• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Switzerland rejects plan to pay every citizen at least $2,500 a month (1 Viewer)

Good for them....too damn many leeches out there already!
 
MickeyW said:
A proposal to dramatically change social welfare policy has been soundly rejected in Switzerland.

Switzerland rejects plan to pay every citizen at least $2,500 a month - Jun. 5, 2016
Click to expand...

The $ 2.500 was too high and it surprised me that a sum that high was chosen. Wider economic theory make it hard to see how that could work. The experiments in Finland will be more interesting. The main thing I see as a stumbling block is the vested interest of powerful groups in the soicial programs, whose bureaucracies would disappear.
 
Success was not expected by the initiators, the whole affair was designed to provoke thought and discussion.
 
Chagos said:
Success was not expected by the initiators, the whole affair was designed to provoke thought and discussion.
Click to expand...


Socialism sucks, no matter who's idea it is!
 
Hmm, an entrepreneur that's a socialist? Isn't that kind of oxymoronic?
 
joG said:
The $ 2.500 was too high and it surprised me that a sum that high was chosen. Wider economic theory make it hard to see how that could work. The experiments in Finland will be more interesting. The main thing I see as a stumbling block is the vested interest of powerful groups in the soicial programs, whose bureaucracies would disappear.
Click to expand...

Agree, a basic income that high will cost about 25-30% of Switzerland GDP. In addition to this the government will have to pay for schools, roads, public transport, health care and more. Its not realistic at all, and doesn't open a discussion, it just ridicules people who defend basic income.

Basic income is an interesting idea, but it is not a way to eliminate poverty.
 
Camlon said:
Agree, a basic income that high will cost about 25-30% of Switzerland GDP. In addition to this the government will have to pay for schools, roads, public transport, health care and more. Its not realistic at all, and doesn't open a discussion, it just ridicules people who defend basic income.

Basic income is an interesting idea, but it is not a way to eliminate poverty.
Click to expand...

Why should government pay all that? Those are all private goods and people can pay for them.
 
Put the costs for those already on the dole into the equation. Unemployment benefits, health care even for those unable to pay any premium (in countries where the health care system requires individual contributions) and none of those supported contributing much to the economy by way of taxes and hardly by consuming.

The idea, where very much of model status designed to provoke discussion, isn't that daft in the long run. Maybe not in 50 years but in a hundred all Western societies will follow a model of some such nature. Simply because there won't be enough work around anymore to accommodate all job seekers.

OTH the idiotic income disparities between a derivative juggler that produces absolutely nothing and a nurse working very much in the interest of overall society might still be there. But the nurse has an income free of worry over, out of possible naive idealism, having chosen the wrong profession.

The Swiss idea also comprised that big income (from corporations to said derivative juggler) pay into the kitty.

If anybody believes this to be socialism on a rampage to destroy capitalism, they don't get out much. Or they'd notice that capitalism is pretty much dead, the current system having absolutely nothing to do with it.

The initiator of the Swiss "demonstration" is a business entrepreneur BTW.
 
joG said:
Why should government pay all that? Those are all private goods and people can pay for them.
Click to expand...

Mostly because these things are wanted by the public, but ends up failing if we only have private systems. Without publicly funded schools, then we end up with kids without education, without health care then people die of basic diseases.

Roads and public transport could have worked if it wasn't affected by a market failure. Creating two roads next to eachother is inefficient, so competition is nearly impossible, and roads and public transport has positive externalities. Since the owner do not get these positive externalities, then they will be less inclined to build.

Due to this, all western countries provide these benefits, and I am including Hong Kong and Singapore.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Mostly because these things are wanted by the public, but ends up failing if we only have private systems. Without schools, then we end up with kids without education, without health care then people die of basic diseases, and roads and public transport has a market failure, because competition is impossible and when you build roads/public transport then you create benefits for other businesses.

Due to this, all western countries provide these benefits, and I am including Hong Kong and Singapore.
Click to expand...

Not really for that reason do we provide these services by public hand. We do it mainly for historical reasons that no are no longer valid hanging on to the archaic solution, because politically powerful groups that would disappear have an overriding vested interest in maintaining the present form of production. For them the loss in general welfare is secondary to losing their business model and raison d'étre.
 
How is the government supposed to get the money for these anti taxes?
 
Masterhawk said:
How is the government supposed to get the money for these anti taxes?
Click to expand...

The idea is that it costs less money then a conventional welfare system as that would require bureaucrats to run it,
 
Masterhawk said:
How is the government supposed to get the money for these anti taxes?
Click to expand...
Swiss voters reject guaranteed basic income proposal - Business Insider
The cabinet had said it recognized the overarching goal but this particular proposal would cost an estimated 208 billion Swiss francs a year, significantly weaken the economy and discourage people, especially low earners, from working.

Much of the cost could be covered by existing social security payments, but sharp spending cuts or tax increases would have to make up a remaining gap of 25 billion, it said.

An advanced social safety net already supports people who cannot pay themselves for their livelihood, it pointed out.
Click to expand...
Looks like around 88 -89 pct would already be (have been) accounted for.
 
Camlon said:
Mostly because these things are wanted by the public, but ends up failing if we only have private systems. Without publicly funded schools, then we end up with kids without education, without health care then people die of basic diseases.

Roads and public transport could have worked if it wasn't affected by a market failure. Creating two roads next to eachother is inefficient, so competition is nearly impossible, and roads and public transport has positive externalities. Since the owner do not get these positive externalities, then they will be less inclined to build.

Due to this, all western countries provide these benefits, and I am including Hong Kong and Singapore.
Click to expand...

Government providing roads has the result of keeping technology stagnant as there is no instinctive to move to better solutions. This will lead to the government actually being called upon to move technology forward as the private sector has little chance of doing it alone. Public schools allows the government to influence the minds of children and control educational standards of the country. Yes, it could be argued that it raises the amount that attend, but even before public education the majority of children didn't go without an education of some sort. As for healthcare, no, the government doesn't really do much to prevent people from dying of basic diseases when they help pay for it.
 
Henrin said:
Government providing roads has the result of keeping technology stagnant as there is no instinctive to move to better solutions. This will lead to the government actually being called upon to move technology forward as the private sector has little chance of doing it alone. Public schools allows the government to influence the minds of children and control educational standards of the country. Yes, it could be argued that it raises the amount that attend, but even before public education the majority of children didn't go without an education of some sort. As for healthcare, no, the government doesn't really do much to prevent people from dying of basic diseases when they help pay for it.
Click to expand...

Your argument has traction in a more individualist society but we are less individualist so your comment is not really relevant on this side of the pond. It's not just about govt vs private but also cultural.

Culturally, we here are less inclined to leave the poorest behind and blame them for their poverty or allow private industry to learn on the job about standards in roadbuilding (your example) or means of technology. Healthcare here is more about equal access for all rather than lining the pockets of private healthcare providers and letting individuals discover through disastrous treatment about which private clinics actually treat people well and which are charlatans taking money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom