Thụy Sĩ, một xã hội duy nhất trên thế giới có nền DÂN CHỦ TRỰC TIẾP, trong đó NGƯỜI DÂN TỰ LÀM LUẬT để tự điều hành cuộc sống của họ qua các cuộc TRƯNG CẦU DÂN Ý.
Một trong những thực nghiệm xã hội kinh tế gây tranh luận của Thụy Sĩ là cuộc trưng cầu dân ý về đạo luật BẢO ĐẢM THU NHẬP CĂN BẢN HÀNG NĂM VÔ ĐIỀU KIỆN (unconditional fixed income) cho từng CÔNG DÂN THỤY SĨ 2600$ (mỹ kim) một tháng, hay là 31,200$ một năm. Như vậy một gia đình với hai con nhỏ sẽ tự động có 62,000 Mỹ kim một năm mà không cần làm gì hoặc đơn từ gì hết.
Chúng ta cần biết là mức sinh hoạt giá cả ở Thụy sĩ rất cao. Gần gấp đôi so với Úc, Mỹ. Cho nên số tiền 31,200$ một năm so ra chỉ là mức căn bản sinh tồn tại Thụy Sĩ mà thôi.
Nghĩa là nếu chính sách này bắt đầu ứng dụng, thì cái gọi là NGHÈO sẽ biến mất trước tiên tại xã hội duy nhất khác người nhất về hướng tích cực nhất của địa cầu này! Và chính phủ cũng tự động không phí tiền cho hệ thống thư lại an sinh cấp dưỡng nhùng nhằng như hiện nay nữa.
Lý lẽ viện dẫn của dự trù này là để cho con người không bị lệ thuộc phí phạm năng lực tài năng vào những ưu lo căn bản sinh tồn để một người có sự an tâm thảnh thơi tập trung phát triển kỹ năng và tiềm năng của mỗi cá nhân.
Cũng như nó giúp hoàn toàn triệt tiêu sự bóc lột cưỡng chế gián tiếp phí phạm tài năng- khi một ngưởi vì nhu cầu sinh tồn hàng ngày buộc phải làm những công việc trái với tài năng của họ, hoặc bị ép phải làm ngược lương tâm họ vì cần tiền để sinh tồn căn bản. Như vậy thu nhập tự động sẽ tạo cho mỗi công dân sức mặc cả lao động với giới chủ nhân công ty v.v
Ngoài ra, theo nghiên cứu cho thấy khi người dân thảnh thơi không lo sợ miếng ăn ngày mai, người ta vui sống làm việc tích cực, ít bệnh tật không cau có giận dữ vô lối, gia đình gấu ó v.v . Như vậy chi phí Y Tế, An Ninh xã hội v.v sẽ giảm đáng kể.
Tất cả sẽ bù đắp ngược lại số cho chi phí thu nhập tự động tích cực hơn.
Dĩ nhiên dự trù thực nghiệm này chắc chắn sẽ bị chống đối với nhiều lý lẽ kinh tế và tài chính từ nhóm hữu khuynh bảo thủ. Như tạo lười biếng, làm tăng giá lao động, giá tiêu thụ, làm thiệt hại lợi nhuận công ty; làm suy giảm đầu tư v.v (Moral Harzard).
Trang nhân chủ cũng đã có nhận định cách đây nhiều tháng. Tất cả tùy vào NHẬN THỨC TRÁCH NHIỆM TỰ THÂN của NGƯỜI CÔNG DÂN..
Chúng ta có thể mường tượng vui vẻ rằng nếu chính sách tự động thu nhập này được ứng dụng tại Việt Nam, hay các xứ lạc hậu khác, thì khả năng nền kinh tế sẽ biến mất ở 75% và đồng tiền sẽ thành rác... Vì ít nhất 75% sẽ chẳng biết sáng tạo sản xuất thành phẩm dịch vụ gì mới đóng góp trong thị trường xã hội, để đảm bảo giá trị của 2600$ cầm trong tay!
Nhưng nói ĐÙA là như vậy thôi, chứ thât sự khi con người an nhiên, thảnh thơi không áp suất (vô ưu, vô úy) dù ở mức độ nào sư tương tác trong mục tiêu trao đổi và sáng tạo hay sản xuất hướng thiện với nhau đều cao hơn những thành phần tiêu cực! Điều này có thể kiểm chứng ở mức độ LÀM THIỆN NGUYỆN và SÁNG TẠO NHỮNG SẢN PHẨM DỊCH VỤ MIỄN PHÍ tại các nhóm trong xã hội tiến bộ, cũng như những TRAO ĐỔI SÒNG PHẲNG VÔ VỊ LỢI trong những xã hội dân thiểu số khi chưa bị ô nhiễm lối sống thành thị cấp thấp như hiện nay. Đặc biệt tại Canada cũng đã thực nghiệm giới hạn và ngắn hạn tại thành phố Dauphin năm 1970s với kết quả rất tích cực,
Những người đề xướng chính sách này trong cuộc trưng cầu dân ý (125 ngàn chữ ký- nguyên tắc chỉ cần 100 ngàn chữ ký là đã có trưng cầu dân ý theo hiến định) không phải họ ngu ngơ vớ vẩn không có nghiên cứu lý do! Họ đã làm một cuộc vận động chấn động bằng cách chở một xe tải đầy 8 triệu đồng tiền cắc 5 xu Thụy Sĩ kèm với 125 ngàn chữ ký đem đổ trước cổng quốc hội tại thủ đô BERN!Nhưng với dân trí của đa số người Thụy Sĩ, tinh thần trách nhiệm, ý thức tự giác, sức sáng tạo và sản xuất của họ cũng như hệ thống Ngân Hàng Trung Ương của riêng họ, kết quả sẽ có thể khác nhiều. Khả năng 75% xác định giá trị 2600$ với những sản phẩm dịch vụ tự nguyện họ tạo ra từ trước đến nay dù có hay không có chế độ thu nhập tự động này!
Nói chung tất cả phải chờ xem kết quả thực sự của cuộc thử nghiệm xã hội này
Vấn đề là người Thụy Sĩ đang tranh luận nghiên cứu và họ chứng tỏ họ dám thử nghiệm những điều mà người khác, xã hội khác GẠT BỎ KHÔNG BÀN ĐẾN- Họ tranh luận và thực nghiệm để biết kết quả thật sự.
Đúng, tốt đẹp người dân tự chọn giữ lại- Sai, tác hại, người dân tự chọn loại bỏ. Không ai cưỡng buộc họ phải thực hiện hoặc chịu đựng điều gì từ chính phủ. Vấn đề là họ DÁM NGHĨ ĐẾN, DÁM THỰC NGHIỆM SAI THỬ, và DÁM LOẠI BỎ khi thấy SAI!
Kế hoạch thực nghiệm kinh tế, tài chính và xã hội này có thề khởi đẩu vào năm 2015.
PHÂN TÍCH SƠ LƯỢC DỰ KIẾN ĐỔI THAY
Dân số Thụy Sĩ trên 8 triệu: 8,200,000
Lực lượng lao động 4,800,000
Tỉ lệ thất nghiệp 3.1 % -4% = 148.800 - 192,000 người thất nghiệp
Như vậy nếu chính sách này được dân Thụy Sĩ thông qua
Mỗi tháng ngân hàng trung ương in thêm 192,000 x 2600 = 499,200,000 (499 triệu mỹ kim) hoạc $5,990,400,000 (gần 6 tỉ một năm)
Nghĩa là khoảng 6- 10 tỉ mỹ kim thêm vào ngân sách
Trong khi đó những phần chi trong ngân sách cho việc thư lại an sinh y tế cũ sẽ biến mất bù trừ vào ngân khoản này!
| Dịch Vụ | Chi Khoản Ngân Sách | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Welfare Programs | 21.8*** | |||
| Finances and taxes | 10.0 | |||
| Transport and Infrastructure | 8.7 | |||
| Education and Research | 7.2 | |||
| Defence | 4.9 | |||
| Agriculture and food | 3.7 *** | |||
| Foreign Relationships | 3.6 | |||
| Tổng cộng Ngân Sách: | 66.4 tỉ tiền Thụy Sĩ |
| Tổng cộng Ngân Sách mới sẽ là : | 76.4 tỉ tiền Thụy Sĩ |
Chi mục *** có khả năng giảm khi chính sách mới về thu nhập ứng dụng, vì không cần chi mặt này nữa!
Vấn đề NGÂN SÁCH không thay đổi nhiều. Tuy nhiên vấn đề là tác động xã hội của chính sách này lên thị trường tiêu thụ, thị trường lao động, và sản xuất v.v Tất cả sẽ khó lường được. Chỉ khi ứng dụng thực nghiệm trong một thời gian là 5 năm mới có thể có kết quả rõ rệt
NHẬP KHOẢN NGÂN SÁCH (THU NHẬP CỦA CHÍNH PHỦ THỤY SĨ)
Giáo sư Kinh Tế Milton Friedman từng đề nghị một giải pháp tương tự như Thụy Sĩ tại Mỹ- Nhưng... dĩ nhiên bọn tập đoàn tài chính ngân hàng không bao giờ cho phép giải pháp này hình thành!
NHANCHU
KULTURIMPULS, LEBENSGEFÜHL, VOLKSINITIATIVE
Newsletter: Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen im Nationalrat
Voraussichtlich m Herbst 2016 stimmt die Schweiz über das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen ab. Davor wird das Parlament darüber beraten und eine Empfehlung abgeben. Dieser Prozess hat am vergangenen Freitag begonnen, indem die Sozialkommission des Nationalrats darüber diskutierte. Der «Tages-Anzeiger» hat dazu eine lesenswerte Standortbestimmung geschrieben.
Beste Grüsse
Christian Müller & Daniel Straub
PS. Nicht nur die Politik diskutiert das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen. Auch «die Philosophen» nehmen sich des Themas an in einem Themendossier auf der Website philosophie.ch.
This system not only allows individual citizens a high degree of control of their laws, but also means that more unorthodox ideas become referendum issues.
Recently, there has been a spate of popular initiatives designed to curb inequality in the country. Earlier this year Swiss voters agreed to an idea proposed by entrepreneur Thomas Minder that limited executive (in his words, “fat cat”) salaries of companies listed on the Swiss stock market. Next month voters will decide on the 1:12 Initiative, which aims to limit the salaries of CEOs to 12 times the salary of their company’s lowest paid employee.
There’s a crazier proposal than this, however. Earlier this month an initiative aimed at giving every Swiss adult a “basic income” that would “ensure a dignified existence and participation in the public life of the whole population” gained enough support to qualify for a referendum. The amount suggested is 2,500 francs ($2,800) a month.
While most observers think that the vote is a longshot, it has certainly sparked debate — and not just in Switzerland. Writing for USA Today, Duncan Black said that a “minimum income” should be considered for the U.S.
“It’s pretty clear that the most efficient way to improve the lives of people is to guarantee a minimum income,” Black concludes.
However, Black understates just how radical the proposal is. We spoke to Daniel Straub, one of the people behind the initiative, to get a better understanding of what the proposal really means, why it is so radical, and what the world could learn from it.
Business Insider: Can you tell me a little bit about how the idea came to be?
Daniel Straub: A lot of people have proposed this idea. For example Thomas Paine in the United States or also the famous psychologist Erich Fromm has written about it in the sixties.
BI: Why choose a minimum income rather than, say, a higher minimum wage?
DS: We are not proposing a minimum income — we are proposing an unconditional income.
A minimum wage reduces freedom — because it is an additional rule. It tries to fix a system that has been outdated for a while. It is time to partly disconnect human labour and income. We are living in a time where machines do a lot of the manual labour — that is great — we should be celebrating.
BI: How was the figure of 2,500 Swiss francs settled on? What standard of living does this buy in Switzerland?
DS: That depends where in Switzerland you live. On average it is enough for a modest lifestyle.
BI: What effect would you expect the minimum income to have on Swiss government expenditure?
DS: The unconditional income in Switzerland means that a third of the GDP would be distributed unconditionally. But I don’t count that as government expenditure because it is immediately distributed to the people who live in this society. It means less government power because each individual can decide how to spend the money.
BI: I’ve seen people compare it to Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, do you think that comparison works?
DS: We go a step further than Friedman with the unconditionality. This would lead to a paradigm change. Not the needy get an income from the community but everybody.
BI: There have been a variety of initiatives recently that appear to be aimed at limiting inequality in Switzerland, from the 1:12 initiative to Thomas Minder’s “against rip-off salaries” referendum. Why do you think this is happening?
DS: People seem to be unhappy with the rising inequality. The other initiatives try to put a band-aid on an outdated system. We are proposing a new system.
BI: On the surface of it, Switzerland is a good place to live, with a high quality of life, relatively high salaries, and good public services. Why do you need to take these big steps to rearrange society?
DS: Switzerland has incredible material resources. But we are not using them in a smart way. A lot of people are stressed and there is a lot of fear. Our resources don’t lead to the freedom they could. And I am not saying that this freedom is easy — but it could lead to more meaningful lives. If more people start to ask what they really want to do with their lives, Switzerland will become an even more beautiful place to live.
BI: Switzerland is a unique country in a lot of ways. Do you think that other countries — for example, the U.S. — could learn from both its referendum system and the egalitarian initiatives enabled by it?
DS: I think that our system of semi direct democracy leads to more involvement by the public — that is a good thing. What other effects it would have on a system such as the U.S. I do not dare to predict.
(The text has been edited for clarity, and links have been added to help explain Straub’s responses.)
Switzerland May Give Every Citizen $2,600 a Month
The idea of a living wage has been brewing in the country for over a year and last month, supporters of the movement dumped a truckload of eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern. The publicity stunt, which included a five-cent coin for every citizen, came attached with 125,000 signatures. Only 100,000 are necessary for any constitutional amendment to be put to a national vote, since Switzerland is a direct democracy.
The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600 as of November 2014. That means that every family (consisting of two adults) can expect an unconditional yearly income of $62,400 without having to work, with no strings attached. While Switzerland’s cost of living is significantly higher than the US—a Big Mac there costs $6.72—it’s certainly not chump change. It’s reasonable income that could provide, at the minimum, a comfortable bare bones existence.
The benefits are obvious. Such policy would, in one fell swoop, wipe out poverty. By replacing existing government programs, it would reduce government bureaucracy. Lower skilled workers would also have more bargaining power against employers, eliminating the need for a minimum wage. Creative types would then have a platform to focus on the arts, without worrying about the bare necessities. And those fallen on hard times have a constant safety net to find their feet again.
Detractors of the divisive plan also have a point. The effects on potential productivity are nebulous at best. Will people still choose to work if they don’t have to? What if they spend their government checks on sneakers and drugs instead of food and education? Scrappy abusers of the system could take their spoils to spend in foreign countries where their money has more purchasing power, thus providing little to no benefit to Switzerland’s own economy. There’s also worries about the program’s cost and long term sustainability. It helps that Switzerland happens to be one of the richest countries in the world by per capita income.
The problem, as with many issues economic, is that there is no historical precedent for such a plan, especially at this scale, although there have been isolated incidents. In the 1970s, the Canadian town of Dauphin provided 1,000 families in need with a guaranteed income for a short period of time. Not only did the social experiment end poverty, high school completion went up and hospitalizations went down.
“If you have a social program like this, community values themselves start to change,” Evelyn Forget, a health economist at the University of Manitoba, told The New York Times.
Similar plans have been proposed in the past. In 1968, American economist Milton Friedman discussed the idea of a negative income tax, where those earning below a certain predetermined threshold would receive supplementary income instead of paying taxes. Friedman suggested his plan could eliminate the 72 percent of the welfare budget spent on administration. But nothing ever came to fruition.
It’s what makes the potential experiment in Switzerland so compelling. Developed countries around the world are struggling to address the issues of depressed wages for low-skilled workers under the dual weight of automation and globalization.
For German-born artist Enno Schmidt, one of the founders of the proposal, a living wage represents continued cultural progress along the lines of women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement by providing dignity and security to the poor, while unleashing creativity and entrepreneurial spirit.
“I tell people not to think about it for others, but think about it for themselves,” Schmidt told the Times. “What would you do if you had that income?
Somit rutscht das Thema Grundeinkommen wieder ein Stück nach oben in der öffentlichen Agenda, wird aber fälschlicherweise oft für eine neue Sozialversicherung gehalten. Vielmehr ist das Grundeinkommen jedoch ein neues Menschenrecht, welches dazu führt, dass wir selbstbestimmter tätig sein können.Es ermöglicht eine menschlichere Wirtschaft, einen klügeren Umgang mit unseren materiellen Errungenschaften und einen neuen Begriff von Arbeit.Bereits hat sich die Nationalratskommission gegen einen indirekten Gegenvorschlag zur Initiative entschieden. Zur Initiative selbst hat sie jedoch noch keinen Entscheid gefällt. Nach der Wintersession soll das Geschäft wieder aufgenommen werden.
Beste Grüsse
Christian Müller & Daniel Straub
PS. Nicht nur die Politik diskutiert das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen. Auch «die Philosophen» nehmen sich des Themas an in einem Themendossier auf der Website philosophie.ch.
Why A Swiss Proposal To Give Every Citizen $US2,800 Each Month Is So Radical
Switzerland has a very direct style of democracy. For example, changes to the constitution, or “popular initiatives,” can be proposed by members of the public and are voted on if more than 100,000 people sign them. If a majority of voters and cantons (Swiss states) agree, the change can be come law.This system not only allows individual citizens a high degree of control of their laws, but also means that more unorthodox ideas become referendum issues.
Recently, there has been a spate of popular initiatives designed to curb inequality in the country. Earlier this year Swiss voters agreed to an idea proposed by entrepreneur Thomas Minder that limited executive (in his words, “fat cat”) salaries of companies listed on the Swiss stock market. Next month voters will decide on the 1:12 Initiative, which aims to limit the salaries of CEOs to 12 times the salary of their company’s lowest paid employee.
There’s a crazier proposal than this, however. Earlier this month an initiative aimed at giving every Swiss adult a “basic income” that would “ensure a dignified existence and participation in the public life of the whole population” gained enough support to qualify for a referendum. The amount suggested is 2,500 francs ($2,800) a month.
While most observers think that the vote is a longshot, it has certainly sparked debate — and not just in Switzerland. Writing for USA Today, Duncan Black said that a “minimum income” should be considered for the U.S.
“It’s pretty clear that the most efficient way to improve the lives of people is to guarantee a minimum income,” Black concludes.
However, Black understates just how radical the proposal is. We spoke to Daniel Straub, one of the people behind the initiative, to get a better understanding of what the proposal really means, why it is so radical, and what the world could learn from it.
Business Insider: Can you tell me a little bit about how the idea came to be?
Daniel Straub: A lot of people have proposed this idea. For example Thomas Paine in the United States or also the famous psychologist Erich Fromm has written about it in the sixties.
BI: Why choose a minimum income rather than, say, a higher minimum wage?
DS: We are not proposing a minimum income — we are proposing an unconditional income.
A minimum wage reduces freedom — because it is an additional rule. It tries to fix a system that has been outdated for a while. It is time to partly disconnect human labour and income. We are living in a time where machines do a lot of the manual labour — that is great — we should be celebrating.
BI: How was the figure of 2,500 Swiss francs settled on? What standard of living does this buy in Switzerland?
DS: That depends where in Switzerland you live. On average it is enough for a modest lifestyle.
BI: What effect would you expect the minimum income to have on Swiss government expenditure?
DS: The unconditional income in Switzerland means that a third of the GDP would be distributed unconditionally. But I don’t count that as government expenditure because it is immediately distributed to the people who live in this society. It means less government power because each individual can decide how to spend the money.
BI: I’ve seen people compare it to Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, do you think that comparison works?
DS: We go a step further than Friedman with the unconditionality. This would lead to a paradigm change. Not the needy get an income from the community but everybody.
BI: There have been a variety of initiatives recently that appear to be aimed at limiting inequality in Switzerland, from the 1:12 initiative to Thomas Minder’s “against rip-off salaries” referendum. Why do you think this is happening?
DS: People seem to be unhappy with the rising inequality. The other initiatives try to put a band-aid on an outdated system. We are proposing a new system.
BI: On the surface of it, Switzerland is a good place to live, with a high quality of life, relatively high salaries, and good public services. Why do you need to take these big steps to rearrange society?
DS: Switzerland has incredible material resources. But we are not using them in a smart way. A lot of people are stressed and there is a lot of fear. Our resources don’t lead to the freedom they could. And I am not saying that this freedom is easy — but it could lead to more meaningful lives. If more people start to ask what they really want to do with their lives, Switzerland will become an even more beautiful place to live.
BI: Switzerland is a unique country in a lot of ways. Do you think that other countries — for example, the U.S. — could learn from both its referendum system and the egalitarian initiatives enabled by it?
DS: I think that our system of semi direct democracy leads to more involvement by the public — that is a good thing. What other effects it would have on a system such as the U.S. I do not dare to predict.
(The text has been edited for clarity, and links have been added to help explain Straub’s responses.)
Switzerland May Give Every Citizen $2,600 a Month
Update: According to the folks behind the Basic Income campaign, Switzerland's government will start discussing the proposal in spring 2015, with the public vote likely to take place by fall 2016.Switzerland could soon be the world’s first national case study in basic income. Instead of providing a traditional social net—unemployment payments, food stamps, or housing credits—the government would pay every citizen a fixed stipend.
The idea of a living wage has been brewing in the country for over a year and last month, supporters of the movement dumped a truckload of eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern. The publicity stunt, which included a five-cent coin for every citizen, came attached with 125,000 signatures. Only 100,000 are necessary for any constitutional amendment to be put to a national vote, since Switzerland is a direct democracy.
The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600 as of November 2014. That means that every family (consisting of two adults) can expect an unconditional yearly income of $62,400 without having to work, with no strings attached. While Switzerland’s cost of living is significantly higher than the US—a Big Mac there costs $6.72—it’s certainly not chump change. It’s reasonable income that could provide, at the minimum, a comfortable bare bones existence.
The benefits are obvious. Such policy would, in one fell swoop, wipe out poverty. By replacing existing government programs, it would reduce government bureaucracy. Lower skilled workers would also have more bargaining power against employers, eliminating the need for a minimum wage. Creative types would then have a platform to focus on the arts, without worrying about the bare necessities. And those fallen on hard times have a constant safety net to find their feet again.
Detractors of the divisive plan also have a point. The effects on potential productivity are nebulous at best. Will people still choose to work if they don’t have to? What if they spend their government checks on sneakers and drugs instead of food and education? Scrappy abusers of the system could take their spoils to spend in foreign countries where their money has more purchasing power, thus providing little to no benefit to Switzerland’s own economy. There’s also worries about the program’s cost and long term sustainability. It helps that Switzerland happens to be one of the richest countries in the world by per capita income.
The problem, as with many issues economic, is that there is no historical precedent for such a plan, especially at this scale, although there have been isolated incidents. In the 1970s, the Canadian town of Dauphin provided 1,000 families in need with a guaranteed income for a short period of time. Not only did the social experiment end poverty, high school completion went up and hospitalizations went down.
“If you have a social program like this, community values themselves start to change,” Evelyn Forget, a health economist at the University of Manitoba, told The New York Times.
Similar plans have been proposed in the past. In 1968, American economist Milton Friedman discussed the idea of a negative income tax, where those earning below a certain predetermined threshold would receive supplementary income instead of paying taxes. Friedman suggested his plan could eliminate the 72 percent of the welfare budget spent on administration. But nothing ever came to fruition.
It’s what makes the potential experiment in Switzerland so compelling. Developed countries around the world are struggling to address the issues of depressed wages for low-skilled workers under the dual weight of automation and globalization.
For German-born artist Enno Schmidt, one of the founders of the proposal, a living wage represents continued cultural progress along the lines of women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement by providing dignity and security to the poor, while unleashing creativity and entrepreneurial spirit.
“I tell people not to think about it for others, but think about it for themselves,” Schmidt told the Times. “What would you do if you had that income?
No comments:
Post a Comment