Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Wanderer78

AnGaelach wrote: »

Funnily enough, increasing corporation tax rates by itself is a bad idea - there's been proposals to remove the tax on corporations and instead replace it with taxes on dividends/shares so that whatever money a company has, will either go into investment again (and thus stimulate the economy) or will be taxed through dividend payouts.

Although again, there's the problem of companies just parking money in off-shore accounts until there's reason for it to flow back in.

I don't see the Government increasing our tax rate - especially not when the US and Britain are both lowering theirs. It's the golden apple in our basket, if we were to give it up, our economy would quickly run into a brick wall as companies run to the UK or US and just export the goods into the EU.

yea theres no real easy solution here but i can see what people like mcwilliams are getting to, we have decided to stick with eu for the moment, and at the moment its looking like the eu will jack up the tax rate, 20% being rumoured. if this comes to be, the pressure will be on us from the eu to do so. this will be very interesting to watch develop. mcwilliams has proposed that we take this increase in share options, its something i didnt think about at all, its an idea that might just work, and has the backing of the financial times. its a problem thats growing and becoming more serious, we re gonna have to deal with it somehow.

Yourself isit

AnGaelach wrote: »

Will ye be wearing a Luddite when smashing the machines:D

Reported as an ad hom.

No. Is the answer. But I assume that laws will be brought in to ban driverless cars if they just cause unemployment.

Yourself isit

AnGaelach wrote: »

Funnily enough, increasing corporation tax rates by itself is a bad idea - there's been proposals to remove the tax on corporations and instead replace it with taxes on dividends/shares so that whatever money a company has, will either go into investment again (and thus stimulate the economy) or will be taxed through dividend payouts.

Although again, there's the problem of companies just parking money in off-shore accounts until there's reason for it to flow back in.

I don't see the Government increasing our tax rate - especially not when the US and Britain are both lowering theirs. It's the golden apple in our basket, if we were to give it up, our economy would quickly run into a brick wall as companies run to the UK or US and just export the goods into the EU.

Dividends are already taxed. Here as normal income ( ie the same as PAYE).

Wanderer78

Yourself isit wrote: »

Reported as an ad hom.

No. Is the answer. But I assume that laws will be brought in to ban driver less cars if they just cause unemployment.

i think i heard somebody say almost 50% of employed men in america are employed drivers, something like that anyway, many employees in america are probably worried about this.

Yourself isit

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think i heard somebody say almost 50% of employed men in america are employed drivers, something like that anyway, many employees in america are probably worried about this.

It's millions for sure. I've yet to see an argument about how increased productivity (if any) will make up for those jobs

Wanderer78

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's millions for sure. I've yet to see an argument about how increased productivity (if any) will make up for those jobs

businesses will justify it at some stage by whatever metrics but we have to make sure that the profit gains from these businesses are shared more equally in society, but that really isnt easy with our current economic models and systems.

Muhammed_1

Yourself isit wrote: »

No. That won't work. I can't see anything working except bans on automation.

This is wrong.

It is not correct to deliberately cripple ourselves.

It gives a huge advantage to those who do not choose to cripple themselves, i.e. everyone else.

We need to make full use of technology but the only thing is we need to spread the benefits more equally.

If the benefits are not spread more equally then the people who are left to starve at the bottom may well vote in a Trump or worse.

Society must take care of everyone otherwise it has failed and civil war is possible, or a popular uprising.

Muhammed_1

AnGaelach wrote: »

We've seen American companies keep their money off-shore because US taxes are too high. What makes you think they're willing to pay 50% here when they aren't willing to pay 35% there?

I agree that it's tricky to get people to pay tax.

But reducing corporate taxes to 10% or below impoverishes the entire world.

It only makes the shareholders rich, no-one else.


The company will pay tax because its the law.

AnGaelach

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I agree that it's tricky to get people to pay tax.

But reducing corporate taxes to 10% or below impoverishes the entire world.

It only makes the shareholders rich, no-one else.

That's absolute nonsense. Do you think shareholders just take the money and stash it on their yacht or something?

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The company will pay tax because its the law.

Yeah for the 6 months or so it takes them to move everything to another country. Or if they don't just use accounting tricks to hide their profits so that they don't pay any tax.

How is Ireland going to enforce Irish law on an American company if it decides to move to Poland?

shugy

mickdw wrote: »

I believe it's the way forward.
Give every person of working age 188 per week.
Set tax credits so that someone earning say 25k lose all that 188 per week in extra tax compared to current tax rates so for the full time workers there is zero net cost to this.
There should be little in the way of additional benefits over and above the 188 but obviously some room depending on circumstances.
I believe there will be massive savings in terms of fraudulent claims and administration.
The biggest advantage of course will be the incentive to work. No more would you have the situation where you are better off on the dole. Under this scheme if you only earned 50 quid per week, you will be better off than deciding to sit in the house.

I agree! I was on the dole for years during and before the recession, went on the BTWEA and the incentive to work is like day and night compared to being on the dole and afraid to come off it. If everyone got paid 100-188 euro a week, there wouldn't be the amount of benefit fraud like there is and more people would be creative and work or create more revenue through small businesses.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Robots don't pay taxes and they do the majority of the work these days, much of the revenue that governments collect are indirect taxes, rather than income tax. That trend will only increase as fewer work and more indirect taxes are raised, just look at the recent addition of property & water* charges taxes for example.

*well before the revolt that has stopped them for the time being.

For a country like Ireland we don't have a huge amount of semi skilled / low / no skilled work that will be replaced by robots.

Much of our FDA is in pharmaceuticals which don't have a huge number of operators compared to the likes of med device. We have lots of unskilled workers working in small companies who won't automate due to cost. A basic push button & pick and place task that can be done by a €10/hour operator often needs a 6 axis robot to replace that operator if automated, 6 axis robots aren't cheap

I've worked on automated lines in med device plants and they still had plenty of operators on those lines compared to unautomated lines making similar products in the same plant.

In Ireland robots don't do the majority of the work and they won't going forward either.

Tourism is booming in Ireland and the growth constraint on that industry is thought to be capacity rather than future demand, you won't be seeing many robots in hotels, restaurants, bars and guest houses.

Muhammed_1

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

..........

It only makes the shareholders rich, no-one else.........

Anyone can invest in the stockmarket.

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote: »

Anyone can invest in the stockmarket.

i do think you ll find many dont have the money to invest in the stock market as they live week to week. i do think 'the market' and the real world economy has a very strange almost symbiotic relationship, im not sure it truly benefits most. i do think we re going through a period of 'asset price inflation' and largely stagnant wages for many if not most which puts further pressures on society.

Yourself isit

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's absolute nonsense. Do you think shareholders just take the money and stash it on their yacht or something?

Indeed. Good point.

Yeah for the 6 months or so it takes them to move everything to another country. Or if they don't just use accounting tricks to hide their profits so that they don't pay any tax.

How is Ireland going to enforce Irish law on an American company if it decides to move to Poland?

The technology revolution if any will start in the US so it's not really relevant to bring Ireland into it.

Yourself isit

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

This is wrong.

It is not correct to deliberately cripple ourselves.

It gives a huge advantage to those who do not choose to cripple themselves, i.e. everyone else.

We need to make full use of technology but the only thing is we need to spread the benefits more equally.

If the benefits are not spread more equally then the people who are left to starve at the bottom may well vote in a Trump or worse.

Society must take care of everyone otherwise it has failed and civil war is possible, or a popular uprising.

Unless somebody can convince me that driverless cars will both increase productivity and wages greater than their losses then bannings the only option.

A capitalism where wages disappear will actually make everybody poorer including shareholders. High demand needs high wages.

Muhammed_1

Driverless cars seem to be confusing you.

Driverless cars won't increase wages. They'll actually eliminate jobs. But productivity will increase as driving tasks are carried out more efficiently, from the car owners point of view.

In general, technology is good. It makes life easier.

It may be bad for someone else if they've lost their job but usually the overall level of goodness is increased.

The problem is that with technologies like driverless cars many small drivers lose out and one billionaire makes lots and lots of money.



That's the whole point of a universal income. We need to level the playing pitch and a universal payment is far easier and fairer than a means tested and conditional payment like we have now.

VinLieger

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's millions for sure. I've yet to see an argument about how increased productivity (if any) will make up for those jobs

Can you predict what jobs might appear with whatever new technology is invented tomorrow or next week or next year?

Nope you can't nobody cant, could anyone in 1995 have predicted ipods, iphones, wireless devices in our pockets connecting us everywhere we go?

Also its not an ad hominem or insult, advocating regressing technological improvements and advancements literally and definitively classifies you as a ludite

Also its hilarious that you think an ad hom is report worthy, have you ever been in after hours before?

Yourself isit

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Driverless cars seem to be confusing you.

Driverless cars won't increase wages. They'll actually eliminate jobs. But productivity will increase as driving tasks are carried out more efficiently, from the car owners point of view.

In general, technology is good. It makes life easier.

It may be bad for someone else if they've lost their job but usually the overall level of goodness is increased.

The problem is that with technologies like driverless cars many small drivers lose out and one billionaire makes lots and lots of money.



That's the whole point of a universal income. We need to level the playing pitch and a universal payment is far easier and fairer than a means tested and conditional payment like we have now.

You know, starting something doesn't prove it. Reducing costs isn't the same as increased productivity. Imagine replacing a human doctor with a robot doctor with the exact same capabilities. Nothing is gained in productivity but in costs.

Also you don't seem to understand aggregate demand. Unless productivity gains largely go to wages then the entire economy suffers. There won't be enough demand to produce enough sales to produce profits. The UBI isn't going to help this.

Yourself isit

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you predict what jobs might appear with whatever new technology is invented tomorrow or next week or next year?

Nope you can't nobody cant, could anyone in 1995 have predicted ipods, iphones, wireless devices in our pockets connecting us everywhere we go?

Also its not an ad hominem or insult, advocating regressing technological improvements and advancements literally and definitively classifies you as a ludite

Also its hilarious that you think an ad hom is report worthy, have you ever been in after hours before?

The ad hom was accusing me of violence. And it is actionable on the dont be a dick rule.

I'm tired off arguing the same thing over and over. The assumption here is that this new AI is different from previous automation since most jobs will be replacable. I'm assuming - for the sake of this thread - that is true and therfore looking for a solution. If it is true then there will be a permanent large pool of the unemployed - this is why the UBI is being experimented with. New jobs might appear but there's no reason to assume that most of these jobs will not also be automated.

If it isn't true then there is no need to worry about the UBI. And I wonder why people are in this thread then.

Yourself isit

As it happens I don't think that even driverless cars will work. But I'm taking the view that the futurists are right and saying "how can we keep the economy ticking over".

Curtailing technology that is unpopular already goes on. Try fracking. GMO. Nuclear in Ireland.

Wanderer78

Yourself isit wrote: »

As it happens I don't think that even driverless cars will work. But I'm taking the view that the futurists are right and saying "how can we keep the economy ticking over".

Curtailing technology that is unpopular already goes on. Try fracking. GMO. Nuclear in Ireland.

these are very good points, i do beleive the powers that be or the elites of this planet actually dont care for the well being of most on this planet, leading me to beleive many are actually sociopaths and psychopaths.

Muhammed_1

Nuclear in Ireland is a good example. Electricity would be cheaper if we had nuclear stations.

I was thinking things like stem cell research or cloning of humans research and other taboo types of research in the EU. We are allowing Asian countries with fewer ethics laws to get ahead of us.

Imposing self made restrictions on ourselves is always bad, even if done for good reasons. Asian companies may make medical breakthroughs that we cannot make because we've banned certain types of research.

Climate change is a difficult example as imposing limits on ourselves in relation to using oil is bad for us but good for the planet.

Same as discharging waste into rivers, good for whoever is doing it but bad for everyone else.

Geuze

AnGaelach wrote: »

Like I've said before, they're not an unbiased source, and nor is this at all logical.

They're expecting to cut taxes by 12% and increase spending, whilst also assuming everyone will stay employed after telling us employment will decrease drastically enough for us to need this.

I'm sorry, but it's nothing short of socialist drivel.

I'm no defender of SJI, but I have to state that their UBI plan involves large increases in taxes for most, if not all, workers.

Every worker would face an ATR of 40%.

Hardly anybody pays 40% ATR at the moment.

Geuze

andekwarhola wrote: »

It may increasingly become less of an issue that large parts of the population have the incentive to work, but rather that said work will simply not be available.

Back as far as the Luddites, people feared that machines would replace jobs.

We have had massive advances in machinery and capital since then, and yet we have record employment in many countries now.

Different types of jobs, obviously, and massive sectoral shifts, often painful for many workers.

I am not a pessimist, and feel that there will always be enough work/jobs.

Geuze

Yourself isit wrote: »

A capitalism where wages disappear will actually make everybody poorer including shareholders. High demand needs high wages.

Lots of technological progress put entire occupations out of work.

Such is the nature of progress.

People are flexible, adaptable, they can retrain, re-skill.

Water John

I think people are as much frustrated as now seeming to have less control over their lives. The few that control the wealth are dictating the terms of work for the rest. Usually in terms of longer hours and less certainty. Contract work and zero hours contracts etc.
UBI would give people a bit more independence and choice. Tilt the balance of power a bit in their favour.

Wanderer78

Water John wrote: »

I think people are as much frustrated as now seeming to have less control over their lives. The few that control the wealth are dictating the terms of work for the rest. Usually in terms of longer hours and less certainty. Contract work and zero hours contracts etc.
UBI would give people a bit more independence and choice. Tilt the balance of power a bit in their favour.

the term 'worker insecurity' sums it up very well

Royal Legend

Geuze wrote: »

Back as far as the Luddites, people feared that machines would replace jobs.

We have had massive advances in machinery and capital since then, and yet we have record employment in many countries now.

Different types of jobs, obviously, and massive sectoral shifts, often painful for many workers.

I am not a pessimist, and feel that there will always be enough work/jobs.

Is this not because the world population is growing? Technologies like driverless cars, Blockchain and advances in AI are IMO going to create serious issues regarding employment going forward and its how we find a place to fit into these advances that will be key.

VinLieger

Royal Legend wrote: »

Is this not because the world population is growing? Technologies like driverless cars, Blockchain and advances in AI are IMO going to create serious issues regarding employment going forward and its how we find a place to fit into these advances that will be key.

Exactly we have to adapt to the changes instead of just trying to keep everything the same cus its currently working okayish, depending on your point of view, like some people on here would advocate

Wanderer78

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly we have to adapt to the changes instead of just trying to keep everything the same cus its currently working okayish, depending on your point of view, like some people on here would advocate

our economic and financial systems are failing most if not all, so change is a must but im not sure we know how to do that yet

4068ac1elhodqr

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you predict what jobs might appear with whatever new technology is invented tomorrow or next week or next year?

Nope you can't nobody cant, could anyone in 1995 have predicted ipods, iphones, wireless devices in our pockets connecting us everywhere we go?

Yes, I can, as can plenty of others and fairly accurately too, (up until 2030 anyway). The only real exception would be if some sort of ground-breaking technology such as zero-point energy, ion near-light-speed propulsion, anti-gravitation or teleportation (or such like) arrived before then.

Plenty of folks had mobile phones back in 1995 and unanimously agreed they were 'the future', just the price point was slightly high then. In '99 a couple of people also recommended buying shares in that start-up Google.

The big issue with UBI would be price-index hyper-inflation, as the base amount would need to be fairly substantial.

Royal Legend

Wanderer78 wrote: »

our economic and financial systems are failing most if not all, so change is a must but im not sure we know how to do that yet

Blockchain will have a revolutionary effect on our financial systems, financial transactions will become one touch between two parties with intermediaries gone, probably meaning the end of companies like Uber, Paypal and Airbnb.
Coin and paper currencies will disappear too, replaced by a bit coin type currency, probably euro bit coin, sterling bit coin etc. This alone will account for serious redundancies in the financial sector.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

WhiteMemento9

Royal Legend wrote: »

Blockchain will have a revolutionary effect on our financial systems, financial transactions will become one touch between two parties with intermediaries gone, probably meaning the end of companies like Uber, Paypal and Airbnb.
Coin and paper currencies will disappear too, replaced by a bit coin type currency, probably euro bit coin, sterling bit coin etc. This alone will account for serious redundancies in the financial sector.

Edit - oops wrong video. For those that want to learn a little more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8OlkkwRpc

WhiteMemento9

Yourself isit wrote: »

As it happens I don't think that even driverless cars will work.

That is quite a novel point of view. Could you expand on why? Just as reference here is a video showing the complexity of what stage the evolution of the technology was at well over a year ago.

Start the video at about 7minutes 50 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwVMrTLUWg

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A; People are losing their homes, many more are in mortgage arrears - those people certainly can't afford to invest in the markets.

B: Investments can become worthless. Rather a lot of people can't afford to lose...

C: Knowledge. The average person has neither the knowledge, not the time required to acquire it - to invest successfully in the markets.

Furthermore - I, for one, keep hearing about how many people lost their money during the crash. How many people do you think are willing to risk that?

Water John

Perma, in simple language, you are saying, the poor are that way through their own fault.
It's 19th century thinking.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

these are very good points, i do beleive the powers that be or the elites of this planet actually dont care for the well being of most on this planet, leading me to beleive many are actually sociopaths and psychopaths.

Many of the elites are so detached from the consequences of their actions that they really don't care about the affects those actions have on the lives of ordinary citizens as long as they see a bigger financial return on their investments.
They are usually in competition with each other such that I don't believe in "the elite" as being one single entity, rather they are groups of individuals competing with each other for the best and most of everything, resources, politicians financial returns and of course power!

Sand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If people who make poor financial decisions were to take their money and invest it in the markets they would be exploited by lads who are con men in better suits, and then they would be wiped out. And clearly they should not invest in any luxury/service/tourism or other consumption stocks. An economy where everyone saves and no one spends would collapse just as quickly as an economy where no one saves.

In any sense, the phenomenon that will occur over the next 50 or so years will be there will simply be less and less employable skills a human will be able to offer an employer. It will be less and less a case of can work, wont work. As someone pointed out already, the invention of the motor engine didn't spell the end of human labour but it sure finished off working horses as anything more than a novelty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Geuze wrote: »

Back as far as the Luddites, people feared that machines would replace jobs.

The Luddites were a subversive group that were put down violently, sometimes with military force. I don't think you can assume the victors honestly assessed them when justifying that force.

By all accounts, the Luddites didn't fear the machines (at least some of them operated them), they were campaigning for better conditions and pay which was being eroded by the machines. It wasn't that they were losing jobs - they were getting worse, more dangerous, poorly paid jobs. They attacked and destroyed the machines because they felt it gave them leverage with the owners of those machines, and those machines were vulnerable. That's it. The campaign also included assassinations of mill owners and clashes with the British Army of the era. It was a social struggle where a group saw their livelihoods become increasingly precarious and in decline and fought violently against that.

The Luddites do demonstrate what will happen if the economic trends of the past 30 years or so continue but the damage that small groups of angry people can do are much greater these days.

pumpkin4life

188 euro a week if you're a single male on the dole is actually a decent amount of money to survive; provided you don't go out on massive benders or anything like that.

Thing is though: would there be some sort of, definitely more than now, a massive existential vacuum; that lads without any sort of meaning, say work, will drown in a dreary haze of the sesh, crap t.v and inter county G.A.A?

PopePalpatine

I've read posts detailing how a proposed UBI of €150 per week wouldn't be enough to live on. Sure, it might not be enough to live on nowadays, but there's one thing being overlooked here - producers of goods and services no longer have to worry about one big cost, and that is wages.

Sand

pumpkin4life wrote: »

188 euro a week if you're a single male on the dole is actually a decent amount of money to survive; provided you don't go out on massive benders or anything like that.

Thing is though: would there be some sort of, definitely more than now, a massive existential vacuum; that lads without any sort of meaning, say work, will drown in a dreary haze of the sesh, crap t.v and inter county G.A.A?

That's the key thing for a society where UBI is applied. What do people do all day when they don't need to go to work? Do they dedicate themselves to learning a craft or skill? Raising a family? Working in their community, be it being active in a club/society or restoration of public spaces? Seeking education just for the pleasure of learning? Or do they sit and watch daytime TV all day?

Its a real challenge as to how drive/initiative/endeavour is maintained if the reality is you're unlikely to get or hold a job unless you've got a minority skillset. We are talking about a significant change in the message people receive today that hard work will pay off materially, benefiting the individual and wider society. Societies which lose that initiative/hard work/hope very quickly become sick societies - white poor Americans for example are the most pessimistic group in US society when evaluating their future and that of their children, and they are also a group stricken with family breakdown, educational failure, drug abuse and decline in trust in public institutions.

Dyr

The Finns generally get stuff right

In comparison, You look at education and healthcare in this country and realize the reason we're fooked is there's too very powerful people trousering a fortune by perpetuating dysfunctional systems.

Sand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am sure there are notable examples of capable people doing just that, but if average people could significantly and consistently beat benchmark returns, taking into account the charges faced to do so, then fund managers wouldn't be able to seek exceptional compensation for doing the same.

This is the key challenge - there has always been a source of employment for people who are underskilled, who often don't have a second level education, let alone a third level or further qualifications. These average people who make the poor financial decisions are not suddenly going to up-skill and become fund managers when their truck driving job is ended by automated vehicles. And there is going to be a lot of them, and they have votes, and its a democracy. We're already seeing the glee Brexiteers and Trump fans take in kicking the elites who are increasingly leaving them in the dust. Where does it end?

Ally Dick

The thick Irish government can bring in this scheme for it's indigenous IT work force, and hand out thousands of visas to Indians to come over and take all the IT job, and then let the indigenous staff lose their jobs to them....oh wait......

laugh

In my opinion the wealth of what was generally called the middle class in the US and the working class in other countries is so decimated and the influence of corporations on politics is becoming so pervasive and obvious that the entire capitalist system is going to come under serious pressure.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

The Finns generally get stuff right

In comparison, You look at education and healthcare in this country and realize the reason we're fooked is there's too very powerful people trousering a fortune by perpetuating dysfunctional systems.

Our education system isn't at all bad.