Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bigvlada

Univerzalni osnovni prihod

Recommended Posts

bigvlada
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income

 

Colin Holtz

 

If the super-rich actually paid what they owe in taxes, the US would have loads more money available for public services

 

We should all be able to agree: no one should be poor in a nation as wealthy as the US. Yet nearly 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. Perhaps one of the best solutions is also one of the oldest and simplest ideas: everyone should be guaranteed a small income, free from conditions.

 

Called a universal basic income by supporters, the idea has has attracted support throughout American history, from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King Jr. But it has also faced unending criticism for one particular reason: the advocates of “austerity” say we simply can’t afford it – or any other dramatic spending on social security.

 

 If you're rich, you can avoid paying taxes. That's got to change

Jan Schakowsky

 

The Panama Papers show how vital it is to close tax loopholes so the system’s fair for everyone. It’s a shame some of my colleagues in Congress don’t agree

 

That argument dissolved this week with the release of the Panama Papers, which reveal the elaborate methods used by the wealthy to avoid paying back the societies that helped them to gain their wealth in the first place.

 

Roads and transportation infrastructure. Educated workforces. Courts and legal systems. Innovations sparked by government funding, such as the internet. No one – no matter how smart or hard working – joins the American or global elite without making use of these shared resources.

 

But while working and middle-class families pay their taxes or face consequences, the Panama Papers remind us that the worst of the 1% have, for years, essentially been stealing access to Americans’ common birthright, and to the benefits of our shared endeavors.

 

Worse, many of those same global elite have argued that we cannot afford to provide education, healthcare or a basic standard of living for all, much less eradicate poverty or dramatically enhance the social safety net by guaranteeing every American a subsistence-level income.

 

The Tax Justice Network estimates the global elite are sitting on $21–32tn of untaxed assets. Clearly, only a portion of that is owed to the US or any other nation in taxes – the highest tax bracket in the US is 39.6% of income. But consider that a small universal income of $2,000 a year to every adult in the US – enough to keep some people from missing a mortgage payment or skimping on food or medicine – would cost only around $563bn each year.

 

A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion. Because the truth is that we have all been robbed, systematically, by the world’s wealthiest people, for decades. They have used those stolen dollars to build yet more wealth for themselves, and all the while we have been arguing with ourselves over what to do with the leftover pennies.

 

Enough. We have the money to solve our problems. The first step is to stop the global elite from hoarding and hiding it. Cracking down on tax evasion alone will not fund all our priorities, but the Panama Papers do put the lie to the politics of austerity.

 

A universal basic income would go a long way towards ensuring all Americans can have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as promised way back in 1776. Some may disagree with the notion of an unconditional cash grant, or object to it going to everyone. Just don’t say we can’t afford it.

 


 

Ovo za sada nije prošlo na referendumu u Švajcarskoj ali je dobro da se sve više priča o tome. Sa smanjenjem broja zaposlenih usled tehnološkog razvoja ovo pitanje će postajati sve aktuelnije. 

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

Odlicna tema. Sam sam hteo da otvorim temu o osnovnom dohotku, no nikako da nadjem vremena. Zapravo, cini mi se da smo ranije imali temu o tome ovde na forumu ali me sada mrzi da trazim...

 

Evo teksta o predlogu basic income-a Zelene stranke iz Kanade (Zeleni u Kanadi na federalnom nivou imaju od 3-5% podrske, i vec drugi ili treci put za redom jednog poslanika u parlamentu).

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/basic-income-canada-green-party-elizabeth-may_n_8246800.html

 

 


Elizabeth May: Paying Everyone A Basic Income Will End Poverty AND Save Money
Posted: 10/06/2015 2:24 pm EDT Updated: 10/08/2015 5:59 pm EDT

 

Call it basic income, guaranteed annual income, negative income tax, or minimum income, it all essentially amounts to the same simple solution: eliminate poverty by giving people money.
 
The idea — supported by 46 per cent of Canadians according to one poll — has boosters across the political spectrum because it not only helps people, it can also save money by reducing bureaucracy and poverty-related health care and criminal justice expenses.
 
The Canadian Medical Association endorsed basic income this past summer and nearly 200 physicians signed a letter to Ontario's health minister calling for a pilot project because "income is the great divide when it comes to Canadians' health."
 
It's been attempted before, like Manitoba's pioneering "Mincome" experiment in the 1970s (read more about it here) where people who were living below the poverty line were given a no-strings-attached supplement.
 
Other approaches involve giving every single citizen a subsistence-level amount of money, and then having it gradually reduced and eventually eliminated at tax time in proportion to base income.
 
This is a preferred approach by some because it encourages people to work — especially those with part-time or minimum wage jobs — as they still receive some supplementary basic income payments on top of their own earnings up to a point. As well, it eliminates the complicated tax credits and bureaucratic costs of the current social assistance system because there are no eligibility requirements or surveillance required.
 
One of Canada's loudest proponents of basic income has been former Tory senator Hugh Segal. In a HuffPost blog in 2013, he wrote that we can't let "the ideological conceit that a rising tide lifts all boats obscure the hard reality that many Canadians have no boat or access to anyone who has ever had a boat."
 
Segal's views, however, have not been taken up by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
 
No mention in Liberal, NDP campaigns
 
The Liberal membership, meanwhile, passed a priority resolution last year calling for the party to "design and implement a Basic Annual Income." However, there is no mention of it in the Liberal's just-released election platform.
 
The federal NDP have been mum on the subject throughout the campaign, preferring instead to discuss a $15 minimum wage for federal workers — though there have been murmurs that Alberta's NDP government might give it a trial run with support from the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton.
 
The Green Party, however, has made basic income one of the most important planks of their platform, tying it to their anti-poverty efforts and their elder care strategy. Dubbing their version the "Guaranteed Livable Income" (GLI), the Greens would use "a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit delivered through the tax system" to replace the current complex system of federal and provincial support.
 
That means eliminating federal transfers for such programs as welfare, disability, seniors supplements, and child benefits. However, the proposed GLI would impact neither Employment Insurance or the Canada Pension Plan, which workers pay into, nor low-income subsidies for child care, social housing, or drug benefits.
 
The Greens would then give every Canadian a regular GLI payment and set a minimum income level just above the poverty line. After that point, the GLI would be gradually taxed back until it was eliminated at a ceiling of, say, $60,000.
 
The Huffington Post Canada sat down with party leader Elizabeth May to discuss why providing a basic income to all Canadians would pay off for Canada.
 
Tell me about the Green Party's "guaranteed livable income"?
 
The goal is to make sure that no Canadian lives in poverty. Let's skip the steps that involve what I regard as a shame-based system. The current system is very inefficient economically as well as allowing people to live in poverty who shouldn't. We can actually have a society where no one lives in poverty.
 
But to get there from here, which is why we don't have it budgeted in the line-item budget, will require federal, provincial, municipal as well as First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments all working together to figure out exactly what programs we can wrap up.
 
We've been hearing a lot about a $15 minimum wage. What is your take on that as a way to combat poverty?
 
We do support a $15 minimum wage for workers under federal jurisdiction, and that's the same limitation that's on the NDP promise because the federal government doesn't regulate provincial minimum wage rates.
 
The fact is that most of the new jobs that are being created are precarious employment, part-time employment. At least once we have a guaranteed livable income, people in those kinds of jobs would keep that income, and not have it clawed back [like with welfare].
 
Right now where we're in a situation that's very worrying, where the highest wealth earners are at an increasing distance from the lowest. Eighty-six Canadian families have more combined wealth than 11.4 million Canadians at the bottom of the income pyramid. That's bad for everyone.
 
That's one of the points that we want to drive home: this isn't about some sort of gold-plated charity program. This is about the economic wealth and well-being of Canada as a whole. It will fix our health-care system, it will fix our criminal justice system. But more than that, it gives every Canadian kid a chance to succeed in life. Inter-generational poverty is something we have to address. It's much worse in the U.S. than it is here, but we are going in the wrong direction.
 
There are a couple ways of going about this. Your way is give money to everybody and then claw it back at tax time. The Mincome experiment topped up people below the poverty line. Why do you think the universal approach is better?
 
I don't like to use the term clawback, because that's just what happens to people now on welfare who, as they earn any income at all, have it pulled out of their welfare payments. That is extremely perverse.
 
We don't claw anything back. It's just that as people make more, they get into the range of being tax-paying citizens. It's a good thing to give it to everyone because we eliminate income splitting that Stephen Harper brought in and generally only benefits families that are better off. This is a program that ensures that everyone can live with dignity.
 
It is very efficient because it costs a lot of money to check up on single mothers to see if she moved in with her boyfriend. It makes much more sense to give everybody a cheque so that you have no economic poverty anymore. People who receive that money are spending that money, they are happy to go out and make more money. It could end the [under-the-table] economy, which is very damaging to the health of our overall economy, expand our tax base, and create greater economic opportunities.
 
You mentioned gold-plated charity programs, that's the argument against basic income. How do you combat that?
 
Back in 2006 we held a policy conference on poverty and invited some of the researchers who were part of that program in Manitoba years ago. They said basically what it comes down to, no matter how you study it, is that it's going to be a leap of faith that this is going to work, that it helps the society.
 
But they said what they experienced in Manitoba — of course, it was a little different because everyone understood it was a pilot project and wouldn't go on forever — was the vast majority of people in the Manitoba experiment used the money well. They went back to school, they improved their life prospects.
 
The pushback is usually that everybody's going to be just lazy and sit back and do nothing their whole life because the state is taking care of them. What they actually found was that that wasn't what people did. The question is what do we think of human nature?
 
If re-elected, your influence is going to be felt by working with other parties. This seems to be one of those solutions that has the potential to reach out to all parties because it saves money and it helps people. What's the backing like in Parliament?
 
There was a Senate committee that looked at poverty and, of course, the lead there was a former senator Hugh Segal. He was definitely progressive conservative. There is interest in the topic, we just don't have any other party other than the Green party espousing this.
 
We see our role as being a party prepared to bring forward ideas whose time has come. We brought forward pharmacare this election campaign when no one else was talking about it. I think it's important for us to be the party that raises the issue and creates the debate.
 
And then we're very happy to have other parties take our ideas and run with them.
 
Have you costed out what the savings would be?
 
It's in the billions. The number one social determinant of health is poverty. You eliminate poverty, you're saving the health-care system. There are [also] enormous levels of savings in the actual shutdown of bureaucracy that provide band-aid solutions to poverty instead of actually ending poverty.
 
The GLI is part of your National Seniors Strategy. How would this alleviate some of the pressure of this aging Boomer population on our social services?
 
Our seniors policy includes a lot of pieces, obviously. The guaranteed livable income would take some time to bring in so in the short-term we would increase the guaranteed income supplement. We want to make sure we have housing that meets the needs of seniors. In some cases that means you have to ensure that there are the supports, such as homecare workers so you can stay in your own home. For others, you need respite care for an aging partner who has dementia. There are a lot of elements to this that require being thoughtful about what seniors really need.
 
How long, if you can get everybody onside, would a basic income plan actually take to go into effect?
 
It depends on how quickly the provinces and municipalities decide that it makes sense for them. It could happen very, very quickly, because it does save everybody money. That's the key. Once it's in place, every level of government wins.
 
And that something you can't say about every problem fix.

Share this post


Link to post
bigvlada

Dobar članak, ima li nekih preporuka za literaturu, voleo bih da malo prostudiram temu? Interesuje me kako se princip može nakalemiti na različite društvene sisteme. 

Share this post


Link to post
rajka

imali smo temu, secam se da sam pisala o ovome. 

Share this post


Link to post
MancMellow

To ce prosto u nekom momentu biti neminovnost. Ili to ili povratak robovskog tj kolonatskog rada, doduse prerusenog u ko zna sta. Bolje UBI (  ^_^ )

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

imali smo temu, secam se da sam pisala o ovome. 

 

i meni se cini

Share this post


Link to post
Dr Arslanagić

Ne može biti neminovnost, to se jednostavno ne može platiti, čak ni u bogatim evropskim društvima (koja su, btw, sve siromašnija). Raspravljati o tome da li bi se to moglo platiti ako bi se sav porez naplatio 100% i ako bi se zavrnuli poreski rajevi je kao i rasprava o tome da li je moguća žetva u kojoj tica ne pokljuva nijedno zrno pšenice. Takođe, to bi označilo konačan krah zapadnog (hell, ne samo zapadnog već vaseljenskog) ethosa - kada konačno bude money for nothing and chicks for free, civilizacija u kojoj živimo ode u kurac. Zamislite recimo Evropu sa 20-30% mladog stanovništva koje je mindseta prosečnog stanovnika prosečnog francuskog banlieue-a?

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

Ne može biti neminovnost, to se jednostavno ne može platiti, čak ni u bogatim evropskim društvima (koja su, btw, sve siromašnija). 

 

Ovo uopste nije nuzno. Sve bogate zapadne evropske drzave imaju sisteme socijalne pomoci, ali trosak tih sistema nije samo iznos socijale mesecno x broj primaoca, vec imas ogromni birokratski overhead koji treba da proverava i odlucuje da li neko ko trazi socijalu zasluzuje da je dobije i da li neko ko prima socijalu treba da nastavi da je prima. A nije samo klasicna socijala u pitanju, imas niz drugih stvari, osiguranje od nezaposlenosti, dodatak penzionerima sa malim penzijama, I stub penzionog sistema (fond PIO u Srbiji, CPP u Kanadi, AHV u Svajcarskoj itd.), deciji dodaci, dodatna pomoc za samohrane majke, invalidske penzije, naknade za trudnicko bolovanje, itd. itd. itd. tj. sve sto cini jednu modernu drzavu blagostanja, i to sve ide sa ogromnom pratecom birokratijom koja treba da odlucuje da li nekome sleduje drzavna pomoc vrste X zbog razloga Y, Z, i W. To su sve stvari koje potencijalno mozes da ukines i zamenis UBIom. I onda ta racunica uopste nije toliko ,,suluda". I bez prica o tome da li smo uspeli da naplatimo 100% poreza.

 

Takodje, vecina predloga za UBI kaze da to isplacujes svima, ali da se onda menjaju poreske lestvice, tj. onaj koji ima danas prosecnu platu, sutra sa UBI ce imati formalno tu platu + UBI, ali ce placati veci porez, tako da ce na kraju neto imati isto koliko i pre UBI.

 

Za ovo ostalo sto navodis - u prakticno svim eksperimentima sa UBI, od Kanade do Bocvane, nije se javljao taj efekat masovnog dzabalebarenja koji svi odmah pretpostavljaju kao neminovan. Jedna od stvari koje UBI radi je da skida drustvenu stigmu sa primaoca socijalne pomoci koja ih cesto ostavlja zarobljenim u tom ciklusu vecite socijale.

 

Naravno ima milion detalja koje treba prouciti detaljno, za pocetak koji bi bio nivo UBI (postojeci mesecni minimalac?) ali onda i niz drugih (koliko dobijaju maloletni, kako tretirati tek pristigle imigrante, kakvi ce biti efekat na najnize placene poslove, itd. itd.) ali mislim da to nije vise neka pie-in-the-sky idea kada se vidi koliko moderne drzave trose na socijalne programe i znajuci da potpuno ukidanje tih programa nece proci kod biraca.

 

Mislim, 1 Milton Fridman je predlagao kao ideju negative income tax (NIT) koji je u sustini varijanta UBI, kao najefikasniji vid socijalne pomoci.

Share this post


Link to post
Budja

Ovo uopste nije nuzno. Sve bogate zapadne evropske drzave imaju sisteme socijalne pomoci, ali trosak tih sistema nije samo iznos socijale mesecno x broj primaoca, vec imas ogromni birokratski overhead koji treba da proverava i odlucuje da li neko ko trazi socijalu zasluzuje da je dobije i da li neko ko prima socijalu treba da nastavi da je prima. A nije samo klasicna socijala u pitanju, imas niz drugih stvari, osiguranje od nezaposlenosti, dodatak penzionerima sa malim penzijama, I stub penzionog sistema (fond PIO u Srbiji, CPP u Kanadi, AHV u Svajcarskoj itd.), deciji dodaci, dodatna pomoc za samohrane majke, invalidske penzije, naknade za trudnicko bolovanje, itd. itd. itd. tj. sve sto cini jednu modernu drzavu blagostanja, i to sve ide sa ogromnom pratecom birokratijom koja treba da odlucuje da li nekome sleduje drzavna pomoc vrste X zbog razloga Y, Z, i W. To su sve stvari koje potencijalno mozes da ukines i zamenis UBIom. I onda ta racunica uopste nije toliko ,,suluda". I bez prica o tome da li smo uspeli da naplatimo 100% poreza.

 

Takodje, vecina predloga za UBI kaze da to isplacujes svima, ali da se onda menjaju poreske lestvice, tj. onaj koji ima danas prosecnu platu, sutra sa UBI ce imati formalno tu platu + UBI, ali ce placati veci porez, tako da ce na kraju neto imati isto koliko i pre UBI.

 

Za ovo ostalo sto navodis - u prakticno svim eksperimentima sa UBI, od Kanade do Bocvane, nije se javljao taj efekat masovnog dzabalebarenja koji svi odmah pretpostavljaju kao neminovan. Jedna od stvari koje UBI radi je da skida drustvenu stigmu sa primaoca socijalne pomoci koja ih cesto ostavlja zarobljenim u tom ciklusu vecite socijale.

 

Naravno ima milion detalja koje treba prouciti detaljno, za pocetak koji bi bio nivo UBI (postojeci mesecni minimalac?) ali onda i niz drugih (koliko dobijaju maloletni, kako tretirati tek pristigle imigrante, kakvi ce biti efekat na najnize placene poslove, itd. itd.) ali mislim da to nije vise neka pie-in-the-sky idea kada se vidi koliko moderne drzave trose na socijalne programe i znajuci da potpuno ukidanje tih programa nece proci kod biraca.

 

Mislim, 1 Milton Fridman je predlagao kao ideju negative income tax (NIT) koji je u sustini varijanta UBI, kao najefikasniji vid socijalne pomoci.

 

Ne mozes direktni trosak birokratije tretirati 100% kao trosak, vec samo deo preko UBIja. Sa druge strane, oportunitetni trosak birokratije koja kontrolise a bila bi produktivnija (mozda) negde drugde mozda potire taj efekat.

 

Minimalac u SAD: 5 USD/h x 40 x 4 = 800 USD. Hm, $10,000 godisnje. Prilicno kosta.

 

No, ideja je vredna ponovne rasprave.

 

 

Ima deo levice koji smatra da je to kapitalisticka ujdurma jer basic income u tom slucaju zamenjuje javne usluge. Clanak je kanadski.

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

 

 

 

Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer

From a social welfare point of view, the substitution of social programs with market-based and charitable provision of everything from health to housing, from child support to old-age assistance, clearly creates a multi-tier system in which the poorest may be able to afford some housing and health care, but clearly much less than the rich — most importantly, with no guarantee that the income will be sufficient for their actual need for health care, child care, education, housing, and other needs, which would be available only by way of for-profit markets and private charities.

 

Drugim recima, sadasnji sistem je vise redistributivni.

 

A i desnica se slaze. Cochrane.

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2016/06/universal-basic-income.html

 

 

Programs will remain tempting, because a flat basic income is not close to the "perfect world" social insurance system, or even common sense. We want to give more help to people who need more help. That lets us be more generous to those who do need help, and contains moral hazard that people who don't really need help should be working and paying taxes to supply help. Social security goes to old people, because old people objectively are less able to work.  Disability goes to disabled people, because it's harder for them to work as well. Unemployment insurance goes to people who just lost jobs, we know they are more likely to have suffered a bad shock. Insurance payments go to people whose houses have burned down.

 

These social insurance programs are indeed ineffective, bureaucratically bloated, and do a terrible job of picking who really needs help from who doesn't. But UBI takes a pretty extreme view that the project is completely hopeless, and the Government should do no conditioning at all, other than reported income:

Edited by Budja

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

Ima deo levice koji smatra da je to kapitalisticka ujdurma jer basic income u tom slucaju zamenjuje javne usluge. Clanak je kanadski.

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

 

 

 

Drugim recima, sadasnji sistem je vise redistributivni.

 

Ovaj clanak pretpostavlja da ti 1 UBIjem menjas ceo drzavni social safety net, dakle i zdravstvo i obrazovanje i sve ostalo. Vecina predloga UBIja koje sam video pretpostavlja da ti samo menjas direktne novcane vidove pomoci UBIjem.

 

Mislim ne cudi me, to je onaj hardkor deo levice koji smatra da drzava ili ,,drustvo" treba polako da preuzme sve usluge od privatnog sektora, naravno da njima smeta ideja koja se svodi ,,evo para pa trosi kako hoces" jer to podrazumeva neko trziste i neki kapitalizam u kom se te pare trose.

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

 

Interesantno je, samo sto je pitanje vrlo ograniceno. Data je jedna specificna implementacija, ogranicena na SAD (koja za razliku od vecine zapadnih zemalja nema drzavni sistem zdravstva - a predlog je da UBI zameni Medicare i Medicaid), a razlozi neslaganja sa predlogom su saroliki. Dosta je odgovora je u maniru ,,$13K nije dovoljno" ili ,,postoje bolje varijante slicnog".

 

Mene bi zanimalo sta misle ekonomisti in genere, o samoj ideji, a ne o jednoj specificnoj predlozenoj implementaciji koja moze biti partikularno losa iz XYZ razloga a ne zbog koncepta kao takvog.

Share this post


Link to post
hazard

Ne mozes direktni trosak birokratije tretirati 100% kao trosak, vec samo deo preko UBIja. Sa druge strane, oportunitetni trosak birokratije koja kontrolise a bila bi produktivnija (mozda) negde drugde mozda potire taj efekat.

 

Minimalac u SAD: 5 USD/h x 40 x 4 = 800 USD. Hm, $10,000 godisnje. Prilicno kosta.

 

No, ideja je vredna ponovne rasprave.

 

Naravno da se ne moze eliminisati 100% troska birokratije, jer bi i UBI imao neku birokratiju. Mada, u mnogim drzavama je glavni birokratski trosak UBIja - provera da li neko ispunjava uslove za isti - vec uracunata u postojeci sistem. Npr. u Ontariju, koji ima sistem univerzalnog drzavnog zdravstva, da bi dobio drzavno zdravstveno osiguranje (OHIP) treba da dokazes da si 1) kanadski drzavljanin ili permanent resident 2) da zivis u Ontariju bar 6 meseci. Ne vidim zasto bi eligibility za UBI bio drugaciji, dakle u tom konkretnom primeru ako si vec eligible za OHIP, onda si eligible za neki ,,OUBI".

 

Sad, neke nepotrebne birokrate ce ti ,,pasti" na taj UBI, ali opet, jeftinije je da dajes nekom sada nepotrebnom socijalnom radniku 10-15K$ UBI nego 30-45K$ platu (+ svi ostali troskovi koji idu sa zaposlenim). A mozda se taj socijalni radnik i zaposli negde. Takodje, primaoci socijalne pomoci cesto trose dosta vremena na dokazivanje svog statusa (skupljanje dokumenata, cekanje po salterima, razgovori sa soc. radnicima) i na aktivnosti cisto radi odrzavanja svog statusa (npr. slanje prijava na oglase za posao za koje znaju da nema sanse da prodju ili pohadjanje nekih realno bespotrebnih kurseva, ali samo da bi se ispunila norma ,,aktivnosti" koja se trazi od primaoca socijale), a teoretski bi mogli to vreme bolje i produktivnije da upotrebe.

 

Mislim da je opsti strah od masovnog dzabalebarenja usred primanja UBIja promasen (to pokazuju i pilot-projekti) i da se potencijalne (i mozda dosta ozbiljne) mane kriju u daleko suptilnijim detaljima. Npr., koji je uticaj UBIja na placenost najnize placenih poslova (minimalac i malo vise)? Ako je UBI implementiran tako da tax claw-back krece pri nekom visem prihodu i da radnicima na minimalcu on bude dodatak (predlog kanadskih Zelenih gore), da li se na taj nacin fakticki preko UBIja subvencionisu poslodavci koji zaposljavaju ljude na minimalcu? Da li ce gazda restorana ili Walmarta da kaze ,,jebite se, nema povisice, imate UBI"? Pa onda, kako izbeci povecanje rada na crno oko nivoa prihoda gde pocinje tax claw-back UBIja? Tu bi radnici imali interes da ne prijave neki deo prihoda, kako bi zadrzali veci deo UBIja. I tako ti detalji koji su ustvari mnogo bitni.

Share this post


Link to post
MancMellow

Ne može biti neminovnost, to se jednostavno ne može platiti, čak ni u bogatim evropskim društvima (koja su, btw, sve siromašnija). Raspravljati o tome da li bi se to moglo platiti ako bi se sav porez naplatio 100% i ako bi se zavrnuli poreski rajevi je kao i rasprava o tome da li je moguća žetva u kojoj tica ne pokljuva nijedno zrno pšenice. Takođe, to bi označilo konačan krah zapadnog (hell, ne samo zapadnog već vaseljenskog) ethosa - kada konačno bude money for nothing and chicks for free, civilizacija u kojoj živimo ode u kurac. Zamislite recimo Evropu sa 20-30% mladog stanovništva koje je mindseta prosečnog stanovnika prosečnog francuskog banlieue-a?

 

 

Nisam ja to mislio za 20-30 godina. To je po meni stvar malo dalje buducnosti. 

 

Mene su na starom veku ucili da su dve osnovne evropske (zapadne) vrednosti - sloboda i pravda, a ne hleb u znoju lica svog  ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...