It is an idea proposed by those who support free-markets as a way to replace welfare and minimum wages (see Milton Friedman and the negative income tax.) There are fewer market distortions and more efficiency by doing this versus welfare or minimum wages.

Are you serious? McDonalds requires no education, no skills, no experience, and half the employees are baked their entire shift. Wtf man?

Thats you assumeing things.

There could be decently educated people that end up working at McD. That arnt Baked their entire shifts, and they could work as many work hours as some movie stars and make alot less.

My point was just sometimes people that earn alot, rarely do that much for it.

Im not saying a McD worker should earn anywhere close to a good movie star... but the amounts of money some of them make is just obscene.

Overall I think the world would be a "better" place, if the differnce between rich and poor wasnt as big.

This is a way of helping that.

I'm crap at economics, so don't let this question be a judge of character if it turns out to be stupid, but

if everyone was paid a guaranteed amount of money wouldn't that make the prices for everyday goods, like bread and toothpaste, to raise in price? I mean, if I know my costumers all make 1,700 euros on top of whatever they make I'd like raise the price of my sandwich twofold. In the end, with some inflation thrown in, wouldn't the people be left in the same situation they were in before? 

Unless, of course, the Swiss government would ban that sort of behavior.

Inflation is overwhemingly caused by the growth in the supply of money by the central bank. Where inflation occurs depends on where government is spending the most (in the U.S for example this is in health-care and education, both areas of the economy with high inflation.) For competitive markets the price of a good approaches its marginal cost (P = MC.) So even though consumers can spend more, these companies (who we call prices takers) wouldn't dare raise prices, because their competition will undercut them. For less-competitive markets, i.e oligipolies and monopolistic competition, the companies have more say in prices (price-makers) but since they are competing with what we call a composite good (all of the other things people can buy) they also won't increase prices, because then people would buy less of their good (these companies are already restricting the supply to maintain their current price.) Generally the argument is that people will more efficiently spend on the things they truly need. So yeah, inflation will occur, but only if the government must print more money to fund this than it would've otherwise. Switzerland is generally good about not devaluing its currency. 

Cost of living would rise, but for other reasons.

Wages would rise for service jobs, which would stack along all industries to cause fast food (farm help, drivers, cooks, cashiers, etc) to be like $12-15 a person... cell phones, cable tv, etc would also raise wages... even gas stations.

The added taxes wouldn't help either.

We possess the resources to implement these kinds of initiatives so it only asks the question, "Why not?"

Unless the cost of living is very high in Switzerland, that sounds like a very large amount. I support the idea but the amount sounds too high.

The people that need the money probably already receive it, so for them it shouldn't make a difference. However, having national welfare, or whatever you want to call it, would simplify the system and eliminate the need for having some other forms of payments. As a result of said simplification, a large amount of the people who are currently employed by the system to handle the payments could be freed up to work on productive work. And finally, the tax system can be adjusted to recoup the losses.

tl;dr: If done correctly, it won't make any practical difference to citizens. On the other hand, it will free up people to work in productive jobs instead of handling bureucracy, as well as making the system easier to understand and have less room for misuse.

Those on government assitance will now have the ability to be picky about where they work.  Service wages will skyrocket, and hence the cost of living will skyrocket.

I did some fuzzy math on the United States and it would cost about 5-6T a year to do the same here. The worst part is that in order to afford the goverment salary, the tax rates would have to skyrocket which would literally disincentize people from working.

I don't quite follow your logic. If the people are already getting that money, albeit in a more difficult way, how would this make a much of a difference for them? Besides, not working means no extra money on top of national wage, which ought to be a pretty good incentive to work. Of course the national wage needs to be low enough so that people have an incentive to work. Ideally it would be comparable to the assistances they can already get.