2 ms·

In The Netherlands we are already spending that amount, so it doesn't need to come from anywhere. We spend well over 1000/mo on services for unemployed and poor

by tinco 11y ago

In The Netherlands we are already spending that amount, so it doesn't need to come from anywhere. We spend well over 1000/mo on services for unemployed and poor people. We send social workers, health care all sorts of things. The general theory is that if we would supply these people with basic income they will live healthier lifestyles and not need so much care. In the long run it's thought basic income might even save The Netherlands money. There's a lot of complaining about how it will make people 'sit around and eat ice cream' as if that's all the unemployed do. They've clearly not gone outside much. The unemployed drink a lot of beer, they do meth and they walk around aimlessly through the city and generally cause all kinds of damages and harm. I live in the east of The Netherlands with pretty high unemployment, and it's already quite visible. But I've been to San Francisco and that's just horrible. I can't imagine how a rich person (and you have to be rich to live there) would want to live there amongst so many homeless and desperate poor people. Would it really be so bad to pay a bit of extra tax just so those people have a little less shitty lives and don't need to stroll around the SF center? It's not like they enjoy that. Of course, it's not 100% certain that the basic income will solve that particular problem, but I feel it's worth a shot, so I'm happy Utrecht is trying it. edit: Also let's remember that most people are simply decent. There's not much wrong with watching American Idol and eating some ice cream. If people do decide to not work under basic income (I don't think the majority will) they won't because they have a satisfying way to spend their time at home or wherever. Why is that a bad thing?

PinguTS 11y ago
The problem is, all the calculation I have seen so far (by different members and friends of the Pirate Party Germany) included also the benefits for people with disabilities, and other illnesses. It included also the money currently used to support the public health care system and other social benefits. If you remove all those also to finance basic income, then you are taking the money who really need it. If you are saying - like some who support basic income - here is your basic income and now you need private health care and also all those other things of the safety net removed, than this is pure capitalism in the form of "take it or leave it". I am more for the safety net. I am the one who also pays extra for public health care. I could easily switch to private health care and safe some big bucks monthly. No, because public health care is an important part for the society. All the working financing models I have seen so far meant: less then 500 EUR as basic income, which does not work. Or they took the money from important parts of the social net. May be there would one financing model: remove the costs for the military system. But that will never happen, I assume.
- tinco 11y ago
  Ah no. Some benefits would become obsolete, The Netherlands already gives basic income to artists and people with work prohibiting disabilities for example. But it's obviously not a substitute for health insurance and other public health care systems. The idea is that it would reduce the expense on health care services because people would become ill less often. Whether this is true remains to be tested on a larger scale, but I think some research has pointed to this being the case. I think you are right, 500 euro would be extra spending money, not a basic income and quite possibly would have the reverse effect. It's why the basic income in Utrecht is 900, which is enough to live off as a single person.

by tinco 11y ago

PinguTS 11y ago

The problem is, all the calculation I have seen so far (by different members and friends of the Pirate Party Germany) included also the benefits for people with disabilities, and other illnesses. It included also the money currently used to support the public health care system and other social benefits. If you remove all those also to finance basic income, then you are taking the money who really need it. If you are saying - like some who support basic income - here is your basic income and now you need private health care and also all those other things of the safety net removed, than this is pure capitalism in the form of "take it or leave it". I am more for the safety net. I am the one who also pays extra for public health care. I could easily switch to private health care and safe some big bucks monthly. No, because public health care is an important part for the society. All the working financing models I have seen so far meant: less then 500 EUR as basic income, which does not work. Or they took the money from important parts of the social net. May be there would one financing model: remove the costs for the military system. But that will never happen, I assume.

tinco 11y ago
Ah no. Some benefits would become obsolete, The Netherlands already gives basic income to artists and people with work prohibiting disabilities for example. But it's obviously not a substitute for health insurance and other public health care systems. The idea is that it would reduce the expense on health care services because people would become ill less often. Whether this is true remains to be tested on a larger scale, but I think some research has pointed to this being the case. I think you are right, 500 euro would be extra spending money, not a basic income and quite possibly would have the reverse effect. It's why the basic income in Utrecht is 900, which is enough to live off as a single person.