How much is your monthly income ( in Dollar ) ?
What about <$300/month? That covers the majority of the world, and perhaps even a large amount of the internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's my option cause everything is <3000$ if it isn't >3000$ =d
Comment has been collapsed.
But it does skew the statistics. Also, the flow of your answers would make it easy for one to assume you meant >$3000 since that would be the logical next step.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow! $2555 is a lot!
Also you messed up the greater than/ less than signs!
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep in mind that the cost of living in Switzerland is very high even compared to Scandinavian standards.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world, and therefor one of the most expensive to live in.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats the reason why a lot of ppl go shoping at germany when the live near the german border. There are also a lot of ppl only working in switzerland and live in germany.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well check this out:
Food Prices in Bern, Switzerland
http://www.numbeo.com/food-prices/city_result.jsp?country=Switzerland&city=Bern&displayCurrency=CHF
Food Prices in Kiev, Ukraine
http://www.numbeo.com/food-prices/city_result.jsp?country=Ukraine&city=Kiev
In direct comparison, you need 6x the money for food and that's just a rough example
Comment has been collapsed.
Also you messed up the greater than/ less than signs!
Wish it was possible to edit the poll :S
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmmm
'> 300$ stands for "more than a 300 dollars"
and < 3000$ - "less than a 3000 dollars"
Comment has been collapsed.
There should be options in your poll that cover numbers below 300$
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, maybe the prices for most necessities in a given country are based on the minimum wage?
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn, it's a factory not a cake. Don't believe cg's lies. Thank you nonetheless :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, he's from Ohio. Ohio's minimum wage is $8.10. My guess is that he doesn't have to pay bills/mortgage, so idk. I spend about $150 on groceries every week. (I have a fiance and a 2 year old.)
Comment has been collapsed.
He is probably still a student. No other possible explanation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Per hour, I would guess.
Edit: Neverm ind, I'm stupid and I can't read.
Comment has been collapsed.
That makes sense. I guess I'm used to high school accounting class where expenses with the word "wages" were almost always expressed in weeks.
I wish I made $8 per hour though :)
Comment has been collapsed.
For him, it's $20 a week. My guess is that that's his allowance. Not trying to make fun, but that would explain it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only that was so true but it is not,at least for the U.S.
Sure the wage in a given area has some effect on prices of goods but not a huge one,like when gas was over 4 dollars a gallon there where still many who only made 5.15 an hour but since has been raised to 7.25 and gas is now around 3.35 or so last i checked
Still even if you used 2 gallons of gas to get to work each day that is about an hours worth of wage just to get to work.Prices here are more effected by where you are then what you make.
Example,you live outside a big city that has higher cost of living but make less where you work then people in the big city,you still have to pay big city prices for goods.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gas is not something I would consider as necessity. Being able to afford at least Public Transport on the other hand, in order to be able to get that minimum wage, is what I would consider as necessity.
There are barely any countries where a person on the minimum wage can't afford a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a place to live in (to my knowledge at least). That's what the minimum wage is for in the first place. It's not there for you to be able to afford AAA games :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't be suprised if gallon of good-quality, not heavely processed milk would cost nearly the same as gallon of gas xD
Normal, european food is considered as eco-friendly and really good quality in USA, as they eat pretty much hightly-pricessed food. It's way cheaper to buy something in McDonald than to go and buy meat, veggies and rice in shop.
Comment has been collapsed.
That McDonald's part is probably true for the whole world. That's the selling point of fast foods after all. Cheap, ready in a min and easy to get :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I know this is old but i just got around to checking my messages and well if gas is not a need then either is public transportation,after all gas can enable you to get to work to afford that wage.Also gas is a necessity. if you need it to get to work.You make it seem like everyone has access to public transportation.
Though i was just merely pointing out that cost for people and needs are different in every area and region,every area has rich and poor people how it effects people depends on what you need and what is available as to what is and is not important.If you have no access public transportation then gas is a necessity.So why would you consider gas not a necessity,i am afraid to say not everyone who makes min. wage can afford to live off that.
I can say that min. wage was never going to be something you could live off of and have a nice life.Sad truth is so many think having internet and a phone is a necessity..When in fact only 3 things are needed to survive.Water,Food,Shelter.All the rest are just extras.Also shelter does not imply a house,
Shelter is a place giving temporary protection from bad weather or danger.
Though if people would just focus on needing those 3 things they might find min. wage may not be all that bad.You just have to live without internet,tv,cable,a nice car,a nice house,your ipad and so on.
And how did triple AAA games get brought into this?? I never mentioned anything about affording non necessity.stuff like a tv,games and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are saying exactly the same thing I am, yet we somehow manage to not understand each other.
There are barely any countries where a person on the minimum wage can't afford a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a place to live in (to my knowledge at least). That's what the minimum wage is for in the first place
My exact quote above. Of course min wage is not something you can a great life with, that's why it's minimum. Yet, if gas is a necessity for you, you will probably find a way to afford it (cutting expenses on something else may be the case). As to why I mention public transportation as a necessity is that it is in most cases the most affordable mean of transportation for the masses. If it doesn't fit your needs that's another case and it's up to every individual one. In any case, I should be able to afford transportation by any means in order to get into my work. If I can't, then there is a problem.
BTW, if you have no access to public transportation moving closer to your work or to a different place might be an option.
To put an end to this. I believe that minimum wage is there in order for you to survive and that's all. If you for some reason can't make it through with that, try changing habits, or readjust your needs.
EDIT: Damn those gas prices in US :D 1 gallon where I live costs me around 6$
Comment has been collapsed.
80$ is less than < 3000$, so use the last option:D
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope not a student.Im 47 in 3 weeks, Im a vetrean, got 20 years of trucking working 100 hours + a week, raised 2 kids from 4 & 2 alone, then got sick. I now spend a minimum of 3 days a week so sick and weak I cdant get out of bed, but the great state of ohio still doesnt think I should have the disability 5 doctors say I should have. If it wasnt for my gf and hewr sons, my kids and I would probably be residing under a bridge now. Saving ran out long before the state has even issued a hearing for me. So, that zeor to $80 a month is a little allowance my gf gives me when she can afford to, I buy bundles... let the kids have what they want and Steamgift the rest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait what, 2.5k usd for nothing ?
Meanwhile in my last job I've earned 250-300...
Comment has been collapsed.
To ensure that everyone can have a good enough standard of living. It's not for nothing, it's for being a Swiss citizen.
Also, how many hours, and where were you working? If it's full time in west EU that's almost slavery.
Comment has been collapsed.
Regular 8 hr
Nope, eastern EU. In other words like half of europe has this wages
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I just saw you were Polish. Well, the cost of living there is lower than in Switzerland, so I can understand why 2.5k€/month is mind-boggling for you. But anyways, I thought minimun wage is around 1.800 złoty?
Comment has been collapsed.
1800 is hmm..."gross income" (I guess, not sure what is the word for that). After all taxes and shit you are left with around 1200 pln
There is a regulation of minimal wage but its often not inspected, so "stealing" a 100 pln from the salary is nothing unusual here.
Also this regulation only applies to people that have contract of employment. But there is an other contract here - service contract - where you have pretty much nothing to say, its mostly for piece work and your salary depends on the amount of job.
But make no mistake, you wont earn shitloads of money here because for most of the time the payments are crappy and there is no work to do sometimes - and then the end of the month comes and it turns out you've earned like 800-900 pln
I was fired 2 times from the same job because I was no longer needed - and every time they called me "Hey, there is job again, fresh orders, come back". Simply because I knew what to do there so it was more profitable for them to call for me rather than to get sm1 new. But for the third time I just said to myself "Fuck them" cus simply its a shitty job as hell, you work for 2 months then you get fired just to go back 2 months later and just to get fired 7 months later etc etc
Anyway, the majority of people work here like that, probably same for the other eastern EU countries
As for the cost of living - yeah sure, daily products (eg food) are cheaper but when it comes to anything else - nah, the costs are the same. So eg when buying 32 inch TV, sm1 from west can probably afford to buy like 4-5 with one salary while here you can barely afford 1 piece. You know the deal
Comment has been collapsed.
I see, thanks for the answer.
Instead of being a full time worker, you work on demand, who's a great way for the employer to make more benefits while screwing the workforce over.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was in Netherlands and compared prices to Polish ones. And there is not much difference, and it's surely not 4x more to buy food there. It's nearly the same.
Like I got this ass-big Milka chocolate last week here. It cost 12 - 13 zł here (2,7€) and 2,7€ in Netherlands (I've been making photos of shops shelfes with prices lol). Cola can is 0,4€ here and 0,45€ there. Same goes with many other things. And electronics cost the same here and there.
The only big difference is in stuff like renting a flat and so on. But surely food isn't much more expensive there. At leas in countries like Netherlands of Germany, don't know about Switzerland (I know that in Norway prices are way higher than here xD).
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah yeah, sure. Pretty much international brands will cost the same when it comes to food/candies/stuff. But eg the very basis like bread/milk and so on can be cheaper here
But overall I can agree, in UK I was able to do a big ass shoping in market for 20 pounds and that would be impossible here for this ~110 zł
Comment has been collapsed.
O.o It is to be expected that the proposal would not work out
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it was kinda expected, why would anyone work if they simply gave you free money? :O
Comment has been collapsed.
because you need more then 2500 dollar if you want a good life in my country. 2500 is the minimum need believe me youre not happy with that amount. its exactly enough to live on the cheapest way, there is nothing with a new game every week.
Comment has been collapsed.
They give you "free money" to ensure that you can live in the country with your basic needs covered. Switzerland is a very expensive country and if you think that with 2.5k you can live the good life, well, it does not work like that.
And people would work either because they want a better life (being able to afford more stuff) or because they want to pursue some interest or career. They would not have to enslave themselves to shitty, low-paying jobs where they are almost exploited in order to make the ends meet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I think most people work just to make ends meet. There are a lot of people who work just to cover their basic needs
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that the vast majority of people would still work (albeit not necessarily quite as much) in order to enjoy life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am of the same opinion. I also hold that working 40+/week is not a healthy way of living your life. Our work culture has the habit of working long hours too ingrained, it makes you seem a better employee even, while shorter days could increase productivity, overall health, children development might better and a happier workforce all in all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember having a job where we were expected to be there at nine in the morning and at nine at night. We'd all take an hour for lunch, take two hours to go to the gym, toss balls around the office, etc.
I then switched to a job where my boss believed that if you were regularly working late, you weren't working efficiently. We'd arrive in the morning, work hard, often eat at our desk, and rarely worked more than 8 hours. If we finished our work, or could do the rest remotely, we'd sometimes leave at 2. I got a lot more work done there, even though I probably "worked" about half the number of hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's probably how my future looks (currently studying). If I just want to work to cover my needs, I would be done in 2-3 days a week. However, if I'm going to work 5 days a week, I can afford to get some nice stuff and really enjoy my life. It helps though that I like what I'm studying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'm think that most of the people if given the chance to earn more with their current conditions they'll take it. However. if you implement a system like this, are there going to be abusers? Sure, people will abuse everything. But I don't know why the wellfare of the general population should suffer cos of that.
Anyhow, that doesn't really answer your post. The thing is that while people need to have their basic needs covered (food, acommodation, water, electricity, internet, clothes) I think we like to be able to afford nice things appart from that, most hobbies cost money, most forms of entertainment cost money too, travelling and so on and so forth. So while there would be some people slacking all day and not doing anything, I'd say many of them would work to get more money to be able to afford other stuff.
My only concern is how would affect giving everyone a salary to the inflation and so on. But I'm no economist so I have no clue.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you say do make some sense, if you assume most people think like you (although it might be just False-consensus effect).
But the 2.5k that the government would provide will be funded by taxes. So depending on how many people that do not work, those that do work will have a higher and higher percentage of their income taken away to support those who are not working. (which feels unfair and will cause lots of unhappiness from the working class)
Governments can't take such big risks, so most (if not all) countries have rejected this type of proposals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I might be falling into some kind of fallacious thinking here, extrapolating my view to everyone else and also considering a tiny amount of the population as a good enough sample.
I just thought that if one country could support this kind of proposal it could be Switzerland, considering the huge influx of foreing money they get, and how they are usually an economically sanitized country.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know anything about switzerland economy, so can't really comment further. But I think most countries would not be able to just give free money to everyone without some catch.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know much either, to be honest, so I'm mostly supposing things in a vacuum. But having their own currency they can adjust and a pretty strong economic standpoint I though they could be able to find a workaround.
The proposal didn't pass, so we cannot see how it might have turned out, for better or worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Btw, alot of countries have their own currency, and currency is affected by what you do in the country in relation to other countries. So they can't really adjust the currency that much. When I think about it, I think only countries that are less connected to the globe can do such extreme proposals.
Comment has been collapsed.
you dont need to work in switzerland allready and you would recive at the end of the month more then the 2.5k because if you dont work on moment you recive at least 1 year 70% of the income before. If you need social care they pay you the rent,doctors and other needet things and you dont pay taxes what is a big cut in my country its like 2 month free work. So thats the point why the leftist dont like this basic income
Comment has been collapsed.
If switzerland already has such a big cut from taxes (due to the free social care), and the proposal were to be in place, the tax cut would be alot bigger. So I can understand why leftist(not sure who they are) dont like the idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
basicly social movement or communists. the basic income would be deeper then the help they recive now.
Comment has been collapsed.
but you'd subtract a lot of existing expenses on welfare and social programs, so it wouldn't be as expensive as you'd think.
Milton Friedman, who is arguably the most influential and respected economist to argue for minimal government interference was a proponent of a negative tax rate, which is basically the same thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would agree that minimal government interference is the best.
This proposal for 2.5k per person was probably rejected because the existing expenses on welfare and social programs takes less money than the new proposal. (i.e less interference because less money has to be moved around)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not less interference, actually, because government still sets criteria for the various welfare and social programs.
