Yeah, I think so.There are a number of important elements.
Firstly, there is the automation of labor, which ensures that certain jobs simply disappear.This automation is partly absorbed by a shift to other sectors, but the trend is that there will be less and more need for human labor. You can solve this in two ways: by creating artificially useless jobs, or by unplugging labor and income (partially) from one another.
Secondly, there is the value of non-economically profitable work.I am thinking of caring for children, for the elderly, a lot of ‘ jobs ‘ that are now considered to be voluntary work. This is all important work and work which is difficult to automate. It seems to me so good to appreciate this kind of work more by giving people more room to do so.
Thirdly, it also gives people the space to say no.It is important to make sure that people are not so desperate that they cannot say no to a job they really do not want to do.
Fourthly, it ensures that people who become ill get less into a poverty trap.People who get sick often have a feeling of guilt, because they look at them as ‘ profiteers ‘, and on the other hand they are often difficult because, for example, if they start working part-time, they actually leave less.
Fifthly, it gives people the space to develop by, for example, developing new studies or starting a business.This can be beneficial in the long term both for that person and for the economy and society as a whole.
I do not believe that a basic income will make people ‘ lazy ‘.I think that the fact that it is a basicincome, i.e. an income that covers the basic needs but also no more than that, will be an incentive to earn a little more if it can.As I have said, I also think that people will try to make themselves useful by filling in valuable tasks that are often no time for today. Society appreciates something like that too. So there are certainly ‘ incentives ‘ to be active.
So many people who apparently already know what it is; A universal basic income.I can hardly imagine it. Is it a benefit? Are we really going to do something, want something, solve something?
Talk to a social worker; Now, there are generations in families who see a benefit as the ultimate sign of adulthood, and work as something for Dommeriken.
Money awarded is the sweet holder where masses are kept under the thumb.That’s where you pay so much tax for; Then they will hopefully stay out of the street at night.
No, I do not agree.Indeed, the Euro does not have the same value. The lifestyle/costs in the Netherlands are different from that of B. V in Greece.
In October 2013, a referendum was initiated in Switzerland (by a petition signed 126,000), on whether an unconditional guaranteed income of 拢1750 per month should be introduced for all adult citizens.https://basisinkomen.nu/ubi/wat-…
Personally, I have a feeling that a lot of people stop working when this is going to be introduced.
The basic income in itself leaves an important question unanswered: Where does the money come from?There are a few possibilities that proponents of basic income probably do not want, such as a universal basic tax that is at least as high as the basic income, or a purely administrative basic income, which thanks to a complex system of Taxes and other benefits no one is going forward or backward compared to a system without basic income. A basic income is actually only interesting if it is a new form of levelling, which means that especially wealthy people have to pay for it. However, compared to other forms of levelling, the basic income has a huge disadvantage: by definition, it is not selected who receives it.
Why should we select?
With any kind of leveling, two types of mistakes are made: first, some people get more than they should get and secondly get some less than they should get.These problems are not entirely soluble. It is on the one hand a difficult question how much money people should get. What the one calls a luxury for which benefits are not intended, calls the other a first life requirement. Think of contraceptives, for example, or the distinction between a week to Curu莽ao on vacation versus a week to Curu莽ao because your mother is in the hospital there. On the other hand, even if clear criteria have been drawn up, it is still wrong because the bureaucrats who divide the money make mistakes -for example, by discriminating against Muslims. A universal basic income does not solve these probems. On the contrary, in principle, no attempt is made to do it properly. Depending on the height of the basic income, there are therefore always a lot of people who get too much and always a few who get too little. That makes the basic income less efficient than all possible alternatives.
Should leveling be effective?
Leveling works by allowing poor people to consume more, without the need for rich people to consume less.In this way, the life-Earths of the arms go up, while those of the rich do not descend. It may seem that everyone wins, but it is not necessarily good news as the whole economy moves up in the directional of more consumption. In the short term, it means more CO2 and particulate matter in the air, more plastic in the oceans and more asphalt on the ground. In the long term, it means that there has been less investment, because a smaller proportion of the national income was over. That makes future generations poorer.
There are other ways to look against these side effects of leveling.People avoid taxes -not just the accines on Genotsiddelen and fuels, but also the taxes used for levelling. For example, if an additional income tax is needed for a basic income, people who can afford it -for example, because they can best save themselves with only a universal basic income -work less. Thinking about longer studying, more part-time work, early retirement etc. This can also be said in study choices: A lot of students may not want to study exact subjects, if they expect extra income to be picked up and given away. In this way, the shift from investing to consuming and thus the loss of sustainable econonic growth becomes reality.
For the benefits that we have, from that inefficiencies are already as follows: people limit their income from work to prevent the loss of a benefit.You see something similar among students who waive extra or better paid jobs, because otherwise they lose their study funding. This is a hurdle in the careers of people who are on the way to no longer need allowance and it reduces their contribution to the gross national product. A basic income seems to be able to solve this problem by not taking anything away provided it replaces existing benefits. In that case, however, the basic income must be quite high to meet everyone’s needs, which will cost a lot. As a result, everyone is going to adapt their lifestyle to the fact that you get a nice income anyway, but you barely go ahead if you do work.
Is the universal basic income a sustainable solution for a modern society?
Modern societies do not have so many problems that a basic income could solve.For example, overweight has been a greater threat to public health than hunger for years. Nor is it sustainable in the sense that it is good for the environment or something. However, it is conceivable that the government can sustain a basic income until the Netherlands sinks in the North Sea, partly because a basic income helps to bring that moment closer.
‘, ‘ You ask for a sustainable solution, but what problem will be solved exactly?
“,”Only if you combine it with the abolition of the dismissal law.
That gives the economy maximum flexibility, but people’s income security.Employers can easily dismiss or assume staff, but there is a feeling that a hunger lump is no longer meaningful and they should also have what to offer and not only financially. And people can study and provide schools and creative added value from their own choice.
The question remains as to what to do with sectors that are economically no longer profitable due to the basic income.In any case, saves a lot of advertising in the letterbox;-)
It’s about efficiency not to be reward for sitting at home.Basic income would replace all benefits and surcharges. All UWV employees, test physicians and tax administration employees who are engaged in surcharges are redundant. To begin with. Think about how much money that saves: all those Salarisen, office costs, car costs, telephone costs together… And attorneys ‘ fees, the state’s legal struggle to refuse a benefit. I think it could be that all these costs would exceed the total sum of all benefits. You always get an untaxed basic income, but you cannot live well over it. If you are going to work, with every euro earned you live better because basic income you keep receiving. Now, part-time or poorly paid work is almost pointless because you lose current benefits and pay just a few eurootjes higher or maybe even lower than benefit. Certainty of basic income can stimulate many people to start working and the total savings in costs associated with current benefits will count for billions per year. People are more likely to live together. Now many avoid cohabitation because then current benefits become lower or disappear. Thousands of dwellings are therefore artificially occupied. With basic income also the scholarship returns by back entrance.