A Quote by Rutger Bregman

No one is suggesting societies the world over should implement an expensive basic income system in one stroke. — © Rutger Bregman
No one is suggesting societies the world over should implement an expensive basic income system in one stroke.
I don't see basic income as a panacea, but we must have a new income distribution system. The old one has broken down irretrievably.
Instead of a universal basic income, we could have a basic income guarantee. Or, as economists prefer to call it, a negative income tax.
The impending destruction of jobs due to automation and AI technologies is definitely increasing the need for - and speed at which - we have to implement big solutions, such as a universal basic income.
Basic science provides long-term benefits for ourselves and our fragile planet and should be supported by all the world's societies.
The basic idea of retirement income is, to me, to get a check, two checks every month, one from your fixed income and one from equity account. And you want them to grow over time.
With a traditional human resources system, we would work with a company, select the product, customise and implement the system, and our job would be over. Some companies are changing and asking why do they need to own the HR system when they can connect to an Internet service and pay as you go?
I can't micromanage what anybody pays or doesn't pay. But the concept that half of the public isn't involved with the income-tax system is somewhat odd and I'm not saying how much people should do, but we should all be part of the system.
Zoning laws making housing more expensive? That's less of a problem with a universal basic income and more of a reason to put money directly into people's hands.
The problem that we have is some of the more vocal countries, which parade themselves as Islamic countries, are, in fact, brutal dictatorial regimes. We don't accept them as being Sharia at all, because, what they tend to do, is they tend to just implement several aspects of the penal code and one or two morsels of the social system, but the rest of the system, like providing the basic needs and the social aspects of society and an education system, is completely ousted.
From Scotland to India, and from Silicon Valley to Kenya, policymakers all over the world have become interested in basic income as an answer to poverty, unemployment and the bureaucratic behemoth of the modern welfare state.
The government should not do everything for everybody all the time, but it should provide basic services to everyone who needs them. Education ought not be contingent on income or where you live. Neither should health.
Societies that exclude the exoskeleton of religion should reflect carefully to what will happen to them over several generations. We don’t really know, because the first atheistic societies have only emerged in Europe in the last few decades. They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).
In the old 20th-century income distribution system, the shares of income going to capital, mainly in profits, and labor, in wages and non-wage benefits, were roughly stable. But that system is no more.
I often felt myself the lone voice in discussions suggesting that basic democratic principles be followed. I recommended that not only should workers' voices be heard, but they should actually have a seat at the table. You have the old boys' club discussing how the old boys' club should be reformed.
Gandhi?s idea of swadeshi?that local societies should put their own resources and capacities to use to meet their needs as a basic element of freedom?is becoming increasingly relevant. We cannot afford to forget that we need self-rule, especially in this world of globalization.
The Princeton economist Alan Krueger has demonstrated that societies with higher levels of income inequality are societies with lower levels of social mobility.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!