What is universal basic income?
What would you do with your life if you were given a no-strings cash payment from the government? Would you live the life you’ve always dreamt of or would you play video games all day?
A universal basic income (UBI) – sometimes referred to as “guaranteed” minimum income, citizen’s income or negative income tax – is essentially a fixed monthly payment by the government, regardless of whether you are wealthy or poor, employed or not. No questions, no conditions.
New benefits for all
On 5 June 2016, a referendum in Switzerland included a vote on introducing a UBI of 2,500 Swiss francs but 77% of the population rejected the proposal. However, interest in the idea is increasing globally. Finland has considered giving its citizens an unconditional stipend, scheduling a trial programme for 2017, and the Netherlands is thinking of piloting a similar proposal in several cities, including the city of Utrecht.
Y Combinator, a start-up incubator is funding a basic-income experiment in the US State of California and in Germany, crowdfunding organisation Mein Grundeinkommen (“my basic income”) has attracted over a quarter of a million contributors to a project aiming to give a basic wage to as many people as possible.
Fans of UBI say it will help reduce inequality, offer people the opportunity to retrain to explore different careers or continue education and assist people as more jobs are lost to automation.
Where the idea came from
The UBI concept was floated in Thomas More’s Utopia, published in 1516, and again in 1797 by Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the USA. It was revived in the 1920s by C.H Douglas, a British engineer and pioneer of the social credit movement. Douglas had noticed that the total cost of goods produced was more than people actually earned in terms of wages and other income. Since then, the UBI idea has received broad support, from civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr to economists such as Milton Friedman.
What’s not to like
Critics argue that implementing UBI would be very expensive and reduce the incentiveto work. Some people say that offering “money for nothing” will increase immigration, attracting people into countries that have implemented. Others say raising taxes on incomes and profits to fund UBI will increase tax evasion.
Hopes of paradise
Fans claim UBI will help reduce inequality, offer people the opportunity to retrain, explore different careers or continue education, and assist people as more jobs are lost to automation. Many experiments have shown that people assured of a basic income don’t lead idle lives and instead invest in their personal development. They can end up in more qualified positions, working longer hours and earning more than those without a safety net.
Dutch journalist Rutger Bregman writes in his book, Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income that many UBI initiatives have grown mainly out of frustration with welfare programmes that are very expensive and inefficient.
Others argue UBI would help us step towards a gender-neutral world, increasing flexibility and helping women, who take on more unpaid child care and responsibilities in the family home.
So could it really work?
The UBI idea has clearly been floating around for a while, garnering widespread support as well as criticism. But rising unemployment and economic downturns, along with the disruptive effects of digital technology, have refocused attention on providing a safety net to the poor.
But how this ultimate social safety net might work remains to be seen.
Why do you complicate the problems to find out why life in Canada is worse and worse, Currently in Ontario 100% of personal tax is going to service the debt. $CAD5000.00 per head. To solve the problem, problem has to be found first. Supportive question: Can TTC using the current fleet of X cars send on the streets during incoming games X+ 20% cars? NO!, math from grade 4 proves that X +20% of X equals 1.2X and 1.2X is more than X. This example shows that private banks should not emit more MONEY they have. They should not, but they do by corrupting law makers and reserving themselves THE LAW OF FRACTIONAL banking. They do create MONEY from the vacuum and want borrowers to repay them REAL MONEY with with interest >>> USURY SHORT HISTORY To simplified the trading system based on barter (exchange of different goods at agreed coefficient- for example 20 chicken for pair of shoes) someone introduced UNIVERSAL equivalent to some popular product and named it MONEY. 1 MONEY= 1 chicken. 20 MONEY= 1 pair of shoes. 20 MONEY is the confirmation of existence of 1 pair of shoes or 20 chicken etc. >>>> MONEY is CONFIRMATION of the physical of the existence of PRODUCT If PRODUCT does not exists MONEY can not exists too. Time was passing by. Population was growing. Societies started to be organized in much bigger groups. Chief of the group had a title KING, group was called KINGDOM Smart, knowledgeable KING decided than exclusively he will issue (emit) MONEY on behalf of ALL members of the KINGDOM equivalent to goods and services provided for the KINGDOM (to benefit all members of the society). YES, did not have to borrow any MONEY from anybody. MONEY introduced to the society was used as to trade between members of the society. Falsifying of the MONEY was penalized by the cutting off head(s) of the member or members of the group who tried to be above the KING. System worked well. In England for 721 years MONEY was represented by squared stick chopped in length by half with the equal nomination on two pieces. One of the piece was in circulation second one was sitting in the KINGDOM’s TREASURY. Real value of the material of MONEY(tally stick) was almost ZERO (some calories when burned). No diamonds, no gold, no silver was needed. USERY (creation of MONEY from vacuum) was impossible. Financial system was very stable!
Some individual members of KINGDOM wanted to have plenty of MONEY the easiest way: they wanted to emit MONEY themselves. They hired mercenaries (well paid or even ideological for free) to kill all KINGS. They were very successful , And these PERPETRATORS became KINGS of THE MONEY. To have assurance that population will like the system they acquired ALL MEDIA and are injecting success stories into DAMAGED brains of the members of the society by legalizing the worse narcotic and promoting it by MEDIA. Narcotic is called Whiskey, Bourbon, Champagne, Beer, Vodka (water) and 1000 more names to cover up ALCOHOL. This legal narcotic is causing 100x more DAMAGE to society than all others ILLEGAL natural and artificial narcotics. To make even more money, THE KINGS of THE MONEY are financing all different group of PEOPLE to kill each other. The winning group receives cheap Medals Of Dead Heroes and …. has to re-pay loans of the looser with hefty interests as well.
You are smart. THE PROBLEM is identified above >>> solutions are simple. What is your solution?
Anyone else spot a terrifying trend emerging? How about we get Canada back to democracy and spend some time sorting out this mess before we talk ourselves out of acting in anyway. This is a crime. The case needs to be heard.
What is Canadian democracy?
By: Stephen Jones
As a New Zealander it is interesting to see you Canadians facing all the same nonsense we are. Recently our second largest city was severely damaged in an earthquake. You would think the sensible solution would be for our government to contract a firm to rebuild the city for x amount of money, and print the money. After all this printed money is being immediately converted into real concrete and steel assets with capital values exceeding the amount of money printed. Furthermore, the government could have pocketed the insurance pay out as they would be covering the cost insurance would otherwise pay. Which payout furthermore would have offset the real damage the global financial crisis did to our largely blameless economy. But apparently what is rational is not allowed when you are a small country looked upon by the power(s) that be. And so we find ourselves a sovereign country without sovereignty living under an economic rational that defies reason.
By: Wallace Klinck
I offer the following comments to clarify the actual nature of Social Credit and how it relates to our ongoing financial, economic and social problems:
Increasing centralization of power is indeed the critical issue facing society. The primary obstacle to it’s decentralization is an almost universal ignorance of the manner in which the existing financial system renders the price-system evermore non-self-liquidating–making impossible the recovery of industrial production costs through sales. We attempt to resolve this problem by contracting bank debt so to provide access to the products of industry by the foolish expedient of mortgaging our future by transferring these costs as an exponentially growing debt charge against future cycles of production and by engaging in an orgy of wasteful and destructive activities culminating in continuous war. Neither Finance-Capitalism nor any form of collectivist organization (e.g., socialism, communism or fascism) can resolve this problem. A solution can only be achieved by an appropriate modification of the existing financial credit and price-system so as to properly facilitate distribution of the out-pouring of modern technology-based industry–in the context of expanding leisure.
Socialism calls for State ownership and administration of the means of production—the central planning of the economy and of human activity. The key feature of socialism is centralized power exercised by mandatory employment in projects determined by the State. As such the suppression of individual initiative is an inevitable result. This applies to all forms of “socialism”—national or international in nature.
Social Credit is the inverse of socialism. People have this notion in their heads that a sharing society is socialism, presumably because of an assumption that the sharing will be accomplished by re-distributing existing wealth by various confiscatory forms of taxation. It must be made absolutely clear to all and sundry that Social Credit stands for distribution of consumer goods at source as they emerge from the production line and not for re-distribution of earned incomes. Production and Consumption have no meaning, one without the other. The two must be matched and balanced. Producers’ costs cannot be recovered without money received from consumers, whose incomes alone provide business its only means to liquidate all financial costs of production.
National (Consumer) Dividends and Compensated (lowered) Prices at point of retail sale must be provided and financed by a Government Agency (created or existing, whatever is most efficient and convenient) with funds not derived from taxation but drawn down from a properly constructed National Credit Account which would be merely a continuously updated actuarial accounting of the nation’s real credit, being an inventory of all those resources which are available to be used for production and which, if so used, may result in the making of financial prices.
Unfortunately, the minds of the public are conditioned by a false assumption that the economic “pie” is limited to the financial incomes paid out in production and they perceive this as the only source of funding. This assumes, erroneously, that the price-system is self-liquidating, i.e., that incomes paid out as wages, salaries and dividends are not only equal to, but available, to meet the total financial costs of production. This is a major fallacy which is readily proved by the enormous amount of accumulating inflationary private and public debt created as loans by the banking system, which allows goods to be purchased after a fashion but does not liquidate their financial costs of production because these loans merely transfer these costs to be recovered from future cycles of production.
The physical (i.e., real) costs of production are met as production takes place. Obviously if this were not the case, production could not proceed. That is self-evident and axiomatic. When goods are produced in finished form they are meant to be used and should be available to the overall consuming public in total and without any residual financial debt. Those persons whose services are actually needed deserve to be paid for those services but the money they earn is increasingly inadequate to claim all of the producers’ output. That is why we resort currently to new money created as debt by bank loans in order that we might carry on producing and consuming. This new bank-created money does not remain in circulation but is cancelled when used to purchase the goods in respect of which the loan was contracted. This accumulating debt is bogus and is required only because price increasingly includes, as real capital replaces labour as a factor of production, allocated charges in respect of real capital which are not distributed as income in the same cycle of production.
Consumer income is cancelled prematurely, leaving a growing deficiency of income relative to total prices of goods awaiting purchase. The flow of final prices increasingly exceeds the flow of effective financial purchasing-power. We can simply forgo acquisition of these goods, leaving the producer no option but merely to warehouse or destroy them and go bankrupt—making the whole exercise of production with the objective of consumption a mindless exercise in futility. Or, we can assure that, while required remaining actual workers continue to benefit from their earnings, all citizens, workers included, benefit by gaining access to the full output of industry by being provided adequate purchasing-power to make this possible. In a Social Credit dispensation, Inheritance would be generalized. Socialism typically wants to destroy inheritance.
Social Credit stands most definitely, un-ashameably and un-abashedly, for a sharing society—and as labour is increasingly reduced by technology it would become more sharing with the passage of time. It does not involve State ownership, planning or administration of the economy or of social organization as such. It is highly decentralizing of power to individuals to the extent that economic independence is made possible by full access to the increasing abundance made possible by technology. It is appropriate that acquisition of goods and services is available to those with earned incomes, but to limit distribution of goods and services to those with earned incomes when human work is increasingly eliminated as a factor in the production of such real wealth, is totally irrational.
The abundance which technology makes possible should set men and women free from physical want, increasingly to choose independently and without duress their preferred activities in life. Social Credit gives real meaning to the concept of economic democracy as a consumer-motivated system of production—as opposed to the counterfeit socialist concept of economic democracy as a centralized proletarian Work-State.
From a metaphysical standpoint Social Credit would be a practical, physical incarnation of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation by Unearned Grace—in contradistinction to the prevailing Judaic conception, and system, of Salvation through Work.
I hope that the above comments may help to clarify the issues which you have raised.
Attached please find some other articles from the U.S. press that gives strong arguments for our cause why the Banking privilege is really based on nothing but an accounting trick with no legal foundation.
we need to be clearer about how to fill the gap…
In all our meetings to organize local debt-free banks, we need to remind people that God does provide, that He is indeed very generous.
In the Philippines, Madagascar, Congo, Yucatan etc…, for example, they can raise three crops of corn each year. If you take one seed of corn, this seed will give you three stalks which will give you around 200 seeds. So if one gives you 200, then ten gives you 2,000; one hundred then gives you 20,000. Three crops per year (20,000 X 3) yields 60,000%.
And the banker will probably give you less than 6%.
This means that God is indeed generous.
We can make a study with 2 columns.
The first as it is in reality, the second as the bankers want it.
Corn yields 60,000% per annum, sic sixty thousands per cent per year
earth free, given by God
plants working for free day and night
with Indian’s system 3 plants, nitrogen free.
a little work to plant, to harvest, to cook or/ and to stock.
They try to mortgage and put credits at interests everywhere, more costs, terminators seeds and chemistry everywhere.
GMO makes humans and seeds sterile…
We need TFR above 2,2 just to reproduce humans…
One of my powerpoint given in Philippines, in Canada, in Poland, in Madagascar, Congo, Switzerland, France etc…
Famous Conrad Black, … in his book “a Matter of Principle” (p.48) writes that during a dinner given by the Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter in 1990 …
What overpopulation ???
a big manipulation…
By the way, I have to say something very important, even if not politicaly correct, interest is a mortal sin, i.e. kills the grace in the soul, leading to hell, not only eternal, but on earth already, just open your eyes, and see wars coming.
Church has spoken, several times, see vix pervenit, a mortal sin
Look at the curves, killing millions aborted babies…
Sharing fruits and profits is good, asking a small fee for the work done is good, but open your eyes and your hearth, any interest, even very low, according to vix pervenit, is a mortal sin, assin as an abortion, with automatical excommunication, so bad it can be confessed only to a good and a real catholic bishop, look for them, it is not so easy to find them in this western world…