Citizen's Dividend

[MachineGhost]

The Swiss will go to the polls this weekend to vote in a potentially historic referendum to provide everyone in the country with a no-strings-attached monthly payment of 2,500 francs regardless of whether they're employed or not. Switzerland is not alone. The city of Utrecht in the Netherlands is conducting a pilot program, and trials of the idea are planned in Finland and the Canadian province of Ontario.

[jafs]

That's a pretty substantial monthly amount.

The swiss franc is about equivalent to a US $, so it's about $2500/month. One could live decently on that in many places in the US, especially if you didn't have to pay taxes on it - it's about $30K/yr.

Of course, the cost of living may be higher in Switzerland, I don't know.

[MachineGhost]

That's a pretty substantial monthly amount.

The swiss franc is about equivalent to a US $, so it's about $2500/month. One could live decently on that in many places in the US, especially if you didn't have to pay taxes on it - it's about $30K/yr.

Of course, the cost of living may be higher in Switzerland, I don't know.

It's only about $200 francs above the poverty level in Switzerland. It sounds like you need to go read the posts on the backup forum since it was mentioned there.

[jafs]

Well, then it's clearly not as generous as I thought.

It would translate to about $1200/month here then, about $14,400/yr. Not so easy to live on that.

[I Shrugged]

Just a dumb, stupid, society-destroying idea.

[Pointedstick]

Just a dumb, stupid, society-destroying idea.

If they pass it, I guess we'll find out. Of course, I don't think Switzerland is cursed with any violent unproductive underclasses, so it might not be a very good indication of whether or not it would work here in the USA.

Then again, maybe if the violent unproductive underclasses here got straight-up cash instead of welfare and poverty, maybe they might actually be more peaceful and productive.

[jafs]

That's certainly an interesting, and possibly good argument for giving money to those at the bottom economically.

It might be better for them to just get that money, and not engage in criminal activity to get it, since we pay (both financially and in other ways) for that crime.

My wife and visited a small town in PA a while back, and noticed a lot of kind of sketchy folks around. When we asked/mentioned it to the waitress at a restaurant, she said there were very good public benefits there, so a lot of lower income folks came there for those. The interesting thing was that even though they looked lower class, I didn't feel at all threatened by them. All they did was to go there and get their benefits, and apparently were happy and peaceful.

If there is always going to be a group that isn't productive, better that way than as criminals.

[MachineGhost]

Just a dumb, stupid, society-destroying idea.

What's your plan for technological unemployment then?

[MachineGhost]

Well, then it's clearly not as generous as I thought.

It would translate to about $1200/month here then, about $14,400/yr. Not so easy to live on that.

In places like the Deep South, Appalachia or Detroit, $1200 would go an incredibly long way (and since there's an incredible dearth of products/services besides Walmart due to lack of income, it could be very economically revitalizing). There's even some mid-sized cities that you can live in on that amount as SS retirees attest (average SS check is around the same amount).

Heck, I think even PS lives on less than that per month!

The Citizen's Dividend is just consumer-driven welfare instead of government-driven. In this age of decentralization, it's a no brainer for everyone but bureaucrats.

I think compared to chronic tokers acting violent (a joke), giving them money is immensely preferable. Keep them pacified and drugged up. What's not to love for the conservatives? After all, that was the entire basis for the bullshitting war on drugs.

[Pointedstick]

Heck, I think even PS lives on less than that per month!

Not quite that low, now that I have two kids. It's been a consistent average of about $1,800 a month. This includes a huge amount of fat and waste, like multiple monthly restaurant meals, buying kids' clothes at Walmart instead of goodwill or thrift stores, and my weird, expensive taste in pants (I dream of wearing superpants that never wear out--any recommendations?).

[MachineGhost]

And another great idea for the Citizen's Dividend is that Japan should implement it so they can reverse their terminal declining birthrate and forthcoming irrelevance. Will Abe listen??? Hello??? The cluephone is ringing for you!!!

