Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Very interesting idea, I'm interested to see how it works in practice.

Essentially. I imagine even if it works it won't necessarily work in other places as part of the elements that make it work are the culture of that country. That probably won't stop some from endlessly droning about it though, either way.

Yeah, that's the kicker. I don't think this could really work well in the US (At least that amount) just due to population size.

A larger population generally goes hand in hand with a higher GDP in developed nations. A guaranteed income in the USA would also probably drive up the demand for goods and services, pumping even more money back into the system.

I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

 Sasori wrote:
I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

However, if each person spends $200 of that $300, that $200 is then passed through a number of companies as they buy new stock, invest in new machines, new staff, etc, as well as paying taxes.

It is the flow of money that drives things, not vaults full of gold.

Relapse wrote:
As others, I would be interested to see what happens if this actually was voted in.
It doesn't seem like the politicians on either side or a good part of the people over there are for it.
Something I am curious about is if they plan on everyone, working or not getting this bounty, or just non workers?

A similar system was apparently trialled in some little town in Canada back in the '70s. Everyone was entitled to the base wage, but extra money earned dropped it by $1 for every $2 earned.

So there's still an incentive to work, and they found that most people did.

Would be very interesting to see how it works on a national scale.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

However, if each person spends $200 of that $300, that $200 is then passed through a number of companies as they buy new stock, invest in new machines, new staff, etc, as well as paying taxes.

It is the flow of money that drives things, not vaults full of gold.

I just don't personally see that working out in practice.

 Sasori wrote:
I just don't personally see that working out in practice.

Every dollar spent is spent multiple times before it comes to rest. If those dolars are already at rest they are not working to generate value.

Unlike giving money to the very rich and companies in the form of trickle down policy where they tend to horde wealth, giving money to the poorer and middle classes typically results in higher spending as they can now afford to buy more necessities, spend more on recreation, etc; this generates further wealth and also benefits wider society at the same time.

 Sasori wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Very interesting idea, I'm interested to see how it works in practice.

Essentially. I imagine even if it works it won't necessarily work in other places as part of the elements that make it work are the culture of that country. That probably won't stop some from endlessly droning about it though, either way.

Yeah, that's the kicker. I don't think this could really work well in the US (At least that amount) just due to population size.

A larger population generally goes hand in hand with a higher GDP in developed nations. A guaranteed income in the USA would also probably drive up the demand for goods and services, pumping even more money back into the system.

I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

Considering we spend a lot more than that on the military...

Plus get rid of social security, welfare, and the standard deduction/exemptions...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

However, if each person spends $200 of that $300, that $200 is then passed through a number of companies as they buy new stock, invest in new machines, new staff, etc, as well as paying taxes.

It is the flow of money that drives things, not vaults full of gold.

Given that so much manufacturing of the goods consumed by the United States are made in other countries how will their buying "new stock, invest in new machines, new staff" assist the American economy?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

The future of what? Where exactly does the money come from?

Where does all money come from? Is it a representative of some designated "worth",or does it gain value by virtue of the country which controls it? Or is it, in fact, simply and idea, a lie? An abstract "value" created out of our own need to define, to control. An inherently worthless idea, given value because we need it to. Debt, traded and transformed, the original owners long dead and forgotten. A hope, a desperate belief, that someone, somehow, somewhere will repay it. A fragile balance of pure belief, because to believe anything else makes it meaningless, and abstract concept devoid of value. A destruction of everything that has been built up, a removal of everything that is, simply because of a change in perception.



I'll shut up now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

However, if each person spends $200 of that $300, that $200 is then passed through a number of companies as they buy new stock, invest in new machines, new staff, etc, as well as paying taxes.

It is the flow of money that drives things, not vaults full of gold.

Given that so much manufacturing of the goods consumed by the United States are made in other countries how will their buying "new stock, invest in new machines, new staff" assist the American economy?

Staff at a local level are US...same with transport and distribution networks.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm sure there is a certain point where it becomes too expensive, depending on population size. For example, take the 240,000,000 million adult population in the US. At 300$ a month.. that's 72 billion a month. That just doesn't seem feasible to me.

However, if each person spends $200 of that $300, that $200 is then passed through a number of companies as they buy new stock, invest in new machines, new staff, etc, as well as paying taxes.

It is the flow of money that drives things, not vaults full of gold.

Given that so much manufacturing of the goods consumed by the United States are made in other countries how will their buying "new stock, invest in new machines, new staff" assist the American economy?

As per a post above. A stronger, more affluent market along with suitable incentives can also encourage investment in local manufacturing. Alongside this, small businesses from manufacture, retail, construction and service sectors would potentially thrive.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
As per a post above. A stronger, more affluent market along with suitable incentives can also encourage investment in local manufacturing. Alongside this, small businesses from manufacture, retail, construction and service sectors would potentially thrive.

Which ignores the historic and economic reasons why manufacturing moved overseas to begin with. Your idea has merit, albeit in a close system with limited international trade and transport links.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
As per a post above. A stronger, more affluent market along with suitable incentives can also encourage investment in local manufacturing. Alongside this, small businesses from manufacture, retail, construction and service sectors would potentially thrive.

Which ignores the historic and economic reasons why manufacturing moved overseas to begin with. Your idea has merit, albeit in a close system with limited international trade and transport links.

It is not my idea. It is my thoughts on the general idea behind infusing capital into the lower and middle classes.

Many large conglomerates moved manufacturing offshore to cut costs, certainly. One of the ideas with a "wage" granted to all is that the cash drives sales which drives demand. This can in turn be used to kickstart more smaller businesses which generally employ and manufacture locally.

Again; my general thoughts on an ecconomic plan which has been created by others who presumably know a lot more and can factor society and historic trends into their models.

It's not as though the idea of diminishing return of the utility of money is unorthodox in economics.

A guaranteed income can also mean that we can get rid of the minimum wage which will encourage more manufacturing here.

 skyth wrote:
A guaranteed income can also mean that we can get rid of the minimum wage which will encourage more manufacturing here.

Perhaps not. A minimum wage would still help prevent exploitation of workers and help with social mobility. The whole point of employment is to better your position in life by being able to afford more and better things. A guaranteed income simply means more of your wage can go towards this rather than paying for basics like rent, food and transport, etc...

$72 billion sounds like a lot of money but actually it's about 0.4% of the US GDP, under 5% for the whole year.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
A guaranteed income can also mean that we can get rid of the minimum wage which will encourage more manufacturing here.

Perhaps not. A minimum wage would still help prevent exploitation of workers and help with social mobility. The whole point of employment is to better your position in life by being able to afford more and better things. A guaranteed income simply means more of your wage can go towards this rather than paying for basics like rent, food and transport, etc...

And with a guaranteed income, it still does that. The point of the minimum wage is that everyone that works full time should be able to support themselves. Guaranteed income takes care of that part. (assuming it is enough).

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least the Swiss get to vote on stuff like this... Why can't we live in a democracy?

You fething wot mate?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
What are the costs of living there? Is this sum considered a large amount, or is it barely enough to squeak by?

I'm not familiar with Switzerland to know how much impact this would have.

Switzerland is one of the, if not the most expensive places in the world. This money would not be enough to get by, but it comes on top of already existing social insurance and so would be a very welcome bonus for low-income families. Essentially, it would allow the poor to save a bit of money for things besides food and housing, and participate in social activities, pursue hobbies or sports or even to go on a trip once in a while. Basically do all the stuff every now and then that the middle class often takes for granted.
It would be very nice, but the big question of course is who is going to pay for it? If this money has to be collected by raising taxes and cutting social insurances, then in the end there might not be a benefit. Or there might just be a benefit for the poor, while the middle class has to pay for it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$72 billion sounds like a lot of money but actually it's about 0.4% of the US GDP, under 5% for the whole year.

Unless I'm missing something here though, this would have to come out of the Federal budget, right? Of which this would be the single largest expenditure at 864 billion.

The question is how much of that 864 billion would end up no longer needed because of such a program. I'm guessing in the short term it would cost more, but in the long term save a ton of money as a variety of costs would go down over time.

 Sasori wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$72 billion sounds like a lot of money but actually it's about 0.4% of the US GDP, under 5% for the whole year.

Unless I'm missing something here though, this would have to come out of the Federal budget, right? Of which this would be the single largest expenditure at 864 billion.

GDP (gross domestic product) is everything produced by a country, not federal budget.

To be sure, there would be questions about how to raise the money and how to distribute it. I just wanted to show that it is not an inconceivably huge amount of money.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least the Swiss get to vote on stuff like this... Why can't we live in a democracy?

You fething wot mate?

A democracy. You know what that is? It is a Greek word that means "rule by the common people" and indicates a form of government where the people (that meaning every person allowed to vote) make decisions regarding laws and policies. Here in the Netherlands, (and all other European countries) those decisions are made by government officials rather than the people. The only input the people have in the government is to once every 4 years pick a candidate from a small selection on a government-approved list. If enough people pick this specific person he/she then gets a seat in one of the two decision-making organisations of the state. In effect, the inbring of the people in the state is non-existent, and that is the case for all so-called "representative democracies". It is not an actual democratic form of government, as the rulers are only a small group of influential people ruling over the rest, rather than the rulers being the people as a whole. Ideally, in a democracy, a government should never be able or willing to go against the will of the majority of the people or do anything without the agreement of the majority of the people. In the Netherlands and every other European country unfortenately, this is often the case. Switzerland on the other hand has a system where not only get the people to propose laws if they want to, they also get to vote on any government decisions they want to. This eliminates the need for the people to have to vote on every single little thing (which would be a very ineffective form of government for a modern state), but unlike in the Netherlands, it does allow the people to have a direct say in ruling the country if a sufficient amount of people finds an issue important enough.

Democracies are a pretty bad version of government. Constitutional Republic (IE what most modern countries have) is much better.

Pure democracy runs into the problem of the tyranny of the majority.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
What are the costs of living there? Is this sum considered a large amount, or is it barely enough to squeak by?

I'm not familiar with Switzerland to know how much impact this would have.

Switzerland is one of the, if not the most expensive places in the world. This money would not be enough to get by, but it comes on top of already existing social insurance and so would be a very welcome bonus for low-income families. Essentially, it would allow the poor to save a bit of money for things besides food and housing, and participate in social activities, pursue hobbies or sports or even to go on a trip once in a while. Basically do all the stuff every now and then that the middle class often takes for granted.
It would be very nice, but the big question of course is who is going to pay for it? If this money has to be collected by raising taxes and cutting social insurances, then in the end there might not be a benefit. Or there might just be a benefit for the poor, while the middle class has to pay for it.

Oh no, someone might have to give up a trip to eurodisney so someone else can get by.

Why not have the rich pay for it?

Just a thought...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why not have the rich pay for it?

Just a thought...

Beat me to it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least the Swiss get to vote on stuff like this... Why can't we live in a democracy?

You fething wot mate?

A democracy. You know what that is? It is a Greek word that means "rule by the common people" and indicates a form of government where the people (that meaning every person allowed to vote) make decisions regarding laws and policies. Here in the Netherlands, (and all other European countries) those decisions are made by government officials rather than the people. The only input the people have in the government is to once every 4 years pick a candidate from a small selection on a government-approved list. If enough people pick this specific person he/she then gets a seat in one of the two decision-making organisations of the state. In effect, the inbring of the people in the state is non-existent, and that is the case for all so-called "representative democracies". It is not an actual democratic form of government, as the rulers are only a small group of influential people ruling over the rest, rather than the rulers being the people as a whole. Ideally, in a democracy, a government should never be able or willing to go against the will of the majority of the people or do anything without the agreement of the majority of the people. In the Netherlands and every other European country unfortenately, this is often the case. Switzerland on the other hand has a system where not only get the people to propose laws if they want to, they also get to vote on any government decisions they want to. This eliminates the need for the people to have to vote on every single little thing (which would be a very ineffective form of government for a modern state), but unlike in the Netherlands, it does allow the people to have a direct say in ruling the country if a sufficient amount of people finds an issue important enough.

Yep, cause we've never had a referendum here. Nor can we petition for subjects to be discussed. Oh wait.

I guess we don't follow the law of Putin so we can't be doing it right.

This is an idea that I've been following on various economic blogs these past months (Finland are thinking about this idea as well) and IMO it has a lot of merit to it. From a British perspective, this basic income could be a good thing.

Poverty costs the UK a lot of NHS money, as well as a high social cost, as poor people tend to get ill more, and live less, so giving them more cash would go a long way to alleviate povery, especially child poverty, and of course, food banks would be consigned to the dustbin.

By paying cash into people's bank accounts, and scrapping benefits, the basic income could save the UK government a ton of money, as red tape and wasteful departments go out the window, and yes, I do mean you DWP!

The voluntary sector would get a boost overnight as people could volunteer for things they like to do, rather than be stuck in dead end jobs.

Speaking of dead end jobs, Western Societies face a massive change when automation ends up replaicng low paid, low skilled jobs. Where would these workers go? A basic income could solve this.

Seeing as the trickle down theory has been proven to be a load of horse gak, as the rich tend to avoid taxation these days, giving the masses more money could see more money getting spent on stuff, which could boost the economy.

I think this is a good idea. Go Switzerland!