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.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Anonymous Coward]

In none of those was "all the money in just one pot". FFS,in 1929, the US GDP was $100 billion. Of that, only $15 billion was all investments in all markets! $80 billion was personal expenditures; that is, money earned and spent by individuals.

France and Rome, capitalist? You think feudal societies are capitalist?! Do you even know what that word means?

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[c6gunner]

Governments are simply a true monopoly on violence

A monopoly on violence is the one thing which stable societies actually require. Gang warfare is what happens when you have entities which cannot take their conflicts before impartial central courts, and must thus resort to violence. Those occur even in societies in which the government is generally able to maintain a monopoly on violence, simply because the alternative dispute resolutions which it offers are unavailable to the criminal element. In societies where the government is completely incapable of enforcing a monopoly on violence you end up with rival warlords setting up their own little kingdoms.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[cavreader]

While it hasn't happened yet I hear Jeff Bezos is well on his way achieving the "all the money in just one pot" goal.

Re:The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[thegarbz]

This is a fundamental problem with a trial of UBI. The funding from UBI is supposed to come from the complete offsetting and dismantling of all other social services. Obviously this is not possible to do during a "trial" and not possible to do if you apply BI i.e. Not "Universal" since not everyone under the care of a government gets it.

No doubt this will fail and everyone will point this farce of a trial as another example, however unrelated it would be, of the failure of UBI.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Anonymous Coward]

You have an interesting definition of fails. Seems to me that capitalism has done just fine, it had a downturn during the depression but recovered and thrived. There've been other hiccups as well, but almost 100 years after the Great Depression and the most powerful country on the planet is still predominately a capitalistic society.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Crashmarik]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ameri...

Throughout the 18th century, France faced a mounting economic crisis. A rapidly growing population had outpaced the food supply. A severe winter in 1788 resulted in famine and widespread starvation in the countryside

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Crashmarik]

Capitalism fails when all the money is just in one pot too.

I'd love to see an example of that actually happening any time in human history would be acceptable.

Sure, just look at any revolution.

People didn't topple the government because everything worked out fine.

The end of the Soviet Union ?

Things not working != capitalism failing, and it certainly doesn't equal all the money in one pot.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[anegg]

Hospital and doctors sell their debts to third parties for collection at discounted rates. The 3rd party debt collectors never collect more than 30% on average and write off the rest. Hospital fees and doctors services are non-secured debt which means those owed can pound sand while those who do not pay take a hit on their credit rating.

A certain amount of that debt that is sold to debt collectors is bogus. If the hospital has screwed up its billing and won't fix it despite multiple attempts on the part of the patient to get the billing right, they go ahead and sell the debt, which the patient isn't about to pay the bill collector any more than they would pay the hospital.

My local hospital combines their X-ray intake with the emergency room intake. Someone I knew was sent to X-ray by the hospital's stable of family physicians. She waited around several hours, got X-rayed, and left. A month or two down the road insurance has rejected the payment for the X-ray service, because the hospital tacked on (incorrectly) a bill for "emergency services". The hospital/physicians staff plays hot potato with phone calls to straighten out the situation for months, then sells the debt to a debt collector. When i say "plays hot potato", I mean each and every phone call is passed around between multiple departments, finally determined to belong to an individual who is never available to answer the phone, and who never returns any voicemails that are left on her phone.

The US medical industries coding, billing, and insurance payment system is so broken its not funny.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[anegg]

A rapidly growing population had outpaced the food supply.

Were people consoling themselves with sex because they were hungry?

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Cederic]

They also have better health outcomes as well, and live longer.

Only at a population level. A lot of Americans like the idea that they're getting better care than they would get from the state* in Europe, and pay extensively for it.

It's the ones that can't pay that drag the averages down.

*of course, they could pay for the same care in Europe that they get now. Private health options are still available..

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[Cederic]

If you have nothing but the person in bed with you, and you've gone to bed early because it's dark and you can't afford candles, what do you think is going to happen?

Not to mention a lag effect between procreation and its impact on food resources.

Re:The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[p0larity]

Backwards fucker intentionally misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the point as FIRST POST?

on MY /.?

It's more likely than you think!

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[zabbey]

you end up with rival warlords setting up their own little kingdoms.

So basically what we have now.

Re: The same thing is going on in thunder bay

[c6gunner]

I guess. What's somalia like these days, anyway? Decent weather at least?

Headline should be:

[Alyks]

Swiss Village Votes for Free Money, Immediately Realizes Problem With Plan.

Re:Headline should be:

[_Sharp'r_]

As it turns out, the 5 of us in my immediate geographic region have also recently voted to distribute 1 Billion dollars per month to each person.

Now all we need to do is do a little crowdfunding or get the government involved...

Re: Headline should be:

[Shotgun]

Have you ever had a civics class? If so, you should ask for a refund. How exactly does the President give himself a tax cut, when it is the House of Representatives that is responsible for writing spending legislation?

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:Like all things socialist as

[Q-Hack!]

There's always the same amount of money out there (give or take a bit). It just belongs to different people.

This would be incorrect. We have a fiat currency, meaning that we borrow currency into existence. The beauty of this is that there is no limit to how much currency is in the system. The down side is that our national debt will eventually collapse the entire system.

   

Re:Like all things socialist as

[guruevi]

You take a rather strict interpretation of socialism.

As your own definition states: Regulation. You have to regulate the money out of business to pay for UBI. You could do that by regulating a minimum wage (eg. Bernie Sanders' $15 minimum wage), by regulating an extra tax on the richest people and corporations (eg. Bernie Sanders' BEZOS tax), by regulating how and when a company and workers can do business and with whom (eg. Bernie Sanders' mandatory 40 hour workweek, collective bargaining etc)

What is the difference really between a government that simply takes over the business (like Bernie Sanders' ideal and socialist "waiting in bread lines is a good thing, you get free bread" Venezuela) and regulates it to a point where every action is controlled by government?

Re:Like all things socialist as

[guruevi]

But it will never be "just UBI". Give everyone UBI but take out Medicare and Medicaid? Have you ever seen a drug or alcohol addict? Oh, then we just do it like EBT? Have you never seen someone spend an EBT card in a liquor store - inner cities have entire economies built around transferring and redeeming EBT for "other things"?

The range of IQ implies that ~20% of the population has an IQ that is too low for them to be 'functional' in society. That means they cannot do anything, they cannot follow basic instructions to even make them worth the basic training in the army (which costs them some slop, a set of fatigues and a bunk). You want those people to "manage a budget" and "save money for emergencies"?

What about people with medical issues? Do they get more? Now that's no longer UBI but UBI+; now you need an administration to manage it, we could call it... Medicare, yeah, let's do that now for every single social program you can think of. Remove it and you'll need to replace it or let them die.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[LynnwoodRooster]

IF we're going to have UBI, I'd like to see a system where everyone "gets" 5 years of UBI, from age 18 to 65, and this replaces welfare/unemployment insurance. If you use it all up by the age of 23, and want more - too bad. Whatever you don't use by the time you reach 65, you get in a lump sum (with interest, prime rate) tax-free. It's your share of taxes over your lifetime, you can choose when you want to use it.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, socialism is everyone 'putting in/taking out" from the Government, including businesses. Fascism is the Government forcing businesses to do their bidding via regulation and threat of force. Bernie likes to mix socialism and fascism together...

Re:Like all things socialist as

[SoulMaster]

No - I take an actuarial definition of socialism.

You're equating regulation with taxation. I can assure you that they are entirely different things. More importantly, increasing minimum wage, or taxing individuals is entirely antithetical to UBI. It makes absolutely no sense at all. True UBI would eliminate both of those concepts. They're unnecessary. Clearly you don't understand UBI as well as you think you do. This is apparent in your mis-use/hodgepodging of things Bernie has mentioned (at various times) that don't relate back to UBI.

The closest you came was the "Bezos" tax, except that the real version of it (that would actually work) is a sort of "automation tax." Bill Gates proposed one, so did Musk... neither of their plans will work without refinement, but the concept is simple: We have retarded the technological advancement of the planet simply because we insist on protecting jobs for the sake of protecting them and/or keeping people working. Had not the UAW stepped in and slowed automation in 1964 when Unimate came online, how much further along would the auto industry be? Or, in a similarly ridiculous situation, why are we turning coal plants back on? (To put people back to work.)

The true answer is that there are people whom we don't actually need working—they can be automated immediately or in the near future. But, the truer answer is that we can't let those same people starve to death in the streets (they would revolt, like the French Revolution, it would be very bad). So, there needs to be a plan to "take care" of those people. We can keep filly-farting around with "socialist" programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, social security, etc... or we can stop being ridiculous, encourage full automation at every level (Buy n Large from WALL-e), and get on with the next version of humanity. This doesn't take socialism, but it absolutely takes a new-world-view on what it means to be human. I can assure you that what "being human" doesn't mean is waking up every day and going to a job you dread just to put food on the table for you and your family.

This plan still allows for private ownership, but recognizes that the only reason you have land on which your robots can grow those crops is because the public (govt) has parceled it out of their own stores, and you currently hold title. So, when your robots grow food, keep a profit... but the public is entitled to a profit from your lands as well. The public's profit comes in the form of taxation. Taxation, that is, until we figure out an actual better version of apportionment that doesn't involve money. (Think Federation of Planets, when dealing amongst themselves.)

Your final point then, is moot (if not a bit outlandish.) Neither will the government take over, nor will it regulate. It will, however, encourage you and support you to automate every single worker you can. Possibly including yourself. UBI is about individual freedom, not restriction, and recognizes that society as a whole benefits when you don't have to worry about eating/sleeping, but can go pursue whatever it is you want. Maybe you love your job and your life and everything you do... most don't. They'd rather be doing something else. Maybe if you didn't have to work you could focus on your band, or painting, or traveling, or just spending time with your family. Or, maybe you want a better life than UBI provides and you have the skills to still work as we move toward total automation (not at all claiming we're there already). So you work, and the companies pre-tax profits pay your salary, which isn't taxed. It might be lower than you're currently used to, but you don't have to give up the UBI money, so in the end, you wind up ahead of the "don't want to work" people and can enjoy more than the "basics." Or maybe you drop to part-time, so you can pursue some happiness.

Please note: I'm using "you" because I'm responding to you. It's entirely possible that you have a perfect life, have a perfect work-life balance, and love your j

Re:Like all things socialist as

[SoulMaster]

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.

My point exactly. Well put.

-SM

Re: Like all things socialist as

[Dayze!Confused]

Why lump unemployment into this? That is insurance that we pay into, not a handout.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[c6gunner]

That's a lot of words to say "the most irresponsible/incompetent people should starve to death."

FTFY.

What's your position on having the government pay for abortions if a poor person wants one? Are you in favor of that, or do you prefer an increase in incestuous, mentally and physically disabled rape babies?

As long as we're letting them starve to death this seems like a non-problem. Bonus if you get rid of the "free" healthcare.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[c6gunner]

The current system is not working, and literally every single person on the planet knows that it's not.

There were a lot of stupid things in your rant, but this one takes the cake. Things are better than they've ever been in human history. Productivity is at record highs, violence is down, malnourishment is down, access to healthcare is way up (yes, even in the US), people have more free time, more access to information, more ability to travel, learn, and experience the world, and less risk of starving, dying of disease, or being violently killed than at any other point in the history of our species. But you think that "the system is broken" and, not only that, you've also somehow convinced yourself that everyone else also "knows" this. And you want to replace "the system" with some untested theory you've dreamed up which is going to change everything.

The only difference between you and Stalin is the moustache.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[Darinbob]

Also applies to some capitalist theories as well, such as the common myth that an economy can grow forever. The whole point of capitalism is to get other people's money while giving up as little of yours as possible. Sharing the wealth is often called socialism by binary thinkers, whereas acquiring and hording the wealth is a natural tendency in capitalism. (of course, there are more than just those two economic camps but too many people these days can't count beyond 2)

Re:Like all things socialist as

[Darinbob]

There are way too many people these days that just don't know much about socialism, capitalism, or anything else. They split the world into two, and anything that isn't socialist must be capitalist, and anything that isn't capitalist must therefore be socialist. It's way too simplistic, but there you go, people like simple things and ignorance is bliss.

For instance, I've tried explaining that the fascists were neither socialist nor capitalist but people push back hard on this idea because if violates their world view. You can see that on the far right there's very often a knee jerk reaction to label anything they don't like as "socialist", just like on the far left there's a knee jerk reaction to label anything they don't like as "fascist". Simple people don't like complicated thinking.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[Darinbob]

Don't forget that the military is the largest government jobs program by far.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[thegarbz]

UBI is self funding. But this isn't UBI. This is just another social security program applied non-universally and specifically to one group. Unless you can shutdown the other social programs the government runs and close the relevant departments the funding doesn't exist.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[religionofpeas]

And you want to replace "the system" with some untested theory you've dreamed up which is going to change everything.

Worse. These theories have been tested, and they didn't work.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[The Cynical Critic]

The main problem with UBI programs that I've seen is that they're just not financially viable without a major external source of funding or a massive growth in the productivity of labor. All of the UBI schemes that I've come across actively incentivize people to work less or not at all, thus significantly increasing the share of net recipients and as a result necessitating significantly reduced payouts or increased taxation of net payers, which in turn further incentivizes net payers to work less and thus pay less tax.

In other words the only UBI system that I can think would actually be financially viable is one where payouts are not even close to being enough to support someone, particularly not when they've got a family, or ones where there's a very large tax surplus due to something like a massive increase in worker productivity with a proportionate increase in average incomes and taxable corporate profit.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[houghi]

Basic income can be seen in the same way.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[anegg]

The main thing to debate in that model is where you set that "basic income" point.

How do you accommodate the fact that the cost of living is radically different in different parts of the country (in the US, anyway)? Seems like that will be a big debate as well.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[oldgraybeard]

"we pay into"
"FUTA. The federal unemployment tax is part of the federal and state program under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) that pays unemployment compensation to workers who lose their jobs. ... FUTA tax should be reported and paid separately from FICA and FITW. FUTA tax is paid only from an organization's own fund."
Exempt Organizations: What Are Employment Taxes?

You do not pay in to it. It is an additional government tax on business for the honor of hiring an employee. In order to hire you, the business must pay the government a percentage of your wages. This (Unemployment) does not come out of the employees earnings at all like FICA tax does.
BTW your employer is required to match your FICA payment. If an individual is self employed like me, pays 15.3 % FICA ( employee half 7.62%, employer half 7.62%) + Federal taxes (10% - 22%) + State Taxes (~7%) + Local Taxes (~5%). Better yet, those tax rates apply on incomes in tax brackets under 100k. So we are not talking rich here we are talking middle class.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Like all things socialist as

[guruevi]

Your socialist utopia cannot exist. Again, you have no idea how the brain of an addict and those of IQ 90 works. They do not think about buying food first. They think about whatever they want today. You give them money, it will not go to food, they will STILL die of hunger.

So you take away all the rights of people for it to work - regulate the price of food (USSR, Venezuela and Cuba did that), automate as much as you can already happens today - the USSR actually found it doesn't work and went the other way - Lenin and Stalin stopped or slowed automating so people could have jobs, as dreary as they were.

You're talking about total government control of the food supply, the space we occupy and everything for this to "work" and it NEVER DOES. Mao and Pol killed millions of people in the pursuit of this socialist ideal and it left them impoverished to this day.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[guruevi]

It's been tested. North Korea is a great example. Everyone has jobs (according to the government), everyone has food (according to the government) etc.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[guruevi]

We already have this model today. The US has a regressive tax. So you make more, you pay more money. The majority of people pays no taxes or gets money from the government, the top 50% pays all the taxes and the top 2-5% pays ~50% of the taxes.

This is the model we have today. People just want to make it more lopsided. There was a great quote in another article, not sure who it belongs to but it went something like: The majority will always vote for themselves to have more money and you can only ever get it from a minority, hence why pure democracy sucks.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[Cederic]

A land belongs to the people who live on it.

No, land belongs to those that can prevent others taking it from them.

Sure, I hold title in my house and the land it's built on. I'm still fucked if the Government decide to take it from me.

Much as I pay taxes on my income, because whether I like how they're spent or not I'm in deep shit if I don't pay them.

I still don't want them being handed out to anybody and everybody that lives in the same country. I like my community offering a safety net to those that need it but I also expect those that can to contribute towards it.

Giving me a share would be utterly fucking pointless. You'd be giving me my own money back, less the overheads of bureaucracy. Just charge me less in tax to start with.

Oh, wait. That's exactly how it works.

Re: Like all things socialist as

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's a bit more than 5 weeks a year, every year, for your adult working life, pre-paid. If you're not able to get ahead with that good of a start - then private charity. At what point does welfare become enabling behavior rather than a safety net? Put the net out there, tell people what it is - and if they choose to jump off the side, well - that's how you learn. Failure is a great teacher.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[tigersha]

Actually the US has a very good and widespread welfare system. It is called the US Department of Defence. The only difference is that, when joining that Welfare program you are expected to do work of sorts, which is fine by me.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-the...

If you could get something like the DoD, but where people can do non-military work for a few years in exchange for the social and medical benefits (or for even longer) then maybe it would be better. Germany used to have Social Work as an alternative to conscription which worked out really well for it provided hospitals and old age homes and such with a steady supply of labour for a year and young people got something out of it (and most I know who did it say they are glad they did). When Germany stopped conscription it is these social institutions that suffered the most.

Re:Like all things socialist as

[oldgraybeard]

I think
the military is ~ 1.3 million
the civilian Federal employees number just over 2 million excluding the US post Office

Create a Cyber currency

[jfdavis668]

And pay everyone with it. It worked for Venezuela.

Another, But It Will Work This time, scenario?

[BrookHarty]

Didn't most of the basic income projects fail, and this says the government wouldn't be able to fund it?!

What am I missing here, how is this not just socialism (or communism) being called something else? That money has to come from somewhere, this trial is donation based, but if this was at the national level it would have to be funded by the the workers, which by this account is less than 1/2 of the people. Why would someone paying most of their wages want to it taxed at over 50% to support people not wanting to work?

Wouldnt it be better for them to just start a commune in some remote area, where the cost of living is extremely low, and let each person contribute? If its so easy they should be able to get people to join freely, with some doing all the work, and some people just living off everyone else's hard work. No hard feelings right?

How you can fund this "Utopia" without taking workers income or owning the corporations to milk them, seems impossible.

When countries are increasing the retirement age, you can be many people in their late 50's will want to quit, working sucks.

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

[tkotz]

Socialism or communism can at least work in theory as there is an economic flow between the individuals and government. Maybe with reduced freedoms or rampant inflation, but there is a money cycle.
This is just begging. They state the government can't support it, so it is just a city wide crowdfunding scheme. I'd say scam , but they are at least open about it. It's unsustainable and they obviously have no intention of sustaining it. It really is a testament to something that almost half the voters, voted against just taking handouts from other people.

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

[AHuxley]

Re "How you can fund this "Utopia" without taking workers income or owning the corporations to milk them, seems impossible."
Any advanced nation can do that.
Find all the citizens who are not working, doing education. Support them with under a payment system as needed.
Show citizenship photo ID, have a bank account and the gov support is paid in. Some get help from a charity and the citizens bank account gets a gov payment.
No longer in approved education? A different type of gov payment is made.
Get a part time job? Reduce payments.
Get a full time job? Pay taxes.

As most normal citizens can be expected to work and pay tax the percentage of citizens getting full gov payments can be kept to a normal level every decade.
Re "That money has to come from somewhere". As long as a nation only has to look after its own citizens and an understood number are not working the budgets can support such payments.
The problem with cash for free for all is that "everyone" gets a payment. That cant be supported by a tax system that expects people working to pay tax and a set number of people to need support.

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

[ArylAkamov]

What am I missing here, how is this not just socialism (or communism) being called something else.

They are hoping people won't notice that. Or, if they do notice, that they have never studied history.
Dangerous territory, and we all (should) know how it ends.

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

[CrimsonAvenger]

How you can fund this "Utopia" without taking workers income or owning the corporations to milk them, seems impossible.

It should be noted that the USA (hardly a socialist bastion) has, at the Federal level, about $2.8T per year in social programs (Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, that sort of thing). The States total north of $500B in social programs.

Take that big pile of money, and divide it up among the 330M people as a UBI, and you get more than $10K per person per year.

A family of four would get ~$40K. With no tax increases (though you'd probably want to fiddle with who pays how much in taxes) at all. A 50% income tax increase across the board would allow you to pay the program, plus bureaucracy, plus other odds'n'ends without putting an excessive burden on anyone (you get your UBI, plus your regular income less taxes, but the "taxes" part is half again as big as it used to be).

Yeah, the "rich" can leave if they'd like. But most everywhere charges more income taxes than the USA, so not sure what the point would be. And since the overwhelming chunk of income taxes are paid by the middle class, not the "rich", it would hardly affect the Treasury....

IOW, some back of the envelope calculations make it look reasonable, enough so that it would probably be doable, even here. So what's the big deal?

When countries are increasing the retirement age

Alas, retirement age, most places, was originally designed so that it was "median age of death" (iow, half of everyone would never collect). And retirement age hasn't kept up with the considerably longer lifespan we have now (when SS was invented here, retirement was lower 60's. Nowadays, lifespan, barring accident or the increasingly survivable fatal diseases of the elderly, is more like upper 80's)....

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

[KiloByte]

Socialism or communism can at least work in theory as there is an economic flow between the individuals and government.

Well yes, this has been tried many times. "Give us money or we'll shoot you" tends to facilitate that flow. Murdering a million here ten there fifty millions there lets people know you're not making idle threats.

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

[alvinrod]

In the case of the U.S. we're already spending trillions of dollars for terribly implemented social programs. If you took social security, medicare, and the other mandatory spending and rolled it into a UBI, you could give every adult $10,000 per year based on the current spending levels. We're already paying and if you look at where the U.S. tax revenues come from, the middle class aren't paying for most of it. The top ~15% cover about 80% of income taxes (2015 figures) and that puts the cutoff at around $100,000, which is upper middle class for most of the country.

I think we could actually reduce spending with a UBI. There are some people who think it needs to be enough to own a home or some pie in the sky lunacy, but I think it just needs to be enough to keep a person from dying in the street. There are plenty of places in the U.S. where you could live for $10,000 per year without doing anything else. Add even a part time job at federal minimum wage and there's little question about being able to subsist. We could probably have a UBI while reducing government spending.

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

[e3m4n]

or they say 'the 1% will pay for it', not bothering to add up all this total of free education, free money, etc. If they added everything up, the entire total amount, it would be obvious that the entire wealth of the planet would not even be able to pay for it. When money is free, what do you care if your doctor charges $50 for his 7min office visit with you, or $500. And thats exactly what has historically happened next. If you're going to mandate the government start providing services free, you're also going to have to mandate those providing said services accept next-to-nothing in payment for providing them. Thats the biggest, most fundamental problem with the idea of universal healthcare in America.

  They keep talking about how un-affordable it is (universal healthcare). They still think that doctors should continue pulling in the obscene income that they do. Don't get me wrong, if the doctor gets away with charging obscene pricing, its up to everyone else to say otherwise; he's just looking out for his best interest. They also see no need to tweak the cash-cow of malpractice lawsuits. This whole healthcare affordability is a 3 sided object.

On one side you have money spent providing the services. This would be analogous to an insurance provider paying claims, or a management firm paying the contractors. the second side are those providing services. This would represent the medical professionals, professors, administrative staff or symbolically a contractor providing services. The third side are the lawyers. There is no analog for this. They are the metaphoric leeches that slowly bleed off the other two sides and threaten its balance.

The amount side one has at its disposal is limited. It has a very theoretical and nearly calculable maximum to which you can obtain through taxes and fees. At a certain point you risk a collapsing diminishing return. Side two, historically, has made out rather cushy with their government contracts. Costs are often glossed over and the contractors are well compensated. This tends to lend itself to greed. It doesnt even have to be obscene levels of greed, simply the constant want for bigger better things eventually promote higher prices. This can often be seen as 'gouging'. Then there is the third side. These lawsuits that implement financial penalties intended to 'teach a lesson' have created a market of sharks that get a cut of these over-the-top penalties. When you take a system that allows for this and pair it with a system that is paying for everything, your 3 sided object, your triangle, suddenly becomes a fire triangle. You cant have someone suing the government (the payers of the services) and also suing the contractors (the providers of the services). That instantly starts driving up expenses on both the other two sides of the triangle, and we know one side had a maximum limit he can reach.

I've talked to people in countries that have some form of universal healthcare or another. I ask questions that maybe nobody else asks, apparently. What they all seem to have in common is in the countries that manage to keep it working, health providers are not part of the upper-elite income class. They are squarely middle-class citizens. They get paid well, but not - 3 Lexus, a Lamborghini, and a summer home in the Hamptons - well. They definitely have much lower limits on tort claims. When a company gets fined to teach it a lesson, they usually award the government the money.

The closest I came to universal healthcare, socialized medicine, call it what you may; was the 6yrs I spent in the navy. It was clearly laid out that 1) they decide what treatments you get, not you 2) you cant sue the government 3) you can't sue the providers of the services.

Tying this back to universal income, some people seem to think there is some monetary method to transition to cashless socialism. They're wrong, because no one has ever been able to lock down all 3 sides of this triangle to keep it from burning up in flames.

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

[LynnwoodRooster]

You might want to see who really pays the income tax in the US. It actually is the rich, paying well more than their "fair share", unless you mean they should pay a much higher share of income taxes as compared to their share of total income.

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

[LynnwoodRooster]

And how does that affect the fact that the rich do pay at least their fair share, and the lion's share of income tax (and pretty much all capital gains taxes)?

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

[djinn6]

There's no such thing as "fair share". The rich are able to pay more, and so they do. If they don't like how much they're paying, they're free to move to Somalia or something.

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

[thegarbz]

Didn't most of the basic income projects fail, and this says the government wouldn't be able to fund it?!

Yes they do. Basic Income will always fail. Only Universal Basic Income has a hope of succeeding as funding for such a program would depend on shutting down all other government social security services. If you only apply BI rather than UBI you need to keep all the other programs running too, hence extra funding is required.

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

[jbmartin6]

That is true, but it leaves out the fact that federal revenue is not just income tax. And the rich aren't paying the lions share of those other sources. Plus all the borrowing, which is essentially just taxing poor people through inflation.

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

[jbmartin6]

I looked up how much of federal intake is income taxes, according to this it is 47% (2016)

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

[gsslay]

Awhhh! Poor rich people are being picked on! Look, how they suffer!

The rich people are the ones benefiting most from our society and reaping the most rewards. It is fair that they proportionally contribute the most to maintaining that society.

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

[azcoyote]

I agree that these UBI trials are silly, but don't be too quick to equate them with socialism or communism. There are underlying philosophical differences that add up to more than the superficial similarity. To my limited knowledge, one might be able to summarize it in this way: UBI awards money based on the basic objective dignity of the human person, with the hope that this will result in work. Communism ensures employment based on the dignity of the worker, according to his or her ability and need. UBI is still basically an extra intervention within an overarching capitalist framework, and this may in fact be its particular weakness (notwithstanding the many problems of all-out communism).

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

[LynnwoodRooster]

The rich people are the ones benefiting most from our society and reaping the most rewards. It is fair that they proportionally contribute the most to maintaining that society.

So we agree the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Because every actual metric, every piece of data, says they do - but somehow it's a continual meme of the socialists that they do not.

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

[Paul Carver]

So let's suppose you give everyone 10k and some tiny percentage of the population, let's say 0.01%, uses it to buy a car and some booze then totals the car and cripples themself. Do you just say "tough luck, you used up your UBI; no ambulance or hospital treatment for you, either crawl home or die there in the street"

It's easy to claim that UBI will cost less than the sum total of current services, but are have you really thought about what it looks like face to face when even a small percentage of the population fails to do proper financial management of their UBI payments? Some form of support will be needed for some percentage of the population after their UBI is wasted because you simply can't guarantee that 100% will frugally budget their UBI.

