Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#431

Post by vellum » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

lmartel wrote: post #165

xavi wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am all for more fair wealth distribution, but I don't see how this would be sustainable. With a basic income so high and higher taxes on the rich, what's the incentive to work for money? Hence, who would pay this? I think Georgism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ), which doesn't tax income, but it only taxes land (so, not earned income) is a better approach to get a sustainable and more fair distribution of…

Frickin' everyone would. If someone offered you 30k/year basic income would you quit your cushy programming job, or would you buy more stuff?

It's not everybody. 70% of American workers don't like their jobs. 52% have "checked out." The other 18% are actively trying to dick over the company.

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/study-70-americans-jobs/

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#432

Post by prawn » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 9:55 PM UTC

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #425

Dewie wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just use the proposed Swiss basic income for your calculations for another country. Switzerland has a higher cost of living than most countries.

yep. A pair of Levi's that are basically 250usd (200 chf) in Zurich are 25usd at Wall Mart in DC. I live in DC and used to work for Credit Suisse in Zurich. I take US any day. My wife's soccer mom car - Land Rover LR4 - is rich bankers car in Switzerland. It's a luxury to own any car in Switzerland. Of course they think that's progress for me that's regress.

They have a brilliant train system and a smaller country. A car is far less necessary. A bigger car is at a premium because it's harder to park freely.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#433

Post by rbritton » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

ksrm wrote: post #224

xavi wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am all for more fair wealth distribution, but I don't see how this would be sustainable. With a basic income so high and higher taxes on the rich, what's the incentive to work for money? Hence, who would pay this? I think Georgism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ), which doesn't tax income, but it only taxes land (so, not earned income) is a better approach to get a sustainable and more fair distribution of…

Yes! I've been saying this for a while. A basic income funded by a land value tax would solve a lot of society's problems, I feel. Unfortunately I think it's a bit too radical for most people.

How do you then value the land? Property taxes in many areas of the US are notorious for being arbitrarily determined based on the amount the tax jurisdiction needs rather than the true value of the property. In my area it's not uncommon for two houses in the same area of similar builds to be valued differently for tax purposes. Our property valuation went up $53,000 last year while comparable houses in the area were around $15,000 down.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#434

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

milesskorpen wrote: post #394

ams6110 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Converting $33,600 basic income (assuming this goes to every adult, 210 million people) to the entire population (318 million) is about $22,200 per capita. Per capita income in the United States in 2012 was $42,693 [1]. Assuming that would remain unchanged, taxes to fund a basic income of $22,200 that would leave $20,500 per capita. Per-capita state tax collections are already 2,435.11 [2] and federal tax collections…

Presumably this would replace Social Security and most other forms of welfare (might even replace medicare / medicaid — people would just buy insurance based on the basic income). Given that entitlements are ~60% percentage of federal, this might be easier than you think.

We could also trim down the single biggest welfare program we have:the military-industrial complex. That's close to $5000 per adult by itself.

Edit: Back of envelope --

$3800 per adult from cutting MIC spending from $1 trillion to $200B which is still more than any other nation.

$4000 per adult from eliminating Social security including disability.

$4800 per adult in total health care savings from switching from our crappy system to the UK's.

----

$12,600 per adult

Not quite what the Swiss are proposing but $100 more than the federal poverty line. And we get better health outcomes and fewer wars to boot.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#435

Post by _random_ » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC

alextingle wrote: post #416

Camillo wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really familiar with the situation in the UK. My very vague understanding is that the native Britons are so bad, with their chavs and yobs and twelve-year-old moms, that no group of immigrants, no matter how poor or uneducated, could make things worse. [1] However, it seems to me that you feel so strongly about the issue that, even if immigration did create big social problems that wouldn't otherwise exist, y…

Obviously you are right, the situation is more nuanced. However, it's futile to debate those nuances with someone who is simply looking for sound-bites to push a hateful agenda. Example: "LOL... Multiculturalism doesn't work"

1. I did not expect my comment to get that much attention. 2. My LOL is sarcastic - I am sad that tolerance approached such a level that it hurts the country. 3. That phrase is what the current country leader said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

When issues are not addressed on time they produce nazi states.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#436

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #350

xavi wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am all for more fair wealth distribution, but I don't see how this would be sustainable. With a basic income so high and higher taxes on the rich, what's the incentive to work for money? Hence, who would pay this? I think Georgism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ), which doesn't tax income, but it only taxes land (so, not earned income) is a better approach to get a sustainable and more fair distribution of…

The incentive to work would finally be that work needs to be done.

You all are so idealistic. :) These threads on HN are like non-stop Star Trek post scarcity quixotic affair.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#437

Post by VMG » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

rmoriz wrote: post #65

FYI: You have to live 12 years consecutively in Switzerland, pass a tests and a personal hearing done by the local government to get a citizenship by naturalization. Switzerland has one of the most strict immigration rules in Europe. Source: http://www.bfm.admin.ch/content/bfm/en/home/themen/buergerre...

So apparently everybody loves this highly nationalist, some might even say racist bill.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#438

Post by xavi » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

drone wrote: post #389

xavi wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the tax is also based on improvements and use of the land, then it's not "Georgist": "Many municipal governments of the USA depend on real property tax as their main source of revenue, although such taxes are not "Georgist" as they generally include the value of buildings and other improvements, one exception being the town of Altoona, Pennsylvania, which only taxes land value." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi…

To be fair, I wasn't implying that it was Georgian or not, simply referring to whether or not it could be construed as being related to income (i.e. the more income you have, the more you make improvements). > This would help to better distribution of wealth because it would make it difficult for rich people to get richer by just buying and selling (or renting in this case) without providing additional value. I can't…

The government could serve as the temporal bridge between a selling owner and the future buyer. At the least it could simply stop collecting the tax once the owner stops using it even if a buyer hasn't been found yet. The government could even guarantee the immediate purchase of the land. I don't think this would be risky for the goverment because this taxation system, I think, would help to keep a fair value on the land.

It would still be possible to continue renting land once developed, but people that want to do that should think about ways to provide an added value that they can charge for. The real-estate business would certainly change with this new taxation.

I agree that there may be small changes that could help to create a better distribution of health, but I don't think they would be so effective. Besides, things like what you suggest, even if helpful, they complicate the government even more, with more laws, more incentives (which I think distort the reality, sometimes causing more problems than solving them), and another aspect that I like of Georgism is that it simplifies things a lot (there would be only a single tax).

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#439

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:18 PM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #354

danenania wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also act as a strong incentive for developing automatic and robotic solutions to these needs.

Oil-rich countries that do provide an equivalent of basic income for its citizens (Saudi Arabia, UAE) do not seem to have a thriving robotics startup community, but do have a wave of temporary foreign workers living in nasty conditions http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7985361.stm

[deleted]

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#440

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 10:19 PM UTC

nzp wrote: post #244

sjwright wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. As for accreditation of services, I agree to a limited extent. Personally I think government should -- where possible -- get out of the business of service delivery and focus on accreditation. The idea of a government selling pizza is absurd, but so is the idea of a government all…

> There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor. Of human labor, yes, but fortunately we have machines and computers... And that's exactly the point. Forcing people to do things machines can do is one of the most irrational and sadistic aspects of modern civilization. The principal reason we have such a situation is the absenc…

This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? I love science and have never come to these kinds of views but its hard me to find that exact common reason where this view comes from. So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at; it is little more than a promissory note, Kurzweil notwithstanding.