Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#241

Post by elcapitan »

swombat wrote: post #204
Vaebn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here". There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position. The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a mi…

There is no right to construct the things you damn like upon your private property in most of Europe. There are a lot of zoning laws, safety laws, standards, etc. Generally, even if fairly loose places like the UK, each locality gets to veto the construction of something if they don't like it. Also, the idea of private property, here or anywhere else, is highly tenuous. Have you looked into how much you actually own…

> "Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism.

That etymology doesn't sound very "real"?

"Real estate, the exact term, is first recorded 1660s, but in Middle English real was used in law in reference to immovable property, paired with, and distinguished from, personal."

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#242

Post by studentrob »

Hermel wrote: post #142
a-saleh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question, how does Switzerland avoid becoming more polarized country with so many referendum questions each year? Do you think there is a risk passing a referendum resolution that passed just by a small margin? I have been thinking about this since the result of Austrian presidental elections, and how more polarized the politics in Europe is becoming, while trying to figure out if there is a way how to move politics…

> Question, how does Switzerland avoid becoming more polarized country with so many referendum questions each year? As a Swiss, I would say a high number of referenda works against polarization. This Sunday, we had to vote on five national questions and additional local ones. This high number of questions makes it very unlikely that you agree on everything even with your family and best friends. Thus, we automaticall…

That bit about your grandfather is incredibly mature. I wish we saw this sentiment more often in the US.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#243

Post by HillaryBriss »

jeffdavis wrote: post #225
opendomain wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, we get a tax savings for owning rather than renting. Also renting includes a required profit for the owner. When you rent, your monthly bill includes everything the owner has to pay (mortgage, taxes, utilities), plus their profit. When you buy, you pay mortgage, taxes, and utilities, but no extra for profit. Also, you get to deduce the local taxes you pay on your national taxes, so overall you pay less. Al…

Just because someone else is profiting from you doesn't mean you are wasting money. Let's say you save $100k. You can either buy a house, or put the money in the stock market. If you put it in the stock market, you get a return but that return ends up going to your landlord's profit. If you but the house you get no return but don't pay the landlord's profit. In other words, it's an investment. If you believe that the…

Also consider that dividend income from the stock market gets taxed each year before it can be reinvested. So, it does not compound as rapidly as the untaxed "yearly dividend" (aka price appreciation) of the house.

OTOH, as you say, the easy mobility associated with renting can be quite valuable to some workers. It's like, "what opportunities and profits am I foregoing by being tethered to a house here in this job market?" etc.

I think it's all very complicated and situation-dependent, as you point out. We need to predict the housing market, interest rates, the job market for our particular specialty, changes in tax laws etc in order to make an optimal decision. We're all forced into the role of economic forecaster just to make the most fundamental decisions about life.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#244

Post by soyiuz »

akerro wrote: post #143
enraged_camel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

And on the opposite, I never understood how people can not own a house and waste money on renting for decades. Where market for houses in western countries is very limited due to stupid regulations and every year a few millions of people move to that country causing renting prices to increase by XX% each year. It decreases my financial stability. Losing a job for less than a month is a financial disaster, I still to…

Re: renting is wasting money.

Think of the math this way. A $1mil condo in New York generates approximately 45k/yr income, or 4.5% return on investment per year in rents. Subtract taxes and amortization and ask yourself, can you get similar returns elsewhere? You could for example purchase an index fund with the same $1mil and contribute the gains towards rent. Either way you are living "for free."

It is however risky not to diversify. So if the $1mil is all you have and it is all in the house, you are in danger. Additionally, property is not very liquid. In the downturn it would be difficult to exit. For these reasons, I believe house ownership only makes sense as a portion of one's assets. Renting makes solid financial sense otherwise.

In the conversation of rent vs. own people often forget to take the opportunity costs into account.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#245

Post by nickik »

areyoucrazy wrote: post #184

Why is Basic Income such a popular topic on Hacker News?

Because hackers tend to believe in the idea that automation and advanced AI causes a reduction of jobs and the destruction of middle class. This leads to a lot of rich people who control the AI and robots and a lot of poor who can't find jobs.

To counteract this, Basic income is a good idea because it allows for low risk job switching, furthering education and a small bureaucracy but extensive social safety net.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#246

Post by alexggordon »

delroth wrote: post #232
alexggordon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the one that downvoted you. Rather than simply insulting s3nnyy, pull out some numbers to justify your statement. I suspect s3nnyy is not hiding information, but rather saying the quality of life is worth it. However, it looks like the numbers are pretty comparable. In Germany a software engineer will average 47,500[0] euros a year. judging by this answer[1] I'm guessing your take home is going to be about 28,000…

One notable thing here is that even if the proportions are the same, in the end the absolute amount of money you are putting in your savings every month is higher. Or, in other words, if you're going in vacation in a less expensive country, your purchasing power is doubled. 96,500CHF is also a fairly conservative estimate. If you work at e.g. Google, you can reasonably expect twice that amount after 2-3 years working…

My only comment is that the proportions aren't actually the same :).

In Zurich you're netting three times what a German software engineer makes, but everything is only twice as expensive.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#247

Post by ZeroFries »

trgn wrote: post #226
funkyy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can buy studio in the city and huge farm house with land 1 hour drive away... Then weekends spend in your farm house and weekdays in your studio... It would be close enough to pop in in week days also. 1 hour drive aint bad.

That would be the best of city living (practical, all amenities in walking distance, low maintenance, social), and the best of rural living (bucolic, silent, spacious, reserved). It's much better to separate it out than try to combine it in one suburban house.

How do you account for all the wasted space when the houses aren't in use? The extra costs?

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#248

Post by mxo8 »

kgwgk wrote: post #157
ck2 wrote: post #92

But the swiss have guaranteed health care right? I'd like to see the USA get basic healthcare guarantee someday. If you are a human being, you get $2000 per year in healthcare regardless of proof of income, etc. Just being a human being in need. I hope the Bernie Sanders movement now focuses on the 26 states that are preventing health insurance for millions of people instead of trying to change the USA from the top d…

Healthcare is guaranteed in Switzerland in the sense that you are forced by law to have insurance (you can get subsidies if you're poor enough, though). And the basic insurance coverage may not be up to USA standards (you may share the hospital room with five other patients, for example).

What are these USA standards you are talking about (just curious)?

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#249

Post by tptacek »

enraged_camel wrote: post #183
riprowan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard it said that real estate is a risky investment. On the other hand, it's really hard to raise a family of four in a mutual fund.

I don't understand what you mean. Raise a family of four on a mutual fund? Why do you feel that you need a mortgage in order to raise a family of four? Why not rent?

Because moving a family of four is extremely disruptive for everyone, and it's very rare to have more than a year's security with a lease, even with a good relationship with the landlord. Not only that, but if your kids are school age, there's serious pressure to find a new rental in the same school area, which makes shopping for a new home that much harder.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#250

Post by bikamonki »

enraged_camel wrote: post #97
akerro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As already mentioned, you're ignoring a fact that even by working there for 10 years, it's close to impossible to buy a part of land and build a house anywhere near a city. Land and house prices are too high to stay there for live. It's only profitable to live there, make savings and buy 2-3 houses in Uk/Germany for it. Like two of my co-workers did.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

While I agree with you financially, when you have kids, buying property is a safer vehicle to leave something behind for them. Sure, if the rent is low enough and you invest the difference of what you'd be paying for a mortgage, you may grow a much bigger capital in 25-35 years. However, most people are risk averse or simply do no understand how investing works, hence: they buy real estate.
Post reply on HN