Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

NIMAN · 05-01-2017 05:31PM

So with this idea, does it basically mean that the unemployed would no longer get any benefits or help from Government?

Is it a case of "theres a grand for you, you're on your own, don't come looking for more"?

cart man · 05-01-2017 05:35PM

NIMAN wrote: »

So with this idea, does it basically mean that the unemployed would no longer get any benefits or help from Government?

Is it a case of "theres a grand for you, you're on your own, don't come looking for more"?

Yes

cart man · 05-01-2017 05:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is no confusion with tax credits other than €250 per employee per week cant be given out without it being funded from somewhere. Tax Credits would need to be revoked so that the majority of people are net neutral.

peasant · 05-01-2017 06:07PM

As I've said before, we're all already getting some form of "money for nothing", bet that benefit, subsidies or tax credits. These "gifts" will go away and be replaced by the UBI.

Once a UBI comes into being there will be no more tax credit ...the UBI IS your tax credit (or replaces what was your tax credit, benefit, subsidy ...whatever)

In cases of special hardship there probably still will have to be some old fashioned benefits on top of the UBI...but for most of us it's going to be the UBI, free and unconditional and whatever we can rustle up ourselves on top of that by working/entrepreneurship with a fairly high rate of tax.

I have no idea how much the UBI could or should be...but it has to be enough to allow you to live comfortably (ie. with a roof over your head, food on your table and a little spending money) ...otherwise it won't work.

KyussBeeshop · 05-01-2017 06:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you don't know how much a UBI would contribute to inflation, and can't quantify that at all.

If you can't do that, there's no initial argument to counter in the first place really.

Todays inflation rate or tomorrows, it's the amount of inflation that a UBI would add to it, that matters - and that hasn't been quantified.

4068ac1elhodqr · 05-01-2017 07:25PM

Agree, inflation (and immigration) would be the two great stumbling blocks
- particularly as part of a free market economy of around 500m people.

05-01-2017 09:25PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Agree, inflation (and immigration) would be the two great stumbling blocks
- particularly as part of a free market economy of around 500m people.

I'd agree about the immigration.

I'm not sure about the inflation. I suspect that firms would decide to eliminate the mid-range models, and instead produce either budget or high end models - or both.

Prices for both ranges would increase, (so, yes, inflation to some extent) because economies of scale would be reduced - but the amounts would really depend on peoples disposable incomes.

The more people on a basic income, the lower the price increases the market could bear...

Water John · 05-01-2017 09:51PM

With UBI, everyone pays Income Tax on any amount earned above that. Does not have to be flat rate, as discussed earlier. Thus Michael O'Leary pays tax the same as all other earners on his full Work Income.
In reality thus MO'L pays probably 50% of his UBI Rate back in Income Tax on his Work Income. The case for whinging about him getting UBI doesn't exist.

Geuze · 05-01-2017 10:14PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Jane will lose her tax credits.

Jane will face a 40% ATR on all her taxable income.

Her 700 wage becomes 420 net, plus 188 UBI means net income of 608.

Water John · 05-01-2017 10:19PM

Geuze your mostly right. Except Income Tax does not have to be a flat rate.
If it is graded then her earnings which not very high would be a lower rate.

Geuze · 05-01-2017 10:33PM

NIMAN wrote: »

So with this idea, does it basically mean that the unemployed would no longer get any benefits or help from Government?

Is it a case of "theres a grand for you, you're on your own, don't come looking for more"?

Broadly speaking, yes.

UBI replaces all social welfare.

However, the SJI proposed UBI does contain some extra costed benefits for some groups.

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

Geuze · 05-01-2017 10:35PM

Water John wrote: »

Geuze your mostly right. Except Income Tax does not have to be a flat rate.
If it is graded then her earnings which not very high would be a lower rate.

Any proposed UBI that I have seen is designed with one single MTR.

Are there other designs?

Water John · 06-01-2017 10:33AM

The subject of UBI is here for discussion and opinions. Not detailed familiar with all present suggested models. Certainly there is no reason for tying UBI to one rate of tax. I think that confuses two ideas.
It might work out that way long term but, one has to take the reality of existing wage and tax rates on board and be practical.

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 11:17AM

Large numbers of misconceptions and straw men on this thread.

The numbers work to introduce a 150 universal payment to everybody, today, and to keep the current tax system. Some essential benefits might be cut on those figures so it might not be acceptable politically. (3,600 million on Slide 4 I think)

It is not necessary to introduce a flat tax system. Why would that be necessary?

The current tax system can be kept.
That means that you do not pay tax on all earnings above the universal payment. Why would you? The current tax regime doesn't kick in at 10,000 per year. If you earn 10,000 universal income and 10,000 extra you don't pay any tax.

Tax credits have nothng to do with this idea at all. They may still exist or not exist. It's a seperate decision.

The system is fair as the tax system is progressive. Child benefit is fair for the same reason, even if millionaires get it.
In other words, very high earners should be on very high marginal tax rates. That is how wealth is re-distributed.

This system does not necessarily lead to inflation.

The system is intended as a floor to protect you. A floor which supports you rather than a net which can capture you.

06-01-2017 11:23AM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Large numbers of misconceptions and straw men on this thread.

The numbers work to introduce a 150 universal payment to everybody, today, and to keep the current tax system. Some essential benefits might be cut on those figures so it might not be acceptable politically. (3,600 million on Slide 4 I think)

It is not necessary to introduce a flat tax system. Why would that be necessary?

The current tax system can be kept.
That means that you do not pay tax on all earnings above the universal payment. Why would you? The current tax regime doesn't kick in at 10,000 per year. If you earn 10,000 universal income and 10,000 extra you don't pay any tax.

Tax credits have nothng to do with this idea at all. They may still exist or not exist. It's a seperate decision.

The system is fair as the tax system is progressive. Child benefit is fair for the same reason, even if millionaires get it.
In other words, very high earners should be on very high marginal tax rates. That is how wealth is re-distributed.

This system does not necessarily lead to inflation.

The system is intended as a floor to protect you. A floor which supports you rather than a net which can capture you.

Define everybody, though?

Youth on welfare of €100pw would undoubtedly welcome the extra - but what about over 25s, who are currently on €188pw?

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 11:31AM

My point is that with only a few minor changes the numbers work.

It's not all doom and gloom as per the posters on this thread.

Several posters have said the numbers don't work but they refuse to explain how. The numbers have been given by Social Ireland and they've been discussed on this thread.

If people are insisting that the numbers don't work can they please show how?

We're short about 6,000 to 10,000 million a year, perhaps less, to introduce a universal income at the same level as everyone on social welfare gets today, and to keep the current tax system.

The social benefits are huge. That's why it's worth it.

AlmightyCushion · 06-01-2017 11:44AM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

My point is that with only a few minor changes the numbers work.

It's not all doom and gloom as per the posters on this thread.

Several posters have said the numbers don't work but they refuse to explain how. The numbers have been given by Social Ireland and they've been discussed on this thread.

If people are insisting that the numbers don't work can they please show how?

We're short about 6,000 to 10,000 million a year, perhaps less, to introduce a universal income at the same level as everyone on social welfare gets today, and to keep the current tax system.

The social benefits are huge. That's why it's worth it.

10 billion is still a huge amount of money. To put it in perspective or budget deficit in 2015 was 5 billion so your taking doubling or even tripling our budget deficit from a year ago which was already too high.

Isn't the social welfare budget about 20 billion a year so you're talking about increasing that by 30-50%.

Permabear · 06-01-2017 12:13PM

This post has been deleted.

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 12:17PM

My God, the figures have been analysed and published.

It is not necessary to guess.

seamus · 06-01-2017 12:32PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Quick figures based on giving less for infants/toddlers, a little more for older children up to 16, full amount up to 65 and a little more over 65 suggests about €1bn a week, €52bn a year.

So it's about 2.5 times what the current social welfare budget is.

But I don't think anyone ever suggested UBI would be cheap or even cheaper than the current setup.

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 12:33PM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

10 billion is still a huge amount of money. To put it in perspective or budget deficit in 2015 was 5 billion so your taking doubling or even tripling our budget deficit from a year ago which was already too high.

Isn't the social welfare budget about 20 billion a year so you're talking about increasing that by 30-50%.

The estimated shortfall was 6,000 million if the additional benefits on Slide 4 (Social Ireland presentation)(edit: slide 5) were stopped, and 10,000 million if those benefits were continued in addition to the 10,000 universal income.

The number of higher rate taxpayers was estimated at 500,000. If the true figure is higher than the shortfall is reduced.

The number of standard rate taxpayers was estimated at 750,000. If the true figure is higher than the shortfall is reduced.

The proposed system pays out 188 per week to everyone over 18. That's an increase over current levels. If the levels were reduced to match current levels the shortfall would reduce. (This refers to people between 18 and 25 who currently receive less than 188 per week.)

Some standard rate taxpayers would be pushed into the higher tax rate band. More taxes so and less shortfall.

I reckon the shortfall could be reduced to perhaps 4,000 million a year.

Politicians can offer the moon and the stars, even though they cannot deliver them. A politician could offer a universal income to the public and get voted in on it.

Permabear · 06-01-2017 12:44PM

This post has been deleted.

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 12:54PM

The people criticising the figures are not putting up any figures. They are merely tearing everyones elses down.

The figures have been calculated and published by Social Ireland.

Where does the 1 billion per week come from?

We should glue the chess board to the table to stop people knocking it over when they're losing.

seamus · 06-01-2017 01:55PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The people criticising the figures are not putting up any figures. They are merely tearing everyones elses down.

I'm not criticising any figures, merely putting my own up there.

The figure that's being thrown around this thread is a €250 basic income, so I worked off that.

I actually am skeptical of SJI's figures tbh, as they appear to be basing their basic income calculations on directly converting from the rates of jobseeker's allowance. €150 per adult under 65, plus €31 per child up to the age of 17.

I'm not sure if that amount is high enough to achieve what UBI aims to do.

Permabear · 06-01-2017 02:58PM

This post has been deleted.

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 04:45PM

Social Justice Ireland intend to continue paying 3,600 million in benefits over and above the basic income.

That includes fuel allowance and many other allowances.

UBI does not claim by itself to do anything. It has no agency. It is not alive. Real people make claims about their version of UBI.

People here are making false claims about UBI, about what it is and how it works and then they are attacking their own false conceptions.

The UBI is intended to replace the social safety net which exists currently. People can get caught in the net. That is not desirable. A solid floor is preferable.

A universl payment is fairer for all and easier to administer.

The headline figure is that we could introduce a universal basic income tomorrow, and it'd cost us approx 6,000 million per year but we'd keep our current tax system and every adult would receive 188 per week for free.

Some figures were estimated, such as the numbers paying tax at each rate.

AlmightyCushion · 06-01-2017 04:55PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Social Justice Ireland intend to continue paying 3,600 million in benefits over and above the basic income.

That includes fuel allowance and many other allowances.

UBI does not claim by itself to do anything. It has no agency. It is not alive. Real people make claims about their version of UBI.

People here are making false claims about UBI, about what it is and how it works and then they are attacking their own false conceptions.

The UBI is intended to replace the social safety net which exists currently. People can get caught in the net. That is not desirable. A solid floor is preferable.

A universl payment is fairer for all and easier to administer.

The headline figure is that we could introduce a universal basic income tomorrow, and it'd cost us approx 6,000 million per year but we'd keep our current tax system and every adult would receive 188 per week for free.

Some figures were estimated, such as the numbers paying tax at each rate.

So, where do we get this 6 billion from?

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 05:00PM

The 6 billion is estimated. It may well be lower. There are known unknowns, like the numbers of people paying tax at the various rates.

I would vote for a politician who offers this. He may not be able to fund it but I'd vote for him anyway. The other politicians offer things they can't afford either.

Corporations can pay. Of course they don't want to but they need to be made to.

AlmightyCushion · 06-01-2017 05:10PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The 6 billion is estimated. It may well be lower. There are known unknowns, like the numbers of people paying tax at the various rates.

I would vote for a politician who offers this. He may not be able to fund it but I'd vote for him anyway. The other politicians offer things they can't afford either.

Corporations can pay. Of course they don't want to but they need to be made to.

That's an easy one to throw out but it's not really practical. 6 billion is more than we take in in corporation tax a year. You expect us to double this and have no other negative knock on effects. Really?

Muhammed_1 · 06-01-2017 05:48PM

I am merely seeking to counter unfounded claims that a universal income would cost us the moon and the stars.

The government found 30,000 million for Anglo without too much of a furore. The government apparently doesn't want 13,000 million from Apple.

How much is brought in from alcohol excise?
How much would legal cannabis raise? 500 million?

Society isn't working at present. We need new ideas, not more naysayers.

We'd also get something for our 6,000 million. Society would be utterly transformed and re-invigorated.

Is that not worth it?

Also, I suspect the economy would immediately improve and expand, if people were given 9,000 per year for free.

How much would that offset the 6,000 million?

6,000 million is the worst case scenario and it could be a lot less.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments