Swiss Village Votes for Free Money. Now It Just Needs the Cash (bloomberg.com)

A village in Switzerland has decided to go ahead with an experiment on basic income, with a payout of 2,500 francs ($2,570) per month. The next step is to raise money to finance the plan via crowdfunding. From a report: More than 50 percent of the inhabitants of Rheinau, close to the German border, signed up for the project, according to the organizers website. At least half the 1,300 inhabitants needed to say 'yes,' and the count stood at 692 on Monday. The submitted ballots still have to be checked against government data to ensure eligibility. The decision comes two years after a proposal for a nationwide unconditional state stipend failed to pass in a national vote. Rheinau, on the banks of the river Rhine an hour by train from the banking hub of Zurich, was selected by filmmaker Rebecca Panian for the basic income trial. She says she became fascinated by the notion during the national debate before up the 2016 vote, decided to select a village as a guinea pig, and make a documentary.

Comments

The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[themusicgod1]

...and, surprisingly, all the groups involved (city, the council of canadians, 'humans of basic income')...none of them have the budget and all expect someone else to pick up the tab for their free money. Funny how that works.

Re:The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[ShanghaiBill]

Usually socialism fails when you run out of OPM (other people's money).

This is more efficient, since they are skipping that step.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

Like all things socialist as

[oldgraybeard]

ex UK PM Margaret Thatcher said
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher said

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Like all things socialist as

[SoulMaster]

Except that basic income doesn't require governmental control of all businesses, which is what "socialism" actually is. Basic income (and social programs like welfare) might seem "socialist" because that's what you've been told, but they are not - they do not require public ownership/control of business. Single-payer-government-run health care on the other hand, is totally socialist (because the system is run by the public a.k.a. government).

In America, the shining example we have of socialism is the Interstate Highway System (most roads really). It is 100% unequivocally socialist with the tiny exception of states that have been retain pieces as toll roads for various reasons, but those pieces can't use federal funds.

socialism

noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

-SM

Re:Like all things socialist as

[alvinrod]

I would say that a UBI is about the least socialist form of redistributive wealth policies. I fully understand and appreciate the argument that we shouldn't be doing that at all, but the current reality is that the U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion per year on programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc. as non-discretionary spending. That comes out to about $7,500 annually for each person living in the U.S. That's including non-citizens and minors. If you remove them, you're probably above $10,000 per adult citizen.

That's a sufficient amount of money to subsist in most parts of the country without doing anything but staying on the dole. The reality is that we already have a massive wealth redistribution system in the U.S., but it's such a poorly designed mess of various programs, rules, and bureaucracy not even the Japanese could make it function efficiently.

There are a lot of things you can do with a UBI that are utterly stupid, but that doesn't mean that a UBI is necessarily bad. Even free market advocates like Milton Friedman proposed solutions like a negative income tax that fundamentally amount to a UBI. Just avoid doing the stupid things that incentivize undesirable behavior (e.g., don't give parents additional UBI for each kid they have and if you do give kids a UBI, lock it away until they reach adulthood) and it's going to be a much better system than the mess we have now. Of course, adopting a UBI probably necessitates other changes (immigration, etc.) but it's a better system than what we've got right now and we could probably get away with spending less for better outcomes.

Re:Another, But It Will Work This time, scenario?

[ArchieBunker]

All the people pushing for this basic income never own up to the fact as who will be paying. Ask them flat out where the money will come from and they will tell you to read this article or watch some video on the subject. The bottom line is it's going be taken from the middle class. Tax rich people enough and they'll simply move, or move their assets overseas.

Re:ridiculous

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'm a proponent of UBI, but this plan is ridiculous. You've basically just seen what happens when you let the lower 50%ile vote for a wage increase (spoiler: they'll say yes every time).

And that is why, in the US, we have a Senate with equal representation per State, and we have an Electoral College for the Presidential election. Mob rule really does break down, eventually...