Grundeinkommen

Submit your video and begin subtitling.

Welcome to dotSUB!

Any Video Any Language

On dotSUB you can view, upload, transcribe, and translate any video into and from any language.

To get started and create your own subtitles, click on the yellow "get started" button below!

Duration: 1 hour, 38 minutes and 45 seconds

Year: 2008

Country: Germany

Language: German

License: CC - Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives

Genre: Documentary

Producer: Enno Schmidt & Daniel Häni

Director: Enno Schmidt & Daniel Häni

Views: 25,581 (18,386 embedded)

Posted by: rzelnik on Dec 29, 2008

„Ein Einkommen ist wie Luft unter den Flügeln!“ so beginnt der Film. Sollte das für jeden bedingungslos sein? Kann es das geben: ein wirtschaftliches Bürgerrecht? Der Film ist packend, bewegt, berührt und kommt gerade da auf den Punkt, wo es um reine Vernunft geht. Er lässt die Verhältnisse - und die Aufgabe des Geldes - unter einem neuen Licht sehen. http://www.grundeinkommen.tv/

Report this video as offensive

Embed this player (420x347)
Embed a smaller player (320x272)
Advanced Embedding Options
Embedding Options

Size:

Language:

Embed Code
Invite a user to dotSUB

Your invitation to join dotSUB was successful

There was an error inviting that user to dotSUB

Video Transcription

Show in new window

Basic income
A cultural impulse
An essay by
Daniel Häni and Enno Schmidt
An income is like air under the wings.
and the basic income makes an income a civil right.
Welcome – on the Earth.
Today everyone has an income - more or less.
Without an income people could not survive.
The question is: on what terms does one have an income?
Under what conditions do people receive their income?
4 out of 10 Germans earn their income
by doing paid work
work which you do in order to make ends meet,
gainful employment.
Just under 3 out of 10 get their income from their relatives.
These are mostly children and teenagers.
2 out of 10 live off a pension.
And less than 1 out of 10 live from unemployment benefit or other social benefits.
All incomes must be generated.
But only 41% of the population earn their income as a result of work.
The rest receive other forms of income.
So called transfered income
which is not directly linked to work.
So the concept of a basic income should therefore not be such an alien one.¾
What is alien to us is the fact that it comes unconditionally.
But to what extent is our society ready for an unconditional basic income?
If we do not want to be unrealistic,
then we must assume
that the labour market
will not be able to meet the needs
of everyone in society in the future.
If we leave out the second option,
the option of a basic income,
then we would be forced
to stake everything
on the idea of "economic growth",
at any cost.
These are the facts of real politics today.
Across the entire political spectrum from far right to far left
everyone is calling for economic growth.
This means that people think in terms of quantity,
and suppress any chances of
developing new organizational models that focus on the quality of life
for our society.
However, economic growth no longer means
an increase in job opportunities.
What it boils down to is in fact quite the opposite.
However, a vital requirement for economic growth
is the existence of purchasing power.
This means people must have money in their pockets.
What does Klaus Wellershof, chief economist of the world's biggest asset management firms
and one of the biggest banks in the world think of an unconditional basic income?
An unqualified support for all?
This is a principle that I believe will
without doubt assert itself over time, indeed I believe it is a necessity,
however it faces many hurdles
before it can be implemented.
What could these demanding situations be?
Perhaps the challenge to maintain the number of jobs?
All politicians are in favour of this.
But is their prime concern really "work" as such,
or is it tax revenues?
Isn't their real concern to avoid an increase in the number of peopel claiming social benefits
and a dramatic escalation in state expenditure?
However, it is not the "nasty state"
that causes this explosion of costs.
On the contrary the rising costs are the product of a success story.
The logical consequence of the success story is rationalization.
This is what is happening in our own back yard.
There is a big question mark over the future of this success story.
What would you work if your income was covered?
And the concept of a basic income is part and parcel of a possible answer.
There are various models of a basic income.
But they all meet the definitions of the Network for a Basic Income:
A basic income is an income that is unconditional
and granted to every member of a political community.
It comprises 4 criteria
Secure existence and allow social participation.
Provide an individual rights claim.
Payable without means tested verification.
Not represent a compulsion to work.
But don't get carried away with the wrong impression.
A basic income doesn't mean more money for everyone.
There is no new money
but it involves a redistribution of existing income.
Any income which derives from work will decrease.
The overall amount of income within society will remain the same,
but what will change is its composition.
The basic income is a different type of income.
It is not a minimum wage.
Nor is it a payment for anything.
It is not tied to any work.
On the contrary, it is paid to an individual - through whatever changes that individual undergoes.
As opposed to Communism which suffocates the individual
and Market Liberalism which wants to leave the individual alone,
the Basic income facilitates a safeguard to
maximise the freedom with which the individual can make decisions.
This is only possible with a guaranteed income.
It must be sufficiently high
to allow people not to work if they so choose.
It is the possibility of being able to say no to paid work that really
allows people in employment and those not in employment to consider each other as equals.
Most of those relying on social benefits today,
would no longer be dependent with the Basic income.
The Basic income replaces governmental aid money to a certain degree.
Only where social benefits are needed in addition to this
do the payments remain as they are.
Only those with less now would actually have more money in their pockets with a basic income
These are mostly children and youths, which means families.
Furthermore those receiving too low pension rates,
those in positions of unstable work and self employment, who work themselves poor.
The Basic income terminates poverty
and stabilises the middle socio-economic spectrum with a secure foundation.
It alleviates the fear of aging.
It is not money given by one party to another, for whom they would then lay down laws.
It is not a form of long term aid for those in need, but a perpective and for all.
Basic income does not assume the ideal human being.
Neither does it solve the problems.
- Not with money.
But it allows more solutions to be found - by people.
Thomas Paine is the founder of the Human rights
and one of the founding fathers of the United States of America.
