Finland wants to give €800 ($865) as basic income to anyone, scrapping other benefits

[flexy]

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?

 

[Strk]

Not sure why it would affect unemployment since that is paid for by being employed.

 

[Mai72]

Terrible idea.

Why? Because you would create many more people who would be dependent on government handouts. What would happen if you were collecting these checks for 10 years, and the government went into a huge recession. Imagine if they weren't able to make their payments. What would you do then? You haven't worked in 10 years. Your skills have regressed. You've become lazy and you have no ambition. Your now forced to work because the government can't make their payments.

 

[MixMasterTang]

I see the pros and cons. Right now someone on Welfare may not be motivated to go out and get a job, because why work 40 hours a week at minimum wage when you can stay at home and get the same money? In this scenario they would get to keep that Welfare money (essentially) and make more money by working an actual job.

 

[EOM]

I could see that working here.... depending on how it's implemented it could reduce bureaucratic overhead for all of our programs as it's now consolidated and it's simply a check/direct deposit.... no paperwork other than initially enrolling and no need to go down for a monthly interview with your case worker etc....

 

[glenn1]

Good in theory because people would have more control of their money and government bureaucracy would be reduced.

Bad in reality because the kind hearts in the progressive left wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from continuing to give help. So after a poor person got their $865 and wasted it on hookers and blow they'd be clamoring for welfare as before since "we can't let him go without when so many others have so much" and you'd end up right where you were before. Unless and until you're willing to allow real consequences (like people dying because of their bad choices) then this system is unworkable.

 

[Blackjack200]

Genius or crazy?

Neither. The idea has been around for a while. It's worth trying.

Terrible idea.

Why? Because you would create many more people who would be dependent on government handouts. What would happen if you were collecting these checks for 10 years, and the government went into a huge recession. Imagine if they weren't able to make their payments. What would you do then? You haven't worked in 10 years. Your skills have regressed. You've become lazy and you have no ambition. Your now forced to work because the government can't make their payments.

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.

I see the pros and cons. Right now someone on Welfare may not be motivated to go out and get a job, because why work 40 hours a week at minimum wage when you can stay at home and get the same money? In this scenario they would get to keep that Welfare money (essentially) and make more money by working an actual job.

Where are the cons?

 

[MixMasterTang]

Good in theory because people would have more control of their money and government bureaucracy would be reduced.

Bad in reality because the kind hearts in the progressive left wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from continuing to give help. So after a poor person got their $865 and wasted it on hookers and blow they'd be clamoring for welfare as before since "we can't let him go without when so many others have so much" and you'd end up right where you were before. Unless and until you're willing to allow real consequences (like people dying because of their bad choices) then this system is unworkable.

How does that differ from what we have today?

 

[cbrunny]

Finland =/= America.

 

[Blackjack200]

Note that this was introduced by the center-right coalition, and is being done to encourage people to find work.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

yup, eliminates the perverse incentives in the standard phase-out welfare system where you lose benefits if you make too much. so now in finland the marginal value of another earned dollar is a dollar, rather than $0.65 (or whatever it works out to be).

 

[unokitty]

graphic ... created by staff from the House Ways and Means Committee to represent the 80+ federal benefit programs and services for low-income people in the United States. House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, November 3, 2015.

...federal spending for these programs totalled $744 billion in FY2013, based on a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service. That’s approximately $6,500 for every American household.

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

 

[MixMasterTang]

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

Or who is going to think of the scammers and other super small percentage of abusers of the system that people love to talk about and use as a reason to end all welfare programs.

 

[zinfamous]

Good in theory because people would have more control of their money and government bureaucracy would be reduced.

Bad in reality because the kind hearts in the progressive left wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from continuing to give help. So after a poor person got their $865 and wasted it on hookers and blow they'd be clamoring for welfare as before since "we can't let him go without when so many others have so much" and you'd end up right where you were before. Unless and until you're willing to allow real consequences (like people dying because of their bad choices) then this system is unworkable.

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.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

aye. That is the answer.

 

[OutHouse]

as anti-socialist as i am, im not that opposed to this idea. our current system is broken beyond repair.

im just waiting for who will be the first to say its a tax against the poor.

 

[flexy]

Right now someone on Welfare may not be motivated to go out and get a job, because why work 40 hours a week at minimum wage when you can stay at home and get the same money? In this scenario they would get to keep that Welfare money (essentially) and make more money by working an actual job.

It took me a while to understand what the motivation might be...then it dawned on me, if you're working you're of course not eligible to receive welfare/unemployment, so it's perceived as a loss of otherwise free money.

In this case you can keep it and ADD even more money to your income.

Sorry, thinking slow today...

Yep this makes sense. Seriously this has potential.

 

[zinfamous]

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

Or who is going to think of the scammers and other super small percentage of abusers of the system that people love to talk about and use as a reason to end all welfare programs.

you know, I think we can have it both ways, here.

unokitty's chart is a good reason to look at what the Finns are proposing and re-consider how we handle what is a very necessary program in any modern economy; certainly one with a majority of people that call themselves Christian.

That is a horribly complex system that is probably far more costly than the actual value it creates. We would do well to be able to eliminate a significant portion of the complexity, within reason, and we would be removing a good percentage of the actual scammers (meaning: not the recipients, but the bureaucrats that hold power over these departments and do, from time to time, bilk these systems from within). It is their occasional instances of graft in the millions that vastly outstrips the tiny minority within the minority of welfare recipients that regularly bilk the system for comparative pennies.

 

[rudder]

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good in theory because people would have more control of their money and government bureaucracy would be reduced.

Bad in reality because the kind hearts in the progressive left wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from continuing to give help. So after a poor person got their $865 and wasted it on hookers and blow they'd be clamoring for welfare as before since "we can't let him go without when so many others have so much" and you'd end up right where you were before. Unless and until you're willing to allow real consequences (like people dying because of their bad choices) then this system is unworkable.

Fortunately people are created in the image of God, not the image of glenn.

It would suck to be you walking around with your nose up your ass complaining how the world stinks.

 

[Blackjack200]

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?

If you don't take care of your children they are taken from you.

Just like now...

The reason a lot of people need welfare is because they make bad decisions.

SSSHHIIIIIIIIIIITTTT.

 

[rpanic]

Im all for this if they really cut from everywhere else. What will all the government employees do that get canned?

 

[ElFenix]

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.

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.

 

[Cozarkian]

Do parents get an extra $865 for each kid they have? A basic income needs to disencentivize this by providing a lesser payment per dependent.

A second, as others have said, is the problem when people don't use the income for its intended purposes. If someone doesn't buy health insurance, are we going to let them die? I suppose there might be away to set up a system like with flex accounts that allow its use only for certain goods - like health expenditures, groceries and rent.

Third, how does the system treat eligibility by immigrants (both legal and illegal)?

Can the payment be garnished for child support?

Theoretically, it is nice to say reduce government waste by consolidating all social programs, but it really isn't that simple.

Read "Should Surfers Be Fed" by someone Parijs and the counterpoint essays for a philosophical analysis if this concept.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Terrible idea.

Why? Because you would create many more people who would be dependent on government handouts. What would happen if you were collecting these checks for 10 years, and the government went into a huge recession. Imagine if they weren't able to make their payments. What would you do then? You haven't worked in 10 years. Your skills have regressed. You've become lazy and you have no ambition. Your now forced to work because the government can't make their payments.

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.