Basic Income, a new human right

[Degman 73]

I just want to show you a petition for a new human right of Basic Income, you can inform about it in the following video:

[PuFu 4600]

the stupidest shit i've seen in a looong while.

the chain of thought, or in fact the lack of, is mesmerizing

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I don't like to agree with PuFu ,but this is completely stupid (anyway ,all those who signed the human right sheet were a bunch of naive guys).

Give this to people and they will start proliferating like aunts ... well at least , aunts work hard :D

Edited August 30, 2013 by On_Sabbatical

[Die neunte Seele 10]

This idea contradicts the philosophy our western societies all were built on since the industrial revolution. But actually, it is well thought about. Better than this short advertising video, or any video of this length, could demonstrate.

[Degman 73]

The whole idea may sounds ludicrous (like getting money which is like "young retirement"), but some of parts, such as everyone's right to have medical care, social services, having roof above head and similar, really should be parts of the basic human rights. I dont have anything agains if that petition goes true, it could bring more good than bad. (basic money income should be exacly enought to survive a month .. not that much to buy a plasma TV or a new car, which would make all peoples lazy to work.)

[celery 8]

Which do you think is better incentive for finding work, welfare money that you stop getting when you get any sort of work, or basic income that you keep getting on top of your salary? This kind of system can potentially decrease unemployment by a huge amount because there would be no welfare trap involved and doing a few low-paying shifts a month would always be better than not doing anything.

I'd suggest putting a bit more effort into your counterarguments than "well this is stupid!". What's so smart about the current state of affairs?

[PuFu 4600]

The whole idea may sounds ludicrous (like getting money which is like "young retirement"), but some of parts, such as everyone's right to have medical care, social services, having roof above head and similar, really should be parts of the basic human rights. I dont have anything agains if that petition goes true, it could bring more good than bad. (basic money income should be exacly enought to survive a month .. not that much to buy a plasma TV or a new car, which would make all peoples lazy to work.)

1. medical care, social services and so forth are already available and free in most European countries, opposed to US system.

2. what is "enough to survive a month" exactly. Prices are not exactly the same around the EU, not even the same in cities in the same country. 500 euros might sound ok in Poland to get by, but is hardly the same in UK London for instance.

3. The most important thing here is, where would you get that money from in the first place? More taxation? I'm already paying 45% of my income in taxes, and you say they should tax me even more because i work, so i can pay for all the unemployment? The natality is going down, by 2050 there would be a lot more living off the fewer working anyways. It is already a problem now, i really don't see it getting better by having states paying everyone a fix sum to get by.

Which do you think is better incentive for finding work, welfare money that you stop getting when you get any sort of work, or basic income that you keep getting on top of your salary? This kind of system can potentially decrease unemployment by a huge amount because there would be no welfare trap involved and doing a few low-paying shifts a month would always be better than not doing anything.

No, i don't think it is a better incentive, on the contrary. And besides, i am not only talking from an utopia pov, but rather from a realistic perspective: there isn't such a bubble of money available to pay everyone a fix sum, you cannot raise the taxes much higher for people who have work (be it freelance, employment or their own business). So because i have my own car, my own flat, no back loans and because i work 12h/day opposed to others and i bring back money in the system i should be spanked with taxes opposed to some young hippies who don't want to work and don't even bother trying to find a job, because things like bartenders, clerks and other jobs and so forth are below their potential skills? Really?

Look at greece and they young people, and the amount that used to live on such state provided money. Now look at dutch, afaik, the minimum they can make a month is 1000EUs. if they are working but not getting this minimum wage, the state compensate. Even when they are not making any, they can get the same amount if they list themselves as unemployed. Not many try to live of the state for free, because it is below their dignity.

So please don't tell me this is a feasible idea in a capitalist world. It isn't, and anyone with the slightest economic knowledge would tell you the same.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

Capitalism isn't feasible. Over 7 billion people on planet earth. Does everyone honestly think there can be jobs for everyone? It's never going to happen, technology won't let us be so inefficient.

[spooky lynx 73]

Don't you think that there's too much talk about rights but too little about obligations?

[BadHabitz 235]

This is socialism. If you don't do anything to support society then society shouldn't be supporting you. It's fairly simple. Some jobs pay more because their value to society is greater. If you want to be an artist you do so with the knowledge that you might not make much money doing that. If you're good enough you'll add to society, and your reward will be that someone will buy your work.

Strive to teach marketable skills instead of just giving out free money, because in the end 'free money' is just money that's been stolen by government.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Eh, it sounds no more outlandish than most political/financial ideas. What was it I saw recently, the richest 300 people in the world make more than the lowest 3-4 billion on the planet combined. Thats a lot of cash.

I think many social policies could do with tweaking. Income Support, winter fuel payments, DLA or is it independendant living allowance or something now. The list goes on and on.

As both a US/UK citizen I can see the benefits and shortfalls in both systems. Unfortunately, in the US we (many of us) were raised to believe "Socialism" was akin to "Communism".

[vilas 477]

every system has positive and negative sides - sounds truistic, rhetoric,

but system which gives help to one culture might not work in other culture,

example (i avoid to use nation terms to not call me nazi, hehehe) but there are some nations in world who if get any kind of socialism - stop to work, drink and wait for bonus (all the time being drunk), there are other nations, which get socialism and use it good way , they work hard and only disabled people benefit from socialism cause all are responsible ,

if you plant socialism in 2 cultures - one will bankrupt, second will work,

it is like with what i saw in my recent trip to Austria, it was cultural shock for me, i seen people who were buying newspapers from "noone" (newspapers were in foil, there was box for money), they were putting coins to box and taking newspaper, noone was taking a look, no security camera, no guard, people honestly paid for newspaper by putting coin to box,

i try to imagine it in my country - noone would put a coin, and if anyone would put coin, other person would steal whole box with money meanwhile other lad would piss on newspapers, people from our trip started to joke "if noone see, lets take those money", in some countries such sale of newspapers will never work,

the same with capitalism - give power to some group and they will start to harm workers , cause they want maximize their pockets no matter of human cost and in such group of people socialism is must cause otherwise enterprouner will cheat workers, in some societies capitalism cannot work

Edited August 30, 2013 by vilas

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Very good analogy Vilas!

[myshaak 0]

....

So please don't tell me this is a feasible idea in a capitalist world. It isn't, and anyone with the slightest economic knowledge would tell you the same.

This. Even if there were the resources to achieve this, the market balance would restore itself anyway. Skilled people will want higher pay so it will be logical for them to work instead of voluntarily staying home and be satisfied with the minimum, commodities would get more expensive because people would have more money and would be willing to pay more for stuff... and voila, the minimum is not sufficient anymore. I'm not even talking about the effect international trade would have on this. Inflation, nice to meet you.

EDIT: Vilas, being from Czech Republic, I can safely say what you are describing is what would happen here as well, that I'm sure :)

[vilas 477]

thats why thinking about one system among different cultures is ... not working,

thats why Austria was shock to me,

socialism benefits are like ... i can compare it to addonmaking, yes, addonmaking is - i have skills, i do something cause it brings me fun plus i share it with people for free, cause it brings them joy, and i am happy cause i bring them joy,

now lets back to effect of addons (giving people something for free) : reaction of one nation' players "do better, fu**you, give what i want and give it now", reaction of second nation "thanx, i have fun playing, thanx" - the same was with donations, i focused in addons on my own nation addons, when i needed help (for which i am very very very very very very very very very thankfull) i get help from anyone except my nation ;) i get donations from west, from east i get email "remember to pay tax motherfu***"

socialism and capitalism are the same when comes to applying them,

apply capitalism in one country - you have people who work hard to earn more money, apply it in second country, you will get rich bastards who want to harm and mistream and abuse everyone who is less rich and greed guys who want to reinvent slavery and companies CEO's signing deals "noone of us pays more than xxx, so worker in any of our companies will not earn more and noone will be changing job cause everyone will be helpless"

about socialism i said above - one nation supports weaker , other nations lies drunken "give me this, give that" (i know that "nazism" is not welcome, but lets face truth, some civilisations, some nations, some cultures are totally different and never will do things that other do, there always be groups of people who only want to party and drink all the time and live like kings / Paris Hilton ?)

of course i am more for socialism than for liberalism, but free market also has some things to do, if one group, ethnic group is only capable of drink and party, sorry, even i being socialist do not want to pay for them, i believe in socialism which helps poor, not helps drunkars who only make another children behaving the same way,

i would help (and even force by state such help if someone is greedy bastard) kid from poor family who is not "guilty" for it's poverty (example father died in accident, mother has sick spine) but i would not want to give those money to person who will only drink and party,

multiculti wont work, multireligion will not work, multieconomy wont work too, cultures are different, people are different

p.s.

in some cultures if state/law will not force businesmen to pay for work - he will not pay, cause stealing from worker he takes for being good businesman and enterpronoun person

if it comes to my nation and my culture - businesman in majority are "street wise greed bastards" and state MUST force labour security, otherwise we would face year 1900 here, cause our businesman earn not on good technology, idea and product, but on cheating workers and underpaying them and avoiding to pay theam (driving Ferrari or Lexus himself)

in my country till busines will not reach western moral levels we would need such socialism forced for decades, otherwise people will not have money for life and emigrate like now emigrate cause for businesman "not to pay worker means i am wise"

in western countries socialism means "they waste my taxes for drunkards" too

p.s. 2.

in my first job money i take after court - i had to sue guy who not wanted to pay me

Edited August 30, 2013 by vilas

[Die neunte Seele 10]

money that's been stolen by government.

This idea is meant for europe or a reason. I know that it will at least take 100 years untill this is a question in the US, like with the healthcare. When i pay my taxes, i do it because they are needed. Because education and social welfare payments are done with them. I'm a part of the state like all the others, i don't steal from myself.

"This is socialism"

It's a lot closer to it than the avarage curret system in europe, yes. But you know how it works here in europe in most states: take the best of both systems. Base it on capitalism and regulate it as strong as you can to make it social.

[Dwarden 1125]

this has quite a point ... also it's similar with tragic pension/rent system where quite some of the elder people gets value so low it's not even enough to sustain dignity ...

[cifordayzserver 119]

Here is the thing, poverty, and starvation, and human suffering, is ALL essentially a choice by those that control the worlds wealth.

It's a VERY small number of people, and it is a conscious and generationally repeated decision... No matter how dumb or simple, or crazy anyone thinks it is. There is simply more money in the world than is required to keep everyone fed, clothed, healthy, and housed.....

The ACTUAL problem with doing that? ENORMOUS population boom that would then make that NOT the case.

My guess is it wouldn't even take long. 10-20 years before there were so many new babies, and so many newly retired or not so gainfully employed people that major world systems would risk collapse, and the balance of supply/demand would be permanently offset...

There is no return from "everyone gets a paycheck regardless"... There is only rapid decent...

I'm maybe the biggest communist hippy tree hugger in the world, and even I know that you solve world hunger and you create a population crisis so large the world is over even sooner than it's already doomed to be anyway... which by the way is likely under 100 years at this point. My solid guess is 10-50 years before one of 9 or 10 "world ending" situations that are now actively brewing or playing out right now.

Hell in a Handbasket ladies and gents.

Love thy neighbor ;-)

[Deadfast 43]

How do we finance it? Easy!

Yeah, keep on dreaming.

As PuFu said, we already have problems financing pensioners who, in my opinion, as previously active members of the society, rightfully deserve the money allowing them to live the rest of their lives in dignity. Perhaps we should look into that first rather than handing out the cash to anyone who asks for it. Or in this case does not even ask for it.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I find the responses rather defeatist and embarrassing as a human being, some people think we are doomed no matter what we do, that human reproduction is a danger that can end our world, so are happy to let people live in poverty as a means to population reduction. I find that a despicable position to hold. The whole history of life is example after example of life beating the odds, overcoming the challenges that nature presents us. How anyone can think anything is impossible because we can't afford to is delusional. Economics is an abstract notion, created by us, our own self imposed limitation. The materials are in the ground, we just need to use them, and stop claiming ownership of them and trying to peddle them to each other. Simple as that. As for population explosion, there is a whole universe full of planets out there for us to colonize. If we stopped playing the money game we could actually start to seriously work towards colonies on other planets, but just now we can't "afford" it. Part time moralists are happy to slate the poor jobless as "lazy" while crying about protecting old age pensioners, that is part time ethics, bitter people with a chip on their shoulder because they have to pay taxes, which is also a despicable and ignorant attitude. Nobody wants to live an idle and boring life, we all have skills and talents to share, we just need an equal opportunity to develop those skills and talents. And this system just doesn't cut it. No amount of excuses and rationalising will change the facts.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ssechaud

[myshaak 0]

I find the responses rather defeatist and embarrassing as a human being, some people think we are doomed no matter what we do, that human reproduction is a danger that can end our world, so are happy to let people live in poverty as a means to population reduction. I find that a despicable position to hold. The whole history of life is example after example of life beating the odds, overcoming the challenges that nature presents us. How anyone can think anything is impossible because we can't afford to is delusional. Economics is an abstract notion, created by us, our own self imposed limitation. The materials are in the ground, we just need to use them, and stop claiming ownership of them and trying to peddle them to each other. Simple as that. As for population explosion, there is a whole universe full of planets out there for us to colonize. If we stopped playing the money game we could actually start to seriously work towards colonies on other planets, but just now we can't "afford" it. Part time moralists are happy to slate the poor jobless as "lazy" while crying about protecting old age pensioners, that is part time ethics, bitter people with a chip on their shoulder because they have to pay taxes, which is also a despicable and ignorant attitude. Nobody wants to live an idle and boring life, we all have skills and talents to share, we just need an equal opportunity to develop those skills and talents. And this system just doesn't cut it. No amount of excuses and rationalising will change the facts.

Oh dear. Economy is in a bad shape even when there are materials... right here! In the ground! And overpopulation can be solved by colonizing planets! Easy, how come nobody thought of that! That post... wow.

EDIT: And to add some reality to your rather romantic view of history of life:

The whole history of life is example after example of life beating the odds, overcoming the challenges that nature presents us

... very commonly and successfully at the expense of other life.

Bah, I don't even know why I replied to post where every line is obvious flamebait.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Myshaak

[cifordayzserver 119]

I find the responses rather defeatist and embarrassing as a human being, some people think we are doomed no matter what we do, that human reproduction is a danger that can end our world, so are happy to let people live in poverty as a means to population reduction. I find that a despicable position to hold. The whole history of life is example after example of life beating the odds, overcoming the challenges that nature presents us. How anyone can think anything is impossible because we can't afford to is delusional. Economics is an abstract notion, created by us, our own self imposed limitation. The materials are in the ground, we just need to use them, and stop claiming ownership of them and trying to peddle them to each other. Simple as that. As for population explosion, there is a whole universe full of planets out there for us to colonize. If we stopped playing the money game we could actually start to seriously work towards colonies on other planets, but just now we can't "afford" it. Part time moralists are happy to slate the poor jobless as "lazy" while crying about protecting old age pensioners, that is part time ethics, bitter people with a chip on their shoulder because they have to pay taxes, which is also a despicable and ignorant attitude. Nobody wants to live an idle and boring life, we all have skills and talents to share, we just need an equal opportunity to develop those skills and talents. And this system just doesn't cut it. No amount of excuses and rationalising will change the facts.

I genuinely don't like the fact that this is the case, but it really is.

Just the Walton family (owners of Walmart) have enough personal wealth to start a fund that would provide enough money forever to feed the world's starving, and the calculation allows for population expansion....

I don't pretend to know what the population would actually do, but IMO it's beyond question that humans are not smart, we as a species are not much longer for this planet, much less other ones, so thinking that it would all work out and if not we could just hop to another planet (which we have yet to find even ONE habitable one in the decades of searching (because smart people realized that we were going to consume this planet within 100-200 years MAX) is well beyond blindly optimistic.

There is plenty of money to feed the world, or to stop disease, or to provide the whole world with an acceptable quality of life... but to say there's enough to start colonizing other planets is again just totally out of touch with reality.

Resources are in fact a finite thing, and people in fact consume those resources, and scientists and the TRULY rich already know when and which, and have invested accordingly lol.

