Bitcoin Forum

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004

So...get rich then retire in Switzerland. Receive free money.

With sensible taxation system to offset this, it might save money from bureaucracy overall. And entourage part time work.

By the way Americans, this is what actual communism looks like, what I worry about though is the amount of people flooding in for their chance to get 'free' money.

Basic wage would be nice better than a ton of homeless people
The ones left will be easier to rehabilitate

The problem is how do they afford it? I don't think communism can work if you have currency.

Sure it can just start with a socialist structure and build it up from their using elements of capitalism
Chinese model

How can USA afford food stamps etc.?

This is just moving the existing social security to different form. The goal is to lessen the associated cost of social security. And I believe these sort of schemes increase the tax burden for majority by amount they are getting.

Am I reading this right? "unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,800) per month from the state". Does that mean you get that amount of money even if you are capable of working and not working?

Democracy on steroids. :D

Conversely, I wonder if it means that you receive the money even if you are working and making a decent income?

There are always unintended consequences when the government does something like this.  It seems (to me anyway) that one consequence of this give-away is that it would necessarily, directly feed inflation and/or devaluation of the currency.  By how much would be hard to guess.  I throw out a WAG that after this program has been in place for 15 months, it will cost at least 3.500 to 4.000 francs to purchase what that 2.500 francs would have bought prior to the start of this program.

No, I don't have any stats or info to back up that guess.  However I think it is naïve to think you can infuse that amount of cash into an economy, with no change (or even a negative change) in the work output, without causing inflation and/or a devaluation in the currency.

It's not being 'infused' into the economy, it's being moved from rich to poor people.  It might not have any inflationary effect.

This will create a dedicated class of folks who happily live a simplistic lifestyle on 2500 f/mo and pursue their own interests. Or watch a lot of TV.

It 100% will cause rampant inflation. When rich people are holding they money, the money does not enter circulation, ie. buying up food/electronics/furniture etc..., it's just sitting in their bank account or invested in some stocks. but when you distribute these to the masses...

No. Have enough for a train ticket. Move to Switzerland as an moneyless homeless. Retire.

We shall have Utopia, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether Utopia will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

This is nuts. Surely there's no way the Swiss would be foolish enough to fall for this.

From what I read elsewhere, the basic income is meant to be unconditional. Which means passing this would have immediate, drastic and far-reaching consequences.

Many people would quit working immediately. More would follow over time. Meanwhile, should the taxes on the rich be raised to provide for this, they'll start to leave (or just move their money elsewhere and live off their "entitlement" themselves.) Should taxes be raised on banks or financial assets, money will flee Switzerland, and depositors will start preferring Austria, the Cayman Islands, or any other place with banking laws similar to Switzerland but with fewer fees. The impact on the work ethic and general mentality of the masses will be absolutely corrosive.

This is something I would have thought would come from The Onion, not from an actual Swiss legislative proposal.

But I guess it's proving the point: democracy can only last until the populace realizes they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury.

This is why I like Direct Democracy so much, if this passes and the law goes into effect causing the whole economy to collapse, only the people have themselves to blame, they also have the power to overturn it if they realise it's a huge mistake, if Direct Democracy is as good as I think it is though, I don't think it will pass at all.  I really wish we had their kind of Democracy here in the UK, there's so much I'd be glad to vote on, whenever there's a referendum I'm happy to go out and vote on my ideology ( I voted against Alternative Voting ) but I refuse to vote for a bunch of assholes in a rigged election just because the other side is terrified they might win.

They are not planning to immediately give 1,800 - 2,500 francs per month. They will most likely gradually increase the amount from zero to 2,000 while decreasing other social expenses.

People who work shi**y jobs for low wages will quit (consequently, such jobs will be paid more). People who are just afraid of losing job (but still like it) will be more relaxed and creative, which will benefit them and their employers in the long run. People who are currently not productive can start their own business. It is more freedom to everybody.

The basic premise here is that people (if they have some basic income) want to work, and that money is just not important for most people after some amount (I was told that in some research somebody even found the figure, but I don't have the source). This means that attractive jobs (attractiveness not being measured by earnings) will be less paid than today, while unattractive jobs will be paid much more. Number of volunteers will increase vastly. A teacher will have the same wage as a garbage collector. Still, the most wanted skills will be rare as they are today and people possessing such skills will earn about the same amount as today (adjusted for possible inflation).

Not many people would just sit at home all day watching TV. They would soon get bored. Watching TV after stressful day at work is not the same as watching TV when you are not tired nor under stress; just gets boring after a day or two. Everybody is lazy until brainwashed that being lazy is bad, so "work ethic" will mean something else: when you work, you will try to produce best quality (because you like what you do), not try to maximize quantity (because you are forced to).

I am not sure the above premise is true or false; people who push basic income idea think that it is.

It is assumed that total work output will be better with people relaxed and creative and willing to work (even counting in those who don't work at all). Consequently, it will be good for businesses.

It might be bad for some rich people if they tax them; some money will flee Switzerland, but nothing bad can happen (they can adjust the basic income - it is the simplest implementation of communist idea of redistribution).

Obviously you will have to be born in Switzerland or be a citizen for at least a decade or two to receive the basic income (so people will not be massively moving to Switzerland and be homeless there for a decade...).

Basically: if people are secure AND like to work AND majority don't care much about money, then communism is possible. I can't wait to see what happens (maybe the Switzerland will not be the first; but some other country will be).

I hope my country give me free money, ganna eat, sleep and computer game (just like my nick).

I can see business schools closing first. Then regular universities. Then hospitals. Then every services. Why work and be a serf to somebody's need when your need is provided for 2500 francs every single month? Why go to a Starbucks? Why work at Starbucks? Why sweep the floor to some douche because you never took the time to learn the basic skills to use a computer? Nothing will matter anymore.
This is not communism by the way or a Chinese communism. Star Trek is communism. Star trek is communism? What? Yes because on this SciFi show they have something that is impossible right now: pretty much infinite cheap or free energy AND everyone seems to be very very very very smart. The need for money disappeared. Both variables are not our reality. Energy (fuel, food, ideal tropical weather) is not distributed equally. Only a fool would keep working for a boss in such economy. Only a fool would keep staying rich in this economy. 
I truly want this law to go into effect so we can all be witnesses to this lab experiment on a large scale.

Yes, things cannot be the same. Maybe there will not be Starbucks in Switzerland. But there might be, for example, small local caffes and restaurants where people (owners and workers) will work because they just like it. If there was a need for a place to hang out with my friends, I would open something like an Irish pub, for example. But my motivation for that would not be strictly to profit (or to break even).

A 100 of such caffes and restaurants are just as good as a 100 Starbucks.

Different scenarios are possible, but "nothing will matter anymore"? There are things that matter unrelated to making profit or accumulating wealth... yeah something like Star Trek (why is it so hard to acknowledge that maybe people like to work if you let them work what they like?).

People will not be forced to work and clean their own pub and serve other people all the way late at night when they can spend more time with their children and spouse at the beach when you get a check every month for being alive. They will brew their own coffee and make their own beer for themselves not for others for a living as it will not be necessary anymore. They will do it for fun, or not.
Simple really.

Eventually it will reach a balance. Then the whole system will be cheaper than existing system and everyone have incentive to work to gain more than minimal standard of living.

Obviously, I don't think this is a wise idea.

I've lived in Switzerland a bit, though, and can happily inform you that 2500 CHF really does not stretch very far. Switzerland is one of the most expensive countries on earth, up there with Norway, Japan and Australia, or close enough. Zurich and Geneva are insanely expensive, especially for foreigners holding debased junk fiat (CHF isn't as bad as most fiats).

Okay so...

You pay taxes, and then you get your taxes back.  Minus all the fees to make the taxation system work.  I know there are people on this planet who are nodding their heads as if nothing is wrong with this picture, but I'll say what's on my mind:

1. If the economy in which this is taking place was healthy, people would have no need to receive "free money"; there would be more than enough work to go around.  Because this is even taking place, I'll assume this isn't the case, leading to the next point:

2. If the economy is not healthy and people are going hungry/homeless, the solution is to improve the economy, not take from the wealthy (who are using the very same force the people are to get "free money" to remain wealthy) and then give to the poor Robin Hood style; while Robin Hood was celebrated among the people, he didn't solve the problem of the wealthy having an incredible amount of power, who would then, even after Robin Hood's passing, and even while the man was alive, still be able to exploit the impoverished.

3. You're still stuck with a bad economy and are now increasingly dependent upon the state as a child is dependent on his mother.  The visage that the state is the "good guy" and big wealthy business owners are the "bad guys" is perpetuated, despite the two entities being inseparable.  The citizens are then happily ignorant and have no reason to oppose those in power.  You're still not allowed to immigrate to Switzerland, and thus:

4. Switzerland increases the pressure of other nations to follow its lead.  Switzerland is then on a pedestal, the model state; with the prospect of "free money", the poor of other nations will demand from their states the same.  The state would then increases control (or in my language, eliminates liberties) to comply with these demands--not as though they aren't already doing this.  Some people then cry "1984 isn't supposed to be a manual for the future" and most people won't hear it when they're getting paid with stolen cash to stand by while their liberties erode.

---

Anyway, the more apparent solution is to fix the underlying problem as to why the economy can't support everyone: this evolves from questioning how one man can live as though he does the work of a hundred men, while a hundred men cannot earn enough to live the life of one.  The solution is split into two directions, as I see it: workers will either take control of business, i.e. syndicalism, or they will ask for the scraps of the wealthy and receive a pat on the head for playing their game named politics.  By the looks of it, the people of Switzerland are losing this fight, and worse yet, cannot even see it for themselves.  If they were at least aware they were getting sucked into a trap, it would be one thing, but they're accepting it like it's one step closer to a utopia.

There's a fine line between a utopia and a dystopia; the difference is in whether you live in one, or you're allowed to live in one.

The interesting thing about Robin Hood, is that he almost certainly didn't exist, but rather was an icon that embraced the spirit of the times.  The govt in England was throughout most of it's history truly a gang of thugs.  Pre-industrial revolution, when resources were scarce, the government used force to steal and keep wealth concentrated in itself and it's cronies.  The rich were the thugs for the most part and people had no problem with outlaws stealing from the rich thugs to give back to the poor.

Post-industrial revolution, there are many people who got rich from their own hard work.  Yet, the tradition of stealing from the rich persists.  Except, now it is stealing from the mostly innocent.   "Steal from the rich, give to the poor" is a tradition that comes to us from a different time that has no validity in the here and now.  It is clear that the free market and charity works and must be allowed to work.

Learn something new everyday!  ;D

I've noticed a trend; the more powerful any central government is, the more lawlessness ensues.  I wish I was alive during any period of time when a nation had a very small government so I could say, beyond any doubt, that an increase of law and order occurs the less powerful a state is--all I'm seeing in my lifetime is a ton of crime happening beneath (and yet especially with, and within) these magnificently powerful states.  And then you have people begging for more. :-\

USA! USA! From a small centralized government were the president used to be a dude (respected of course) and the WH was open for anyone to visit because it was the people's WH. Now trillions in debts later, untouchable, with a sign in front saying "Keep Off the Grass" and the National park service acting like the Gestapo http://www.700wlw.com/articles/national-news-104668/gestapo-tactics-yellowstone-park-rangers-held-11723357/

Where did government get all the money from? Printing and loan ganna get the country into trouble :)

The questions are :

Will you stop working if you where to receive 1500$/month ?

Do you think other will stop working if they receive 1500$/month ?

I would. Just don't overspend and it should be enough.

In Switzerland, you won't be able to get by on $1500/month unless you stay at the weird and wonderful Null Stern Hotel in Teufen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, an anti-nuclear bunker converted into a no-frills underground hostel that is slightly tricky to find even when you know the address! (I'm sure the Riklin twins won't mind the free advertising; mind you, when I was living there, bitcoin was still embryonic and worth nothing.) And probably not even then.

I posted here, quoting a message, saying it was beautiful.
Then I read page 2, and I noticed more and more great messages, every one of them finding new problems, and new solutions.
Sometimes just talking works great, gg Internet.

There was in the past a small scale experiment done which went quite well, although not sure how it will go on a larger scale like for a country;

The following you can also read at: 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, with every dollar over the benefit amount taxed at 60%.[citation needed] The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for wives, and five percent for unmarried women. [1] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary. [2] 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.[3][4]

A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget [pronounced 'for-zhay'] conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2001.[4][5] 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. Dr. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]

True, eventually 2500 francs will have so little purchasing power that people will start working again. Unless they peg the handout to CPI.

I don't see how installing a basic wage means communism? That is just common sense.

Published 8 years before actually doing it?
That's quite the achievement!
(I guess it was meant to be 2010)

Actual communism looks like living in rubble homes with no electricity, 3rd world setting for workers, or you in the gulag for writing's, etc.

Actual communism has never been implemented.

Still waiting on the outcome of Chinese Socialism should take another 100-200 years since China likes to scale on long timeframes
My digitalized brain will observe the outcome XD

I'd rather have a basic income than the bureaucratic mess of social programs we have today.  I understand the arguments against social spending, but if you have to have it, a basic income seems the way to go.  At least that way, you take away the perverse incentives and the cost of "means testing".

A huge purpose for a price, whether that is for a product or for a job, is to signal the demand for it. Lower wages in certain jobs indicates their demand, or need, in a society. Obviously a teacher is way more important to society and economy than a garbage collector or a janitor. If this gets implemented, the result may be huge distortions in labor wage signals. Basically the reason some jobs pay more than others is because some jobs are more needed than others, and things that people may just want to do as a hobby, which may normally not pay enough, are just not needed in society. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people decide to work as videogame testers, for pennies an hour (huge influx of such workers = reduced wages), which would basically really stagnate their economy.

This is already happening anyway.

Competence being equal, you are usually paid less to do a job which more people want to do, because more people apply to position, lowering the salary.

It wouldn't change anything.

But a minimum income would accelerate the shift of people toward lower-paying jobs, simply because many people would no longer be fighting the trend, they would be actively seeking those lower-paying jobs (specifically, the ones that are easy.)

This comes to mind when I think of this proposal...

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZclddLcOYYA

Obviously it wouldn't immediately apply to all Swiss, but it would immediately apply to some, and would slowly apply to more and more over time. Get enough people choosing to not work, or just be substantially less productive, and the whole scheme collapses.

But the low wage still signals to potential employees that the supply of labor for that particulat type of job is too high, and thus they would be better off educating or specializing themselves into a field that is in higher demand in that economy. If there are too few people who can do surgery or programming, and plenty of people who can do janitoreal work, the wages reflect that, and people strive to get into the higher paying jobs, until that job market gets saturated (it has enough workers to satisfy demand), at which point they distribute to other jobs that are in demand. If both of those jobs pay nearly the same, or even if the difference in wage is not as high as it would be in a "natural" state, people may either believe that surgeons/programmers aren't in as high demand as they really are, or that janitors are in a much higher demand than they are. This will cause high unemployment among janitors (too many people seeking too few such easy jobs), and a shortage of skilled labor (too few people looking for such a position, and pay difference is not high enough to compensate for the vastly increased level of skill required).

Chinese govt have abandoned socialism for previous 30 years since Deng Xiaoping reforms. Current model is more like to "wild capitalism" with almost no welfare, income disparity and low wages.

Oh, the Americans are telling the Swiss about money.  Just the help they need. ::)

A basic income is unconditional.  Each Swiss citizen would get the same 2500 francs regardless of employment status, in addition to what they make at their job.

In absolute terms, the difference between what a programmer and a janitor makes would be the same, except the baseline would be 2500 rather than 0.

I suppose you could make the argument that, as a percentage of total income, the difference in salary has been reduced, but that shouldn't be a problem unless the basic income is ridiculously high.

IMHO this is totally wrong.
The market doesn't always auto-adjust, but this is one occasion were I think it definitely will.
It's quite simple: if what you said was right, and people stopped doing some jobs... then the salary for that job would rise, and people would start doing it anyway.
BTW if I'm specialised I obviously won't accept an "inferior" job even if the pay is the same, I would feel a failure.

Sure, but since you would have a basic income and nobody forces you to do any job (which is correct, or it wouldn't be a "basic income" in the first place and would completely defeat the purpose), people would quite the "bad" jobs, since they wouldn't need it anymore.
Hence the salary for those jobs would rise, since someone has to do it, and someone would definitely like a high salary.
And I see no problem with that (still quite unsure what problem does he see).

Good point, I didn't think of it that way.

So, I suppose having a basic income basically means artificially reducing the supply of "bad" jobs.  Slightly short of economically optimal, but far better than the bureaucratic mess that is our current welfare system.  Might even lead to some positive externalities.

The actual law we can vote on doesn't have any numbers included. 2'500 is just a suggestion.

There are two parties who like this idea:
The socialists: They want the basic income additional to all the other social insurance we have so far. (mostly people who never really worked or work for the government)
The liberals (European version): They want to cancel all the social insurances and save the billions it's bureaucracy costs and just give everyone 2.5k.

I'd like the second one because of the following reasons:
If people don't want to work they never will with the system we have today. There are so many insurances you can get money from. So we better stop trying to force them and just give them the 2.5k (or lower). We could reduce the state massively (also: less people working for the government -> less people who vote for higher taxes to get a higher income...).

Also a survey showed that 90% of the people said they would still work, but in the same time most people believed that most other people would stop working^^

Of course we'd have to limit this basic income to Swiss people only and make it even harder (or IMO better impossible) to get a Swiss passport, otherwise we'll have an even bigger amount of immigrants, which we just can't handle (right now already >30% of the people living in Switzerland are immigrants).

That's a decent amount of money to get for free, depending on how high the cost of living is there.  Would be interesting to see the effects of this.

Impossible makes no sense, but it definitely shouldn't be easy, of course.

Also notice that you'll have problem with foreing workers - there are many specialised ones in your country - which obviously won't be able to accept the same salary of internal ones who also get the basic income.

So either you profide the basic income even to people who reside there even if they are not citizens, or they'll just leave.

I'm not sure about if 2500 francs is too much. But with good tax structure it could allow people who work at jobs with short or irregular hours just for some extra income over the basic income.

Currently the system in Finland really doesn't support short term work, either you lose the benefit to nearly 1:1 and/or you have to re-apply for benefits and be without them for weeks or months...

The question here is about human nature. One must be careful when reasoning about it, because all people are not the same (like oneself, for example):
- "all people think like me, and I would (not) work, so the system would be great (not)"
- or "I work exclusively for money, thus nobody works for fun or any other motive"
- or "I would not work as a janitor, so nobody would"

Nobody even considers other possibilities to get something done; that is maybe there would be no janitors in Switzerland: even if there is no official janitor in some facility, maybe people would do simple janitorial work themselves. Or not, who knows. The point is it is better to try change the system BEFORE the system destroys itself.

The biggest problem IMO is that it is subject to inflation, hence either you inflate the base supply causing even more inflation, or inflation will de-facto destroy that base supply to be worthless.

Solution would be instead of giving a money base supply, provinding for free everything you need to live (and I do mean everything), and using money only for people who actually work and want to spend on "extras".

They are awesome  :o  :o  :o

Mh yes probably it should be also available with the people having a "C" residence permit (need a job for this).

But I think there would be a strong Pull-effect on immigrants, no matter if they can get the basic income (C residence permit) or not.
It has the same effect like now for all the Africans thinking they can get money / work in Europe, no matter if it's true or not, they hear it everywhere and they believe it.

Actually it matters a lot, if you think about it.

If a programmer is paid, say, 8500 CHF per month, and basic income of 2500 CHF is intruduced, then someone with basic income will actually get 11000 CHF per month.
Then, why should you go to work there from abroad, when natives are paid much more than you?
You'll likely search elsewhere.

In reality the likes of programmers and much before that income don't gain anything from basic income. Atleast if the system isn't totally crazy. Their tax burden is increase by the amount of basic income.

Though they still get double or more to hand than those on basic income.

Wrong, if it is implemented so, it would be a total disaster.

Basic income is basic income is basic income.

If you "give it but take it back" it is just like not giving it, i.e. just like the systems we already have and do not work.

Basic income should be used with some tax restructure. As such the "high" income people end up not gaining anything from it.

The overall gains come from simplifying the bloated bureaucracy of current system. It's simpler to pay people money and then take it away with taxes, than the current messes we have.

In my mind: Point isn't giving everyone free money. But to simplify the welfare system and remove some cases where working doesn't increase the standard of living.

Which is exactly what I meant by this distorting market signals for which jobs are more important. And yes, this would cause prices to rise, whether due to inflation or not. A basic caffe that had, let's say, one waiter, one cook, and one janitor, will unlikely lower the wages for the cook and the waiter, but will now have to raise wages to be able to hire janitors. Total costs go up, price of products has to go up for them to stay in business, too. I'm not entirely sure how such a system will find equilibrium though. Is everyone having more money mean that each unit of money is now worth less? Or, since the money is coming more from those who are actually able to earn it, and the total remains the same, does it mean that each unit of money will be worth the same, but at an enormous expense to the people and organizations that are actually able to earn it? And if it's the later, will them increasing prices to compensate just end up making the extra stipen not really be able to pay for anything anyway?

If that's the case, then I agree, the second option may actually be an improvement over what they have now. Then just either lock the payout amount and inflate a bit, or set the payout amount to decrease by a few percentage points every year, and hopefully the payments will eventually get uncomfortable enough to incentivize people to start looking for work again.


Problem is, average Joe's understanding of finance and economics is limited to "I get paycheck, I spend money until bank account says 0" and "those people have more money than me, and that's not fair." We have plenty of examples of this throughout  the world's history, and plenty that are catching up with people now, in places where people keep voting to give themselves more and more money, and never consider where that money actually comes from (the PIGS in Europe, Brazil and some other South American countries, California and Detroit, etc.)

Going by OECD's comparative price levels and the current exchange rate, 2500 Swiss Francs is equivalent to about $1718 USD, or as much as you'd earn at a full time (40hr/week) job at a wage of $10.73/hr.

Wouldn't it simply be an artificial reduction in the supply of janitorial work?  Not economically ideal, but the market can adapt to it the same way it adapts to a sudden shortage of some raw material.

I say not economically ideal, but that's overlooking any positive externalities it would have by improving the morale of the society.

Only one thing makes me hesitate to support it wholeheartedly: the dilemma of citizens vs non-citizens.  Giving the basic income to citizens only would mean that their gain comes at the expense of non-citizens, both immigrants and tourists.  Giving it to everyone could lead to complications of its own.

May be it will add incentive to rollout automation and robotics without raising prices. Robots' prices fall rapidly, I think "hardware substitutes" for janitors and waiters you mentioned will be more affordable than worker's wages within next 5-10 years.

This is retarded. Can Switzerland please join the EU? ;D

If the EU doesn't FOAD, the next best thing it could do is join Switzerland. ;D

Not a bad idea, where do we apply?
But no Landsknecht please.

8 millions of 5 cents Swiss francs coin put on a street to support/advertise basic income !

http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/5265891-l-initiative-pour-un-revenu-de-base-inconditionnel-deposee-a-berne.html (http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/5265891-l-initiative-pour-un-revenu-de-base-inconditionnel-deposee-a-berne.html)

so what's it take to get in on this? you need to be a citizen?  :D

Mincome is an official Pirate Party (of Canada) policy. I was surprised by the hostility in this thread after reading this quote form one of our members:
- Lets talk about Mincome (https://www.pirateparty.ca/2013/05/15/lets-talk-about-mincome/)

This has to potential to make the free market more efficient by encouraging small business. Entrepreneurs are free to experiment if they are not worried about having a roof over their head or where there next meal if going to come from.

As a socialist, I can assure you that I do not believe Mincome should be in addition to all social programs. Health care and Education are a public good that should be kept public (As I understand it, Obamacare is not public health-care, only mandatory insurance).

Things Mincome would replace: Employment Insurance, provincial Welfare, and many other specialized social assistance programs. I think the Canadian Pension Plan should stay, since in theory, it is self-funding. These systems have large bureaucracies and complicated rules to prevent people from "abusing" the system. Because of the complexity, people fall through the cracks. People on welfare get taxed at at 100% rate (called a "clawback") if they actually find enough work (or even federal grants) to double their pittance. Even the top tax bracket in Canada is only 29%. Edit: the top tax bracket is 39% or more if provincial tax is included.