Author Topic: "Marxist Dream" Crushed - In Landslide Vote, Swiss Reject Proposal To Hand Out Free Money To Everyone  (Read 448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
SOURCE: ZERO HEDGE

URL : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-05/landslide-vote-swiss-reject-proposal-hand-out-free-money-everyone

by: Tyler Durden

____________________________________-

This weekend the Swiss population was called upon to make a historic decision, when Switzerland became the first country worldwide to put the idea of free money for everyone, technically known as Unconditional Basic Income (of CHF2,500 per month for every adult man and woman, and CHF625 for every child, for doing absolutely nothing) to a vote.

As reported previously, the outcome of this referendum would set a strong precedent and establish a landmark in the evolution of the debate of handing out free money in a centrally-planned world. And as predicted, based on early vote projections it has been a landslide decision against the "free lunch."

According to BBC, some 78% of voters opposed the plan, a GFS projection for Swiss TV suggested. AFP adds that most Swiss vote in advance by post, so a large majority of ballots had already been counted, and gfs.bern put the margin of error at just plus/minus three percent.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2016, 05:17:01 pm by AbaraXas »

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Edited to excerpt. Please remember to try to excerpt all articles.

geronl

  • Guest
It's a ridiculous idea on its face

Offline uglybiker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,072
But what about all those people who aren't good enough for anything other than sitting around and doing nothing (and I know a few of those)?  Where are they gonna go now?
nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-BATMAN!!!

Offline andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,912
  • Gender: Male
It's a ridiculous idea on its face

Or would have been, when relative sanity still reigned over significant portions of the civilized world. Perhaps such sanity still dominates, though I have my doubts.

Back then (way, way back around, oh, 40 years ago), the majority of people living in free nations would have had the education and personal values to inform them that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the coin of citizenship. When someone demands as a matter of "right" things that they are themselves unwilling to work for, and simply because of their "need", what they are truly asking is for their government to play the role of a thief.

"The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
This idea was advanced by no less a figure than Milton Friedman. Also by Charles Murray.

The reasoning is to reduce the cost of administering the many separate benefits doled out by government, and push back to the individuals, how they spend the money.

For example, multiple agencies spend huge administrative sums, to hand out SEPARATELY  Sect. 8 housing subsidies, food stamps, child support, general welfare, free govt. health care, free school breakfasts & lunches, to name several.

Each agency has great costs ABOVE the benefits dispensed.

So why not wrap them all up into a single sum, hand it over and be done with it?

Supposedly during the Clinton years, with GOP involved we "ended welfare" as it was known. Yet since then, that progress has been undone. 

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
EXCERPT FROM HOTAIR.COM http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/05/sanity-in-switzerland-as-basic-income-proposal-fails/

One thing the BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) supporters did promise is the free market would stay intact. But their explanation leaves a LOT to be desired. Via BasicIncome2016.org:

   
Quote
An entrepreneur can now be sure that people will come to her because they actually want to work with her. Motivation will become a prerequisite for a job application. Even the employee is now more free in his position of negotiation. He can say yes to work that interests him and in which he can be of optimal use. Personal development through our work, having success and taking responsibility will become key attributes of a job search. The applicant can also say no to unappealing job offers more easily. The threat of taking away a person’s livelihood can no longer be used as a means to force employees to work under bad conditions.

    The transfer of an unconditional basic income reduces the cost of labor. It acts as a subsidy to the existing wages. Being secured up to the level of the unconditional basic income, each person can now do her work without hesitation.

This is pretty much hogwash, even though there are plenty of people working in job situations they don’t want to be in. But what the BIG supporters fail to point out is everyone DOES have a choice. If someone is unhappy in the job they’re in, they can start looking for other places of employment or start their own business. If there’s no openings in the same industry, then people can decide whether they want to completely switch industries or go back to school to learn new skills. It absolutely could lead to student debt, long workdays, and less free time, but if someone decides to make that choice, it’s their own choice.

A Basic Income Guarantee is actually something which scholars in the U.S. have studied from time to time. CATO Institute actually looked into what a BIG might look like in 2014 when Matt Zwolinski suggested it wasn’t necessarily a bad idea because it could reduce reduce bureaucracy and be a replacement for the current welfare state. Zwolinski called it “pragmatic” because of how the situation currently is.

   
Quote
Maybe the state shouldn’t be in the business of giving out welfare at all. Maybe it shouldn’t be running schools, or highways either. But, as Jacob Levy notes, since it does do these things, libertarians have good reason to demand that it does so in a way that is as “more rather than less compatible with Hayek’s rule of law, with freedom from supervision and surveillance by the bureaucracy, with the ability to get on with living their lives rather than having to waste them proving their innocence.”

The problem with Zwolinski’s thinking, and those of the Swiss BIG, is its heavy reliance on the state and the need to provide “fulfillment now.” It’s tough to be able to push for policies which will take years to accomplish (lowered or no taxes, fewer government laws and regulations, no welfare, repealing gun laws, etc). But it’s still an important fight, especially as the leviathan of government grows and grows on a daily basis. There’s no reason for a government to be the “All-Father” of our lives and decide who gets what and when and I’ve written before how there’s evidence suggesting government intervention actually raises costs. The Swiss realized this in their decision to reject the BIG. Hopefully they’ll be the only nation to have to realize this and the notion of a BIG will stay in philosophical circles and not ballot booths. Although, given how things go, I wouldn’t be surprised to see other countries start considering a BIG in the next ten to 20 years.

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,621
  • Gender: Male
  • Your what hurts??
There was an editorial in the Saturday Wall Street Journal explaining why the time has come for this idea in the US. 

Quite a pipe dream...must be smoking some of that good recreational weed coming out of Orygone.....

 :smokin:

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
This idea was advanced by no less a figure than Milton Friedman. Also by Charles Murray.

The reasoning is to reduce the cost of administering the many separate benefits doled out by government, and push back to the individuals, how they spend the money.


The way I see it, this is like Social Security for everybody regardless of age.

Since Social Security is being paid for by our payroll taxes, and since this is only being paid out to those who are 62 years of age and up ( with those who opted to take it when they are older receiving more per month ), does it not follow that payroll taxes will have to be INCREASED in order to include even the young?

And given that social security is on its way to insolvency in a little over 2 decades with retirees living longer, what's there to ensure that this won't accelerate further when we include the young?


Oceander

  • Guest
But what about all those people who aren't good enough for anything other than sitting around and doing nothing (and I know a few of those)?  Where are they gonna go now?

riot

Wingnut

  • Guest
It's a ridiculous idea on its face

The one thing about doing nothing is you never know when your done.

geronl

  • Guest


Personally I would abolish all welfare and replace it with a monthly cash dole.

It would not be for any but the truly poor and it would not be permanent.

The idea of Guaranteed Basic Income won't work

geronl

  • Guest
Lesko, free money for everyone!!

"Where does the money come from..."

"Shaddup!!"