Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

peasant · 06-01-2017 06:03PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

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.

I can't see why a low income shouldn't or couldn't be taxed once a UBI is in place.

Currently you can't tax low incomes because once you do it's more lucrative for people not to work at all and stay "on the social".

But once the first bit of your annual income (the UBI) is guaranteed, unconditional and tax free, I think you should be liable to some tax on extra earning. Obviously not at exorbitant rates for small incomes ...but every little helps to finance the whole thing

And in the idea of fairness...once everybody gets some money for free, everybody who can should also contribute their bit out of anything extra they make.

(it would also help to dispel the feeling among the higher earners that they are the ones financing all the loungers and scroungers

)

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 06:10PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

My God, the figures have been analysed and published.

It is not necessary to guess.

Yeah, by the god damn advocates for it, who expect taxes to fall by 12% and spending to increase by an order of several billion euros.

Please, stop referring to those "figures" they're nothing short of quackery.

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 06:11PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Society isn't working at present.

Says who? You?

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We need new ideas, not more naysayers.

No, what we need is reality not idealistic nonsense.

06-01-2017 06:27PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, what we need is reality not idealistic nonsense.

Reality is that the percentage of employed people will be reduced as automation/A.I perform more of the tasks that people are currently employed to do.

Reality is also that Governments are going to have to find a way to deal with it - or face anarchy.

I have no idea what the answer is - but, realistically, an answer must be found.

To date, the only solution I can think of that might possibly work is a reduced working week, together with some form of UBI, or similar scheme.

It will be interesting to see the results of this study.
We should be in a (slightly) better position to discuss the pros and cons when we have definitive results.

I'd prefer the study had a larger sample group, but, having said that, irrespective of the size of the group studied, as more and more tasks become automated, the math is going to change very rapidly anyway.

The one thing we can say with any certainty is that massive societal change is going to happen in the next two decades, and we need to have some plan in place to deal with it.

So, for those of you who are against the concept of a UBI, as opposed to disagreeing with the figures presented - how would you deal with unemployment rates of 50%?

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 06:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Reality is that the percentage of employed people will be reduced as automation/A.I perform more of the tasks that people are currently employed to do.

And other forms of employment will be found. Unemployment spiked during and after the Industrial Revolution, are you saying that we've had the same level of unemployment since?

Deleted User wrote: »

So, for those of you who are against the concept of a UBI, as opposed to disagreeing with the figures presented - how would you deal with unemployment rates of 50%?

By encouraging entrepreneurship and upskilling for those workers made redundant. They'll need some help, sure, but I don't see why UBI will work when unemployment benefit already does. The only allure it has is administrative efficiency, the costs and the gains just don't seem to add up. You're essentially saddling fewer and fewer workers with more and more taxes, just so that you can justify not working because you "don't want to".

Should the State take care of its workers? Absolutely. Should the State be giving junkies or children a couple grand a year at the expense of those workers? Absolutely not.

You don't have a productivity tax on self-check outs nor do they pay PRSI or PAYE, so people who think automation is going to provide income for the Government to fund it are likely deluded.

The burden is going to lie on the shoulders of workers - and I don't think the worker deserves to end up taxed to hell and back just because you think sharing his money with everyone is a good idea.

Permabear · 06-01-2017 06:48PM

This post has been deleted.

4068ac1elhodqr · 06-01-2017 06:48PM

A reduced working week could be a good plan, or 24/7 shift-based (8x4) to allow for competitiveness across time-zones or production demands. This lower, but more flexible shift pattern would reduce the risk of zero-contracts.

UBI should be considered for everyone over 18, (just not 16+ as this would only reduce educational involvement), and not extra for pensioners to keep in the theme of 'universal'.

'Stringent anti inflation and immigration controls' would need to be enforced or it would quickly become a nightmare, and these controls mightn't actually be possible within the EU.

This weeks job losses to automation: Some of Japan's Insurance staff, to be replaced by Watson - 'a cognitive technology that can analyse and interpret all of your data'

AlmightyCushion · 06-01-2017 07:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Plus, that's a once off payment as opposed to a recurring payment that increases as the population expands. Also, we'll get something back for it. We obviously won't get our 30 billion back but the actual cost to the taxpayer is less than 30 billion.

KyussBeeshop · 06-01-2017 08:28PM

The entire idea that AI and automation advancements will mean humans have no useful work to do, is itself a flawed idea to begin with.

Until you can completely replicate the human mind using AI (easily a century, if not many centuries, away), then that's just not going to happen.
Even when the day comes that it does happen, there are fields of work where the breadth of potential work is broad enough (e.g. scientific research - effectively an infinite amount of work to be done there), for both AI and humans to do work in their chosen areas without impacting each other.

So the whole idea that there will be a point, when humans will not have useful work that can be done, is just wrong.

There will be a point though, when the economic system we're presently in, will no longer have the capability of providing work, for all humans looking for a job - actually, that's a pretty regular state of affairs within this system, which is pretty damning when the system is setup so that people must work in order to have good lives...

The solution is to fix that broken system, and to make it provide enough work (as there is no lack of useful work to do - especially in battling things like e.g. climate change) - not to paper over the failures of that system, by legitimizing permanent unemployment (as if it's not a problem), with a Universal Basic Income.

The UBI is the wrong solution, and it's been thoroughly picked apart by people of all political/ideological persuasions in this thread - look for some better solutions, which actually solve the problem of providing enough work for people - especially given that there will never be a lack of useful work to be done.

06-01-2017 08:45PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

And other forms of employment will be found. Unemployment spiked during and after the Industrial Revolution, are you saying that we've had the same level of unemployment since?

By encouraging entrepreneurship and upskilling for those workers made redundant. They'll need some help, sure, but I don't see why UBI will work when unemployment benefit already does. The only allure it has is administrative efficiency, the costs and the gains just don't seem to add up. You're essentially saddling fewer and fewer workers with more and more taxes, just so that you can justify not working because you "don't want to".

Should the State take care of its workers? Absolutely. Should the State be giving junkies or children a couple grand a year at the expense of those workers? Absolutely not.

You don't have a productivity tax on self-check outs nor do they pay PRSI or PAYE, so people who think automation is going to provide income for the Government to fund it are likely deluded.

The burden is going to lie on the shoulders of workers - and I don't think the worker deserves to end up taxed to hell and back just because you think sharing his money with everyone is a good idea.

Other forms of employment may be found, but, just in case they're not, humour me: How do you suggest society should cope with a situation where there cannot be employment for everyone?

I've already stated on this thread that I can't see UBI working, and I don't like paying tax anymore than you do, so less of the assumptions, thanks.

Hint: A shorter working week means it is necessary to employ more people to complete the same number of manhours... hence more equal distribution of wealth.
Some form of UBI is not the same as what is being discussed on this thread.
It is merely an acknowledgement that people are going to have to get a basic minimum income - in whatever form that takes.
I also believe that a 12.5% Corporation tax rate should mean 12.5% - not 1% or 2%.

06-01-2017 08:52PM

Ideally, yes.

But, you can't say that A.I. isn't a huge leap from previous technological advances.

So, what's the solution in a worst case scenario?

06-01-2017 09:24PM

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter how much cheaper products become.
If technology advances to the point where many workers become obsolete, and only half the workforce are actually working, then the employed half is not going to be able to support the unemployed half.

Meaning that unless the system changes, lots of people would end up absolutely destitute, with the ultra rich getting an even bigger slice of the pie, and those who are employed taxed to the hilt just to keep the Country half ticking over.

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 09:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ideally, yes.

But, you can't say that A.I. isn't a huge leap from previous technological advances.

So, what's the solution in a worst case scenario?

AI is a huge leap relative to the past what the Industrial Revolution was relative to its past.

There's no reason to presume this one will be any different. There will be a transitional period where unemployment rises, but there's no reason to presume it's a permanent arrangement.

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 09:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter how much cheaper products become.
If technology advances to the point where many workers become obsolete, and only half the workforce are actually working, then the employed half is not going to be able to support the unemployed half.

That's not particularly true though. I think Germany only has about 50% of its population in work, supporting the other 50%.

Not the best example since they're scrambling for workers, granted, but it's the same principle.

Geuze · 06-01-2017 09:31PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's not particularly true though. I think Germany only has about 50% of its population in work, supporting the other 50%.

Not the best example since they're scrambling for workers, granted, but it's the same principle.

Employment rates across the EU, people aged 20-64, 2005-2015.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/2f/Employment_rate%2C_age_group_20%E2%80%9364%2C_2005%E2%80%932015_%28%25%29_YB16_III.png

Geuze · 06-01-2017 09:33PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's not particularly true though. I think Germany only has about 50% of its population in work, supporting the other 50%.

Not the best example since they're scrambling for workers, granted, but it's the same principle.

German employment rate is 78% of all people aged 20-64.

Ireland is at 68.7%

EU average is 70.1%

Jayop · 06-01-2017 09:33PM

peasant wrote: »

I can't see why a low income shouldn't or couldn't be taxed once a UBI is in place.

Currently you can't tax low incomes because once you do it's more lucrative for people not to work at all and stay "on the social".

But once the first bit of your annual income (the UBI) is guaranteed, unconditional and tax free, I think you should be liable to some tax on extra earning. Obviously not at exorbitant rates for small incomes ...but every little helps to finance the whole thing

And in the idea of fairness...once everybody gets some money for free, everybody who can should also contribute their bit out of anything extra they make.

(it would also help to dispel the feeling among the higher earners that they are the ones financing all the loungers and scroungers )

I agree and at present I'm someone who would be very stanch on the idea of not taxing those on minimum wage.

So without reading back over this whole thread how much would this cost us? Has anyone actually done rough figures in net and gross terms?

Jayop · 06-01-2017 09:39PM

Jayop wrote: »

I agree and at present I'm someone who would be very stanch on the idea of not taxing those on minimum wage.

So without reading back over this whole thread how much would this cost us? Has anyone actually done rough figures in net and gross terms?

3028992 people in Ireland in 2011 over the age of 15. Just use that number as opposed to going looking for the 18+ figures.

That's an annual cost of 20 billion per year.

I'm quite sure the pension and the dole will come to something close enough to that already. If you also remove the costs of administering the dole then you're probably going to be looking at a Net saving once you start to tax people who are working and earning low income.

It really would encourage those who have very low income prospects to go get a job because they'll be able to improve their situation rather than potentially make it worse.

06-01-2017 09:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter how much cheaper products become.
If technology advances to the point where many workers become obsolete, and only half the workforce are actually working, then the employed half is not going to be able to support the unemployed half.

Meaning that unless the system changes, lots of people would end up absolutely destitute, with the ultra rich getting an even bigger slice of the pie, and those who are employed taxed to the hilt just to keep the Country half ticking over.

The top 1% percentage of the employed half earn more than 90% of the income of the employed half.
So the money's there and in the future will probably be a price worth paying to avoid complete social unrest, either that or they employ a large number of private goons security staff to protect themselves from the masses of unemployed and pissed off people.

AnGaelach · 06-01-2017 09:41PM

Geuze wrote: »

German employment rate is 78% of all people aged 20-64.

Ireland is at 68.7%

EU average is 70.1%

Yes, and the number of actual Germans over 65 and under 20 is quite high.

According to the World Bank, 49% of Germans are working, supporting the other 51%.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND?name_desc=false

Water John · 06-01-2017 10:13PM

I don't know where the assertion or assumption that there will be employment for everyone comes from. There is no social, political or economic law or value that predicts that.
The prediction that there will be less work to be done is more than equally valid.
As some one pointed out a good while back, the accounting industry is really working in the stone age with lots of accounting students as the worker bees.
Apply the present full capability of technology to that discipline alone would cause massive unemployment.

Discussing UBI models is a correct response to many aspects of employment and under employment.

Water John · 06-01-2017 10:22PM

A more profound question Harry.
Should we all be self employed?

Water John · 06-01-2017 10:35PM

The problem is you want to be paid for any work. If the person cannot afford the service they do without it and your unemployed.

Water John · 06-01-2017 10:42PM

Lets try improving this economy for all. Not inventing an alt world.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 06-01-2017 11:39PM

Not if there's a machine that can do it cheaper and more efficiently. That's assuming the guy with the dirty windows can afford the machine. And that's also assuming that the company that makes the machines hasn't gone out of business because not enough people have enough income to buy the machines that clean the windows to keep the company profitable. Unless they have machines that make the machines that clean the windows, in which case, their costs are minimal so they probably are profitable.

That or Skynet's kicked in and no one has anything. Which would piss a lot of people off mainly because it would be the ultimate in equality.

07-01-2017 10:55AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's not particularly true though. I think Germany only has about 50% of its population in work, supporting the other 50%.

Not the best example since they're scrambling for workers, granted, but it's the same principle.

AI is a huge leap relative to the past what the Industrial Revolution was relative to its past.

There's no reason to presume this one will be any different. There will be a transitional period where unemployment rises, but there's no reason to presume it's a permanent arrangement.

I wish I had your ability to see the future.

You may be right, but the point is, none of us know what the future will bring.

So, the question remains, in a worst case scenario, or even a protracted period of very high unemployment - how should we, as a society, deal with it?
Do we leave people to starve, tax the hell out of everyone else, or try to have a solution in place, just in case?

Geuze wrote: »

Employment rates across the EU, people aged 20-64, 2005-2015.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/2f/Employment_rate%2C_age_group_20%E2%80%9364%2C_2005%E2%80%932015_%28%25%29_YB16_III.png

Thanks.

It's interesting that in quite a few Countries, employment rates are in the 50%-70% range.

So, a sudden rise in automation/A.I could bring us very rapidly to levels below 50%.

Considering there is already a fair bit of political discontent across Europe - what do we do if we reach an economic "tipping point"?

Bearing in mind that it costs less to plan for such an eventuality than it does to suppress outright anarchy - both economically, and politically.

Deleted User wrote: »

The top 1% percentage of the employed half earn more than 90% of the income of the employed half.
So the money's there and in the future will probably be a price worth paying to avoid complete social unrest, either that or they employ a large number of private goons security staff to protect themselves from the masses of unemployed and pissed off people.

Probably.

But there are none so blind as those who will not see - and repeating "Not gonna happen, la la la!" rather than saying "Well, if it does happen, what should we do?" is a pretty good example of wilful blindness, imo.

Water John · 07-01-2017 12:12PM

I see Harry's posts from last night gone. Looks like I was having a conversation with myself, Ha.

The only reason we don't have chronic unemployment at diff times is we use the safety valve of emigration for our young people.
There is no logic in thinking liberal capitalism will make work and jobs for everyone. Laissez Faire was the reason for our famine, not the failure of the potato crop.

Muhammed_1 · 07-01-2017 12:36PM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

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?

I have now costed my version of UBI accurately in Excel.

I have used some of Social Justice Ireland's figures, from http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland
Their presentation, size 492Kb, slides 4, 5 and 6.

What's offered?
We could pay a UBI at the same rates as current social welfare rates.
188 to all adults, except people aged 18 to 24 who get 102 per week as currently.
We'd pay 230 per week to those over 66, and 240 per week to those over 80, and we'd pay child benefit.

We'd also pay approx 3,600 million in additional benefits as listed on Slide 5, of SJI presentation.

That's more benefits than SJI propose so it needs extra money.
7,288 million extra in fact.

How is it paid for?
The shortfall of 7,288 million represents 27% of the current income tax system.
We could increase effective rax rates by 27% and we're done. No other tax changes necessary.

People may not complain as much as you think as many of them are receiving approx 10,000 extra per year.

That extra 10,000 per year will offset the additional tax for most workers. Only the rich would pay more under this system I suspect. Very progressive.

30% effective tax rate would be increased to 37%
48% effective tax rate would be increased to 60%

It is fairer to increase other taxes, in my opinion.

For example, corporation tax in 2015 took in 6,873 million.
Excise took in 5,463 million.

If corporation tax was doubled for example the UBI would more or less be paid for.
Could corporation tax be doubled?

There would certainly be a public appetite to see corporation tax increased, and doubling the tax rate from 12.5% to 25% would be acceptable to the public.
It'd be an easy sell to the public and a very difficult sell to the corporations.

Consider the benefits!

A re-invigorated society which would be very fair and one in which people want to work and in which people are rewarded for working.

You receive you basic income and you can earn more money tax free. It's great.

I don't agree that people should be taxed on all earning above the UBI. It is not progressive, and the purpose of the tax system isn't to punish people, it is to provide fairness.

MrPudding · 07-01-2017 01:36PM

Water John wrote: »

I don't know where the assertion or assumption that there will be employment for everyone comes from. There is no social, political or economic law or value that predicts that.
The prediction that there will be less work to be done is more than equally valid.
As some one pointed out a good while back, the accounting industry is really working in the stone age with lots of accounting students as the worker bees.
Apply the present full capability of technology to that discipline alone would cause massive unemployment.

Discussing UBI models is a correct response to many aspects of employment and under employment.

Law is very similar and a number of firms, DLA Piper for example, have already started developing machine learning systems to do the contract work usually carried out by paralegals and trainees.

I think people are underestimating the quality of the automation we are talking about here, it is not comparable to steam or mechanisation. In previous i distrial revolutions there were still huge numbers of unskilled positions. That is t likely to be the case this time round.

If 1000 people work in a warehouse which is fully automated, how many job will there be after automation? 20? How many of the 1000 will be able to upskill to get one of those 20 jobs? It will be the same pretty much everywhere. Previously humans had advantages in cognitive reasoning, visual analysis and imaginative thinking. That gap is shrinking, rapidly. I have seen some amazing demos of computer vision, for example. This is different stuff.

MrP

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2017 09:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The top 1% percentage of the employed half earn more than 90% of the income of the employed half.
So the money's there and in the future will probably be a price worth paying to avoid complete social unrest, either that or they employ a large number of private goons security staff to protect themselves from the masses of unemployed and pissed off people.

Isn't that essecntially what they do now?

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments