Finland experimenting on giving citizens free money (USD 660) as basic income

Watch this thread
HucktheForde
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1


i can think of the upside of this, its better for citizens to get social welfare in forms of cash instead of services (socialized healthcare and stuff) since it puts the responsibility to spend it wisely back into the hands of the people hence removing the risk of government wastage. I much rather money is given back directly to the people rather than spend on drone strikes and senseless wars.

downside is ... well it will only last until you run out of other people's money to spend.



also... in the video : anarchist getting money from the government?????
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Is that 6060 USD a year? A month? je suis confused
1
reply
Nalk1573
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
awful, awful, awful idea.
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I don't watch vids posted by anyone as a matter of principle, waste of time in most cases even if not necessarily with this one. The idea has been doing the rounds for a while and we've all heard about it, very popular among the Left and opposed by the Right.

What is the idea, the net gain to be expected in societal terms? Are we talking about giving everyone a lump sum and close off the Social to the most accute cases of need, we'd have to look at the figures and terms in the first place. Without a minimally defined vision of what this 'universal income' would be traded for, it is impossible to have a serious discussion.

So let's say we have it in the UK, what do you stand to loose with UI? Housing benefit would have to go, really.

ps, actually... we may need to think about this UI thing.

What it shows is that the Department for Welfare and Pensions is the biggest spending department in the UK - spending £166.98bn in 2011-12, which is Of that huge sum, £159bn was spent on benefits - an increase of 1.1% on the previous year. That is 23% of all public spending.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...lfare-spending

That is a few years back but we get the picture. So how much of that would be deemed unnecessary after the introduction of this UI notion?
0
reply
HucktheForde
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
Is that 6060 USD a year? A month? je suis confused
its 660, i mistyped
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
If it's what the majority of taxpayers want, fine, I guess.

I, however, would prefer my tax went into things like public services and defence. Earn your own money, thanks.

Even if it's joining the army reserve, or litter picking, recipients should still contribute something to justify gettng that cash.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
When the figure is as low as that you may as well just guarantee it to the unemployed
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by zhog)
I don't watch vids posted by anyone as a matter of principle, waste of time in most cases even if not necessarily with this one. The idea has been doing the rounds for a while and we've all heard about it, very popular among the Left and opposed by the Right.

What is the idea, the net gain to be expected in societal terms? Are we talking about giving everyone a lump sum and close off the Social to the most accute cases of need, we'd have to look at the figures and terms in the first place. Without a minimally defined vision of what this 'universal income' would be traded for, it is impossible to have a serious discussion.

So let's say we have it in the UK, what do you stand to loose with UI? Housing benefit would have to go, really.

ps, actually... we may need to think about this UI thing.



https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...lfare-spending

That is a few years back but we get the picture. So how much of that would be deemed unnecessary after the introduction of this UI notion?
Actually much of the right supports it. Milton Friedman was one of the first mainstream advocates of it.

Also the Adam Smith institute, a right wing think tank, supports it. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neo...ething-like-it
1
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
our government [and also the general public] HATE people on benefits

they'd probably be riots or something if this scheme came to the UK, ... it's not going to happen.........
0
reply
Ganjaweed Rebel
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
It's a good idea. I have no idea how many people who identify as ''right-wing'' can be comfortable with banking bailouts and nationalisations of huge loss making corporations and go on to pay bonuses out of the tax payer's purse to the directors of these failing businesses, only to oppose a universal basic income.

Ironically many true ideological libertarians, as opposed to conservatives and people who just hate the poor would happily see a negative income tax band for the lowest earners which is essentially the same thing.
1
reply
Ganjaweed Rebel
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by ANM775)
our government [and also the general public] HATE people on benefits

they'd probably be riots or something if this scheme came to the UK, ... it's not going to happen.........
This is part of the problem. British people are absolutely obsessed with whether or not the poor have been sufficiently humiliated and abused for what little they have. No Anglosphere country would have so many people who spend so much time saying that the poor should be forced to pick litter or work in a chain gang for their keep.
0
reply
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
I think it's a good idea, personally. The way the benefit system here is structured often seems to mean that people who actually need it are penalised, and those who are taking advantage of the system don't lose out anything more. In theory it should also help with quality of life for those on the basic income system as they don't have rigorous criteria to meet to actually get a liveable income.
0
reply
jkls92
Badges: 20
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
If the alternative is spending them on wars, corruption, helping foreign nations or an inordinate welfare, then it's alright.

If there's a margin to reduce taxes, then I'm not convinced. Whether it's better to pay off the national debt and possible effects on inflation should also be investigated.

(Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
Ironically many true ideological libertarians, as opposed to conservatives and people who just hate the poor would happily see a negative income tax band for the lowest earners which is essentially the same thing.
Negative income paired with a significant reduction of the welfare state*.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by HucktheForde)
its 660, i mistyped
Ok but over what time period?
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Bornblue)
Actually much of the right supports it. Milton Friedman was one of the first mainstream advocates of it.

Also the Adam Smith institute, a right wing think tank, supports it. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neo...ething-like-it
Like i said earlier, it is a waste of time to talk about it as a free-for-all jackpot, what Friedman or anybody else makes of the idea depends very much on the terms. Everyone agrees that it would be a massive jolt to society for the idea to go universal, so much would have to change that without a sketch of what the bargain would be... I don't know if it would be a good or bad idea. We are not talking about just adding it on and leave all else unchanged, are we?

What would you be prepared to let go of, any cuts to the welfare state at all? It will never happen, in my opinion, but we can wonder about it.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by zhog)
Like i said earlier, it is a waste of time to talk about it as a free-for-all jackpot, what Friedman or anybody else makes of the idea depends very much on the terms. Everyone agrees that it would be a massive jolt to society for the idea to go universal, so much would have to change that without a sketch of what the bargain would be... I don't know if it would be a good or bad idea. We are not talking about just adding it on and leave all else unchanged, are we?

What would you be prepared to let go of, any cuts to the welfare state at all? It will never happen, in my opinion, but we can wonder about it.
An argument could be made today for unconditional payments to the in employed but not many agree with me that they should get a lot more money than they do currently
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by FriendlyPenguin)
Universal income is coming to Europe, it is just a matter of *when*. And it will be a great thing for everyone, especially the risk-takers such as inventors and researchers who make economic growth possible.

Assuming we keep our borders closed, of course; this kind of economics cannot work when you have billions of the world's poor scrambling to share your stuff too.
The problem with UBI is that either you--

1. Set it low and have to top it up with additional benefits for people who have children, are disabled, are incapacitated, have greater housing costs (the differential between living in London and, say, the Isle of Bute) - in which case, you've just recreated a new welfare state.

2. Set it very high, in which case it is unaffordable by most conventional measures (and of course, you have to tax highly at middle incomes to generate any serious measures), removes incentives to work, creates increasing pressures on inflation and leaves those people with additional costs significantly worse off than their peers.

It's the sort of policy that inevitably creates huge amounts of losers and doesn't really work as a welfare structure anyway. The idea as well that innovators will seriously want to be based in a UK where as much as, say, 90% of their earnings are taken off them in tax, simply so that they might sit and invent stuff while on a low-but-guaranteed income seems pretty ridiculous to me.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rinsed)
I don't think it's all that unfeasible to be honest. We basically already have a UBI for pensioners in the state pension (I know it's not quite the same, but it's not that far off). I don't see that extending a similar concept to lower ages would introduce any problems which don't already exist. OK, so you keep child benefit, and the welfare system doesn't completely die. Oh well, it'd still be a huge simplification.

I'm also not sure I agree you necessarily need to tax loads more to generate the income needed to pay for it. You could, if you were so minded, reduce spending on public services and reason that people should have enough to pay for the basics. I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but it's certainly an option.

Finally, the reason it would generate inflation is because it would generate economic activity at the low-end of the economy. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. And anyway, the sort of rate rise which you know I favour could be used to mitigate inflationary pressures.
You’re argument is also achieved by lowering taxes for everyone but the rich and unconditional welfare payments at a higher rate surely?
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Where will the extra money come from?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Rinsed)
Well, no. Firstly, the point is that that's more difficult to administrate than just giving it to everyone. Also, your way is less redistributive. Normally that wouldn't bother me but essentially the point, to me, of a UBI is that if you're going to have a state which aims to redistribute wealth and provide welfare you might as well do it on an efficient basis.

So if you gave everyone the UBI, but removed the personal allowance (say), maybe with a slightly higher basic rate of tax, most people would be better off, but the poorer you are the more better off you would be. If you just lowered taxes and increased unemployment benefit the poorest workers wouldn't see much benefit, and may see a greatly reduced incentive to work.

This is actually an important point, because people often say a UBI would reduce incentives to work. Universal Credit is a (flawed) attempt to grapple with the problem that for those moving into work, removal of benefits mean that they face eye-watering effective marginal tax rates. If it's not conditional on whether you work or not, your marginal tax rate is always just the tax rate, so the unemployed face no more an incentive to not work those of us in full-time work face to not take overtime.
Ok so effectively it doesn’t change the circumstances much for the workers due to removal of other forms of taking money from them?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA Combined Science - Biology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (39)
32.77%
The paper was reasonable (48)
40.34%
Not feeling great about that exam... (20)
16.81%
It was TERRIBLE (12)
10.08%

Watched Threads

View All