What is the opposition to those who argue—given the facts, not the poor rhetoric—that the basic income system as it is, is providential nonsense, and an incitement to the parasitic progressive backwardness of the country? The fact is that the parties to the exchange vote on basic income, Pd and 5Stelle in the first row, arise on the basis of an unacknowledged but obvious assumption: namely, that the barrage of benefits must not actually remedy the lack of work because there is no work and until there is, but to make up for the lack of work, The fact of not working turned into the right not to work. That money is no longer of an alleged compensation nature: it is in fact a salary with which the state, that is, the taxpayer, pays someone for doing nothing.
But it is not clear on what principle the state, the taxpayer, should give money to someone without doing anything in return.
It goes without saying that if he cannot work, because he is ill, sick, or otherwise, he cannot be required to pay back what he receives: but otherwise? Otherwise he has to earn that money, and there is definitely something to make him do.
It cleans the streets, removes trash and plastic from beaches, keeps the woods and gardens tidy, brings groceries to the elderly, in short, does one of many things needed by the community to which it passes that money. but not. Because among champions of the earned (and rewarded) right not to work, this minimal balancing give/take tastes like punishment, smacks of oppression, and recipes of exploitation. Obviously, the suspicion that this money is taken from the pockets of those who did not receive it as a gift does not concern them, in fact they do not have it. Obviously, the responsibility does not lie with those who receive this needless income: it rests with those who promised it and wanted to guarantee it despite it being superfluous.
“Internet trailblazer. Travelaholic. Passionate social media evangelist. Tv advocate.”