Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Switzerland solves poverty by giving every man, woman, and child $2,500 a month in government-provided free money   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Switzerland, u.s. budget, political activism, social democrats, Greek government  
•       •       •

3197 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



677 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-11 10:29:46 AM  
That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.
 
2013-10-11 10:32:29 AM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-11 10:38:54 AM  
• this hasn't happened yet. it's up for a vote
• $2,800/mo. not $2,500/mo.
 
2013-10-11 10:40:01 AM  

dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.


please explain.
 
2013-10-11 10:40:50 AM  
I've been talking about this for years on Fark.  I'm thinking the figure is a high but basically all social assistance programs in the US should be eliminated and replaced by a basic income for every adult including rich people.

Work, don't work, retired, disabled, whatever, you get this.  Government would shrink incredibly.  Rich people can't fault poor people who receive it.  It is really a perfect approach.
 
2013-10-11 10:41:00 AM  
Ve did Nazi vhere de money came frum.
 
2013-10-11 10:41:32 AM  

dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.


It eliminates poverty.
 
2013-10-11 10:42:44 AM  
Free to them perhaps.
 
2013-10-11 10:44:10 AM  
this would cost about $6.5 trillion per year to implement in the US, just in case anyone's wondering.
 
2013-10-11 10:46:49 AM  

mrshowrules:   Rich people can't fault poor people who receive it.  It is really a perfect approach.


Oh, I'm fairly confident they can.
 
2013-10-11 10:50:25 AM  
Why in the hell did I read that as "Switzerland solves puberty..."?

I think I need to go back to bed.
 
2013-10-11 10:50:27 AM  

mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.


Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.
 
2013-10-11 10:53:08 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Oh, I'm fairly confident they can.


But in Europe they generally don't.

As world war and revolution uprooted the old European monarchies, the twentieth-century constitutions that replaced them were more oriented toward majority rule, and less toward protection of private property. They dismiss "American exceptionalism" in a way very different from how U.S. elites see it and discuss it an deal with reciprocal altruism as a possible behavioral explanation for redistribution. Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link
 
2013-10-11 10:54:25 AM  

mrshowrules: I've been talking about this for years on Fark.  I'm thinking the figure is a high but basically all social assistance programs in the US should be eliminated and replaced by a basic income for every adult including rich people.

Work, don't work, retired, disabled, whatever, you get this.  Government would shrink incredibly.  Rich people can't fault poor people who receive it.  It is really a perfect approach.


It seems they want to do this and keep all that stuff.

"You can imagine that if this proposal in Switzerland passes and everyone gets $2,800, that the right can say, "Well, why should we provide healthcare - why don't we let people use the money that we're giving them? Why should we provide public schools - we should let people use the money that we're giving them to buy education for their kids in the marketplace." "

Probably because if if we're saying "let's use your tax money to give to the people", then why not just not tax people as much? Then we're back to the idea of cutting taxes and cutting social programmes.
 
2013-10-11 10:55:52 AM  

what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.


Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.
 
2013-10-11 10:59:44 AM  

mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.


How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.
 
2013-10-11 11:02:12 AM  

dittybopper: So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?


ooh, i know! to get more money!

$60k per annum is less than my wife and i make now. we would still work. we would however take more vacations and purchase more goods and services.
 
2013-10-11 11:03:36 AM  

what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.


That argument has been used for years against social welfare payments and minimum wage.  Like I said, the monthly figure is too high, but a basic monthly income is a much better/fairer approach.  Libertarians should like it because it actually shrinks Government.  Conservative like it because the poor aren't getting anything the rich aren't.  Liberals should like if in term of eliminating poverty in a way that maintains human dignity.

One of the big problems with social assistance today, is that people are penalized if they want to work a bit, try and make some extra money.  A basic income allows people to earn whatever additional money the want to over and above this.

I'm thinking $600-$1200 is more sensible but don't focus on the amount as much as the concept.
 
2013-10-11 11:06:04 AM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.


You'd quit your job for $30k a year? That's below minimum wage in Aust. I couldn't even imagine living comfortably on that wage.

Why wouldn't you keep working and have a household income of $120k a year?
 
2013-10-11 11:08:27 AM  

snuff3r: dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.

You'd quit your job for $30k a year? That's below minimum wage in Aust. I couldn't even imagine living comfortably on that wage.

Why wouldn't you keep working and have a household income of $120k a year?


That would be a STEP UP for me in wages.

/But I'm a grad student.
 
2013-10-11 11:10:11 AM  

dittybopper: So who would bother to work if you get all that free money? You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.


The contra to that is with this guaranteed income you are now free to pursue your interests. Start a business. Become an artist. Invent a product. The poor in America haven't given up responsibility -- they're drowning in it.
 
2013-10-11 11:11:44 AM  

FlashHarry: please explain.


If you can't be surrounded by abject human suffering, what's the point of having wealth?
 
2013-10-11 11:12:02 AM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

The conditions that lead to poverty in rich nations is artificial.  It is a false assumption that for an economy to be functional, there has to be pain at the bottom and excess at the top. Poverty is self-sustaining.  The biggest cause of poverty, is poverty itself.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

The Swiss figures seem really high to me.  I have always proposed a basic income consistent with what people on welfare, disability, retirement etc... etc... get today.  One income regardless. The idea that people would quit their job if they had this is false I believe.  If anything, it is an incentive for those people to work to get extra money without being penalized (which is the case today).

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.


Poor people already receive a negative tax today. The whole thing can be revenue/spending neutral.  First, the poor people are going to get paid anyways.  So now you just need to structure the tax system so that the rich people that get the basic income end up paying most of it back in taxes.  Revenue/spending neutral not to mention the shiatload ton of money you would save on all those social assistance agencies/departments being eliminated.  Heck the whole program could be run by the IRS (sometimes referred to as a negative tax system)
 
2013-10-11 11:12:05 AM  

snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.


Well, when the price of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, and bread is $6 a loaf for generic white bread, along with the rent increases, then you're pretty much back where you started.  And giving everyone some basic level of income is going to lead to that, because there will be fewer people willing to work to produce those goods, so they will become more rare, and thus more expensive.

BTW, having read the article, it's only for adults.  So the basic income for a couple would be $60,000, regardless of the number of children.
 
2013-10-11 11:13:05 AM  
This doesn't make sense, are you saying if I crap out a kid I get an extra 30k a year?
 
2013-10-11 11:13:23 AM  

brap: FlashHarry: please explain.

If you can't be surrounded by abject human suffering, what's the point of having wealth?


I'm like 85% sure that's the national motto of the U.A.E.
 
2013-10-11 11:13:25 AM  

brap: FlashHarry: please explain.

If you can't be surrounded by abject human suffering, what's the point of having wealth?


A nice filet mignon doesn't taste as good when you are not surrounded by hungry people.
 
2013-10-11 11:13:45 AM  
So where is this money coming from?  Taxes?  And what does this plan do to the cost of goods and services in the country?  Switzerland is a nice tourist destination.  I'd imagine this would impact that industry somewhat.  Maybe I don't see the point.
 
2013-10-11 11:14:03 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: dittybopper: So who would bother to work if you get all that free money? You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

The contra to that is with this guaranteed income you are now free to pursue your interests. Start a business. Become an artist. Invent a product. The poor in America haven't given up responsibility -- they're drowning in it.


Bingo.  It eliminates the horrible expectation that everyone should be a wage worker and frees up people to do what they do best, whatever that happens to be.

Will some people sit around and soak it up?  Sure.  Will everyone?  Hell no.  That stipend(and that's what it is) frees up everyone else to no longer work to live and live to work.  They can do what they're best suited to doing and 'that' results in a much much better society for everyone.
 
2013-10-11 11:14:20 AM  

dittybopper: snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.

Well, when the price of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, and bread is $6 a loaf for generic white bread, along with the rent increases, then you're pretty much back where you started.  And giving everyone some basic level of income is going to lead to that, because there will be fewer people willing to work to produce those goods, so they will become more rare, and thus more expensive.

BTW, having read the article, it's only for adults.  So the basic income for a couple would be $60,000, regardless of the number of children.


That's what I get for not reading the article.

But I kind of agree with you that this could lead to massive inflation
 
2013-10-11 11:14:23 AM  

snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.


That food doesn't solve hunger, it just masks it.
 
2013-10-11 11:14:23 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: This doesn't make sense, are you saying if I crap out a kid I get an extra 30k a year?


It only goes to adults and is always the same amount
 
2013-10-11 11:14:27 AM  
I have to admit, if I could get $30k in guaranteed income, I'd quit my job.

And go back to school, and finish my degree, and get a better job.
 
2013-10-11 11:15:02 AM  

dittybopper: So who would bother to work if you get all that free money? You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.


yeah the reason people put up with shiatty menial jobs is to have a shiatty menial job

i mean they would not engage in leisure activities or educate themselves or engage in creative pursuits

it's not like history is just one long detailed example of civilizaton's forward progress being dictated by the capacity of technological constructs to create leisure time
 
2013-10-11 11:15:27 AM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.


Well if we went that route I'd like to see an Employer of Last Resort program. You can work for private enterprise or you can work for the government, but every person who is either able bodied or of sound mind is guaranteed a 50K a year job with health care, dental, and vision benefits by the government.
 
2013-10-11 11:15:53 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: This doesn't make sense, are you saying if I crap out a kid I get an extra 30k a year?


Only if your crappy new kid is an adult.

/RTFA
 
2013-10-11 11:16:31 AM  

brap: FlashHarry: please explain.


If you can't be surrounded by abject human suffering, what's the point of having wealth?

images.wikia.com

If no one is poor, then everyone is poor!!!

 
2013-10-11 11:16:36 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: brap: FlashHarry: please explain.

If you can't be surrounded by abject human suffering, what's the point of having wealth?

I'm like 85% sure that's the national motto of the U.A.E.


I was gonna say something similar about Qatar.
 
2013-10-11 11:17:06 AM  

dittybopper: snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.

Well, when the price of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, and bread is $6 a loaf for generic white bread, along with the rent increases, then you're pretty much back where you started.  And giving everyone some basic level of income is going to lead to that, because there will be fewer people willing to work to produce those goods, so they will become more rare, and thus more expensive.

BTW, having read the article, it's only for adults.  So the basic income for a couple would be $60,000, regardless of the number of children.


Fortunately for us we can wait and see how this works out for the Swiss.
 
2013-10-11 11:17:30 AM  
Soon the Legislaturalists will amend the Swiss Constitution to create a closed aristocracy, and the People's Republic of Switzerland will be born. The government had best keep up with the Basic Living Stipend increases, or the Dolists will revolt!
 
2013-10-11 11:18:01 AM  
The Swiss don't spend trillions of dollars on unnecessary weapon systems, so they can redistribute that wealth instead.
 
2013-10-11 11:18:33 AM  

Graffito: dittybopper: snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.

Well, when the price of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, and bread is $6 a loaf for generic white bread, along with the rent increases, then you're pretty much back where you started.  And giving everyone some basic level of income is going to lead to that, because there will be fewer people willing to work to produce those goods, so they will become more rare, and thus more expensive.

BTW, having read the article, it's only for adults.  So the basic income for a couple would be $60,000, regardless of the number of children.

Fortunately for us we can wait and see how this works out for the Swiss.


lol yeah and then we'll hear the capitalist nonsense about how this could only work for the Swiss, so DON'T EVEN THINK OF ASKING FOR THIS IN AMERICA.  GET BACK TO WORK, PLEBS.
 
2013-10-11 11:18:35 AM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.



A minimum guaranteed income?  My wife and I could afford to start that business we want to start.

Couple with single payer?

Holy shiat, that is a massive wave of entrepreneurship
Co
 
2013-10-11 11:19:15 AM  

meat0918: dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.


A minimum guaranteed income?  My wife and I could afford to start that business we want to start.

Couple with single payer?

Holy shiat, that is a massive wave of entrepreneurship
Co


dirty commie bastard.
 
2013-10-11 11:19:28 AM  
SEE?  See what happens when your heart is filled with neutrality?
 
2013-10-11 11:21:48 AM  

Infernalist: Dusk-You-n-Me: dittybopper: So who would bother to work if you get all that free money? You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

The contra to that is with this guaranteed income you are now free to pursue your interests. Start a business. Become an artist. Invent a product. The poor in America haven't given up responsibility -- they're drowning in it.

Bingo.  It eliminates the horrible expectation that everyone should be a wage worker and frees up people to do what they do best, whatever that happens to be.

Will some people sit around and soak it up?  Sure.  Will everyone?  Hell no.  That stipend(and that's what it is) frees up everyone else to no longer work to live and live to work.  They can do what they're best suited to doing and 'that' results in a much much better society for everyone.


There's 2 kinds of people: those who say, people won't work unless forced/enticed by wages, and those who say, people won't work (their best!) unless there's some feeling of reward - not payment, but a feeling of accomplishment and mastery or simply a pleasing feeling of having done something purposeful.  

Those 2 sorts are being beautifully highlighted in this thread.
 
2013-10-11 11:21:49 AM  

Infernalist: meat0918: dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

How?  It doesn't remove the conditions that led to poverty, it just establishes a minimum income floor.

Plus, I really, really doubt it's sustainable.

For example, if this were enacted in my state, I'd quit my job and stay home, because the combined income from me, my wife, and my son would be significantly higher than my current work income.  So why work at all?

Think about it:  $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year.  Per person.  For couples, that would be $60,000, and each dependent thereafter would add another $30,000 to your household coffers.

So who would bother to work if you get all that free money?   You wouldn't have any incentive to actually *DO* anything. to earn money.

That's a major problem because the government has to tax things to get the money to pay that out, and if there isn't enough money coming in because people aren't working, then you've got a major, major problem.  You have to start borrowing in order to make those payments, and you can only borrow so much until you get to the point where it's impossible for you to pay back what you owe.


A minimum guaranteed income?  My wife and I could afford to start that business we want to start.

Couple with single payer?

Holy shiat, that is a massive wave of entrepreneurship
Co

dirty commie bastard.


I feel like I'm getting closer to that every damn day.
 
2013-10-11 11:22:08 AM  

Graffito: dittybopper: snuff3r: what_now: mrshowrules: dittybopper: That doesn't solve poverty, it just masks it.

It eliminates poverty.

Not if the average rent becomes $3000 a month.

Poverty has a much more profound effect on peoples lives than whether they can afford rent. Health, nutrition, mental stability, etc.  Being able to feed yourself regularly, or your kids for that matter, is a leap forward for those under the poverty line.

Well, when the price of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, and bread is $6 a loaf for generic white bread, along with the rent increases, then you're pretty much back where you started.  And giving everyone some basic level of income is going to lead to that, because there will be fewer people willing to work to produce those goods, so they will become more rare, and thus more expensive.

BTW, having read the article, it's only for adults.  So the basic income for a couple would be $60,000, regardless of the number of children.

Fortunately for us we can wait and see how this works out for the Swiss.


While our economy collapses under the notion of "We voted to get everyone healthcare and some tea party renegades didn't like that."
 
2013-10-11 11:22:43 AM  
Will be interesting to see how this works out (if it passes). If, as is likely, it works out fine and there's no hyperinflation and the Swiss people continue to do productive things, I look forward to seeing the contortions people put themselves through to explain why bullshiat capitalist economic theory is still valid in the face of yet another massive piece of counter evidence.
 
2013-10-11 11:22:45 AM  
Monopoly is a great game.
 
Displayed 50 of 677 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report