Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Squeeky

Citizens Income In Switzerland

Recommended Posts

2500Fr (£1755) per month. I looked up food prices and found the minimum recommeded cost per day for 2400 calories is 600Fr.

Addtional (http://*******.com/avfdscx - based on living in Zurich):

Basic Health insurance = 250Fr

Furnished 2-bed flat = 2600Fr

Electricity = 325Fr

Maybe 25% cheaper if not in Zurich(?) so:

3150Fr * 75% = 2362Fr

Fag packet total: ~3000Fr.

So if house prices weren't so ridiculous then you could probaly live of it - I managed to link to house prices after all, I'm just like the Daily Mail ma!


Critics of the measure say that disconnecting the link between work done and money earned would be bad for society.

...

Che Wagner from the campaign group Basic Income Switzerland, says ... In Switzerland over 50% of total work that is done is unpaid.


If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland.

Time to leave the EU?


In Finland, the government is considering a trial to give basic income to about 8,000 people from low-income groups.

And in the Dutch city of Utrecht is also developing a pilot project which will begin in January 2017.

The idea is gaining momentum slowly. I don't think it will be stoppable in the long run (50 years) with the levels of automation that are coming on line.

A shame that only 25% of them support it. Absolutly the way to go in my opinion.

Edited by doahh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social help minimum is about 3,000 a month, of course the 2500 will be taxable & it will replace ALL other benefits such as OAP, Unemployment benefit & housing benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this on the news but the way it was reported/presented was misleading to say the least.

It should have been reported that using the UK system as an example

1) Tax codes will be abolished meaning everyone will pay tax on anything they earn.

2) Unemployment benefits will be scrapped.

3) State Pension will be removed.

4) N.I. will be halved to cover basic healthcare, disability support, social care etc, the balance being transferred to general taxation where it belongs in reality.

There would then be no such thing as unemployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/would-you-to-like-receive-21000-basic-income-from-the-government/

The Labour Party and the IRA sympathiser John Mcdonnell are to look into it, though all retired public sector workers, those on tax credits, landlords in receipt of Housing Benefit and many more are already on the layabout payroll and its not exactly fixed the economy.

This really is an utterly arrogant idea where Europeans seem to think that they can run a failing economy and then pay everyone to do sweet FA, the currencies of these nations will be decimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is gaining momentum slowly. I don't think it will be stoppable in the long run (50 years) with the levels of automation that are coming on line.

A shame that only 25% of them support it. Absolutly the way to go in my opinion.

Earlier polls indicated that many more of them support the concept, just didn't vote for it at such a high level. But the point is the direction of travel - and the way it's getting coverage abroad as in the UK, so that a whole lot more people here will now be pondering the idea for the first time. And yes, it's bound to happen in some form to ensure the robotic revolution goes reasonably smoothly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/would-you-to-like-receive-21000-basic-income-from-the-government/

The Labour Party and the IRA sympathiser John Mcdonnell are to look into it, though all retired public sector workers, those on tax credits, landlords in receipt of Housing Benefit and many more are already on the layabout payroll and its not exactly fixed the economy.

This really is an utterly arrogant idea where Europeans seem to think that they can run a failing economy and then pay everyone to do sweet FA, the currencies of these nations will be decimated.

Not sure what McDonnell's Irish-question views have to do with it. One of the political merits of CI is the way people from across the traditional spectrum support it, albeit for varying reasons. True enough that the present tax-credit system isn't so good as it sets up big benefits traps, as has often been pointed out and discussed on this forum.

Interesting you mentioned Europeans - I was just thinking that all the feelers being put out at the moment (Finland, Utrecht, Switzerland) are in northern Europe. Or have I missed some? Are there any e.g. N. American cities, or Asian areas attempting to trial the like? I fancy S Korea might have a go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier polls indicated that many more of them support the concept, just didn't vote for it at such a high level. But the point is the direction of travel - and the way it's getting coverage abroad as in the UK, so that a whole lot more people here will now be pondering the idea for the first time. And yes, it's bound to happen in some form to ensure the robotic revolution goes reasonably smoothly.

Not sure what McDonnell's Irish-question views have to do with it. One of the political merits of CI is the way people from across the traditional spectrum support it, albeit for varying reasons. True enough that the present tax-credit system isn't so good as it sets up big benefits traps, as has often been pointed out and discussed on this forum.

Interesting you mentioned Europeans - I was just thinking that all the feelers being put out at the moment (Finland, Utrecht, Switzerland) are in northern Europe. Or have I missed some? Are there any e.g. N. American cities, or Asian areas attempting to trial the like? I fancy S Korea might have a go!

No main party backed it in Switzerland.

South Koreas economy is reliant on manufacturing, if i was a welder and given the opportunity to live an ok life on CI or have a little bit more for working shift in an awful job i know which one most would choose.

It really is fantasy economics and nothing more.

Working less hours i can understand but if you pay people to do nothing that's exactly what they'll do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working less hours i can understand but if you pay people to do nothing that's exactly what they'll do.

That's already happening anyway. And on top of that we're paying another group of people to babysit the first group who are doing nothing. And we're giving incentives to these people so they are better off watching tv than working low-paying jobs. Or they are better off working 16 hours per week than 40 hr/w. When factoring in all the systems CI replaces, it should be cheaper than them. I also expect increased productivity since people don't get paid to turn down jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Koreas economy is reliant on manufacturing, if i was a welder and given the opportunity to live an ok life on CI or have a little bit more for working shift in an awful job i know which one most would choose.

A lot of people would happily work to secure - in UK terms - a £30k manufacturing income (less basic rate tax) on top of their £6k basic income. I would, 'cos I value being able to live somewhere half-decent.

Working less hours i can understand but if you pay people to do nothing that's exactly what they'll do.

We do pay people to do nothing. We also penalise them for not doing nothing: that's precisely what a basic income removes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people would happily work to secure - in UK terms - a £30k manufacturing income (less basic rate tax) on top of their £6k basic income. I would, 'cos I value being able to live somewhere half-decent.

We do pay people to do nothing. We also penalise them for not doing nothing: that's precisely what a basic income removes.

Well they can train for a year or 2 and make such money, but most earning less choose not too as its a hard dirty job.

If everyone is getting this handout it'll just lead to inflation so the basic income is worthless.

If it was feasible it'd happened long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone is getting this handout it'll just lead to inflation so the basic income is worthless.

Completely incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a detailed response, thanks.

Have gone over this numerous times already on here.

Housing benefit would be the biggest 'loser'. Hence why the powers that be are not into the idea. Seeing as most of them are loving the 'rentier' society.

The chances of our Parliament voting to introduce something that will result in rent/ property/ land value falls is close to zero. They're too selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they can train for a year or 2 and make such money, but most earning less choose not too as its a hard dirty job.

If everyone is getting this handout it'll just lead to inflation so the basic income is worthless.

If it was feasible it'd happened long ago.

You seem to have an opinion something you haven't even read up on. Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have an opinion something you haven't even read up on. Well done.

It doesn't need too much reading up on to realise its nonsense. But the Swiss voted it out as it was just some loony party who managed to get it voted through. Are you suggesting they all didn't read up about it aswell?

If you pay people enough to not have to do the crap jobs in society then they'll not do them, which will lead to employers having to pay an absolute fortune to get people to do physical and dirty jobs.

Hardly need to read a book on it to know the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't need too much reading up on to realise its nonsense. But the Swiss voted it out as it was just some loony party who managed to get it voted through. Are you suggesting they all didn't read up about it aswell?

If you pay people enough to not have to do the crap jobs in society then they'll not do them, which will lead to employers having to pay an absolute fortune to get people to do physical and dirty jobs.

Hardly need to read a book on it to know the outcome.

Hate to be churlish, but you've arrived to a non fancy dress party, very late, in a full batman costume (Adam West Style).

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to be churlish, but you've arrived to a non fancy dress party, very late, in a full batman costume (Adam West Style).

So 3 of you pro free money folk have not managed a decent response between you.

Effectively unless i say free money is great and will create no issues i can be in your gang.

You people must love QE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 3 of you pro free money folk have not managed a decent response between you.

Effectively unless i say free money is great and will create no issues i can be in your gang.

You people must love QE.

That's because there's already been threads upon threads on this subject already.

You can find plenty of replies to your silly strawmen in one of them.

Try informing yourself instead of going out of your way to come across as a troll. Just a few pages will do rather than an entire thread.

Imo some kind of CI is inevitable, whether you or me agree with it or not.

You could argue that the lack of destitutionial risk would actually encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and creativity beyond landlordism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't end well in a debt money system. The basic income will be used as leverage for more debt and higher living costs. Is that not bleeding ******ing obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because there's already been threads upon threads on this subject already.

You can find plenty of replies to your silly strawmen in one of them.

Try informing yourself instead of going out of your way to come across as a troll. Just a few pages will do rather than an entire thread.

Imo some kind of CI is inevitable, whether you or me agree with it or not.

You could argue that the lack of destitutionial risk would actually encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and creativity beyond landlordism.

It most certainly is not a straw man, i am stating that if you give people with crap jobs enough to live on they won't go to their crap jobs ... its hardly rocket science.

Then you'll have to open the door to immigrants to do crap jobs, who will in turn be entitled to a free handout and won't go to work and so it goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't end well in a debt money system. The basic income will be used as leverage for more debt and higher living costs. Is that not bleeding ******ing obvious?

Fair point, which is why CI advocates here and elsewhere generally link it with the introduction of an LVT to curtail this rentierism.

It most certainly is not a straw man, i am stating that if you give people with crap jobs enough to live on they won't go to their crap jobs ... its hardly rocket science.

Then you'll have to open the door to immigrants to do crap jobs, who will in turn be entitled to a free handout and won't go to work and so it goes on.

People already "live on" current benefits without working. The big point of CI, besides the massive administrative simplification, is to eliminate all the current benefit traps which are actually preventing people getting out and doing the kinds of jobs you're thinking about. So the effect would be the opposite of what you fear.

Meanwhile not once have you yet referred to the biggest, looming, urgent reason for introducing CI, namely the imminent mass automation, which by the way will eliminate many of those same kinds of jobs - dirty/dangerous but sufficiently repetitive/easily described to be amenable to automation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point, which is why CI advocates here and elsewhere generally link it with the introduction of an LVT to curtail this rentierism.

People already "live on" current benefits without working. The big point of CI, besides the massive administrative simplification, is to eliminate all the current benefit traps which are actually preventing people getting out and doing the kinds of jobs you're thinking about. So the effect would be the opposite of what you fear.

Meanwhile not once have you yet referred to the biggest, looming, urgent reason for introducing CI, namely the imminent mass automation, which by the way will eliminate many of those same kinds of jobs - dirty/dangerous but sufficiently repetitive/easily described to be amenable to automation.

You seem to be jumping a few hundred years into the future by claiming robots will be doing all the crap jobs. This is pure fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be jumping a few hundred years into the future by claiming robots will be doing all the crap jobs. This is pure fantasy.

Yup. eg Driverless cars are centuries off. Won't see them on the roads in anyone's lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   89 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.