Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 2:04:45 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

The numbers were looking this way before the vote but not as overwhelming as it turned out. 77-78% voted it down. Only 22% supported the 'universal minimum income.'

"The importance, above and beyond the vote, is that citizens have begun to reflect on this idea that will have to be implemented sooner or later," said one of the members of the initiative's support committee, Sergio Rossi.

None of Switzerland's political parties openly backed the proposal, which besides reducing (according to some, eliminating) the current expenses of the country's social assistance system, would allegedly result in additional income for the public coffers of more than 22 billion euros ($25 billion) per year.

According to numbers I saw, $208 billion/yr. now would have been $104 billion less but the same amount needed to pay the UMI. Minus the $25 billion additional govt. income from business and consumer taxes...or a net need for $79 billion in additional taxes.

Most Swiss, however, were very leery of the idea, contending that it would eliminate all motivation to work and spur millions of people around the world to try to move to Switzerland, where they would collect their stipend but not contribute to the national economy. EFE
HERE

This I read would have been difficult given one's need to spend years in Switzerland and going through a long process before qualifying. Now theirs talk of $10,000/year universal minimum income in most of the rest of the industrialized west.

I am not surprised it was voted down but was a little surprised by the margin of votes against.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/8/2016 2:05:34 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

Post #: 1

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 3:01:28 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Maybe that 77 % have common sense.

If you get something you did not earn, it was taken from those who did earn it.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything away.

Cliche, but apropos.

T^T

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 6/8/2016 3:02:07 AM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 2

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 4:51:05 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

If you get something you did not earn, it was taken from those who did earn it.

T^T

Bankers in the US get $2.6-$26 million bonuses for doing that very thing, year after year.

But at least it's not communism, which paying a decent wage obviously is. Because that might mean the above bonuses might only be $2-$20 million after that debacle.

Fucking commies.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 3

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 5:35:02 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

Here's why Switzerland (Die Schweitz) turned it down;

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

Scroll down the page just a bit till you see the vertically barred graph. In the list of countries below, click on Switzerland.

In all three metrics, lower is better (greater income equality). Switzerland is nine slots better (i.e., lower) than the OECD average in the graph of the GINI index, nine slots better than OECD avg. of % of population earning lower than half the national median income, and ten slots better than OECD avg. in terms of multiple of highest 10% to lowest 10% incomes. Which is to say: income equality is pretty decent in Switzerland. Conspicuously better than the OECD average in every metric of income equality.

Where are the third world countries in these graphs? Funny you should ask. The top three or four countries (that is, those with the greatest income inequality) include Mexico, the US, Turkey, Chile, and Israel in one of the metrics. "By the company they keep," as they say.

"Trickle down theory" at its finest. Piss on 'em.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/8/2016 6:18:47 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 4

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 7:46:30 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

I think part of the reason for this defeat is the high amount. I have to think that $2625/mo. is a bit too much even in relatively high cost-of-living Switzerland. I think part of the reasoning for the proposal is also the current state of assistance is fairly high and that would have been eliminated.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Edwird)

Post #: 5

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 8:54:44 AM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The numbers were looking this way before the vote but not as overwhelming as it turned out. 77-78% voted it down. Only 22% supported the 'universal minimum income.'

"The importance, above and beyond the vote, is that citizens have begun to reflect on this idea that will have to be implemented sooner or later," said one of the members of the initiative's support committee, Sergio Rossi.

None of Switzerland's political parties openly backed the proposal, which besides reducing (according to some, eliminating) the current expenses of the country's social assistance system, would allegedly result in additional income for the public coffers of more than 22 billion euros ($25 billion) per year.

According to numbers I saw, $208 billion/yr. now would have been $104 billion less but the same amount needed to pay the UMI. Minus the $25 billion additional govt. income from business and consumer taxes...or a net need for $79 billion in additional taxes.

Most Swiss, however, were very leery of the idea, contending that it would eliminate all motivation to work and spur millions of people around the world to try to move to Switzerland, where they would collect their stipend but not contribute to the national economy. EFE
HERE

This I read would have been difficult given one's need to spend years in Switzerland and going through a long process before qualifying. Now theirs talk of $10,000/year universal minimum income in most of the rest of the industrialized west.

I am not surprised it was voted down but was a little surprised by the margin of votes against.

I suspect there was much in the way of misinformation going on. Playing on people's fears rather than giving good quality information and letting the citizens think about it. Happens here in American; we call it FOX 'news'. A media system that is 24/7 spewing out misinformation towards the 'Least Informed Citizen'. The sort of people that will NEVER question what they are told. I suspect the Swiss have the same problem; a population to stupid to exist, but they do.

I also suspect the media and political types tried (an apparently successful) to convince the public that not raising that much money would spur a better economy into Switzerland. Creating more and higher paying jobs for the good citizens.

Give it two or three years for the public to realize they were shafted. Businesses will not be flocking to Switzerland.

You are not giving all the information....

"Under the proposed law, the government would guarantee that every Swiss adult has at least $2,600 in monthly income after taxes. So if a person has no income at all, he or she will receive the full amount. If the person earns $1,600 now, the supplement would be $1,000.

Someone who currently earns, say, $6,500 month would not receive any money from the government but $2,600 of it would not be taxed.

For those getting welfare or other social benefits, payments of up to $2,600 a month would be replaced by the new basic income. Anything over this amount would continue to be provided as a separate payment and taxed accordingly."

SOURCE

Is it a good system? Maybe. The group that proposed the idea stated the whole thing would be paid by increasing the nation's 8% value added tax. Government people stated certain areas of the budget would have to be slashed. Yet that might have been the right thing to do. The 'poor', gaining $2,600/month would be gaining more than enough to be above the nation's poverty level. Which would reduce dramatically the number of people on welfare (which could have cuts).

Proponents stated people would be less motivated to work. Why should people be forced to work in shitty jobs? What is the point of all this fancy technology and equipment if NOT to lower the work hours of the people? Why should the poor and middle class, bust their asses while the rich live like the Pharaohs of Egypt? The only people stating that working less would be a bad thing are those already on the path of a heart attack! Why should the rest follow those moronic lemmings?

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 6

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 9:17:38 AM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Here's why Switzerland (Die Schweitz) turned it down;

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

Scroll down the page just a bit till you see the vertically barred graph. In the list of countries below, click on Switzerland.

In all three metrics, lower is better (greater income equality). Switzerland is nine slots better (i.e., lower) than the OECD average in the graph of the GINI index, nine slots better than OECD avg. of % of population earning lower than half the national median income, and ten slots better than OECD avg. in terms of multiple of highest 10% to lowest 10% incomes. Which is to say: income equality is pretty decent in Switzerland. Conspicuously better than the OECD average in every metric of income equality.

All that bullshit so that the poor can stay poor. Must be nice to live above the poor. You must look down on them as inferior creatures, not worth your time. Do you treat those not of equal pay level or higher in a disrespectful manner? Probably. The poor are not poor because they want to be poor. They are poor due to circumstances. Those circumstances are often as unique as the individual of that position. Living as the poor is very tough if not hellish.

Each nation should be rated for how well it handles those most vulnerable in its society.

Why are we still following the previous millennium's economic conventions and mechanics? It didn't seem to help the poor out. It certainly help the rich lord over everyone else. Including all those nations that state they have individual freedom. The USA states its people hvae individual freedom. Yet when they vote for a President, it'll be the Electoral College that decides, NOT, the people. And how does one get into that college? Being rich....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Where are the third world countries in these graphs? Funny you should ask. The top three or four countries (that is, those with the greatest income inequality) include Mexico, the US, Turkey, Chile, and Israel in one of the metrics. "By the company they keep," as they say.

How many nations have 11 carrier fleets and more hardware than Saturday morning cartoons? The USA. If that country dropped $200 billion from Defense into helping the poor/middle class, it would rise very quickly on that quoted link of yours. Why don't they do it? Republicans. Slaves to the 1% in that nation.

Or if the nation placed taxes on the top 2% like they were during the George H. W. Bush era, the middle and poor classes would see a quick rise. That is because the rich would be forced to ACTUALLY WORK ITS ASS OFF to gain a profit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
"Trickle down theory" at its finest. Piss on 'em.

You have no fucking clue what that concept means. 'Trickle Down' is the government giving money to large companies on the idea that those companies would expand and increase funding to their employees (or new employees). Sadly, those companies took the money and invested it. Much of it internationally. Help build factories in China so it could ship American jobs there. You can thank conservatives for that bit of economic stupidity....

In each case in which minimum wage has occurred in the USA, the poor and middle class have experienced a wage increase for 10-15 years. An economic boon soon following. The smart business man would not raise his prices. Thereby gaining a huge number of customers (from those who raised their prices) and a increase market share. Yes, they might earn less income initially compared to their competition; if your in a business, you are there for the long haul! You would be surprised how many business people forget that....

(in reply to Edwird)

Post #: 7

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 10:23:00 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

You have no fucking clue what that concept means. 'Trickle Down' is the government giving money to large companies on the idea that those companies would expand and increase funding to their employees (or new employees). Sadly, those companies took the money and invested it. Much of it internationally. Help build factories in China so it could ship American jobs there. You can thank conservatives for that bit of economic stupidity....

We can thank the right of today for many of our economic and job creation problems but they are not conservative. Most of those policies are local in their origination.

The term originated in United States politics. It has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

In recent history, the phrase is most closely identified with critics of the economic policies known as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.

HERE

There are no laws of man or nature requiring that greater wealth for an individual or group (corporation) is passed down or up to another individual or group. In fact the opposite is true. Any windfall of wealth through the tax code or elsewhere, acts as disincentive in the search for greater wealth.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to joether)

Post #: 8

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 10:31:44 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Is it a good system? Maybe. The group that proposed the idea stated the whole thing would be paid by increasing the nation's 8% value added tax. Government people stated certain areas of the budget would have to be slashed. Yet that might have been the right thing to do. The 'poor', gaining $2,600/month would be gaining more than enough to be above the nation's poverty level. Which would reduce dramatically the number of people on welfare (which could have cuts).
Proponents stated people would be less motivated to work. Why should people be forced to work in shitty jobs? What is the point of all this fancy technology and equipment if NOT to lower the work hours of the people? Why should the poor and middle class, bust their asses while the rich live like the Pharaohs of Egypt? The only people stating that working less would be a bad thing are those already on the path of a heart attack! Why should the rest follow those moronic lemmings?

Isn't a VAT tax regressive?

And, why would you want to tax adding value? Don't you tax something to try to reduce it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joether
The poor are not poor because they want to be poor. They are poor due to circumstances. Those circumstances are often as unique as the individual of that position. Living as the poor is very tough if not hellish.

Sometimes, Joether, the "circumstances" that keep people poor are their very own choices. Their choice to not work at scholastic endeavors (school-age kids), their choice to not force their kids to work hard in school (parents of school-age kids), their choices to take what money they do earn and use it in a manner that doesn't improve their situation (ever seen some poor person with the latest cell phone? smoking? drinking? illegal activities? betting? playing the lottery? the list goes on), etc.

There are people who make a lot of money who are still broke. There are people who don't make a lot of money that are happier than people that make twice, thrice or more times what they make.

Everything usually comes down to choices, Joether. While some people have different choices to make than others, everyone can improve their situations simply be making better choices. Will some poor kid turn into a wealthy kid simply by making better choices? Not likely, but that poor kid could turn himself into a Middle Class kid, if he tries hard enough.

I work with blacks, whites, and Hispanics ranging in ages from just out of HS to close to retiring. They work in a Union environment (Union enrollment starts after 90 days). There are people (male and female) that have their shit together and people (male and female) that don't have their shit together, even though some of them are best friends, went to school together, lived in the same neighborhoods, etc. Why? Individual choices.

One guy spent his first couple years working 12-16 hours a day, 7 days per week, essentially excluding himself from his family existence. Why? So he could pay all his debt off and build up a nest egg. Now, he can pick and choose when he wants to work 12's. If he finagles enough, he can work a 16, if he chooses.

By and large, those that are doing the best are better workers, bitch less, and have good attitudes. It's not rocket surgery. It's choices.

quote:

How many nations have 11 carrier fleets and more hardware than Saturday morning cartoons? The USA. If that country dropped $200 billion from Defense into helping the poor/middle class, it would rise very quickly on that quoted link of yours. Why don't they do it? Republicans. Slaves to the 1% in that nation.

How much do we spend on the poor/middle class now? Is $200B really going to solve things? Really?

quote:

Or if the nation placed taxes on the top 2% like they were during the George H. W. Bush era, the middle and poor classes would see a quick rise. That is because the rich would be forced to ACTUALLY WORK ITS ASS OFF to gain a profit.

Don't you have any clue about what tax revenues did under Bush? You have no idea what would have happened if those tax cuts weren't implemented. You are what I call a "One-Stepper."? You can only think of what would happen if only one step was taken. You don't contemplate what the reaction, or "second step," would be. You can only see one variable when they are massive amounts of variables you conveniently ignore to spout off your horseshit.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)

Post #: 9

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 11:13:07 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I think part of the reason for this defeat is the high amount. I have to think that $2625/mo. is a bit too much even in relatively high cost-of-living Switzerland. I think part of the reasoning for the proposal is also the current state of assistance is fairly high and that would have been eliminated.

It's not like there was a huge campaign for it. Switzerland has a referendum system, where, if 1% of voters petition, it goes on the ballot for the whole 100% to decide.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 10

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 2:09:08 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

How much do we spend on the poor/middle class now? Is $200B really going to solve things? Really?

For the 50 million poor, that's over $333 more a month each. They'd take it I am sure.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/8/2016 2:13:44 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Post #: 11

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 9:03:50 PM

ifmaz

Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

How much do we spend on the poor/middle class now? Is $200B really going to solve things? Really?

For the 50 million poor, that's over $333 more a month each. They'd take it I am sure.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 12

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 10:58:43 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

FR

I would be more surprise if this was pass through in Switzerland. After all, isn't Switzerland considered Capitalist? If it passes through, it would be sooo interesting how a Capitalist Country is okay with giving everybody free income.
So no surprise by the huge number of Nos! But this is the best thing ever! Because this is truly democracy where people can decide what policies they want!

But I soooooo badly want one country to pass this, I want a guinea pig!

We have no actual evidence that people will all stop working.

Perhaps people will be more motivated to simply find jobs that they are passionate about, pursue their passions. I want to see what kind of impact positive or negative would such an environment be like.

Imagine a world, where everybody just do what they love for work! Instead of worrying about the money!

In my country, we are taught that pursuing your interests can't keep your stomach full. Which is usually true. Not many willing to give up cushy comfort to pursue their dreams. So we are always pursuing to go into fields where the money is. And that's the general direction.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 6/8/2016 11:01:16 PM >

(in reply to ifmaz)

Post #: 13

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/8/2016 11:12:29 PM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Here's why Switzerland (Die Schweitz) turned it down;

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

Scroll down the page just a bit till you see the vertically barred graph. In the list of countries below, click on Switzerland.

All that bullshit so that the poor can stay poor. Must be nice to live above the poor. You must look down on them as inferior creatures, not worth your time. Do you treat those not of equal pay level or higher in a disrespectful manner? Probably. Blah blah blah ...

And furthermore, blah blah blah ...

Your interpretation skills are ... lacking. To say the least.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
"Trickle down theory" at its finest. Piss on 'em.

You have no fucking clue what that concept means.

You have no fucking clue what sarcasm is.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/8/2016 11:31:02 PM >

(in reply to joether)

Post #: 14

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/9/2016 12:46:04 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's not like there was a huge campaign for it. Switzerland has a referendum system, where, if 1% of voters petition, it goes on the ballot for the whole 100% to decide.

Awesome system.
Everybody needs to implement this. It empowers ordinary people to make changes they want to see change!

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 15

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/9/2016 4:09:51 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

Do y'all realize that if a thing came up on the ballot for a two grand a month stipend here, the vote for it would be nearly unanimous ? They apparently give a shit about their country. But if you did that here, everyone would just give a shit about themselves.

The government does somewhat reflect the People. The people aren't all that great either, so what do you expect ?

Figure $24,000 per person times 300 million. But they would vote for it, early and often. Where does the money come from ? Well there are those 100 people still working and after they clean them out they print the rest. Kinda like QE.

T^T

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 16

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/9/2016 5:31:57 AM

blnymph

Posts: 1612
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

some minor details
the sum in question was 2500 Swiss francs (of course since it is the currency of Switzerland, not the us $), at today's rate 2598,61 $.

The "bread line" in Switzerland is rated at about 2460 Sfr, so not much free surplus intended. Switzerland is a VERY expensive country to live in - the average cup of coffee in a cafe costs about 8 Sfr for example on average, and in certain places you might have to cast about 5 times as much for it. While the sum looks tempting for many outside it just covers elementary requirements in Switzerland. It was not planned to be given as a bonus but as a replacement for other social security grants and aid.

The swiss people is de facto the sovereign government of Switzerland. Switzerland is a direct democracy.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 17

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/9/2016 5:34:44 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

It makes no difference. I mentioned this before. All you need is a sum of money to cover bread line. If you don't have to worry about starving, you can pursue what you love.

(in reply to blnymph)

Post #: 18

RE: Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend - 6/9/2016 1:04:47 PM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Here's why Switzerland (Die Schweitz) turned it down;

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

That was a bit too strong of a statement on my part. Should have said something like; "Here is the income distribution situation in Switzerland, which could be a factor in their decision.

(in reply to Edwird)

Post #: 19

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Swiss vote down $2625/month govt. stipend

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125