БЕЗУСЛОВЕН БАЗОВ ДОХОД
Отиди на страница:
усилието трябва да бъде всеки да работи Усилието трябва да бъде всеки да открие и развива творческия си потенциал, а не 40 години да работи за жълти стотинки на поредната мутра и после уморените коне ги убиват, нали. |
bokoto1971 08 Дек 2015 22:55 Обаче въпроса е и какво ще дефинираме като базисна нужда? Храна, подслон, сигурност, здраве? Къде е границата на тези нужди? Базисната нужда в този си вид - храна, подслон, сигурност и здраве съществува много отдавна в ....затвора! Границата също е много ясно очертана. От едната страна на границата тези "базисни нужди" са ти осигурени, от другата страна не са. Който иска ББД - там би трябвало да е идеалното място за него.  | |
Редактирано: 1 път. Последна промяна от: Вчерашен |
Вчерашен 09 Дек 2015 01:16 Базисната нужда в този си вид - храна, подслон, сигурност и здраве съществува много отдавна в ....затвора! Т.е. да разбирам че ти си ЗА ББД? Или че това което аз разбирам под ББД нещо не е наред? Между другото, що трябва да се осигурява доход - не може ли директно да се задоволяват тези нужди? Дали със социални жилища + купони за храна или кухни с безплатна храна + безплатно мед. осигуряване? Тук май забравяме и нещо друго - че парите са не само универсално средство за размяна, а и измерител на труд (друг е въпроса че труда се оценява по различен начин). Та въпроса ми е - защо всеки да получава наготово,е без труд, след като има много работа за вършене? Говоря за обществено-полезна работа. |
| Въпросът за морала и нежелаещите да работят, както и със смятащите себе си за "творци", които обществото е длъжно да храни, е приключен с Второто послание на св. ап. Павла до Солуняни: 3:6 Заповядваме ви също, братя, в името на Господа нашего Иисуса Христа, да страните от всеки брат, който постъпва безчинно, а не по преданието, що е получил от нас. 3:7 Сами знаете, как трябва да подражавате нам, защото ние не безчинствувахме при вас, 3:8 нито у някого ядохме хляб даром, а работехме с труд и мъка деня и нощя, за да не отегчим някого от вас, - 3:9 и не за това, че нямахме власт, а за да ви дадем себе си за пример, та да ни подражавате. 3:10 Защото и когато бяхме между вас, наръчвахме ви това: който не иска да се труди, не бива и да яде. 3:11 Но слушаме, че някои у вас живеят безчинно, нищо не работят, а се занимават с празни работи; 3:12 на такива заповядваме и ги молим в Господа нашего Иисуса Христа да работят безшумно и свой си хляб да ядат. |
Въпросът за морала и нежелаещите да работят, както и със смятащите себе си за "творци", които обществото е длъжно да храни... Какви творци? Кварталите със социални жилища на Запад са пълни с дегенерати, които вместо да творят пият, друсат се, бият се помежду си и крадат.  Пълна заблуда е, че като даваш пари на мързеливците, те ще започнат да творят. |
Какви творци? Кварталите със социални жилища на Запад са пълни с дегенерати, които вместо да творят пият, друсат се, бият се помежду си и крадат. Пълна заблуда е, че като даваш пари на мързеливците, те ще започнат да творят. Ми прати ги да работят тогава да ти съсипят всички машини и инвентар Здравка и тя не мисли, ми кара влакче в коловозче |
е тогава що няма работни места? Ами няма средства за тези работни места душице. Ако някой трябва да поправи дупките по улицата, ще иска пари с които да си купи някакви материални и духовни блага - хляб и сирене, лучец, ракийка, посещение на опера, книга от някой творец..... И с две очи ясно се вижда, че тези пари (еквивалентните им материални и духовни блага) които липсват за поправка на улицата например, няма как да бъдат дадени ей така без нищо, просто защото ги няма. Може и още по-просто, ако имаш 5 хляба по 1 лев всеки, можеш да раздадеш 5 хляба. Ако по някакъв начин напечаташ 10 лева вместо наличните 5 лева, пак ще раздадеш същите 5 хляба. Самуните няма да станат повече от това, че ще напечаташ някакви хартийки, само ще започнат да струват по 2 лева в идеалния случай, в реалния още повече. |
Ами няма средства за тези работни места душице. Еми гражданите като нямат средства да си плащат за парно и адвокатите му, какво се случва душице? Как няма средства, а палатите и лимузините се множат? Средства има, не лъжи хората. |
Средства има, Учудвам се че икономист като КАЙЛИ не знае елементарно счетоводителско правило - за да дадеш някому нещо тряба да го вземеш от друг. А "средства има", ама са ограничени. |
Учудвам се че икономист като КАЙЛИ не знае елементарно счетоводителско правило - за да дадеш някому нещо тряба да го вземеш от друг. |
Учудвам се че икономист като КАЙЛИ не знае елементарно счетоводителско правило - за да дадеш някому нещо тряба да го вземеш от друг. А "средства има", ама са ограничени. точно затова намеквам, ама ти явно не четеш между редовете, а и думите ти се губят...нема страшно, всички остаряваме |
| КАЙЛИ, Аз не умея да чета между редовете (от старост). Все пак верно ли е че за да дадеш "безусловно" на някого нещо трябва да го вземеш от друг и от кого? |
Все пак верно ли е че за да дадеш "безусловно" на някого нещо трябва да го вземеш от друг и от кого? Вярно е естествено, даже и източникът е посочен - от адвокатите на топлофикацията ще дойдат средствата.  |
| What are the benefits of basic income? Benefits include, in no particular order: Eliminates the "unemployment trap". Under current systems, when someone gets a job they lose most of their welfare payments. This means they can go from not working at all to working a full week without significantly increasing their income. This is a disincentive to work. Under basic income, when people got a job they would retain the same basic income payment, with their salary added to it, so the disincentive no longer exists. Reduces government bureaucracy. A lot of government workers are required to ensure that welfare recipients are not claiming their benefits fraudulently, and to administer the complicated system of welfare payments and tax credits. The increased need for personal tax advisers also sucks skilled workers out of the productive sector. A basic income would hugely simplify the welfare system by replacing most of these bureaucracies, which would reduce its administrative cost significantly. Clarifies the tax code. Taxes are way too complicated, and everything we can do to simplify them would be --all things equal-- a net gain in the value of human society. A basic income, coupled with a flat tax, is capable of mimicking all aspects of our current progressive (bracketed) taxation scheme, but without brackets. Everyone will, at the start of each year, know precisely what their taxes will look like; "predicting what tax bracket you'll be in" will no longer be necessary. All marginal tax rates will be identical, while the basic income ensures that net-taxes follow a progressive-tax structure. Also: a basic income, in the form of a "basic deduction", can replace and improve upon the "standard deduction" used by the IRS, which itself is problematic. Exemplifies and emphasizes single-class policymaking. It is not structurally optimal to produce policies that explicitly divide people up into classes and then apply different laws to each class, as our bracketed tax code does (and as our welfare structure does). It is better to form a single law that applies to every individual: "Everyone gets $x in basic income, funded by a y% flat tax". When we are all in the same 'group', class divisions become less divisive, and we reinforce the principles of liberty and equality. Greatly reduces fraud/waste/abuse. When welfare subsidies are contingent on conditions like employment, income level, number of hours worked, family status, etc, there are opportunities to game the system, either by illegally lying (fraud) or by simply obeying the economic incentives put in front of you (waste/abuse). These cause losses of real economic value, which are paid for by every taxpayer. Removing this incentive structure allows confidence in the welfare system's ability to reach people exactly as intended. Guarantees a minimum living standard. Though it's subjective/politicized, people may be entitled to a certain basic standard of living, regardless of whether they are momentarily able to participate in the labor market. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (United Nations, (UN)). Increases bargaining power for workers. Workers will be able to afford to refuse a job if the employer abuses its oligopoly or the workspace has poor conditions, so firms will be forced to improve the employment conditions and wages for their workers. This will happen as a natural result of negotiation between firms and workers, and will not require government intervention or unionization. Lowers need for government regulations on the labor market. Policies such as the minimum wage will become less necessary with the basic income, as people will already get enough money to live on from the basic income. And negotiating power for workers will increase. This will allow the government to remove some of the regulations on the labor market, creating a freer market and providing benefits for both employers and employees. Reduces illegal immigration. With the minimum wage obsolete, manual labor can be priced at its fair-market value, meaning illegal immigrants will not stand to gain as much by working illegally and being paid under-the-table. The US's neighbors to the south would suddenly realize that the only profitable way to enter America is via the proper legal system. And all with no need for a militarized border! Reduces the gender "pay gap." Women, on average, make less money than men, and debaters of this issue fall into two camps: (1) those who want to reduce that gap to help women achieve financial freedom, and (2) those who want to prevent the harmful effects of government pay-mandates and micromanagement. Basic Income is capable of satisfying both camps by giving all citizens a base income, making women (and people in general) less dependent on their work-income. And it does so without removing any of the beneficial capitalistic incentives to work and provide value. Improves mental health and security. Mental health is one of the largest public health problems in most developed countries. The knowledge that the basic income will ensure a basic standard of living in any circumstances will provide a sense of mental security, especially when the economy is performing poorly. The removal of various dehumanising tests and stigmatisation of anyone who receives welfare payments will also serve to improve mental health. There is also evidence that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity, comparable to a loss of 13 IQ points, or chronic alcoholicism as compared to sobriety. A basic income would remove this cognitive impairment. Increases physical health. The rising cost of health care is a cause of great long-term concern, and basic income could lower this cost. In the Dauphin, Manitoba pilot experiment in Canada, an 8.5% reduction in hospitalization was found to be a direct result of the minimum income. This was attributed to the reduction in workplace injuries and family violence resulting from the rise in incomes. Stabilizes costs over time. Current welfare schemes have costs that fluctuate significantly with the performance of the economy, and are increasing as populations age and more people leave the workforce. The costs of basic income schemes would not see this fluctuation, as the basic income is paid to all adults regardless of whether they are in the labor force or not. Simplifies implementation of progressive taxation. There's no need for "tax brackets" having different tax rates when people receive a basic income, since the BI effectively causes the same tax rate structure, only requiring two numbers to be chosen: the value of the BI allowance, and the flat tax rate. With less thresholds and tax rates to play around with, taxation becomes less politicized and less used as a weapon of class warfare. This also simplifies your IRS paperwork and makes the tax structure smoother and thus non-susceptible to income-shifting. Deals better with widespread unemployment. Some people argue that, with the development of new automation technology and the increase in the labour force due to globalisation, rates of unemployment in developed countries are likely to stay high and increase in coming years. This would impose a significant increased cost on current schemes, but as spending from the basic income would not increase, this system would be more able to cope with the change. Redistributes money from capital to labor. Even if technology doesn't lead to high unemployment, it may well lead to lower wages and greater inequality. Capital - equipment and machinery that helps to produce things - is now creating a greater share of output compared to labour - human workers. This allows business owners, who own the capital, to pay workers the same or less while more is produced, so they make more profit for themselves. We are already seeing that output per worker is increasing, while workers' wages are not. In the long term, this will mean that business owners make more and more money, while those who don't own capital will make less and less. Basic income alleviates this by taxing the rich (who will probably own capital) and giving money to the poor (who probably won't), even if they can't find a job. Increases number of small businesses. Many people may currently be discouraged from leaving their job to start their own business, as if the venture fails they will have no source of income. The basic income would provide income to these people, so more people would feel able to start businesses, which could only increase innovation and competition in the economy. Evidence of this effect can be found in the Namibia basic income experiment, where those receiving it showed increased entrepreneurship with a 29% increase in average earned income, excluding the basic income. Increases charitable work and academic research. Much work in the charitable sector and other vocations (e.g. open-source programming, academia, or the arts) is socially beneficial but not profitable, so people have to do it in their spare time, along with a traditional job. A basic income would allow these people to spend more time on work that is socially beneficial but unprofitable for the individual. Increases number of people in jobs they enjoy. As people will not be forced to take on a job, they will be more able to find a job that they enjoy (or that pays well enough to offset their lack of enjoyment). Having people in jobs that suit them better will help to improve mental health, as well as leading to an improved quality of goods and services. Gives financial independence to all adults. Every adult will be entitled to the basic income independently of any other people. This means they cannot be controlled or manipulated by someone through control of their finances, allowing people in abusive relationships to escape them more easily. Prevents generational theft. Most western countries already provide basic income to people of retired age. But, if a nation or its socialized retirement program goes bankrupt, or the socialized retirement program otherwise becomes unaffordable, in 20 or 30 years (due to fiscal mismanagement or simple birth rate demographics) then it is to the great advantage of current benefit recipients, and at the total cost to those who pay into the benefits today with the false promise of receiving them in the future. If entitlements are unaffordable/unsustainable, then the only fair solution is to provide the funds equally today. Reduces the intensity of certain perverse economic incentives. When a person serves on jury duty, he or she faces a situation with perverse economic incentives: low-wage-earners are incentivized to drag out the case to continue receiving any jury-duty stipend, while high-wage-earners are incentivized to bring the case to a swift conclusion so they can get back to work. Companies are incentivized to punish any salaried workers who sit on juries for a long time. All of these incentives lead to injustice within the judicial system and would be reduced if a person's income came less from their work and more from a basic income. More specifically, if a person currently makes a $20/hr wage, sitting in a jury box is costing him $20/hr; but after implementing a basic income, as funded by a 10% flat tax (for example), his after-tax wage is only $18/hr (a loss which is offset by his basic income), so by sitting in a jury box he stands to lose less money than before. In general, any unpaid civic duty, such as jury duty, voting, democratic involvement, civil service, charity work, blood donation, etc., is supported by a basic income. Leverages the multiplier effect. "The mechanism that can give rise to a multiplier effect is that an initial incremental amount of spending can lead to increased consumption spending, increasing income further and hence further increasing consumption, etc., resulting in an overall increase in national income greater than the initial incremental amount of spending." It is this same effect that is seen in the differences to the economy the effects of $1 being spent by high income earners versus low income earners have. As published in a recent report, "All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP." This means a basic income could show this same multiplier effect on the entire economy by redistributing money from high earners to low and middle earners where the effects of spending is amplified. https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/index |