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

[flexy]

A really cool idea would be to do this in lieu of a minimum wage as well.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why should the gvt, the tax-payers, pay for employer's unwillingness to pay a decent wage?

You want to pay out of your pocket for that Wally and CEO X can pay their employers as low a wage as they deem? Absurd!

 

[mysticjbyrd]

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?

It's actually a decent idea. With automation now destroying more jobs than it creates, along with factories being predominantly created in the 3rd world, it leaves few job opportunities for a lot of people. Some people even expect a collapse on the capitalism societal structure we have created as this problem grows ever worse. This could be a good transitional methodology to ease the impact of the fall.

 

[glenn1]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why should the gvt, the tax-payers, pay for employer's unwillingness to pay a decent wage?

You want to pay out of your pocket for that Wally and CEO X can pay their employers as low a wage as they deem? Absurd!

So you think it's better social policy that people with low skills have no jobs than low paying jobs, correct?

 

[unokitty]

Finland says asylum seekers should work for free and learn about women's rights...

... government said it will start assigning work to working-age asylum seekers on the grounds that meaningful action would help relieve their frustration.

"It is not necessarily paid work, it could be something outdoors, some maintenance work at the reception centre ... The longer that people are idle, the more frustrated they become," said employment minister Jari Lindstrom.

The government will also compose an information package on Finnish culture and society, highlighting the rights of women and children.

"All asylum seekers will acknowledge it as received. No one can be able to say that they didn't know," Mr Lindstrom said.

While I've never been there, I'm starting to admire the way that the Finns are thinking...

Uno

 

[Cozarkian]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why should the gvt, the tax-payers, pay for employer's unwillingness to pay a decent wage?

You want to pay out of your pocket for that Wally and CEO X can pay their employers as low a wage as they deem? Absurd!

The reason a minimum wage is needed is because of disparate bargaining power. If a company turns down an applicant, it can typically absorb the cost of looking longer. If a person turns down a job offer he or she had to worry about foreclosure or eviction, insufficient food, etc... Since the consequence is much greater to the individual, he or she can be persuaded to take a below market wage.

A basic income that provides a living wage (rent, food, water/electric/garbage, health insurance), gives a person the power to say no to a job offer with to low a wage. Thus, companies will be forced to offer competitive wages to find employees, obviating the need for minimum wage laws.

Of course, a basic income is unlikely to be a living income, especially given the stark difference in cost of living in different locations.

 

[sm625]

It would stoke inflation. That's about it though.

 

[Phokus]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why should the gvt, the tax-payers, pay for employer's unwillingness to pay a decent wage?

You want to pay out of your pocket for that Wally and CEO X can pay their employers as low a wage as they deem? Absurd!

You could raise taxes on businesses (edit: and the rich) to partially pay for it. Theoretically, wages should also rise as people would be more able to reject shitty paying jobs since they have more leverage with a basic income. Free markets work a bit better when people aren't desperate to put food on the table/pay the rent.

 

[Nebor]

I think it's interesting that this idea seems to have support from all parts of the political spectrum.

 

[Sonikku]

This may be the inevitable end for the entire world in another 50-100 years. Automation and robots will take over nearly all the jobs, heaven help us if a true AI is created in that time. Eventually the whole economy will be able to run with perhaps 10-15% of the population. Unless the other 85 is willing to starve, something's going to give in a big way.

 

[glenn1]

I think it's interesting that this idea seems to have support from all parts of the political spectrum.

Funny how that happens when a program benefits everyone equally instead of just the "poor" or other pet constituents.

 

[Mandres]

This is an interesting idea, but the cost involved and the entrenchment of the existing systems make it impossible to ever implement until we're facing serious and widespread unemployment - like Finland and Switzerland. Let's not forget we're talking about 3-4 trillion in new annual expenditure. That's politically difficult if not impossible.

I find it a lot more interesting how even the far right wing socialism-is-evil crowd think this is a pretty good idea since it means cash in their pocket.

 

[BoberFett]

I would love to see Finland do this and see how well it works. It's a model I, as a libertarian who attempts to be pragmatic, have considered as a preferable option to the ridiculous state of US welfare we have now.

It's fairly and evenly applied, nobody can claim that it's only for the "lazy" because everyone gets it.

And it could definitely serve to eliminate minimum wage, possibly making some US industries more competitive worldwide. The minimum income BECOMES the minimum wage, anything over that is gravy. If a company can find someone who wants to work for $1, more power to both of them. My guess would be that most people, given that their most basic needs are met without work, would insist on a lot more than that. The incremental value of $1/hr is pretty minimal. But some people might choose to volunteer their time for a good cause while still getting a basic income.

 

[Mandres]

I would love to see Finland do this and see how well it works. It's a model I, as a libertarian who attempts to be pragmatic, have considered as a preferable option to the ridiculous state of US welfare we have now.

It's fairly and evenly applied, nobody can claim that it's only for the "lazy" because everyone gets it.

And it could definitely serve to eliminate minimum wage, possibly making some US industries more competitive worldwide. The minimum income BECOMES the minimum wage, anything over that is gravy. If a company can find someone who wants to work for $1, more power to both of them. My guess would be that most people, given that their most basic needs are met without work, would insist on a lot more than that. The incremental value of $1/hr is pretty minimal. But some people might choose to volunteer their time for a good cause while still getting a basic income.

What about the cost? As a productive, employed citizen are you willing to pay more in taxes so that those who don't want to work don't have to? Isn't that sort of directly opposed to the libertarian, small-government philosophy?

 

[BoberFett]

What about the cost? As a productive, employed citizen are you willing to pay more in taxes so that those who don't want to work don't have to? Isn't that sort of directly opposed to the libertarian, small-government philosophy?

Of course, but I'm in a tiny minority. Most people love their welfare, so I pay for it right now. With the basic income at least 1. I get it too and 2. we eliminate the bureaucracy and cut out vast swaths of government employees.

If I'm forced to pay for it anyway, why wouldn't I want a better system than we have now?

Plus, as an employer, I can pay people less.

 

[Mandres]

We're talking about $3 trillion for this new uber-subsidy. For reference that's easily 5x the current defense budget. Total federal expenditures were ~$4T last year, and we're going to practically double that?

Where the fuck are we going to find $3 Trillion / year? Issueing more debt? Massive tax increases? It's impossible to just get rid of existing programs. There are contracts in place and massive infrastructure investments. Interest groups have made their contributions and expect a return, etc., etc.

 

[Rebel_L]

Of course, but I'm in a tiny minority. Most people love their welfare, so I pay for it right now. With the basic income at least 1. I get it too and 2. we eliminate the bureaucracy and cut out vast swaths of government employees.

If I'm forced to pay for it anyway, why wouldn't I want a better system than we have now?

Plus, as an employer, I can pay people less.

If you start paying your employees less it will only results in increases in either higher bracket income taxes or business taxes. It is at its a core a wealth redistribution program.

I like it, but I also realize it wont result in anyone that is well off magically getting more unless the savings in administration costs ends up being incredibly huge. Bloated government bureaucracy's never go down without a fight and usually end up winning so I wouldn't place any bets on huge savings.

 

[repoman0]

We're talking about $3 trillion for this new uber-subsidy. For reference that's easily 5x the current defense budget. Total federal expenditures were ~$4T last year, and we're going to practically double that?

Where the fuck are we going to find $3 Trillion / year? Issueing more debt? Massive tax increases? It's impossible to just get rid of existing programs. There are contracts in place and massive infrastructure investments. Interest groups have made their contributions and expect a return, etc., etc.

You're getting this number by multiplying the entire population of the US by $800 and then another 12. Obviously children and seniors wouldn't quality, only working age people, which is about half of 300 million. You're also ignoring completely cutting a trillion dollars worth of current welfare spending. All in all, there is still a gap there, but much smaller than you make it out to be.

 

[BoberFett]

You're getting this number by multiplying the entire population of the US by $800 and then another 12. Obviously children and seniors wouldn't quality, only working age people, which is about half of 300 million. You're also ignoring completely cutting a trillion dollars worth of current welfare spending. All in all, there is still a gap there, but much smaller than you make it out to be.

While children shouldn't count, as this shouldn't be a system designed to encourage people to pop out kids as fast as they can, why not eliminate Social Security and roll it into this? Again, reduced bureaucracy with the same end result.

 

[unokitty]

I would love to see Finland do this and see how well it works. It's a model I, as a libertarian who attempts to be pragmatic, have considered as a preferable option to the ridiculous state of US welfare we have now.

It's fairly and evenly applied, nobody can claim that it's only for the "lazy" because everyone gets it...

Bober Fett and MLK. Is this the new dream team?

Or is this just another sign of the impending Zombie Apocalypse?:biggrin:

Anyone think that the 52 year old 'War on Poverty' is working?

Lets euthanize the tired old 'War on Poverty' and get on to something that works. Why not the way that Finland is doing it?

Uno

 

[BoberFett]

Bober Fett and MLK. Is this the new dream team?

Or is this just another sign of the impending Zombie Apocalypse?:biggrin:

Anyone think that the 52 year old 'War on Poverty' is working?

Lets euthanize the tired old 'War on Poverty' and get on to something that works. Why not the way that Finland is doing it?

Uno

Don't worry, no zombies to fear here. I'd still prefer to see people thrive or die based on their own efforts. But since that's not happening anytime soon, I'll support the next best thing. A simple, fair system that hopefully can't be gamed.

 

[Virge_]

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.

For some strange reason, you appear oblivious to the world around you. What you've just described already happens today - it's the consequences of life and this little thing, oh I don't know you may have heard of it, called personal responsibility.

It kind of feels like you're just regurgitating PC culture you've observed. Now, certainly, I don't consider myself an expert - I just kind of pity you for blindly following without actually stopping to think.. because if you did, you'd come to the same conclusion as many before you.

I have a bit of hope it dawns on you and many others before it's too late, for all our sake.

 

[Mandres]

For some strange reason, you appear oblivious to the world around you. What you've just described already happens today - it's the consequences of life and this little thing, oh I don't know you may have heard of it, called personal responsibility.

It kind of feels like you're just regurgitating PC culture you've observed. Now, certainly, I don't consider myself an expert - I just kind of pity you for blindly following without actually stopping to think.. because if you did, you'd come to the same conclusion as many before you.

I have a bit of hope it dawns on you and many others before it's too late, for all our sake.

You're awfully condescending for someone who's mindlessly regurgitating Fox news buzzwords like "personal responsibility" and "pc culture" without contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.

 

[Virge_]

You're awfully condescending for someone who's mindlessly regurgitating Fox news buzzwords like "personal responsibility" and "pc culture" without contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.

You're awful ignorant if you think Fox news invented PC culture and Personal Responsibility. The very fact that you attempted to phrase it in that light tells me everything I need to know about your motivations - in addition to your mental capacity.

 

[Mandres]

You're awful ignorant if you think Fox news invented PC culture and Personal Responsibility. The very fact that you attempted to phrase it in that light tells me everything I need to know about your motivations - in addition to your mental capacity.

Another post just flinging poo with no relevance to the topic at hand? Why don't you share your thoughts on a universal base income in the U.S. or just pipe down? Nobody is interested in your self-righteous propaganda, and this discussion is actually interesting and I don't want it derailed with that garbage.

 

[Blackjack200]

Lets euthanize the tired old 'War on Poverty' and get on to something that works. Why not the way that Finland is doing it?

Uno

Well, it looks like Finland is going to try it. Why not see what happens? There will almost certainly be some kinks or unforeseen problems that we could improve on.