Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen.
The affordable question is one of: where the money's going to come from? How will small or large businesses, poor/middle-class/wealthy private individuals be required to support it?
The initiative's organizing committee said the basic income could partly be financed through money from social insurance systems in Switzerland.
I don't think the initiative people really have a clear idea.
> Your graph has the richest people making less than they did before. This is unlikely to happen.
Isn't that the whole point of any policy that implies a massive redistribution of wealth? Of course the money needs to come from higher taxes. Ergo, "What matters is political will."
As I said, it's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay". This usage masks the real problem, which is political will (or lack thereof), not the physical scarcity of USD or CHF.
I'm not Swiss, so I have no skin in the game. Therefore, I don't care who pays :-)
"It's unaffordable" can certainly mean "we don't want to pay". It can also mean "Are there enough rich enough people and businesses that can pay, that this can be passed, or can reasonably be collected?"
It is a question of political will, and it's annoying when people lambast that question with criticism as simple selfishness.
Redistribution often hits hard on middle income earners. I'll be impressed should something like this be passed, and the earning figure simply pivots on the median earner instead of gouging earnings from the middle-class.
I wonder at what point Swiss high earners, or wealthy Swiss companies, will move to somewhere like Luxembourg to protect that wealth? Or is it simply not possible in the mind of a Swiss national to do so?
Not to mention that it also hits business, and some businesses may just choose move to markets without redistribution whereas it may not be as easy for the workers to move. That in turn hits not only the tax base once, but twice (less paid workers, less taxes from businesses).
But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income. Without the 'need' to immediately get new employment, those workers can take the time to train for, or create from scratch, a more fulfilling job at a company that won't pack up and relocate when social welfare is given priority over greed.
But the workers that don't move will still have a basic income.
Unless/until the money runs out, which might happen more quickly than you think if, indeed companies and wealthy individuals start packing up and leaving the country.
Exactly. The money has to come from somewhere, it's a balancing act. Set taxes too high and you lose the tax base and don't generate enough revenue (5% of 0 is still 0), set too low and you may not generate enough revenue.
The affordable question is one of: where the money's going to come from? How will small or large businesses, poor/middle-class/wealthy private individuals be required to support it?
The initiative's organizing committee said the basic income could partly be financed through money from social insurance systems in Switzerland.
I don't think the initiative people really have a clear idea.