Don't want to see Ads? Register for your free dotSUB account here!
Grundeinkommen
Duration:
1 hour, 38 minutes and 45 seconds
Year: 2008
Country:
Germany
Language:
German
Genre:
Documentary
Producer:
Enno Schmidt & Daniel Häni
Director:
Enno Schmidt & Daniel Häni
Views:
63,303
(45,671
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/
Translate and Transcribe
-
Sign In/Register for dotSUB to translate this video.
Share
- Embed Video
- Embed normal player
- Embed a smaller player
- Advanced Embedding Options
-
Embedding OptionsSize:Language:Embed Code
- Embed transcript
- Embed transcript in:
-
Invite a user to dotSUB
Your invitation to join dotSUB was successfulThere was an error inviting that user to dotSUB
Video Transcription
Show in new window
- The Basic Income
- A cultural impulse
- A film-essay by
- Daniel Häni and Enno Schmidt
- An income is like the wind beneath your wings.
- With a basic income, income becomes a civil right.
- Welcome – to the Earth.
- Today almost everyone has some form of income.
- Otherwise we would not survive.
- The question is: Under which conditions?
- How do people obtain their income today?
- 4 out of 10 Germans earn their income
- through paid work,
- work which allows them to earn a living,
- gainful employment.
- Less than 3 out of 10 get their income from relatives,
- especially children and adolescents.
- 2 out of 10 live off pension.
- And less than 1 out of 10 receive unemployment benefit or other social benefits.
- All income is earned.
- But only 41% of the population earn their income through employment.
- All others receive different forms of income,
- through so called 'transfer revenues', - income
- which is not directly linked to work.
- So a basic income should not seem that new.
- What is new is it's unconditionally.
- But how relevant are the conditions tied to income today?
- Peter Ulrich: If we want to be realistic
- then we have to assume
- that the labor market
- will no longer be able to support social integration
- for everyone in society for much longer.
- If we leave the second option,
- the basic income, to one side,
- then we would be forced
- to risk everything
- for the idea of 'economic growth',
- at any cost.
- And this is a political reality today.
- From the far right to far left and back,
- everyone is calling for economic growth.
- This means we are thinking in terms of quantity,
- and suppressing any chances of
- developing new and improved organizational models for society
- which focus on the quality of life.
- But economic growth no longer means
- an increase in job opportunities.
- It actually means the opposite.
- However, a vital requirement for economic growth
- is a well funded demand.
- People have to have money at their disposal.
- What does Klaus Wellershof, chief economist of the largest asset management firm
- and one of the world's biggest banks, think about an unconditional basic income?
- Klaus Wellershof: An unbiased support for everyone?
- I think this principle will eventually
- assert itself, indeed I believe it is a necessity.
- But it has to find a way of overcoming the current challenges
- before it can be implemented.
- What could these current challenges be?
- Perhaps the challenge of maintaining jobs?
- This is what all politicians promote.
- But is this really about work?
- or about tax revenues?
- And about avoiding an increasing number of benefit recipients
- that will explode state expenditures?
- Peter Ulrich: But it's not the 'nasty state'
- who causes this explosion.
- The rising costs are the product of a success story.
- The logic of this success story is rationalization.
- This even happens in our own back yard.
- How will this success story continue?
- 'What would you work if you didn't have to worry about an income?'
- This must be seen in relation to the basic income.
- There are different models for the basic income.
- The overall definition comes from the Basic Income Network:
- 'A basic income is an income which is granted unconditionally,
- to every member of a political community.'
- There are 4 criteria
- To secure existence and allow social participation
- To provide an individual rights claim
- It is payable without means tested verification
- There is no obligation to work.
- But let's not get carried away.
- A basic income doesn't mean more money for everyone.
- No 'new' money is added on top.
- It grows into the existing income.
- Income from employment will decrease.
- The overall amount of income will remain the same,
- but the composition will change.
- The basic income is a different type of income.
- It is not a minimum wage.
- Nor is it a payment for something.
- It is not tied to work.
- It is paid to every individual! - dispite any changes.
- Sacha Liebermann: As opposed to communism, which suffocates the individual,
- and market liberalism which wants to isolate the individual;
- the basic income facilitates a safeguard in order to
- maximize freedom, giving the individual the ability to choose.
- This is only possible through a guaranteed income.
- It must of course be high enough
- to give people the ability to say 'no' to employment.
- This ability to say 'no'
- allows people to see each other on equal terms.
- Most of those who rely on social benefits today,
- would no longer be dependent if they had a basic income.
- The basic income replaces public transfers to a certain degree.
- Only where social benefits are needed in addition today
- will the payments remain as they are.
- Only those with less than that, would actually have more money with a basic income.
- These are predominantly children and adolescents which means; families.
- Also those receiving very low pension rates,
- those with precarious employment and the self employed, who work themselves into poverty.
- The basic income removes poverty
- and stabilizes the middle class with a secure foundation.
- It alleviates the fear of aging.
- It is not money given by one party to another, for whom they can then lay down laws.
- It is not a form of long term aid for the needy. It is a perspective for everyone.
- Basic income does not assume the ideal human being.
- Neither does it solve all the problems.
- - Not with money.
- But it allows more solutions to emerge - through people.
- Thomas Paine is the founder of the human rights
- and one of the founding fathers of the United States of America.
- He coined the name; 'United States of America'.
- In 'Common Sense'
- he initiated the North American declaration of independence
- from the British Kingdom.
- His ideas had a seminal influence on the world's first democratic constitution.
- Wolfgang Roehrig: We agree on the fact
- that all humans were made equal, that they were imbued with certain
- inalienable rights, by their maker.
- These include life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
- 'Rights of Man', human rights.
- An incredible notion at that time.
- But equally so, today.
- Equal rights for all 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 them - apart from getting cheeky!
- Human rights?
- This would also imply: abolishing slavery.
- But then what about all the services?
- Who would do all the unwanted, hard work,
- that is neither paid, nor appreciated?
- These fears still exist today.
- For example in relation to a basic income:
- Surely the economy would collapse and chaos would ensue.
- However, it was much worse when the earth became round.
- For a long time the Church held onto the idea of a disc
- which was surrounded by the waters of chaos.
- Anyone who got too close to the edge, was in danger of falling off.
- Vaulting this disc was a fixed firmament, which the stars traveled through.
- Beyond this: the spheres in which the powers resided,
- that was both a threat and source of hope.
- Today we see money and the economy in the same way.
- Everything was dependent on the idea that the earth was a disc;
- the concept of the world, of order and security.
- And so every age restates that the world is a disc which someone is watching over.
- How is it possible that the earth is round?
- And when it really was round
- it was still thought that the earth is the centre of the universe and in no way revolves around itself.
- This made it highly complicated to establish laws governing the movement of the planets.
- It always depends on our own standpoint.
- The same applies to the idea of a basic income.
- It gets complicated if I am unaware of my own movements.
- I soon come to the boundaries of my perceptions, if I assume that everything is in its finished form
- and shows itself as a final product, or is wrapped up in ideology.
- It is much easier if I start with the individual - and what is in the process of becoming.
- Every system asserts its own coherence and cannot shift into another out of its own accord.
- Only human beings are capable of this.
- Margit Appel: The debate around the basic income
- is currently taking place in Austria, Switzerland and Germany."
- Gabriele Fischer: I think it has something to do with the time being ripe.
- Justus Wittich: The basic income would restore dignity.
- Margit Appel: And it is not dependent on the good conduct of society.
- Wolf Lotter: Most importantly, the basic income would lead to
- a de-escalation of the existing social tensions.
- Michaela Schmoczer: In fact, many people are in the system (are employed), but don't actually want to work.
- And we say: 'Oh, they're taking our jobs.'
- And others are outside the system (unemployed), and want to work.
- So it is an amazing step forward, to give individuals the ability to choose
- and say: I want to, or I don't want to do something. This creates movement.
- Bettina Dieterle: 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 wasn't able do what I wanted
- because I couldn't afford it.'
- (From background: 'Yes, exactly. No more excuses.')
- Götz Werner: Who is only studying this because their parents wanted them to?
- What kind of a society do we want to live in?
- Well, if you don't ask yourself this question, you might as well be a computer.
- Justus Wittich: There would be an explosion of initiatives.
- Man by the lake: Well, I'm skeptical.
- I'm very skeptical.
- Here's why: If a basic income was available to everyone, I think
- the motivation to go to work would be radically reduced.
- To zero percent.
- Martin Hafen: Employment makes us ill, because the time pressure
- is constantly increasing.This can be seen in all the statistics.
- Wolf Lotter: Essentially, the basic income would lead to a freer society.
- That's the crucial point.
- It would reduce our dependence on wages and lead to more independence.
- Man by the lake: Inevitably it will lead to the question: 'how can it be financed?'
- Because it has to come from somewhere.
- Justus Wittich: As an economist, I can calculate that it is possible.
- (From background: Yes.)
- Wolf Lotter: The biggest challenge is that we all have to learn how to deal with it.
- That's the big thing.
- In this sense, we are at the very beginning.
- Not in relation to its financial viability.
- That has been guaranteed.
- Freedom is the difficult part.
- 'The financial viability has been guaranteed.'
- 'Freedom is the difficult part.'
- There are plenty of gloomy predictions for the 21st century.
- The newspapers are full of them - and so are we.
- The basic income is one of the first positive visions for the 21st century.
- It isn't a large global issue
- that we simply watch, as spectators.
- It affects every one of us
- because it allows each of us to do without (not to continue doing)
- the things we can not justify,
- and to start doing what we really want.
- But wouldn't many people just stay at home?
- Wouldn't everyone stop working?
- Surely everything would grind to a halt, like in a strike.
- Would managers be on permanent leave?
- Responsibility?
- Out of sight.
- Nobody would pull their weight.
- Nobody would really work hard.
- Empty Universities?
- Would the basic income destroy the incentive to work for higher qualification?
- No pressure, no human capital?
- But companies are already short of staff!
- How can the economy possible survive?
- Roland Blatschke: What shocks me most is that we no longer understand
- why we have an economy or a financial system.
- The economy is part of our human coexistence,
- which enables our way of life
- and puts all sorts of things at our disposal.
- This view is completely forgotten.
- The economy is an independent system that has its own objectives
- which is not in accord with human life anymore
- and which is even capable of destroying it.
- Man by the lake: Despite all that, I firmly believe that
- we need a system,
- in which efforts are paid off; good work is rewarded.
- And a system which simply rewards everyone and evenly distributes
- a basic salary (basic income) like a watering can,
- would lead to the collapse
- of our whole highly competitive society.
- Paid work in Germany in the year 2001:
- - 56 billion hours work.
- Unpaid work:
- - 96 billion hours work
- in the private and domestic sphere
- and in civil engagement activities.
- A basic income would not stand in the way of paid work.
- The real question is perhaps how to manage people
- if money is no longer an adequate means of control
- for the companies and society generally;
- if people are less dependent on their wages?
- How would we determine our own conduct?
- Would everyone just go to the swimming pool?
- Would all the rubbish simply pile up on the streets?
- Pensioners would have to look after the parks.
- Would the basic income undermine our competitive society,
- the sense of independence, satisfaction and pride in one's own achievements?
- And wouldn't it be boring if everyone already had an income?
- It's a system for hippies and people from Steiner schools
- who believe in the pure goodness of human nature.
- Humans are also animals!
- We don't want a basic income - we want a hunting ground.
- Let's just wait and see what the emerging markets bring.
- From the outside, looking in.
- That's how it is for many people.
- No access to the well laid tables.
- 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 hopes and hobbies,
- working for 2 Euros per hour to earn some extra cash,
- and look away when it comes to the really important issues in society.
- Of course, a basic income can be exploited.
- This happens if it is set at an amount
- that is not sufficient in order to survive,
- while all social benefits are eliminated.
- This would force everyone into work.
- Not out of a personal incentive.
- It would mean paying wages like in China and without the basic income
- including the ability to say 'no' to a job offer.
- If, in addition, these payments are increasingly complicated by various institutions,
- exceptions, requirements and conditions,
- we end up with the current system - only worse.
- There are a number of ways in which a basic income can be misused:
- - by setting it too low
- - cutting all social benefits
- - and continuing to tie it to conditions.
- 'He who does not want to work, shall not eat'
- said Saint Paul.
- He meant those who do not contribute to the community.
- 'If they feel their salvation is so imminent' says Paul,
- 'that they abandon their work,
- then they should also stop eating.'
- He still had humor. Others did not.
- Here the less skilled are lumped together,
- led to the dinner table, but not allowed to eat.
- Because they haven't worked enough.
- Food deprivation.
- All rules become terrible
- if they are implemented mindlessly.
- Katja Kipping: The most important aim of the debates around the basic income is
- to challenge the old paradigm.
- For example the ideology:
- 'Only those who have a job, have the right to eat.'
- The debates surrounding the basic income must dispense with this false idea
- that the only way of contributing to society is through having a job.
- There are of course jobs in which the opposite is the case.
- 'He who does not want to work, shall not eat.'
- That's what we have learned.
- The artist, Joseph Beuys, wrote a new formula:
- 'He who does not want to think, gets kicked out.'
- We have no shortage of food, or any other goods.
- But what about work?
- Götz Werner: The amount of work in agriculture, the work in manufacturing
- and production is luckily decreasing!
- The real responsibility of the economy is to alleviate people from work!
- 'The real responsibility of the economy is to alleviate people from work.'
- This is not what it says in the papers.
- Alleviate people in order to do what?
- Nor is it any company statement.
- No one enjoys making their employees redundant.
- But it still happens. .
- Once this is seen as inevitable,
- or even an objective,
- something else would become evident:
- Alleviating people from work also means: giving people the freedom to work.
- The idea that there is only vacation and leisure on the other side of the fence,
- comes from a sense of dependency.
- Which kinds of jobs are currently being invested in?
- Götz Werner: All investments put into creating new jobs are simultaneously steps towards rationalization.
- Things are being developed that require less labor.
- No manager asks himself : 'What can I do to increase the number of employees?'
- 'What can I do to increase the number of employees?'
- The task of the economy is to satisfy demand.
- Effectively, we do the same.
- It's task is not to create more work.
- On the other hand, everyone has their own goals, questions and objectives
- which some are unable to pursue as it would not provide them with an income.
- Götz Werner: The societal problem we have today is
- that many people who are employed
- only work
- in order to earn an income.
- This work is simply a means to an end:
- to provide a source of income.
- Work is not the end in itself.
- Not necessarily something they see as important.
- Socially, this is a problem
- because it becomes a major cause of frustration and long term illness.
- In Germany, 12% of those in employment are completely satisfied with their jobs.
- That is just 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 categorically unsatisfied with their jobs.
- That is about one in three.
- The struggle for employment, is a struggle for income.
- And the struggle for employment stands in the way of employment cuts.
- This is because my work defines who I am.
- However, there is no right to be allocated a job.
- There is no such thing as the right to duty.
- Nor a right to be bought and sold.
- The right to work can only mean the right of each individual to
- do the work that he/she really wants to do.
- (add-on: work which cannot be imposed and which nobody can take away).
- This right to work, depends on the right to an income.
- Florian Lück: It makes no sense that we have jobs
- and job-centers, but there are no income-centers.
- He means 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:
- Ueli Maeder: This narrow minded outlook in all sectors of employment would be
- replaced by a focus on the key question: 'What are the important things in life?'
- This would give people strength.
- It would lead to more security,
- an increase in creativity,
- an increase in the general well-being,
- and less pressure for this counterproductive 'elbow society'.
- They would not have to experience situations in which
- it would be to their advantage,
- to make a profit at the expense of someone else;
- a phenomenon which our current system encourages through competition
- that undermines solidarity.
- This is the sociological perspective.
- But what about someone who has just come from work
- and has never heard about the idea?
- Project manager: So you mean everyone would have the same income?
- Interviewer: No, everyone would earn what they earn.
- But everyone would have a basic income as a minimum.
- Project manager: But only if they work?
- Interviewer: No. No conditions.
- Project manager: No conditions?
- Interviewer: Everyone gets it.
- Project manager: But surely this would be problematic for the motivation to work.
- If I had a guaranteed basic income anyway, why would I go to work?
- Interviewer: What about yourself?
- Project manager: I would still want to go out to work.
- I mean, there's no point in staying at home. I love my work, I enjoy it,
- but surely there are some people who couldn't be motivated anymore.
- Would you still go out to work
- if you had a basic income?
- Spontaneously, about 60% say 'Yes, nothing would change.'
- Around 30% say 'Yes, but no longer full time.'
- Or, 'I would do something different.'
- And about 10% openly say
- 'First I'd have a lay in and then I'd see.
- Maybe travel, look after someone else, go back to studying...'
- Do you think other people would still go out to work
- if they had a basic income?
- Approximately 80% say
- 'No, it would probably be impossible to make most people to go to work.'
- What kind of work is this, that we have to 'make' people go to?
- Obviously not our own.
- We can motivate ourselves for that.
- What motivates us to go to work?
- This - is a treadmill.
- And this is child labor.
- Both used to be completely normal.
- We still buy these products.
- We can't really be sure anyway - the stuff comes all the way from the Far East.
- That's where the dirty work is done these days.
- Or by foreigners working in this country.
- They often work without papers, contracts or any form of security.
- Do they get sick pay?
- This so called dirty work is not necessarily dirty in itself,
- but it is seen as such because it is undervalued,
- badly paid, and because of the working conditions.
- It is often work which involves cleaning up after others.
- Who is making this work dirty?
- With a basic income, you have the ability to say 'no'.
- But then who would do all the dirty work?
- There are 3 possibilities:
- 1. Give the workers better pay and improve working conditions.
- 2. Automation and rationalization.
- 3. Do it yourself.
- An actress: I'm imagining a lady working behind the till in a supermarket.
- Maybe she doesn't really enjoy her job.
- Would she still go out to work if she had a basic income?
- Well - let's ask the lady behind the till.
- 'Yyy-es.
- I would 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 be more.
- Or less?
- Lady behind the till: First of all I'd have to admit that this amount wouldn't be enough for me -
- Hence the name: Basic income.
- It should be enough to cover basic needs based on cultural standards.
- Like today, most people will still want to earn more than the minimum.
- But let's go back to the lady behind the till.
- Not exactly a dream job.
- Lady behind the till:People always think that my work only involves sitting behind the till -
- in fact I get to meet lots of people
- and my experience depends on my own attitude.
- I'm a very open-minded person,
- I don't have a problem, and actually really enjoy working here.
- What work would you do, if you had a basic income?
- The same, only better!
- So in a way, things would not change all that much.
- Lady behind the till: I can't imagine my life without work.
- That would be much too boring.
- But my situation could change.
- Oh, I could go traveling and see things, something we can't do today
- because we have to train in order to get a job.
- And all this stress around finding a job - it's so difficult for anyone to find work.
- There are hardly any vacancies anywhere.
- If we had this (basic income), we wouldn't have all the stress.
- Angelika Tischer: And if we didn't have to condition our pupils to believe
- that they have to find the career that suits them somehow, whatever the cost,
- - something we know for a fact has never been possible for everyone -
- that is the disingenuous situation we find ourselves in today...
- Philip Kovce:Yes, the idea of a basic income is particularly interesting for young people,
- especially in the current education system we can see that
- lots of pupils are suffering from a real anxiety about their future.
- Notoriously they start preparing for their careers at school,
- often choosing the lesser evil, out of a fear of ending up with nothing.
- With the basic income, I see the opportunity and possibility of enabling people
- to follow what they really enjoy doing and what they are good at.
- Amael Kienlen: But I can also see this leading to a crisis - a crisis of purpose.
- Roland Hügli: It enables the space and time to think things over.
- And what would the basic income mean for work?
- Roland Hügli: Work would be shared by lots of people. This would also make it much more enjoyable.
- And what about this 'crisis of purpose'?
- Amael Kienlen: Well, I believe that to a great extent, we live under an illusion.
- We live at the expense of the environment and of future generations,
- at the expense of our - partners.
- By not admitting that others do hard work for us,
- and clearly acknowledging this dependency, this brotherhood,
- I remain forever indebted to the people around me.
- So much for our sense of brotherliness.
- And equality?
- In a democracy?
- Katja Kipping: It seems to me that the basic income would also allow for a more democratic society.
- It is much harder to coerce people if their material needs are taken care of.
- And this enables the development of a democratic society
- which everyone benefits from, rich and poor alike.
- And what about art?
- Tony Rizzi: Even when I am not working,
- when I am not physically putting a piece together,
- I am still working.
- That's the difficulty of being an artist:
- Are you being paid for the time
- in which you are living your life,
- gathering ideas
- for a new project?
- As opposed to the time
- in which I am actually in my studio,
- working on a commissioned piece.
- How can I be financially supported
- in order to be inspired?
- Life is a form of art!
- And what about for a mother-to-be?
- Dominique Lüdi: Yes, it would be great, as I would be able to look after my baby
- as much as I wanted, without feeling guilty.
- And I coul choose which work I would like to do,
- rather than being at the mercy of the employment agency.
- Yes, I think it would be really good - especially in this situation.
- And when the child grows up,
- it can move out sooner, with a basic income.
- Is it possible to grow up with a basic income?
- If you know your income is guaranteed anyway?
- What's the relationship between growing up and the basic income?
- Amael Kienlein: I would not have needed so much time for my rebellion.
- It would have been a lot easier to accept my integration or my place within society,
- as the existential cost would not be so high.
- I would have been less scared of sacrificing the things that are important.
- Renate Strub: Indeed there are many things closely related
- and intricately connected to this idea and it could activate a lot.
- Götz Werner: We have to feel increasingly responsible for everything that is happening in the world around us.
- We cannot isolate ourselves today in a world which has become so small.
- The important thing is that people become aware of, and internalize
- the real distinction between earning an income and work,
- and really recognize that: I have an income
- so that I am able to work. Not: I work in order to earn my income.
- Personally, I see the basic income as a sort of Archimedian point,
- which will lead to asking a series of further questions.
- However, it will not be possible to initiate a large scale movement
- if it is approached from different angles simultaneously.
- We can only progress
- if we mobilize the power of the individual.
- The power of the individual, that's what it will depend on.
- (Crowning-act at the central train station)
- For centuries the idea that human beings would be able to fly was Utopian.
- The attempts of those who tried, showed that it was impossible.
- Now we take flying for granted, technically.
- Or the right to vote!
- How was society supposed to function
- if every commoner had a say?
- How could the simple citizens,
- with their narrow horizons
- and inability to see beyond their own personal interests,
- know what is good for the whole of society?
- The further still, not only men were to be considered citizens.
- Women were too!
- Women - they are far too emotional.
- In fact they need to be protected
- so that they don't mix everything up with their decisions.
- And then who would do the housework?
- The same arguments are now being used against the basic income.
- In Switzerland, woman's right to vote was only introduced in 1971.
- 3 years after landing on the moon.
- And before 'this' happened, nobody would have thought it was possible,
- that such a radical overthrow of power could be achieved.
- The impossible is in fact, quite possible.
- Citizens were no longer merely subjects
- to be ruled by the state. Things had been turned around:
- Every individual is politically sovereign and the state is defined by what it assigns;
- exercised through democratic elections.
- Work is no longer reduced to what the market wants it to be,
- and the individual is no longer a slave to the economy, it's the other way round:
- Everyone is economically sovereign and work is defined
- by the individual sense of duty;
- through 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,
- he was beheaded as a result.
- In 1935 he was made a saint.
- And in 2000, Pope John Paul II
- made him patron saint of all politicians and rulers.
- Thomas Moore wrote 'Utopia',
- a travel journal from a distant island with much better living conditions.
- Other authors have copied his idea.
- Since this book we talk about things being 'utopian'.
- 'U-topos' means: 'the non place'.
- Ideas similar to the basic income can be found in the utopian ideas of the Renaissance.
- A utopia helps to define the
- state one is currently in.
- Every future society puts the ideals, previously thought of as utopian, into practice.
- Enlightenment
- means: I can overtly express what I see, what I think,
- and what I consider to be true.
- And I can make my knowledge accessible to everyone.
- Every era has its own enlightenment.
- What does it depend on?
- Daniele Ganser: The individual ability to think and to analyze becomes very important.
- Because the traditional way of thinking,
- inherited from parents, teachers,
- priests or doctors, are challenged,
- proven to be false or limited in their validity in this transition phase,
- so we have to come up with new approaches that we can trust,
- very quickly.
- This means that we really learn to believe in what we think.
- If you want to climb the Matterhorn, you have to remember to get up early.
- You have to be at the top by midday,
- so that it doesn't get dark and cold on your way down.
- Anyone from Switzerland knows that.
- In terms of oil consumption, we all raced to the top,
- and in doing so, forgot to think about how we are going to get back down.
- We will soon have reached 'peak oil' - maximum possible oil extraction.
- It will go steeply downhill from there.
- In the same way, full employment can only be a temporary measure
- and has passed its peak by a long way.
- In 1995, Jeremy Rifkin, a futurologist,
- predicted the effects which the end of full time employment could have.
- By the year 2050 perhaps only 5% of the adult population will be needed
- in order to manage the traditional industries and keep them up and running.
- In every country, farms, factories and offices with virtually no need for labor will be the norm (Jeremy Rifkin).
- Rifkin's predictions are disputed, but his figures do not emerge out of thin air.
- In 1982, the USA produced 75 million tons of steel.
- 300 000 people were employed in the process.
- 20 years later, 100 million tons were produced,
- but they only required a quarter of the man power.
- Of course, new jobs were created in the process.
- Perhaps a few hundred in consultancy and in the area of highly specialized technology.
- This not only applies to the traditional sector of production,
- the same thing goes for many areas of the service sector.
- The Net Bank is an extreme example
- and illustrates a particular development.
- They only need one tenth of the workforce
- for the same level of customer deposits,
- in comparison to conventional banks.
- This development is not only a trend in industrial countries.
- On a broad and worldwide scale
- the amount of labor is
- falling, in relation to productivity.
- Creativity is the resource of the 21st century (Adrienne Goehler).
- Adrienne Goehler: The future jobs will increasingly resemble
- those of artists and those working in the media today:
- independent, sometimes more, sometimes less pay, sometimes more, sometimes less work, sometimes alone and sometimes in a team,
- short-term, mostly temporary and often working from 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.
- Here we can see why that is.
- This is how it is almost everywhere.
- Today one human being is capable of producing 100 times more than 100 years ago.
- (add-on: Our technological inventions do a lot of our work for us.)
- These are the dreams of our forefathers.
- What are our dreams?
- Simply to continue as we are,
- letting progression mean regression for more and more people?
- Back to a struggle for survival?
- As if we have no need for new ideas?
- Technological innovations seem to emerge of their own accord.
- Quite the contrary for social innovations.
- Do we need a crisis before these can emerge?
- If the mind stops, the body regresses.
- Social change needs a different kind of power than the one
- that operates machines.
- In the strong currents of the waters of progress, social developments are struggling to keep up.
- What about the welfare state?
- 'Faust'
- Mephistopheles: Who'll know aught living and describe it well,
- Seeks first the spirit to expel.
- He then has the component parts in hand.
- But lacks, alas! the spirit's band (the basic income).
- Student: I can't quite understand you, I confess.
- Student: I feel as stupid after all you've said, as if a miller's wheel were whirling in my head.
- The misunderstanding starts
- when someone goes to work thinking that
- because they receive an income, they must be doing it for themselves.
- But everyone has an income,
- because everyone needs one.
- Because we depend on the services of others.
- If income were directly related to work,
- machines should be getting the highest wages.
- But the fact remains; the people
- whose jobs are being replaced by machines,
- still need an income.
- A basic income does not replace paid employment,
- but reduces it's totality.
- It creates more scope for sincerity.
- And the purpose is no longer purely functional.
- Just under 50 years ago, the a washing machine in Switzerland cost 3,550 CHF.
- That was a lot of money.
- After 50 years of improvements, the same washing machine costs 3,195 CHF.
- The price has stayed approximately the same.
- But 50 years ago, 1 CHF was worth 3 times as much as it is today.
- So in fact, the washing machine only costs a third
- of what it cost 50 years ago.
- 50 years ago, a haircut for men cost about 3.50 CHF, whereas today it is around 40 CHF.
- This means that where methods have been improved,
- where technology has been implemented and where less manual labor is needed,
- the prices have falllen.
- Where this is not the case, for example at the hairdressers; they have risen.
- Manual labor is expensive.
- This is because people need an income
- and because their work is taxed.
- The hairdresser does not have more purchasing power today, than he used to.
- But by comparing the prices we can see
- where, and to what extent rationalization has taken place
- and what effect this rationalization is having on us.
- If the price of the washing machine had increased as much as the haircut
- it would now cost 40,000 CHF.
- Bodo von Plato: If I do not acknowledge what the washing machine does for me,
- - namely far more than just washing my laundry -
- - I will be unable to see how
- the basic income can become a cultural impulse.
- 212 years ago, Thomas Paine had already proposed
- a basic income in his work entitled 'Agrarian Justice'.
- His argument goes as follows:
- We are all born as equals, and nature provides for every one of us.
- Every human being has a birthright to a piece of land in order to support himself.
- But if the land has already been divided up between a few individuals
- who consider it to be their own property,
- then a social contract must be agreed.
- This social contract becomes the basic income for those
- who did not get their own land,
- and who therefore, are unable to provide for themselves.
- Since then, the wind has been blowing from a different direction.
- Today, even those who own land are unable to provide for themselves.
- It is better for everyone involved if I do not build my tractor myself
- or fertilize my fields purely for my own subsistence:
- What I produce is consumed by other people.
- Self sufficiency means
- growing my own vegetables and living off
- what I can produce myself.
- Today, what often looks like self sufficiency,
- is in fact an illusion.
- We live in a time of total dependency.
- This means that all my work is done for the benefit of others,
- and that others have worked to produce the things I need.
- Money makes this system possible.
- Work translates into value
- when cheese is passed over the counter in one direction and money, in the other.
- 'But our wage system still mirrors the idea of self sufficiency.'
- Because I get paid for what I do, I think I am doing it for myself.
- An old Sufi legend about the difference between heaven and hell:
- A good meal has been prepared - in hell.
- Long spoons have been provided.
- Everyone takes one.
- The same thing takes place in heaven.
- A good meal has been prepared - spoons provided.
- And everyone takes one.
- In a system of TOTAL DEPENDENCY, my work goes towards feeding others.
- I am dependent on the initiative of OTHERS for my own consumption.
- But I cannot buy INITIATIVE; I can only activate it in myself.
- Hans Stallkamp: And in this paradigm shift it must be considered truly disgraceful
- if the people who work for our benefit
- are condemned to work like slaves in order to be able to survive.
- Klaus Wellershof: For me, what characterizes modern society is the strong trend towards individualism.
- People have their own goals, their own aspirations,
- and of course are trying to find the means with which to achieve them.
- Obviously money plays a huge part in a society led by division of labor.
- Money is seen as the means to achieving freedom,
- and I think this is the issue that we should be focusing on.
- The fact that many people do not 'make it'
- and become enslaved by money,
- that is the real tragedy and irony of the current system. It means we loose sight
- of the initial steps taken in the direction of freedom.
- What does it mean to be 'enslaved by money'?
- It means all activity is seen in terms of money.
- As if money itself were the sole value.
- And it means; what's important about money is its ability to generate more.
- More power over other people's money and over their ways of life.
- The slaves of money enslave others through the authority that is given to money.
- With the basic income, a proportion of the money in a country would be
- allocated democratically to each individual, as a means of achieving freedom.
- Money becomes our servant.
- Would this also result in better conditions to work on important global tasks?
- Jakob von Uexkuell: I think it definitely would.
- For a start, it would create the freedom to do what is necessary in the world.
- Because the current situation is totally absurd.
- Investment advisers say that the real problem
- is that there is so much money. Too much money.
- And at the same time, we are overproducing almost everywhere.
- And the high levels of unemployment are continuously increasing,
- but there is a huge amount of work that is not being done.
- So in fact there are lots of things we can, and have to do 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 every hour.
- Peter Brabeck: Water is a basic product,
- and like any other product it ought to have a market value.
- Jean Ziegler
- (Bread)
- Every child that dies of starvation today has been murdered.
- Money is not being channeled to where it is needed.
- Money is shut off from social reality
- and moved into a realm in which it appears to reproduce itself.
- Where it's needed, money is scarce.
- Big profits are made through financial incest.
- The result of this does not provide better living conditions for everyone.
- Instead, the profits are reinvested into the system to the point of implosion.
- Speculation instead of sustainability?
- Renate Ignazio-Keller: I believe that what the current state of affairs is showing 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.
- Because in fact a lot needs to be done, but the money isn't there.
- And I think the basic income would be a way of channeling money to the places
- where it is needed, and of freeing and enabling people to follow their impulses.
- Separating work and pay
- - that's what the basic income is doing for the amount of money it provides.
- But how could this be organized in our society?
- This circle represents all the value created within one national economy.
- The more productive the economy, the greater the circle.
- A country's gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of
- all the services and goods that are produced,
- processed and then sold
- within one country, in one year.
- The GDP is then divided into the private and public sector.
- 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 by the individual who uses them.
- Services which we assign democratically.
- 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 with the basic income?
- In terms of the income paid by the state,
- the basic income would simply be a different way of distributing payments.
- The state would already have the money for a basic income, through the taxes it receives.
- The state already uses taxes to pay salaries
- - for its employees, civil servants,
- and those who receive state benefits.
- In all of these cases, the introduction of the basic income
- would only mean an administrative alteration.
- For private sector income
- the money is not yet in the hands of the state.
- It has to get to the state via taxes first,
- so that it can be paid out as basic income.
- The amount of money held by the state increases.
- Does that mean a more powerful state?
- It means a less powerful 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 basic income based on higher income taxes
- was already put forward by Milton Friedman.
- Poorer households were to be paid a net payment by the state.
- He called this the negative income tax.
- His model dominated the debates
- around financing a basic income until well into the 90s.
- The idea was developed in the 60s
- and came close to being introduced in the USA.
- Milton Friedman prioritized a lean, free market economy.
- 50 years later, financing a basic income through income tax was propped up by something
- which is increasingly disappearing - employment.
- This is the reality of the welfare state today.
- More unemployment results in less tax revenue through income tax.
- And higher income taxes penalize employment even more.
- It's a vicious circle.
- What's absurd about income tax is
- that it taxes services, which destroys its own foundation.
- So which taxes could be used today?
- Let's take a closer look how companies
- are dealing with their taxes today.
- A cafe in Basel (CH).
- More than 1000 guests per day,
- 40 employees,
- a turnover of 3.5 million CHF per year.
- And what about the taxes?
- Daniel Häni: For a company, taxes always mean costs.
- And all costs need to be generated through sales -
- if the two don't match, you're business wont last long.
- In general, there are three types of taxes:
- value-added tax (VAT) -
- - paid directly by the consumer -
- the cost of fringe benefits and income taxes.
- VAT can be found on every receipt and is transparent for everyone to see.
- It does not represent a cost for the company
- and it doesn't show up on their business calculations.
- What about costs of fringe benefits?
- Daniel Häni: Here I have to pretend that the employee
- and the company pay a half each.
- That's what I put on the employee's pay slip -
- - it's a requirement, I don't have a choice in the matter -
- - and of course for the accounting too.
- But in fact, both shares are paid by the company from the money
- which, as I mentioned before, comes from the customers.
- So in reality, the employees actually receive the money
- before they have to pay it to the tax authorities.
- And of course the income taxes are already included in the prices paid by the customer.
- So what am I actually paying for, when I order a Latte Macchiato?
- This is a frothy milk, dappled with espresso.
- It costs 5,20 CHF.
- A quarter of the price covers the infrastructure,
- meaning costs for the building, energy, furniture and dishes.
- Another quarter goes to the cost of the products.
- For the milk, coffee and sugar if you like it sweet.
- The biggest share of the price goes to wages.
- To the person serving you.
- But also to those who clean and organize the whole thing.
- And on top of all this, we have the VAT.
- That is only 7.6% in Switzerland.
- This tax only falls due when the customer buys something.
- Only then can we add the real value.
- Because if the waiter drops his tray on his way over to the table,
- no value is generated at all,
- although a lot of work has gone into getting the Latte Macchiato from the Alpine slopes to the table.
- A spilled Latte Macchiato - is not a Latte Macchiato.
- And it has no VAT.
- VAT is inserted at the end of the value chain and clearly declared.
- But there are also taxes in the price, that can't be seen,
- and that arise during the value adding chain.
- Wages contain income tax, costs for fringe benefits and social costs.
- But the prices of the products contain hidden taxes as they also have to pay wages
- which are also taxed. All this is reflected in the prices.
- The same thing applies to the costs for infrastructure.
- The consumer pays it all.
- Because the money he spends is the money
- that pays everything else. Including taxes.
- What would it look like, if all this was transparent?
- If an amount of money is taxed - like this -
- - clearly visible, like VAT -
- - only falling due at the end of the value chain,
- then taxes could bite into the ripe apple,
- instead of nibbling at it beforehand.
- Therefore, everyone would be able to see
- how much they are contributing to, and controlling the state.
- Democracy takes place at the till.
- At the till, we are all equals.
- Illegal employment would disappear if we only had VAT.
- Because there would be no more tax on labor.
- But the black market would become very attractive.
- Paying the barber 20 CHF under the table instead of 40 CHF?
- That makes a big difference.
- If there is no receipt,
- a higher end tax could be avoided.
- But if there is only this one tax left
- tax investigation would be much easier and more effective.
- But tax consultants would no longer be needed.
- Heavy bureaucracy within companies and financial administrations would decrease.
- Georg Vobruba: In a world without borders, a state can only
- levy taxes sustainably
- if it can find a source of tax revenues that cannot run away.
- The only tax that cannot run away is VAT.
- It falls due the moment the consumer 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 whoever drinks it.
- Income tax, on the other hand, pretends as if
- income were the real fruit of my labor;
- because my income is what I bring back home.
- Income tax is the tax for self sufficiency.
- Because of this it is problematic in a system of total dependency.
- An increase in elderly people, unemployment -
- - would not be a financial problem for the state with consumption tax.
- Because there will always be consumption.
- And enough is being produced.
- And that highlights another problem for income taxes.
- Because in this system, machines are exempt from tax.
- If 2 products cost the same, but one of them is made
- mainly by human beings and the other by machines,
- the first will contain significantly heigher taxes,
- while the other will contain less.
- As machines don't earn an income,
- their work is mostly tax free.
- Like illegal employment.
- On the left; this could be the barber.
- On the right; the washing machine.
- As human labor is taxed,
- the prices will contain high taxes, while the other will contain less.
- If we only take the real, effective price of the value of both these products,
- without the previously added taxes,
- and then add the same amount of consumption tax to both
- until both reach the same tax capacity,
- which was shown in red previously,
- then one would be cheaper than it is today, and the other more expensive.
- Work done by machines would no longer be subsidized.
- Labor done by humans and machines would now be taxed in the same way
- because taxes only fall due on the end product.
- Now machines would not only take over the jobs, they would also bare the taxes.
- And if the current price of a man's haircut did not change with these consumption taxes,
- then the tax revenue would increase significantly.
- If a lot of taxes are already included in the prices, as they are in the current system,
- then they will cross national borders with the products.
- So people in other countries will also be paying for the Swiss
- education system, infrastructure and social standards
- whenever they buy a Swiss product.
- That is one of its injustices.
- And the other?
- One of the many reasons why we can buy foreign products
- so cheaply in this country,
- is because the people who produce them receive less state benefits,
- and so less is added to the price.
- Consumption tax would be added to all imports,
- to everything that comes into the country to be sold.
- The same tax would be added to products produced here.
- It is added to all products sold within the country,
- because it benefits everyone who lives in it.
- But consumption tax cannot be exported.
- If a product crosses a national border, it does so without its taxes.
- Every country remains sovereign to determine its own budget
- which it pays for itself.
- Consumption tax is the just tax system for globalization.
- The fair tax system for fair trade.
- And this is where tax on sales was invented:
- The Brühl Terraces at the banks of the Elbe in Dresden (Germany).
- Count Heinrich von Brühl had the idea of raising a charge on all sales in the country.
- A good 200 years later, the Federal Republic of Germany introduced a similar tax
- but calculated in a different way: the VAT.
- It allows for more division of labor and is competitively neutral.
- In Germany it now makes up the single biggest source for tax income with 19%,
- in Sweden it is 25%.
- It has become a requirement for EU membership.
- VAT is the tax of the future.
- It is the tax for a society built on dependency.
- One person who has contributed to the introduction
- of a VAT in Germany, is Dr. Benediktus Hardorp.
- He calls it an expense or consumption tax and is of the opinion
- that VAT should be our only tax.
- I have witnessed, that income tax has a continuously decelerating effect,
- while consumption tax enables a space for the level of performance to develop.
- Consumption taxes give people the ability to ask themselves
- more clearly where they want to go with their lives. Dr. Benediktus Hardorp
- Götz Werner: Only VAT - That would be the simplest solution.
- Then we wouldn't need to file all these tax returns and so on. We would be freed from all that.
- But if VAT is the only tax left, what happens to tax exemptions?
- Because tax exemption is usually seen as the social component of the tax system.
- With VAT everyone pays the same percent of taxes, whether they are rich or poor.
- So what about the social component?
- Götz Werner:We will do the following:
- Everyone will get their VAT reimbursed in order to cover basic needs.
- This reimbursement is the basic income.
- And so the circle is complete.
- We come back to the basic income.
- But this time not starting with question 'how can it be financed?',
- but rather asking how VAT can be made more social?
- A basic income becomes the tax allowance in a VAT based system,
- a form of tax return for basic needs.
- The basic income logically emerges out of VAT
- as its social component; as a reimbursement of tax allowance.
- The fact that this has to be unconditional is self explanatory.
- What would this look like in practice?
- Let us do a calculation.
- Assuming we had a basic income of 1000
- 1000 Euros.
- Which everyone would receive.
- In the form of tax allowance.
- Independent of the level of their income.
- If I do not earn anything on top, I would still have 1000 Euros total income.
- Those earning an extra 500 Euros would end up with a total of 1500 Euro.
- Earning an extra 1000 Euros would results in a total income of 2000, and so on.
- Here, everyone receives 1000 Euros tax in the form of a basic income.
- And so how much would be spent on taxes?
- If there is no more income tax and VAT is only added
- at the end of the value chain, then we have a VAT of around 100%.
- So about half of the final price would be made up of declared taxes.
- Buying something for 10 Euros means paying 5 Euros towards taxes.
- Whoever pays 1000 Euros will have spent 500 Euros in tax.
- But he has already received 1000 Euros tax.
- So in real terms he will have paid -500 Euros tax.
- Or in other words: He has obtained 500 Euros tax.
- If someone spends 1500 Euros,
- again, half of the price will be made up of taxes, in this case 750 Euros.
- He will have received 1000,
- and paid -250 in the form of taxes. Or:
- In the end, he will have obtained 250 Euros in the form of a basic income.
- Whoever pays 2000 Euros will have contributed 1000 Euros in taxes.
- And therefore no real tax will have been payed, and none received.
- Only those spending twice their basic income will really be paying taxes.
- For 3000 Euros spent, 500 Euros will be taxed.
- Expenditures that are exactly twice the amount of the basic income will be the zero point for tax payments.
- From this point onwards there will be a progression.
- Whoever spends 3000 Euros will be taxed for 17% of the total amount.
- Whoever spends 5000 Euros will already have been taxed for 30%.
- For even higher expenditures the tax percentage can be up to 50%.
- And there will also be a progression on the other side of the coin.
- The social progression of VAT would be made much simpler with a basic income.
- And of course; more effective.
- Phillipe Van Parijs: Normally left wing parties argue that a consumption tax is regressive.
- They say that an increase in consumption tax, means the poor would pay
- a much higher percentage of their income than through personal taxes.
- But the way in which income tax is managed today, is certainly not progressive anymore either.
- Rich people tend to have more possibilities
- of hiding parts of their income
- or avoiding taxes in various ways.
- Those who can afford it, can reduce their income before it is taxed so that
- an income tax becomes ineffective.
- And the burden is carried by those who cannot afford this luxury.
- As we have seen, the income tax is also reflected in the product prices - including its progression,
- but without a basic income to maintain social accountability.
- The income tax has been reduced to a sham.
- Or: It saves you having to care.
- So this is what it looks like, if tax is added to the end product as a lump sum.
- And it looks like this, if they flow into the prices through income tax beforehand.
- Here the costs for staff would account for around half of the total price.
- On the right hand side it would only be a quarter.
- On the left hand side, labor is is under a high cost pressure.
- It accounts for the largest proportion of the price -
- - quick decisions are made on who is disposable.
- Everyone is at the end of their capacities with hardly any space for experimentation.
- On the right there would be more tolerance,
- less stress and perhaps even the consideration
- of hiring more people.
- This is the effect that VAT has on labor.
- A basic income points in the same direction.
- Part of the basic income would already be financed through the existing taxes.
- The rest would come from raising taxes,
- which will grow into private earning, in the form of a basic income.
- Even for those who supply the goods and the infrastructure.
- All taxes are only added to the end product
- when it reaches the customer.
- That is, when the Latte Macchiato lands on the customers' table.
- Then the price is calculated:
- The lower third represents the price for making the Latte Macchiato.
- The middle third is for the basic income.
- The upper third shows the price of any additional public duties.
- And by the way: all the prices are income.
- The bottom third shows the income of those who
- are directly involved in the production.
- The top third illustrates the income of those
- who create the wider enabling conditions
- and who fulfill public duties.
- The third in the middle is the basic income for everyone.
- In comparison, labor costs in this cafe would no longer account for just under
- half of the final price, as they do today. They would make up approx. one sixth.
- Then all the employees would have the same income -
- - today minus taxes, then plus the basic income. ( - The cost of the Latte Macchiato has stayed the same too.)
- The basic income extends into the existing income,
- while the level of total income does not change.
- That's the principal.
- In practice the basic income becomes a new bargaining power.
- For example, if what I am earning at work
- is almost nothing.
- Maybe I would rather stay at home -
- - and take care of the children,
- who also have their basic income.
- Or maybe I would just lie in my hammock.
- Not be in an office, but at home!
- Either way - whoever quits emotionally
- can do so officially with a basic income.
- In order to set up something of their own.
- Alone or with others.
- More scope for a playoff of ideas, rather than a playoff over income.
- Because everyone has an income which supports them in their work.
- Entirely new initiatives can be started up
- which others can join if they want
- because they also have a basic income!
- Or maybe I would simply like to continue in my current job.
- A basic income creates a level playing field.
- My own ideas of how I would like to work, are given more importance.
- Real collaboration.
- And maybe it does require a little more effort from the employer.
- There would be some significant changes within the culture of business.
- The amount and level of wages
- becomes a question of negotiation.
- This question of negotiation has many faces.
- If only one parent in a family has a regular income, the other has none
- and the children have child support,
- then one will be dependent on the income of the other -
- - and the children will be dependent on it too.
- The basic income releases income from it's dependency on groups such as
- companies or the family, and shifts it from the democratic whole towards the individual.
- A basic income is emancipatory.
- It creates a level playing field within the family.
- And increases the opportunities on the job market.
- Willi and Hans are colleagues.
- Same company, same job, same income.
- We are in Switzerland.
- 10,000 CHF is a decent amount.
- But it depends on how many people it is supporting.
- Hans has a family - a wife and two children.
- Let's assume that Switzerland had a basic income of 2.500 CHF
- in which case the children get half.
- Then Hans' family would have his -
- - his wife's -
- - and all their childrens' basic income .
- All together: 7.500 CHF.
- In the past, Hans would have had to earn this money through hard work, in order to feed his family.
- Now he can go to work for 2.500 CHF
- and the overall family income would remain the same as before.
- Willi lives alone.
- Well OK, he also has a dog.
- But dogs don't get the basic income.
- With his basic income, Willi would have the same amount as before
- if he earned 7,500 CHF from his job.
- That means, now Hans has an obvious advantage on the job market.
- Because he has a family, because there is a basic income,
- because he has a better bargaining power
- and because he can work for less than Willi
- which doesn't leave his family with less money.
- What does this mean for the amount of earned income?
- It cannot be the case that different levels of income will be paid to people
- doing the same jobs.
- Neither can it mean that
- the level of income will be dictated by Willi
- or Hans alone.
- In fact it is leveled out in a new way.
- By settling right in the middle, by 5,000 CHF.
- Same company, same job, same income.
- 5,000 CHF for Willi and for Hans.
- In addition to the measurable value of the money,
- there is also another value
- which cannot be measured:
- the creation of voluntary assets and social, cultural, human values.
- The introduction of a basic income would allow
- an increase of honorary work.
- For example in the health sector.
- Care through compassion.
- Inner activity.
- Time for each other.
- Education which strengthens.
- Open research into all areas of life
- and free entrepreneurship focused on bringing something new into the world.
- Activities, which cannot be rationalized and are often unpaid.
- A basic income would allow a frame of mind, in which we can begin to perceive what this is all about.
- Would the quantifiable value of money decrease as a result?
- Possibly, because now some would only go to work for two days a week
- and take care of their Grandma the rest of the time?
- - who also has her basic income.
- Considering today's degree of automation this would not lead to a drop in the levels of production.
- Through a healthier, more fearless,
- more self-confident and imaginative societal foundation,
- many things would gain new significance.
- And many of the things that are waiting in the wings today, will be made possible.
- Economic dynamics would increase and so would the financially quantifiable value.
- What do we need most today?
- Konstantin Adamopoulos: Trust.
- And what do you suffer from the most?
- Konstantin Adamopoulos: The cold.
- Is the basic income a fantasy, or common sense?
- Konstantin Adamopoulos: I think it is both rational and scientific.
- Then why don't we have it yet?
- Sascha Liebermann: Something in us, which directs our life like an inner compass,
- collides with the problems and possibilities that we face today.
- And we can't seem to work it out.
- And as we are obviously not yet prepared
- to ask ourselves, whether something is not quite right about our beliefs,
- whether we need to see, that our convictions are no longer appropriate,
- we desperately cling onto what we have.
- We increasingly organize everything - schools, universities -
- - focused on employment.
- Because we are still unable to give them up.
- This is in fact, a symptom.
- The intensification of old ideas in this new situation
- which we find ourselves in, with all its possibilities,
- this intensification of old ideas
- is an indication that they have already been lost.
- Jakob von Uexküll: It is no longer about sustaining the current system and the way in which it works today.
- It is about setting up visible alternatives.
- I think that the idea of a basic income, even if we start now
- by putting it into practice regionally and locally through regional currencies etc.,
- this idea becomes a very good example of an alternative system,
- which would not be all that new or revolutionary.
- Eduardo Suplicy: A basic income is no charity.
- It is not just an assistance.
- It is, like you said, a civil right,
- It is the right for each person
- to participate in the wealth of the nation.
- It is because of Senator Suplicy's work, that the unconditional basic income
- is already firmly rooted in Brazil's national law - as an aim for the future.
- In which countries is it even possible to think about a basic income?
- Helmy Abouleish: I think that it is also possible in Egypt.
- It just has to be seen in a different way.
- It cannot be compared to the models that have been designed for Europe.
- But I believe that it is in fact vital to adjust and consider it for Egypt too.
- Question: What effect would a basic income have on the people in Egypt?
- Abouleish: Initially liberating!
- It would release them from their existential distress and allow them to see
- the future in a different light, and appreciate the possibilities.
- Now it is purely about survival!
- Mister Suplicy, why are you campaigning for the basic income?
- 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
- at 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!
- A basic income could be started for children.
- For example, those born in 2000 and after.
- And through the children it would grows into society.
- Or we could start with our own income.
- By thinking differently about it.
- Götz Werner: We do not simply reward the outcomes of work through income.
- In fact we enable people to contribute to the community through income.
- The work that you do and that we all do, is always priceless
- but it is only made possible through income.
- The basic income could also be started off in a region.
- For example in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
- Or in a city.
- For example in Greifswald.
- Foundations could start by unconditionally relieving people financially.
- Falk Zientz: Through subsidies, foundations as well as the state
- have created instruments,
- in order to finance an independent cultural life and social issues.
- But the focus would not really be
- on the individual as a social entrepreneur
- or cultural businessman.
- It would only mean more project proposals, more structures and more conditions to fulfill.
- - So, the individual is not taken seriously.
- And that is exactly what the basic income would do:
- take individuals seriously.
- While some argue that it is precisely the individuals who should never be trusted
- as most of them know nothing about themselves and wouldn't want to do anything anyway.
- What has the manager of the social settlement center for the unemployed in Frankfurt Main experienced?
- Ellen Bommersheim: All the ideas are there.
- But they are submerged, often hidden behind existential anxiety and misconceptions:
- what can be done as a matter of principle, what is allowed, what is required?
- I am convinced,
- that a basic income would help to unlock more potential.
- That means, it will come back into the economy and society.
- The question is: How high would the return on investment be, if we had a basic income?
- And I think it would be pretty high.
- Than we should start with investment.
- But this investment goes to everyone.
- Even to those I don't like.
- Konstantin Adamopoulos: I think that is an essential element.
- Erich Kitzmüller: Now I have worked very hard all my whole life on disciplining myself,
- training myself to find some kind of meaningful work,
- and now these young people come along
- who never had to discipline themselves,
- and they should just be given money?
- That's a scandal!
- I think this is the real argument behind the rejection of a basic income.
- But maybe because it is not very cool and doesn't
- make a good impression to present this argument,
- people say: Yes, but how can it be financed?
- Anna Katharina Dieterle: We have been working hard towards mechanizing work,
- towards liberating people, and now all we can do is complain about the lack of jobs.
- And nobody said: Yes, damn it!
- We have been slaving away for the past 100 years
- so we do not have to work this hard anymore!
- No political party says this.
- And that really irritates me.
- Erich Kitzmüller: Then decisive argument is nothing more than personal revenge:
- The others shouldn't have it any easier than I did.
- And this would be torpedoed by the basic income.
- So if I can free myself from this attitude of revenge,
- I would not only be doing some good for the basic income,
- but also for my own health and my ability as a fellow human being.


Report this video as offensive