[jafs]

That's true, there are places that one could live on for that amount.

But it's quite a bit below the average cost of living, which is about $28K/yr for a single adult.

Very few people are able to live on just their SS checks alone.

[clacy]

Being far too lazy to read, is this for each man/woman/child? For a family of 5 you would make $6,000 or $72,000/yr right off the bat. That seems like an insane amount of money, but I guess since it's all key strokes now, why not?

This will be a good test run. If I had to chose one country to make something like this work, it seems like Switzerland would have to be close to the top.

[jafs]

I would guess it's for each adult, but I don't know.

[Benko]

Someone proposed this in WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guarantee ... 1464969586

A Guaranteed Income for Every American

Replacing the welfare state with an annual grant is the best way to cope with a radically changing U.S. jobs market—and to revitalize America’s civic culture

By CHARLES MURRAY
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

[Xan]

i think its a very interesting idea IF you eliminate the welfare state and the bureaucracy, the unintended consequences and the waste that goes with it,.... if you don't then whats the point..

Even if you don't (and I agree that it would be HUGELY better if you did), then things can still be better. Lowering the disincentive of people to better themselves is still better than not lowering it, even if it doesn't go to zero.

i can see some step by step process to eliminate the entitlement welfare state as being a better then nothing . but no change plus a dividend would only seem to increase the disincentive to me.. not to mention the dividend would likely have some unintended consequences of its own (ones i would be willing to take a chance on over the known negatives of the entitlement system as it stands, that is if it eliminated or reduced them)

[jafs]

C. Murray is the libertarian that I first saw advocating something like this a while back, I think.

His proposal involves doing away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a lot of other programs. So I think it's extremely unlikely to get much political traction.

Also, I'm not at all sure that it would accomplish what he thinks it would, although it would be a bit simpler than the current system.

I prefer a "guaranteed minimum income" structure, if we're talking about these sorts of things. And, his idea includes mandating that people spend a certain part of their grants on health insurance, which I'm not sure is needed either.

Ideally, I'd probably combine a minimum income structure with free public health care, pro-rated public care up to a certain amount over that, and then let the private system take over above that level. So, just for an example to clarify, the government ensures that all adults make at least $15K/yr by subsidizing them up to that level and providing free health care. If you make more than that - $15-$25K/yr, you can pay a pro-rated amount starting small and gradually getting larger, for the public health care, and above the $25K, you don't qualify any more for the public program, and move into the private sector.

[Xan]

Your policies keep people trapped in poverty, jafs. I don't know how you don't see that.

If the government subsidizes everybody up to $15K, then what incentive is there for somebody who's poor to go and get an entry level job? His pay would be effectively zero. He won't do it. You're creating a huge roadblock for people who want more. Why discourage them that way? Just give everybody $15K. (Assuming the economy can support it.)

[Kriegsspiel]

I would guess it's for each adult, but I don't know.

They wouldn't take away parent's ability to make their kids WORK for an allowance ,right?

[WiseOne]

i think its a very interesting idea IF you eliminate the welfare state and the bureaucracy, the unintended consequences and the waste that goes with it,.... if you don't then whats the point..

That is exactly the point. It might be perfectly possible for the dividend to be revenue-neutral. Managing over a hundred separate federal welfare programs has got to be crazy expensive. I'd argue to dump everything except Medicare, because it's simply unrealistic for an elderly or disabled person to get affordable insurance in the private market (Paul Ryan, take note). That includes Medicaid. And there would no longer be a reason for NYC to hang on to its decrepit housing projects. Selling them to a private company who would renovate them and sell as condos would be the best thing to happen to this city in decades.

I agree with all the non-jafs posters....the current system is a giant disincentive to work, because benefits (especially medical) are lost as soon as you go out and get even a part-time minimum wage job. For example, $540/month is the income cutoff in NY for Medicaid. The disincentive to work caused by the dividend itself pales in comparison.

[jafs]

Your policies keep people trapped in poverty, jafs. I don't know how you don't see that.

If the government subsidizes everybody up to $15K, then what incentive is there for somebody who's poor to go and get an entry level job? His pay would be effectively zero. He won't do it. You're creating a huge roadblock for people who want more. Why discourage them that way? Just give everybody $15K. (Assuming the economy can support it.)

If you just give them $15K, there's also no incentive to get a job, right?

I don't see any difference between the systems from that point of view.

If people want to live on a smallish amount like $15K/yr, then they'll do that, either way. But a lot of people may want more than that, and they'll find ways to get more. Also, my idea provides the public health care subsidies for a while after they make more money, so they get that if they have entry level jobs.

And, again, I have trouble with the idea that we'll give Obama, Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, etc. money every month.

[jafs]

i think its a very interesting idea IF you eliminate the welfare state and the bureaucracy, the unintended consequences and the waste that goes with it,.... if you don't then whats the point..

That is exactly the point. It might be perfectly possible for the dividend to be revenue-neutral. Managing over a hundred separate federal welfare programs has got to be crazy expensive. I'd argue to dump everything except Medicare, because it's simply unrealistic for an elderly or disabled person to get affordable insurance in the private market (Paul Ryan, take note). That includes Medicaid. And there would no longer be a reason for NYC to hang on to its decrepit housing projects. Selling them to a private company who would renovate them and sell as condos would be the best thing to happen to this city in decades.

I agree with all the non-jafs posters....the current system is a giant disincentive to work, because benefits (especially medical) are lost as soon as you go out and get even a part-time minimum wage job. For example, $540/month is the income cutoff in NY for Medicaid. The disincentive to work caused by the dividend itself pales in comparison.

I included a sliding scale of affordable health care in my example, so it doesn't have the problem you mention there.

And, you get the income subsidy as well, so that you're not penalized by working part-time minimum wage jobs - in fact, you get a bit on top of that and free health care as well.

I agree that there are bad incentives in the systems we have now, so I don't know why you specifically want to disagree with me about that issue.

And, heck, never mind Gates, et. al. My wife and I are in the lower range of middle class - why should the government give us $30K/yr? We don't need it, and haven't earned it in any way that I can tell.

[MachineGhost]

If you just give them $15K, there's also no incentive to get a job, right?

There won't be any jobs for them to get at a certain point.

If people want to live on a smallish amount like $15K/yr, then they'll do that, either way. But a lot of people may want more than that, and they'll find ways to get more. Also, my idea provides the public health care subsidies for a while after they make more money, so they get that if they have entry level jobs.

Obamacare isn't a very shining example of your idea working out. We need more reform to make the Citizen's Dividend work than just handing out money to everyone.

And, again, I have trouble with the idea that we'll give Obama, Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, etc. money every month.

$1200 is nothing to these super-rich people. They could voluntarily disavow it for the "good of the country".

[MachineGhost]

And, heck, never mind Gates, et. al. My wife and I are in the lower range of middle class - why should the government give us $30K/yr? We don't need it, and haven't earned it in any way that I can tell.

To reduce the risk of you falling into poverty for whatever reason? That's the whole point.

Are you notsheigetz by any chance?

[jafs]

I agree about the jobs issue - if there aren't decent jobs available for people, no cd or mi program is going to fix everything by itself.

My idea is very different from Obamacare (which is working well in some ways and not as well in others) - I mean directly provided free health care, not insurance systems - the real "socialized health care". So you go to a doctor/nurse/clinic/etc. and get care/services from them, and those entities are paid directly by the government, preferably on a salary system that isn't "fee for service".

Of course they could, but most probably wouldn't, and as I mentioned there are a lot more people that don't need the cd, including me and my wife, all the way down the income scale quite a bit from Gates, Buffett, etc.

A funny story - I knew a guy who was pretty well off, and he had to be consistently told that he wasn't putting in enough for a tip when we all ate out together. Nobody else at the table ever had that problem, and we were all less well off than he was.