As an alternative to UBI I could see funding government run dormitories with cafeteria and medical clinic facilities. If the government guaranteed that no matter how broke you are you can always get a bed in a climate controlled room, at least a couple meals a day and at least a nurse to look at you and decide whether you need a doctor's attention, then I see no reason to hand you cash for nothing.

I'm not sure I'd advocate eliminating all social programs even then, but if enough dorm/cafe/clinic facilities were built to ensure that there's always a vacant bed and food available to anyone who asks for it (no proof of need required, no max limit on how long you use it) then I'd say that probably not much more is required.

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

[anegg]

So, I do nothing, and I get all the cash I need? If I work a little, I get less money? If I work full time, I get no money, and instead have to give money to other, non-working, people?

You forgot an option: I tell the government I do nothing, and I get all the cash I can from them, and I work as much as I like "under the table" and I get to keep all of that, too. The less honest I am, the more money I make!

See what that cognitive dissonance does to a population over time, especially because the people doing this aren't screwing over a friend, their just screwing over the government!

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

[Cederic]

Take that big pile of money, and divide it up among the 330M people as a UBI, and you get more than $10K per person per year.

Immediately the person that gets really poorly and needs more than $20k in medical care is in serious shit, because Medicare/Medicaid don't work on average payouts, they work on paying as needed and stay affordable because of the majority of people needing much less care.

Unless you mandate that everybody buys private medical cover, but then the poor have no income left for food/accommodation/etc.

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

[Citizen of Earth]

It seems like an easy "Yes" vote to me. "Do you want $2600 free every month, voluntarily paid by idealistic fools through crowdfunding?" Definitely yes, provided that I'm not forced to be one of the crowdfunders, where it would be a definite No. Of course, the latter is what will ultimately happen.

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

[tkotz]

Just because something works doesn't mean you'll like what it does ;)

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

[Shotgun]

What am I missing here, how is this not just socialism (or communism) being called something else?

This is not communism, because it leaves out "from each according to his abilities". The UBI says, "You get according to your needs, but you don't even have to kick back a little effort in return."

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

[Shotgun]

Obviously, this dude has never lived in a poor neighborhood and tried to visit the grocery store on the day when Food Stamps go out. Let's just say that a month's food budget can buy the finest of meats.

free like beer

[sdinfoserv]

Suddenly, while staring at his declined debit card for a 6-pack of brew with a $20 sales tax, Joe realized "free money" isn't free....someone has to pay taxes to fill the Government coffers for redistribution of "basic income"!

Scale

[manu0601]

It could work globally, as we produce a huge amount of wealth measured by GDP, but unfortunately most of the money is sucked into financial bubbles by agents out of reach of a Swiss village.

really?

[Hugh Jorgen]

well maybe i should move there and mooch. Where is the motivation to work hard and live within your means anymore?

Re:really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Where is the motivation to work hard and live within your means anymore?

Well, this just changes your means, so I don't see how it wouldn't also encourage you to live within your means. Actually, it may help, because you can afford to make decisions on a longer timeline.

As for what the motivation is to work hard, well, a lot of people like luxuries. Or maybe just existing beyond minimum sustenance.

WTF? Crowdsource it?

[BBF_BBF]

The only way the experiment will yield anything close to credible results is for the "basic income" to be self funded. As in the village pays for it by taxing citizens earning money above the basic income more to make up for the ones not able to pay taxes and just collect.

.

If it is funded by outside sources it'll be a love fest since nobody in the village has skin in the game and people just get free money without having to take it from other citizens in the same village.

Sounds like

[ArchieBunker]

They ran out of other peoples' money before they even started.

I got it!!

[oldgraybeard]

They should start a GoFundMe page and everyone world wide will send them money ;) And every place else can start GoFundMe pages also and then everyone will send money to everyone world wide ;) And poof you have a socialist world ;)

Re:I got it!!

[galabar]

We'll just find pairs of people who will donate the same amount of money to each other! Think about it. Doubling our money!!! ...wait, what?

Re:I got it!!

[fibonacci8]

Congratulations, you've invented partial reserve banking.

Re:I got it!!

[Citizen of Earth]

They could probably raise a few trillion Strong Bolivars!

There was never a lack of people wanting

[SPopulisQR]

There was never a lack of people wanting to give other people money out. As long as the distributor is better off, there will always be people saying that you need to give money to others. There is nothing wrong sharing with other people, but wrong when somebody else decides for you where the money go.

"Crowdsourcing"?

[markdavis]

Wait- so they are voting themselves free money, and then "crowdsourcing" (I guess online begging) to pay for it? Who do they expect will donate money to such a thing and why would they?

