Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Arcade_Tryer · 31-12-2016 02:30AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one who proposes a UBI has ever been able to show me how it would be costed.

Funny that.

Higher marginal rates of tax on very high incomes.

31-12-2016 02:31AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one who proposes a UBI has ever been able to show me how it would be costed.

Funny that.

No. I can't fathom it, either.

Two possibilities spring to mind.

One is that it would be funded by producers. Given the influence that business has over political policies through lobbying, political donations etc. I can't really see that getting off the ground anytime soon.

The primary function of business is R.O.I (Return on Investment).
Therefore, much of the reduced cost would undoubtedly go in increased dividends for shareholders, rather than being distributed to society, leading to a fall in income for many people, thereby reducing demand for products and services....

The other is a controlled money system, where World Governments calculate how much money they need to "create" to ensure economies don't crash.
The possibilities for disaster there are nearly endless, from getting the math wrong, to possibilities for endless corruption, autocracies springing up -since all economic advancement would be easily controlled - the list goes on.

I genuinely don't see how it could possibly work at all - much less work for the "unwashed masses" - including the middle, or indeed, the upper class....

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 02:40AM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Higher marginal rates of tax on very high incomes.

How high?

Geuze · 31-12-2016 02:42AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one who proposes a UBI has ever been able to show me how it would be costed.

Funny that.

http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland

UBI would require a 40% income tax rate on all income.

PRSI ee and USC abolished.

PRSI er increased somewhat from 10.75% to 13.5%.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 02:42AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. I can't fathom it, either.

Two possibilities spring to mind.

One is that it would be funded by producers. Given the influence that business has over political policies through lobbying, political donations etc. I can't really see that getting off the ground anytime soon.

The primary function of business is R.O.I (Return on Investment).
Therefore, much of the reduced cost would undoubtedly go in increased dividends for shareholders, rather than being distributed to society, leading to a fall in income for many people, thereby reducing demand for products and services....

The other is a controlled money system, where World Governments calculate how much money they need to "create" to ensure economies don't crash.
The possibilities for disaster there are nearly endless, from getting the math wrong, to possibilities for endless corruption, autocracies springing up -since all economic advancement would be easily controlled - the list goes on.

I genuinely don't see how it could possibly work at all - much less work for the "unwashed masses" - including the middle, or indeed, the upper class....

I think we're both in agreement that both of those scenarios are totally unworkable.

Saipanne · 31-12-2016 02:44AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one who proposes a UBI has ever been able to show me how it would be costed.

Funny that.

Why more taxes for the most taxed group in society of course!

Free everything!

Arcade_Tryer · 31-12-2016 02:47AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How high?

You go low, we go high!

Pick a number, any number, between 60 and 80.

31-12-2016 02:49AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think we're both in agreement that both of those scenarios are totally unworkable.

Absolutely.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 02:54AM

I think conversations around how it would be funded are redundant at present. Changes would be so radical that they would certainly be completely resisted by vested interests.

It won't be until unemployment rises, demand drops and a lack of disposable income leads to an inability to fund the current consumer economy that things will change. The sad truth is though if things do play out this way it will be a particularly painful period in history for the majority of society.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 02:56AM

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland

UBI would require a 40% income tax rate on all income.

PRSI ee and USC abolished.

PRSI er increased somewhat from 10.75% to 13.5%.

Finally some numbers!

Unfortunately 150 a week would not be enough for an unemployed person to live off.

Also increasing employer PRSI? We want to attract jobs to this country, not drive them out.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 02:58AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I think conversations around how it would be funded are redundant at present. Changes would be so radical that they would certainly be completely resisted by vested interests.

It won't be until unemployment rises, demand drops and a lack of disposable income leads to an inability to fund the current consumer economy that things will change. The sad truth is though if things do play out this way it will be a particularly painful period in history for the majority of society.

Even then it's doubtful we could afford a universal income.

A more likely result to the doomsday scenario you present would be for producers to make less stuff for a smaller market of people with money.

That would mean an increase in social inequality but that's been the trend since the 70s.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 03:00AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finally some numbers!

Unfortunately 150 a week would not be enough for an unemployed person to live off.

Also increasing employer PRSI? We want to attract jobs to this country, not drive them out.

The goal is not to create employment or to strengthen the incentive to work, but to enable people to live without work.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 03:01AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

The goal is not to create employment or to strengthen the incentive to work, but to enable people to live without work.

A person can't live without work on 150 a week.

If the goal isn't to increase the incentive to work then it's the wrong goal.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 03:09AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A person can't live without work on 150 a week.

If the goal isn't to increase the incentive to work then it's the wrong goal.

I guess we are playing different games. Work is no longer something which is needed in the future I outline. That means people need to able to live without working. It would have a side benefit that it enables freedom to make choices regarding how much to work, and under what conditions etc if you can find work.

Work, work, work, work. Why can no one see a future where people simply are needed to work and as such it is now a choice.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 03:12AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I guess we are playing different games. Work is no longer something which is needed in the future I outline. That means people need to able to live without working. It would have a side benefit that it enables freedom to make choices regarding how much to work, and under what conditions etc if you can find work.

Work, work, work, work. Why can no one see a future where people simply are needed to work and as such it is now a choice.

Because it isn't affordable. Human beings need resources to survive and those resources cost money.

150 euro a week isn't enough to live on. That's the bottom line.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 03:15AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even then it's doubtful we could afford a universal income.

A more likely result to the doomsday scenario you present would be for producers to make less stuff for a smaller market of people with money.

That would mean an increase in social inequality but that's been the trend since the 70s.

Agree completely. Do you really think the majority of society are going to stand by and let this happen quietly. It is why I mentioned it will be a particularly painful period in history. I hate jumping on bandwagon rhetoric but you can already see this unrest in the things we have seen happen this year globally.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 03:22AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Agree completely. Do you really think the majority of society are going to stand by and let this happen quietly. It is why I mentioned it will be a particularly painful period in history. I hate jumping on bandwagon rhetoric but you can already see this unrest in the things we have seen happen this year globally.

We see people electing the likes of Trump who promises to retain jobs and a growing dislike of international trading agreements which are seen (wrongly) to hurt employment.

None of which changes the fact that a UBI is unaffordable.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 03:32AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it isn't affordable. Human beings need resources to survive and those resources cost money.

150 euro a week isn't enough to live on. That's the bottom line.

It isn't affordable in the current paradigm. Capitalism with an almost completely free supply of labor doesn't work. There is currently a social inertia to major change but the current way of existing without jobs for the masses simply won't be able to function at a point in the future. Change will happen out of necessity.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 03:37AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It isn't affordable in the current paradigm. Capitalism with an almost completely free supply of labor doesn't work. There is currently a social inertia to major change but the current way of existing without jobs for the masses simply won't be able to function at a point in the future. Change will happen out of necessity.

That's a bit too much hand waving for me friend. Anyone could say anything that doesn't work at the moment will work in the future. Doesnt make it true. Until I see numbers to the contrary I'm going to stick with the only conclusion I can draw.

Will there be social unrest in the future? Probably. Will that unrest lead to a UBI. Not if a UBI is fundamentally unworkable. And I've seen nothing but evidence to suggest it is.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 03:51AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a bit too much hand waving for me friend. Anyone could say anything that doesn't work at the moment will work in the future. Doesnt make it true. Until I see numbers to the contrary I'm going to stick with the only conclusion I can draw.

Will there be social unrest in the future? Probably. Will that unrest lead to a UBI. Not if a UBI is fundamentally unworkable. And I've seen nothing but evidence to suggest it is.

My argument isn't really grounded in anything related to a UBI. KyussBeeshop outlined many of the problems with such a policy a few pages back. I actually think it would be detrimental to change and only cause slower bleeding of the masses while inequality grows. I am the worst kind of person as I don't provide any answers to problems I can see coming. The thing is though those changes are so seismic relative to current way of life that I doubt many can put forward solutions. It will though come out of necessity.

Iwasfrozen · 31-12-2016 03:54AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

My argument isn't really grounded in anything related to a UBI. KyussBeeshop outlined many of the problems with such a policy a few pages back. I actually think it would be detrimental to change and only cause slower bleeding of the masses while inequality grows. I am the worst kind of person as I don't provide any answers to problems I can see coming. The thing is though those changes are so seismic relative to current way of life that I doubt many can put forward solutions. It will though come out of necessity.

If no one can put forward a solution even in theory it suggests no solution is possible.

WhiteMemento9 · 31-12-2016 04:04AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If no one can put forward a solution even in theory it suggests no solution is possible.

Just because some idiot guy like me on the internet shooting the breeze doesn't have the answers to solve future economic world collapse on an unprecedented scale doesn't mean it is impossible :P

31-12-2016 12:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finally some numbers!

Unfortunately 150 a week would not be enough for an unemployed person to live off.

Also increasing employer PRSI? We want to attract jobs to this country, not drive them out.

No. It wouldn't.

Therein lies another problem. Even if UBI somehow became affordable, it would likely be set at a level lower than what is required to live on, the theory being that people could choose to work for a few hours to make up the difference.

Meaning that people in areas which traditionally have lower employment levels would be in a lot of trouble....

Cue social unrest - lots of it...

Water John · 31-12-2016 12:38PM

You can take it that about 40% would be the rate of income tax, across the board, excluding UBI. That does not have to be a flat rate but can have its own tiers. It just has to work out at 40% overall. UBI is not tied to flat tax, one myth debunked.
Wage rates and work rates would alter considerably. People still need a take home pay that gives a standard of living and also buying power to keep the comsumer society functioning. The question is, could free capitalism or a controlled capitalism create this wage structure?

Personnaly, I don't see why that is not possible. There will always be resistance to any change.
Big changes are always resisted. The social contract that was undertaken in the UK in 1946. In Ireland the example of free secondary education and the free transport to make it accessible were seriously resisted by the powers that be.

Mr. teddywinkles · 31-12-2016 01:00PM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I think conversations around how it would be funded are redundant at present. Changes would be so radical that they would certainly be completely resisted by vested interests.

It won't be until unemployment rises, demand drops and a lack of disposable income leads to an inability to fund the current consumer economy that things will change. The sad truth is though if things do play out this way it will be a particularly painful period in history for the majority of society.

No monetary system in star trek. Everyone works for the benefit of society.

Mr. teddywinkles · 31-12-2016 01:29PM

sdanseo wrote: »

You live in Ireland. Should you ever become unemployed, other people will pay for your lifestlye.

No technically you and your previous employer paid into the system( mind you fairly heavily depending on your job) to cover you for your time outa work till you get your next job. So unless your long term unemployed that statement is crap.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 02:24PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We see people electing the likes of Trump who promises to retain jobs and a growing dislike of international trading agreements which are seen (wrongly) to hurt employment.

None of which changes the fact that a UBI is unaffordable.

Those trade agreements do harm industrial employment.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 02:27PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a bit too much hand waving for me friend. Anyone could say anything that doesn't work at the moment will work in the future. Doesnt make it true. Until I see numbers to the contrary I'm going to stick with the only conclusion I can draw.

Will there be social unrest in the future? Probably. Will that unrest lead to a UBI. Not if a UBI is fundamentally unworkable. And I've seen nothing but evidence to suggest it is.

It might lead to a much larger state, with the state funded by taxes from (or equity in) private companies.

However mass capitalism needs well paid employment or equivalent income.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 03:02PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

No technically you and your previous employer paid into the system( mind you fairly heavily depending on your job) to cover you for your time outa work till you get your next job. So unless your long term unemployed that statement is crap.

It's called PRSI for a reason.

Austria! · 31-12-2016 04:14PM

1. Who's paying for all this fun?

If I sent a robot in to do my job and I stayed at home at took the wages, the same work would be getting done and the world would be the same and I could still buy things I want, but I'd be at home.

If you can wrap your head around that then why can't you wrap your head around that happening en masse? Is it because the company owns the robots and not the workers? Well if they're no longer paying the wages the they have plenty left to be taxed generally to fund UBI.

2. Employment will be fine.The steam engine didn't result in everyone losing their job.

Most of the new jobs that exist after the steam engine are done by humans because humans are the best at them. Robots and programs can only do repetitive tasks, so most jobs require the general intelligence of a human, because we are better at that.
This is going to change. Robots are going to get better general intelligence than us, at which point no one will bother hiring a human. AI is progressing at the pace only a pure optimist had considered years ago.

3. Shut up commie!

Redistribution feels wrong somehow to many people. Why should I give up what I have, I worked for it, etc.
I understand that. But things can't go on the way they are. Society is getting more unequal and this is bad for everyone (including the rich). We have to redistribute for the good of us all.

Saipanne wrote: »

Why more taxes for the most taxed group in society of course!

Free everything!

Are the most taxed group the richest? Because they've been gaining at a higher rate than everyone else, so the fact that they are the most taxed group doesn't seem to be holding them back too much. If the richest aren't the most taxed group, then I think we should just tax them.

4. What will people even do all day?

This is something brought up a lot. I'm not aware of any research on this. There's a lot of art that could be made, culture to be enjoyed, human relationships to be maintained. But is everyone going to use this freedom in such a noble fashion, or will people drift without a sense of purpose, get into drug abuse and boards.ie posting?

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments