Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Universal basic income trial in Finland
Options
Comments
-
You're focusing on only one thing I said, and ignoring the rest: What answer do you have to all of the other trojan horse aspects of the UBI?
There is no credible proposal for how to pay for it - the Flat Tax is a fairly common proposal for how to pay for it - and the other proposals for how to pay, aren't any better.
Not a single person has proposed how to make the UBI survive an economic crisis like 10 years ago. It'll be the first thing to get chopped.
You live in a society which demands people work to earn - quit the fantasy that that is going to change - as you know full well that with the introduction of a UBI people will be working.
Stop trying to bait and switch into talking about a fantasyland future - you have to justify the transition to a UBI in todays economy - one where people will still have to work.
You can't talk about a policy like this, without explaining how the transition into this policy is going to work - it just devolves into underpants gnome logic:
1: Universal Basic income/Free-Money
2: ??? (insert transition period here)
3: Profit and utopia - nobody has to work.0 -
You are quite wrong invoking an intrinsic and absolute tie between work and income. There are, as I have mentioned much earlier, whole sections to which this doesn't apply.
Everyone over 66 is entitled to a noncontributory OAP.
Every child is entitled to a children's allowance, which is paid to their parents.
Every farmer in this country receives a Basic Payment Scheme payment. This varies in size, depending on some historical factors. But it reasonable to say that most farmers receive a payment, larger than €10K/year.
There are probably more. But it is safe to say, that the tie between, work for profit, is not universal, and not seen as such, by society.
BTW, the above payments, all come from Govn't with little monitoring or any compliance checks needed.0 -
It's not a bloody philosophical disagreement - it's a practical and political/economic one.
I don't give a toss whether or not you think income should be tied with work - I'm concerned with the fact that it presently is, and that the political/economic implications of using the UBI to try and change that - create a major trojan-horse situation, that will deliver the opposite of what UBI proponents advocate - will make inequality far worse by allowing the destruction of the welfare state, by subsidizing corporations with government welfare to an even greater degree, and by destroying progressive taxation (or by otherwise engaging in unsustainable funding for the UBI).
I don't give a toss if you think people shouldn't have to work to get an income. Your plan to end that is riddled with major, dangerous flaws. If you want that - and that's not necessarily a bad goal, it just needs a good practical solution - then you need a better plan that doesn't have such a significant danger of being a trojan horse (the existing programs which provide something like this, for limited sections of society - with their checks and balances - are indeed a better option, practically, even if not philosophically...).0 -
There is no credible proposal for how to pay for it - the Flat Tax is a fairly common proposal for how to pay for it - and the other proposals for how to pay, aren't any better.
Not a single person has proposed how to make the UBI survive an economic crisis like 10 years ago. It'll be the first thing to get chopped.
There are calculators and detailed finance options for the ubi available, that is easy googleable.
For the financial crisis it was suggested to throw on the debt machine like in 2008, the anticyclic theory them kicks in. When the economy is back on the debts get paid off. Works since 100 years lol
You live in a society which demands people work to earn - quit the fantasy that that is going to change - as you know full well that with the introduction of a UBI people will be working.
Stop trying to bait and switch into talking about a fantasyland future - you have to justify the transition to a UBI in todays economy - one where people will still have to work.
So people will continue to work with the ubi, great that is exactly what you want.You can't talk about a policy like this, without explaining how the transition into this policy is going to work - it just devolves into underpants gnome logic:
1: Universal Basic income/Free-Money
2: ??? (insert transition period here)
3: Profit and utopia - nobody has to work.
People will have to work, the focus is to shift work away from non productive to productive work.
The swap is explained by a slow gradual process, first the citoyen money and that gradually changes to ubi.0 -
Water John wrote: »You are quite wrong invoking an intrinsic and absolute tie between work and income. There are, as I have mentioned much earlier, whole sections to which this doesn't apply.
Everyone over 66 is entitled to a noncontributory OAP.
This is false.
The non-con OAP is means-tested.
Many people over 65 do not receive State Pensions.0 -
Advertisement
-
The non contributory pension is means tested but the contributory is not, I accept. But the contributory by no means reflects what you have paid in, over the years, esp for past public servants.
KyssB, could you make your points, without being, so angry. This is simply a discussion on a possible alternative economic model.0 -
It's up to you - a UBI proponent - to put forward a method of paying for it, in your own words.There are calculators and detailed finance options for the ubi available, that is easy googleable.
For the financial crisis it was suggested to throw on the debt machine like in 2008, the anticyclic theory them kicks in. When the economy is back on the debts get paid off. Works since 100 years lol
You can't just put forward a ridiculously expensive program and then say "ah just go Google it..." - reeks of bullshit, and like you have no idea how to pay for it.
Yea throwing on the debt machine really worked so well last time, didn't it? We ended up giving the banks a shitload of money - and then those in power successfully stopped government from being able to use the same method for public spending (which the UBI would depend upon...), by forcing a strict ideological adherence to austerity...
The UBI can't survive austerity ffs - it's guaranteed to get destroyed by the austerity advocates - and they'll even have destroyed the entire welfare state in one go, once they kill the UBI, as it'll have replaced the whole welfare state...
It really doesn't take more than a childs level of foresight to see this kind of stuff. The UBI advocates have no excuse for remaining deliberately blind to this.
And all of the trojan horse aspects of the UBI, which cause the destruction of the welfare state? The transformation of the UBI into a massive business subsidy among those people who are working?? (because businesses are going to fucking slash wages to match it, like I've said for the 100th time...) The destruction of progressive taxation, by ridiculous and unsustainable tax plans, for paying for the UBI?So people will continue to work with the ubi, great that is exactly what you want.
People will have to work, the focus is to shift work away from non productive to productive work.
The swap is explained by a slow gradual process, first the citoyen money and that gradually changes to ubi.
Nobody is addressing any of these things. Just making up nonsense about future jobless societies, to avoid addressing this.0 -
Don't mistake being forceful in highlighting the problems - repetitively I might add - and the refusal to address them - don't mistake that with anger.Water John wrote: »KyssB, could you make your points, without being, so angry. This is simply a discussion on a possible alternative economic model.
I don't like wasting my time trying to get people to address a point that's been said so many times - so I will get more forceful in pointing that out and ridiculing it.0 -
I suspect, those against the concept of the OAP put forward similar arguments. Only one politician ever interfered negatively with the OAP. Ernest Blythe is still remembered for reducing it. No politician, would ever touch a UBI payment. Look at any attempt to undermine the NHS in the UK, by a minority of the Tories. Not a prayer of it happening.
UBI would be immune from negative political interference.0 -
Deal with the actual arguments against the UBI. Don't make up nonsense comparisons, by trying to paint me as similar to OAP opponents.
Address the actual bloody arguments - they are right there - they have been repeated so many times you can't pretend not to have seen them.
Explain how to resolve:
1: UBI replacing the welfare state, then getting killed by austerity in a future economic crisis, destroying the entire welfare state with it.
2: The UBI transforming into a business subsidy among working people, by businesses slashing wages to match the UBI (which will happen...)
3: How the fuck do you pay for it? And without destroying progressive taxation in the process?
Three major ways the policy is a trojan horse - being promoted to achieve all those things - the opposite of what proponents say will happen.
In what world could the most massive public spending program ever, be immune to negative political interference? Our entire political/economic narrative is dominated by opposition to increased public spending...0 -
Advertisement
-
Ireland's social welfare costs currently work out at approximately 4,200 per year for every man, woman and child in the country. (20bn/4.78mn)
How much would a person need per annum in UBI for it to be feasible as a social welfare replacement? Presumably children wouldn't be in receipt of it, otherwise it just would be an incentive for certain people to have a flock of kids. That would bring the social welfare saving to 5,300 per person over the age of 15 (1 million 0-14 year olds in Ireland).
The rest would need to be made up in the form of taxation.
You also then need to consider the mass of immigration that would come from it, as people legally flock to Ireland for the guaranteed income. It would realistically need to be a European Union wide UBI for it to work.0 -
It's up to you - a UBI proponent - to put forward a method of paying for it, in your own words.
You can't just put forward a ridiculously expensive program and then say "ah just go Google it..." - reeks of bullshit, and like you have no idea how to pay for it.
.
See there are a lot of plans how to finance it, some work for Ireland some not. But trivial you raise e.g. income tax depending on the salary and with that you pay it. The gap you have is financed by savings of paying and controlling payments of the welfare state.Yea throwing on the debt machine really worked so well last time, didn't it? We ended up giving the banks a shitload of money - and then those in power successfully stopped government from being able to use the same method for public spending (which the UBI would depend upon...), by forcing a strict ideological adherence to austerity...
.
What was the alternative? Not saying it was the best option, but in hindsight it is always easier.
And all of the trojan horse aspects of the UBI, which cause the destruction of the welfare state? The transformation of the UBI into a massive business subsidy among those people who are working?? (because businesses are going to fucking slash wages to match it, like I've said for the 100th time...) The destruction of progressive taxation, by ridiculous and unsustainable tax plans, for paying for the UBI?
You can protect the ubi from the greedy fingers, I am not an expert for Ireland and the constitution In Germany and Austria there it is possible to guarantee the ubi with a 2/3 majority of political parties and it gets written into the constitution. So to abolish it then you need a public vote where 2/3 of all Austrians / Germans vote for the abolishment of the ubi. What seems quite hard for me.
And exactly to keep companies from putting pressure on the workers, the ubi kicks in. When people are not forced to work, companies will have to pay proper wages as those 0hours travesty will be out of the window. You slash wages, how is your business going without workers?0 -
It would not be open to, recent immigrants. Our unemployment payment isn't.
Yes, no doubt it will lead to a higher tax level on further income.above UBI.
Not a fan of funny money but why does all money created by central banks should be distributed though the commercial banks? A % could be infused into the economic system via the UBI payment.0 -
Present ONE fully costed plan, that hasn't been ridiculed by revenue or another state institution...See there are a lot of plans how to finance it, some work for Ireland some not. But trivial you raise e.g. income tax depending on the salary and with that you pay it. The gap you have is financed by savings of paying and controlling payments of the welfare state.
You're evading the question - the onus is on you to prove your policy, since you are proposing an alternative to the status quo - you have to prove it is better than the status quo...What was the alternative? Not saying it was the best option, but in hindsight it is always easier.
How, precisely, are you going to stop a Universal Basic Income, being gutted by austerity, as soon as a big enough economic crisis hits?
Eh, you can't just evade economic/political realities by writing stuff into the constitution.You can protect the ubi from the greedy fingers, I am not an expert for Ireland and the constitution In Germany and Austria there it is possible to guarantee the ubi with a 2/3 majority of political parties and it gets written into the constitution. So to abolish it then you need a public vote where 2/3 of all Austrians / Germans vote for the abolishment of the ubi. What seems quite hard for me.
And exactly to keep companies from putting pressure on the workers, the ubi kicks in. When people are not forced to work, companies will have to pay proper wages as those 0hours travesty will be out of the window. You slash wages, how is your business going without workers?
I'm sure if you offered a referendum tomorrow for everyone to get €1 million quid a day, that it would be passed - doesn't make it any more realistic.
Can we stick to the reality-based arguments, and not the fantasy, please?
You do realize that if there is an exodus of workers from business, that you get a massive drop in GDP, and that this directly leads to said workers having less products to buy - and a severe reduction in quality of life - yes?
Maintaining GDP figures is important. If you don't maintain GDP levels, then you either 1: Produce less, leaving workers to consume less and have a lower quality of life or 2: Import less (since exports require locally produced goods, and you don't want to let the Imports vs Exports balance grow too wide), which also means less goods for workers and lower quality of life...
That leads me to another big hole in the UBI idea: If it leads to less people working, then it leads to LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE in the immediate term...0 -
You're correct that created money could be put through the UBI - in fact I am a very rare poster on this forum, in alignment with your views, as I favour created money being used for public spending - but the problem is this:Water John wrote: »It would not be open to, recent immigrants. Our unemployment payment isn't.
Yes, no doubt it will lead to a higher tax level on further income.above UBI.
Not a fan of funny money but why does all money created by central banks should be distributed though the commercial banks? A % could be infused into the economic system via the UBI payment.
If you want to create and spend money without excessive inflation, you have to spend that money in a way that boosts GDP.
Otherwise, if you increase the amount of money without boosting GDP, you have a greater amount of money, chasing the same amount of goods - making each unit of money worth less - i.e. that causes inflation.
The type of policy I would advocate, opposed to the UBI, is a jobs program - if such a program were funded by created money, it would not only add more money to the economy, it would boost GDP as well due to the useful work being undertaken - and this would be significantly less prone to inflation, than the UBI.
That's the reason I see a jobs program, as being far superior to a UBI - the jobs program is actually far more secure politically (not prone to any of the Trojan Horse aspects of the UBI), and it provides far more meaning to peoples lives than just getting free money (people choosing to do worthwhile things in their time with the UBI is just a theory - with a jobs program it is a mandated fact), and it has a far greater chance of improving everybody's lives, in todays economy.0 -
Present ONE fully costed plan, that hasn't been ridiculed by revenue or another state institution...
https://www.grundeinkommen.ch/ist-ein-grundeinkommen-finanzierbar/
That is the one offered to the swiss people, it was rejected by them, still the numbers are there for you to check.Eh, you can't just evade economic/political realities by writing stuff into the constitution.
You asked about how can it be secured to not get chopped at the first opportunity. That is the solutionYou do realize that if there is an exodus of workers from business, that you get a massive drop in GDP, and that this directly leads to said workers having less products to buy - and a severe reduction in quality of life - yes?
...
That leads me to another big hole in the UBI idea: If it leads to less people working, then it leads to LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE in the immediate term...
Why should there be an exodus of people leaving the work, especially middle class and above? Are you happy with 1k a month? Can you finance your life with that, oh I could and it would mean some drastic changes. So no new iphone each year, no two vacations abroad and so on. I would lose standard of living but gain quality of life (A very important distinction to make!) by having more time at hands to work on projects that have a big value for me, my family or community but no or only small financial benefit.
So if you are happy in your job, no one stops you from working, your monthly income won't even change. If you are on the other side and think your job is pointless but you are doing for the paycheck you might want to rethink that.0 -
The type of policy I would advocate, opposed to the UBI, is a jobs program - if such a program were funded by created money, it would not only add more money to the economy, it would boost GDP as well due to the useful work being undertaken - and this would be significantly less prone to inflation, than the UBI.
That's the reason I see a jobs program, as being far superior to a UBI - the jobs program is actually far more secure politically (not prone to any of the Trojan Horse aspects of the UBI), and it provides far more meaning to peoples lives than just getting free money (people choosing to do worthwhile things in their time with the UBI is just a theory - with a jobs program it is a mandated fact), and it has a far greater chance of improving everybody's lives, in todays economy.
I really disagree.
The market creates jobs. When the Government tries, it always fails. I consider myself a centrist but this is one area where the right wing have the correct idea.
A "Jobs Program" would be no different then the millions of other initiatives and programs that has happened in the past. Inefficient, open to abuse, succeptible to the politics of the day, etc. Your idea that is would be more secure is nuts. A Universal Basic Income would become like any other public service......it would survive any polotical upheaval......unlike some Jobs scheme.
You could perhaps attach a required "public service" clause to the Universal Basic Income which would mean everyone in receipt of it would have to provide X number of hours of public service as long as physically able. That might work if your worry is people sitting on their backsides all day.
But the idea of artificially creating jobs for people to do will fail. It always does.0 -
You're presenting a plan that's not even in English - you've got to be taking this piss...https://www.grundeinkommen.ch/ist-ein-grundeinkommen-finanzierbar/
That is the one offered to the swiss people, it was rejected by them, still the numbers are there for you to check.
You asked about how can it be secured to not get chopped at the first opportunity. That is the solution
Why should there be an exodus of people leaving the work, especially middle class and above? Are you happy with 1k a month? Can you finance your life with that, oh I could and it would mean some drastic changes. So no new iphone each year, no two vacations abroad and so on. I would lose standard of living but gain quality of life (A very important distinction to make!) by having more time at hands to work on projects that have a big value for me, my family or community but no or only small financial benefit.
So if you are happy in your job, no one stops you from working, your monthly income won't even change. If you are on the other side and think your job is pointless but you are doing for the paycheck you might want to rethink that.
You're not convincing anyone with that kind of obstructionist tactic.
You're not getting the UBI written into the constitution - that's ridiculous and not practical at all.0 -
The government presently employs a shitload of people in, you know...jobs...I really disagree.
The market creates jobs. When the Government tries, it always fails. I consider myself a centrist but this is one area where the right wing have the correct idea.
A "Jobs Program" would be no different then the millions of other initiatives and programs that has happened in the past. Inefficient, open to abuse, succeptible to the politics of the day, etc. Your idea that is would be more secure is nuts. A Universal Basic Income would become like any other public service......it would survive any polotical upheaval......unlike some Jobs scheme.
You could perhaps attach a required "public service" clause to the Universal Basic Income which would mean everyone in receipt of it would have to provide X number of hours of public service as long as physically able. That might work if your worry is people sitting on their backsides all day.
But the idea of artificially creating jobs for people to do will fail. It always does.
Spare me the anti-state bullshit. It's the only entity capable of sustainably funding large scale work which is not profit based.
Anyone who has seen the effects of austerity in the last decade, knows that the UBI - i.e. free money for no reason whatsoever, to literally everyone - is going to be the very first thing cut in a big enough economic crisis. You have fuck all protection from austerity.
What the fuck is an 'artificially created job'? Is that supposed to make supposed 'normal', 'naturally-created', 'free range' jobs sound good - and the other 'artificially created' (let me guess - government?) jobs, sound 'bad' somehow?
Are jobs meant to grow on trees or in the fields or something? They are all 'artificial'...Our entire economy is built on 'artificially created' jobs...0 -
You're presenting a plan that's not even in English - you've got to be taking this piss...
You're not convincing anyone with that kind of obstructionist tactic.
You're not getting the UBI written into the constitution - that's ridiculous and not practical at all.
If you use chrome, click "Translate", also IE has it.
You could get it into the constitution, if you want it to be safe.0 -
Advertisement
-
Water John wrote: »Yes, no doubt it will lead to a higher tax level on further income.above UBI.
Not a fan of funny money but why does all money created by central banks should be distributed though the commercial banks? A % could be infused into the economic system via the UBI payment.
I would not conflate UBI with QE.
QE is money creation by central banks.
UBI is not.
It is a new welfare policy, to replace all existing welfare.0 -
-
The point I was making is that, money is both created and given out in different ways. Some are giving the impression here, that unless, it's directly tied to labour, the social order will, somehow collapse.0
-
The reason I said the UBI would collapse, is because it is an intertwined set of Trojan Horse policies (each of which I've explained at length), which are easily taken advantage of to further the political/economic gains of those who are already powerful - at an even greater expense to the general public, than the way things are now - it has nothing to do with tying money to labour.
Deal with the arguments I actually present.0 -
If UBI is a Trojan horse and the powers that be attempt to do as you believe and cut UBI after people have become used to it, they would risk a regime changing uprising.The reason I said the UBI would collapse, is because it is an intertwined set of Trojan Horse policies (each of which I've explained at length), which are easily taken advantage of to further the political/economic gains of those who are already powerful - at an even greater expense to the general public, than the way things are now - it has nothing to do with tying money to labour.
Deal with the arguments I actually present.
So for that reason I don't believe such a situation will occur, as it is it would allow the basic minimum wage to fall as the UBI will be sufficiently high to allow people to have a basic standard of living and only work part time for a relatively low wage to improve their standard of living. If the wages offered are too low they the business simply wont find the staff.
The main point of UBI is that it avoids the so called benefits trap where a low paid worker can end up worse off taking a job than staying on the dole.0 -
When the fuck was there last any kind of uprising over anything? We're Irish. We're used to eating shit, be it from our government or (historically) other governments, or just from our own oligopolistic companies and financial institutions, at a consumer level.
I mean really if you want to implement an inherently vulnerable and easily exploited set of policies - and then depend on the population to rise up when the blindingly obvious happens - then that's just absolutely deluded.
I mean come on, you have to do better than that - that's just silly - if you know it's so easily exploited, and are pushing it anyway, then you can't blame people if they choose to take you as wanting the policies to be exploited in the first place.
The wage dynamics you outline there, are far better achieved by a jobs program like I explained, which targets the minimum wage - creates exactly the same dynamics with employers, without any of the Trojan Horse aspects of the UBI.0 -
No Govn't ever, would decrease UBI. All evidence indicates this. As I pointed out, only once did a politician reduce the OAP. No politician ever reduced UB.
So this end of your argument does not stand scrutiny.0 -
Care to point to this evidence? Pretty hard to do, since no government has ever implemented a Universal Basic Income.0
-
Water John wrote: »The point I was making is that, money is both created and given out in different ways. Some are giving the impression here, that unless, it's directly tied to labour, the social order will, somehow collapse.
Be careful.
Raising taxes and paying welfare is fiscal policy, that's the Government.
QE is the central bank, and doesn't involve giving money directly to anybody.
QE involves the purchase of financial assets.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 14592
Not so widely reported is that the Finn's are quietly finishing this experiment and not hailing it as a success.
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/Finland-is-killing-its-world-famous-basic-income-experiment--/0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement