Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Water John · 31-12-2016 06:21PM

Well there are whole sections of society that don't work for a wage as it is. They don't have a wholesale breakdown in their social values.

There is so much social capital that could be more fully realised with UBI in place. Also, many more things could have a monetary value. If you train the u10s, you a already making a valuable contribution and there would be nothing wrong with you getting a payment or wage for so doing. side by side with UBI, or concept of paid work should be broadened.

AnGaelach · 31-12-2016 07:09PM

kippy wrote: »

Where was universal mentioned?

It's the fourth word in the thread's title...

AnGaelach · 31-12-2016 07:17PM

Austria! wrote: »

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.

That's a flawed belief though. Robots didn't make workers in the car industry more money, it made them unemployed. The entire reason for business to automate is that the robots are a fixed cost, and cheaper than paying wages. If they're going to have to pay for your wages anyway, what's the point in automating in the first place?

Austria! wrote: »

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.

Unemployment did spike during the Industrial Revolution...

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.[/quote]

And who decides what sort of redistribution is best? Giving everyone a "basic income" is quite ridiculous, it will either result in fewer people working/working less productively, or it will have no measurable change except consolidating of welfare payments into one blanket payment so that when the economy goes into contraction, the rich will still have money but the Government can implement austerity packages much easier.

You won't have done anything except made it easier for the wealthy to consolidating their income.

Austria! wrote: »

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.

That's not an argument for UBI, that's an argument against tax avoidance.

Do you really think the rich won't continue to get away with not contributing if you implement this?

All it is going to do is squeeze the already squeezed middle. Yay!

Austria! wrote: »

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?

I'm quite sure you'll see an increase in mental health issues and suicide rates if people are made redundant and just given the money. We're not built for sitting around doing nothing, we're built for doing things.

peasant · 31-12-2016 07:30PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm quite sure you'll see an increase in mental health issues and suicide rates if people are made redundant and just given the money. We're not built for sitting around doing nothing, we're built for doing things.

Have you ever tried "doing things" when on the dole...perhaps even things that might earn you a few bob?

You can't...because as soon as they get wind of it, your dole is gone (and you might even have to pay penalties)

The current system is actually worse than "money for nothing" because they make you beg for it, queue for it, sign for it, worry about it, sit stupid courses teaching you "skills" you already have and punish you for making money doing something for yourself (should you be so lucky and have a skill or talent).

It's degrading, based on Victorian values that are in dire need of an overhaul.

AnGaelach · 31-12-2016 07:34PM

peasant wrote: »

Have you ever tried "doing things" when on the dole...perhaps even things that might earn you a few bob?

You can't...because as soon as they get wind of it, your dole is gone (and you might even have to pay penalties)

The current system is actually worse than "money for nothing" because they make you beg for it, queue for it, sign for it, worry about it, sit stupid courses teaching you "skills" you already have and punish you for making money doing something for yourself (should you be so lucky and have a skill or talent).

It's degrading, based on Victorian values that are in dire need of an overhaul.

That's probably because welfare isn't a life-time guarantee. If you can work and support yourself, you're not supposed to be subsidised. It's not free money, it's to tide you over until you find work. If you work on the side while claiming the dole, you're depriving revenue, scamming the tax payers and just being selfish.

Should the system be overhauled? Sure.
Should the system be changed so that it can be scammed and gamed? No.

peasant · 31-12-2016 07:39PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's probably because welfare isn't a life-time guarantee.

Neither is work/a job ...not anymore and certainly not in the future.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 08:54PM

Austria! wrote: »

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.

Yeh.

They are not taxed at 52% above 32k a year.

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

That's the past. The past doesn't prove the future.

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.

I wonder what you think humans will be doing if AI can replace all humans.

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.

First good point.

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.

Capital is mobile. In this scenerio it will be corporations who should be taxed. More. Will that happen?

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?

Most people are not smart enough to do any of that. The evidence now is that the unemployed don't produce great works of art or science.

Sand · 31-12-2016 10:05PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

Most people are not smart enough to do any of that. The evidence now is that the unemployed don't produce great works of art or science.

Most artists don't produce any great works of art, and most of them are technically unemployed. I think the point is that humans are increasingly not going to be employable (I think there will always be a market for human service and human craft though - as a luxury brand value, like butlers today) and they are going to have to find a value and drive in their life outside the next promotion in their corporate career.

Water John · 31-12-2016 10:13PM

People looking for real values within themselves and not the job defining who they are.

A big group who basically got money for nothing for a large period of time were protestant clerymen in England, paid by tithes. Some did not do a lot but many found the income to indulge in the sciences. Much of the great research was don by these clerymen.
So people on UBI, I beleive, will become largely more innovative in their use of time.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 11:14PM

Sand wrote: »

Most artists don't produce any great works of art, and most of them are technically unemployed. I think the point is that humans are increasingly not going to be employable (I think there will always be a market for human service and human craft though - as a luxury brand value, like butlers today) and they are going to have to find a value and drive in their life outside the next promotion in their corporate career.

This is utopian. If people could that that now they would. The evidence is that the dole isn't used to fund entrepreneurial activities.

Yourself isit · 31-12-2016 11:16PM

Water John wrote: »

People looking for real values within themselves and not the job defining who they are.

A big group who basically got money for nothing for a large period of time were protestant clerymen in England, paid by tithes. Some did not do a lot but many found the income to indulge in the sciences. Much of the great research was don by these clerymen.
So people on UBI, I beleive, will become largely more innovative in their use of time.

Some science was done by these clergymen but they weren't paid for nothing. They also wrote sermons and tended their flock.

Geuze · 01-01-2017 12:35AM

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

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

To me, a key goal is to boost the incentive to work.

As you don't lose a benefit if you take up work.

Geuze · 01-01-2017 12:38AM

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.

I just noticed the 150 now. I'm surprised with that, as I presumed that Social Justice Ireland would go with 188 pw.

Our PRSI er is already very low.

Geuze · 01-01-2017 12:45AM

Geuze wrote: »

I just noticed the 150 now. I'm surprised with that, as I presumed that Social Justice Ireland would go with 188 pw.

Our PRSI er is already very low.

Hold on.

SJI propose an extra 38 pw for some groups.

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/4642/chapter9.pdf

See page 129.

AnGaelach · 01-01-2017 01:01AM

Geuze wrote: »

Hold on.

SJI propose an extra 38 pw for some groups.

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/4642/chapter9.pdf

See page 129.

Of course they do, they're called Social Justice Ireland. They're hardly unbiased.

I wish I didn't have to live in the real world, because how they intend to cut the tax rate by 12% while also giving everyone a basic income to supplement the rest of their income is beyond my understanding.

Water John · 01-01-2017 01:08AM

I presume they did the financials on it. Since they lobby politicians and various Depts of Govn't.
One can't do SF type economics and be credible. Though in fairness, SF have improved very much in this area.

maninasia · 01-01-2017 01:49AM

Water John wrote: »

People looking for real values within themselves and not the job defining who they are.

A big group who basically got money for nothing for a large period of time were protestant clerymen in England, paid by tithes. Some did not do a lot but many found the income to indulge in the sciences. Much of the great research was don by these clerymen.
So people on UBI, I beleive, will become largely more innovative in their use of time.

The UBI will, by its very essence, universal basic income, not be enough to live well on.
It will be poverty level income.

maninasia · 01-01-2017 01:49AM

Water John wrote: »

People looking for real values within themselves and not the job defining who they are.

A big group who basically got money for nothing for a large period of time were protestant clerymen in England, paid by tithes. Some did not do a lot but many found the income to indulge in the sciences. Much of the great research was don by these clerymen.
So people on UBI, I beleive, will become largely more innovative in their use of time.

The UBI will, by its very essence, universal basic income, not be enough to live well on.
It will be poverty level income.

maninasia · 01-01-2017 01:49AM

Water John wrote: »

People looking for real values within themselves and not the job defining who they are.

A big group who basically got money for nothing for a large period of time were protestant clerymen in England, paid by tithes. Some did not do a lot but many found the income to indulge in the sciences. Much of the great research was don by these clerymen.
So people on UBI, I beleive, will become largely more innovative in their use of time.

The UBI will, by its very essence, universal basic income, not be enough to live well on.
It will be poverty level income.

Iwasfrozen · 01-01-2017 02:57AM

While people debate the merits of free money I'm still waiting on one credible costing of a UBI policy.... Anyone?

Geuze · 01-01-2017 10:54AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Of course they do, they're called Social Justice Ireland. They're hardly unbiased.

I wish I didn't have to live in the real world, because how they intend to cut the tax rate by 12% while also giving everyone a basic income to supplement the rest of their income is beyond my understanding.

Their plan means a huge increase in ATR average tax rates.

I pay maybe 25-30 ATR, my parents pay under 10% ATR on 49 k income.

The UBI would mean large increases in ATRs for many people.

You seem to be referring to the MTR marginal tax rate of 50% approx payable on income over 35k approx.

Note that UBI means no more tax credits, so it means huge tax increases for everybody.

Geuze · 01-01-2017 11:07AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Of course they do, they're called Social Justice Ireland. They're hardly unbiased.

I wish I didn't have to live in the real world, because how they intend to cut the tax rate by 12% while also giving everyone a basic income to supplement the rest of their income is beyond my understanding.

I'll explain it.

Currently there are three MTRs [I'll exclude PRSI and USC for the moment]

0, 20, 40

Combine that with generous tax credits, and it means that many ATRs are very low.

Much of the population pay ATRs under 20%.

We have a tax system that combines low ATRs for many workers, with a very high MTR once you hit 35k approx.

Under the SJI UBI, with all tax credits gone, and one single MTR of 40%, then all ATRs would rise.

By design, everybody would be paying more income tax.

Muhammed_1 · 01-01-2017 12:41PM

The numbers clearly work for a universal basic income.

I don't like the SocialJustice.ie suggestion that we should replace the current tax system with a flat rate system. It is not necessary to change the tax code if introducing a basic income.

I say we should introduce a basic income but keep our current tax code.

How does that affect the figures?
I show complete workings below.

Look at this short paper
Paper - Costing a Basic Income for Ireland 779.23 KB

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

Page 6 or Slide 6 shows the costings.

from paper above.
Current income tax system brings in 26,763 million.
To pay for a basic income as they suggest the income tax system needs to bring in 33,577 million.

There's a shortfall of approx 7,000 million.

It sounds like a lot.

BUT, consider this!
If we pay current workers free money of 7,500 per year many of those workers will have to pay tax on the free money!
But they won't mind as the money is free and they only pay 20% tax, or 40% tax according to their rates. In other words, they keep the rest.

That means lots of new tax to offset the 7,000 million shortfall.

I have looked for numbers of people paying taxes at the various rates and I can't find them.

So some guesswork.

500,000 workers paying tax at 40%.
Therefore, they'd have to pay 40% tax, on their 7,500 each, and there's 500,000 of them.
tax collected = 1,500 million.

750,000 workers paying tax at 20%.
Therefore, they'd have to pay 20% tax, on their 7,500 each, and there's 750,000 of them.
tax collected = 1,125 million.

The shortfall is now less, approx 4,000 million.

BUT!

Keep in mind also that the above include 3,550 million to be paid out in continued benefits.
(page 5 or slide 5 of paper linked above, minus 300 million for administration).

That means that if we also cancelled those beneifts we could introduce a basic income on a cost neutral basis today!!!!

COST NEUTRAL!
(well, only a few hundred million which is nothing between friends.)

I am aware that some of the cuts in the 3,600 million may affect people very badly and so it may not be possible to make them all.

Muhammed_1 · 01-01-2017 12:47PM

something wrong with boards today. I can't edit my post. HTML markup all over it in the text box.

The correct link to the presentation paper with slides is this paper
Presentation - Costing a Basic Income for Ireland 429.2 KB

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

Muhammed_1 · 01-01-2017 02:58PM

The main people who benefit from a basic income are those people on zero hour contracts.

The current system abandons those people.

If you get 30 hours this week you may be ok.
If you only get 5 hours next week you may not be able to afford food or rent but yet you cannot claim social welfare.

Social welfare is provided on a timescale of weeks or months whereas zero hour contract wages are provided on a day to day basis.

If people on zero hour contracts find that they are unable to afford food on some weeks and that they are also unable to claim social welfare they'd have no choice but to leave their job and claim social welfare full time.

A basic income would solve that problem.
If a person on zero hours gets no hours on a particular week they can survive on the basic income. If they get some hours they can afford to buy extra things.

As a society we have to choose if we allow insecure work like zero hour contracts. If we do allow such work then we must also have a social welfare system which steps in on a day to day basis if the person doesn't get any work.

We cannot have a system where social welfare is provided on a timescale of weeks or months but employment is only offered on a timescale of days or hours.

Any objections to this?

AlmightyCushion · 01-01-2017 03:12PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The main people who benefit from a basic income are those people on zero hour contracts.

The current system abandons those people.

If you get 30 hours this week you may be ok.
If you only get 5 hours next week you may not be able to afford food or rent but yet you cannot claim social welfare.

Social welfare is provided on a timescale of weeks or months whereas zero hour contract wages are provided on a day to day basis.

If people on zero hour contracts find that they are unable to afford food on some weeks and that they are also unable to claim social welfare they'd have no choice but to leave their job and claim social welfare full time.

A basic income would solve that problem.
If a person on zero hours gets no hours on a particular week they can survive on the basic income. If they get some hours they can afford to buy extra things.

As a society we have to choose if we allow insecure work like zero hour contracts. If we do allow such work then we must also have a social welfare system which steps in on a day to day basis if the person doesn't get any work.

We cannot have a system where social welfare is provided on a timescale of weeks or months but employment is only offered on a timescale of days or hours.

Any objections to this?

The 'X and Os' forms covers this. It allows people to work part time and still claim social welfare. It's not perfect as it's based on days worked and not hours so some people can still get shafted but it still covers the scenarios you mention.

Austria! · 01-01-2017 03:13PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

And who decides what sort of redistribution is best? Giving everyone a "basic income" is quite ridiculous, it will either result in fewer people working/working less productively,

That's not an argument for UBI, that's an argument against tax avoidance.
Do you really think the rich won't continue to get away with not contributing if you implement this?

I'm quite sure you'll see an increase in mental health issues and suicide rates if people are made redundant and just given the money.

1. We as a society decide. And fewer people will be working, unless you make busywork for them. That's the whole point of UBI.

2. Yes. Clamping down on tax avoidance will probably be essential, and I do believe UBI would bring us closer to doing this.

3. Remains to be seen. If you know any research on this would be happy to look.

The other things you bring up are because you didn't understand what I wrote initially.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yeh.
Most people are not smart enough to do any of that. The evidence now is that the unemployed don't produce great works of art or science.

Most people aren't smart enough for great art, but there's a lot of culturally enriching things to be done without making great art. Enjoying art, meaningful human relationships, being informed politically.

Most people who make great art get employed as artists. Almost by definition someone making great art isn't unemployed. However, we're probably losing a good deal of art from people being forced to work at something else and abandon their talents.

The other things you bring up are because you didn't understand what I wrote initially.

AnGaelach · 01-01-2017 03:22PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The numbers clearly work for a universal basic income.

BUT, consider this!
If we pay current workers free money of 7,500 per year many of those workers will have to pay tax on the free money!
But they won't mind as the money is free and they only pay 20% tax, or 40% tax according to their rates. In other words, they keep the rest.

Yeah... Except they want the money to be completely tax free...

So, if it's cost neutral, what exactly is the point of the system? If you're getting the same payment as you would otherwise, why spend money on administration rather than keeping things as they are?

No the numbers don't work for UBI, not that I can see, and blind idealism isn't going to change that.

Iwasfrozen · 01-01-2017 03:30PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The numbers clearly work for a universal basic income.

I don't like the SocialJustice.ie suggestion that we should replace the current tax system with a flat rate system. It is not necessary to change the tax code if introducing a basic income.

I say we should introduce a basic income but keep our current tax code.

How does that affect the figures?
I show complete workings below.

Look at this short paper
Paper - Costing a Basic Income for Ireland 779.23 KB

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

Page 6 or Slide 6 shows the costings.

from paper above.
Current income tax system brings in 26,763 million.
To pay for a basic income as they suggest the income tax system needs to bring in 33,577 million.

There's a shortfall of approx 7,000 million.

It sounds like a lot.

BUT, consider this!
If we pay current workers free money of 7,500 per year many of those workers will have to pay tax on the free money!
But they won't mind as the money is free and they only pay 20% tax, or 40% tax according to their rates. In other words, they keep the rest.

That means lots of new tax to offset the 7,000 million shortfall.

I have looked for numbers of people paying taxes at the various rates and I can't find them.

So some guesswork.

500,000 workers paying tax at 40%.
Therefore, they'd have to pay 40% tax, on their 7,500 each, and there's 500,000 of them.
tax collected = 1,500 million.

750,000 workers paying tax at 20%.
Therefore, they'd have to pay 20% tax, on their 7,500 each, and there's 750,000 of them.
tax collected = 1,125 million.

The shortfall is now less, approx 4,000 million.

BUT!

Keep in mind also that the above include 3,550 million to be paid out in continued benefits.
(page 5 or slide 5 of paper linked above, minus 300 million for administration).

That means that if we also cancelled those beneifts we could introduce a basic income on a cost neutral basis today!!!!

COST NEUTRAL!
(well, only a few hundred million which is nothing between friends.)

I am aware that some of the cuts in the 3,600 million may affect people very badly and so it may not be possible to make them all.

The link you give costs the UBI at 150 a week. That's not enough to live on.

It would also have us increase employer's PRSI which would hurt job growth.

andekwarhola · 01-01-2017 03:31PM

Geuze wrote: »

To me, a key goal is to boost the incentive to work.

As you don't lose a benefit if you take up work.

Like others, you're not reading the thread because of a visceral dislike of the idea of unemployed people.

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.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments