2020年10月13日

菅政権が其遣るって話出てるかね?

https://www.moneypost.jp/712100
1人7万円のベーシックインカム 消費税で賄うなら「税率50%」必要

 菅政権が其遣るって話出てるかね?其んな短期間に𠍟る事でもない。最低給付はまだ散発的な実験が行われてる程度だし。言い方替えると已前から有る議論であって、竹中云々は関係無い。最近話題にしたって𠀋。𝟖月に本が出てるんなら其の宣伝も有るかも知れない。𝟔万円くらいで検討してみる話はもう数年前の話だろう。日本の媒体や識者や経営者の提言と云うのは、基本的にもう欧米で話題になった𢪱の𨒥追いだと考えておいた方が良い。無人機然り、人工知能然り、造形機然り。最低給付も同様。



 私が何年か前に此の手の話題を最初に知った時、若し日本で遣るなら最低𝟐𝟎万円は貰えないと迚も足りないだろうが、現実的には其んな高額給付は無理だろうと思った。日本の媒体では「お金が貰える」許り強調されていたが、代わりとして生活保護や年金や医療費は削られる事ももう最初から一緒になっている。別に菅やら竹中やらは関係無い。だから、外国で幾つか行われた社会実験も個人的には中途半端で参考にならない𢪱と感じた。既存の社会保障を維持した儘給付金が貰える実験許りだったのだから。



 其の後地方の都市部で生活するには月𝟑𝟎万近く必要になると云う試算も目にした。都心に比べれば物価も家賃や駐車場の利用料金も安いかも知れないが、其でも郊外に較べればお金は掛かるし、必須となってくる自家用車の購入;維持費用も増える。



 但、此のお話、良いのか悪いのかは年齢や立場によって結構異なる筈で、本来なら議論が白熱するだろうに、今ひとつ盛り上がっては居ないように思う。



 例えば来年の𝟏月から此の制度が始まるとする。高齢者の場合、健康な人でも何かしら医者や薬の世話になっている事が多いので、其の保険がいきなり効かなくなる。𝟑割負担が消えるのなら、医療費は一気に昂騰する事になる。流石に倍以上になると払えない人が増える。若し最低給付へ移行するなら何かしらの経過措置が取られるか、別途支援策が準備されるのは確実だろう。だからいきなりお金が不足すると云うところまでは考えなくて哿いと思う。問題は、完全移行迄哪㸓の有餘が有るのか?と云う所。年金に関しては国民年金なのか企業年金なのかと云った種類によって変わってくるだろう。



 「貰えた物が貰えなくなる」と云う点に関しては難しい所で、年金や医療保険が破綻すれば哪の道貰えなくなる。其なら減額されてでも先に確実に貰える方が良いのではないか?と云う考え方は𠍟る。勿論、其の給付金すら減額されたり廃止されたりする可能性だって無きにしも非ず。



 生活保護や失業保険にしても同様。而も給付には審査が有る。其の前に相談もするし、自分で調べたり哪処かの専門家に相談するかも知れない。其には時間やお金が掛かる。行政にしても正職員を取られるし、窓口や訪問には派遣やバイㇳを使っている場合も有る。其の分人件費が掛かる。別々に作られている電算処理系統の開発;更新;維持にもお金が掛かる。寔は年金の調査や催促でも同様。一律給付にすると寔等の余計な手間と経費は全て消える。雇用への影響も限定的。寔に関しては最低給付に一本化する恩恵は其なりにあろう。



 生活保護の場合はお金の利用目的を自由に決められる点も大きい。働いて一定所得が発生したら反って生活が苦しくなる訳でもないし、家や車&cの財産を所有したら駄目とか其う云う訳でもない。コツコツ貯金して何かに使っても良いし、投資に回して一攫千金を夢見る事も可能。一々役所と連絡を密にする必要も無い。なので最低給付に替える恩恵は一定程度有ると考えられる。寔は学生や若い人と云った、長期間の給付が期待𠍟て、自分で或る程度自由に行動が𠍟る人、色々遣ってみたいと云う思惑の有る人にとっても良いと思う。起業したり何か利益の望めない活動に挑戦するにしても、最悪飢え死には無さそうだと云う安心感には繫がる。




 問題は得たお金を誰が哪の様に処分するのか?と云う点で、親が子供の給付金を使い込んでしまったとか、借金の形に取られてしまったとか毎月振り込め詐欺が横行するとか、在綫口座を狙った攻撃が多発するとか、色々問題が想定される。其の対策に個人や法人や行政が多額の費用を払う事になるのなら、意味も無いと云う事になる。



 最低でも「最低給付受給権を取引の担保に求めたら即犯罪」になるような、絶対不可侵な𢪱にする必要はあろう。他に、浪費癖の人や正常な判断が附かない人の保護も課題は残る。



 お金の使い方は人との相性としても重要なんじゃないか?と思うくらいに結構分かれる。星占いや血液型占いをするくらいならお金の使い方の選択肢を幾つか作って選んで貰い相性の合う人と一緒になった方がずっと幸せになれるだろう。入ったら直ぐに使ってしまう人も居れば、普段無駄遣いしないけど寔と決めてる物には使うとか何か必要な時には大きな支出も厭わない人も居るし、食べる事にお金をかける人も居れば物を揃える事にお金を掛ける人も居る。量を重視する人も居れば、質を重視する人も居る。色々な要素を総合的に考えて振り分ける人も居る。目先に細々使う人や財産として残らない消費をし過ぎてしまった人が𨒥になって困った時、其の救済は哪う𨤒るのか?と云う事も問題になる。自業自得と言えるかも知れないが、数が多くなると犯罪の温床にもなるし、行政の性質上、倒れている人を放っておく訳にもいかなくなる。併し兀々貯めたり増やして来た人には不公平感が出る。



 最低給付実行を前提にしたとしても、事前に想定しておくべき項目は多いし、其の対策も一筋縄ではいかない話が少なからず在る様に思う。単に「お金貰える」「𝟕万じゃ足りない」の話𠀋に終始してても議論にはならないだろう。



 Is there any talk of the Suga administration doing that? It's not something that can be done in such a short period of time. Basic income is still only being experimented with sporadically. In other words, it's a debate that's been going on for a long time, and it has nothing to do with Takenaka or anything else. If his book came out in August, it is related to promote it. The Japanese media, pundits, and business leaders' suggestions are basically just a follow-up to what's already been discussed in the West. Drones, artificial intelligence, 3D printers, and so on. The same goes for basic income.



 When I first heard about this kind of thing a few years ago, I thought that if we do this in Japan, we would have to get at least 200,000 yen, which is probably not enough, but realistically, we can't afford such a high benefit. The Japanese media only emphasized that we would get the money, but it has been lumped together from the beginning that welfare, pension and medical costs would be cut instead. It has nothing to do with Suga or Takenaka. And I personally feel that the social experiments that have been conducted in other countries are half-baked and unhelpful. They were all experiments that provided benefits while maintaining the existing social security system.



 I've seen estimates that you'll need nearly 300,000 a month to live in a rural urban area after that. Although the cost of living, rent and parking fees may be cheaper than in the city center, it is still more expensive than in the suburbs, and the cost of buying and maintaining a car, which is a necessity, also increases.



 However, whether this is a good or bad thing varies depending on the age and position of the person, and although the debate should be heated, I don't think it's getting any better.



 For example, let's say that this system starts next January. In the case of the elderly, even healthy people often have some kind of doctor or medication to take care of, but their medical insurance is suddenly no longer available. If the 30% co-pay disappears, the cost of medical care will skyrocket. As you would expect, the number of people who can't afford it will increase when it doubles or more. If we are going to move to a basic income system, it is certain that some sort of transitional measure will be taken or a separate support plan will be put in place. So I don't think we need to get to the point where we're suddenly going to run out of money. The question is, how much time do we have before the full transition? As for the pensions, it will depend on the type of pensions, such as the national pension or the corporate pension.



 As for the point of not being able to receive what you have been given, it's a difficult one. In that case, wouldn't it be better to get the benefits even if they are reduced? You can think of it as a way of thinking. Of course, even that benefit could be reduced or eliminated.



 The same goes for welfare and unemployment insurance. And there is a screening process for benefits. Before that, you may have to consult with them, or you may have to do your own research or consult with some experts. That takes time and money. The government also has to hire full-time employees, and in some cases they use temporary or part-time workers to help with contact and visits. That costs a lot of labor. Developing; updating; and maintaining the separate computerized processing system also costs money. This is also true for pension research and prompting. If you make it a flat benefit, all of these extra steps and expenses will disappear. The impact on employment is also limited. The benefits of a single basic income would be reasonable in this regard.



 Another important aspect of the welfare system is that you can freely decide how you want to use the money. If you work and earn a certain amount of income, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will have a hard time living, and it doesn't mean that you can't own property such as a house or a car. You can save it up and use it for something, or invest it and dream of getting rich. You don't have to keep in touch with the government. So, there is a certain amount of benefit to switching to basic income. This would be good for students and young people, who can expect long-term benefits and have some freedom of action, as well as for those who want to try various things. Even if they try to start a business or engage in some unprofitable activity, the worst that can happen is that they won't starve to death.



 The question is, who will dispose of the money gained and how? In this regard, we can expect a number of problems, such as parents spending their children's benefits, or being taken as collateral for debts, or rampant monthly wire transfer fraud, or a number of attacks on online accounts. If individuals, corporations, and the government have to pay a lot of money for such measures, it is not worth it.



 At the very least, it needs to be made absolutely inviolable, such that "asking for basic income entitlements as collateral for a transaction would immediately be a crime". Other issues remain to be addressed, including the protection of people with spending habits and those who are unable to make normal decisions.



 People make different decisions about how to spend their money. Isn't that important in judging how well you live with? I think. Rather than doing an astrology or blood type reading, you'll be much happier if you make several choices about how to spend your money and get together with someone who is compatible with you. Some people spend money as soon as it comes in, others don't waste it, but are willing to spend it on a specific project or on a big project when they need it, some people spend money on food and others on supplies. Some people focus on quantity, while others focus on quality. There are people who consider various factors in total and allocate them. When people who spend a little in the immediate future or spend too much that will not remain as a fortune are in trouble later, how will they get relief? This is also a problem. You might say it's self-inflicted, but when the numbers are high, it becomes a breeding ground for crime, and the nature of government means that you can't just leave the people who are falling over. However, it is unfair to those who have come to save and increase their baldness.

 Even if we assume that basic income is to be implemented, there are many items that should be anticipated in advance, and there are more than a few stories that are not straightforward to deal with. We won't get into a discussion if we just say "we can get money" or "70,000 is not enough".

posted by Marimó Castellanouveau-Tabasco at 03:59| 東京 ☀| 情報処理 | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする