The theme of a monthly fixed income for all citizens without exclusions and no commitments, is a theme that is being widely discussed worldwide, we have seen a vote in Switzerland on this issue and countries like Finland and Netherlands will try it on the next few months.
Thanks to the advance of science, we have been able to develop a series of highly productive technologies, which completely break with the little production that existed in all the history of the man, with everything previous to the year 1,900. The development produced in the last Era of industrialization and the present Age of knowledge, make it possible for us to live in full abundance of everything and for all.
This is an absolute break from the fundamentals of economics that is still taught today in universities, “infinite needs and limited resources.” Because we have no abundance of everything then?
In fact mankind has had this dream of abundance since the beginning of the last century, in the “belle epoque” (1920), due to the tsunami of changes that people lived at that time, it was believed that soon we would live in the paradise of abundance, A hundred years passed and we were still waiting.
The reality is that this great increase in productivity was absorbed by a small group of people, who today we call 1%, who do not work and live off their capital income, while enjoying such enormous enrichment that They do not have to spend their money, cars of 200,000 euros and wines of 10,000 euros, while 99% have to work full time, to maintain a family, and not only one but both parents, since one alone does not reach.
We can´t continue to delay this change in society.
It is a scientific observation of human nature that the human being is selfish, another observation is that most human beings are slow and unproductive compared to an active and very productive minority.
And it is not a question of inheritance, since this phenomenon, happens randomly in the following generations, that is to say the majority of the children of the active and productive, are slow and not very productive, and a minority of the children of the slow and little productive, are active and very productive.
The demonstration that productivity is not inherited is that most companies goes to bankrupt when they pass into the hands of the second generation and 90% goes to bankrupt when they reach the third generation.
There is even a popular saying, which sounds like a joke, and that is valid in all countries, throughout human history, “The grandfather founded it, the father made it grow and the grandson melt it.” That is, human beings are not born equal. (Nor should we look for that).
This natural inequality plus the egoism of the human being, makes the active minority end up owning the system and its immense wealth, while the great majority ends up enslaved to the system.
The social need to help the less favored by nature, has existed since man existed, it was with the change of social organization that implied the French revolution that began to think about giving a solution to this problem of productivity Individual human.
And although there were ideas and proposals of social aid in the various forms of government throughout human history (in the democracies we apply taxes companies and distribute that money in programs to help the most needy sectors), it was Thomas Paine in 1795, the first to propose a payment in money, directly to each citizen.
With the arrival of the industrial revolution, which implied the replacement of the work of the man, by the work of the machines, it became more evident the necessity of an income for the citizens, regardless of their quantity of work.
We see it reflected by the actions of Henry Ford, who in 1914 realized that he could produce cars in large quantities, but people did not have enough money to buy them.
Henry Ford’s solution was not to expect that a universal income to exist, his brilliant idea was raise the salary to his employees, a win-win. In this way, it increased the morale and therefore the productivity of its employees, at the same time, it started that all American companies raised their salaries, allowing millions of people to have enough money to buy a ford car.
Henry Ford’s solution has been practiced in many countries, and is one of the reasons why salaries are high in developed countries. (Allows the consumption of goods and services produced).
Other solutions to the problem of replacing man’s work with machines, which we have applied, is the creation of the entertainment and tourism industry, the popularization of fashion, programmed obsolescence (we design products with the intention of being damaged by overcoming the Guarantee), and ultimately war: with the purpose of keeping the people occupied (military and its industry), first destroying and then constructing, enslaving with debt to countries and citizens.
But we can no longer delay the inevitable, and these traditional solutions are costing us more and producing less results (law of diminishing returns). That is why we see that in developed countries, there is a high youth unemployment (45%), but products abound on supermarket shelves and at auto shows. And the latest technological developments, such as cars being handled alone, predict the demise of millions of jobs and the creation of just a few hundred jobs.
In 1964, CH Douglas published the book “Social Credit”, which among many good ideas and definitions, expresses the idea of the social dividend, as a product of the country’s cultural heritage, and also argues that cultural heritage is the first factor of High productivity that we have today, proposed that a minimum income, social dividend, as the solution to the problem of money required, for citizens to buy a production made with little or no human work.
For more information, we suggest reading the thinker Philippe Van Parijs, it is this excellent interview, or you can see this video of Federico Pistono, or the presentation of Rutger Bregman or that of Professor Yanis Varoufakis, who presents us the relationship he has with the model (We prefer not to expand at this point in this article, but we highly recommend it, because it is totally relevant).
At present, in 2017, there are no thinkers who are against a minimum income, in what we are not all agree, is how to implement it, for lack of experiments that indicate how best to do so.
It is time to be truly innovative and provide scientific solutions.
Universal Income or Citizen Dividend, is a relatively new topic, so there is a new set of terms, which we must first define, in order to make a clearer analysis.
Basic Income, or Universal Basic Salary:
- It refers to the amount of monthly money a person needs to cover all of their needs in a particular society. We are talking about that with that amount, the person can pay for their food, hygiene, basic services: water, electricity, internet, telephone, health, housing, transportation. In general this amount of money should be close to a minimum wage.
Universal Minimum Income:
- It refers to the amount of monthly money that a person needs to subsist in a certain society, we are talking about that with that amount, the person can pay their food expenses, basic services and health. In general this amount of money, is of the half to a third of a minimum salary.
Note: In the economy of each country, we already measure the minimum necessary food that an average family needs and is called: basic food basket. When other needs such as hygiene, health, clothing and transportation are included, it is called: basic living basket. Let’s emphasize that this is measured against a family and not an individual.
These definitions vary a little depending on the degree of development and culture of each society, i.e. it does not include the same types of expenses in the USA as in Spain, because the health system is different in both.
And they are important, since many people when talking about this topic, are confused, do not know that sometimes their differences are because they are talking about different terms.
Let us now turn to the arguments in favor and against that emerge when discussing this subject, without saying whether these arguments are true or false.
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
To make a good analysis, we have to know the results of the tests that have been carried out around the world to evaluate this proposal.
Case of India.
In 2011 in several poor villages in India, a program was implemented that granted about 10 dollars per adult and 5 dollars per child. The results were that people spent more money on food and health, fixed their homes, children stay in schools increased, and doubled the amount of micro entrepreneurs.
This was a case of minimum income, not basic income.
Case of the North American Community.
In the territories of an indigenous community in North Carolina, United States. There were about 500 people with low incomes due to limited and occasional jobs. In 1997 opened its doors a casino. Many detractors thought that would be a bad idea, which would bring decay to the indigenous tribe where the casino was located.
The all opposite occurred: revenues were used first to build the school, hospital, and firehouse headquarters, and the remaining money was shared among all members of the community alike, resulting in about $ 500 a month for each, which is a third of a family’s income.
As a result, low juvenile delinquency, reduced poverty, as well as alcoholism and drug addiction, more children completed school, indigenous people continued to work in their occasional jobs, and improved their standard of living. This was a case of minimum income, not basic income.
There have been many experiments similar to the previous two in Canada and the United States, with similar results, but an experiment has not been done with more than 10,000 people and has lasted more than 5 years to see the consequences in the medium term, i.e, is a virgin ground to explore in social behavior.
Therefore, the best we can do is to apply our methodology of circles, which allows us to assume as truth all the points of view and achieve a solution that binds us all.
Before giving our proposal, we have to understand that we are facing a process of paradigm change. The previous way of doing things does not work anymore, and we have to develop new ways of interacting as a society. As we present it in our mutualwelfare page.
Therefore we can not think that what we have to do is simply add a system to the set of social systems that we already have. We have to change all the social systems we have.
The educational system, the economic system, the judicial system, the army, health, etc. All them need to changed. Should this change be traumatic? Not necessarily, if we make the right design along with the necessary bridge mechanisms, we can make a smooth transition.
In order to better understand what we are proposing, we suggest first reading our article “Purpose of the New Society and Definitions”, where we define some basic concepts, such as “work” which is now called “social contribution” and the role of enterprises and social security.
We also recommend reviewing the common problem of human relationships, for not to make a bad system due a bad design.
Our proposal is to apply one of the two exclusive programs (if you are in one program, you are not in the other): “universal minimum income”, IMU, for all citizens alike. And the other program is a “guaranteed basic salary”, SBG, which is for those who wish to give their “social contribution” but do not get employment in private companies, the State will assign them their “social contribution” (work) and their respective payment. Where the SBG = twice the IMU. If for example the IMU is 600 euros, the SBG is 1200 euros.
It should be noted that people who are employed in private companies continue to receive their IMU.
With this solution, we can achieve:
- Eliminate poverty altogether.
- Eliminate the relationship between slavery and work.
- Give full employment, in positive jobs for society.
- It eliminates debt, and triggers many positive changes in society.
- Facilitate women to soften their years of study, while being mothers and wives.
- Eliminate the stress of loss of employment in society.
- It produces free time for people to improve their personal development.
Some rules, to avoid that this solution is undone:
- Give a minimum income, not a basic income, so it is not so expensive and be able to evaluate each quarter the results and make the necessary adjustments. With transparent information, online, and access to the world. Thus:
- You stimulate people to work to have a better standard of living.
- You make sure all citizens are out of poverty.
- Economic-social goals are created, which stimulate the development of society.
- Progressively apply the scope of this plan to the entire population, starting with women over 16 and adults over 65 who have three generations in the country. As progress is made and good results are seen, increase the reach, less generations and progressively reduce the age of the adult from 65 to 50 years, establishing this as goals of the country, whose progress is visible to the entire population. In this way, we can:
- Start with less money.
- We avoid entering a country of mass immigration, every citizen must demand to his country of origin, to implement a similar program.
- As is universal, children up to the age of 16 are paid to their legal representative, 50% of what is paid for an adult and for a single child, a future goal may be to increase it to two. (Citizens have the number of children they want, the limitation is relative to the direct money that is given to the mother).
- Encourage youth work and retirement from work for our seniors.
- Merge the pension program.
- By giving money to people, educating them and reminding them, that money comes from the well-being of the society in which they live, if social welfare improves, money increases, if social welfare decreases also decreases the amount of money received . That is, we propose that this income be conditioned to gratitude to society. In this way we avoid the potential parasitism.
- Encourage through the media, citizens to participate in educational improvement programs, in what they like to do, as long as it results in welfare for society.
- Encourage the banking of all citizens, seeking to minimize the costs of giving bill and payment cards to citizens.
- Go gradually eliminating the indirect subsidies to redirect that money to this direct income, eliminating the corruption in those subsidies. Also eliminating the related public positions.
- Implementing some of the ways of distributing social gains, without creating new taxes, as MattBruenig / the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1%
- Implement a tax on tax havens.
- Implement a depreciation of money, based on the successful Worgl experiment.
- Eliminate legal tax evasion mechanisms that exist (the super rich use them).
- Cut the military budget to the truly essential, in order to free resources for this project that is much more important for society. An airplane costs hundreds of millions of dollars, a bomb is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and every imaginary war exercise with another country, costs another hundreds of millions of dollars.
The main problem of the human being to implement a universal income system, we are ourselves, is our selfishness. On the one hand we have the elites, that 1% is not interested in ceasing to be the only rentier and they will fight to maintain this privilege. While 99% do not finish sacrificing the imposition of our individual opinions on others in exchange for our collective well-being.
About 200,000 years ago, nature created us as individuals and collectives, selfish and potentially altruistic. We endow ourselves with consciousness, with “I” and “ego”, but until now we have used it alone to fight against each other, for Scarce material goods.
But we can already leave behind the struggle for the few material goods, since we have developed technologies of abundance, we have reached a point of technological development, where we can build paradise on earth, with abundance of everything for everyone.
Therefore, we are already able to realize a purpose beyond material well-being, our purpose of existence, to be the guardians of life, as described in our evolutionary theory.
And we have at our disposal, the science called Kabbalah, which provides us with a practical method, how to unite, how to educate a human being with social and ecological sensitivity, about passing our “ego”, reaching a true purpose of life , Reaching a new level of existence.