8 ms·

> this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. Switzerland's per capita GDP is about USD 79000/year, so assuming 80% of the Swiss population are adults and ci

> this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. Switzerland's per capita GDP is about USD 79000/year, so assuming 80% of the Swiss population are adults and citizens, this would cost about 34% of GDP, which may be unaffordable.

kijin 13y ago
Define "unaffordable". It's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay", when the phrase is supposed to mean "we can't pay, we don't have enough money". I understand why people don't want to part with money, but at least let's be honest. If you sort everyone from poorest to richest, and plot their incomes on a graph, basic income just means that the slope is flatter than before [1]. As long as the area under the graph (GDP) remains the same, it's technically affordable. The flattening is accomplished by (a) taxing the rich more, and (b) a gradual reduction of salaries and/or working hours as the market finds a new equilibrium. What matters is political will, and it seems that Switzerland has more of it than most of the other developed countries. [1] http://i.imgur.com/IGkHoma.png http://i.imgur.com/IGkHoma.png (Sorry, it looks like crap because I just drew it in MS Paint.) Edit: Fixed graph. The red line is now curved properly.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen. The affordable question is one of: where the money's going to come from? How will small or large businesses, poor/middle-class/wealthy private individuals be required to support it? The initiative's organizing committee said the basic income could partly be financed through money from social insurance systems in Switzerland. I don't think the initiative people really have a clear idea.
  - kijin 13y ago
    > Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen. Isn't that the whole point of any policy that implies a massive redistribution of wealth? Of course the money needs to come from higher taxes. Ergo, "What matters is political will." As I said, it's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay". This usage masks the real problem, which is political will (or lack thereof), not the physical scarcity of USD or CHF.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      I'm not Swiss, so I have no skin in the game. Therefore, I don't care who pays :-) "It's unaffordable" can certainly mean "we don't want to pay". It can also mean "Are there enough rich enough people and businesses that can pay, that this can be passed, or can reasonably be collected?" It is a question of political will, and it's annoying when people lambast that question with criticism as simple selfishness. Redistribution often hits hard on middle income earners. I'll be impressed should something like this be passed, and the earning figure simply pivots on the median earner instead of gouging earnings from the middle-class. I wonder at what point Swiss high earners, or wealthy Swiss companies, will move to somewhere like Luxembourg to protect that wealth? Or is it simply not possible in the mind of a Swiss national to do so?
      - growupkids 13y ago
        Not to mention that it also hits business, and some businesses may just choose move to markets without redistribution whereas it may not be as easy for the workers to move. That in turn hits not only the tax base once, but twice (less paid workers, less taxes from businesses).
        yaddayadda 13y ago
        But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income. Without the 'need' to immediately get new employment, those workers can take the time to train for, or create from scratch, a more fulfilling job at a company that won't pack up and relocate when social welfare is given priority over greed.
        Zak 13y ago
        But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income. Unless/until the money runs out, which might happen more quickly than you think if, indeed companies and wealthy individuals start packing up and leaving the country.
        13y ago
- cabalamat 13y ago
  > Define "unaffordable". The Swiss people might not want to pay the amount of tax that would be necessary to have citizens income at that level.
- xavi 13y ago
  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 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 wealth.
  - lmartel 13y ago
    Frickin' everyone would. If someone offered you 30k/year basic income would you quit your cushy programming job, or would you buy more stuff?
    - rglullis 13y ago
      I don't know if that was your intention, but your comment smacks of a defense of consumerism. I may be against the idea of basic income exactly because it would allow people to feed a system that does not but expect them to be consumers of whatever crap society produces. Also, see http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
      - kijin 13y ago
        Some would say that basic income helps defeat consumerism, because people who really want to spend their time creating stuff can now do so without having to worry about putting food on the table.
        rglullis 13y ago
        Have you seen the comment I was replying to? I don't feel like discussing what "some people" would say when you have someone right in front of me showing that even hackers (the one class that has everything in their hands to build whatever they want for free!) are inclined to think that having more money means "hellz yeah, now I can buy more stuff!".
- gaius 13y ago
  But if you plot the tax paid by each person, you reach a different conclusion.
- qq66 13y ago
  A $30,000 designer leather handbag (they exist) is unaffordable for me. I could sell my car, cash in my bank account, give up my apartment, and live in a box on the street with my designer bag. But I'm not going to do that. That's always what "unaffordable" has generally meant.
  - shubb 13y ago
    What about a $30,000 car? Or if you prefer, a $30'000 operation for your favorite child? I think you kind of agree with the post you are replying to...
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      A $30,000 car is made affordable through financing, and financing rates are affordable because cars are useful. In civilized countries you're not going to pay $30,000 for any required medical procedure... There are some advantages to universal health care...
- luckyisgood 13y ago
  Thank you for this image. It helps us basic income activists explain to people that basic income is about redistribution, and how it works. I don't know if you know this or not, but this image is being shared on Facebook and Twitter like crazy :) There's a European citizens' initiative going on right now, we're collecting one million signatures and we're using your comment and your image (with attribution, of course) to drive a point home.
  - kijin 13y ago
    I'm glad you found the image useful. No need for any attribution, the graph is in the public domain. Somebody should produce a better version with more accurate proportions based on the Swiss data, possibly with a log scale on the vertical axis to accommodate all income brackets. Then we can really start asking questions about whether that kind of curve is attainable and/or "affordable". By the way, one of the replies on Twitter says the curve on the right should be linear. Nope. The fact that the curve on the right still has a noticeable slope is the only thing that keeps Friedman, Hayek, and all your favorite (left|right)-libertarians on board the scheme.
icebraining 13y ago
Have you discounted the 20-25% of immigrants who are counted in the GDP per capita, but who almost certainly won't receive this income?
- cabalamat 13y ago
  No I haven't. If 22.5% of the population are foreigners (who won't get it), and 80% of Swiss people are adults, then the calculation becomes: 336000.80.775/79000 which is the lower figure of 26.4% of GDP. Edit: fixed typo.
  - chmars 13y ago
    The initiative mentions the 'whole population', the text is not limited to adults with Swiss citizenship only. In today's Swiss welfare state, all people living in Switzerland already have full access to what actually already is a basic income (or even more), just not fully unconditional.
    - cabalamat 13y ago
      > The initiative mentions the 'whole population' You're right -- so my initial figure was more accurate.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rb2k_ 13y ago
Also: Keep in mind that you could cut almost all social systems (unemployment insurance, the whole departments that manage that stuff currently, ...)
- renata 13y ago
  One thing that has always confused me with this claim in regards to basic incomes - if our current model is "We have welfare so people don't die when they can't get food, medical care, etc", then what happens when someone receiving a basic income spends it all on hookers and blow? Are we okay with letting him die now, because he had the option to pay for his basic needs and just chose not to? Or are we still going to have to have some kind of safety net for idiots?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    i) You force people to pay for health insurance. (Taking it from their pay, for example.) ii) You protect children, because they are innocent victims. iii) People taking drugs might be addicts, and need health care to treat their addiction. But other than that, once they spend the money it's gone and if they don't have food then they go to a charity or route around in bins. We talk about the social housing in the UK, but it's hard to get social housing, and being a person who is homeless because of drink means you're going to end up in hostels at best.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    Most welfare systems in developed countries don't specify what the recipient has to spend payments on, anyway.
    - rb2k_ 13y ago
      Yeah, food stamps don't exist in most countries because it seems undignified
      - rsynnott 13y ago
        Well, also because it's a waste of money; administering a food stamp system is far more costly than administering a welfare giro system, and has no clear benefit.
e12e 13y ago
Keep in mind that part of that 80% are probably pensioners/not working -- thereby already receiving some sort of benefits already.
jkn 13y ago
Well it's not like the proposal is to divert 34% of the GDP into a black hole. A state cannot afford to divert 34% of its resources (materials, workforce, etc.) to build a fancy statue. But the only direct cost of this proposal to the economy is a small administrative overhead. All the resources that these 34% GDP represent are still there, unspent, in the hands of people. We can argue of course about the indirect consequences to the economy, e.g. how it would affect the competitiveness of Switzerland if unpleasant jobs suddenly require a more attractive salary.
rsynnott 13y ago
Remember, the basic income is taxable. Giving the basic income to someone earning, say, the equivalent of 100k USD doesn't actually mean giving them $33600, because it will all be taxed at the higher tax bracket. People will also buy things with the basic income, incurring VAT, and if they buy Swiss things, then the companies making them will also pay corporate tax on that. So, yes, this programme would cost _something_, but it wouldn't cost 34% GDP.
- mcv 13y ago
  I'm a big fan of basic income, and politically very much a leftist, but I also think basic income goes very well with a flat tax rate. If you consider progressive taxation as a high tax rate with a discount for lower incomes so they get enough money to live, then basic income, which provides enough money to live, can replace that discount. Just like it replaces welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. It's going to make social security and the tax system both a lot easier, and cut down a lot on bureaucracy.
mdkess 13y ago
The idea with a basic income is that it's taxed back from the wealthier. There's no way without knowing income distribution and tax rates, but I would imagine that someone making $150k pre basic income is not seeing any change in their take home salary post basic income, and someone making $500k before basic income will actually come home with a little bit less (that is just my hypothesis - I don't know the details surrounding this). Basic income is just a redistribute tax mechanism, but it's one that tries to remove bureaucracy and politics from social security programs surrounding qualifications, etc.

kijin 13y ago

Define "unaffordable". It's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay", when the phrase is supposed to mean "we can't pay, we don't have enough money". I understand why people don't want to part with money, but at least let's be honest. If you sort everyone from poorest to richest, and plot their incomes on a graph, basic income just means that the slope is flatter than before [1]. As long as the area under the graph (GDP) remains the same, it's technically affordable. The flattening is accomplished by (a) taxing the rich more, and (b) a gradual reduction of salaries and/or working hours as the market finds a new equilibrium. What matters is political will, and it seems that Switzerland has more of it than most of the other developed countries. [1] http://i.imgur.com/IGkHoma.png http://i.imgur.com/IGkHoma.png (Sorry, it looks like crap because I just drew it in MS Paint.) Edit: Fixed graph. The red line is now curved properly.

mattlutze 13y ago
Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen. The affordable question is one of: where the money's going to come from? How will small or large businesses, poor/middle-class/wealthy private individuals be required to support it? The initiative's organizing committee said the basic income could partly be financed through money from social insurance systems in Switzerland. I don't think the initiative people really have a clear idea.
- kijin 13y ago
  > Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen. Isn't that the whole point of any policy that implies a massive redistribution of wealth? Of course the money needs to come from higher taxes. Ergo, "What matters is political will." As I said, it's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay". This usage masks the real problem, which is political will (or lack thereof), not the physical scarcity of USD or CHF.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    I'm not Swiss, so I have no skin in the game. Therefore, I don't care who pays :-) "It's unaffordable" can certainly mean "we don't want to pay". It can also mean "Are there enough rich enough people and businesses that can pay, that this can be passed, or can reasonably be collected?" It is a question of political will, and it's annoying when people lambast that question with criticism as simple selfishness. Redistribution often hits hard on middle income earners. I'll be impressed should something like this be passed, and the earning figure simply pivots on the median earner instead of gouging earnings from the middle-class. I wonder at what point Swiss high earners, or wealthy Swiss companies, will move to somewhere like Luxembourg to protect that wealth? Or is it simply not possible in the mind of a Swiss national to do so?
    - growupkids 13y ago
      Not to mention that it also hits business, and some businesses may just choose move to markets without redistribution whereas it may not be as easy for the workers to move. That in turn hits not only the tax base once, but twice (less paid workers, less taxes from businesses).
      - yaddayadda 13y ago
        But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income. Without the 'need' to immediately get new employment, those workers can take the time to train for, or create from scratch, a more fulfilling job at a company that won't pack up and relocate when social welfare is given priority over greed.
        Zak 13y ago
        But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income. Unless/until the money runs out, which might happen more quickly than you think if, indeed companies and wealthy individuals start packing up and leaving the country.
        13y ago
cabalamat 13y ago
> Define "unaffordable". The Swiss people might not want to pay the amount of tax that would be necessary to have citizens income at that level.
xavi 13y ago
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 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 wealth.
- lmartel 13y ago
  Frickin' everyone would. If someone offered you 30k/year basic income would you quit your cushy programming job, or would you buy more stuff?
  - rglullis 13y ago
    I don't know if that was your intention, but your comment smacks of a defense of consumerism. I may be against the idea of basic income exactly because it would allow people to feed a system that does not but expect them to be consumers of whatever crap society produces. Also, see http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
    - kijin 13y ago
      Some would say that basic income helps defeat consumerism, because people who really want to spend their time creating stuff can now do so without having to worry about putting food on the table.
      - rglullis 13y ago
        Have you seen the comment I was replying to? I don't feel like discussing what "some people" would say when you have someone right in front of me showing that even hackers (the one class that has everything in their hands to build whatever they want for free!) are inclined to think that having more money means "hellz yeah, now I can buy more stuff!".
gaius 13y ago
But if you plot the tax paid by each person, you reach a different conclusion.
qq66 13y ago
A $30,000 designer leather handbag (they exist) is unaffordable for me. I could sell my car, cash in my bank account, give up my apartment, and live in a box on the street with my designer bag. But I'm not going to do that. That's always what "unaffordable" has generally meant.
- shubb 13y ago
  What about a $30,000 car? Or if you prefer, a $30'000 operation for your favorite child? I think you kind of agree with the post you are replying to...
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    A $30,000 car is made affordable through financing, and financing rates are affordable because cars are useful. In civilized countries you're not going to pay $30,000 for any required medical procedure... There are some advantages to universal health care...
luckyisgood 13y ago
Thank you for this image. It helps us basic income activists explain to people that basic income is about redistribution, and how it works. I don't know if you know this or not, but this image is being shared on Facebook and Twitter like crazy :) There's a European citizens' initiative going on right now, we're collecting one million signatures and we're using your comment and your image (with attribution, of course) to drive a point home.
- kijin 13y ago
  I'm glad you found the image useful. No need for any attribution, the graph is in the public domain. Somebody should produce a better version with more accurate proportions based on the Swiss data, possibly with a log scale on the vertical axis to accommodate all income brackets. Then we can really start asking questions about whether that kind of curve is attainable and/or "affordable". By the way, one of the replies on Twitter says the curve on the right should be linear. Nope. The fact that the curve on the right still has a noticeable slope is the only thing that keeps Friedman, Hayek, and all your favorite (left|right)-libertarians on board the scheme.

icebraining 13y ago

Have you discounted the 20-25% of immigrants who are counted in the GDP per capita, but who almost certainly won't receive this income?

cabalamat 13y ago
No I haven't. If 22.5% of the population are foreigners (who won't get it), and 80% of Swiss people are adults, then the calculation becomes: 336000.80.775/79000 which is the lower figure of 26.4% of GDP. Edit: fixed typo.
- chmars 13y ago
  The initiative mentions the 'whole population', the text is not limited to adults with Swiss citizenship only. In today's Swiss welfare state, all people living in Switzerland already have full access to what actually already is a basic income (or even more), just not fully unconditional.
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    > The initiative mentions the 'whole population' You're right -- so my initial figure was more accurate.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rb2k_ 13y ago

Also: Keep in mind that you could cut almost all social systems (unemployment insurance, the whole departments that manage that stuff currently, ...)

renata 13y ago
One thing that has always confused me with this claim in regards to basic incomes - if our current model is "We have welfare so people don't die when they can't get food, medical care, etc", then what happens when someone receiving a basic income spends it all on hookers and blow? Are we okay with letting him die now, because he had the option to pay for his basic needs and just chose not to? Or are we still going to have to have some kind of safety net for idiots?
- DanBC 13y ago
  i) You force people to pay for health insurance. (Taking it from their pay, for example.) ii) You protect children, because they are innocent victims. iii) People taking drugs might be addicts, and need health care to treat their addiction. But other than that, once they spend the money it's gone and if they don't have food then they go to a charity or route around in bins. We talk about the social housing in the UK, but it's hard to get social housing, and being a person who is homeless because of drink means you're going to end up in hostels at best.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  Most welfare systems in developed countries don't specify what the recipient has to spend payments on, anyway.
  - rb2k_ 13y ago
    Yeah, food stamps don't exist in most countries because it seems undignified
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      Well, also because it's a waste of money; administering a food stamp system is far more costly than administering a welfare giro system, and has no clear benefit.

e12e 13y ago

Keep in mind that part of that 80% are probably pensioners/not working -- thereby already receiving some sort of benefits already.

jkn 13y ago

Well it's not like the proposal is to divert 34% of the GDP into a black hole. A state cannot afford to divert 34% of its resources (materials, workforce, etc.) to build a fancy statue. But the only direct cost of this proposal to the economy is a small administrative overhead. All the resources that these 34% GDP represent are still there, unspent, in the hands of people. We can argue of course about the indirect consequences to the economy, e.g. how it would affect the competitiveness of Switzerland if unpleasant jobs suddenly require a more attractive salary.

rsynnott 13y ago

Remember, the basic income is taxable. Giving the basic income to someone earning, say, the equivalent of 100k USD doesn't actually mean giving them $33600, because it will all be taxed at the higher tax bracket. People will also buy things with the basic income, incurring VAT, and if they buy Swiss things, then the companies making them will also pay corporate tax on that. So, yes, this programme would cost _something_, but it wouldn't cost 34% GDP.

mcv 13y ago
I'm a big fan of basic income, and politically very much a leftist, but I also think basic income goes very well with a flat tax rate. If you consider progressive taxation as a high tax rate with a discount for lower incomes so they get enough money to live, then basic income, which provides enough money to live, can replace that discount. Just like it replaces welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. It's going to make social security and the tax system both a lot easier, and cut down a lot on bureaucracy.

mdkess 13y ago

The idea with a basic income is that it's taxed back from the wealthier. There's no way without knowing income distribution and tax rates, but I would imagine that someone making $150k pre basic income is not seeing any change in their take home salary post basic income, and someone making $500k before basic income will actually come home with a little bit less (that is just my hypothesis - I don't know the details surrounding this). Basic income is just a redistribute tax mechanism, but it's one that tries to remove bureaucracy and politics from social security programs surrounding qualifications, etc.