berilah basic income atau peruntukan bebas atau bantuan sara hidup RM750 setiap penduduk, yang akan menjadi RM25 sehari, untuk mengatasi GST, SST, dan kenakan juga cukai 2% atas orang kaya dengan harta lebihi RM 20juta atau RM0.4 juta setiap orang kaya sebagai sumbangan untuk kesejahteraan awam. Diminta derma secara sukarela daripada cukai mungkin lebih mudah dilaksanakan. Bagi penduduk yang 14 tahun dan kebawah, masuk peruntukan ini bawah ibu atau penjaga mereka.
Kita harus cukai atas kekayaan, pendapatan, penggunaan, nilai tambah dan sumber untuk mengagihkan pendapatan asas kepada semua orang, dan mengarahkan kekayaan kepada pengurusan kesihatan, perlindungan, makanan, pendidikan, kesejahteraan semua orang, dan mengurus alam sekitar dan sumber yang ada .
提供每居民RM750的基本收入或免费津贴，就是每天RM25,以支付GST，SST，并对财富超过2000万令吉的富人征收2％的税 (40万令吉) 作为群众福祉的捐款。要求自愿捐款代替税收可能更容易实施。对于14岁及以下的居民，给其母亲或监护人。
我们应该对财富，收入，消费，增值和资源征税，以向每个人分配基本收入，并将财富直接用于管理所有人的健康，住房，食物，教育，福祉，并管理可用的环境和资源 。
provide basic income or free allowance of RM750 per resident, that will be RM25 per day, to cover GST, SST, and also charge 2% tax on rich people over RM 20 million in wealth, or every rich person RM0.4 million as a donation for the well being of mass. Asked for a voluntary donation instead of tax may be easier to implement. For residents 14-year-old and below, this provision is given to their mother or guardian.
We should tax on one wealth, income, consumption, value-added and resources to distribute basic income to everyone, and direct wealth on the management of health, shelter, food, education, well being of everyone, and manage the environment and resources available.
bayaran tunai yang dijamin kepada semua ahli masyarakat tanpa syarat.
telah mengadakan percubaan di Finland
Kebanyakan cadangan menegaskan bahawa bayaran harus minimum, begitu kecil, sebenarnya, ia akan menjadi insentif bagi penerima termiskin untuk mencari pekerjaan.
Cadangan mengenai dividen kebebasan atau pendapatan asas sejagat menjadi separuh daripada gaji minimun dan diberikan kepada semua orang.
Kita boleh mulakan dengan orang-orang di bawah umur 20 tahun, untuk membina asas generasi masa depan, dari segi pendidikan, khasiat. Seri Rumahtangga akan diberi tugas yang lebih besar dan berkata dalam perkara ini.
Kedua untuk melindungi mereka yang berusia di atas 60 tahun, jadi mereka boleh bersara dengan maruah jika mereka memilihnya.
Satu lagi kumpulan adalah mereka yang tidak dapat menyokong sendiri.
Akhirnya mereka mampu 20 hingga 60 tahun, untuk membebaskan mereka dalam kerja usus, untuk mengejar mimpi mereka, melakukan apa sahaja yang mereka suka atau cemerlang, atau hanya untuk mengekalkan gaya hidup yang dikehendaki. Ia akan menghalang eksploitasi buruh.
Ini hanya boleh diperuntukkan kepada semua orang yang dibangkitkan untuk membebaskan diri dari makanan, tempat tinggal, penjagaan kesihatan, pendidikan, dan sebagainya. Sebaliknya, untuk menjana aktiviti ekonomi minimum atau asas dalam revolusi industri ke-4.
Wang yang dijana adalah lebih baik digunakan daripada wang yang dihasilkan melalui spekulasi dalam teknologi, internet, perumahan, saham, dll, pinjaman melalui bank atau dana dari bank pusat atau pendapatan lain melalui carigali, pembuatan, perkhidmatan, harta intelektual dll.
a guaranteed cash payment to all members of society.
has already had a trial run in Finland
Most proposals emphasize that the payment should be minimal, so small, in fact, that it would be an incentive for the poorest recipients to seek work.
Proposal on freedom dividend or universal basic income to be half of minimun wage and to be given to everyone.
We can start off with those under 20 ages, to built up the foundation of future generation, in term of education, nutrient. Homemaker would be given greater task and say and decision in these.
Second to cover those above 60 ages, so they can retired with dignity if they choose so.
Another group are those who unable to support themselve.
Lastly those able 20 to 60 ages, to free them in dairy routine, to pursue their dream, to do whatever they like or excel, or just to maintain the lifestyle the want. It will prevent labour exploitation.
These can be just allocated money to everyone generated to free worry on food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. On the other hand to generate minimum or basic economy activities in the 4th industry revolution.
This money generated is better used than money generated through speculation in tech, internet, housing, share, etc bubble, loan through bank or fund from central bank or other earning through mining, manufacture, services, intellectual properties etc.
向所有社会成员支付 基本收入，不附带任何要求
已经在芬兰试运行了
大多数提案都强调，给予基本收入应该是微不足道的，实际上很小，以至于它会激励最贫穷的接受者寻找工作。
关于自由红利或普遍基本收入的建议是最低工资的一半，并给予每个人。
我们可以从20岁以下的人开始，在教育，营养方面建立下一代的基础。家庭作者将被赋予更大的任务，并有发言权和决定权。
其次是为了覆盖60岁以上的人，如果他们选择的话，他们可以有尊严地退休。
另一组是无法支持自我的人。
最后，那些20到60岁的人，可以在 常规中解放他们，追求他们的梦想，做他们喜欢或擅长的事情，或者只是为了追求他们要维持生活方式。它将防止劳动剥削。
这些可以只是为每个人分配资金，以免费担心食物，住所，医疗，教育等。另一方面，在第四次产业革命中产生最低或基本的经济活动。
通过技术，互联网，住房，股票等泡沫，通过银行或中央银行提供的资金或通过采矿，制造，服务，知识产权等获得的收入，所产生的资金没有比自由红利或普遍基本收使用的资金更好地使用。
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/universal-basic-income-wasn-t-invented-by-today-s-democrats?srnd=opinion&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view
Thomas Paine, the Founding Father and all-around 18th-century revolutionary, was among the first to propose some version of the idea
the amount should be sufficient for a young couple to “buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land.”
the radical Belgian thinker Joseph Charlier outlined a national version of the UBI. He assured his critics that the size of the payment would be quite modest. “The state will secure bread to all but truffles to no one,” he wrote. “Too bad for the lazy; they will have to get by with the minimum allowance. The duty of society does not go beyond this.”
the British philosopher John Stuart Mill had more luck persuading readers. In Mill’s time, poverty was handled in one of two ways: private charity or compulsory labor in so-called workhouses. In both cases, this required judgments — often subjective — about whether the person was worthy of charity or should be forced to work.
Mill wanted to get rid of both approaches. “The dispensers of public relief have no business to be inquisitors,” he wrote. Instead, he proposed that everyone be guaranteed a subsistence income, but nothing more. He wished to insure “all persons against absolute want,” but this minimum subsistence income had to be made “less desirable than the condition of those who find support for themselves.”
the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek. Like his predecessors, the Nobel laureate believed the UBI should be a bare minimum; anything more would require “controlling or abolishing the market.”
Hayek argued that “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which anybody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself” was “wholly legitimate” and a “necessary” condition of modern life.
The University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman did. Like Hayek, he despised government welfare programs, which attacked poverty via an elaborate patchwork quilt of food stamps, housing subsidies, and other need-based measures. Friedman wanted to sweep away all of this, replacing it with something he called a “negative income tax.”
Friedman believed the level had to be “low enough to give people a substantial and consistent incentive to earn their way out of the program.” All other public assistance would be abolished.
Far better, argued Galbraith, to put a uniform, universal floor below which no one could fall, and let those with the will to work supplement this basic income with the fruits of their labor. A thousand economists petitioned Congress to consider the idea in 1968; President Lyndon Johnson’s Commission on Income Maintenance Programs offered additional support for the proposal in 1969.
The Democratic candidate George McGovern revived the idea in the 1972 campaign, proposing a universal basic income plan dubbed the “demogrant” that would have given $1,000 a year to every man, woman and child.
Now the UBI is back, supported by an unlikely coalition of allies: progressives eager to renew the “War on Poverty” and libertarian billionaires from Silicon Valley.
Perhaps there’s room for a grand compromise of the kind envisioned by Mill, Friedman, Galbraith and others: a universal basic income that brings the end of traditional welfare programs.
Kita harus cukai atas kekayaan, pendapatan, penggunaan, nilai tambah dan sumber untuk mengagihkan pendapatan asas kepada semua orang, dan mengarahkan kekayaan kepada pengurusan kesihatan, perlindungan, makanan, pendidikan, kesejahteraan semua orang, dan mengurus alam sekitar dan sumber yang ada .
提供每居民RM750的基本收入或免费津贴，就是每天RM25,以支付GST，SST，并对财富超过2000万令吉的富人征收2％的税 (40万令吉) 作为群众福祉的捐款。要求自愿捐款代替税收可能更容易实施。对于14岁及以下的居民，给其母亲或监护人。
我们应该对财富，收入，消费，增值和资源征税，以向每个人分配基本收入，并将财富直接用于管理所有人的健康，住房，食物，教育，福祉，并管理可用的环境和资源 。
provide basic income or free allowance of RM750 per resident, that will be RM25 per day, to cover GST, SST, and also charge 2% tax on rich people over RM 20 million in wealth, or every rich person RM0.4 million as a donation for the well being of mass. Asked for a voluntary donation instead of tax may be easier to implement. For residents 14-year-old and below, this provision is given to their mother or guardian.
We should tax on one wealth, income, consumption, value-added and resources to distribute basic income to everyone, and direct wealth on the management of health, shelter, food, education, well being of everyone, and manage the environment and resources available.
bayaran tunai yang dijamin kepada semua ahli masyarakat tanpa syarat.
telah mengadakan percubaan di Finland
Kebanyakan cadangan menegaskan bahawa bayaran harus minimum, begitu kecil, sebenarnya, ia akan menjadi insentif bagi penerima termiskin untuk mencari pekerjaan.
Cadangan mengenai dividen kebebasan atau pendapatan asas sejagat menjadi separuh daripada gaji minimun dan diberikan kepada semua orang.
Kita boleh mulakan dengan orang-orang di bawah umur 20 tahun, untuk membina asas generasi masa depan, dari segi pendidikan, khasiat. Seri Rumahtangga akan diberi tugas yang lebih besar dan berkata dalam perkara ini.
Kedua untuk melindungi mereka yang berusia di atas 60 tahun, jadi mereka boleh bersara dengan maruah jika mereka memilihnya.
Satu lagi kumpulan adalah mereka yang tidak dapat menyokong sendiri.
Akhirnya mereka mampu 20 hingga 60 tahun, untuk membebaskan mereka dalam kerja usus, untuk mengejar mimpi mereka, melakukan apa sahaja yang mereka suka atau cemerlang, atau hanya untuk mengekalkan gaya hidup yang dikehendaki. Ia akan menghalang eksploitasi buruh.
Ini hanya boleh diperuntukkan kepada semua orang yang dibangkitkan untuk membebaskan diri dari makanan, tempat tinggal, penjagaan kesihatan, pendidikan, dan sebagainya. Sebaliknya, untuk menjana aktiviti ekonomi minimum atau asas dalam revolusi industri ke-4.
Wang yang dijana adalah lebih baik digunakan daripada wang yang dihasilkan melalui spekulasi dalam teknologi, internet, perumahan, saham, dll, pinjaman melalui bank atau dana dari bank pusat atau pendapatan lain melalui carigali, pembuatan, perkhidmatan, harta intelektual dll.
a guaranteed cash payment to all members of society.
has already had a trial run in Finland
Most proposals emphasize that the payment should be minimal, so small, in fact, that it would be an incentive for the poorest recipients to seek work.
Proposal on freedom dividend or universal basic income to be half of minimun wage and to be given to everyone.
We can start off with those under 20 ages, to built up the foundation of future generation, in term of education, nutrient. Homemaker would be given greater task and say and decision in these.
Second to cover those above 60 ages, so they can retired with dignity if they choose so.
Another group are those who unable to support themselve.
Lastly those able 20 to 60 ages, to free them in dairy routine, to pursue their dream, to do whatever they like or excel, or just to maintain the lifestyle the want. It will prevent labour exploitation.
These can be just allocated money to everyone generated to free worry on food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. On the other hand to generate minimum or basic economy activities in the 4th industry revolution.
This money generated is better used than money generated through speculation in tech, internet, housing, share, etc bubble, loan through bank or fund from central bank or other earning through mining, manufacture, services, intellectual properties etc.
向所有社会成员支付 基本收入，不附带任何要求
已经在芬兰试运行了
大多数提案都强调，给予基本收入应该是微不足道的，实际上很小，以至于它会激励最贫穷的接受者寻找工作。
关于自由红利或普遍基本收入的建议是最低工资的一半，并给予每个人。
我们可以从20岁以下的人开始，在教育，营养方面建立下一代的基础。家庭作者将被赋予更大的任务，并有发言权和决定权。
其次是为了覆盖60岁以上的人，如果他们选择的话，他们可以有尊严地退休。
另一组是无法支持自我的人。
最后，那些20到60岁的人，可以在 常规中解放他们，追求他们的梦想，做他们喜欢或擅长的事情，或者只是为了追求他们要维持生活方式。它将防止劳动剥削。
这些可以只是为每个人分配资金，以免费担心食物，住所，医疗，教育等。另一方面，在第四次产业革命中产生最低或基本的经济活动。
通过技术，互联网，住房，股票等泡沫，通过银行或中央银行提供的资金或通过采矿，制造，服务，知识产权等获得的收入，所产生的资金没有比自由红利或普遍基本收使用的资金更好地使用。
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/universal-basic-income-wasn-t-invented-by-today-s-democrats?srnd=opinion&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view
Thomas Paine, the Founding Father and all-around 18th-century revolutionary, was among the first to propose some version of the idea
the amount should be sufficient for a young couple to “buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land.”
the radical Belgian thinker Joseph Charlier outlined a national version of the UBI. He assured his critics that the size of the payment would be quite modest. “The state will secure bread to all but truffles to no one,” he wrote. “Too bad for the lazy; they will have to get by with the minimum allowance. The duty of society does not go beyond this.”
the British philosopher John Stuart Mill had more luck persuading readers. In Mill’s time, poverty was handled in one of two ways: private charity or compulsory labor in so-called workhouses. In both cases, this required judgments — often subjective — about whether the person was worthy of charity or should be forced to work.
Mill wanted to get rid of both approaches. “The dispensers of public relief have no business to be inquisitors,” he wrote. Instead, he proposed that everyone be guaranteed a subsistence income, but nothing more. He wished to insure “all persons against absolute want,” but this minimum subsistence income had to be made “less desirable than the condition of those who find support for themselves.”
the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek. Like his predecessors, the Nobel laureate believed the UBI should be a bare minimum; anything more would require “controlling or abolishing the market.”
Hayek argued that “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which anybody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself” was “wholly legitimate” and a “necessary” condition of modern life.
The University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman did. Like Hayek, he despised government welfare programs, which attacked poverty via an elaborate patchwork quilt of food stamps, housing subsidies, and other need-based measures. Friedman wanted to sweep away all of this, replacing it with something he called a “negative income tax.”
Friedman believed the level had to be “low enough to give people a substantial and consistent incentive to earn their way out of the program.” All other public assistance would be abolished.
Far better, argued Galbraith, to put a uniform, universal floor below which no one could fall, and let those with the will to work supplement this basic income with the fruits of their labor. A thousand economists petitioned Congress to consider the idea in 1968; President Lyndon Johnson’s Commission on Income Maintenance Programs offered additional support for the proposal in 1969.
The Democratic candidate George McGovern revived the idea in the 1972 campaign, proposing a universal basic income plan dubbed the “demogrant” that would have given $1,000 a year to every man, woman and child.
Now the UBI is back, supported by an unlikely coalition of allies: progressives eager to renew the “War on Poverty” and libertarian billionaires from Silicon Valley.
Perhaps there’s room for a grand compromise of the kind envisioned by Mill, Friedman, Galbraith and others: a universal basic income that brings the end of traditional welfare programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment