Finland to give a basic income of €800 a month

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?