I'll take where I live as a prime example. Someone who works at McDonalds makes minimum wage. Someone who only makes minimum wage receives welfare benefits. McDonalds can only be so cheap because its staff are subsidized through welfare, otherwise they would not work at a job that did not pay enough to survive.
On the other hand, with a basic wage given to everyone, the minimum wage could (and should) be abolished (as well as many other social programs; note that tax brackets and tax rates would also need to be adjusted). Wages for a lot of low-paying jobs would drop to reflect the new status quo. However, wages at McDonalds can't drop as much as wages at places that pay people a real salary, and so the relative cost of labor for McDonalds would increase relative to e.g. a high-end steak house, because there would no longer be indirect government interference. In the long-term, the price difference between McDonalds and the high-end steak house would become smaller than it is today.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a criteria probably means that not all citizens enjoy that particular benefit, as compared to the no criteria of giving everyone free money, so I would like to believe that less money is required in the welfare and social programs as compared to 2.5k for everyone (thus less taxes).
Also I feel like you are assuming that everyone will continue working as if status quo (after the proposal), but in fact there will probably be some who will stop working/ feel unhappy working the same amount after the introduction of the free 2.5k for adults. When you think about it, if everyone gets a basic 2.5k anything regardless of whether they work, the amount on top of the 2.5k will be what they had worked for. (e.g a person works from 9-5 everyday and earns 4k a month, but after the proposal he still works 9-5 and earns 4k still, but it feels like he worked from 9-5 for 1.5k only since he would still get 2.5k if he didn't work).
If many stop working/ work less because of that, it would result in a drop in the work force, which would result in higher taxes to keep up with expenditure.
Which is why the minimum wage system is better, as it forces people who can work to work, to help alleviate the pressure on the government expenditure.'
Edit: Just to add on, if the labour cost for mcdonald employees were to rise to similar to high-end steak houses, mcdonalds would close down and set up shop in other countries where profit margins are alot higher.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
I know that there are plenty of people who would stop working, or work a lot less. It will be a net cost. But there's more than enough wealth in this country, and nobody needs billions of dollars, so why not level that out a bit?
-
There simply aren't enough jobs for everyone. But then again, if people worked less hours (because they didn't have to work as much) then there'd be more employment, as two people could effectively share 1 job.
-
Minimum wage vs tax & welfare is a matter of administration, not expense. To give an overly simplistic example, you could mandate a minimum wage of $15, or you could set a minimum wage of $5, tax the employer $10, and give the employee $10 in welfare. [yes, I know that that has enough issues to fill a book, but, the point is that taxes and welfare are still a form of wealth distribution]
4a. Would it be a bad thing if people ate less at junk-food places and more at high-end restaurants?
4b. There would still be some McDonalds, because they'd still be cheaper, and some people still prefer them; they just wouldn't dominate the restaurant industry quite as much
4c. McDonalds are franchises. The franchise owners would just own a different business locally.
4d. Not all jobs/businesses can be outsourced/relocated like that. Those that can, for the most part already have been.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really understand the 1st point. If you were talking about the country, a country needs to stockpile billions of dollars in case of emergencies (all countries have a stockpiled bank).
Most of the time it isn't whether there aren't enough jobs, it is whether people are willing to work for the different amounts of pay that contributes to unemployment. (there are always jobs around, just whether you want to do it or not, e.g not much people want to work $4 per hour to clean tables)
Ah so the government interference means administrative work by government and thus government takes more pay leading to more taxes. I always thought an economist would only be talking about money flows only (which might be a cause for my misunderstanding xP)
It wouldn't be a bad thing with people eating less junk food, but I remember Mcdonalds (or was it subway) stopped operations in a country a few years ago, due to having too low profits (high labour cost but not enough people buying from them)
Comment has been collapsed.
I was talking about wealth generated per year (GDP), not reserved (which plenty of countries don't have; most western countries are in debt)
All businesses need to make a profit to survive; if profts are too low, a business owner will close shop and open a different business or get a job.
Comment has been collapsed.
GDP doesnt determine how much money a country has to spend. For example my country has a GDP 300+ billion in 2015, but still had a budget deficit of 6.7 billion in 2015 (even with prudent government policies). Only when the country has a budget surplus, can they stockpile money into the reserves bank.
Also after googling abit, I noticed that Switzerland's budget spendings are sometimes deficit(low values) and sometimes surplus(low values), so it is very risky to do sudden proposal changes that require lots of government spendings which will probably result in a large budget deficit.
And as you said most western countries are in debt and that is because of policies/ proposal that think that there are more than enough wealth to spread around. (which is why I think the proposal, if accepted, gets switzerland in debt in the long run) [Proposals that require large government spendings should yield large economic growth, if not it will be too risky to implement]
Yes and as I said, because profits are too low Mcdonalds might close shop and not do business there, unless they can do something special
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, probably 2500 a month seems a lot to me (it's almost twice what I earn in a full-time job, and I'm faring better than most people around me)... O.o how much is i.e. the average rent for a mid-sized apartment? or a week worth of decent food?
Comment has been collapsed.
A local should answer that, sorry. I only have my impression as a tourist, but I found it more expensive than Norway or Austria for example.
And yeah, it's true that we have to contextualize the amount. Because when I worked on czech republic I could live with 600€/month pretty well, here now I cannot even pay rent alone with that money.
Comment has been collapsed.
what is a mid size apartement? we count basicly in rooms so for singles its mostly a 2 1/2 room apartement. its outside of the big cities like 700 to 1100 dollar in big cities like Zurich 1250 to 2800 dollar
Comment has been collapsed.
For me it's like 60 - 70 m2. But not more. For like 3 - 4 people xD So in mid-sized apartment you have kitchen, bathroom and small living room with 2 additional rooms (one for parent's bedroom and one for kids).
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't say for the voters, but the state Luzi Stamm said is stupid. There are other ways to reduce people moving in without keeping the income low.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not surprising seeing the right-wing fearmonguering with "immigration"
If I'm not mistaken, the requisites to apply for Swiss citizenship, and to stay/work there are already particularly high. It's not like they welcome everyone with open arms.
Comment has been collapsed.
This poll is ridiculous. $3,000 doesn't even pay rent in San Francisco, and only just in Manhattan average rent for a 1 bedroom is $3100 and $2700 respectively
Comment has been collapsed.
you dont know that in the states a lot of poeple flying to the work because flying is cheaper then pay the rent in one of this Big cities?
Comment has been collapsed.
I live here.
Flying daily would cost at a minimum $250 per day, which would be at least $5000 per month, working Monday to Friday. that's significantly more than renting. (not to mention the time consideration; it would mean a minimum 3 hour commute each way)
There are people who fly in on Monday and out on Friday. They tend to be fairly wealthy, have a very good reason for not living in or just outside of the city where they work, and almost always rent a second apartment in the city, where they sleep throughout the week.
My old company maintained an apartment which allowed a partner to live in England most of the time, but fly in and work locally for several weeks at a time. Another partner lived 4 hours away; he'd drive in on Monday, stay in a rented apartment until Friday, and then drive back for the weekend. In both cases, they were still renting.
I also had a friend who for work would be sent on months-long assignments to various places. His job would pay for him to fly out on Monday, then stay in a hotel through Friday, before flying him back. Because the assignment wasn't permanent.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. Most of those options are what is considered below average in the wealthier countries. Maybe these numbers make sense in other countries, but where I live € 2000 is about average. There are a good amount of people that earn more then that.
Comment has been collapsed.
This idea of guarantee income is actually becoming popular over here in Canada. Would be nice to see it in action since on paper it is better than what we currently have in place. There is no true opposition when it comes to political leanings over here, just hesitation on how it would be implemented without it turning into a complete mess.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's sad that the measure has been rejected. It would've been very cool to see how the implementation would have worked. There's different initiatives (from the top of my head) taking place in Canada, Belgium and I believe Finland is going to start experimenting with it.
I consider that sooner or later a basic income will have to be implemented, as the increasing automatization of jobs. deslocalization and production results being optimized might mean that there will literally be not enough work posts to mantain the current population
Comment has been collapsed.
^ I want to see it carried out on the contry-scale too. too bad :<
I guess it's still good there are other communities that are going to experiment with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lmao seriously? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. It would promote the "sit on your ass and do nothing" attitude that's already present in most people these days. Giving free money to people doesn't work... ask the US about their welfare program. If you want to ensure that you can live in the country with your basic needs covered then raise minimum wage. Giving out free money won't work... unless what you're trying to achieve is a country full of lazy people who don't work because they have their basic needs covered for free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so people that don't work is because they are "lazy". Not because they might have mental health issues, lack of education or opportunities, bad surroundings, being bankrupt because of medical bills or whatever.
If I was given the oportunity to leave my job and raise 3 kids on welfare, juggling my finances on a trailer park van, I'd sign inmmediately, man, that's the good life!
Comment has been collapsed.
It is not a matter of people incapable of working. It's a matter of giving EVERYONE free money. Yes that would be a huge mistake.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's money so that they can live decently as people. I don't see a problem with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is that someone needs to provide the money.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why there's income tax, propierty tax, VAT and so on and so forth. Just tax the "one percenters" more heavily, or tax foreign based bank accounts, or I don't know, tax tourism.
Comment has been collapsed.
So tax people who work more heavily in order for people who don't want to work to live a decent life? How about this... How about I go quit my job right now and you can give me the money I need to live a decent life. How does that sound to you? ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, ok. So now working more heavily translates automatically into earning more money? I didn't know that. I'm gonna buy a pick axe then and join a mine. I'd be richer than Zuckeberg in no time.
Also what's wrong with taxing people who earn more, thus can afford it, more heavily, so that the more disadvantaged can live like, you know, people?
Comment has been collapsed.
It is a bit of a farce that the ones who "carry all the responsibility" get a 6-7 figure salary, and when something goes wrong they somehow get a bonus and some dude in middle management gets fired :P
Shit really does trickle down, get up high enough and you get more for doing less and others pay the price for fuck-ups.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, or banks going bankrup while all the CEOs and managers are earning 7 figures, and they don't cut their salaires and the tax payers have to put money there to rescue them
Capitalism is very nice when you prey on the poor, you have friends on the goverment and you can shift your blame into a 60+ hour worker that has t ofeed a family.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh you misunderstood my statement. I was asking why would people who do have jobs need to be taxed more in order for people who don't have jobs (by choice) to live a decent life? I sure as shit wouldn't like if my taxes went up just for others to sit on their ass and do nothing (by choice). I'm not rich and I work hard to keep a roof over my family's head and food on the table for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Same here. I work a full-time and 2 part time jobs to make ends meet and pay taxes so my neighbors can get their rent and bills paid, and $1200/month for food. Oh, and they get free medical insurance and drive a $60,000 car while they sell drugs.
Yes, someone please tell me my taxes should be raised. Please do it within arm's reach, too. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You should really consider moving out of Switzerland ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I live in the Welfare United States of America. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to America! The land of all possibilities ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, what's stopping you from selling drugs then?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have an allergy to very large men named Bubba taking my rectal cavity by force.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then it's your choice to not do so. I don't see no reason to complain.
Anyhow, of course there's people that game the system, there are assholes everywhere, but try living on welfare and raising a family with that and report how it goes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then it's your choice to not do so. I don't see no reason to complain.
Yes, I choose not to break the law. My bad.
I've seen families living on welfare here in the States. I see them all the time -- at the grocery store buying multiple cartloads of food with their benefits card, I've seen them at the gas stations buying $100 in lottery tickets then paying for their milk with a benefits card, I've seen them at the doctor's office paying for their visit with their benefits card while I pay $450/month out of pocket for my own medical insurance.
Don't tell me it can't be done. I see it every day.
I have no problem with helping out people who need it. None at all. But at some point some of that "welfare" money should go toward re-evaluating the system and who is eligible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to work in retail and was so frustrated seeing people in Cadillac Escelades buying candy and energy drinks with their food stamp cards at the beginning of the month and less than two weeks later they are standing at the corner of the parking lot with a sign and wearing dirty clothes and asking for money - and getting it. There's a definite flaw in the system and one of the first things they should do to fix it is have restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps/EBT. No candy, no energy drinks, no lobster, no caviar. Just standard healthy food products. Any cash given should automatically be withdrawn from their accounts using an auto-pay system for bills that effect living standards and should only be used to pay for those things - rent, medical, fuel to get to a doctor appointment or a bus ticket to go and look for a job, clothing, etc. Until the government puts these limitations on their handouts more and more people will be using the services rather than get a job. We've already seen this happening with the increase of "homeless" on our streets. For some being homeless has become a more lucrative way to live than actually working for a living.
Just because you see someone with a benefits card doesn't mean that they aren't paying for it in one way or another. I'm disabled and on Medicare and have one of those cards that I use when I go to the doctor. Medicare takes a little over $200 a month from my monthly Disability payment and I still have out of pocket costs of around $75 a month for my meds. After my medical costs and rent (in a low income housing unit) I'm lucky to have around $225 a month left over for food, for transportation to doctor appointments, utilities, and my internet bill which I share with a neighbor. I also have a $25,000 student loan that I'm not making much of a dent in at $25 a month payments. I haven't bought myself new clothes in a long time. I have no CATV. But, I have a roof over my head at least. I even manage to save enough money to give away a game here on occasion! For every leech in the system there's at least one person like me using the same system and barely making ends meet. I guess I should have been a part of a baby factory when I was still young enough to do so. It seems like the more kids you have today the less you have to work and the more money you get from the government. Being disabled sure doesn't have any advantages - except for parking.
I do agree that a massive re-evaluation of the system is long overdue. Stop making benefits so easy to get and make some of these lazy people go back to work.
Comment has been collapsed.
For every leech in the system there's at least one person like me using the same system and barely making ends meet
It's not people like you I'm concerned with. It's the leeches (and I see them all too often). As I said, I have no problem helping out where needed - imho that's my tax dollars being put to good use. Education, those unable to work, community betterment projects, more jobs, etc - yeah, take my money! I'm all for it. But please, also cut tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, cut tax loopholes and let's make them pay what they owe as well.