Why not just put the town on "gofundme" with a description of "We want your money, because we want to give it to our citizens. Please give us money, we like money and would like some free money. Thanks"

Re:"Crowdsourcing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait- so they are voting themselves free money, and then "crowdsourcing" (I guess online begging) to pay for it? Who do they expect will donate money to such a thing and why would they?

Why not just put the town on "gofundme" with a description of "We want your money, because we want to give it to our citizens. Please give us money, we like money and would like some free money. Thanks"

I think they're expecting wealthy ideological socialists to fund it so that an example of successful UBI comes to exist.

Re:"Crowdsourcing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're expecting wealthy ideological socialists to fund it so that an example of successful UBI comes to exist.

I remember! Like Cuba did with the Soviets!

Serious thought about basic income.

[galabar]

I'm trying to come up with fair/reasonable rules for a basic income experiment. I'm thinking of the following:

1. 1. Basic: the amount must meet basic income requirements (housing, food, transportation, health care, etc.), replacing all other welfare schemes.
2. 2. Universal: the payment must go to everyone in the community.
3. 3. Funding: the money to fund the experiment must come from within the community.
4. 4. Freedom of movement: people should be free to move in our out of this community, choosing whether to participate.

How does this sound?

Re:Serious thought about basic income.

[iggymanz]

people who make money move out of the community. this is how you make a ghetto.

Re:Serious thought about basic income.

[galabar]

Oh, I forgot:

5. Containment: 50 foot border wall with machine gun turrets on the top to keep the rich in.

Re:Serious thought about basic income.

[iggymanz]

4.5 the "rich" (anyone with a job) will fund building of wall to keep them in later

Re:Serious thought about basic income.

[djinn6]

Sounds stupid. If UBI is working out well, why would they let anyone else in for free? You didn't help them create it, you don't deserve the benefits.

If I were running the show I'd have anyone trying to move in to pay the equivalent of 5 years of UBI as entry fee and demonstrate they have positive net worth.

reality television

[siriuskase]

Funded by taxing the crowd who keep their spare change in Zurich banks.

Re:WTF? Crowdsource it?

[iggymanz]

Hahaha, the citizens who make the money don't want to fund parasites. Universal basic income always gets the parasites around here excited.

Corporate thinking comes to Switzerland

[edi_guy]

Isn't this sort of exactly scheme Chairman/CEO's typically pull? They run the board of directors and then get to vote on their own pay packages funded by other people's money
"Hmm, I think I deserve a 50% raise this year, all in favor? The motion is carried."
"Next topic, employment expenses are rising drastically, we need to start making company-wide reductions."

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...

What could possibly go wrong?

[iamacat]

In some ways basic income is more efficient than ad hoc benefits that currently exist. The problem is when there is an economic downturn and benefits that EVERYONE relies on are cut. A small percent of population is rioting. Everyone rioting at the same time because benefits they are demanding from each other do not exist in their economy is terrifying.

Re:WTF? Crowdsource it?

[djinn6]

Yes, for a real experiment they need to self fund and pair up with a neighboring village who can act as the control. They should also set a much lower amount because $2500 is way above what most people need to live and much higher than what most UBI proponents are proposing.

Re:WTF? Crowdsource it?

[thegarbz]

The only way the experiment will yield anything close to credible results is for the "basic income" to be self funded.

Basic Income will never yield credible results and will always need external funding. The problem is that the only way to self fund Basic Income is to provide it Universally. UBI allows the funding source to come from the closing of all the other government social services. BI does not allow this as it is not applied universally to everyone under the care of the government.

It is doomed to fail.
It is also nothing to do with UBI.

This is very damaging to the idea because....

[jago25_98]

it is not replacing all benefits for the basic income.

The point of UBI is to REPLACE current benefits, thus finding additional funds from the increased efficiency.

All this does is add money from an outside source. The result will be a disaster. UBI will be deemed a failure.

Thanks.

Re:WTF? Crowdsource it?

[Translation Error]

For a full trial, yes, self-funding is important. A limited trial without self-funding can be useful to see what people will actually do when they receive a basic income. If the basic concept relies on a large number of people looking for work to earn extra income, it's a real good idea to make sure this will actually happen before implementing more ambitious trials.

Stupid and pointless

[Rick Schumann]

Before any of you 'UBI' fanbois start sperging out over this, yet again: it is ***1300 people***, not ***350,000,000 people***, and they DO NOT HAVE ANY MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS. It's pointless bullshit.

Of course they voted for 'free money every month'; who wouldn't? But there is NO MONEY. Their 'vote' amounts to an 'opinion poll' because there's nothing real to back it up.

UBI fools need to STFU. It'll never work and anyone with basic arithmetic skills can see that.

Re:WTF? Crowdsource it?

[iggymanz]

oh no, the ones with government in their pockets are the biggest. they're the biggest pushers of money too, chump change for them