"United States of America", this name comes from him.
with "Common Sense"
he began the declaration of independence of the North American colonies
from the British Kingdom.
His ideas had a great influence on the first Democratic Constitution of the World.
"We hold this truth for agreed
that all people were made equal, that they were imbued by their maker
with certain inherent rights,
among which are life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness".
"Rights of Man", Human Rights.
An incredible notion at that time.
And also today.
Equal rights on the basis of being human!
– What rubbish:
Aren't rights only for those who own property?
All others wouldn't know what to do with rights - apart from getting cheeky!
Human rights?
Of course that would also entail abolishing slavery.
and then who would do the work?
who would do all the unloved, hard labour,
that is neither paid nor appreciated?
Such fears can exist today.
For example with the basic income there is the fear
that the economy would collapse and that chaos would ensue.
However, those who first claimed the earth was round had a much harder time.
The Church was adamant that the earth was flat
and surrounded by the waters of chaos
Anyone who got too close to the edge could fall off the earth's surface.
Over this world arched stationary firmaments through which the stars took their course.
and beyond that the spheres where the powers that be resided,
that gave the people fear and hope.
today thats how we see money and the economy.
Our conception of the world, of order and of security
used to be derived from the idea that the earth was flat.
and so in its own way every age a new says that the world is flat and only one stands above it.
how would that ever work, a round earth?
When it was accepted that the earth is round,
it was still thought that the earth is the centre of the universe.
This made it highly complicated to establish the laws governing the movement of planets.
It always depends on the angle from which you're looking at it.
The same thing applies with the basic income.
It gets complicated when I am unaware of my own movements.
One soon hits difficulties if one accepts the ideas of the status quo
and sees only what is, packaged in our ideologies.
It is easier when one starts with the human - and from what is to be.
every system proclaims its own unity and can not make itself into another out of its own accord.
Only the Human can do that.
"The debate surrounding the basic income
is currently taking place in Germany, Austria and Switzerland."
"I think that the time is ripe for this debate."
"The basic income would restore human dignity."
"And it doesn't depend altruism in society."
"Most importantly, the basic income would lead to
an escalation of the existing social tensions."
"So, many people who are employed don't actually want to work.
We react to this by saying, "they're taking our jobs."
And there are unemployed people who want to work.
So it is an amazing step forward, for a system to give people
the choice whether or not to work."
"But to me, when I think about it, the most
interesting implication of the basic income is that when
I die, I would no longer be able to say, "I couldn't do what I wanted
to do because I couldn't afford to."
From background: "Yes, exactly. No more excuses."
"How many of you are only studying because your parents want you to?"
What kind of a society do we want to live in?
"So many new intiatives would emerge."
"Well, I'm sceptical.
I'm very sceptical.
Here's why: If a basic income was available to everyone, I believe that
people would be less motivated to go out and work.
There would be no motivation."
"Ordinary jobs make us ill, because the time pressure
is constantly increasing. This is easy proof with statistics."
"Essentially, the basic income would produce a freer society.
That's the crucial point.
It would remove our dependence on wages and would lead to more independence."
"At some point you need to address the question, 'how can we finance the basic income?'
In the end, that question must be answered."
"As an economist, I can assure you that it's possible."
From background: "Yes."
"It's unrealistic to expect people to be able to handle a basic income.
That's the big problem.
This is the major stumbling block.
It isn't the question of finance.
It has been shown that we can finance the basic income.
Freedom is the difficult part.
The questions of finance have been answered.
The issue is whether people can handle freedom.
There are plenty of gloomy predictions for the 21st century.
The papers are full of them, and the people believe them.
The basic income is one positive vision for the 21st century.
It isn't a global issue that we
can just watch as spectators.
It affects everybody because
it enables us to do the things we really want to do
and frees us from having to do the
things that we don't want to do.
But wouldn't many people just stay at home?
Would people still go out to work?
Surely everything would grind to a halt, like in a strike.
Would managers be on permanent leave?
Where would the sense of duty be?
It would disappear.
Nobody would pull their weight.
Nobody would really work hard anymore.
Would people still go to university?
Would the basic income destroy the incentive to work for higher qualification?
Necessity is the mother of invention. The basic income would remove the need to work.
And we already have a shortage of skilled labour!
How could the economy possible survive?
"What infuriates me most about the basic income is that it displays such a lack
for what an economy is supposed to do.
The economy is part of human society,
it enables our way of life
and puts all sorts of things at our disposal.
This way of thinking about the economy is completely gone.
The economy is an independent actor, it has totally different goals to human society,
it barely has anything to do with human life, and it
even has the capacity to destroy human life."
"In spite of all that I'm almost convinced.
We need a system
in which performance gives benefits: Good work must be paid for.
And a system in which everybody receives a basic income or is generally paid
equally according to ordinary principles of even distribution
would in the end lead to
the collapse of the competitive orientation in our society."
Paid work in Germany in the year 2001 -
- 56 billion hours
Unpaid work -
- 96 billion hours
in the private and domestic sphere
and in civil commitments.
A basic income would by no means stand in the way of paid work.
The real question is perhaps how it would in practice
if people are no longer constrained by money so much
in their jobs or in society generally,
and if people are no longer as dependent on their jobs.
So what would determine our conduct?
Would everyone just go to the swimming pool?
Would anyone collect the rubbish?
Would pensioners have to look after parks?
Would the basic income undermine the competitive spirit, the feeling
of independence, and the sense of satisfaction at one's own achievements?
And wouldn't it just be boring if everyone had a basic income?
It's a system for hippies and people educated in alternative schools,
who believe in the goodness of human nature.
Humans are also animals!
Humans don't want a basic income - we're competitive, aggressive and violent.
Lets just wait and see what the market brings.
From the outside, looking in.
That's how it is for many people.
No access to the laid table.
Would the basic income bring people together?
Or would it increase the disparity between rich and poor?
Would society be divided into two - those who would continue to dominate the economy, with their
lucrative jobs and private education, and those who depend on the basic income,
who would spend their time pursuing hobbies,
work for 2 Euros per hour to earn a bit more,
and wouldn't stand in the way of the real driving forces of the economy.
A Basic income can of course be misimplemented
If it is set at an amount
that is not enough to live from.
while also cancelling all social benefits
that means work is a compulsion for all
not out of personal stimulus.
Getting paid wages like in China and without the basic income
giving you the chance to deny an offered job.
If receiving payment is made more complicated by too many institutions to get it from
exceptions, allocations and conditions,
you end up in the situation of today's system - only worse.
A Basic income can be misused by
setting it too low
therewith cutting all social benefits
and then also making it conditional
"He who does not want to work shall not eat"
said Saint Paul.
He meant those who don't contribute to the community.
"If they feel their salvation is so imminent" so Paulus
"that they leave working be"
"then they should also leave eating be"
This man still had humour. Others did not.
here pupils are pulled
under the rafters over the laid table and recieve nothing.
Because they worked too little.
food deprivation.
All rules become terrible,
when they are implemented mindlessly.
The most important objective of the debates surrounding the basic income is
challenge outdated ways of thinking.
For example the idea that
"Only those who work have the right to eat".
The debates surrounding basic income must dispense with this idea
that only through the pursuit of some line of work is one of service to society.
Indeed there are types of work where totally the opposite is the case.
"He who does not want to work, shall not eat."
That's how we learned it.
The artist Joseph Beuys wrote a new formula
"He who does not want to think, is out".
We have no shortage of food or goods in general.
The real question is whether we have the right quantity of work.
The amount of work in manufacturing and in production
is, thank God, getting less and less!
The function of the economy is to free people from work!
The function of the economy is to free people from work!
You won't read that in the papers.
Make people free to do what?
This is another issue which enterprises aren't prepared for.
Nobody likes to make a worker redundant.
But it happens anyway.
If making workers redundant was seen as an inevitability,
and also as an objective,
something else would be made clear.
To free people from work also means: to free people to work.
Only leisure and holiday 'on the other side of the fence':
is the way of thinking resulting out of dependence.
What sort of jobs are we currently investing in?
"All of the investment put into industry is designed to bring about rationalisation.
We are constantly developing new ways to reduce the amount of labour needed.
No manager asks himself : "What can I do to increase the amount of labour I need?"
What can I do to increase the amount of labour I need?
The task of the economy is to satisfy demand.
In the same way that we all do as individuals.
So it's task is not to create work.
Everybody has goals, questions and objectives
and some people don't pursue them, because what they would like to do wouldn't be paid.
"The problem we have in society today is
that many people who have a job
in fact only work
in order to have an income.
They work is simply a means to an end:
to provide a source of income.
The work isn't an end in itself.
They see no point in the work they're doing.
This is a problem for society
because it is a major cause of frustration and long term illness.
In Germany, 12% of those in employment are completely satisfied with their jobs.
That's something over one in ten.
More than half, 54%
are somewhat unsatisfied with their jobs
but also see positive aspects.
And 34% of those in employment
are totally unsatisfied with their jobs.
That's about one in three.
The fight for work is in fact a fight for an income.
And the fight for work stands in the way of the reduction in jobs.
My work is what I am.
There can be no right to an allocated job.
Nor is there a right to duty.
And there is no right to be bought.
The right to a job can only be the right of an individual to
do the work that he wants to do.
This is work which is not allocated and which nobody can take away from him.
This version of a right to work depends on a right to an income.
"We have jobs and there are job centres
but there's no income office. It makes no sense"
The young man's point is
that although he does a lot of work, he has no income.
What would the impact of the right to an income be on society?
Ueli Maeder, a Swiss sociologist, outlines some of the key aspects.
The one sided and narrow minded outlook in all sectors of employment would be
replaced by a focus on the key question: 'What is important in life?'
This would give people strength.
It would lead to more security.
There would be an increase in creativity
and in general satisfaction.
People would be under less pressure to elbow their way forward.
And they would experience fewer situations in which
it would be to their advantage
to make a profit at someone else's expense,
a phenomenon which our current system produces through the extreme competition,
that undermines solidarity.
This is a sociological perspective.
But how would someone who has just returned from work react,
hearing about the idea for the first time?
"So it would mean that everyone would have the same income?"
"No, everyone would keep their earnings as they do now.
But everyone would get a basic income as a minimum."
"But only if they work?"
"No, there would be no conditions."
Project Manager: "No conditions?"
Man carrying out the survey: "Everyone would get it"
Project Manager: "But surely this would be problematic for the motivation to work.
Why would anyone go out to work if they had a basic income?"
Man carrying out the survey: "How would it be for you?"
Project Manager: "I would still want to go out to work.
I mean, there's no point just staying at home. I love my work, I enjoy it,
but surely it would be impossible to get most people to go to work."
Would you still go out to work
if you had a basic income?
Spontaneously, 60% say, "Yes, just as I do now."
Around 30% reply, "Yes, but no longer full time."
Or they say, "I would do something different."
And about 10% are completely open, saying
"First I'd take a break and I'd see.
Perhaps I'd travel, look after others, go back to studying..."
Do you think most people would still go out to work
if they had a basic income?
Approximately 80% say
"No, it would probably be impossible to get most people to go to work."
What kind of work do you need to be 'made to go to?'
Not your own of course.
You motivate yourself to go to work.
What makes you go out to work?
It's the routine of daily life.
It's child labour for example.
It used to be completely normal.
We still buy things produced by child labour.
You don't really know exactly anyway - it comes from the Far East.
That's where menial work is done these days.
Or it's done by foreigners working here.
They work without papers, contracts or any form of security.
Do they get sick pay?
Menial work is terrible
because of the fact that it is undervalued,
because it is badly paid, and because the working conditions are appalling.
Menial work often involves cleaning up after others.
Who makes this work unpleasant?
With a basic income, you can say no to this sort of work.
So who would do the unpleasant menial jobs?
There are three possibilities:
1. Give the workers better pay improve their working conditions.
2. Automation and rationalisation.
3. Do it yourself.
An Actress: Imagine someone working at the till in a supermarket.
Maybe she doesn't really enjoy her work.
Would she still go out to work if she had a basic income?
Well, let's ask the lady working at the till.
"Well...yes.
I'd still go to work
because I can't imagine just sitting around at home doing nothing,
even if I had this basic income thing of 1000 euros -
Well, it's just a figure, 1000 euros.
It could also be more.
Or less?
Woman working at the till: First of all I'd have to admit, it wouldn't be enough for me -
Hence the name: Basic income.
It should be enough to cover basic necessities and to make a certain amount of culture accessible.
As is the case today, most people will still want to earn more than the minimum.
But back to the woman working at the till.
Not exactly a dream job.
Woman working at the till: "People always think that my work only involves sitting at the till.
But I get to meet lots of people
and my experience depends on how I act.
I'm a very open-minded person,
I don't have any problems, and I actually really enjoy working here."
What work would you do if you had a guaranteed basic income?
The same but better!
In one way, things wouldn't change that much.
Woman working at the till: I can't imagine life without work.
It would be too boring.
But my situation could change.
I could travel and see things, something I can't do now
because I have to work.
And work is so stressful – it's difficult for anyone to find work.
There are hardly any vacancies anywhere.
If we had a basic income, we wouldn't have that sort of stress.
Angelika Tischer: And if we didn't have to drill into pupils the idea
that whatever the cost, they have to find the career that suits them at
– something we know has never been possible for all –
this deceitful situation ?? ...
Philip Kovce: Yes, the idea of the basic income is particularly interesting for young people,
as we see that in schools today,
many pupils suffer from a real fear about their future.
They start preparing for their careers at school and often
choose something by default, out of fear that they could end up with nothing.
With the basic income, I see the opportunity and the possibility that people can
do what they want to do and what they excel in.
Amael Kienlen: I see a crisis linked to this - a crisis of purpose.
Roland Huegli: There's a time and place for thinking things over.
And what would the basic income mean for work?
Roland Huegli: You would divide up the work between more people. This would make it more enjoyable too.
And what do you mean by a 'crisis of purpose'?
Amael Kienlen: Well, I believe that to a great extent, we live under an illusion.
We pursue our lives at the expense of nature, of future generations,
and of our...partners.
We don't want to admit that other people do things for us
and that we're indebted to the people around us.
We don't recognise our dependency or our community.
So much for our sense of brotherhood.
And equality?
In a democracy?
Katja Kipping: It seems to me that the basic income would also make our society more democratic.
It is more difficult to coerce people if their material needs are taken care of.
And this enables the establishment of a more democratic society
from which all benefit - rich and poor.
And what about art?
Tony Rizzi: Even when I am not working,
when I am not actively working on a piece,
I am still working.
That's the difficult issue for an artist:
Are you paid for the time in which
you're not working,
but you're gathering ideas
for a new project,
as opposed to the time
in which you're actually in the studio,
working on a piece that has been commissioned?
How can you afford to keep yourself
in a position in which you can be inspired?
Life is art in practice!
And how would be for a mother to be?
Dominique Luedi: Yes, it would great. A basic income would enable me to look after the baby
in the way I would like, without having a guilty conscience.
And I would be able to choose which work I would like to do,
rather than being at the mercy of the employment agency.
Yes, I think it would be very good - especially in this sort of situation.
And, with a basic income, the child
can move out sooner once it is grown up.
Is it even possible to grow up with a basic income?
If you know that your income is guaranteed,
how does the basic income relate to growing up?
Amael Kienlein: I would have got through my rebel stage much faster.
I would have accepted integration or a place in society far more easily,
as the existential cost would have been less.
I wouldn't have been so scared of having to do without the most important things.
Renate Strub: The basic income would have a strong impact on growing up,
and the basic income could resolve many of the issues.
Goetz Werner: We have to feel increasingly responsible for everything that happens in the world around us.
The world has got so much smaller - it's impossible to isolate yourself today.
The important thing is for people to first of all become aware of the distinction between
working, and having an income. And secondly, to realise
that the point of an income is to enable them to work,
rather than the income being the reason for working.
Personally, I see the basic income as a sort of Archimedian point,
from which many other questions will follow.
However, a great movement will not be possible if at the same time
we try to implement the basic income.
We will only make progress
if we can mobilise the power of the individual.
It will depend on the power of the individual.
For centuries, the hope that man would be able to fly was utopian.
The attempts of those who tried showed that it was impossible.
Today we take flying for granted.
The same thing goes for the right to vote.
How could society function
if every Tom, Dick and Harry had the vote?
How could the simple citizen
with his narrow horizons
and his inability to see beyond his personal interests,
know what would be good for the state?
The next issue was that not only men are citizens
but women too.
