Comments 4

Базалық табысты дұрыс ұйымдастыру

Mar 21, 2017 Kemal Derviş

ВАШИНГТОН – Шартсыз базалық табыс (UBI) схемалары осы күндері ел арасында қызу талқыланып жатыр. Әрине, жұмыспен қамтылуына қарамастан елдің барлық заңды тұрғындарын қолма-қол ақшаның стандартты сомасымен қамтамасыз ету идеясы су жаңа емес. Философ Томас Мор он алтыншы ғасырда осы идеяны жақтаған, ал Джон Кеннет Гэлбрейт пен Милтон Фридмен жылдар өте оның басқа да нұсқаларын ұсынған. Бірақ соңғы уақытта бұл идея бүгінгі технологиялардан орын алған экономикалық мәселелерді шешетін құрал ретінде талқыланып жатыр. Ал бұл, шын мәнінде, дұрыс шешім бола ма?

UBI ұсынысының үш негізгі ерекшеліктері бар: ол барлық азаматтарды негізгі әлеуметтік «бастамамен» қамтамасыз етеді; ол адамға бұл қолдауды пайдалану жолын таңдауға мүмкіндік береді; және ол көптеген әлеуметтік қолдау бағдарламалары тәуелді болған бюрократияны оңтайландыруға көмектесе алады. UBI толықтай «портативті» бола алады, сол арқылы, ол жиі жұмыс орындарын өзгертетін, әлеуметтік сақтандыру бойынша ұзақ мерзімді жұмыс берушге тәуелді болғысы келмейтін, немесе өзін-өзі жұмыспен қамтитын азаматтарға көмектесе алады.

UBI -ні кедейшілікті шектеу құралы ретінде қарастырып, көптеген солшыл жақтағылар оны өз бағдарламасына қосып алған. Ал көптеген либертариандықтарға оның алушыларға ақшаны жұмсау жолдарын еркін таңдауға мүмкіндік беретіні, тіпті осылай жасауды талап ететіні ұнайды. Өте бай адамдар да кейде осы идеяны қолдап жатады, себебі

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 in all 5 Comments on this article

Sourav Mitra Mar 22, 2017

situation will simplify when robots displace human workers.

the money saved on salaries and/ or a part of the additional earnings from higher productivity of robots could be contributed to the universal UBI fund from which citizens receive their regulat basic income.

until then the top ten percent of the wealthiest people could be urged to make generous voluntary contributions to the ubi fund.

if such contributions from the rich are publicised the collections would be much larger
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Bruce Mar 21, 2017

Fortunately we don't need UBI immediately, but that is precisely why we must use the current window for pilot schemes to fully understand all the implications. Those who don't see the need are thinking with a 20th century mindset, and clearly have no idea where automation is now leading us.

In the post war age, on which most economics is based, the needs of capital, labour and government all overlapped. New technology enabled capital investment to get healthy profits, but firms also needed expanding labour to achieve this. Employment growth consistently boosted wages, whilst the increased income tax receipts also funded expansion of government spending, further boosting economic growth.

However, this golden age has passed. Capital no longer needs labour to make big profits in the digital age, and we could soon be into a new era of jobless growth. Labour and governments will soon both be left asking "what the hell just happened?" even though experts have already being warning of the consequences. Yet governments show how clueless they are by continuing to cut back corporation taxes, blissfully unaware that the biggest returns today are now going to capital, not labour, and income tax receipts may well collapse in the next two decades. Solving these challenges requires a fundamental relearning of where wealth is created in the Global economy and how we need it to be distributed.

Of course Universal Basic Income involves huge challenges, but it also answers many of the problems we face in the Global economy today. Sceptics claim that giving people money for doing nothing will undermine work incentives of the lazy and feckless population. But in fact UBI provides greater incentives to work for additional income than current means-tested welfare systems, where benefits are lost as soon as earned income increases. Besides if gifting money removes all work incentives, shouldn't we be increasing inheritance tax to 100% ? But then of course "your" children are different, aren't they !

Robert P Bruce - www.TheGlobalRace.net
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Mar 21, 2017

And you are going to convince the employers to pay for this how? Since it would involve raising taxes and the people who would pay the increase in taxes pretty much own the governments outright. It is after all cheaper to higher a trained man from India then pay to train your own citizens. And the bottom line is ALWAYS the final say. Mr Dervis I find your proposal interesting but the only thing deader then Social solidarity in the western countries is the planet Mars. There is NO social solidarity in the west and that isn't going to change within anyone now livings lifetime.
- Steve Hurst Mar 21, 2017
  
  stephan
  
  I agree - pretty every step corporates take is unhelpful in addressing inequality and it is very well established as a behaviour, its gone on for decades. Overseas low wages are used to lever things down and there is still plenty of scope for leverage to continue
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Mar 21, 2017

The basic problem with the idea of 're-skilling' is the cost of it. Any serious level of study leaves the student with very very substantial debt if the funding is even available.

The idea often seems to be that 'workers' knowledge based or labour based should expect to be regularly shunted out of the door, refresh and retrain and re-enter.

Unfortunately the level of 'retraining' or 'new qualifications' available over a short interval at low cost is insufficient for most to make a replacement career - Hence Brexit and Trump. Obviously some skills are 'tranferable' - another buzz word - but many are not. As for the UBI - the 15% of GDP touted by some is roughly 1/3rd of government revenue - somehow I expect there to be insufficient budget made available for this to function particularly with the pressures of an ageing Western demographic and problems with healthcare, welfare and social spending relating to that. Japan now consumes more adult nappies than baby nappies. There is even a date now calculated for when the Japanese nation ceases to exist with current trends

I do not see how UBI addresses much at all. 'But only the most extreme libertarian would argue that the money should be handed out without any policy guidance' - Why? - It is effectively supposed to replace earning and nobody suggests such enforcement on earnings. Anybody thinking UBI will solve the forthcoming problems need to think again.

What is far more likely long term is a dwindling number of workers cannot prop up burgeoning aged welfare and support the low wage workers in growth due to inequality

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-demographic-timebomb-crippling-japans-economy-12479
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/rTNOA0o/kk;

Базалық табысты дұрыс ұйымдастыру

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register