A massive re-evaluation (not only of the welfare system, but also taxation), like we've both suggested, would go a long way to putting that money into hands that need and deserve it, rather than those who just want a free ride.
It's such a frustrating topic all around. Can't work, you're fucked. Work, you're fucked. Hold your hand out, you'll be okay. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Welfare is very badly done in this country. It's not that there's too much, but that it's a very bureaucratic system, with badly implemented controls, so those who know how to work the system can take advantage of it, while those who don't know the system often fail to receive the benefits they need.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed 100%. Some of that money should be put into reforming the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
or install the basic minimum salary for everyone and dismantle social security, Unemployment, Disability, WIC, TANF, and many other such benefits?
(or at the very least combine all those different things into one program, with a holistic approach)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's an entirely different topic (to what I was addressing, at least) and I haven't looked into it enough to have a solid opinion on it, so I'll refrain from saying anything about it until I know more about it.
My initial reply was to MrC - that raising taxes for those who pay taxes is not the solution to the problem, and is really only a band-aid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the question is really a matter of who to tax, and how.
The wealthiest people tend to pay a much lower tax rate than working-class people. e.g. when Mitt Romney released his tax returns when he ran for president, he paid approximately 15% tax rate. But even that's not true, for reasons that are too long to go into over here.
put simply, I know how it's possible to invest in hedge funds tax free, and I know for a fact that he has at least $200 million invested in such a manner, which is not part of the calculation for his tax rate
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, I know how that works, and it's another reform issue that needs addressing here in the States.
Somehow it's always the middle-class (which is quickly being driven into poverty levels) that gets fucked, to the point it's become a knee-jerk reaction to oppose tax hikes. I already get reamed for being a single working male.
Comment has been collapsed.
See, I have nothing against taxes, I have something against how it's spent.
As an easy example, where I live property taxes are very high, but the public schools are very good. Alternatively, I could live in a town very close by where property taxes are significantly lower, but I'd have to send my kids to private school, because the public school sucks.
On a similar note, crime here is virtually non-existent, and I'd rather pay higher taxes than live in a high-crime area.
My opinion on welfare is that it's not good, but it's better than the alternative. Put simply, if I didn't have a job, or welfare, or any kind of income, and I needed to feed my kids, I'd go out and rob or steal from a stranger, and I think everyone else would do likewise. If someone cannot get gainful employment, welfare is necessary to prevent crime. (and before someone mentions it, welfare is cheaper than prison). Now, there will always be people who don't want to work, and they will abuse the system. Likewise, there will always be people committing crime, no matter how well off they are. But, with adequate welfare, there will be a lot less crimes of necessity. And I think that that is a net positive.
was gonna write about cost of college, healthcare expenses, but decided to keep this limited
Comment has been collapsed.
See, I have nothing against taxes, I have something against how it's spent and who gets taxed what amount.
That sums it up for me (after my little edit). The rest I agree with, but it all boils down to that initial statement.
Comment has been collapsed.
too bad you're not fabulously wealthy, I could help you out to make sure you barely paid any taxes at all
Comment has been collapsed.
Also what's wrong with taxing people who earn more
The fact that they don't live in a bubble and can easily move/repatriate somewhere else where the income tax is lower. This would be even easier for wealthy people. Dublin, Ireland is experiencing a huge amount of corporate growth as businesses displaced by high corporate taxes are moving there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tax games are very interesting. But, at least in the U.S., the wealthiest people actually pay a lot less tax than the middle class. Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet, for example, both pay approximately 15%, and even that's not actually true.
There are so many ways to play the tax game, but the game is really stacked in favor of the wealthy. As an example, the income of the wealthiest people is actually through the increase in value of their business, which is not taxed until they take it out. Therefore, it's entirely possible to earn a billion dollars in a year and have zero taxable income (thereby paying $0 tax)
There are ways to prevent this, but no political incentive to do so
Comment has been collapsed.
People who want to live like decent people should get a job. Again... not talking about those incapable of working.
Comment has been collapsed.
See that's bullshit. Is Switzerland's unemployment rate 0? If it's not... there is a job. You just have to be willing to work.
EDIT: Yeah... rereading this I realize I'm an idiot. m3rc understood where I was going at.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only it was that simple.
I want to work, but I'm either underqualified, overqualified, or there is absolutely nothing within my break-even travel radius.
You sound very privileged, lucky you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I'm very privileged.. I work between 50-70h a week to support my family. Maybe I'm biased but I've heard the "there's no work to be had" sob story way to often to believe it anymore. I know people here who complain about not being able to find work... after they stopped showing up for work at the place I work for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I kind of agree with you. But it's missing the point. The minimum payment should be enough to live, but not enough to have a life. Just enough to keep them out of poverty: a roof over their head and (barely edible) food on their plate. Want anything else? work for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with what you say. If they want to have their basic needs covered set a minimum wage, instead of just giving money to people who do not work. Giving money to those who are not working will never work, unless the government can create money endlessly without depreciating their currency (which is impossible)
Comment has been collapsed.
See I didn't even feel it would be worth mentioning that no government would be able to afford that because of how dumb the idea was to begin with.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. What we have in the netherlands somewhat works. You do get some money from the government if you don't have a job, but you can barely live from it. You also have to actively look for a new job, except if you're just not able to work (even then you have to do a ton of stuff to keep getting that income).
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're talking about unemployment benefits which are a different thing since those should be for a limited amount of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a surprise, wealthiest country in the world (per capita) and apparently real democracy -
as the outcome showed, the vast majority of Swiss citizen can't be bought with handouts.
Comment has been collapsed.
The idea behind this minimum income is not that outlandish. Instead of having people on wellfare ( that they do ) or in unemployment benefits ( that they do ) or having to pay retirement benefits ( that they do ) they would give every man woman and child a monthly income that will not make them rich but its enough to live by. In my country is estimated that 10% of the working force is poor, yes, the ones that work and when i say poor i say that they have to get help from non profit organizations that provide food and sometimes shelter just to survive.
I don't think that will be an incentive not to work , i think soon enough the prices would inflate and people would be forced to work not to survive but to have a decent living.
Comment has been collapsed.
So many people getting the (messed up) less than 300... Assuming those people live with parents?
Anyway, chose 300-500 because it's somewhere around 300 for me (living alone, in EU country). $300 = 264€, I get like 270-290 something. My country's average is around 1000.
Comment has been collapsed.
This will be the future of capitalism, when all your jobs become obsolete because of robots & computers this will be implemented.
Comment has been collapsed.
We should all have a universal living payment in every country. There is more than enough money and resources in the world...it's simply that the myth of meritocracy holds sway in order for greedy folks to horde cash and lord power over others instead of letting money flow freely and individuals live freely. There is nothing wrong with a luxury society...especially if machines end up eventually doing all of the work. Working yourself to death may seem valiant but really, if we don't need to, why should we.
Comment has been collapsed.
instead of letting money flow freely
Money does flow freely now. If the government takes measures, then it doesn't flow freely anymore. But I agree that there is no problem with a luxury society, but I don't agree that people should be able to live a luxurious live while doing nothing. Everyone should be able to meet their needs, but if they want more luxury, they simply need to get a job.
Comment has been collapsed.
No it really isn't flowing. Far too much is hoarded http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/rich-americans-hoarding-cash_n_3720941.html That's just a small single country's example. How many more trillions are just sitting in an account so someone can feel important.
And no we shouldn't HAVE to get jobs...we should work at what we enjoy or just bum around and live our lives. When we eventually have a machine for everything we should manage our resources responsibly of course but still be able to live in luxury. Screw the idea of earning it through blood, sweat and tears...you still want to work that way cause you enjoy it, go for it. But stop enslaving everyone else into this idea you have to in order to deserve anything good in life.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with meritocracy is in how to define it. Is it based on hard work? Special ability? Connections? All of the above? There's nothing wrong with rewarding people who work harder with more, nor is there anything wrong with paying more to people who deliver better work. But how do you judge what constitutes better work, and how do you determine what that's worth? (and, more importantly, how much more is the number one worker worth compared to number two)
Comment has been collapsed.
SWITZERLAND rejected that extreme socialist idea? I'm rather shocked. This gives me new hope for the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
its not socialist i dont understand why poeple dont see that. Its LIBERTARIAN. Socialists need slaves to help them out , if all have a basic income nobody need a socialists movement
Comment has been collapsed.
...he's got a point. Free guaranteed money? I'd apply for Swiss citizenship immediately.
Comment has been collapsed.
You still have to have it granted. Which I don't know the requisites but I guess it involves a certain time of stay, an exam in French/German/Italian, and, guess what, a contract.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's not that easy. ...wait a second...suddenly his point turns to be somewhat dull...
Comment has been collapsed.
it also saves money on processing various benefits for claimants.
I think the U.K is edging towards this with the Universal credit system.
Instead of getting a load of different benefits ie. housing ,unemployment ,disability e.t.c ,you just get one universal benefit.
Though our politicians have made a pig's ear of it so far :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.
The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.
Meanwhile, Luzi Stamm, a member of parliament for the right-wing Swiss People's Party, opposed the idea.
"Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island, the answer is yes. But with open borders, it's a total impossibility, especially for Switzerland, with a high living standard," he said.
"If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060
Edit :
I messed up with the poll, again :P
Poll options :
Comment has been collapsed.