As a Swiss citizen currently living in the UK, who is earning a fair amount of money and planning to probably go back to live in Switzerland, I am going to vote for this proposal (unless the referendum documentation makes it look absolutely stupid, e.g. it has some really bad implementation idea).
I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but reducing risk of destitution for everyone in the country down to zero is one cause for which I'll be happy to pay taxes.
Why do I want more money? To buy toys, to buy time, and to buy security. The basic income resolves the last two items, and puts the first one well within reach for most reasonable toys.
i think the main problem is how to address cases where people mis-spend their basic income. someone is unemployed, and they blow the basic income on booze, etc. issue is how do we protect people from themselves. we can say damn the consequences and encourage prudence but i believe this is why most aid qualifications exist.
i know HN readers will be less likely to do have this problem (other than spending on a startup :) ) but HN readers are not a representative cross section of people.
Minimum cash transfers are one of the most effective methods of sustainably increasing the wealth of a population. There's a pretty successful charity that does this kind of work in Africa:
http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas...
There's a guy at Columbia University that's running studies about giving drug addicts guaranteed cash, and it's actually allowing them to more easily break their addictions:
> My only worry about this program is if it will indirectly inflate the cost of everything.
I personally see this being too tricky for companies to try unless they're a monopoly.
If I run company A, and my competitors company B and company C raise their prices, I'm going to maintain mine, to increase my profit flow. Alternatively, company B and C don't even try raising their prices, for fear of competition doing what I mentioned.
Here are my thoughts: Of course, you're talking about an efficient market keeping prices at an optimum. I think at the crux of the matter is the supply elasticity of goods consumed by the least wealthy. The worry goes as follows: basic income guarantee (BIG) would line consumer's pockets, but what if rent (etc.) goes up concomitantly such that people are just as poor off as before BIG. In other words, they receive X dollars per year, but pay X extra in rent (etc.)
I think a good counterargument goes as follows: people have true security to move to a new location with cheaper rent. Thus supply and demand of goods become more efficient as the mobility goes up and people can act more efficiently/rationally.
Good points. I definitely see both sides of the coin playing out: with some landlords and sectors increasing prices, but others holding steady. I personally have no evidence to assert that over time, the battle would be won by the landlords and sectors that maintain reasonable prices, but your counter argument makes a great point.
I just feel like BIG would be ideal in so many ways. We can cut all social programs that are BIG for specific groups, and use those savings to help offset the massive cost of the program. The BIG would allow disenfranchised/unemployed persons security in food and housing (hopefully, as our discussion brings up the concerns), tt would allow part-time workers a chance to save money, and participate in the economy, and it would allow full-time workers to supplement their income, again allowing them to make larger purchases and save.
IMO, the current economic climate warrants experimentation. Where I'm from, we've had a study in BIG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome), that showed promise not only in an economic sense, but a social sense as well. I truly think it could be a force of good. As a society, we need to either set the bar higher for our collective support towards to lower classes, or we need to come to grips with a class based reality that is projecting towards more inequality.
> I think at the crux of the matter is the supply elasticity of goods consumed by the least wealthy.
A very valid concern. I feel like landlords would be reticent towards increases initially, as their isn't any data to back your decision on the matter. Again, I feel like the holdouts combined with migration will pressure the groups wanting to raise prices enough to limit the increase. But then again, if everything raises in price by 15%, then you're not just paying 15% more, you're paying 100 dollars more for rent a month, 100 dollars more for food per month, etc...
We need to at least start implementing studies and experiments. I can't see any reputable economists dismissing the policy out of hand without proof of it's benefits/downfalls. Both you and I can only speculate. I'd love to change that and for us to talk about data regarding this someday.
If people waste their basic income on alcohol, well, so what? I don't know the tax situation in Switzerland, but in the US, that means a big chunk of that money is immediately reclaimed as taxes. The rest goes back into the economy, and the person is not really in any worse of a situation than they would have been without basic income.
It's one situation where basic income doesn't really help, but it doesn't really hurt either.
The money did come from someone else in the first place, where it would almost certainly have been better-spent than on getting wasted. And you may just be enabling a substance abuse problem to continue and worsen.
To put it another way, you end up where you would have without the guaranteed income, except that the alcoholic has done that much more damage to him/herself, and the taxpayers are that much poorer.
So I'd say that yeah, in that particular case it does hurt.
>issue is how do we protect people from themselves.
Sorry, but I think something is wrong with this kind of thinking. For e.g. someone who knows "better", could protect "you" by not funding your start-up! Also, if you read the article, Schmidt says "I tell people not to think about it for others, but think about it for themselves".
Well, as evidenced by this discussion, we do very often nerd-out on social psychology :) !
Here is a Seattle-based program that mitigates the huge costs of alcohol addiction by providing free housing and some realistic rules for staying there. The structure of the program both protects society from their addiction, and "them from themselves".
The built-in (and often clashing) drives for "fairness" and for "charity" often bubble up as we examine a program that helps someone who may not seem to deserve our help. But there are practical reasons to help people, with measurable results.
Still, when programs are developed, they must incorporate and mitigate the potential social side-effects!
In a reasonable society with universal healthcare, misspending the universal income on things like booze could be treated as a health problem. As for how to feed people who fall into that trap, there might need to be some emergency income available for which a doctor would need to sign off.
Of course, we'd have to fix healthcare first in the US, which is its own giant political argument.
If you support giving money to poor people, why are you waiting for the government to take your money and do it for you? Why aren't you already giving money to the poor?
This is such a weak argument. In order to make a meaningful impact on society, you need mandated programs that require all to contribute. Do you propose that foreign aid, military spending, healthcare all be done on a peer to peer basis as well?
Yes but the point is if you think it is a good idea to give money to poor people, why are you yourself not doing it already? Sure we would be better off if we required everyone to contribute, but helping only, say, 10 people would still be desirable right?
There's a big difference between donating money to the poor and creating a vast society-wide social safety net that enables riskier careers (like entrepreneurship and art) for more people. I support the latter, not the former, and I cannot anywhere near afford the cost of the latter by myself.
Think of it as a new social contract with a modern definition of human dignity that does not include having to toil at a horrible job just to survive. I'd sign up to that.
So, all the hundreds of thousands of people here in America who donate their time to charitable work are wasting their time because it's not "mandated"? The billions of dollars Americans (and, no doubt, Europeans as well) donate voluntarily to charitable causes should instead be confiscated by a tax collector and redistributed systematically to all citizens according to some bureaucratic process which determines eligibility?
No, money should be confiscated by a tax collector and redistributed systematically to all citizens __without__ some bureaucratic process which determines eligibility. That's what basic income means.
So why bother? They collect my money, then send it back to me in the form of a government check? Only, minus a few dollars for overhead and for redistributing to some other guy who doesn't pay any taxes? Why not allow a tax credit for donation to charity, which allows people to (1) feel good by helping fellow human beings, and (2) help those causes they really believe in?
Note that currently the U.S. allows a tax deduction but not credit for charitable giving.
The option you propose is largely what the current system looks like. The proponents of the basic income argue that basic income is better because it massively reduces the overhead of trying to figure out who is eligible and who isn't, and of administering many concurrent schemes designed to solve many specific problems.
A minor point of clarification in regards to the Swiss proposition is that there is no 'eligibility' beyond being a citizen. Not sure how much bureaucratic process is involved in that.
I don't believe he actually said that. I believe what he actually said was that there exist programs of giving which can only be effective when practiced on a large scale.
Taken in context, his statement does not appear to me to be a universal positive claim, so inverting it to a universal negative seems unfair. His point appears to be that this particular idea as well as some others are such that they cannot be effective when the scale is too small.
Him giving to the poor doesn't achieve the same goal as a government providing a basic wage to all. Yes, you can help some people, but this is a change in the very fabric of society. In how people choose to live, to strive or to squander.
This is a remarkable piece of legislation and truly exciting to observe.
Yes it does achieve the same on a per-capita level. Do the math, and just start doing the part you intend to compel others to. If you're not willing to voluntarily take on one complete stranger and pay him a "basic wage" out of your own pocket, don't compel (with threat of fine/imprisonment) everyone else to do the same.
This is a terrifying piece of legislation precisely because it is a change in the very fabric of society, in how people are compelled to support others regardless of whether they will strive or squander - and that anyone choosing to not support such a devaluing of human worth will be punished via the police power of the state.
If I'm not willing to go out into the wilderness and lay out ten square feet of asphalt, I shouldn't support a national highway system?
If I'm not willing to personally fly on a jet fighter, I shouldn't support a national defense system?
If I'm not willing to seek out and apprehend criminals myself, I shouldn't support a police force?
One role of government is to coordinate wide-scale activity that would be impossible to efficiently or equitably execute without the power to compel individual action. Once you have accepted the right of government to force you to do one thing under threat of punishment, further argument needs to be about the appropriate scope of that power, not whether the power itself is illegitimate.
If you're not willing to lay your own driveway, don't expect a highway to it.
If you're not willing to head for the front lines and fight as best you can, don't expect an effective national defense.
If you're not willing to confront criminals in your own home, don't expect police to track them down when they escape.
Yes, government's major role is to coordinate national-scale activities which serve everyone's interests. If you're not willing to do your part without that coordination, don't expect others to pitch in. Government is not some minor deity acting in pure benevolence, government is the aggregation of citizens doing their part and coordinating mutually beneficial activities. Government is the consequence of people consenting to negotiations over rights & responsibilities, not a bunch of know-it-all busybodies threatening to wreck the lives of anyone who does not submit to their whims.
If I'm a renter, I don't have property to lay driveway on, and yet I have a need for highways. Combat is a job for trained soldiers; if a country needs to mobilize irregulars from the streets it has probably lost the war.
And the police generally advise that you do not confront intruders, but instead find a protected area and call 911. Apprehending criminals is the job of the police, regardless of whether they're in your home. Confronting them yourself is a great way to turn a burglary into a murder.
In a representative government, there is a legislative process required to authorize government action. It is neither necessary nor desirable to perform some small-scale imitation of a policy you would like to see enacted before advocating for that policy.
This provides the money transfer, but it does not provide the safety net.
> devaluing of human worth
There are two ways I can interpret 'devaluing' here, and I don't understand how either one makes sense.
Iff 'dropping the value of the money', it does not drop the value to move and spend money.
Iff 'devaluing people', how in the world does it devalue people to make a rule that they deserve a certain amount of the nation's production, to enjoy food and such with? I could understand if you said it devalued the ideal of gainful employment, but that's not what you said...
If you're not willing to provide at least a tiny part of the safety net for one person on your own, I don't think you're serious enough about it for me to give up what safety net I'm already providing to others without compulsion.
As for "devaluing", it's akin to giving kids awards for just showing up. If you're physically and mentally capable of caring for yourself, do so; giving you a "living guaranteed income" just for existing devalues what you're able to contribute to yourself and society. Yes, I understand the idea that it's somehow "fair and simple"; I also understand that such altruistic abstractions fail hard in reality.
I've seen the profoundly infirm earn a living, and I've seen the wholly capable wreck what they have on the premise that someone else would replace it. The truly needy I gladly give aid to; I despise these movements toward compulsory support of those whose only need is a reason to get up and produce.
>If you're not willing to provide at least a tiny part of the safety net
Nope, not a safety net. Safety nets are guaranteed. One person giving doesn't work, it needs to have the participation of many.
> I despise these movements toward compulsory support of those whose only need is a reason to get up and produce.
I don't. I feel that certain kinds of taxes that go toward the entire community are fundamentally reasonable, such as the ones applied to natural resources. And almost nowhere in the world do you have to produce simply to be a citizen. Why not turn part of that money into a check instead of dumping it into bureaucracy?
Why do you care if someone else wants to produce or not? Is the incentive to not be poor too weak? You insist it be an incentive to not starve that motivates labor? Productivity per hour worked has skyrocketed in the last 500 years. At what point do we decide that we can spare a few percent to ensure everyone has food and shelter? Never?
> Yes it does achieve the same on a per-capita level.
You're missing everyone's point here. It's like Kickstarter. Conditional support. I am willing to give a band $50 for a vinyl printing of their new album, but only if they actually can gather enough money to press the thing. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
Tough questions are welcome, but they won't sound like "Well, if you think a nationwide basic income is such a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" That question is only tough because there is no underlying logic to respond to — it's a lazy talking point intended to impugn the other side's motives rather than address the actual issue at hand.
It appears that I agree with you objection, but the heavy use of the word "you" in your question comes across hostile and personal. If you phrased your question in a more passive tone or otherwise referred to unnamed third parties, I'm sure this conversation would have much less of an edge.
I agree that the objection is unconvincing as phrased.
However, if we all agree that "Someone Should Do Something About X", then why does it necessarily follow that government should decree that "Everyone Must Do The Following Things About X: ..."?
There are some gaps in logic there that (commendable!) fervor about poverty does not cover. It's fair to ask whether poverty can be helped by channeling that fervor towards less coercive and bureaucratic (and possibly more effective) outlets.
It's a good question, but really, his government is already taking his money and giving it to the poor in the form of existing (means-tested) social programs, that have an additional effect of creating an extreme disincentive to work, since you get disqualified from those as your income grows.
Replacing all means-tested government aid to the poor with a simple check to everyone would dramatically cut program costs and abuse, and quite likely actually result in more people getting actual jobs. It would also be a good reason to repeal the minimal wage laws, since there would be no rationale for them any more. To me, this seems like a pretty good tradeoff, even if overall tax rates go up a little to pay for it.
The main danger I see in this is that with the system in place, there would be continuous public pressure on the politicians to keep increasing the basic income level, until productive employment becomes not profitable any more and the economy collapses. Of course this problem is inherent in any welfare society, but I think it's more dangerous here, because of the sheer transparency. But if anyone can make this work, it's probably Switzerland, and we would all learn a lot from the experiment.
The danger is more subtle than that. There is also the danger that productivity decreases enough that the Swiss GDP cannot support the entitlement at acceptable levels, even without blatant pandering to political factions.
I wonder if some sort of regressive payout as a function of income (as in a logarithmic curve) doesn't make more sense. With a guaranteed base income, this would actually encourage working- and middle-class productivity. The entitlement would then be a multiplier of work, not a substitute for it.
If the basic income is reasonably low (the income figure seems high for the US, but cost of living is much higher in Switzerland), I don't see a major decrease in productivity. If anything, I see an increase, due to elimination of extreme disincentives the means-tested programs create. But there surely is a level at which what you are describing would happen, and that is exactly what I am worried about.
The regressive payout sounds like a good idea, but isn't it equivalent to just flattening the income tax?
> there surely is a level at which what you are describing would happen, and that is exactly what I am worried about
Yes. Essentially the Swiss will be gambling that the legislated payouts won't be high enough to trigger that scenario.
I can take your question about income taxes several ways, but I will say that progressive income taxes make much less sense when coupled with a guaranteed minimum income.
Also, a regressive payout has the opposite effect of a progressive income tax since the regressive payout enhances a household's ability to net more income while a progressive income tax makes it harder to net additional income.
Though disincentivizing marginal productivity may acceptable if the ultimate goal is redistribution of wealth instead of simply reducing the tax burden of people with modest incomes.
If you support a real free market economy, please, first, untangle banking and industry from overt and covert government involvement before you insist that the poor schlubs at the bottom of the economy be the experimental subjects for economic purity.
Treating every instance of giving money as equal is like failing to distinguish between packing popcorn from real popcorn. The motives and effects are not the same for every exchange of money. There is no way that swombat could provide a basic income for everyone, which is the idea under discussion here.
I'm not asking one person to provide a basic income for everyone. Here is my question: If a majority of the people in the country support this, why are they all not already doing it? And if they do not support it, then the referendum will not pass.
> Here is my question: If a majority of the people in the country support this, why are they all not already doing it?
Because they are not a psychically linked hive mind. The way the majority of people in a country coordinate the flow of resources through society is through the government. That's what's happening here.
This is a bit like asking, "If you want peace, why don't you just drop out of the war?" The coordination is an essential part of the outcome.
You seem to be straining the analogy well beyond the actual comparison being made, to the point where I have no idea what you're talking about. The point is that one party in a fight stopping shooting does not constitute peace and one person giving a small amount of money to one other person does not accomplish the same goals as a basic income.
I do give to charity, but the net effect of this is not a proportionally scaled down version of the effect of a basic income.
This was never supposed to be a personal attack or pointed commentary. The question is not some rhetorical device. It's just a question: If the majority of people in a country want their money to go to the poor, why would they force themselves into the agreement? What's the advantage to being coerced by a government, over voluntary action?
Edit: changed "each other" to "themselves" since that's closer to what's confusing me.
It isn't that "they want their money to go to the poor," per se. This program is not means-tested. And it isn't really that they're forcing each other into agreement. As I said earlier, the idea is for the giving to be coordinated in a specific way. Individual transfers of money are not a scaled-down version of a basic income. The scale is essential to the integrity of the program.
Many of these people may very well already give money to the poor. I don't see why you assume they don't. But the guarantee is the killer feature here, and you can't accomplish that by your lonesome, or even as a small group. A version of this that doesn't cover everyone is not the same thing at all.
There's a big difference. You can donate and help a small number of people. The government can instantly pull everybody in the country out of poverty. That's not something you can do yourself.
I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but reducing risk of destitution for everyone in the country down to zero is one cause for which I'll be happy to pay taxes.
Why do I want more money? To buy toys, to buy time, and to buy security. The basic income resolves the last two items, and puts the first one well within reach for most reasonable toys.