General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Greek government is calling for a Guaranteed Basic Income for Greeks
Politics More: Greece
The Greek government is calling for a radical new welfare policy
TOMAS HIRST
FEB. 24, 2015, 3:02 PM
Within the letter sent by Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to the European Commission, the ECB, and the IMF last night allegedly 45 minutes before the government's Monday deadline there was one key line that could radically transform the country's social welfare system.
If it succeeds the country could redefine how we view the modern welfare state.
The proposals, which have now reportedly been accepted by the Eurogroup and passed on to national governments to vote on Greece's bailout extension, contained a number of anticipated measures including clamping down on tax avoidance and improving tax collection. But they also had one proposal that demonstrated a little more out-of-the-box thinking.
Here it is:
Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-greek-government-is-calling-for-basic-income-scheme-2015-2#ixzz3SgBXX2De
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)"Trickle down" doesn't work.
"Bubbling up" does.
Pumping clean "oxygenated" money into the lower levels of the economy and skimming the scum off the top keeps the pond healthy.
Our current economy is eutrophic.
The scum at the top are smothering everyone below them.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The scum at the top are smothering everyone below them."
TBF
(32,056 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I think it would work.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)the world's population is being pushed aside by those with the wealth such as with TPP and the coming oligarchies but how does guaranteed income work?
If you just print money and give it away it causes inflation by increasing the money supply.
I can see a wealth tax working if the revenue is distributed downward. That would require some way of forcing the wealthy to pay it.
that is the way it has always worked if you want it to be peaceful.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)victory that they managed to win that election, not just for Greece but AGAINST the neo-liberal Austerity, Goldman Sachs driven policies that have destroyed former sovereign nations, like Greece where they actually installed a former Goldman Sachs CEO AFTER the people had elected their own choice.
These polices are run by the IMF/Word Bank/Goldman Sachs/Wall St Globalists and have destroyed many countries, from South America to African and now to Europe.
They will try their best to make sure the new Greek Government fails.
Bernie is right, every nation that cares about Democracy needs to make sure Greece gets all the support they need to restore a fair system after the years of destruction they have suffered at the hands of the 'Austerity' controllers.
The first thing this government did was to restore Social Programs, which is ALWAYS the target of these corrupt, greedy corporatists. We have them here also, which is why I believe, Bernie is so supportive of this new government in Greece.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)today. What do we think is happening right here in the USA. Either we find some way to stop this or we will have George H W Bush's one world order and now other governments at all.
I like the Greece plan but wonder if they have any way of making the wealthy pay into this redistribution of wealth?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Here's hoping it happens one day soon
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)318 million times $10,000/year = 3,180,000,000,000
= 3.2 trillion dollars.
The 2015 budget is $3.9 trillion.
The military budget is 600 billion, so even if we eliminated it, we'd still have to double the tax rate.
So where is the money going to come from?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)They're a heck of a lot poorer than we are.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Wiki says the Greek federal budget is 12% of GDP which in 2013 the GDP was $182 billion, meaning a budget of about $22 billion.
The population is 11 million people.
11,000,000 times $10,000 = $110,000,000,000 or $110 billion.
This would mean, given a guaranteed income of $10,000 annually, that the taxes would have to increase a minimum of 5 times.
I wonder how they plan to do it?
CNN had a report on this idea. It looks like countries that do this take the money from existing support programs.
TBF
(32,056 posts)we can do it the peaceful way or ...
Lurker Deluxe
(1,036 posts)3.2 trillion dollars is going to come from taxing billionaires?
If we confiscated every penny of the top 400 in the US it would not come to 3.2T, what would you suggest for the following year?
TBF
(32,056 posts)Seniors are already on social security (which should've been a lock box program), children who are in school are not going to be drawing an income, those who are working above a certain level would not be drawing the basic income. So that lowers the numbers considerably right there. Other welfare/disability programs would be worked in. Universal health care would be a component. Providing a basic level of sustenance for all people is not unreasonable considering the wealth we have in this country (and further in this world).
What I would suggest is that libertarian/free market gurus come down off their high horses and realize that a certain few people living like kings while others are struggling or starving is not sustainable. Taxation of wealthy individuals and companies must exist if capitalism is to continue at all ~ and it needs to exist without massive "legal" write-offs. This really is not rocket science.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,036 posts)not ... everyone?
Who decides who gets what?
What level of income are we talking about? Certainly 10k a year would not be enough.
You can not have a guaranteed basic income only for certain people, that would just be called more welfare.
The math is solid, the numbers are what they are. Even if it cost 500B a year you could not get that by "taxing billionaires", unless you are talking about confiscating wealth. And if you started to do that you would see the quickest exit to all wealth leaving the US in mass.
The taxation must change, that is for certain, but to think that we can simply double or triple the amount we tax "others" is just foolish ... they will flee the high rates and take what they have with them.
TBF
(32,056 posts)and I hardly think we have no power to get at bank accounts. The NSA seems to have everyone's details in triplicate.
"More welfare" scares you huh? Spoken like a true advocate of capitalism. Sigh.
I'll tell you who gets what - let's try democracy rather than this crap we call "representative government". The only side I see being represented - by not only you but others - is the side of the owners.
Frankly I have no problem with confiscation and re-distribution of wealth.
Like I've said before - we can do it the easy way or the more difficult way.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,036 posts)The second you start confiscating money I will be looking to get the hell out of here. It will just be a matter of time before it is determined that I have to much and you, and people like you, will start looking at my wealth as a means of revenue.
Just a little FYI, they are already fleeing and losing their citizenship just not in massive numbers. You confiscate one persons wealth, and the mass exodus will make us a third world country in months.
People like you who talk about "confiscation and re-distribution of wealth" scare the hell out of me. Again, who decides who has to much ... and how much of it to take? How long does it before you start to look at someone with two pieces of property, four cars, two boats, and a nice 401K balance as someone with "to much"?
The answer is pretty clear ... as soon as your done with the "others".
You can think that you have some "easy way" ... what's that you just give all of your wealth to the government, or some "hard way" where I guess you think you are going to start executing people in the street.
Scary.
TBF
(32,056 posts)why would you come to a democratic party website with the purpose of defending capitalism and accumulation of wealth? Why would you feel that your missives about protecting accumulation of wealth would be welcome here?
"People like you" indeed. Enjoy your stay.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,036 posts)The classic "enjoy your stay" response.
You think that being against wealth confiscation makes a person not a democrat ... right.
You also think that what? Democrats don't do accumulation of wealth, own property, run businesses, what else can't democrats do ... to pass your purity test?
Democrats have to be against capitalism as well? Guess that ends us a major political party.
Enjoy my stay, I will ... enjoy yours as well.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)Most of their assets is in stocks, bonds, and other securities. Seize that much wealth and the market collapses due to loss of liquidity, risk based asset value reassessment, and general fire sale panic. Wall Street implodes and takes most people's 401k's and pensions with it. The bond market goes with it, and businesses start to fold due to bankruptcy as their balance sheets are wiped out or their operating lines of credit dry up.
The cure kills the patient.
A better solution is a financial transaction tax, the proceeds of which are tabulated each year and every individual who files a tax return is eligible for a refundable tax credit based on the total income from the transaction tax. It would have to be small at first as to not shock the system. Over time, scale up the scope/amount of the financial transaction tax or add other revenue measures which will also contribute to the annual refund pool.
TBF
(32,056 posts)and make it amenable to more people. You're not going to find me advocating them in particular because I really don't care if Wall Street implodes - personally I welcome it. It's just a gigantic pyramid scheme making a very few wealthy. And please don't take that personally because I don't mean it that way. Like everyone else I have college/retirement accounts as well - that's what we do when we live in a capitalist society.
I am arguing from a philosophical position that capitalism is unsustainable. Transactions fees/taxes would help, as would taxing all income for social security as opposed to just the first 100K, as would taking $$$ out of elections - we could come up with 100 small fixes. But is it really worth it in the end to save this system? That is the real question to ponder. How could we do things differently to better meet folks' needs?
randys1
(16,286 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Starting with the fact that the vast majority would prefer to work than live on such a pittance and so not need to get their min $ from the government but from employers.
And I suspect there will be age limits to the income too
If you are willing to survive on 10k a year your marginal propensity to consume is essentially a guaranteed 100%, so a fair amount of it would come back in taxes at various levels too.
randys1
(16,286 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)misdirecting the issue
It is NOT about the govt supporting the citizens, it is about employers doing it by stop sending jobs overseas etc
And the rich are brainwashing rank and file americans into asking "but who is gonna pay for it"
Which is NOT the question, it is a talking point
TBF
(32,056 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Let's have one.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. Participants who worked had their mincome supplement reduced by 50 cents for every dollar they earned by working.[1] The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women.[2] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[3] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.[4][5]
A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[5][6] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[7] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[8][9]
(more at link)
O Gee, adults continued their education, health improved, families had more time together, people still chose to work. The horror!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)For corporations, their worst nightmare
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R!
[font size=4]Yanis Varoufakis: How I became an erratic Marxist [/font]
In 2008, capitalism had its second global spasm. The financial crisis set off a chain reaction that pushed Europe into a downward spiral that continues to this day. Europes present situation is not merely a threat for workers, for the dispossessed, for the bankers, for social classes or, indeed, nations. No, Europes current posture poses a threat to civilisation as we know it.
If my prognosis is correct, and we are not facing just another cyclical slump soon to be overcome, the question that arises for radicals is this: should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising European capitalism?
To me, the answer is clear. Europes crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism than it is to unleash dangerously regressive forces that have the capacity to cause a humanitarian bloodbath, while extinguishing the hope for any progressive moves for generations to come. For this view I have been accused, by well-meaning radical voices, of being defeatist and of trying to save an indefensible European socioeconomic system. This criticism, I confess, hurts. And it hurts because it contains more than a kernel of truth.
I share the view that this European Union is typified by a large democratic deficit that, in combination with the denial of the faulty architecture of its monetary union, has put Europes peoples on a path to permanent recession. And I also bow to the criticism that I have campaigned on an agenda founded on the assumption that the left was, and remains, squarely defeated. I confess I would much rather be promoting a radical agenda, the raison dêtre of which is to replace European capitalism with a different system.
Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs. It is a confession intended to convince radicals that we have a contradictory mission: to arrest the freefall of European capitalism in order to buy the time we need to formulate its alternative.
More
mother earth
(6,002 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Unlike some people who talk a good game but rarely make the right moves, I was secretly hoping that Yanis was actually engaging in three-dimensional chess. And it appears that he was!
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Greece has a problem with collecting taxes especially from the richer Greeks. Its like a national sport. THe small govt probably allows that kind of cronyism to easily flourish. Just think if a state like Mississippi was responsible for collecting all its own taxes with no IRS.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)[center]
[/center]
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bonx
(2,053 posts)or something.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)It's supposedly saving pension fund spending by spending in Guaranteed Income.
I don't understand how this reduces government spending.
randys1
(16,286 posts)steps necessary.
Of course we need to tax rich people and corps, but that money would mainly go to infrastructure so our corps could employ millions more at much higher pay.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)How will guaranteeing a basic income keep more people working and end pressure fort early retirement exactly?
DavidDvorkin
(19,475 posts)The alternative would be billions of starving, desperate people besieging the walled redoubts of the rich.