Do you know that one of the hottest long term investments RIGHT NOW is.... Potable water. If that doesn't tell you where the world is headed I don't know what does.

[[frl]myke 14]

3. The most important thing here is, where would you get that money from in the first place? More taxation? I'm already paying 45% of my income in taxes, and you say they should tax me even more because i work, so i can pay for all the unemployment? The natality is going down, by 2050 there would be a lot more living off the fewer working anyways. It is already a problem now, i really don't see it getting better by having states paying everyone a fix sum to get by.

I don't know the social systems (welfare?) of other coutries so i can just speak for switzerland.

- social help would no longer be necessary. That money could go over to minimal income

- invalidity help the same

- unemployement help (don't know the correct term) would also become obsolete

- several other social help things (i can hardly name them, forget about translating them to english, sorry) would also become obsolete

- by eliminating the above also bureaucracy would be reduced significantly. This saved money could also be used for the minimal income.

Raising taxes isn't inevitably the only way. Also the minimal income wont make anyone rich.

As a actual example: i have a serious problem with my vertrebral column. Unemployment office say i can't work. Office for invalidity help say i can work. Guess what, i don't get the required help. I'm not lazy, i'm in a situation where i would need help to sort this out. Now a minimal incom wont cure me but it would take the burden of the inability to feed my family.

But it's not only about me. What about those people who do work 100% and still don't earn enough money to feed their families and need help from welfare? IMHO a minimal income would raise the income of those jobs which actually are poorly paid. Because people would say "why should i work for that little money, pay me more then the minimal income and i'll happily work for you.".

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

I DO think something like Basic Income could be implemented, at least in Europe anyway. I know that in the UK we have multiple social programs that could be streamlined and better managed. But, I think the bigger problem is the exportation of our wealth.

To keep things on a small scale, I'll describe the situation in my neighbourhood. We have a Tesco Extra (think Wal-Mart if youre in the States) that opened her a few years back. One of the biggest issues before opening was the potential impact it would have on local businesses. Tesco glossed over the issues with assurances that nothing of the sort would happen. Needless to say, many local shops and pubs have been forced to close because they just cannot compete. Tesco is the 2nd largest retailer in the world, with a revenue of £64 BILLION ($99 Bil USD, 1,938,471,333,675 CZK). To put things in a better perspective, A pint of beer in a local pub is around £2.75 ($4.28 USD, 83.29 CZK), yet you can buy 6 cans of beer in Tesco for £1.50 ($2.34 USD, 45.43 CZK). Tesco, with its fiscal buying power can purchase beer cheaper than the local breweries can make it. This has resulted in local pubs shutting in droves and local breweries closing as well. Most of this would be well and good, if the money made its way back into the community. Unfortunately it does not. When a person buys groceries (and beer) from a local retailer, who in turn sources local products. Then that money eventually returns full circle. But when an entity like Tesco absorbs all the income from an area then distributes that income in say China, then that is where things go bad. In my mind it is no different than a mining company who comes in and strip-mines the land, then leaves when theyve bled the land dry.

Over the years weve pushed hard for sustainable fishing, farming, etc., But nowhere have we heard of sustainable business.

[Dwarden 1125]

while in my previous answer i agreed, there're several problematic areas of this 'default basic income'

1st

disrepancy of prices across European Union , by which standard we set the basic income?

avg in whole European Union ?

avg in rich north-west states ?

avg in poor south-east ?

or set 2-3 regions to avoid payin too much / toolow

2nd

abuse of basic income ... while it's 'everyones private matter what he does with the money'

some people tend to end badly with money

typical example are addicts :

- drugs

- alcohol

- tabbaco

- gambling

and usury / feneration victims ...

in these cases it was discovered that most safe way how 'keep' these people alive

is to not give them money in cash (at max only small amount, lower than 10%)

but instead to offer them direct services and natural use goods

1. living space / energy

2. water / food

3. paying for theirs kids schools etc.

4. dressing etc.

this way, the social 'help' money can't be abused for addiction or taken by force from them ...

so, while 'basic default income' isn't bad idea, it has flaws (it's not just about enough taxes to cover the cost)

these needs to be answered and resolved at same time such 'EU direction' would be approved