Finland to give a basic income of €800 a month

Nichard Dixon

If you had this in Ireland half the world would be collecting it while in Australia and the US.

suicide_circus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Does giving someone money (dole) then taking a bit of it back as rent really count as them paying for it?

Of course not. No one could possibly argue that heavily subsidised rents paid for using free money collected weekly at the post office does not constitute free accomdation, that would be extremely disingenuous.

I've no problem with the state providing accomdation btw... In fact they should do it more often and taxes should be increased IMO but let's not kid ourselves by suggesting people don't get free houses in Ireland.

Dohnjoe

I see a few potential problems here..

What's to stop Finns from going to cheap places like Thailand and living like kings?

If everyone, including those in full time work, are going to start getting 800 euros more - well that's a very large and sudden jump in disposable income, prices are certain to increase

I know a few people who are happy to live on the dole (they are living at home), surely this will just encourage a generation of people to do the same

Also, I'd imagine a decent amount of the workforce will opt to start doing part-time work, especially those in more menial jobs, e.g factory workers

nevertheless will be an interesting experiment if it passes

Dr Strange

Dohnjoe wrote: »

...
What's to stop Finns from going to cheap places like Thailand and living like kings?
....

They'd live like kuninkaat.

imitation

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

The present transfer amount to more than €20 billion, you can add in student grants, tax credits and so to that figure to get the current expenditure.

I dont recall 9k in Tax credits on my pay slip last time I checked, as its about 1.5k per person at the moment, it seems like a lot of extra money for 90% of the work force. I dont think its unworkable but i would be very interested to see the side effects.

Will 200 quid a week in everybodys pocket cause an economic boom or just Norwegian style cpi inflation?

Will it damage competion?

Would zero hour contracts reign supreme ?

Where does the short fall come from, the higher tax bracket? Vat? Corperate tax?

homerjay2005

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A single man/woman, no children and 25+, gets 9,917 per year (including Xmas bonus). This proposal would be 9,600 per year.

There are also already provisions for people to work part-time and earn extra under certain education schemes.

The problem is there are some "families" out there who the government are giving 25-40k a year when everything is included.

People constantly go on about the cash they are getting directly as being "small" but they ignore the fact that they get lots of free stuff like medical and housing which every worker needs to pay for

Sh1tbag OToole

Basic income is the only way forward in a world filled with robot overlords

Annasopra

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How could anyone live on 800 quid a month?

Thats what you get on the dole. You know the one that a lot of AHers call extremely generous.

suicide_circus

All workers should just be paid in a thin watery gruel so as not to detract from the profit margins of their employers.

asherbassad

Doc wrote: »

Finland plans to give every citizen a basic income of 800 euros a month.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/06/comment-finland-plans-give-every-citizen-basic-income-800-euros-month

The proposals for a national basic income are intended to simplify the social security system and encourage more unemployed people to take on temporary work.

Under proposals being draw up by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela), this national basic income would replace all other benefit payments, and would be paid to all adults regardless of whether or not they receive any other income.

Unemployment in Finland is currently at record levels, and the basic income is intended to encourage more people back to work. At present, many unemployed people would be worse off if they took on low-paid temporary jobs due to loss of welfare payments.

Switzerland is also considering introducing a national basic income. In September the Swiss parliament voted, with a large majority, for a motion calling on the Swiss people to reject the Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income. However, a nationwide referendum on the issue is slated for 2016 and, according to a recent online poll, 49% of the Swiss would currently vote in favour of its introduction.

Think this could work in Ireland?

I think its a very good idea.

It's hard to know. Wouldn't prices just rise and make it meaningless?

PopePalpatine

suicide_circus wrote: »

All workers should just be paid in a thin watery gruel so as not to detract from the profit margins of their employers.

Ungh...can you feel the liberty yet? *fans self with €500 notes*

keithclancy

Doesn't this just make everything more expensive as everyone now has an extra 800 euros to spend ?

westcoast66

Imagine the saving in bureaucracy? Everyone gets €800 into their back account. End of. You could get rid of the whole department of social welfare.

the evasion_kid

westcoast66 wrote: »

Imagine the saving in bureaucracy? Everyone gets €800 into their back account. End of. You could get rid of the whole department of social welfare.

ah im sure they'll think up some other miles upon miles of red tape...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Vandango wrote: »

We might be able to afford it, it we stopped paying children's allowances to those who can well afford to go without it.

I don't understand this arguement at all.
All children under 18 should be equal and entitled to equal opportunities? Right?
Clothes, shelter, food, warmth.
You have people who pay tax, who work and contribute to society. Child benefit is literally the one thing those people get back for their children. Who is better entitled to it than those who fund it.
People should not be having children they can't afford, why punish responsible people to enable stupidity?

Dohnjoe

westcoast66 wrote: »

Imagine the saving in bureaucracy? Everyone gets €800 into their back account. End of. You could get rid of the whole department of social welfare.

Still need a small army of people to oversee the crediting for 5.5 million accounts every month, not to mention account changes, people deceasing, new eligible accounts - and all the bureaucracy that entails

Yup probably less than their current welfare system, but still a big enough task

SEPT 23 1989

You would need to double that amount to make it work in Ireland

ScumLord

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I know a few people who are happy to live on the dole (they are living at home), surely this will just encourage a generation of people to do the same

I suppose the big difference is they won't be punished for doing some work on top of their benefits. This way they can do some part time work and get used to having extra money, not less money as it often works out now.

Also, I'd imagine a decent amount of the workforce will opt to start doing part-time work, especially those in more menial jobs, e.g factory workers

Nothing wrong with that. I think we should spend less time working. I think part of the reason our governments get away with so much is because their bosses (us) are too busy working so we can pay tax.

KomradeBishop

The problem with the Basic Income is: It can be stealthily transformed into a business subsidy, by businesses either cutting wages or letting wages stagnate through inflation over time.
Then it can be used as a trojan-horse type attack on welfare, by getting rid of all other welfare payments, and then the next time a big enough economic crisis hits, engaging in a massive attack against 'giving people free money', about it being 'unsustainable' etc. (whether true or not), and then gutting the Basic Income without restoring the previous welfare system.

A far better idea in my view, is a Job Guarantee (temporary public works type projects) - where instead of using free money to uphold basic living standards, everyone is instead guaranteed a chance to earn that money instead, with there being a goal of permanent full employment.

The idea that there won't be enough jobs to go around, just isn't true in my view - there will always be more work for humans to do, only the type of work will change - also, there is endless amounts of public works and infrastructural development needed all over the world, especially for reorganizing the economy around energy efficiency, to combat climate change.

I don't know why people have such a severe reaction to the Job Guarantee idea though - while at the same time seeing nothing wrong with just giving away the money instead.

ScumLord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The problem with the Basic Income is: It can be stealthily transformed into a business subsidy, by businesses either cutting wages or letting wages stagnate through inflation over time.

That should be easy enough to prevent by simply making it illegal for companies to do.

Then it can be used as a trojan-horse type attack on welfare, by getting rid of all other welfare payments,

I don't think any government is trying to do that. Politicians generally don't care who gets what, they just want to get elected. Removing payments would cause mayhem.

A far better idea in my view, is a Job Guarantee (temporary public works type projects) - where instead of using free money to uphold basic living standards, everyone is instead guaranteed a chance to earn that money instead, with there being a goal of permanent full employment.

I don't see who that will really work. There isn't really enough jobs to go around and if you force companies to take on untrained staff that they have no work for, the companies will just put them sweeping floors. The idea that a company will spend money training someone they know nothing about is just not going to happen.

We can't really expect people forced into work they don't want to do, and work the employer effectively had to make up to keep this person busy to start climbing the corporate ladder.

I don't see why private companies should be made deal with social and governmental problem either. It's like trying to fix the homeless problem by making families take in homeless regardless of whether their mentally unstable, drug addicts or god knows what.

All the government need to do is make working beneficial, I hold nothing against people who don't want to spend their week doing a crappy job only to come home with less than if they sat at home on the couch. Work isn't a hobby, it's a means to and end.

Earthhorse

It's an interesting idea though I'm not sure it's a good one. Will be interested to see the outcome. Pretty huge gamble by the Finns to go all in on this though.

KomradeBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

That should be easy enough to prevent by simply making it illegal for companies to do.

You can't stop companies from slashing wages or letting them stagnate over time - that is impossible to legislate for, and the companies aren't just going to say "we're slashing your wages because of the Basic Income", so there's no way to pin it on them.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think any government is trying to do that. Politicians generally don't care who gets what, they just want to get elected. Removing payments would cause mayhem.

The welfare system has been under attack politically worldwide since its inception - killing it is one of the biggest goals among many of the economically conservative.

The current welfare system has the political credibility (aimed at the needy - e.g. disabled, unemployed, child care) to stay here for good - replacing it all with the Basic Income, creates a trojan-horse situation, where it's a hell of a lot easier to lobby politically (against giving out 'free money', with a policy aimed at no needy societal group in particular), for the destruction of the Basic Income, without restoring the previous welfare system.

It's a very dangerous policy, which sounds good at face value, but when you look at how it dismantles the current welfare system, and creates a much easier to attack target for destroying welfare altogether (with questionable benefits - arguably its more of a business subsidy than wage subsidy) - when you look at all that, it begins to look a lot more like a trap, that may be used to destroy welfare altogether in the future.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see who that will really work. There isn't really enough jobs to go around and if you force companies to take on untrained staff that they have no work for, the companies will just put them sweeping floors. The idea that a company will spend money training someone they know nothing about is just not going to happen.

We can't really expect people forced into work they don't want to do, and work the employer effectively had to make up to keep this person busy to start climbing the corporate ladder.

I don't see why private companies should be made deal with social and governmental problem either. It's like trying to fix the homeless problem by making families take in homeless regardless of whether their mentally unstable, drug addicts or god knows what.

All the government need to do is make working beneficial, I hold nothing against people who don't want to spend their week doing a crappy job only to come home with less than if they sat at home on the couch. Work isn't a hobby, it's a means to and end.

The Job Guarantee has nothing to do with private jobs - what made you assume that?

Mr Freeze

I think its a great idea.

Never gonna happen here though ( and maybe not there either).

ScumLord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You can't stop companies from slashing wages or letting them stagnate over time - that is impossible to legislate for

Yes you can, it's called the minimum wage.

The welfare system has been under attack politically worldwide since its inception - killing it is one of the biggest goals among many of the economically conservative.

Probably, it doesn't mean that the practicalities of doing it mean that no one would actually dare do it. Of course they'll say they will to get elected but it's something else entirely to actually turn the economy on it's head.

The Job Guarantee has nothing to do with private jobs - what made you assume that?

So who's going to provide all these jobs?

KomradeBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes you can, it's called the minimum wage.

That doesn't stop companies slashing wages or letting them stagnate though - it just sets a lower bound that they can't go under; most jobs aren't minimum wage, so there is huge scope for slashing wages.

Both the minimum wage and the Basic Income wither through inflation over time.

ScumLord wrote: »

Probably, it doesn't mean that the practicalities of doing it mean that no one would actually dare do it. Of course they'll say they will to get elected but it's something else entirely to actually turn the economy on it's head.

It wouldn't turn the economy on its head, it would just remove all social supports for various societal subgroups - creating a very nasty turn in quality of life for many groups of people.

There's a lot of power and money to be gained through dismantling the welfare system - and the Basic Income would make that a hell of a lot easier.

ScumLord wrote: »

So who's going to provide all these jobs?

I don't personally believe that you missed how my post or the link describing the Job Guarantee, answers this - in any case, here it is again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97995915&postcount=70

ScumLord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That doesn't stop companies slashing wages or letting them stagnate though - it just sets a lower bound that they can't go under; most jobs aren't minimum wage, so there is huge scope for slashing wages.

There's nothing stopping companies slashing wages whenever they see fit, but I don't think they could do something that cynical without their employees jumping ship. Something like this wouldn't really devalue educated and experienced staff, because there is still the same amount of those guys.

It wouldn't turn the economy on its head, it would just remove all social supports for various societal subgroups - creating a very nasty turn in quality of life for many groups of people.

Of course it would turn the economy on it's head. You can't redirect millions of euro and just expect things to be fine and dandy.

I don't personally believe that you missed how my post or the link describing the Job Guarantee, answers this - in any case, here it is again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97995915&postcount=70

I'm asking you. According to the link it's mostly public sector jobs used to provide some temporary low income work. As far as I can see it's all temporary work. Unless the government has large scale public works going on they don't have enough low skill jobs to go around.

The government is a terrible employer, it breeds corruption, ineptitude and contempt for the clients of their services.

KomradeBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

There's nothing stopping companies slashing wages whenever they see fit, but I don't think they could do something that cynical without their employees jumping ship. Something like this wouldn't really devalue educated and experienced staff, because there is still the same amount of those guys.

Businesses can't do that now because workers won't accept the hit in quality of living - with the Basic Income businesses can do it without any negative effect on worker quality of life, because they'll be absorbing the boost the BI would otherwise give to it.

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course it would turn the economy on it's head. You can't redirect millions of euro and just expect things to be fine and dandy.

You're getting removed from the original point you were trying to make: Economically, there is no practical difficulty with destroying welfare. The economy will work fine afterwards, but a lot of people in the economy will be severely negatively affected.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm asking you. According to the link it's mostly public sector jobs used to provide some temporary low income work. As far as I can see it's all temporary work. Unless the government has large scale public works going on they don't have enough low skill jobs to go around.

The government is a terrible employer, it breeds corruption, ineptitude and contempt for the clients of their services.

You're asking me, when you already have the answer from my previous post - which I explained in the post, not just linking to an explanation - when people do that, ignoring what is said in a post, just to 'ask' already answered questions, it looks like a rhetorical tactic to pour doubt.

You do it again here. You're presenting a problem - not enough public works jobs - that's already been answered, in the post I directed you to:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97995915&postcount=70

Terrible employers are terrible employers - you get them throughout all parts of the economy. Black-and-white regurgitated statements/soundbites, like 'government is a terrible employer', are just bollocks free market propaganda - we live in a system where government employs people where it's deemed most appropriate, and deciding when that's appropriate/inappropriate requires better arguments than 'durr government bad'.

Annasopra

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Still need a small army of people to oversee the crediting for 5.5 million accounts every month, not to mention account changes, people deceasing, new eligible accounts - and all the bureaucracy that entails

Yup probably less than their current welfare system, but still a big enough task

It's massively less and you could basically cut your admin costs a huge amount.

Most of the roles in the Department of Social Protection would no longer need to exist. Lots of state offices would no longer be needed.

Annasopra

By the way Fianna Fail are considering this too. They are suggesting €1000 a month.

http://www.thejournal.ie/basic-income-2414035-Oct2015/

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1577140.ece

imitation

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see a few potential problems here..

What's to stop Finns from going to cheap places like Thailand and living like kings?

Couldn't you just force everybody to go to the post office every month? I mean its free money, but not condition less money. I guess you could live over the border in Russia, but then you'd be living in rural Russia, maybe not all that !

hognef

imitation wrote: »

Couldn't you just force everybody to go to the post office every month? I mean its free money, but not condition less money. I guess you could live over the border in Russia, but then you'd be living in rural Russia, maybe not all that !

Finland is a modern country. They have a functioning banking system and broadband access is a right. I doubt anybody currently are forced to go to the post office to pick up welfare payments. Why would they change that if one of the goals is to reduce the administration costs?

PopePalpatine

I guess it would be a measure to combat welfare fraud.

keeponhurling

Another genuine problem is that political parties would fall over themselves to ofer the highest amount , pre-election.

Then we'd be left with a bill we cannot afford, and further in debt

Geuze

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see a few potential problems here..

What's to stop Finns from going to cheap places like Thailand and living like kings?

If everyone, including those in full time work, are going to start getting 800 euros more - well that's a very large and sudden jump in disposable income, prices are certain to increase

Also, I'd imagine a decent amount of the workforce will opt to start doing part-time work, especially those in more menial jobs, e.g factory workers

You would have to be resident to receive it.

Note that you would lose tax credits, and the income taxes may increase, so disp income would not jump a lot.

darkpagandeath

hognef wrote: »

Finland is a modern country. They have a functioning banking system and broadband access is a right. I doubt anybody currently are forced to go to the post office to pick up welfare payments. Why would they change that if one of the goals is to reduce the administration costs?

Paying directly into bank accounts via electronic payments would save huge amounts of money. But then people would not get the satisfaction of people in the post office.

Annasopra

keeponhurling wrote: »

Another genuine problem is that political parties would fall over themselves to ofer the highest amount , pre-election.

Then we'd be left with a bill we cannot afford, and further in debt

Huh? Have the parties been fighting over who can increase social welfare more?

maca123

Do that here and close down all the intreo offices and workers in them etc to do away with the administrative costs associated with welfare and trying to catch welfare frauds etc.

The Randy Riverbeast

Will be interesting to see how it goes.

maca123 wrote: »

Do that here and close down all the intreo offices and workers in them etc to do away with the administrative costs associated with welfare and trying to catch welfare frauds etc.

Would probably have to move all of them to some other department with a pay rise to cover the new training.

KomradeBishop

A good analysis of a Basic Income scheme that has been tried before in the past, with the evidence showing that it leads to wages being slashed, and worsening productivity:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/the-failure-of-a-past-basic-income-guarantee-the-speenhamland-system.html

kazamo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's massively less and you could basically cut your admin costs a huge amount.

Most of the roles in the Department of Social Protection would no longer need to exist. Lots of state offices would no longer be needed.

Nice idea, but without compulsary redundancy in the public sector there would be no savings in payroll costs. If we didn't have the balls to introduce it in 2010, hardly likely to it now.

Dohnjoe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's massively less and you could basically cut your admin costs a huge amount.

Most of the roles in the Department of Social Protection would no longer need to exist. Lots of state offices would no longer be needed.

And where will all these public sector workers go? Finland is pushing 10% unemployment

As far as I am aware, there will still be welfare - disability, family aid, child care, etc

There's also the cost of providing everyone with 800 euros per month, plus any opportunity costs involved

Geuze

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Paying directly into bank accounts via electronic payments would save huge amounts of money. But then people would not get the satisfaction of people in the post office.

Cashless payments might be combining with weekly sign-in at the PO.

Geuze

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As far as I am aware, there will still be welfare - disability, family aid, child care, etc

There's also the cost of providing everyone with 800 euros per month, plus any opportunity costs involved

No, a BI would replace most welfare, that's the whole point of it.

JSA/JSB/ IP/DA, CB, CSP, NCSP - all scrapped.

diograis

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A good analysis of a Basic Income scheme that has been tried before in the past, with the evidence showing that it leads to wages being slashed, and worsening productivity:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/the-failure-of-a-past-basic-income-guarantee-the-speenhamland-system.html

The source seems pretty biased to be honest, naked capitalism?? from England in 1795? I would imagine modern Finland's economy is a bit different, and even then.. Check out some of the articles on the front page of that site before making your mind up.

KomradeBishop

What is 'biased' about the term 'naked capitalism'? What articles on the front page show any kind of problem with their publishing?

One article is on CalPERS: They are in the middle of a great investigative series, exposing incompetence and potential fraud in the CalPERS pension fund in the US - the site have single-handedly kicked off enough political scrutiny, to force CalPERS into reforming the management and transparency of the fund - and have been widely cited by the Financial Times on this; they've pretty thoroughly earned their journalistic credentials.

All economies in the world and across time are 'different' - if you claim that excludes the example in that article, you need to explain exactly how the difference between economies, excludes that example of the Basic Income.

maca123

Check out a BI advocate named Scott Santens. He debunks all the criticisms of basic income pretty well. I think he talked about that nakedcapitalism article as well.

KomradeBishop

maca123 wrote: »

Check out a BI advocate named Scott Santens. He debunks all the criticisms of basic income pretty well. I think he talked about that nakedcapitalism article as well.

I've Googled a bit, and I can't see Scott addressing undermining of a Basic Income through businesses slashing wages (turning the BI into a business subsidy), or of how consolidating all welfare into the Basic Income, can lead to a single politically-easily-attacked target that be used to destroy welfare altogether, and I can't see him addressing that Naked Capitalism article or the Speenhamland basic income system it talks about.

Any links to specific articles on those issues?

sbsquarepants

Duiske wrote: »

Not a single person in this country has a "free" council house.

True, but also not a single person has a council rent bill that remotely resembles the cost of renting privately.
Some people think that just because they pay something, that means they're getting nothing.
I know several people who genuinely feel they are paying their own way when they hand over some of their dole money to the council for rent. Fúcking deluded!

suicide_circus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True, but also not a single person has a council rent bill that remotely resembles the cost of renting privately.
Some people think that just because they pay something, that means they're getting nothing.
I know several people who genuinely feel they are paying their own way when they hand over some of their dole money to the council for rent. Fúcking deluded!

If you're in the pub and some fellow patron hands you a tenner, tells you to get yourself a pint and walks out the door, i'd call the resulting drink a free pint wouldn't you?