Switzerland may pay basic monthly income to all its citizens
- This topic has 54 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:Switzerland may start paying every adult (whether they work or not) a salary of 2500 francs per month, based on the idea that their citizens will have more time to devote to things they are intrinsically interested in, instead of spending the majority of their time worrying about how they are going to survive, as many individuals with entry level positions find it hard to meet their needs.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/swiss-pay-basic-income-2500-francs-per-month-every-adult.html
This is one reform which will only see light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system.
I imagien such a reform would be very cheap. For those in work, it turns into a tax rebate, up to the value of the citizen's income. Anyone paid enough to pay more tax than the income would then subsidise the unemployed. The state then abolishes all otehr welfare benefits, since the citizens income gets declared to be enough to live on (and it would be cheaper to administer without having to manage the entitlement gateway). It then becomes a constant struggle to hold the basic income at just below subsistence, so people are forced into low wage work (which will now come relatively cheap for employers). Of course, there will be, as with the minimum wage, an increase just before elections.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I imagien such a reform would be very cheap. For those in work, it turns into a tax rebate, up to the value of the citizen's income. Anyone paid enough to pay more tax than the income would then subsidise the unemployed. The state then abolishes all otehr welfare benefits, since the citizens income gets declared to be enough to live on (and it would be cheaper to administer without having to manage the entitlement gateway). It then becomes a constant struggle to hold the basic income at just below subsistence, so people are forced into low wage work (which will now come relatively cheap for employers). Of course, there will be, as with the minimum wage, an increase just before elections.It appears you are missing the point. 1. It wont be cheap with the capitalists having to dib into their profits to pay a subsistence at a level which the unemployed can live on. 2. Its a bribe, albeit of a temporary nature, which will only come into effect when the workers are contemplating abolishing the wages system.
So, in the UK the minimum wage is £6.31. Assuming a 35hr week, and a citizens income of 80% minimum wages that gets us £176.68 a week. Assume that is given to all UK citizens, that is 70 million people, that would cost £12.4 billion. The UK spends more than £23 billion on child tax credits alone. On those numbers, I think the reality of a citizens income is in the "feel" and the proaganda value (especially as it would be paid to citizens not immigrants only).
At the moment this is just a general proposal for the people of Switzerland to vote on in a referendum. Because they've got the 100,000 signatures there will be a vote but I think the Swiss Parliament fixes what the exact wording will be. I doubt if it will be as precise or as far-reaching as the proposers want. But, as Bill has pointed out, even if it gets the required majority it wouldn't work as intended but would be a subsidy to employers paid out of general taxation. In fact it would be a confirmation of the limits of democratic decision-making under capitalism where the people may propose but it's capitalism that disposes.Interesting thought: in Switzerland, when the number of socialists reaches 100,000 we'll be able to force a referendum on socialism. That would be good publicity for the idea, getting everybody to discuss it (which may be the real intention behind those who forced a referendum on a guaranteed basic income).
I see that Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected this useless reform — useless because unnecessary in socialism and unworkable in capitalism (or, rather, would work in an unintended and not necessarily beneficial way). Even as reforms go, free services would be better:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36454060
It's interesting what the consensus elite view seems to be about the unworkability of the idea. Most do not object to it per se – indeed, how could they, since basic income would merely be a different way of organising what actually happens now, more or less. Rich countries with welfare states already have pretty generous (by world standards) minimum basic incomes, just not entirely in monetary form. What they object to and worry about is that the basic income severs the connection between work and income. For them, this is dangerous – economically and morally. But even here they concede that something like this might be necessary in the future if technological change really does, as some think, put everyone out of work. In other words, socialists should celebrate the fact that basic income is on the fringes of the mainstream as an idea because 1) it is essentially a socialist idea and 2) even critics accept that the modern world might be moving in a direction where such socialism will be necessary whether they like it or not ("socialism is inevitable"?!). The challenge remains, for socialists and proponents of basic income alike, to convince people that a world where income is not connected in any way to monetary incentives could really work.
PS Would be interesting to think too about why the proposal suffered such a crushing defeat. As the SPGB has long maintained, the workers won't even vote for socialism – how can they be expected to fight for it?!
stuartw2112 wrote:It's interesting what the consensus elite view seems to be about the unworkability of the idea. Most do not object to it per se – indeed, how could they, since basic income would merely be a different way of organising what actually happens now, more or less. Rich countries with welfare states already have pretty generous (by world standards) minimum basic incomes, just not entirely in monetary form. What they object to and worry about is that the basic income severs the connection between work and income. For them, this is dangerous – economically and morally. But even here they concede that something like this might be necessary in the future if technological change really does, as some think, put everyone out of work. In other words, socialists should celebrate the fact that basic income is on the fringes of the mainstream as an idea because 1) it is essentially a socialist idea and 2) even critics accept that the modern world might be moving in a direction where such socialism will be necessary whether they like it or not ("socialism is inevitable"?!). The challenge remains, for socialists and proponents of basic income alike, to convince people that a world where income is not connected in any way to monetary incentives could really work.Not too sure that basic income is "essentially a socialist idea", Stuart. If it is, that hasn't prevented the Adam Smith institute from enthusiastically endorsing the idea. From their point of view what is attractive about the idea is that it is a more cost effective approach to the existing benefits system – which system creates a "poverty trap" that penalises workers wanting to work their way ouT of poverty. THat is ironic because you are arguing that a basic income will break the link with monetary incentives whereas the Adam Smith Institute seems to be saying the exact opposite. In other words there will be a greater incentive to supplement your income via wage labour Also, whilst it is true that a basic income severs the link between consumption and labour inputs it is worth reminding ourselves that under capitalism that this has always been the case as far as the capitalist class is concerned whose remuneration bears no relation to their labour input. That is to say, they live on unearned income. In some ways you can see a basic income in this light – as extending this possibility to the general population. That might be viewed as a progressive development but I don't see that as being inherently socialist in itself. Surely what distinguishes the socialist position is the abolition of "income" itself rather than reinforcing our sense of dependence on one and all that that entails. That said, there is some truth in what you say. A basic income does in some ways go against the grain of capitalism. The capitalists themselves have no need for a monetary incentive to work – quite simply because they have no need to work – but the workers sure as hell do! A basic income scheme will to an extent undermine this and loosen the chains of wage slavery a little bit. But there are problems with this argument. The first and most obvious one is that if that were the case why would the capitalists and their state bother to promote and finance this idea? They need us to be impoverished, indebted and enslaved. Would a basic income remove this or just create a new form of deoendency? Secondly the proponents on the idea sometimes shoot themselves in the foot at least from a socialist point of view by strenuously denying that a basic income will undermine the incentive to engage in wage labour. Far from deprecating the institution of wage labour this seem almost like apologising for it. Thirdly , there is the problem of implementation of the scheme at an international level and in particular, in the context of increased migration flows such as we are now seeing in Europe. I beleive one of the reasons why the Swiss voted down the idea was the belief that a basic income would serve as a magnet to draw in a much larger numbers of economic migrants that could overwhelm the existing system of state welfare. So I dont think the issue can be entirely divorced from existing political realities…
Brian wrote:This is one reform which will only see light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system.Yes I tend to agree with this. This is one of the ways in which a growing socialist movement will impact on the administration of capitalism and on the extent and scope of capitalist relations of production. The other possiblity is large scale technological unemployment which Stuart referred to , brought on by robotisation and automation which may compel the capitalist state to introduce a universal basic income or , at any rate , remove to some extent some of the resistance to such a scheme. Whether, technological unempoyment will reach these kinds of very highly levels, displacing up to 50% of the current workforce according to some reports, is another matter. Personally I doubt it
Nice to have you drop around again, Stuart, to check up on us and still see if there is a pulse beating in the old organisation.Once an SPGBer, always an SPGBer to some extent, no matter how small, eh? UBI i certainly a popular panacea right now. Most of the progressive websites i visit to gather material for the blog has featured sympathetic articles on the topic. Usually combined with worker-owned collectives as the "socialist" alternative. Even YMS has suggested a form of UBI may well be introduced as a temporary but necessary first phase of socialism as it emerges from the womb of capitalism.I think i concur with the other members if UBI is introduced it will be in the form that is acceptable to the ruling class and for the purpose of mitigating the cost of the up-keep of the increasing and unavoidable numbers of casualties of the class war, automation being one field of battle.But i note McDonnell is suggesting it may be included in the next Labour Manifesto although that is far from being settled. As with the minimum wage and the living wage our struggles will still continue in demanding a decent level of UBI, calling for increases and more than likely, resisting cuts. If the ruling class cannot defeat us, then they will dip into their bag for other tools to accomplish the same aim by another method…perhaps using inflation…Anyway, don't be a stranger, Stuart…there will always be a welcome for the return of a prodigal son…Same goes to you, too, Robbo.
Hi Robin,Good points all. I said that the basic income is "basically a socialist idea" because it assumes that everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living as a right. The history of the idea is socialist – Thomas Paine suggested it as a compensation for the fact that capitalism had deprived us of our birthright. But you're right, libertarians from the right have also embraced the idea, for somewhat different reasons. The Adam Smith Institute advocates a "negative income tax", rather than a straight basic income, to try to get round some of the arguments around incentives.And thanks Alan, it's nice to be back. As you say, the SPGB is something like Royston Vasey – "you'll never leave!"Cheers
Quote:I said that the basic income is "basically a socialist idea"I think some will feel there is a risk that a reform which will only be passed if it fits in with the agenda of the employing class, will have sufficient built-in constraints that it will fail to satisfy the expectations and hopes of our fellow workers and as the reform was made in the name of "socialism" and promoted by those calling themselves "socialists" then the subsequent disillusionment and disappointment will not be with capitalism and the owning class but with the actual idea of socialism and those recognised to be "socialists".I dare say other will predict that the reform will be established by a rising class conflict, forcing the government into conceding UBI and therefore it will be seen as a stepping stone reform towards something better and not view it as a reform by the privileged class to divert a potentially revolutionary and not just merely a militant workers movement.I'm sure other analyses can be suggested. Reforms are a murky business and there is always unintended consequences…maybe for us and maybe for the bosses…Whatever happens, we should have created a convincing case that urges fellow workers to seek the full pie and not just a bigger slice of it. How exactly, i leave to better minds than myself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.