Switzerland may pay basic monthly income to all its citizens
- This topic has 54 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In his latest novel Ken MacLoed posits a model of state capitalism that could be compatible with basic income: esentially, all corporations are AI entities which are ultimately owned by a single beneficial trust, so all profits from all firms are distributed equally, people are then free to work, trade, accumulate through their own endevours. Now, this (uinlike, say, co-operative based capitalism) is theoretically workable, since it overcomes the differences in organic composition of capitals, each firm would make a profit off it's own capital, but this would then be spread out to all citizens.Effectively, this is UBI with a 100% coporation tax, capital gains tax and dividend tax.Of course,t here would be the iequality of highly remunerated directors, but they would have to be driven by shareholder value.
Actually, Alan, I think one of the (other) interesting things about it is that no one (as far as I know) is predicting that the UBI will be forced on the state and employers by rising class conflict. It's proposed more to deal with intractable problems in the modern economy, including the fact that (most) workers aren't organised to bargain their wages up and that this is due not (solely) to unwillingness or defeat on their part but due to technological changes imposing different work patterns.The strongest argument against UBI for me is that it would have either to be so high as to be unaffordable, or would have to exist alongside other benefits and aspects of the welfare state – in other words, it couldn't work as advertised. The strongest argument for would be to end the stigma of being on benefits (we all would be) and to increase bargaining power for workers (if high enough, workers could just walk away from the most unpleasant work). I like Ken's idea!
I'm not sure the discussion is taking into account how radical (and so unrealistic and unworkable) the Swiss proposal seems to have been. According to the BBC report above:
Quote: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.The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland.That's 30,000 Swiss francs a yearly or £21060. As stated, the cost of living in Switzerland is higher (and the pound sterling is falling) but even £18,000 a year for everyone.The BBC report adds:
Quote:It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.Yes it is ! There would be a hugely powerful downward labour market pressure to reduce them by 30,000 SFr a year.I'm not sure how accurate the BBC report is (I've not checked) but 30,000 SFr a year for everyone as a right would really upset the labour market in Switzerland with unforeseen consequences. Maybe that was a factor in the massive NO vote. After all, what other reason could there be for rejecting a proposal to be given 30,000 SFr a year free?
Hi AdamI started to write a strong disagreement, but I stopped and asked myself whether I would have voted for the proposal. The answer is no. The key point is not that the scheme definitely wouldn't work – no one knows – but that the effects on the economy would be "unpredictable". People vote small c conservative in referendums for good reason and these days I tend to join them. (Vote Remain.) That too has implications for the socialist project! Cheers
I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.
I agree Adam and I too think Remain will win (though I'm not as confident about that as I was when the campaign began). The other side of sensible caution is the rage of those left behind and who have (or think they have) nothing to lose from a leap in the dark. The only hope for socialism, or for other radical ideas such as basic income (to return to the arguments of a former life!), is not that someone can get the idea on a ballot paper, but of collective deliberation, organisation and solidarity (which is what you've always argued of course).
I have now checked the facts with the French-language websites of those who proposed the Basic Income referendum, and1. The question on the ballot paper was simply are you or are you not in favour of the introductionn of an Unconditional Basic Income (without any figure being mentioned).2. The figure of 2500 Swiss francs was mentioned in their campaign literature and they say represents just slightly more than the poverty line in Switzerland.3. Their campaign literature said that, with the introduction of Basic Income, wages would be reduced by its amount.When I first read this third point I couldn't believe it but it's true, black on white. Here is what the French version says referring a graph:
Quote:Les salaires vont en effet s’adapter pour devenir un complément du RBI. Par exemple pour un RBI de CHF. 2’500.-, une personne qui touche actuellement CHF. 8’000.- de son employeur ne touchera plus que quelques CHF. 5’500.- de salaire qui viendront s’additionner à son RBI.For French-language readers who can't believe what they are reading, here's the source:http://rbi-oui.ch/laboratoire-sur-le-financement-du-revenu-de-base-inconditionnel/Here's a rough English translation of this killer quote:
Quote:Wages are going to adapt themselves to become a complement to Basic Income. For example with a Basic Income of 2500 Swiss Francs, someone who at present gets 8000 Swiss francs from his employer will not get more than 5500 or so wages which will come to be added to his Basic Income.So, anyone with a wage above the poverty line is not going to be better off: their income will be exactly the same, with instead of it all being paid by the employer, part will be paid by the State and part by the employer.If this is what those in the English-speaking world in favour of a Universal Unconditional Basic Income are proposing they have conceded our argument that it would lead to a massive downward pressure on wages. In fact it's part of the scheme. So we don't need to argue this anymore and we can simply laugh them out of court.
ALB wrote:I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.It is beginning to look like the Leave campaign will win http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/eu-referendum-panicked-remain-camp-plans-to-take-out-boris-as-polls-swing-in-brexit-campaigns-favour/ar-AAgTXrC?ocid=spartandhp
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
I don't see why you think that's such a killer argument Adam. The proponents of basic income have never said that it's all about giving a pay rise to those already comfortably off. I would imagine that most proponents would argue that the downward pressure on wages is a feature not a bug – it would reduce the cost of employing workers, spreading the burden of that around a bit through the tax and benefit system. Basic income is seen by some as an answer to many ills – the complex and costly welfare state, wages for the low paid, persistent un- or underemployment, the freeing of labour markets, subsidising cultural production and underpaid care work, etc. Giving a boost to the already rich is not seen as one of them.Even if you could point out 20 other flaws in the system this would still not be an argument against since no one is arguing for the replacement of an imperfect system with a perfect one, merely a better one. An analogy would be with tax credits. Everyone knows the flaws in the system – that doesn't mean that it's not a least-bad solution to an intractable problem (how to boost the pay of the low paid without removing work incentives or placing an intolerable burden on employers). To laugh them out of court you'd have to not just show the flaws in their system but propose instead a practicable and workable alternative. I know you believe you have that, but I'm afraid that it has already been laughed out of the court of public opinion. I'm not saying that was a correct move on the part of the mockers. But I am saying that a mocking attitude is precisely the wrong one if you would be heard. People in glass houses and all that.Cheers
Imagine your a worker who has just been told that your wages have been cut by the amount they had just risen due to the introduction of a basic income. Would you care? I'd cheer. It means that a certain proportion of my wages are now guaranteed by the state without condition. That would embolden me and my fellow workers when pushing for better pay and conditions or for more interesting and varied work, or more of a say in the running of the business, or in when I turn up, etc, etc. So as I said, a feature not a bug.
Quote:you'd have to not just show the flaws in their system but propose instead a practicable and workable alternative. I know you believe you have that, but I'm afraid that it has already been laughed out of the court of public opinion. I'm not saying that was a correct move on the part of the mockers. But I am saying that a mocking attitude is precisely the wrong one if you would be heard. People in glass houses and all that.When has it been the responsibility of socialists, Stuart, to fix the host of problems of capitalism, the primary one being the wages system and wage slavery? As you say we believe we already have the practical and workable alternative and public opinion has always been against it. Nothing new there. Isn't Adam simply pointing out that any UBI will always be framed within the tight parameters that capitalism will permit and shown that is indeed the case.Your case is to make the case that the UBI legislation will be passed just the way you envisage it, not in a way to benefit the ruling class and mollify the working class. I think you have already suggested in another post that to gain the UBI will not mean a great class struggle so how exactly do we make a permanent improvement in the implementation of the UBI. If it is a practical reality how is it going to be proposed and by whom? How do you see it fitting in with trade unions? I am a cynic and need persuading of this feature of capitalism. Whatever they give us with one hand, they will take from another. Or as others say, they will rob Paul to pay Peter. I need you to convince me, Stuart, of no unintended consequences. As been raised on the other thread…why should i take the leap into the dark and form alliances with my employers by convincing them of the worth of the UBI to their company balance books and how it will reduce their contribution to the upkeep by the State of the workers and non-workers.
Quote:It means that a certain proportion of my wages are now guaranteed by the state without condition.Isn't that that the same with the minimum wage, Stuart? If i'm paid 20% above the minimum wage, that means 80% of my pay is guaranteed by law, doesn't it? But possibly all the concessions under UBI will be harder to remove in the likelihood of the next recession but i am not sure of that.
Quote:would embolden me and my fellow workers when pushing for better pay and conditions or for more interesting and varied work, or more of a say in the running of the business, or in when I turn up, etc, etc.Doesn't our class position already provide these motivations and has done for a few centuries and the alternatives laughed out of the court by the more feasible policies…national insurance…welfare state…? All eaten away. I know the implication is that the level or even existence of the UBI will be deemed untouchable, much like the NHS is, but will it be? Aren't we always going to pay the price of our ruling class mistakes in some way or another? If McConnell includes it in the next Labour Party policy, i want to check out all the small print and ignore the grand promise, not taking anything for granted from those who have a dubious record of representing workers' interests …isn't that wise?So, yes, let's not mock until we see what is on offer…So far Switzerland hasn't endowed too much confidence and nor have the other nations who have reached the stage of airing the possibility of UBI in theory.
I agree that mocking is probably not the best way to convince someone you're arguing with but in this case it's justified at least as a one-off. We've been arguing against the proponents of this reform for over 20 years, pointing out that it would lead to an across the board reduction in wages and so be a wage subsidy to employers.Not once have they been prepared to admit this, claiming that their reform is something the working class as a whole should support as it would be in their general interest. As far as I know, this is the first time that they have openly and explicitly said that their scheme involves a wage reduction for all workers above the poverty line even if their total income is to remain the same, i.e will make no financial difference to the vast majority of workers.Basically, they are proposing a reform of the welfare system that would benefit (if it worked as planned) only those on benefits, allowing them to receive these as of right without means testing or the obligation to try to find work. Nice if you could get it but hardly likely as long as capitalism lasts.The more extravagant claims about a basic income being a transition towards the abolition of the wages system and breaking the link between income and work are just that — extravagant claims.
I could not try to convince you of "no unintended consequences" Alan unless I were a complete charlatan. (As I said, I would probably have voted against the UBI in Swtizerland, precisely because I would be fearful of unintended consequences.) Surely socialists can promise no such thing either? Otherwise, I take your and Adam's points. I think in your rhetoric though you should work harder to explain why "free money for everyone" is a ludicrous utopian dream yet "free stuff for everyone" is a practical workable alternative. Good article on the UBI here:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/why-dont-we-have-universal-basic-income?mbid=rss
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.