- Bastian Brandt
- Amsterdam (Nl)
- Netherlands
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Universal monthly allowance for all, financed by a 5% sales tax.
This Monthly Basic Income is also granted to every child that is registered in the region but will be given to their parents until it reaches the age of 18.
It may be granted to them directly, if they use this money to pay their school-fee.
The money to pay for the Monthly Basic Income will come from a purchasing tax of 5% which will be added to the price of all goods and services that are purchased and monthly collected from all business owners.
Due to the fact that richer people buy more goods and services, they will pay the 5% purchasing tax, as well as the 5% of high priced, high quality items more often, than people with less income. This money will support every registered citizen in the region and it will lead to a higher degree of financial equality.
The monthly collected amount from the 5% Purchasing Tax, shall only be used to be given to all citizens of the region as a Monthly Basic Income, that serves as a social and financial safety net for them.
The mathematics behind the Monthly Basic Income is as the following:
Total monthly collected Purchasing Tax :(divided by) The regions population
=(equals) The amount of money that will be granted to every registered citizen of the region as their Monthly Basic Income
I am a big supporter of the idea to implement this Monthly Basic Income, because it represents the principle, that one supports all (the customers that pay the 5% purchasing tax with their every purchase) and all ( the representing officials) are supporting every single citizen of the region.
Imri Rivas
I think this can help because the middle class is what keeps the economy going in the first place. If the working class has money, demand keeps going.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I also see an exponential increase in incentive and motivation for everybody to participate in society, as a result of the Basic Income Guarantee "taking care of them" and wanting to return the favor because of that. This would generate a steady high input of resources/money to sustain such a social program thus increasing our quality of life exponentially.
Dan F 50+
Just a thought or two and admittedly this is not my field of expertise.
In the U.S. we have had a war on poverty kicking in high gear with LBJ. We lost this war, but carry on.
IMO the worst kind of poor isn't economic. It's bad behavior, bad attitude and bad choices. The inability to communicate without being crude and rude. Burning graffiti onto one's body. A headstrong, combative, presence. Eating junk food. Living like rats. Buying unaffordable lotto tickets, Addiction to cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Participating or enabling criminal behavior. Having children without the means to provide support and often unplanned. Not taking on the role of a responsible parent - need I go on? Many of us don't want to support this all to common lifestyle and situation.
This isn't restricted to those financial struggling, but its considerably more prevalent and obviously more destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So I want to redefine the "poor" as described above to be distinguished from those individuals who more legitimately need and deserve financial help via public effort. No one I know denies this need and obligation and it is no small matter. Often these people are victims of conditions beyond their control or actions. They deserve empathy and help.
Perhaps we would be smart to redefine what being poor means and better direct our idealism and efforts where it is truly justified, or at least more warranted in terms of public assistance.
My conclusion is that if you reward undesirables types that's what your going to get more of and it seems to be the case.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Therefore, social programs is essential to have a stable society. The fact is that I am not safe even if only one person doesn't have the necessities of life. He can rob me, invade me or even kill me. Therefore it's just easier to give people access to the necessities of life in order to phase out such destructive and non-productive behaviors.
From a strictly pragmatic point of view, a monthly basic income would in fact increase the incentive and motivation for everybody to participate in society that would again generate a higher output to sustain such a program thus increasing the quality of life for everyone, because when people feel their environment takes care of them, like family does, they tend to wanna give back. It's a win-win situation for everybody.
This is not rocket science, but common sense.
This TED talk explains how economic inequality harms society: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Dan F 50+
I don't agree with that contention. The fact is many of us are beneficiaries of our environment. I'm sure if you think about it you will agree. In my case I had great parents despite being of modest income.
I did watch the talk you referenced. I found it interesting. I'm not sure why you think his observations would change my view here. I acknowledge social injustices, and the correlations he pointed out is perhaps instructive about societal differences as tied to the affects of the differing national social systems they operate under.
I don't like the idea of using money alone to fix most problems. It doesn't seemed to have helped our educational system.
I agree common sense should help us come together, but this has proven to be a difficult fix. It is not as if no effort has been given to reducing the problem of assisting the poor.
Jedrek Stepien 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Jedrek Stepien 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Consumption is based on supply and demand and demand is based on education and awareness. We could easily point out the dangers of consuming too much, but we are not doing that. Instead the current economic system encourage everybody to consume as much as possible, because this system requires cyclical consumption in order to sustain itself. If we want to get rid of over-consumption and waste, we need to educate people on whats sustainable, not limit their purchasing power.
Jedrek Stepien 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
From a strictly pragmatic point of view, a monthly basic income would in fact increase the incentive and motivation for everybody to participate in society that would again generate a higher output to sustain such a program thus increasing the quality of life for everyone, because when people feel their environment takes care of them, like family does, they tend to wanna give back. It's a win-win situation for everybody.
Jedrek Stepien 10+
You saw the streets of Britain last year. Were these i-phone robbers poor? No, they were the beneficiaries of state-pampering you are just about to strenghten even more.
Have courage, my friends! Eat less!
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Have an open mind, my friend! Eat soya meat!
Bastian Brandt
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Robert Winner 50+
If this would become law and enacted I can promise you that somewhere would be a clause that would allow the government to sweep the funds in time of needs.
A program like this would enlarge the government. A agency would be set up to collect funds, take polls of residents, monitor births, document deaths, set up school funds, assess new tax rates for the additional income, computer programs section, issue identification/entitlement cards, fraud squads, internal assessment group, auditors, accountants, secretaries, managers, directors, and thousands of other stupid government agencies that always follow. The 5% tax would be eaten up in no time and the citizens check would be a joke. In the form you suggest there would be these agencies in every region. The size of government growth would require more taxes to support it.
,The easier answer is to reduce "free" programs, reduce the size of government, and in turn reduce the taxes necessary to run the government thus providing a in kind raise to all citizens by more take home money. More take home money means more spending and stronger economy. A stronger economy opens investments capital for more businesses and therefore more jobs. Thus a win win.
John Smith 30+
Is it? Remember it would replace a patchwork of existing programs, not add to it. Furthermore it would make people a lot more independent from corporate interests and the "class" they were born in (more social mobility), make automatization and unemployment rates a non-issue and still reward work because any money you make doing work gets added on top of your basic living income. The overwhelming conscensus in the developed world already is that people would gladly pay some taxes on their income if it means they can sleep soundly knowing that if they get laid off tomorrow they won't have to worry where their next meal will come from. The US is an exception and that's their choice, but I think it's wrong to treat American right-wing (usually incorrect) talking points and paranoia of anything government and infatuation with anything that's richer than average Joe, as a serious reason for other countries not to try new ideas, after all, most of them don't have 40 million uninsured and a 106% of GDP debt...
When people think a basic living income will stop all people from working then that says more about themselves than about what would actually happen. Like it or not but we need central coordination: even in the booming 90s there weren't enough jobs for everyone and that was decades after central coordination had cut 40% from the workweek, instituted the retirement age, created artificial jobs in bloated defense and financial sectors, people went to school longer, etc... If you want more people working you have to centrally reduce hours.
"A program like this would enlarge the government."
In terms of money yes, in terms of number of civil servants, agencies and regulations it would do the opposite
"A agency would be set up to collect funds, take polls of residents, monitor births, etc..."
Unless you live in Somalia your government already has these capabilities...
Mats Kaarbö 10+
But what about your family? They feed you, clothe you and shelter you until you get your own place and job to support yourself. Did they ever selfishly say, you don't really deserve my money? No, because they are family they give without any attachments to it. Families doesn't expect to get paid back for supporting their children. So, why shouldn't we all take care of each others as a big family, is that such an alien concept?
"A program like this would enlarge the government. A agency would be set up to collect funds, take polls of residents, monitor births, document deaths, set up school funds, assess new tax rates for the additional income, computer programs section, issue identification/entitlement cards, fraud squads, internal assessment group, auditors, accountants, secretaries, managers, directors, and thousands of other stupid government agencies that always follow."
In actuality, this would decrease the size of government in the social sector. With a universal monthly allowance, many social programs would phase out because we simply wouldn't need all of them and people wouldn't have to go through the hassle of a tough and bureaucratic process filling out pages of documents and then wait several weeks for a response (which is the case today). A program like this would work like a human right and has nothing to do with agencies checking up on you.
Robert Winner 50+
This behavior kills the work ethic and takes away the dignity of man.
Good try but comparing my family does not fly. I have a obligation to care for them until such time they can fend for themselves. Under certain conditions I would continue to provide support. I would refuse to continue to support anyone who is able bodied, and capable of working when a job exsists. Even the purtains knew this when they made the Purtain Ethic Law. Basically if you refuse to contribute then we will not share with you.
The idea that the world owes you is crippling and those who contribute to those who feel this way are enabling them to be dependent. Nothing is free. I maintain .. Hand up .. No hand out.
