Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

AnGaelach · 03-01-2017 12:58PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

In a universal income world people could contribute by minding children or older people, by volunteering, by engaging in research, either social or scientific. People can be good citizens by complying with th law, and by co-operating with the Guards, and by doing your jury service.

You can already contribute doing those things... You know they're jobs, right?

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 01:18PM

You cannot mind children while being on social welfare, or do other forms of volunteerism, without explicit permission.

You are not available for work, Social Welfare say.

Grandmothers have been criticised and penalised for minding their grandchildren after school for example.

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 01:45PM

Some people appear to be bitter at the idea of some people not having to work.

We could of course force everyone to work at pointless jobs. For example, one person could move a pile of rocks from A to B and another poor soul could move the rocks back.

The people are working, so what's the problem?

The problem is that the work has no point. It'd be better for everyone if they stayed at home.

If robots are doing all of the productive work there is no point in forcing humans to work at jobs which have no point.

There is no point in allowing humans to do work which could be done more efficiently be a machine.

We could for example make our motorways with human labour instead of using JCBs. Sounds very silly doesn't it?

If robots are available we should use them, even if that means that humans are obselete. Humans are obselete when it comes to road building in terms of hard labour.

I'm happy enough to sit around taking drugs all day. Sounds great to me. You can also educate yourself too.

Maguined · 03-01-2017 01:54PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Some people appear to be bitter at the idea of some people not having to work.

I'm happy enough to sit around taking drugs all day. Sounds great to me. You can also educate yourself too.

You seem bitter that others are not happy at the idea of their tax paying for you to sit around taking drugs all day. You don't say you would be happy to work so that others could sit around all day taking drugs?

The UBI is an interesting idea for making it easier for people who are unemployed to get a job without all the worry about being worse off than if they stayed on the dole. The fear is what happens if this incentivises more people to remain unemployed. At the end of the day you have to be exracting enough tax from those with jobs to afford the costs of UBI, what do you suggest happens if the tax base shrinks to where it cannot sustain UBI?

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 02:15PM

Maguined wrote:

...
At the end of the day you have to be extracting enough tax from those with jobs to afford the costs of UBI..

I don't agree that workers must pay for all of society.

I think that owners of capital, i.e. large companies and corporations, should pay for all of society.

That is completely obvious to me, as it should be to everyone else.

Workers are real people, real citizens.

Companies are pseudo-people, not real.

I think we should ask companies to support society from their profits, instead of asking poor workers to pay for all of society, including subsidising rich companies through tax breaks.

Do Apple really need a 2% tax rate?, while ordinary workers pay 40%?

Ordinary people should insist that their government provides them with what is necessary to live, and allows them to take time off to enjoy themselves, and to spend time with their families.

I don't want to work all the time and neither should other people.

We should vote out people like Enda Kenny who want Apple to have all the money. We should demand more for ourselves.

Income taxes should be reduced, to 0% if possible, and corporation taxes should be massively increased, to 30% or even to 50%.

Why don't citizens vote in politicians like that?

Maguined · 03-01-2017 02:19PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Income taxes should be reduced, to 0% if possible, and corporation taxes should be massively increased, to 30% or even to 50%.

Why don't citizens vote in politicians like that?

When all the companies leave Ireland because they can setup a business elsewhere for cheaper what then now that your tax base has been destroyed and it does not bring in as much as you are paying out for UBI?

silverharp · 03-01-2017 02:26PM

Maguined wrote: »

You seem bitter that others are not happy at the idea of their tax paying for you to sit around taking drugs all day. You don't say you would be happy to work so that others could sit around all day taking drugs?

The UBI is an interesting idea for making it easier for people who are unemployed to get a job without all the worry about being worse off than if they stayed on the dole. The fear is what happens if this incentivises more people to remain unemployed. At the end of the day you have to be exracting enough tax from those with jobs to afford the costs of UBI, what do you suggest happens if the tax base shrinks to where it cannot sustain UBI?

financially the whole thing sounds nuts and it would also encourage a huge amount of underemployment as people to stay on crappy zero hours contracts or part time jobs in retail and fast food instead of being incentivised to move or upskill. Also it would probably just increase inflation as rents go up.

Maximus Alexander · 03-01-2017 02:29PM

Money in its simplest form is an analogy for 'human work' which sidesteps the bothersome inadequacies of barter. In this fantastical future that everyone is discussing where humans don't work anymore and all of our goods and resources are produced and delivered autonomously, nothing would have any value anymore. Or rather, nothing that could be mass produced and delivered by an automated process would have any value anymore.

If the question is "What happens when the tax base shrinks to the point that it can't support UBI?" The answer is: "At that point, the entire notion of a 'tax base' or a 'UBI' would be nonsensically antiquated anyway."

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 02:44PM

Star Trek seem to have it right.

If we have robots doing all of our work for us then there is no work left, by definition, for humans to do.

That future is possible through the use of technology.

As a society should we allow people to starve because we cannot find work for them?

Do ordinary people get to make these choices or are all of our choices made by billionaires?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-01-2017 03:21PM

Maguined wrote: »

When all the companies leave Ireland because they can setup a business elsewhere for cheaper what then now that your tax base has been destroyed and it does not bring in as much as you are paying out for UBI?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

The idea that you need to incentive corporations with low tax rates in order to create jobs is a bit of a myth.

Corporations will do anything to maximise profits, which includes payign minimum wages and hiring less people if they can. Consequently, this reduces disposable incomes and the wealth that is generated by profits gets hoarded.

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 03:31PM

Corporations should not be allowed to bully our societies, or to seek to split our societies.

Our goverment should openly state that if corporations don't want to pay tax they should leave. That would open up the market to companies that are prepared to pay tax.

Our government should mock Apple and Google and Starbucks and the others for actually thinking that they can pay no tax.

Who will pay tax if corporations don't have to?

Companies must pay sufficient tax to pay for society, instead of forcing workers to pay for society.

Companies don't even have a vote in ireland and yet our government panders to them.

Why don't we vote in real politicians who actually care about Irish people?

Europe should stand up to corporations and make them pay 30% tax at a minimum. If they don't want to let them leave and allow Irish companies to take up the slack.

Dohnjoe · 03-01-2017 03:55PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I think that owners of capital, i.e. large companies and corporations, should pay for all of society.

Quite simply put: businesses revenues alone generally can't support a country, not even close

Even countries that float on a sea of oil need certain levels of employment to function adequately

I fully support the social welfare system, I believe the benefits (essential safety net) outweigh the drawbacks (high cost, abuse)

I would love to sit an home and do nothing all day, but it wouldn't be feasible personally or in general for the population

I don't mind if you want to sit at home and do drugs all day, but if you are trying to justify it based on uninformed knowledge of economics - then that's a pretty idiotic and entitled attitude

Permabear · 03-01-2017 04:03PM

This post has been deleted.

Dohnjoe · 03-01-2017 04:17PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Corporations should not be allowed to bully our societies, or to seek to split our societies.

Large companies provide widespread employment and benefits (which generally outweighs the drawbacks)

Any previous attempts to limit the size of companies or force them en masse to be publicly owned generally ends up with everyone being worse off

Our goverment should openly state that if corporations don't want to pay tax they should leave. That would open up the market to companies that are prepared to pay tax.

The companies will go to countries where conditions are better

Our government should mock Apple and Google and Starbucks and the others for actually thinking that they can pay no tax.

There are dozens of countries that would instantly welcome these large companies for the employment and economic benefits to society they provide

Why don't we vote in real politicians who actually care about Irish people?

We're better off than about 90% of the world pop, have among the lowest corruption rates in the world, among the highest relative living standards

In comparison they aren't doing a terrible job

Europe should stand up to corporations and make them pay 30% tax at a minimum. If they don't want to let them leave and allow Irish companies to take up the slack.

The "corporations are evil" quasi-communist trope is a bit silly at this stage. They do need to pay more tax, they do need to be more accountable - but all within the constaints of reality, reason and common sense

Maguined · 03-01-2017 04:26PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

The idea that you need to incentive corporations with low tax rates in order to create jobs is a bit of a myth.

Corporations will do anything to maximise profits, which includes payign minimum wages and hiring less people if they can. Consequently, this reduces disposable incomes and the wealth that is generated by profits gets hoarded.

You think all the large MNC's that setup in Ireland as opposed to any other country in the EU did not base this decision heavily upon our corporate tax rate? They chose Ireland for our lovely weather I suppose.

Iwasfrozen · 03-01-2017 04:41PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...

There's a reason why we don't give people free money, to incentivise them to contribute to society.
Even in a post automation world the need to incentivise will still exist.

There are more ways to contribute to society than by simply getting a job and paying tax.

You could also argue that if the state fails or refuses to support people that the people would engage in crime.

In other words, broke people can either get a job if one is available, or they can become criminals.

In a universal income world people could contribute by minding children or older people, by volunteering, by engaging in research, either social or scientific. People can be good citizens by complying with th law, and by co-operating with the Guards, and by doing your jury service.

The best thing for society is a universal payment of approx 10,000 per year, paid unconditionally.

It'd completely change our societies for the better.

At the moment our societies run on greed and profit. In the new world our cosiety would run on co-operation and hedonism.

I support humans living a pleasurable existence so I support legalisation of many drugs, and a universal income. It sounds like playtime but that;s the whole point.

Why should humans work themselves into the ground if technology can do our work for us?

That's a lot of hand waving and waffle. Show me how you would afford it. I'm not interested in your ideology.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-01-2017 09:39PM

Maguined wrote: »

You think all the large MNC's that setup in Ireland as opposed to any other country in the EU did not base this decision heavily upon our corporate tax rate? They chose Ireland for our lovely weather I suppose.

Well, native English speakers and education of workforce was the official line, but then it was Fianna Fail at the time, so read into that waht you will.

Beyond that, your post is a bit of a strawman arugment, as the point I made had nothing to do with corportation tax.

seamus · 03-01-2017 09:49PM

Maguined wrote: »

You think all the large MNC's that setup in Ireland as opposed to any other country in the EU did not base this decision heavily upon our corporate tax rate? They chose Ireland for our lovely weather I suppose.

Some did, not all. Intel for example, who could be said to have led the charge, moved here for a relatively cheap and well-educated workforce. And have continued to stay and invest here despite their costs having rocketed up from what they were initially.

Interesting you also mention the weather. We have a massive amount of companies locating datacentres here for the lovely weather. Between a world-class power grid, a central location between the US and EU, political stability, well-educated people and a relatively stable environment with no weather extremes, we are one of the safest places on the planet to put mission-criticial infrastructure.

Corporation tax is a bonus; they'd locate here even if they had to pay 20%. I don't disagree that CT is a significant factor for many companies. But when you consider wage costs here, companies could save a lot more money by moving to a country with higher CT and lower cost of living. But they don't because the Irish are good at stuff. It's very typical Irish self-deprecation to assume that we have nothing to offer except tax loopholes.

How many companies have planned to up and run since the Government announced they were closing the loopholes? Practically none.

Water John · 03-01-2017 10:36PM

This gives a resume of various UBI experiments in progress ATM.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed

Muhammed_1 · 04-01-2017 02:35PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Quite simply put: businesses revenues alone generally can't support a country, not even close

Even countries that float on a sea of oil need certain levels of employment to function adequately

...

Natural resources can sustain a country by themselves, if the resources are rich enough.

Ireland has large fishing grounds. How much are they worth per capita?

We could also invest in things like tidal, wave and wind power. If those resources were rich enough a national company emploiting them and selling the electricity for profit could return a cash dividend to the people of Ireland. If the resources were rich enough the people of Ireland could receive enough money to support themselves without further work.

We also have things like the electromagnetic spectrum to rent out and forestry to exploit. We have rich companies seeking to ply their trade in Ireland.

You accuse me of hand waving and idealism but you also declare your ideas by dickat. Dubai is a country which runs on its natural resources instead of on its people labour. Norway have a very large sovereign wealth fund too.

Ultimately, if a politician offers an idylic lifestyle without work many people may go for it.

People are still saying the figures don't work. The figures have been discussed on the thread quite a bit and they do seem to work, with only a few billion short here or there.

The government borrowed losts of money for the banks and for the deficit and people know that. 30,000 million for Anglo alone.

If a politician was to offer a vision of a much improved and re-invigorated society, looking forward to the future, achieved with a universal no-strings-attached income I think many people would vote for them.

A universal income is fairer for all and easier to administer. It'd reinvigorate society.

AnGaelach · 04-01-2017 04:40PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I think that owners of capital, i.e. large companies and corporations, should pay for all of society.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I don't want to work all the time and neither should other people.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Income taxes should be reduced, to 0% if possible, and corporation taxes should be massively increased, to 30% or even to 50%.

Congratulations, you've just impoverished the entire nation because you're too self entitled to work.

Do you have any knowledge of economics or politics? Any idea of the law or practicality?

Are you even grounded in reality?

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Why don't citizens vote in politicians like that?

Because we're not stupid. Go to Greece if you want to see the result of moronic ruling policies.

AnGaelach · 04-01-2017 04:42PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

As a society should we allow people to starve because we cannot find work for them?

How many people have starved to death in Ireland because they couldn't find work in Ireland?

You're not living in 1830s America, kid.

AnGaelach · 04-01-2017 04:53PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Natural resources can sustain a country by themselves, if the resources are rich enough.

Ireland has large fishing grounds. How much are they worth per capita?

Name a single wealthy country that has a resource based economy...

Because I can give you dozens of third world ones with them

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We could also invest in things like tidal, wave and wind power. If those resources were rich enough a national company emploiting them and selling the electricity for profit could return a cash dividend to the people of Ireland. If the resources were rich enough the people of Ireland could receive enough money to support themselves without further work.

Who are they going to sell the electricity to? The Irish people? And then you want to make a profit solely to give Irish people a cash dividend? Why not just lower prices in the first place? That's a zero sum game.

Or do you think we'll be exporting energy, when we import almost all of our energy needs?

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We also have things like the electromagnetic spectrum to rent out and forestry to exploit. We have rich companies seeking to ply their trade in Ireland.

We don't have much forestry to exploit though, we have very few forests. Finland. Now Finland has a lot of forestry to exploit.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

You accuse me of hand waving and idealism but you also declare your ideas by dickat. Dubai is a country which runs on its natural resources instead of on its people labour. Norway have a very large sovereign wealth fund too.

Dubai also attracts investment from the rest of the world and is like 85% foreigner workers, both poor Indians who are used as slaves to build things, and wealthy Western workers who are providing technical expertise.

I presume you have no problem with us importing a few thousand Indian slaves?

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

People are still saying the figures don't work. The figures have been discussed on the thread quite a bit and they do seem to work, with only a few billion short here or there.

No. No the figures don't work. You're being delusional.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

If a politician was to offer a vision of a much improved and re-invigorated society, looking forward to the future, achieved with a universal no-strings-attached income I think many people would vote for them.

Yeah because we are currently being led by Taoiseach Paul Smurphy and the Clueless Crew aren't we?

Get a grip.

You're trying to blame everything else for your lot in life, and you want the rest of us to shoulder your costs because you feel entitled. I'll vote against any such UBI proposal, because it is absolute and utter fantasy peddled by people who are naive or deliberately being deceptive.

peasant · 04-01-2017 06:19PM

Before this de-rails completely, let's remind ourselves of a few facts:

-All of us already get money for nothing, in all sorts of shapes and forms. Unemployment benefit, other social benefit payments, tax credits, farming subsidies, tax relief for expenses/business losses, investment incentive ...not to mention all the money that gets blown up corporate arses under one guise or another. All this money comes out of one pocket to go into another (usually not fairly distributed) and a fair amount of it gets lost on the way for admin costs.
So there is money ..and I'd bet if the distribution was re-arranged fairly so that everybody gets the same, we'd be able to finance UBI of some sort already

- There used to be a time when a whole family could live of one working income. Those days have gone. Social contracts have been eroded, wages haven't kept up with the overall wealth gain, families need two or three jobs to keep up. Those who spout the rethoric that no job = lazy and benefit/UBI = sponger just haven't cought up with the times yet.

- Even without automation we are running out of jobs already. Decent jobs that is, with good wages and security. Instead we get contract jobs, zero hour jobs, minimum wage jobs with no security and no way to plan a future or take out a loan/mortgage.

- The current benefit system doesn't suit the economic situation any more. It assumes that it just needs to tide you over until you find another decent job ...which we've just established have become rare as hen's teeth.
At the same time, it prevents you from saving the state some money (and perhaps preserving some of your dignity) by taking on some minor job to supplement your income until you manage to get one of those rare jobs that pays more than the social welfare (with all extra costs factored in) by cutting you off completely ...it's an all or nothing situation in which most people (understandably) opt for milking the system as much as they can.

- give that basic income unconditionally and people can (and will) work hourly jobs, half day jobs, jobs that don't exist yet, heck they might even do some work for free ...just because it suits them and makes them happy. A whole new economy will be created, with loads more small businesses, local support services, etc.
In my opinion a UBI would make the economy grow, heck it would even suit most corporations as they can now offer taylormade jobs that suit their requirements exactly instead of having to stick to the 40 hour per week deal per employee and/or the three shift model... and they'll find takers.

Permabear · 04-01-2017 06:30PM

This post has been deleted.

peasant · 04-01-2017 06:37PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You just don't get it ...
Those who are "actually working" are getting the same basic income. They just choose to make more money by not playing games all day and selling their time to the highest bidder instead ...why on earth should they be jealous?
And if their "compensation" wasn't high enough , why on earth would they continue working there (if they could be fishing or golfing instead)?

Water John · 04-01-2017 08:40PM

Well put Peasant. There are whole sectors who get the equivalent of UBI as it is. Anyone on unemployment and disability benefit.
The farming sector, in one sense have UBI already. Whilst its not very evenly distributed, the average farm in Ireland gets about €15K per year. Have farmers stopped producing and sat at home playing video games?

4068ac1elhodqr · 04-01-2017 09:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A very distinct possibility if it did happen. It would also need to be around this 250pwk mark. There would probably be a range of state legislative and financial tools that would need to deployed counteract this (sudden, hyper) inflation across the price indices.

Another issue would be 'hyper-immigration', again red tape would be needed to curtail what would be seen as a golden ticket among the EU's near 1/2bn citizens.

These are things the UK (was) preparing for, with their target of £9 p/hr by 2020. Imagine there are probably a few barren remote towns there where £360gr (£306net) would buy plenty of tea, beer, lodgings or fish 'n chips.

04-01-2017 09:39PM

Just imagine it as child benefit for adults because that is essentially what it would be a universal not meant tested benefit transferred from the state to its citizens.

The key point is that it is a basic income so human nature being what it is people will always want more and better so therefore will work to get the bigger dryer cave, or car or iphone. There will be some who are happy to have less and spent there days painting or playing music.

Permabear · 05-01-2017 12:45AM

This post has been deleted.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments