Switzerland Mulls Giving Every Citizen $2,800 a Month

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 become 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.

Just imagine getting paid about €2000 a month just for existing.

Sounds a great idea to limit wages of the CEO to 12 times the lowest paid employee.

Muise...

Deleted User wrote: »

Just imagine getting paid about €2000 a month just for existing.

Sounds a great idea to limit wages of the CEO to 12 times the lowest paid employee.

whatever they decide, I'm glad they are mulling. We should all mull more, and not just at Christmas.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Money for doing **** all? So what they really want is our welfare system then.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Just imagine getting paid about €2000 a month just for existing.

Sounds a great idea to limit wages of the CEO to 12 times the lowest paid employee.

It'll mean the best CEO's either get paid large bonuses, or leave Swiss companies.

MadsL

Think of the chocolate and watches that would buy.

Tails142

Deleted User wrote: »

Just imagine getting paid about €2000 a month just for existing.

Sounds a great idea to limit wages of the CEO to 12 times the lowest paid employee.

Eh... Irish welfare isn't far off this if you take into account rental support and the other perks you can avail of if you have no income. Medical cards, fuel allowances etc..

Nevermind childrens allowance

Duckworth_Luas

Only the band the Beatles could have been!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRcMYjut4o

PizzamanIRL

That's a good idea, yeah.

donegal.

:

the first month my €2000 comes in im getting one these

EuropeanSon

Tails142 wrote: »

Eh... Irish welfare isn't far off this if you take into account rental support and the other perks you can avail of if you have no income. Medical cards, fuel allowances etc..

Nevermind childrens allowance

It is. Very far off that.

What a load of stupid ideas
See how well the companies run themselves if the pay is rubbish

Tombi!

Tails142 wrote: »

Eh... Irish welfare isn't far off this if you take into account rental support and the other perks you can avail of if you have no income. Medical cards, fuel allowances etc..

Nevermind childrens allowance

That's assuming you're eligible for rent allowance, medical cards, fuel allowance and have kids.

So if you mean it's like the Irish welfare system if the Irish welfare system had people that fit very specific circumstances then you'd be right.

kneemos

What's the cost of living like?

If two grand buys you a happy meal it ain't much.

MonaPizza

bluewolf wrote: »

What a load of stupid ideas
See how well the companies run themselves if the pay is rubbish

Pay? Rubbish?

So if the lowest paid employee is on, say, 20 grand, are you saying that 240k as a salary is "rubbish"?

And I can guarantee you that if the CEO walks because he doesn't like the pay, then someone else will gladly fill the slot.

Amazing how people think that if a lower level employee grumbles about his wages he can fcuk off as someone else will gladly take the job for that wage yet they come up with any old excuse to rail against capping fat-cat salaries.

MonaPizza

MonaPizza wrote: »

Pay? Rubbish?

So if the lowest paid employee is on, say, 20 grand, are you saying that 240k as a salary is "rubbish"?

And I can guarantee you that if the CEO walks because he doesn't like the pay, then someone else will gladly fill the slot.

Amazing how people think that if a lower level employee grumbles about his wages he can fcuk off as someone else will gladly take the job for that wage yet they come up with any old excuse to rail against capping fat-cat salaries.

It depends on what market rates are. And they're obviously higher than that if we're talking about artificial caps.

I'm against capping either salary... no difference there

Someone else may fill the slot. They may well not fill it if they can do a lot better elsewhere with relevant qualifications.

Those who violate the new rules would be subject to fines worth as much as their salaries for six years and prison sentences as long as three years.

Christ, we don't like what a private business chooses to pay its private employees which is already regulated by shareholder storms when required, so we'll help ourselves to their money instead and put people in jail
Couldn't make it up
Who's the fat cats here?

titan18

It's an interesting idea, but considering that doing it would take money out of other areas, it'd probably end up that everyone gets money but with no public healthcare, education etc and everything would be private.

Conmaicne Mara

bluewolf wrote: »

What a load of stupid ideas
See how well the companies run themselves if the pay is rubbish

Yeah coz some Irish companies have been run soooooooooooooo well on high salaries *coughbankscough*.

funt cucker

That idea is ridiculous, look what happened over here for starters, this will drive inflation so far up that it will be like the Mcdonalds ads of the celtic tiger era, pretending to charge you for reading a magazine!

We all laughed at it at the time and whinged about rip off Ireland, seriously it only becomes a rip off when citizens have the money to píss away, this is what drives greed and inflation. Shop owners driving prices up because people can possibly afford it.


Note: Ireland is still a rip off:pac:

paddydriver

Think my brother is now a Swiss citizen, after living there over 20 years and marrying a local, so reckon I will give him a call and see if he can split it with me:P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zru79jcVTt4

About Basic income which is being proposed in Switzerland.

It may be time to consider the idea as mechanisation has rendered people redundant in many manufacturing processes and many jobs have gone to places where the people are so poor that they can live on an income a fraction that anyone in Ireland is willing or able to do so.

Unless you consider sleeping on the factory floor acceptable.

A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

• it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
• it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Liberty and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats, have all been invoked in its favour.

But it is the inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means that has led in the last decade or so to the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations. Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately, and basic income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives: poverty relief and full employment.

There is a wide variety of proposals around. They differ according to the amounts involved, the source of funding, the nature and size of the reductions in other transfers, and along many other dimensions. As far as short-term proposals are concerned, however, the current discussion is focusing increasingly on so-called partial basic income schemes which would not be full substitutes for present guaranteed income schemes but would provide a low - and slowly increasing - basis to which other incomes, including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements, could be added.

Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics. In a few countries some major politicians, including from parties in government, are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it. At the same time, the relevant literature - on the economic, ethical, political and legal aspects - is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea, or just interested in it, in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network

Sky King

bluewolf wrote: »

we'll help ourselves to their money instead and put people in jail :

Looters!

My name is URL

To be fair to the Swiss, they'll probably vote against the proposal. They voted against giving themselves extra holidays not so long ago.

They're not stupid, and aren't led by selfishly minded parochial politics like certain other folks are.

That said, it is an interesting idea.. it'd be great to see what sort of effect that would have on society and businesses, other than the fear-mongering and wild speculations being made by some here.

funt cucker

My name is URL wrote: »

society and businesses, other than the fear-mongering and wild speculations being made by some here.

You might be right URL, the swiss have their thinking caps on most of the time, so it may never turn out like the shenanigans that went on here.

Karl Stein

Corporations are only too happy with laws that insulate them from the free market so they should probably just STFU if the Swiss decide to enact laws that force them to be more ethical with pay.

Herrick

Will someone tell me how exactly they propose to actually fund this system?

What happens if a vast majority decide to not work and just rely on this basic income? How will their government keep paying it?

Sky King

Charlie Rock wrote: »

laws that insulate them from the free market.

funt cucker

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zru79jcVTt4

Unless you consider sleeping on the factory floor acceptable.

We are not quite Foxconn over her yet, but we are well on our way to it. The Jobbridge in this country is sickening. I know people doing 12 hour night shifts for the dole plus €50.

Rewind back a few years and the same positions were offered for €40k plus 33% shift allowance, plus benefits. Now the government are paying up to €10,000 to a company to take somebody off the dole and the government tops their dole up by €50. The slave trade is alive and well over here.

Herrick

Herrick wrote: »

Will someone tell me how exactly they propose to actually fund this system?

What happens if a vast majority decide to not work and just rely on this basic income? How will their government keep paying it?

Don't forget that much of the criminal activity is caused by people with insufficient income (shop lifting and the like) it is extremely expensive to tackle this activity.

When something like 50%* of the wealth is in the hands of less than 1% of the population, you don't have to look far.

*wild guess, I can't be arsed to look it up!

Benny_Cake

As I understand the idea of a basic income, it would replace most social welfare payments and tax-free allowances. I would imagine all income would be taxed progressively, so it's not quite as unaffordable as it might appear. It'll be interesting to see how the Swiss go about this. I know that Switzerland is expensive, but 2500 francs a month seems a little ambitious.

It'd seem to me that it would have the advantage of encouraging people to take up jobs that they wouldn't otherwise take, as well as leading to more family-friendly working hours and a less bureaucratic system of social welfare. There would be no chance of someone being better off on a basic income than if they took a job either - any income earned would be on top of the basic income, even if it's taxed. I read about it a few years ago and I'd love to see it tried somewhere. Hopefully the Swiss have a crack at it.

Karl Stein

Sky King wrote: »

If you're really interested read 'Nanny State Conservatives' by Dean Baker particularly Chapter three 'The secrets of high CEO pay and Other Mysteries of the Corporation'.

Corporations are a great invention of government. They make it possible to raise vast amounts of capital for major business ventures like building car factories, laying telecommunications lines, or operating an airline. Corporations can raise capital far more effectively than business partnerships because the government gives them the privilege of limited liability. This means that the owners of the corporation, its shareholders, only stand to lose what they have invested in a company’s stock. They cannot be held personally liable for any debts of the company if the company ends up in bankruptcy.

deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cns.html#4

The book is free to download and thus exists in the true free market i.e. its not privileged by state granted copyrights.

funt cucker

funt cucker wrote: »

We are not quite Foxconn over her yet, but we are well on our way to it. The Jobbridge in this country is sickening. I know people doing 12 hour night shifts for the dole plus €50.

Rewind back a few years and the same positions were offered for €40k plus 33% shift allowance, plus benefits. Now the government are paying up to €10,000 to a company to take somebody off the dole and the government tops their dole up by €50. The slave trade is alive and well over here.

Precisely, one of the reasons something like this needs to be considered, more money in peoples pockets rather than "resting" in some offshore tax haven's bank account.

KyussBishop

Shareholders have fúck all power to regulate companies; for a lot of companies, the mix of shareholders is usually so diluted, a huge portion of them are 'absentee shareholders' who don't pay attention to anything more than the share price, and it's the board of directors that have greater power over a company.

The board of directors again, are rife with opportunity for corruption, due to lack of transparency and in a lot of cases, more concentration spent on covering the companies ass ('what financial irregularities?'), rather than actually regulating it (beyond 'are we turning a profit? can we make more profit?').


Remember, this is a huge part what drove the property crisis:
- Management/CEO's manufacture imaginary profits, by assisting in blowing a property bubble, using overextended loans with heavily inadequate risk checks (breaching regulations in a lot of cases)
- Board of directors, instead of stamping down on insane lending practices and (often illegal) financial irregularities, like they're supposed to, cover their ass instead

- Board of directors start giving enormous 'executive compensation' to CEO's/management for generating profits, and board of directors start boosting their own compensation for 'doing a good job' (often when doing little-to-no actual work); shareholders also see their share price going up, and are happy to approve the compensation (not realizing the share price increase is unsustainable).
- During this time, the directors, management, and many employees are raking in huge amounts of money in salary/bonuses, while the property market becomes ever more unstable

- The bubble bursts, directors/management walk away from the rubble with their riches, shareholders and the public (who pick up the tab for the mess) are screwed.

Conall Cernach

kneemos wrote: »

What's the cost of living like?

If two grand buys you a happy meal it ain't much.

I had a burger in Switzerland for 26 francs last Summer. Mind you I think the regaulr meal deal thingy in McD's was 8 fr.

Feathers

EuropeanSon wrote: »

It'll mean the best CEO's either get paid large bonuses, or leave Swiss companies.

More likely, it will mean that menial jobs get contracted out to a separate company — know plenty of places that have contract cleaners/security/receptionists already.

Aidric

kneemos wrote: »

What's the cost of living like?

High. Very high.

2500 won't get you far in Switzerland - Rent, bills and groceries would easily sum up to that a month. It's neither here nor there anyway as it's unlikely to pass.

D1stant

Switzerland and Norway are the most expensive countries on earth

Crappy apartment is 1500 Francs per month. Goods are 20-30% more than surrounding countries. A Big Mac is 8 francs

http://www.expatarrivals.com/switzerland/cost-of-living-in-switzerland

Relatively speaking this is not the gravy train it sounds like. Plus they are so rich that there wouldn't be many takers I'd imagine.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2500 won't get you far in Switzerland - Rent, bills and groceries would easily sum up to that a month. It's neither here nor there anyway as it's unlikely to pass.

Lived in Geneva for two years.It's frighteningly expensive.Mandatory health insurance is about 300 a month alone and that's only basic cover,doesn't even cover gp visits.2500 there is nothing and rent rates are crippling.as far as I know the unemployed there get subsidized accommodation anyway.when you become unemployed in Switzerland you claim "chômage" and get 70% or your former salary each month.

funt cucker

smurgen wrote: »

Lived in Geneva for two years.It's frighteningly expensive.Mandatory health insurance is about 300 a month alone and that's only basic cover,doesn't even cover gp visits.2500 there is nothing and rent rates are crippling.as far as I know the unemployed there get subsidized accommodation anyway.when you become unemployed in Switzerland you claim "chômage" and get 70% or your former salary each month.

Nice!

General General

Basques groups/companies have a limit on the multiple of the lowest salary for the highest salary already.

123balltv

So multi -millionaires Shania twain and Tina Turner get that money too :eek:

dxhound2005

smurgen wrote: »

Lived in Geneva for two years.It's frighteningly expensive.Mandatory health insurance is about 300 a month alone and that's only basic cover,doesn't even cover gp visits.2500 there is nothing and rent rates are crippling.as far as I know the unemployed there get subsidized accommodation anyway.when you become unemployed in Switzerland you claim "chômage" and get 70% or your former salary each month.

I couldn't believe that 70% figure otherwise someone earning say €200K could get €140K for doing nothing. So a quick google told me it is limited to a maximum which last year was around €8K.

Very progressive country Switzerland. The last of their cantons finally gave women the vote in 1990 and then only by order of the federal court.

humbert

It's news if they vote for it, until then it's just an indication that a small percentage of the Swiss population are dirty socialists.

Stabshauptmann

MonaPizza wrote: »

Amazing how people think that if a lower level employee grumbles about his wages he can fcuk off as someone else will gladly take the job for that wage yet they come up with any old excuse to rail against capping fat-cat salaries.

Salaries 101:

You pay employees relative to what they contribute to a company's wealth.

The guy earning 20k can be easily replaced, not because there is huge demand for 20k jobs, but because there is huge supply. Hes not a particularly skilled or experienced person.

The CEO however cannot be easily replaced. Yes there is huge demand, but unfortunately small supply. Not everyone has what it takes to run a multi billion euro global company - if you think you have what it takes then go out an do it :-)

KyussBishop

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Salaries 101:

You pay employees relative to what they contribute to a company's wealth.

The guy earning 20k can be easily replaced, not because there is huge demand for 20k jobs, but because there is huge supply. Hes not a particularly skilled or experienced person.

The CEO however cannot be easily replaced. Yes there is huge demand, but unfortunately small supply. Not everyone has what it takes to run a multi billion euro global company - if you think you have what it takes then go out an do it :-)

Not many have the opportunity to develop the skills to run a company in the first place, so there is as much privilege in being able to seek that career path (privilege usually enabled by wealthy family and nepotism), than there is hard work and sweat; the small bussinessman being innovative and making it big, is the exception, compared to all the large well-established corporations.

Doesn't matter the background the CEO's came from though, if they do a good job they do a good job (in a lot of companies, the CEO's/directors look to use the company to general personal profits though, often at the expense of the company/shareholders - which doesn't become apparent until it's too late, and already looted - in some cases never coming to light).

Just don't pretend it's an equal playing field, or a meritocracy; the management structure in companies is a hierarchy, which allows a few to take a position of authority over everyone else in the company - those working in the company, don't get to compete or train for the same roles, and they don't have a vote in the running of the company.

humbert

It's not a question of whether CEOs are worth that much, it's that it should be up to the people who own the bloody company to decide how much to pay the people who work for it (minimum wage being an argument for another day). It's their money.

Stabshauptmann

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not many have the opportunity to develop the skills to run a company in the first place...

So what?

The question is what do you pay a CEO. You pay him/her what the contribution they can make is worth to the company.

I dont argue with the bar man that I dont have the opportunity to brew my own beer, I pay him for the beer and thats that

Karl Stein

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

You pay employees relative to what they contribute to a company's wealth.

Ah yes, the voice of the conservative nanny stater:

The conservative nanny state crew wants us to believe that it was their incredible skill and hard work that allowed these CEOs to earn such vast sums. The more obvious answer is that badly designed rules of corporate governance allow CEOs to pilfer large amounts of money from the corporations they manage, because there is no one with both the interest and power to challenge them.

deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cns.html#4

Stabshauptmann

Sir, you do not understand the term "nanny state"

Karl Stein

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Sir, you do not understand the term "nanny state"

The above reply has no substance.

Regardless, I understand how the nanny state works very very well.

I know it makes people uncomfortable that their 'Capitalist' sacred cows get disembowelled but there you go.

Edit. Here's a little substance for whoever's interested.

The wage gaps between rich and poor countries exist not mainly because of differences in individual productivity but mainly because of immigration control. If there were free migration, most workers in rich countries could be, and would be, replaced by workers from poor countries. In other words, wages are largely politically determined. The other side of the coin is that poor countries are poor not because of their poor people, many of whom can out-compete their counterparts in rich countries, but because of their rich people, most of whom cannot do the same. This does not, however, mean that the rich in the rich countries can pat their own backs for their individual brilliance. Their high productivities are possible only because of the historically inherited collective institutions on which they stand. We should reject the myth that we all get paid according to our individual worth, if we are to build a truly just society.

23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism

Ha-Joon Chang

laugh

Paying this will keep the cost of living high in Switzerland and make it unattractive for immigration, illegal or otherwise.