Governments never decrease ... once they have roots they are forever. If you did away with a social program the law suits would be in the billions. You would lose in liberal courts and would have the current programs, money lost for pain and mental cruelity, and the new program also.
Mats we are miles apart on this one .... I wish you well ...... Bob.
John Smith 30+
Mitt Romney's father grew up with food stamps and would never have become a CEO without them, I did not grow up in the US but I sure as hell wouldn't be where I am today without the grants my government gave me to pursue my education (silly me, for not knowing "my place", right?). In Brazil social programs have brought tens of millions out of poverty, just as they did in the 50s and 60s in the West. Social programs have brought progress and increased social mobility and I'm willing to bet your family was helped by it at some point. Social programs are what separates developed countries from the average third world dystopia.
I gladly pay taxes to give some kid the same opportunities I got from the generation of taxpayers preceding me, it's called giving a f*ck about what happens to people other than yourself. You started this conversation by saying you were all for giving people a hand up, but this doesn't show from what you wrote later on. Meanwhile I have no dobut you will be accepting medicare and all the perks of having subsidized water and electricity supplies in that desert hole you live in.
Jerry Whidby
John Smith 30+
That's BS: there are much more people looking for work than there are jobs available. Of course some employers have a hard time finding very specialized personnel but the general trend is 50 people showing up at interviews for only 1 job.
"Unfortunately people receive almost as much in unemployment as they would by working"
You actually believe that? Do you know unemployment benefits are temporarily, that you only get them if you've worked for years and that you still lose your emplyer provided health insurance.
"Rich people provide jobs"
Consumers provide demand which enables rich people to set up businesses in the first place.
You sound like some relic from the Bush era...
"People in the US are not greedy. We actually give more to charity than any other nation."
Also BS, per capita charity spending is nowhere near the global top, especially when you consider that people in other countires give to actual charities, not mormon and evangelical political lobbying groups.
"If I were to contribute my tax dollars towards any social programs it would be for higher education."
Actions speak louder than words: demand change, demand affordable higher education.
John Smith 30+
I don't think a 5% sales tax would cut it (and Fritzie is right to call sales tax regressive), but I'm not against the idea of a basic living income for all. Since it would replace many existing programs such as welfare, education grants, state pensions, etc... it can certainly be done.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
What type of tax or funding method could we use then? Income tax? I'm sure the millionaires and billionaires wouldn't suffer to have an increase in taxes.
John Smith 30+
However I believe a basic living income is more suited to a more advanced economy with non-transferable currency. Basically the government would issue "credits" every year, their number limited by the total amount of energy available to society during that year (minus a buffer), part of those credit are then directly issued to citizens on a monthly basis, another part is used to pay government employees a little extra on top of the basic living income and the rest is handed over to a system of competing banks who can lend it to businesses and individuals (up to a certain point), the banks receive any profits the businesses make and transfer them back to the government. The government also receives credits from businesses and individuals who rent land from it and from the only true taxes in the system (tariffs that are designed to keep businesses from depleting natural resources and destroying the environment). At the beginning of every new year the credits from the previous year are erased and new ones are created, however businesses and individuals can request multi-year loans and convert their credits into equipment through the act of buying. An absolute maximum wage (say 4x basic living income) will be in place but otherwise businesses will still pretty much form a free market. Speculation will be prevented by a law that forces traders to sell natural resources at the price corresponding to the abundance after the sale. People are of course free to barter. Elegant algorithms and protocols maintain the purchasing power of a basic living income and the robustness of the energy buffer and adjust macro-economic parameters as needed, they'll also handle the occasional dismantling of the least performing banks and the creation of their replacements. A social draft could be part of the system if necessary.
david madsen
george lockwood 20+
Fran Ontanaya 100+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Yes, all these things are good, but people still need money in order to survive. People can't survive on gifts alone from their local communities. They need money to pay for food, pay their rent, public transportation, pay their bills and for nearly any social activity. People need money, not belly dances.
Fran Ontanaya 100+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I commented on the sales tax, because that was the scenario Bastian put forward, and I thought he might want to take a second look at his proposal.
There are also many countries that already have a "transfer" to provide baseline income to the very poor or disabled. Obviously the need for funds would be much greater to offer a universal income transfer.
Bastian Brandt
Poor people typically also don't receive a Monthly Basic Income. But I absolutly agree, the tax has to be fair, support equality and needs to be set up in an algorithm that works for all, without exception everyone needs to be equally bound by the whole concept, in order for nobody to ever become the feeling to be treated unfairly as far as the monthly basic income is concerned, because it is for all the same, without exception.
Jerry Whidby