Universal basic income trial in Finland

Dohnjoe

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

If we did want to take Finland's (toe-dipping) exercise as anyway indicative or relative, there are a few conclusions from it:

• Physical and mental health improved by 17 per cent
• Depression decreased by 37 per cent
• Stress decreased by 17 per cent
• Life satisfaction improved by 8 per cent
• Trust in other people improved by 6 per cent
• Trust in politicians improved by 5 per cent
• Confidence in the future improved by 21 per cent
• Confidence in the ability to influence society improved by 22 per cent
• Financial security improved by 26 per cent

Yup, free no-strings-attached money is great. I'm surprised those numbers aren't higher.

Liberty Proud Rank

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

If we did want to take Finland's (toe-dipping) exercise as anyway indicative or relative, there are a few conclusions from it:

• Physical and mental health improved by 17 per cent
• Depression decreased by 37 per cent
• Stress decreased by 17 per cent
• Life satisfaction improved by 8 per cent
• Trust in other people improved by 6 per cent
• Trust in politicians improved by 5 per cent
• Confidence in the future improved by 21 per cent
• Confidence in the ability to influence society improved by 22 per cent
• Financial security improved by 26 per cent

All good things for individuals, but probably bad for business as they really need wage slaves willing to put in long hours for the least amount of money they can get away with paying. They also need the fear of unemployment and destitution to keep the wage slaves in order.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

All good things for individuals, but probably bad for business as they really need wage slaves willing to put in long hours for the least amount of money they can get away with paying. They also need the fear of unemployment and destitution to keep the wage slaves in order.

Indeed there are risks to such a scheme, namely inflation, as the most significant.

One assumption for the 'freedom dividend' is that there will soon be a larger pool for the corporate sharks to fish from. But the fish won't be as exposed to slavery as would otherwise be.

A gig economy when properly supported, means that a typical 4/8hr gig slot is exactly that. - Unlike today where a 37.5 corporate week is actually a 45hr week, yes 5wks holidays allowed, but hard to actually come by, in reality.

Worth noting also Finland's rate was 'below' their standard poverty rate, whereas Yang's proposal would be 'on' the povertly line, so any $'s earned above it and it's a win situation.

Dohnjoe

"Slavery", "Corporate sharks"

lol, it's like some sort of anti-capitalist thread

Well we're going to need the "wage slaves" in this country to come up with an extra 20 billion to fund this "free money" (except for those paying for it)

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Slavery", "Corporate sharks"

lol, it's like some sort of anti-capitalist thread

Well we're going to need the "wage slaves" in this country to come up with an extra 20 billion to fund this "free money" (except for those paying for it)

Capitalism (more so, enterprise) when properly managed is great. But wrapped up in a non-competitve dutch sandwich of tax sweetness, not so much. Pull the 12.5%CT from Ire, and see a game of Jengo commence.

When you have BillGate$ suggesting there should be new wealth tax, that he never felt he paid enough, and doesn't want a tax cut it makes you wonder. Even charities don't want billionaires donations, they just want them to pay fair taxes.

Wealth inequality will increase (globally 1% own approx 50%), and millions upon millions of low-mid skilled will shortly be left on the scrapheap.

The way UBI can be funded is via fairer taxation, in the long run it may fund itself through the results of upskilling, education and enterprise. Bear in mind someone with 7 kids or a host of benefits will be worse off, they only get this single 'universal' amount, so savings can still be made.

/ Or the alternative might just be to 'lols' at it all.
Maybe Yang has the right idea afterall, only time will tell.

Harika

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Slavery", "Corporate sharks"

lol, it's like some sort of anti-capitalist thread

Well we're going to need the "wage slaves" in this country to come up with an extra 20 billion to fund this "free money" (except for those paying for it)

I think in the 0.01 or even 0.1% is a high agreement to the idea of the UBI as the wealth and income gap is seen as something that is threatening them and their wealth. See this article:
First time I heard of the UBI was 15 years ago from the owners of one of the biggest German retailer and a lot of millionaires came out in support since then. As a stable society helps them to get richer, while civil unrest or even war is a big risk.

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

I think in the 0.01 or even 0.1% is a high agreement to the idea of the UBI as the wealth and income gap is seen as something that is threatening them and their wealth. See this article:
First time I heard of the UBI was 15 years ago from the owners of one of the biggest German retailer and a lot of millionaires came out in support since then. As a stable society helps them to get richer, while civil unrest or even war is a big risk.

This "evil rich people" narrative is always trotted out. UBI benefits the people getting a net benefit from it, it's highly questionable whether such an astronomically expensive program benefits the rest of the country and the people paying for it (net)

Harika

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This "evil rich people" narrative is always trotted out. UBI benefits the people getting a net benefit from it, it's highly questionable whether such an astronomically expensive program benefits the rest of the country and the people paying for it (net)

I stated quiet the opposite, thanks for reading.
When has there ever been a society with a big wealth inequality that didn't explode from within? And can you think of recent examples where this happened and what happened there with the top ones?
Like described in the book "The global trap" tittytainment is becoming ineffective and has bought a lot of time, so something more effective will be needed, if you don't want to end up in a police state.

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

I stated quiet the opposite, thanks for reading.

Apologies was on phone and assumed it was the usual "rich people this, police state that, blah blah.."

UK urged to look at UBI

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48185806

Every adult in the UK should receive a weekly basic income of £48, according to the recommendations in a new report.

The move could be paid for by scrapping more than 1,000 tax reliefs, a report by Professor Guy Standing, a professor at SOAS University suggests.

The Labour Party - which has previously floated the idea of a basic income - said it would study the report ahead of drawing up its next manifesto.

A universal basic income is already being trialled in other countries.

The report, entitled Basic Income as Common Dividends: Piloting a Transformative Policy, was written by Professor Standing, an authority on the concept of the basic income.

He was asked to write it by the Progressive Economy Forum, a left-leaning group of economists.

Advocates of a basic income say it reduces poverty and inequality by providing a guaranteed income.

4068ac1elhodqr

UBI of £48 would be insufficient. It would need to be well above their JSA £73.10 (25yrs+) or it would have very little (if any) take-up.

On a similar theme, the uk's Chancellor is considering what would become the world’s highest minimum wage of £9.61 (€11.50c) in 2020.
This would be at £20k for 40hr week, or 66% of median earnings, with Net of 17.1k or 86% net return (for the 20gross).
But this assumes a 40hr week, whilst the uk baseline is only 37.5. (France is/was 35hrs, but Macron has been stadily removing that).

Two years ago, labour leader Jeremy Corbyn vowed to raise the national living wage to £10 per hour from 2020, and include 21 to 24-year-olds in the higher wage band.

Guess is, that they're both (Con-Lab), bricking it in case TBP take all the seats in both the EE & GE, and need some 'spin'.

Liberty Proud Rank

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

UBI of £48 would be insufficient. It would need to be well above their JSA £73.10 (25yrs+) or it would have very little (if any) take-up.

On a similar theme, the uk's Chancellor is considering what would become the world’s highest minimum wage of £9.61 (€11.50c) in 2020.
This would be at £20k for 40hr week, or 66% of median earnings, with Net of 17.1k or 86% net return (for the 20gross).
But this assumes a 40hr week, whilst the uk baseline is only 37.5. (France is/was 35hrs, but Macron has been stadily removing that).

Two years ago, labour leader Jeremy Corbyn vowed to raise the national living wage to £10 per hour from 2020, and include 21 to 24-year-olds in the higher wage band.

Guess is, that they're both (Con-Lab), bricking it in case TBP take all the seats in both the EE & GE, and need some 'spin'.

The way I read it is that the UBI is to replace a large number of low value benefits, while not replacing unemployment benefit. It is not a UBI that someone could live off.

I would imagine that the thinking behind it is to eliminate the huge costs involved in administering many of the low value benefits that could cost a considerable percentage of the actual payment, so a payment to the claimant of £25 could cost the taxpayer £35.

Balanadan

There are people in Ireland turning down full-time employment, circa €30k-€35k, because they get almost as much from the dole and nixers. Not to mention the free houses. Some of their houses are worth more than most first-time buyers could hope to buy, You see people who hardly work, who sponge off the state, that are driving around in Mercedes and BMWs. No wonder they're ****ing happy.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

The way I read it is that the UBI is to replace a large number of low value benefits, while not replacing unemployment benefit. It is not a UBI that someone could live off.

I would imagine that the thinking behind it is to eliminate the huge costs involved in administering many of the low value benefits that could cost a considerable percentage of the actual payment, so a payment to the claimant of £25 could cost the taxpayer £35.

That sounds more like a 'Tax Credit', than (Universal)BI.

Won't be any real admin savings without performing a full system replacement, whereby everyone universally gets the exact same soup from the cauldron, regardless of what they bring with them into the kitchen.

Regarding the other poster, nixers will become obselete.

ATMs are dissapearing at a fast rate, tap & go (RFID chip) is becoming the defacto consumer payment system, and as such cash will become redundant. Anyone using cash (which is untraceable) will arouse suspision.