But women are far too emotional.
They need to be protected from getting
all muddled up with decision making.
And who would do the housework?
These same old arguments are now directed towards the basic income.
In Switzerland, women only got the vote in 1971.
Three years after the first moon landing.
And before this, nobody thought it possible
that this change in the system of power could be made.
All of these things which supposedly can't work actually work pretty well.
The citizen was no longer merely
ruled by the state. It was the other way round.
Every individual had political sovereignty and had power of the state,
exercised through elections.
With a basic income, work is no longer just what the market wants it to be,
and the individual is no longer just there for the economy. It's the other way round.
Every individual has economic sovereignty and work is
what the individual wants it to be,
having a basic income
which everyone is entitled to.
As Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII, Thomas Moore
opposed the injustice and immorality of the monarchy,
and was beheaded as a result.
In 1935 he was made a saint.
And in 2000, Pope John Paul II
made him patron saint of politicians and rulers.
Thomas Moore wrote 'Utopia',
a travel journal from a distant island on which there was a better life.
Other authors copied his idea.
Since the publication of this book we talk of things being 'utopian'.
The Greek 'U-Topos' means 'the non place'.
The idea of a basic income is to found in utopian Renaissance thought.
A utopia defines the
state in which you are in.
Every future society puts ideals, previously thought of as utopian, into practice.
To clarify,
I say what I see, what I personally think,
and what I consider to be true.
And I make my thoughts known to all.
Each time has got its own new age of reason.
What does this depend on?
Daniele Ganser: The ability of the individual to think and to analyse is very important.
When a traditional way of thinking,
inherited from parents, teachers,
priests or doctors, is challenged
or proven to be false or limited in validity,
you quickly need to find a new approach,
and come to terms with it.
This means that you learn to believe in what you think.
If you want to climb a mountain, you have to think of getting up early.
You have to be at the top by midday
so that you don't have to come down in the dark and cold.
Anyone from Switzerland knows that.
In terms of oil consumption, we have kept on increasing,
without thinking about what we'll do when it runs out.
We will soon have reached 'peak oil' - maximum oil production.
From that point onwards we will have less and less oil.
In the same way, full employment could only be maintained temporarily,
and now it has passed it has become obsolete.
In 1995, Jeremy Rifkin, a researcher concerned with issues of future development,
predicted the extent to which full employment would disappear.
'By the year 2050, perhaps 5% of the adult population will be necessary
to keep the traditional industries up and running.
In all countries, farms, factories and offices with virtually no labour involved will be the norm.'
Rifkin's predictions are disputed, but he hasn't just taken figures out of thin air.
In 1982, the USA produced 75 million tons of steel.
300 000 people were involved in the process.
20 years later, 100 million tons were produced,
and only a quarter of the labour was necessary.
Of course, new jobs have been created.
Perhaps a couple of hundred jobs in consultancy and the hi-tech sector.
This isn't only the case in traditional sectors of production.
The same thing goes for many parts of the service sector.
The Net Bank is an extreme example
but it illustrates this development.
It only needs one tenth of the workforce
of a conventional bank
to deal with the same number of customers.
This development isn't only a feature of industrial countries.
On a general and world wide scale,
the amount of necessary labour is
falling in relation to productivity.
Adrienne Goehler: Creativity is the raw material of the 21st century.
Adrienne Goehler: In future, jobs will be very much like those of
artists and people working in the media today:
independent, sometimes little and sometimes a lot of pay, sometimes more and sometimes less work, sometimes working alone and sometimes in a team,
usually temporary and often done at home.
Daniele Ganser: The new era will demand that we do not let ourselves be steered by fear, greed or hate,
but that we live according to our highest ideals, to the best of our ability.
100 years ago, someone
working in agriculture
produced enough for 3 more people.
Today a farmer produces enough for 120 people.
We have explained why this is.
This is how it is and will be almost everywhere.
Today a human being can produce 100 times more than he could 100 years ago.
(add-on: Technological innovations replace a lot of our work.)
These innovations were the dreams and goals of the generations before us.
What are the current dreams and aims?
To simply continue as we are now,
letting progression become regression for more and more people?
Back to the prime concern being simply to survive?
As if we have no more need for new ideas?
Technological innovations seem to work of their own accord.
It is very different for social innovations.
Do we need to reach a period of crisis before these can be brought about?
If the mind stops, the body goes backwards.
Social change needs a different strength to the sort
that drives machines.
While technology seems to progress smoothly, social developments have more of a bumpy ride.
How is it with the welfare state?
Faust
Mephistopheles: If you want to understand and describe a living thing,
first you have to force out its spirit.
Then you have the material pieces.
But you won't have the soul (basic income).
Schueller: Just can't quite understand you.
Schueller: It all makes me dizzy, as though I had a great wheel turning in my head.
The misunderstanding begins,
when someone goes to work and thinks
that because he receives an income, he must be doing it for himself.
But everyone gets an income,
because everyone needs one.
Everyone depends on other people's services.
If pay was directly linked to work,
machines should get the most pay .
However, the people
who are made redundant by machines
still need an income.
A basic income does not do away with all paid employment,
but it prevents it from being more or less universal as it is now.
It creates more scope for sincerity.
And the significance lies not only in its function.
In Switzerland, just under 50 years ago, the cost of a washing machine was 3550 Francs.
That was a lot of money.
The same washing machine today, after 50 years of refining, costs 3,195 Francs.
Thus the price has stayed approximately the same.
But 50 years ago, 1 Franc was woth 3 times as much as it is today.
That means the washing machine costs only a third
of what it cost 50 years ago.
50 years ago, a haircut for men cost about SF3.50. Today it is about 40 Francs.
This means that where methods have been improved,
where technology has been implemented and where a lot less human power is needed than before,
the prices have decreased.
Where this is not the case, for example at the hairdressers, they have risen.
Manual labour has become expensive.
This is because people need an income
and because they pay tax as well.
This means that a hairdresser does not have more purchasing power than he used to.
But in comparing prices one can see
where and to what extent rationalisation has taken place
and what rationalisation means for us.
If the washing machine had increased in price as much as the haircut
it would now cost 40,000 Francs.
Bodo von Plato: Without recognising what the washing machine does for us,
namely far more than just washing the laundry,
it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not
the basic income is a cultural stimulus.
212 years ago, Thomas Paine had already proposed
a basic income in his work entitled 'Agrarian Justice'.
He used the following justification.
We are all born as equals, and nature provides for all.
Every newborn child has a right to a piece of land off which he can live.
If all the land has already been divided up between a few individuals
who consider it their property,
then a social contract must be agreed.
This social contract is a basic income for those individuals
who don't have their own land
and who are therefore unable to provide for themselves.
Since then there has been a change of wind.
Today, even the land owner is unable to provide for himself.
It is better for all concerned if somebody else manufactures the tractor for me
and I don't fertilise the field for subsistence use.
What I produce is consumed by other people.
Self sufficiency means
growing your own vegetables and living off what
you can produce.
Today, we think we are self sufficient,
but in reality this is an illusion.
We depend on imports.
This means that my work is done for other people
and the things I depend on have been produced by other people.
The use of money makes this system work.
Work translates into value
when cheese is passed over the counter and money goes in the other direction.
The fact that we have a salary makes us think that we're still self sufficient.
We are paid for what we do, so we think that we do our work for ourselves.
This is a Sufi legend about the difference between heaven and hell:
A good meal has been prepared in hell.
Long spoons have been provided
and everybody takes one.
The same thing takes place in heaven.
A good meal has been prepared, spoons have been provided
and everybody takes one.
In a free trade system dependent on importation and exportation, my work goes to feed others.
I am dependent on other people's initiative for my own consumption.
But initiative cannot be bought, it can only be enabled.
Hans Stallkamp: And in this paradigm shift it must surely be shameful
if the people who work for us are condemned
to work like slaves in order to survive.
Klaus Wellershof: To me, what characterises modern times the way in which individualism has come to dominate society.
People have their own goals and aspirations,
and of course they try to find the means to achieve them.
And of course here, money plays a huge role in the world of work.
Money is seen as the means to achieving freedom,
and I think this is issue that we should focus on.
The tragedy and irony of the current system
is that many people don't make it,
and become enslaved by money. The obsession with money
leads to them losing their original intention and determination to be free.
What does it mean to be 'enslaved by money'?
It means that you rate all activity in terms of money,
as though money was its sole value.
It is when you think that the importance of money is its ability to get you more money,
more power over other people's money and over their lives.
The slaves of money enslave others through the power that they give to money.
With the basic income, a proportion of the money in the country
would be allocated democratically to each individual, as a means to achieving freedom.
Money is man's servant.
Would this result in better working conditions globally?
Jakob von Uexkuell: I think it definitely would.
For a start, it would create the freedom and opportunity, to do what is necessary in the world.
The current situation is totally absurd.
Investment advisors say that the real problem
is that there is so much money. Too much money.
And at the same time, almost everywhere there is overproduction.
Then there's the huge amount of unemployment that keeps increasing,
and simultaneously an incredible amount of work with nobody to do it.
So there is a huge amount that we have to and can do, and it has to be done urgently
if we want to avoid a global catastrophe.
Globally, agriculture is capable of producing enough food for 12 billion people.
There are 6.6 billion people living on the planet.
Hunger and its consequences kill 1000 people per hour.
Peter Brabeck: Water is a foodstuff,
and like any other foodstuff it ought to have a market value.
Jean Ziegler
(Bread)
When a child dies of starvation today, a murder has been committed.
Money isn't channeled to the places where it is needed.
Money is shut off from the reality of social life
and is moved to a realm in which it seems to be able to reproduce itself.
Where it's needed, money is scarce.
Big profits are made through financial incest.
Money doesn't provide people with opportunities in life.
Instead, the profits are reinvested and accelerate the system to the point of implosion.
Instead of being used to realise plans for the future, money is used for speculation.
Renate Ignazio-Keller: I believe that what the current state of affairs shows us more and more clearly,
is that work and pay have to be separated.
And I think the basic income could really be a solution for this problem,
and also for unemployment.
In fact there is an incredible amount that needs to be done, it's just that there's no money for it.
And I think the basic income would be a way of channeling money to the places
where it is needed, and of freeing people, enabling them to do what their instincts tell them.
Separating work and pay
is the ultimate function of the basic income.
But how could this be organised in our society?
In an economy, the objective of the cycle of production and consumption is the creation of value.
The more productive the economy, the greater it is.
A country's Gross Domestic Product is the value of
all the services and goods that produced,
developed further and then sold,
in one country in one year.
Both the private and public sectors contribute to a country's GDP.
Roughly half of the entire GDP
goes to the state in the form of taxes.
This money is used to pay for our schools, police,
social services and any other facilities which
are paid for by society collectively,
rather than the individual who uses them.
Services which we democratically agree to provide.
In 2005, the Swiss government took 36% of the GDP.
In Sweden it was 56%.
In Austria it was exactly 50%.
In Germany the figure was 47%.
How would this work out with the basic income?
In terms of the income paid out by the state,
the introduction of the basic income would simply be an alteration in the form of expenditure.
The state already has the money to pay for the basic income with the taxes it takes in.
The state already uses taxes to pay salaries
- the salaries of its employees, civil servants,
and the recipients of state benefits.
In all of these cases, the introduction of the basic income
would merely entail a change in the administration of pay.
With private sector income
the money is still not in the hands of the state.
It must first go to the state via taxation
so that it can be paid out as basic income.
The amount of money held by the state increases.
Does that mean more state?
It means less state - less spying, less paternalism and less bureaucracy.
The state is merely entrusted to guarantee the right to a basic income.
But taxes will go up!
But which taxes?
The most obvious solution is to take from those who earn the most.
The idea of a guaranteed minimum income based on higher income taxes
was put forward by Milton Friedman.
Poorer households would receive a net payment from the state.
He called this the negative income tax.
His model dominated the debate on financing basic income
well into the 90s.
The idea was developed in the 1960s
and came close to being introduced in the USA.
Milton Friedman prioritised a lean, free market economy.
50 years later, financing a basic income through income tax would mean
its finances were based on something which is disappearing - paid work.
This is the reality for today's welfare state.
More unemployment results in less tax revenue through income tax.
And higher income taxes penalise paid work.
It's a vicious circle.
What's absurd about income tax is
that it does tax effort and thus cuts its own foundation.
So which tax could be the one today?
Let's take a closer look how this company
is handling taxes today:
A café in Basel (CH).
More than 1000 guests per day,
40 employees,
transaction volume of 3.5 million CHF (~3.2 million USD) per year.
So what about taxes?
Daniel Häni: taxes are always declared as costs in a company.
And all costs need to be earned by sales
or you would have to stop running your business.
In general, there are three types of taxes:
value-added tax (VAT) -
- that is paid by the customer directly -
and there's ancillary labour costs and income tax.
The VAT is displayed on every voucher and visible for everybody.
To the company, it is not declared as costs
and doesn't show up in the calculations.
What about ancillary labour costs?
Daniel Häni: I have to pretend as if the employees
and the company both pay a half of the costs each.
I put it on the employee's pay slip -
that is a prescription, i couldn't do it another way -
- and of course also in the accounting.
But both shares are paid by the company
and actually come, like mentioned before, from the customers.
The employees actually receive the money to pay income tax
to tax authorities then.
And of course income tax is included to the price paid by the customer.
So what do I actually pay, when ordering a Latte Macchiato?
That is a milk with espresso in it.
The price for one is 5,20 CHF.
A quarter of the price is to pay the infrastructure.
Meaning costs for the building, energy, furniture and dishes.
Another quarter is the costs of the product.
Meaning milk, coffee and if you like, also sugar.
The biggest share of the price are wages.
Meaning the person serving you.
But also those persons cleaning and organizing.
And on top, the VAT is added.
That is only 7.6% in Switzerland.
This tax becomes due just when the customer pays.
When all effort to add value is converted.
Because if the waiter drops the tray before,
no value is created at all,
even though a lot of work has been put to the Latte Macchiato.
A spilled Latte Macchiato - is NO Latte Macchiato.
And does not pay VAT.
VAT is added at the end of the value-adding process and displayed clearly.
But there are also taxes in the price not displayed,
that were risen during the process of adding value.
Wages contain income tax, ancillary loan costs and social costs.
Product costs also contain taxes, because they are partly paid as incomes as well,
that are taxes, and were also included in the price of the product.
Same with the costs for infrastructure.
The customer pays it all.
Because what he spends is the money
that pays everything else. Including taxes.
What would it look like, if it was made clear?
If an amount of money is taxed like this -
- clearly visible like VAT -
- falling due at the end of the process of adding value,
tax could bite the ripe apple
instead of nibbling it before.
As a result, everyone can see in prices
how much one contributes to the state, and how much one controls it.
Democracy is taking place at the cash.
We're all equal at the cash.
Illegal employement couldnt happen anymore, if VAT was the only tax to pay,
because labour wouldnt be taxed anymore.
But blackmarket trades would become alluring.
Paying the barber 20 CHF under the table instead of 40 CHF?
That is quite a difference.
If no receipt is given,
a higher end tax could be avoided.
But if there is only this one tax left
tax investigation would be easier and more effective.
But tax consultants wouldn't be necessary any longer.
A lot of bureaucracy in companies and financial administration would be decreased.
Georg Vobruba: In a world without borders, a state has only chances
to levy taxes sustainably,
if it can find a source of tax, that can not run away.
This tax is VAT.
It falls due where the customer spends his money.
Therefore it could also be called spending or consumption tax.
This tax is not paid by whoever brings the Latte Macchiato, but by who drinks it.
Income tax though pretends as if
my income is the earning of my work,
because my income is what I bring home.
Income tax is the tax of self supply.
It is the tax of self supply and creates problems in a system of external supply.
more elder people, more unemployment -
- levying consumption tax, this wouldn't be a financial problem to the state.
Because consumption will always happen.
And more than enough products are produced.
And that is where another problem of income tax can be found.
because a machine's work is not taxed by the income tax.
If two products cost the same price, but one of them is made
mainly by human and the other by machines,
the first contains relatively more tax
than the other.
Since machines don't earn any income,
their labour is mostly taxfree.
That is just like illegal employment.
To the left, that is like at the barber.
And to the right, that is like a washing machine.
Since human labour is taxed,
this price contains a lot of taxes and the other does not.
If you look at the real, effective price of the process of adding value
without pre-added tax for both,
and add the same consumption tax
until they both reach the same amount of tax
that was shown in red before,
then one is cheaper than today and the other is more expansive.
Because mechanical labour is no longer subsidized.
Labour from humans and machines would be on the same tax level,
because the result of their work is taxed.
Not only would machines take over work, but also tax revenue.
And if the price for a man's haircut would not change
the tax revenue would increase significantly.
If taxes are included in product prices, like it is today already
they cross the borders as the product does.
People in other countries do pay the educational system then,
the infrastructure and the social standards of Switzerland
when they buy a swiss product.
That is this one injustice.
And the other one?
These products from other countries, that are bought so cheaply here,
are not only, but also cheap due to the fact
that people there receive less benefits from the state.
Thus the price doesn't contain these costs.
Consumption tax would be added to all imports,
to everything that is brought to the country to be sold.
The same tax is added to products that were produced here.
It is added to all products sold in the country,
because people that live here benefit from it.
But consumption tax is not exported.
If a product crosses the country's borders, the tax would not.
Every country stays sovereign to determine its own budget.
And pay for it by itself.
Consumption tax is the just tax of globalization.
A fair tax for fair trade.
Here is where the tax on sales was invented:
The Brühl Terracces at the Elbe's shore in Dresden (Germany).
Count Heinrich von Brühl had the idea to charge for all sales in the country.
About 200 years later, the Federal Republic of Germany introduced a similar tax
but it was calculated differently: the VAT.
It allows more division of labour and is neutral to all competitors.
with 19 % it is by now the biggest item of tax income
in Sweden, VAT equals 25%
and it is a requirement for EU membership
VAT is the future tax
It is the tax for a society relying upon external supplies
One person who contributed to the introduction
if the VAT in Germany is Dr. Benediktus Hardorp.
He calls the VAT an expense or consumption tax and has the optinion
that the VAT should be our only tax.
I have witnessed, that the income tax has a continuous decelleration effect,
and a consumption tax leaves performance open to development.
An expense tax lets humans ask themsselves,
where to go with their lives. Dr. Benediktus Hardorp
Götz Werner: Only VAT - That would be the simplest solution.
One would not need to file any tax return and so on.
But when the VAT is the only tax left, what will happen to tax exemptions?
Because tax exemption is the social component of the tax system.
With VAT everyone pays the same percentage of taxes. Independent of their income.
Where is the social component of the tax system then ?
Götz Werner: We are going to do the following:
Everyone gets the VAT back for their basic needs.
And this payment is then a basic income.
The circle closes itself.
The result is basic income.
But not by asking the question "How can it be financed?"
but "How can VAT become a social component?"
Basic income is the tax exemption in a VAT based system
A tax return for the basic needs
Basic income results as a logical step from the VAT
requiring a social component to it.
And that this is unconditional, suddenly becomes logical.
What would be the effects?
Let's calculate with an example.
Assuming the basic income would be 1000
1000 Euros.
That everyone would get
as a payed out tax exemption.
Independent from any other income.
When I am not earning anything extra, I would still have 1000 in total.
People earning 500 Euros extra would end up with a total of 1500 Euro.
Earning 1000 euro extra results in a total of 2000 and so on.
In this example, everyone receives 1000 Euros of tax as basic income.
And how much tax will be payed?
When there is no income tax and only a VAT that is added
at the end of the chain of economic value being added. Then the VAT is around 100%
Final prices would contain 50% as declared taxes.
One buys something for 10 Euros and pays therefore 5 euros tax.
For 1000 Euros spent, one pays 500 euros tax.
But since one had received 1000 euros of tax.
-500 euros were really paid as tax.
Or put differently: 500 euros of tax were received.
If someone spends 1500 euros
again 50% are paid as tax. Therefore 750 euros.
Since 1000 were received
really -250 euros were paid. Or put differently:
In the end 250 euros were received, due to basic income.
If 2000 euros are spent. 1000 euros are beeing paid as tax.
And therefore no tax was payed and none received.
Only people earning twice the amount the basic income pays pay real taxes.
For 3000 Euros spent, 500 euros were paid as tax.
Whenever expenditures are exactly twice the amount of basic income. One begins to pay taxes.
From this point onwards there is progression.
Who spends 3000 euros pays 17% on taxes.
Who spends 5000 euros pays already 30% as tax.
For even higher expenditures the percentage of tax approaches 50%
Und similarly there is a progression towards the other direction.
The social component in the VAT would be simple.
And effective.
Phillipe Van Parijs: Usually left wing parties argue that a consumption tax is regressive.
That poor people pay a higher percentage of their income,
when it is a consumption tax and no personal tax.
But when we look at the current income tax, it isn't progressive either.
Since rich people have more options,
to hide parts of their income
or to avoid taxes in various ways
People who are rich enough, reduce their income before taxes in a way
that an income tax becomes ineffective.
And the tax then hits the people who simply cannot.
As we saw before, the income tax is passed on inside the product prices - including its progression.
And this is without a basic income regulating for social aspects.
The income tax is a sham.
Or put differently: It spares you caring.
This is how it looks like when a tax is visible as one amount.
And this how it looks like, when it is passed on as income tax.
50% of the costs are on income for employees.
On the right hand side they would be a quarter.
On the left side, labor is expensive.
Since it controbutes most of he price -
- qick decisions are being made, on who is useless.
Everyone is at the borderline of collapse. No room for experiments.
On the right hand side there would be more room .
Less stress and maybe the thought,
to hire another person.
That is how the VAT impacts labor.
The basic income points in a similar direction.
Partially the basic income is being payed, by existing taxes.
The other parts will raise the tax.
Eduardo Suplicy: A basic income is not a charity,
is not just an assistance,
is, like you said, a civil right,
is the right for each person
to participate on the wealth of the nation.
Eduardo Suplicy: Because I want to find the truth.
I want to find the way
to eradicate absolute poverty,
to build a just society,
to improve income distribution,
to have justice
and to struggle for the day,
when everybody may sit
in the table
of fraternity.
Like Martin Luther King said
in “I have a dream.”
M. R. King: I have a dream. I have a dream today!
So, when I free myself from this attitude of revenge,
not only am I doing something for the idea of a basic income,
but actually for my own health and abilities as a fellow human being.

Welcome to dotSUB - Any Video Any Language

Welcome to dotSUB!

Any Video Any Language

Grundeinkommen

Share

Video Transcription