became afflicted with mental illness when given a living wage... actually quite the opposite.

Not sure how this scheme would work.  Details do matter.

Speaking of details, I said "mental well being," not "mental illness," which to me implies psychosis. I was referring more to self esteem, a sense of purpose, less ennui, and that sort of thing, which for most people (yes, I know opebo that you are out there), is quite highly correlated with happiness.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2013, 04:43:35 AM »

So this scheme affords an option in life to just sit on your butt doing nothing, and get $2,800.00 a month?  No. It is not so much about the money (heck it might actually end up being cheaper dollar for dollar than going the more complex route in fashioning social safety nets); it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients (e.g., the impact on the recipients of the AFDC program that Clinton finally interred). It's bad enough having to endure the antics of the relatively small cohort of the trust fund babies out there.

But the underlined is the entire purpose of the society in which you live, Torie.  To serve those idle rich.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2013, 11:11:01 AM »

it is more about what I fear would be the impact on the mental well being and self esteem of the recipients

Never seen any medical literature saying people became afflicted with mental illness when given a living wage... actually quite the opposite.

Not sure how this scheme would work.  Details do matter.

Speaking of details, I said "mental well being," not "mental illness," which to me implies psychosis.

That is the narrowest definition of "mental illness" I've ever heard.  What percentage of people with a diagnosable mental illness suffer from psychosis?  Your venn diagram is flipped.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2013, 12:44:47 PM »

A horrible idea which will fail at the ballot box.

     Yeah, this doesn't strike me as something that would be too likely to pass there.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 11 queries.