SUMMARY: The author argues, unconditional basic income is being heralded as the solution to all of Europe’s financial problems, but the salary for everyone is not all it’s cracked up to be, because UBI fails most financial feasibility tests. She concludes, “An unconditional basic income discourages career progression and innovation, could potentially have detrimental economic effects and relies on a non-binding social contract. This leaves many questions unanswered on the possible effects of UBI, suggesting a basic income is not so much a solution to all our problems, but a utopian nightmare we’d do best to wake up from soon.”
Sandra Kilhof, “Why unconditional basic income is no more than a socialist fairytale.” The New Economy, June 11th, 2014.
Swiss franc notes (above). Critics argue unconditional basic income will give people money for no cause (the New Economy)
If you would please consider a funding mechanism for a world wide basic income guarantee that does not rely on direct taxation, or inhibit individual progress any more than that of a child of better fortune who has a trust fund.
Inequality is a reasonable expectation, what is needed is a minimum universal enfranchisement in the world economy, in the form of secure capital, and an enforceable social contract. I like this one:
Social Contract between and among People and Governments
Definitions:
People: Adult human beings.
Government: Social structure holding assumed right to control social order.
Common Resources: Those resources accepted as International, earth, air, fire, water, wood, and those resources claimed by governments for its people, monetized as shares for deposit in local banks.
Rights and Responsibilities:
Peoples Rights:
•As described by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
•An equal share of the Common Resources
•As provided for by local government
Peoples Responsibilities:
• Deposit Common Resources share in local bank
•Comply with law
Government Rights:
•To govern as directed or suffered by its citizens
Government Responsibilities:
•To act based on objective reality in the public interest
•To safeguard and secure the people, their property, and the Common Resources
•As required and/or demanded by its citizens
You may dismiss the notion out of hand for being so stupid, please reconsider, maybe it just needs some smartening up.
I’m not a smart man, so I suppose my understanding of world economy is similarly sparse, but the notion of one person, one vote is pretty simple.
The notion that this or that country belongs to its citizens, or that the planet belongs to us all is pretty simple. So why is the notion that each person should hold, own, and receive a dividend from his or her share not just as simple, reasonable, and fair?
To prevent welfare tourism the basic income problem must be addressed globally.
Providing a low interest reserve currency to each country in this way, with a common international currency, might tend to stabilize exchange rates, so, certainty in planning.
Granting secured personal sovereign loans against a portion of their share to individuals for homes, a secure interest in workplace,…etc, would further support economic enfranchisement, while providing a significant portion of the required cash flow.
This directly addresses the provision of those Human Rights we have seemingly acknowledged in UDHR, especially for those displaced by acts of God and war, while also encouraging cooperation over conflict, way better for business.
Point is, I can think of more and more ways that allowing access to capital in this way would help what ever problem is being discussed, and no one will bother to explain why it is so stupid, people are usually happy to do that about most things.
Thanks for your kind indulgence, Stephen
Except for some fine tuning, I am in total support of the above. Citizens own their countries and have the ownership rights to income from their countries’ wealth.
By the way, this idea is catching on globally. Many in China are asking for their state enterprises’ profit to be distributed as a citizen dividend to everyone, instead of disappearing into the government pocket.
Accepting that a Commons share may be claimed by each adult human, one only, that will cease to exist on the humans death, and shall be deposited in trust with a local financial institution along with execution of a social contract. The basic outline I suggest would be specific to the community.
In this way each human will receive equal interest payments from sovereign debt.
This establishes the sovereignty of each human.
As a sovereign entity, each individual would have access to sovereign debt for home, farm, or secure interest in employment, relative to a portion of the value of their Share.
For illustration, in round numbers, a share with a value of $1 million would return about $1 thousand/month, if it all was borrowed, at a growth sustainable rate around 1.2%.
Current sovereign debt would return about $10/month, $20 if corporate government debt is included, (observing that corporations are governments subordinate to their charters) which would be significant in many parts of the world. Individuals could borrow a significant fraction, but maximum return would likely require states to borrow all remaining shares.
I suspect that a nation with 1 million residents could borrow the entire $1 trillion (equivalent) of resident shares as reserve cash and devise a plan to increase revenue by the $12 billion/yr (equivalent) required to pay the interest. The U.S. example of a $268 trillion debt, a $250 trillion treasury, and $3 trillion annual interest payment seems equally optimistic.
With all currencies tied to the Commons, and the proportional increase in wealth flow in all states, exchange rates and trade can stabilize.
The increased spending on basic needs will necessarily reduce the cost of providing them.
Since the spending of money is restricted by the availability of materials and labor, and “full employment” is restricted by the availability of money, recognizing and distributing the value of the Commons in this way would simply “fill the reservoir” so the world economic system may act more like a “Free Market.” This restriction, and most familiar others, would promote an orderly increase in money supply, with most new money in reserves and increased valuation.
Please consider the notion, and as you view the worlds problems, and crises, imagine how this would alter those conditions. Refugees would not be turned away so if they can transfer their shares. Countries may not be so quick to run them off if that means a loss of treasury. The perspective change for each individual so enfranchised is critically needed.
Thanks so much, again, for your kind indulgence,
Stephen