[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 51753)
File  []
>> No. 51753 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:24 pm
51753 spacer
Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis. A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,800) per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.

Under Swiss law, citizens can organize popular initiatives that allow the channeling of public anger into direct political action. The country usually holds several referenda a year. In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation. A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on November 24.



I'm not entirely sure what to make of these. I reckong that if they tried the 1:12 thing over here then the lowest paid members of staff in some large organisations would end up being made redundant and replaced with contractors.
88 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 55182 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 10:13 am
55182 spacer
Fucking hell. Those crazy Swiss, you'll never guess what they'll think of next.
>> No. 55183 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 10:48 am
55183 spacer
The vote is today, the BBC article on it (which says the minimum full time salary would be £32k) says it's likely to be rejected. This line sounds familiar, though:

>The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says that a key element of the campaign in favour of a minimum wage is the argument that the Swiss welfare system is being forced to subsidise businesses which refuse to pay a living wage.
>> No. 55184 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 11:07 am
55184 spacer
I hope it passes, and we take up all their business.
>> No. 59415 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 6:58 am
59415 spacer
The Greens want to introduce a £72 a week universal Citizen's Income. Apparently to fund this they want to scrap the income tax personal allowance, JSA, child benefit, tax credits, etc. and they'll raise the basic rate of tax to 30% and make 12% National Insurance payable on all income, rather than having the first £153 of weekly income NI free as at present.

It doesn't seem very practical and thought through to me.

>> No. 59416 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 7:03 am
59416 spacer
God I love the Greens.
>> No. 59417 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 7:19 am
59417 spacer
>>59415 here again.

Doing a quick calculation to see the practicalities of it:

Someone on £20,000 a year would lose their income tax allowance of £10,500 (from April) so that's £3,150 at 30%, plus an extra £950 on the rest of their income that's now taxed 10% higher. The additional NI would work out at about £955, meaning they'd be paying an extra £5,055 to receive a £3,744 Citizen's Income. No idea if they'd also lose tax credits and the like, assume they would if they had kids.
>> No. 59418 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:32 am
59418 spacer
Funny how you bumped this as soon as the news broke that it might not work so that you can claim you didn't think it would work all along! The Greens are an evidence based party and they will incorporate this new evidence into their policy. The CIT has provided numerous costed analyses of the policy in the past, but I presume you didn't decide it 'wasn't well thought out' when reading one of those.
>> No. 59419 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 10:18 am
59419 spacer
Oh Greenlad.

>The Greens are an evidence based party

Fjordable mirth.
>> No. 59420 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 11:01 am
59420 spacer
I bumped it now because this is the first I've heard of it. It's not even remotely thought out - using my calculations in >>59417 - if they get rid of the income tax personal allowance, raise income tax to 30%, get rid of the NI threshold and replace it with a £72 per week Citizen's Income then anyone earning £9,300 and above is worse off (£9,300 @ 30% = £2,790 plus the £955 extra NI = £3,745, i.e. greater than the £3,744 of £72 x 52). If that's how they plan to fund it then there's great big fuck-off glaring holes that anyone with half a brain could have worked out.
>> No. 59421 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 1:09 pm
59421 spacer
I thought you wanted me to stop calling myself Greenlad? What's the point if you're going to do it anyway?

Yeah but those figures aren't in Green Party policy, so you can't say 'they didn't think it through'. To be fair I don't know who thought it through and what figures they used, but you're using figures from a Guardian article.

>they'll raise the basic rate of tax to 30% and make 12% National Insurance payable on all income
Where does it say that in our policy, for instance? Official policy states National Insurance will be abolished and merged into income tax.
>> No. 59422 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:44 pm
59422 spacer
If it is the case that NI is abolished, income tax is at 30% and there's no personal allowance then that would see people better off:

Someone on £30k would pay income tax of £3,900 and NI of £2,645 = £6,545 under the current system. If it was 30% on everything then that's £9,000 in tax, but the Citizen's Income would reduce this by £3,744 to £5,256 net.
>> No. 59423 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 5:47 pm
59423 spacer
Whatever you say lad; as I said there are no official figures to reference so this is just speculation. In fact the party newsletter has just arrived in my inbox and includes a piece penned by Our Dear Leader on our negative media coverage that concurs with what I've been cautioning. Alongside paragraphs about how it isn't our policy to remove all immigration controls or put the Queen in a council house, with regards to Citizen's Income she says:

This is a long-standing Green Party policy and is about recasting the social security system so that it is fit for the twenty-first century. Universal Basic Income is about providing economic security for everyone, removing the benefits trap, making work pay, and ensuring a reasonable work/life balance so that people get to spend more time on the things that matter most.

We will include a fully-costed proposal in our General Election manifesto but until that point we will not be releasing costings. The BBC and others are bandying figures around but these are not Green Party figures and should not be taken as such.

>> No. 59424 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 5:56 pm
59424 spacer

Regardless of whether the Green Party get their sums right, basic income is a fundamentally sound policy. When Thatcherites and Marxists agree on something, you need to pay attention.
>> No. 59425 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 6:11 am
59425 spacer

It isn't the arty newsletter she wants to be putting that in though, it's actual papers people read she wants to worry about. I like the Green party but they seem determined to make themselves unelectable by some means or other, mainly with regards to defence cuts.

As much of a hippy as I am, I have to say that reducing the UK's defence with global politics how it is could be a disastrous move, we face potential threats from every side. The EU looks set to implode at any minute and placing all our money in that pot could turn out very nastily.
>> No. 59426 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 10:45 am
59426 spacer
>Alongside paragraphs about how it isn't our policy to remove all immigration controls
Indeed, a Green Britain will implement stricter immigration controls.

>MG204 Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied:
>b)The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers;
>MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation.
>> No. 59427 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 12:17 pm
59427 spacer
Though MG204 wouldn't apply here because Britain isn't 'owned or controlled by indigenous peoples'. What's stricter about MG205?
>> No. 59429 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 4:59 pm
59429 spacer
>Indeed, a Green Britain will implement stricter immigration controls.
Pull the fucking other one studentlad. If you'd actually read the green's manifesto you would have spotted that part about "destroying the idea of British nationality", plus their rules such as no deportations - if you jump the fence, you're in for good.
>> No. 59430 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 5:39 pm
59430 spacer
The idea of "nationality" is outdated and outmoded. I welcome a Green Government who will get rid of the imaginary lines on the map of the British Isles.

The land belongs to nobody!
>> No. 59431 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 5:47 pm
59431 spacer
I agree with you that the concept of nationality is silly and meaningless, but it is built into the human psyche at a very deep level.

You can't just destroy the idea of nationality overnight. Over a few generations you could, but new ideas would spring up as quickly as you got rid of them. Meddling with cultural identity is a bloody insane thing to even attempt.
>> No. 59432 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 5:53 pm
59432 spacer
>who will get rid of the imaginary lines on the map of the British Isles.

Imaginary lines? Last time I checked there was a great big coast that marks where Britain ends and begins.
>> No. 59433 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 6:34 pm
59433 spacer

Actually the United Kingdom ends in an imaginary line out in the sea, also at an imaginary line on the island of Ireland.
>> No. 59434 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 6:37 pm
59434 spacer

Yeah mate! Fight the power! Bash the fash! I'm a citizen of the world m8!
>> No. 59435 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 7:10 pm
59435 spacer
... and they can't even figure out where the imaginary line is on the waater around Ireland.
>> No. 67625 Anonymous
27th December 2015
Sunday 9:30 am
67625 spacer
The Dutch are at it now. Well, at least one city is.

>It might be thought that, in these austere times, no idea could be more politically toxic: literally, a policy of the state handing over something for nothing. But in Utrecht, one of the largest cities in the Netherlands, and 19 other Dutch municipalities, a tentative step towards realising the dream of many a marginal and disappointed political theorist is being made.

>The politicians, well aware of a possible backlash, are rather shy of admitting it. “We had to delete mention of basic income from all the documents to get the policy signed off by the council,” confided Lisa Westerveld, a Green councillor for the city of Nijmegen, near the Dutch-German border. “We don’t call it a basic income in Utrecht because people have an idea about it – that it is just free money and people will sit at home and watch TV,” said Heleen de Boer, a Green councillor in that city, which is half an hour south of Amsterdam.

>Nevertheless, the municipalities are, in the words of de Boer, taking a “small step” towards a basic income for all by allowing small groups of benefit claimants to be paid £660 a month – and keep any earnings they make from work on top of that. Their monthly pay will not be means-tested. They will instead have the security of that cash every month, and the option to decide whether they want to add to that by finding work. The outcomes will be analysed by eminent economist Loek Groot, a professor at the University of Utrecht.

>A start date for the scheme has yet to be settled – and only benefit claimants involved in the pilots will receive the cash – but there is no doubting the radical intent. The motivation behind the experiment in Utrecht, according to Nienke Horst, a senior policy adviser to the municipality’s Liberal Democrat leadership, is for claimants to avoid the “poverty trap” – the fact that if they earn, they will lose benefits, and potentially be worse off.

>The idea also hopes to target “revolving door clients” – those who are forced into jobs by the system but repeatedly walk out of them. If given a basic income, the thinking goes, these people might find the time and space to look for long-term employment that suits them.

>But the logic of basic income, according to people to the left of Horst, leads only one way – to the cash sum becoming a universal right. It would be unthinkable for those on benefits to be earning and receiving more than their counterparts off benefits. Horst admitted: “Some municipalities are very into the basic income thing.” Indeed leftwing councillors in Utrecht believe this is an opportunity to prove to a sceptical public that people don’t just shirk and watch television if they are given a leg-up. “I think we need to have trust in people,” said de Boer.

>> No. 68714 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 9:08 pm
68714 spacer
The Switzerland government plans to pay every single adult a guaranteed £425 a week – whether they work or not. The radical plan will be voted on in a countrywide referendum later this year.

If the Swiss vote yes it would make the country the first in the world to pay all of its citizens an unconditional income, with politicians hoping it could help abolish poverty.

Under the scheme each child would also receive £100 a week.


You've got to give the supporters of this credit for not giving up after the referendum failed last time around.
>> No. 68715 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 9:28 pm
68715 spacer


Even when we can agree on where the imaginary lines should be drawn, three are four different lines.
>> No. 68720 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 10:42 pm
68720 spacer
Well worth waiting a year for, thanks.
>> No. 81335 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 1:37 pm
81335 spacer
Scotland looks set to be the first part of the UK to pilot a basic income for every citizen, as councils in Fife and Glasgow investigate trial schemes in 2017.


Here's hoping they trial it. It'll be interesting to see the results.
>> No. 81336 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 2:21 pm
81336 spacer
What the fuck? This can't be successfully done on a local government level. There's no funding and not enough control over the other things it will affect.
>> No. 81337 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 3:01 pm
81337 spacer
They haven't even done a feasibility study yet, it's very early days, so no plan of how it'd be funded but the article mentions £2.7bn being devolved to Scotland.
>> No. 81338 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 3:44 pm
81338 spacer
How progressive, makes such a difference from those evil racist Englishmen. Scotland is Scandanavian don't you know.
>> No. 81339 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 3:58 pm
81339 spacer
>Scotland is Scandanavian don't you know.

You're thinking of Sweden. I can see how it can be confusing, both names begin with the letter 'S'.
>> No. 81341 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 8:52 pm
81341 spacer
Isn't that money only really devolved on paper though?
i.e. technically they gain control over the 2.7bn, but it's 2.7bn that was being spent anyway, so realistically they can only edge-fiddle, as opposed to 2.7bn extra that they can actually work with.

Without UK parliament support (or independence) it's hard to see how the government could fund the real thing. (Though I suppose for a control trial, they could probably afford it using the money from a departmental underspend. Giving 10,000 the national average wage (presumably lower in practice, but neat ball-park figure) was 265 million, while Holyrood's underspend was 350m in 2016.

Now: Calculate the national average wage from the figures given. Show your working.

>> No. 81346 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 2:21 pm
81346 spacer
>Show your working

Who needs to show 'working' to divide two numbers together?
>> No. 81347 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 4:12 pm
81347 spacer
Wanker maths teachers who put me off the entire subject by constantly insisting I write down redundant working.
You have to show working. It's very clearly written on the question. You won't get any marks unless I see some working.
>> No. 81348 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 4:30 pm
81348 spacer

What does any of this have to do with race, you soft bastard?
>> No. 81350 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 6:48 pm
81350 spacer
In fairness it's the fault of the examiners not the teachers.
>> No. 81361 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:48 pm
81361 spacer
I'm moving to Scotland.
>> No. 81362 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 12:34 am
81362 spacer

Speaking of moving up north of the wall, if an Englishman does that, does he qualify for free tertiary education?
>> No. 81369 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 1:37 am
81369 spacer
You would probably need to live there for 3 or 5 years or something to qualify.
>> No. 81373 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 8:31 pm
81373 spacer
Just wear a kilt on the enrolment day and you'll be fine.
>> No. 81374 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 8:41 pm
81374 spacer

You could have told me that three to five years ago.


Well, I do like shortbread.
>> No. 81378 Anonymous
4th January 2017
Wednesday 8:32 am
81378 spacer
Jobless people are being paid a guaranteed basic income of nearly £6,000 a year in a radical experiment in Finland.

The Scandinavian country became the first in Europe to trial such a scheme, with 2,000 unemployed receiving 560 Euros (£475) a month for two years from January 1.

The recipients are free to spend the money on anything they choose, do not need to prove they are looking for work and will still receive the basic income even if they do get a full- or part-time job.

Finnish government agency Kela, which is responsible for the country’s social benefits, hopes the scheme will encourage the recipients to seek employment, remove disincentives to work and reduce bureaucracy. But critics fear getting a guaranteed basic income could have the opposite effect by making some unemployed people ‘lazier’ and less inclined to look for a job.

The scheme is part of the measures by the centre-right government of Prime Minister Juha Sipila to tackle Finland’s joblessness problem.

The unemployment rate of Finland, a nation of 5.5 million, stood at 8.1 percent in November 2106 with some 213,000 people without a job, unchanged from the previous year.

Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela’s legal affairs unit, said: ‘At present, unemployed persons may not gain any additional income even if they find work because earnings reduce social benefits. For someone receiving a basic income, there are no repercussions if they work a few days or a couple of weeks. Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and self-employment are worthwhile no matter what. This is the key idea behind the basic income.’

According to her, the basic income, which is paid in advance at the beginning of each month, also helps its recipients plan their finances and provides a sense of security. More and more people are working part-time or temporarily or are self-employed and coordinating social security systems with non-standard work is often challenging.

Kela say basic income should help to reduce bureaucracy as the recipients, who were randomly selected and aged between 25 and 58, do not have to report the number of hours they work or to fill in various forms.

The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 Euros (£2,975) per month, according to official data.

Professor Olli Kangas, director of research at Kela, said it will be ‘highly interesting’ to see how the basic income makes people behave. He said: ‘Will this lead them to boldly experiment with different kinds of jobs? Or, as some critics claim, make them lazier with the knowledge of getting a basic income without doing anything?’

>> No. 84207 Anonymous
24th April 2018
Tuesday 5:30 pm
84207 spacer
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.

Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income. Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.

But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.

The pilot's full results will not be released until late 2019.

>> No. 84208 Anonymous
24th April 2018
Tuesday 7:53 pm
84208 spacer

Seems like a low amount. I thought the entire point of it was that it would be enough money to enjoy a standard quality of life, i.e. rent a flat, get your food shopping, and do something with your daytime.
>> No. 84209 Anonymous
24th April 2018
Tuesday 8:05 pm
84209 spacer
I think this was on top of their other state benefits, although I've no idea what they're like in Finland.
>> No. 84210 Anonymous
25th April 2018
Wednesday 10:34 am
84210 spacer

I love the idea behind things like this. I love telling people about how it would actually be better for unemployment and pull out all the arguments a good socialist does about how we would actually end up dividing labour more equitably and all end up better off.

But deep down I know that if we ever got it here, I'd quit my job the same fucking day. I fancy it'd allow me to become one of those wankers with a YouTube channel or the kind of person who buys Warhammer to paint and then put on eBay, but without worrying about actually being successful because in reality I'd spend 6 days a week without even getting dressed.

My reasons for wanting a universal basic income are entirely selfish.
>> No. 84211 Anonymous
25th April 2018
Wednesday 10:51 am
84211 spacer
Don't feel too bad. Apparently a good number of those in the trial went on to start businesses, knowing they could afford to take the risk.
>> No. 84212 Anonymous
25th April 2018
Wednesday 11:34 am
84212 spacer

You know how trust fund kids often turn out to be unreasonably successful despite a lack of apparent talent? That's half the idea behind UBI. By reducing the consequences of failure, you empower people to take chances.

The early 80s were a boom period for creativity, despite record levels of unemployment. A lot of young people thought "I'm stuck on the dole, I can't get a job, I might as well start a band". Nobody really checked that you were actively seeking work, because there were so few vacancies. Countless magazines, record labels, film studios and game development companies were started off the back of Enterprise Allowance. The student grant also functioned as a kind of basic income - you could sign up for a course at a polytechnic, do the bare minimum of coursework and get paid to spend three years figuring out what you wanted to do with your life. Today we have record low unemployment, but that's not necessarily a good thing in the long term - the harsh sanctions regime has forced a lot of people into dead-end jobs or marginal "self employment" of the Uber/Deliveroo variety.
>> No. 84214 Anonymous
30th April 2018
Monday 5:47 am
84214 spacer
>A lot of young people thought "I'm stuck on the dole, I can't get a job, I might as well start a band". Nobody
There's a wonderful NME article on this. Has one of my favourite quotes of all time on it: "The dole used to be called the 'John Major Musical Scholarship.'"
(Yeah, I know, Scottish Nationalist website. It's just scans of an old magazine article, I'm not rehosting it just to look good.)

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Delete Post []