I am always worried about any negative unintended consequences however.
Bureaucrats? Think of all the corruption, the graft, the kickbacks, the political favors, the relatives and friends of high ranking members of government with their fingers in that pie. Look at all the members of Congress that enter with little and leave with mega millions. Look at the office of the presidency. It pays $400K a year. Who would want to put up with all that bullshit for that amount of money?
If you combine all of these federal benefits into a single program, what will happen to all the bureaucrats?
Won't someone think of the bureaucrats that these benefit programs keep employed.
Uno
The reason a lot of people need welfare is because they make bad decisions. Now the government is giving them $865 to go out and do whatever with. I would be all for reducing the administrative overhead.... but this seems like there would be more problems created than solved... so it would not work in the U.S.
I'm pretty liberal but I'd totally support minimum income + social medicine and a dropping of every other benefit that uses any kind of means testing. We all get the same minimum income and healthcare. Be a bum or go beyond that, don't care. Blow your money and end up homeless, don't care. Blow your money and not take care of your kids, lose your kids. It'll be interesting to see how it does.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/07/news/economy/finland-basic-income-800-euros/index.html
The Finnish government, elected earlier this year, is planning to introduce a tax-free monthly payment of 800 euros ($865) to all adult Finns, regardless of income, wealth or employment status. The payment would replace most other state benefits.
*
Wondering whether this would work elsewhere too.
I know that it would significantly cut down on bureaucracy, basically scraping the entire unemployment/welfare "apparatus", just give everyone a monthly sum of money, that's it.
Genius or crazy?
Better than the whole welfare apparatus, as you put it. Simplifies things. Similar to the negative income tax idea.
But why is it given regardless of income?
One really needs to back these up with data rather than just regurgitate the same theory about "how other people will act based on what I assume to be their desires." It's getting rather cumbersome to see this same idea parroted out again and again as a worthwhile argument to be made.
First:
--Why is it that you think the goal of such programs is simply to give out free money without consequences, without an intended goal for the recipient, and without any desire to control the distribution of further free money?
Further
--Why do you assume that people just want free money and will simply continue to ask for more and do nothing with it? You seem to have self-respect and a desire to produce and be useful--why is it that you are this special snowflake and such qualities do not extend to the rest of humanity? is it simply because they are in a position to be taking government assistance? Is there some sort of switch in all human brains that is flipped when free money is obtained? "Oh! time to be lazy. woo hoo!"
IME, I have never seen any data that actually supports the notion that this happens to any significant measure in society--that social programs are a comparable drain on government spending as are other big budget expenses.
Also, if this program were established as a simple monthly check with essentially no administrative resources beyond the structure to print and mail out checks....how would recipients even begin to make a claim or request for more money in such a program? It sounds like that problem wouldn't even exist and is explicitly why this program is being proposed under this model. There isn't even an office, much less a window to line up at.
The moral hazard risk is the key element here. If you or your liberal peers can't resist bailing out the people who blow their money the entire scheme is likely unworkable.
I don't see it as unworkable necessarily for that reason, I see it as unworkable because there will be no elimination of the programs the money was meant to replace. A number of people in the thread either missed that the stipend would take the place of those programs or have intentionally chosen to ignore it.The moral hazard risk is the key element here. If you or your liberal peers can't resist bailing out the people who blow their money the entire scheme is likely unworkable.
Yes but for those who do work, having that base pay would free up their income to spend and use in the economy. If you only make $1500 a month, an extra $800 is a huge deal.
One really needs to back these up with data rather than just regurgitate the same theory about "how other people will act based on what I assume to be their desires." It's getting rather cumbersome to see this same idea parroted out again and again as a worthwhile argument to be made.
First:
--Why is it that you think the goal of such programs is simply to give out free money without consequences, without an intended goal for the recipient, and without any desire to control the distribution of further free money?
Further
--Why do you assume that people just want free money and will simply continue to ask for more and do nothing with it? You seem to have self-respect and a desire to produce and be useful--why is it that you are this special snowflake and such qualities do not extend to the rest of humanity? is it simply because they are in a position to be taking government assistance? Is there some sort of switch in all human brains that is flipped when free money is obtained? "Oh! time to be lazy. woo hoo!"
IME, I have never seen any data that actually supports the notion that this happens to any significant measure in society--that social programs are a comparable drain on government spending as are other big budget expenses.
Also, if this program were established as a simple monthly check with essentially no administrative resources beyond the structure to print and mail out checks....how would recipients even begin to make a claim or request for more money in such a program? It sounds like that problem wouldn't even exist and is explicitly why this program is being proposed under this model. There isn't even an office, much less a window to line up at.
why is the US always considered a special place where nothing can work right when we discuss implementing pretty much anything that may work overseas? are we really that different?
as you already said, easy enough to convert your EBT card to cash.
The reason a lot of people stay on welfare is means testing. If I gave you $800 a month but it took you two months of fighting red tape to get it would you take the job for $900 a month that would cause you to lose those benefits and if you lose that job you are back at square one? Would you work 40+ hours for an extra $100 a month *and* risk having major issues if you lose that job.
Instead I give you $800 a month and if you find a job that pays $900 great, you get $1700 total a month. Much better. The people on the lowest rung have an actual incentive to look for work instead of a disincentive.
Such a handout also makes the idea of a minimum wage a much smaller issue. If everyone gets a baseline then wages just have to pay something that someone will accept not the only lifeline they can get.
I'm pretty liberal but I'd totally support minimum income + social medicine and a dropping of every other benefit that uses any kind of means testing. We all get the same minimum income and healthcare. Be a bum or go beyond that, don't care. Blow your money and end up homeless, don't care. Blow your money and not take care of your kids, lose your kids. It'll be interesting to see how it does.
Wow. So, 1 family in 1000 would gamble the money away. Therefore, scrap the entire system.So what happens when a parent takes the $865 and loses it gambling or smoking crack in the first week? Will the family be able to eat the rest of the month?
It is hard to smoke and EBT card .... although it is easy enough to convert EBT value to cash to do whatever.
The reason a lot of people need welfare is because they make bad decisions. Now the government is giving them $865 to go out and do whatever with. I would be all for reducing the administrative overhead.... but this seems like there would be more problems created than solved... so it would not work in the U.S.
So what happens when a parent takes the $865 and loses it gambling or smoking crack in the first week? Will the family be able to eat the rest of the month?
It is hard to smoke and EBT card .... although it is easy enough to convert EBT value to cash to do whatever.
The reason a lot of people need welfare is because they make bad decisions. Now the government is giving them $865 to go out and do whatever with. I would be all for reducing the administrative overhead.... but this seems like there would be more problems created than solved... so it would not work in the U.S.
Because in the U.S. of A. .... Personal Responsibility is a four letter word.
That is why Blitz USA is no longer able to make gas cans in the USA.
This is why it is pointless to compare things like healthcare in other countries to that of the U.S.
Another interesting point I have heard in another discussion about it is that it makes Home Ownership a more viable prospect, potentially anyway.
This is one thing I'm doubtful of. Assuming Finland has an expensive standard of living (I'd imagine so), ~$10,000 a year would seem to barely cover rent and food. Considering most Western societies are (in theory) against homelessness, it's what makes me question the viability of this program without subsidized housing still in place.
Neither. The idea has been around for a while. It's worth trying.
Explain why more people would become dependent on government handouts. If you are working a low wage job that pays you $1,000/month, would you rather work and get $1,865 or not work and get $865? IIRC these programs have been shown to work well in small studies, it will be good to see it tried on a larger scale. People mostly oppose stuff like this because they like shitting on poor people, not for any rational reason.
Where are the cons?
As I noted previously a basic income is within reach of the US; a matter of political will, not tax revenue.
So glad big brother rudder is here to make sure people don't do anything he doesn't approve of![b/]
Why is failing to implement a dirt cheap safety system which is required on industrial gas cans not an irresponsible act?Because in the U.S. of A. .... Personal Responsibility is a four letter word.
That is why Blitz USA is no longer able to make gas cans in the USA.
This is why it is pointless to compare things like healthcare in other countries to that of the U.S.