HOME 
AWARDS 
13-06-2016, 11:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 13-06-2016, 12:00 PM by yaduvanshi.)
Why Switzerland said no to its government's free pay offer of Rs 1.7 lakh a month
In a referendum, the Swiss have rejected 76.9% to 23.1% a proposal for the government to pay every adult citizen a minimum income of 2,500 francs a month and every child 625 francs. That such a vote took place is a significant development, indicative of the changes taking place in society.
The reason cited in support of the proposal is that automation, robots and globalization are taking away jobs and giving people a minimum living wage, regardless of what they do, is likely to free up people to pursue their passion, delivering them from the drudgery of struggling to earn at least a subsistence.
The government was against the proposal, arguing that it would put too much of a burden on the exchequer. the economisthad raised several additional objections: it would kill work as we know it, force all countries to stop immigration (you might be able to shell out enough to provide every citizen with a basic minimum income but not enough to extend the benefit to foreigners drawn to the country by the dole). The Economist also pointed out that the dystopia in which robots and artificial intelligence take away all human work is still a work in progress that might or might not materialize in the distant future.
More Swiss citizens bought the government's arguments than of the proponents of the basic minimum income. This reflects a fairly advanced level of political involvement by the voting populace. They took into account the cost of the proposal, the alternate ways of financing it, including additional taxation and cuts in existing social sector and welfare payments, and, on balance, decided against the proposal.
Typically, the popular response to single-issue referenda tend to be decided on the basis of appeal of the question put to vote, regardless of its forward and backward linkages. Suppose you seek opinion on whether to eliminate all taxes, the Indian polity is guaranteed to vote yes. Should the government grant free power education healthcare and a minimum basic income to all? The answer would again be a resounding yes. How do you reconcile the two? That is the job of the government, isn't it? The Swiss might make cuckoo clocks, but they do not live in any cuckoo land.
It is quite remarkable that the demand for a state-funded basic minimum income for all mobilized enough support to be put to a referendum. The demand resonates with the original communist vision in which society provides everyone with what he or she needs and everyone contributes to society what he or she can, without having to make a commodity out of his/her capacity to produce and create.
As capitalism advanced and the division of labour became ever more intricate and extensive, drawing and intertwining larger and larger sections of people into the process of producing and consuming goods and services, production became ever more socialized. Larger and larger shares of social output had to be gathered by the government and redeployed to meet society's ever more complex collective requirements, whether defence, education, healthcare, R&D regulation or social security. More than half of society's yearly output is channeled through the state in Scandinavian countries. Around 40% GDP in Britain. About a third in the US, where the people are still relatively sceptical of the state.
In India, the share of government spending in GDP is some 26%, the Centre and the states put together. We might have socialist as a defining adjective in the Constitution but to achieve a degree of socialization of production and consumption already achieved in advanced countries, we have to develop our capitalism a great deal more.
In a referendum, the Swiss have rejected 76.9% to 23.1% a proposal for the government to pay every adult citizen a minimum income of 2,500 francs a month and every child 625 francs. That such a vote took place is a significant development, indicative of the changes taking place in society.
The reason cited in support of the proposal is that automation, robots and globalization are taking away jobs and giving people a minimum living wage, regardless of what they do, is likely to free up people to pursue their passion, delivering them from the drudgery of struggling to earn at least a subsistence.
The government was against the proposal, arguing that it would put too much of a burden on the exchequer. the economisthad raised several additional objections: it would kill work as we know it, force all countries to stop immigration (you might be able to shell out enough to provide every citizen with a basic minimum income but not enough to extend the benefit to foreigners drawn to the country by the dole). The Economist also pointed out that the dystopia in which robots and artificial intelligence take away all human work is still a work in progress that might or might not materialize in the distant future.
More Swiss citizens bought the government's arguments than of the proponents of the basic minimum income. This reflects a fairly advanced level of political involvement by the voting populace. They took into account the cost of the proposal, the alternate ways of financing it, including additional taxation and cuts in existing social sector and welfare payments, and, on balance, decided against the proposal.
Typically, the popular response to single-issue referenda tend to be decided on the basis of appeal of the question put to vote, regardless of its forward and backward linkages. Suppose you seek opinion on whether to eliminate all taxes, the Indian polity is guaranteed to vote yes. Should the government grant free power education healthcare and a minimum basic income to all? The answer would again be a resounding yes. How do you reconcile the two? That is the job of the government, isn't it? The Swiss might make cuckoo clocks, but they do not live in any cuckoo land.
It is quite remarkable that the demand for a state-funded basic minimum income for all mobilized enough support to be put to a referendum. The demand resonates with the original communist vision in which society provides everyone with what he or she needs and everyone contributes to society what he or she can, without having to make a commodity out of his/her capacity to produce and create.
As capitalism advanced and the division of labour became ever more intricate and extensive, drawing and intertwining larger and larger sections of people into the process of producing and consuming goods and services, production became ever more socialized. Larger and larger shares of social output had to be gathered by the government and redeployed to meet society's ever more complex collective requirements, whether defence, education, healthcare, R&D regulation or social security. More than half of society's yearly output is channeled through the state in Scandinavian countries. Around 40% GDP in Britain. About a third in the US, where the people are still relatively sceptical of the state.
In India, the share of government spending in GDP is some 26%, the Centre and the states put together. We might have socialist as a defining adjective in the Constitution but to achieve a degree of socialization of production and consumption already achieved in advanced countries, we have to develop our capitalism a great deal more.
