The Swiss recently held a referendum - brought up by a crackhead from what I can tell - that would have given EVERY Swiss adult, regardless or circumstance, $2500 a month, or $30k each year, and $700 a month for all children, or $8400 a year. Thus, a married couple with 2 kids would be bringing in around $6500 a month, or $78000 a year - far higher than the median household income of the US and higher even than Qatar. In what world, may I ask, does this make sense? Why would you work? Personally, I would just sit on my ass playing Warlight and collect higher wages than the average hard working family. I hate to ask it - but does anyone here actually think this could work?????



More info: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

Edited 6/7/2016 16:11:35

Swiss adult, regardless or circumstance, $2500 a month, or $30k each year, and $700 a month for ll children. Thus, a married couple with 2 kids would be bringing in around $6500 a month, or $78000 a month

Wtf

Meant 78000 a year lol

Do you want your economy in shambles ? That's how you do it.

Average wage in Switzerland = €4000 (essentially £3100).

The UK gives £73 at most per week (to 25+ year olds) to "job-seekers".

73 * 52 = 3796

£3796 = €4870.62

So basically, UK benefits per year for a single over-25 are a bit higher than Swiss average earner's per month.

But we have to also consider, that you miss that couples get less benefits basically worldwide, than single-people; about 20% less, so let's multiply it by 2 and find 80%.

So, for a couple in the UK, they'd get a yearly £7792.99 off of benefits.

Let's also consider the living standards. A loaf of bread in the UK on average is £1. A loaf of bread in Switzerland is on average £1.50. Let's assume that the £7792.99 is somewhat fair, and multiply it by 1.5 to make a "fair" Switzerland number.

£11689.49 would be the yearly "fair" number in Switzerland. Let's take child benefits out of the equation, because there is legislation regarding this in both countries, and it would be more complicated than OP points it out, but as it stands, here is the "fair" benefits number for a couple, in Switzerland:

£11689.49

and here is the proposed number (taking into account couples) 1755 (monthly sum) * 12 (per year) * 2 (amount of people) / 5 * 4 (b/c they are a couple, with decreased benefits) =

£33696

---

Ultimately:

It's madness. It needs to be divided by 3, at least, and that's with everything in its favour (considering Swiss living standards, reducing it based on couples, not taking children into consideration, assuming people are looking for work. i was being really generous). Without stuff in favour, you may want it even lower!

Edited 6/7/2016 16:25:41

perhaps you should read about it and understand the logic behind it before dismissing it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

No, I definitely don't need to read a wiki article to realize that 70k a year to a family for doing jackshit is good way to ruin your economy. I understand the idea of basic income (it's retarded, but I get it) but how do you justify paying a bum more than an entry level lawyer?

This idea would cause an immediate inflation to the point that you will still need to work for a living.

Those who have a lot of cash will lose a lot of wealth, but most rich people have almost all their capital in property, so they will be limited harmed by the inflation. Because of that this will only have a very limited wealth leveling effect.

So the only real effect this will give is destabilization of the economy.

---
The Swiss had a similar referendum before this(higher the minimum wage): http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27459178

That referendum was rejected by 76% of voters, and this comming referendum will get similar result for sure.


People who are against direct dimocrasy offen say that the citersens dont have the common sense and would vote in favor to referendums like this. But the truth is difrend, and the Swiss citerzens are not a lot smarter then the citersens of other nations. Direct democasy would work in all western nations as the best type of government.

^ Yeah, I like direct democracy more than a republic because older restraints due to communications and transportation limits are irrelevant in today's world. It limits corruption.

without educating yourself strange things will never make sense.

Without a reason to work no one will u knob. Look at Ox's post.

And tink of all te money that wood have bin given away 2 sum ARAB "refoogee" runnin' thru Switzerstan. U culd buy a lot of explosives with dat much $.

^No.
They dont get"$", they would get "₣"(Swiss francs). When the referendum will get Accepted, the Swiss francs currency will fall to the point that you can not bye much from it. wages rise with the inflation, but its troublesome to correct that in short amount of time...

The one effect I almost forgot is that most debts and loans will lose value. those with debts will be delited by this plan.

Edited 6/7/2016 18:06:07

It got only like 23% of votes for it. It had no chances to come trough that vote. But there were discussions about it so it wasn't completely useless.

It might theoretically work, if people still keep working. But who would do a job where he earns like 3600.- when he could get a lot of money for staying at home?

Edited 6/7/2016 18:04:54

People who are against direct dimocrasy offen say that the citersens dont have the common sense and would vote in favor to referendums like this. But the truth is difrend, and the Swiss citerzens are not a lot smarter then the citersens of other nations. Direct democasy would work in all western nations as the best type of government.

Imo you are wrong with you statement about the Swiss citizens being not much smarter than the rest. The referendum on this topic is also about freedom vs a mighty big brother state. A state which takes the liberty to freely redistribute wealth amongst it's citizens is also a state which tells it's citizens exactly how live. Other nations where the people like being pampered by the state will probably vote in favour of such socialist stuff.

Edited 6/7/2016 19:18:40

Imo you are wrong with you statement about the Swiss citizens being not much smarter than the rest.

Well, actually I think the Swiss citizens are smarter than other nation citizens, but I see the 'cause and effect' reversed:
I believe that the Swiss citizens become smarter as a result of having a direct democracy. I'm sure that if citizen truly have direct influence on the government decisions, you will think more about what the right choose(vote) is.

I think basic income is a bad solution to the risk of unemployment, especially such a high one. Instead of giving benefits to unemployed who can work, or leaving them unemployed so the market forces can bring the wages down as the capitalists desire, they should be guaranteed a job by the state.

a few positive points most of the people in this thread seem to neglect:
- people that focus more on social value would have more availability to dedicate themselves fully to it
- businesses would require smaller net profit to remain in business, providing goods and services at lower costs with higher quality
- there would be a significant drop in state expenses incurred with processing social welfare
- stress and depression caused by unemployment situations would disapear
- people would only want to work on something they truly enjoy doing, increasing quality of services

Frankly, this "basic income" is so bad, this would be a socialist strawman if it wasn't real and having folk actually shield the concept.

people that focus more on social value would have more availability to dedicate themselves fully to it

people would only want to work on something they truly enjoy doing, increasing quality of services

Do it on your own time. That's not other folk's job to fund your pig eating contests or something. It'd be nice if you could just do whatever you wanted everyday without having to work in your life, but that's just not happening.

What the government must do is shield your life, and in Switzerland, there's been a welfare fund for a very long time, doing more than enough already for folk to "focus on social value" or whatever.

businesses would require smaller net profit to remain in business, providing goods and services at lower costs with higher quality

The difference would not be significant for successful businesses. If the business is so small that it makes less than 8 400 $ each year, it doesn't need to work, and will be sold, in order for folk to do their "social values". If it makes significantly (worth it to keep it) more, 8 400 $ will be a drop in a pond, and furthermore, no grounds that prices would be lowered and quality would be highered - if anything, production would be lowered. Folk still want to make a profit, and they're not going to lower it even if they think they don't need the money. And there's absolutely no grounds that the quality would be highered, either.

there would be a significant drop in state expenses incurred with processing social welfare

You can't bring up an argument of expenses, here...this would just replace the old welfare.

stress and depression caused by unemployment situations would disapear

Switzerland has had a more-than-enough welfare for not doing anything already for something 30 years. Noone should ever have to fear going hungry, but that wasn't/isn't happening.

Edited 6/7/2016 21:51:16

Direct democasy would work in all western nations as the best type of government.

The functional illiteracy rate in Germany and the US is 14%, and those are the two primary "Western" nations.

How about you source that.