Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Universal basic income trial in Finland

1…1011131516

Comments

  • #362
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Arthur Daley wrote: »
    But tax revenues will suffer a significant collapse from higher rate taxpayers being replaced by automation, and living off the UBI with a bit of gig work on top.

    So it's not just the cost of the UBI, it will also need an adjustment so that corporates are taxed more to account for the shortfall coming from paye workers disrupted by AI and to account from the higher profits created by this new world order of AI and automation.

    Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.

    The most at risk is young males with average, or below average education/skills and literacy.

    Agree the corporate tax 12.5% isn't sustainable (never mind the dutch sandwich with sweeteners on top). Most Western govs will have a choice between UBI or managing something that makes France's yellow vest look like a dress rehersal weekly street pantomine. There is another ultimate solution, but not worth thinking about due to it's consequences

    There will of course be savings made, e.g. Mrs/Ms Cash with so many offspring, will be much worse off than currently. But will also be able to earn freely from regular tabloid/radio show appearances.


  • #363
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Don't forget that corporations get literally millions of free hours labour from all the robots & IT systems that work in industry these days.
    A fact that is often forgotten about.

    Worth bearing in mind that automation has been happening for centuries, on a massive worldwide scale. There isn't a finite amount of jobs in the world, and not all countries are on the "same page" regarding technology. I heard 20 years ago that automation (computers, robotics) was going to have a significant impact on jobs - yet here we are with 5% unemployment

    Indeed automation does have an impact on jobs, but it's always had an impact on jobs. As jobs are phased out, other jobs are phased in. Our ever-increasing needs in relation to virtually everything; health, safety, products, education, technology, food variety, hobbies, travel, etc, etc has a positive impact on the constant creation of jobs and new vocations/professions that has mitigated the effects of automation


  • #364
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

    Agree the corporate tax 12.5% isn't sustainable (never mind the dutch sandwich with sweeteners on top). Most Western govs will have a choice between UBI or managing something that makes France's yellow vest look like a dress rehersal weekly street pantomine. There is another ultimate solution, but not worth thinking about due to it's consequences

    Hysteria


  • #365
    mvl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »
    Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.


    Don't bet on it :)
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-job-risk/


  • #366
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    mvl wrote: »
    Don't bet on it :)
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-job-risk/

    Not sure what you point is, that graphic shows low educated and low paid are at the highest risk.

    The only (small) well paid category at risk is fiscal/insurance risk assessors/administrators, and this is well known already.

    It's also a very small sector overall. Automated algorithm scripts using bigdata (ideally quantum scenarios) can easily envisage or compile outcomes much better than humans.

    The single most high-volume and at risk group in the US is the 3.5m truck drivers. Pretty sure you don't need a M.Sc to move a gear stick.

    Locally and more immediately it's 'retail' that is in for a kicking.

    The Amazon chap is perhaps tax adverse, and rarely even needs humans in his mammoth warehouses. When humans do enter that robot space they can detected using simple beacons them to avoid collision all while it manages logistics for outflow.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Worth bearing in mind that automation has been happening for centuries, on a massive worldwide scale. There isn't a finite amount of jobs in the world, and not all countries are on the "same page" regarding technology. I heard 20 years ago that automation (computers, robotics) was going to have a significant impact on jobs - yet here we are with 5% unemployment

    Indeed automation does have an impact on jobs, but it's always had an impact on jobs. As jobs are phased out, other jobs are phased in. Our ever-increasing needs in relation to virtually everything; health, safety, products, education, technology, food variety, hobbies, travel, etc, etc has a positive impact on the constant creation of jobs and new vocations/professions that has mitigated the effects of automation

    Who decides that we have ever increasing needs?
    Many of these jobs are complete nonsense if the truth be known, they're just created to keep unemployment figures lower, with UBI there would be no need to pretend.


  • #368
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Hysteria

    Well the other final solution is the 'culling' of unrequired resources. Not to mention protection of Earth's now limited resources.

    That can be anything from Spanish Flu v2, to a simple 4hr exchange of hypersonic throwing sticks.

    Hopefully Mars & Moonbases will create some extra space for 10bn hungry folks by 2050.


  • #369
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Who decides that we have ever increasing needs?

    We do
    Many of these jobs are complete nonsense if the truth be known, they're just created to keep unemployment figures lower

    ???

    Examples of these "many jobs"?


  • #370
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    Examples of these "many jobs"?
    Anyone who works in telesales to get you to change your phone, internet, gas or electricity supplier for starters, then all those extra people who are involved in keeping all the subcontractors in order at a business premises after the work was outsourced instead of one line of command. Plus the multitude of jobs that support the above.

    Government quangos and all the spin-offs from them

    All the weird and wonderful jobs created to identify your gender....

    I could go on.


  • #371
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Anyone who works in telesales to get you to change your phone, internet, gas or electricity supplier for starters

    They make money for those respective companies by bringing in customers, they wouldn't be employed otherwise
    then all those extra people who are involved in keeping all the subcontractors in order at a business premises after the work was outsourced instead of one line of command. Plus the multitude of jobs that support the above.

    So the HR department of any company. There have always been and will always be contractors, not every company can afford to have full time specialists. The company I work for has many contractors and subcontractors - none of which have been created for the purpose of "job figures"
    Government quangos and all the spin-offs from them
    All the weird and wonderful jobs created to identify your gender....

    Yeah tiny amounts of people
    I could go on.

    You're describing a minuscule number of jobs, not "many" jobs. They aren't "created" by some nefarious homogeneous entity with the purpose of keeping unemployment figures "lower". That notion is beyond ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They make money for those respective companies by bringing in customers, they wouldn't be employed otherwise
    That's all they do, they provide no useful service at all.

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    So the HR department of any company. There have always been and will always be contractors, not every company can afford to have full time specialists. The company I work for has many contractors and subcontractors - none of which have been created for the purpose of "job figures"
    Many companies that have outsourced their employee jobs, need to have additional staff to interface between the company & subcontractors. plus the fact that with two companies the main contractor and the subcontractor both have separate HR, payroll entities staffed separately.

    Dohnjoe wrote: »



    Yeah tiny amounts of people



    You're describing a minuscule number of jobs, not "many" jobs. They aren't "created" by some nefarious homogeneous entity with the purpose of keeping unemployment figures "lower". That notion is beyond ridiculous.
    Not at all, in a business run country where the people are "consumers", unemployed people are seen as "idle resources" that must be put to work.


    This is one of the reasons that UBI will be deemed a failure.


  • #373
    Arthur Daley
    Registered Users Posts: 4,354 ✭✭✭Arthur Daley


    Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »
    Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.

    Ok, we've been told by the likes of google that 50% of jobs could be lost by 2030. We can argue about who exactly this is or isn't but you don't have to earn much to get into the higher rate tax bracket and losing so many jobs is going to have to be recouped by the state somehow. The logical conclusion would be that the corporate will have to pay a lot more tax. Doesn't mean it will happen but some people will follow the audit trail and agitate for the likes of google and the rest to fund the UBI.


  • #374
    mvl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »
    Not sure what you point is, that graphic shows low educated and low paid are at the highest risk.

    The only (small) well paid category at risk is fiscal/insurance risk assessors/administrators, and this is well known already.

    It's also a very small sector overall. Automated algorithm scripts using bigdata (ideally quantum scenarios) can easily envisage or compile outcomes much better than humans.
    (guess I am the worrying type) I'd be feeling "safer" only if I were to be in a category less than 5% vulnerable. My current role is around 20% vulnerable. While I can try to progress it towards least vulnerable meanwhile, part of me thinks that I might be content with the UBI 12/15 years from now - while minding my grandchildren :).


  • #375
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,032 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Am very skeptical about it

    1. What would be an acceptable amount in Ireland?
    2. Who would be entitled it?
    3. How would it be funded?
    4. How would we stop people from getting it then going and living in e.g. Thailand?
    5. If it were a decent enough amount I know plenty of people who would dump their jobs instantly and never work again, how would this be avoided?

    1. Similar to current welfare rates.

    2. Everybody

    3. Taxes

    4. Only residents get it

    5. That may happen, yes, but a UBI encourages people to take up employment, as it isn't lost when getting a job.


  • #376
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Arthur Daley wrote: »
    Ok, we've been told by the likes of google that 50% of jobs could be lost by 2030. We can argue about who exactly this is or isn't but you don't have to earn much to get into the higher rate tax bracket and losing so many jobs is going to have to be recouped by the state somehow. The logical conclusion would be that the corporate will have to pay a lot more tax. Doesn't mean it will happen but some people will follow the audit trail and agitate for the likes of google and the rest to fund the UBI.

    More so the OECD, PWC etc that forecast this. Yes the responsibility falls on corporates, and also govs, and mega-rich individuals who dream of buying a Limited Ed 5m Bugatti (built using valuable earth resources) that will never see a drop of rain, covered in sheds for decade long value appreciation.

    Another factor with UBI, is that it's a digital currency, (cash) money won't exist so less fraud, robberies or stuffing matresses, and restrictions on amount folks can spend on duff beer or smokes with it. The black economy will shrink.


  • #377
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,032 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Three has never been more automation than now.

    Yet employment is at an all time high in the UK.

    I would not believe headlines that say automation will destroy huge numbers of jobs.

    Some jobs, yes.


  • #378
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    Geuze wrote: »
    Three has never been more automation than now.

    Yet employment is at an all time high in the UK.

    I would not believe headlines that say automation will destroy huge numbers of jobs.

    Some jobs, yes.

    Focussing on one country that's mainly service based will not give you a clear idea on the impact of automation.


  • #379
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,032 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »
    Issue is the trials (of sorts) of a couple of thousand at a time can't be compared to a nationwide rollout.

    If any country rolled out UBI en masse they'd see many positive and negative effects


    Positve: Spending surge for essential items, mid-range and investments in capital assest for the above


    Negative: Gross price inflation, if everyone is buying better brands of bread/milk, up the prices.

    Please explain further.

    People would face a 45% income tax rate on all earned income, with all tax credits and tax bands abolished.

    Why do you think there would be a surge of spending?

    Taking somebody on 50k wages, they would receive approx 10k UBI, but their income tax would rise to 22.5k.

    I don't see any huge change in personal disposable income there, so no great change in consumption?


  • #380
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Twenty Grand wrote: »
    Focussing on one country that's mainly service based will not give you a clear idea on the impact of automation.

    Automation can be programmed to do services tasks also. I do t think it'll be too long before its going to be an issue for entry level and simple work.


  • #381
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Geuze wrote: »
    Please explain further.

    People would face a 45% income tax rate on all earned income, with all tax credits and tax bands abolished.

    Why do you think there would be a surge of spending?

    Taking somebody on 50k wages, they would receive approx 10k UBI, but their income tax would rise to 22.5k.

    I don't see any huge change in personal disposable income there, so no great change in consumption?

    Nope, income tax rates not affected, there would still be a decent tax free allowance as there is now and only around 20% upto about 40k.

    Tax credits may or may not be merged into a UBI payment system. But mainly UBI is intended to replace all other (non-working) benefits e.g. jsa, children allowances, disability, sickness etc.

    Credits are slightly different as are income dependent/supplimental, not (non-workers) benefits.

    Spending would increase as UBI folks would be able to gig freely without fear of being investigated for welfare fraud. So more fiscal powers for those who choose to suppliment income. With no repercussions, motivational factors would increase.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    Automation can be programmed to do services tasks also. I do t think it'll be too long before its going to be an issue for entry level and simple work.

    Already is, seen just one human manage a row of 8 self-service tills, and online chatbots are the new defacto for online support issues.

    In the past 3yrs, no human has been involved in preparing and assessing my complex car insurance requirements.

    It's the 2nd/3rd wave of AI that will become the real challenge for 'more complex' service tasks.


  • #383
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,032 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


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

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

    The studies I've seen describe all tax credits being abolished.

    One single tax rate on all earned income.

    I have seen 45%, this study above has 40%.


  • #384
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Geuze wrote: »
    https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland

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

    The studies I've seen describe all tax credits being abolished.

    One single tax rate on all earned income.

    I have seen 45%, this study above has 40%.

    Fairly interesting but is just one 'proposal' by a couple of folks, years ago, rather than a full proper economic study or active trial.

    Even so, at that, it suggests someone on 15k, is 2k better off, as is someone on 60k, 3k better off.
    Assuming they still keep the tax-free allowance up to 20k or so?

    That diagram suggests it's only 150+38pwk, UBI would really need to be closer to 250+ for UBI to be meanginful.

    250 sounds alot for nothing, but single johnny will either spend it all back into the economy, or use it with more purpose, while single janey will have to stretch it account for six kids.

    One single tax rate (after allowance) would sure simplify things, but UBI rollout along with (working) tax credits removal at the very same time might perhaps be a bit too sudden.


  • #385
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,535 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    We are heading to a future we’re robots will take our jobs. So a universal income isn’t a bad idea..


  • #386
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    That's all they do, they provide no useful service at all.

    It's sales. They literally make money for their respective companies. Otherwise they wouldn't be employed.


  • #387
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Geuze wrote: »
    1. Similar to current welfare rates.

    2. Everybody

    3. Taxes

    4. Only residents get it

    5. That may happen, yes, but a UBI encourages people to take up employment, as it isn't lost when getting a job.

    1. Cost of UBI in Ireland. With rough calculations, it would work out at about 34 bn a year excluding administration and pensions, something the country can't afford - or would have to make dramatic cuts to health/schools/justice/transport/other

    3. Which taxes and how? ("tax the rich" is not an answer). There would have to be a very significant rise in taxes to cover the astronomical cost of such a program

    4. Only residents get it, so what's stopping Irish people claiming it and going abroad and living comfortably? an army of administrative people to make sure that doesn't happen? (800 euros of guaranteed free cash per month is significantly higher than the average wage in many countries)

    5. UBI clearly doesn't encourage people to take up unemployment (Finnish findings)

    I've dipped into a few of these UBI threads and they always seem to be high on speculation and very low on actual details/maths/economics


  • #388
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    1. Cost of UBI in Ireland. With rough calculations, it would work out at about 34 bn a year excluding administration and pensions, something the country can't afford - or would have to make dramatic cuts to health/schools/justice/transport/other

    Costs would be roughly the same, some folks with a dozen kids who get large welfare payments now, would be much worse off. National productivity would be vastly improved, thus +GDP.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    3. Which taxes and how? ("tax the rich" is not an answer). There would have to be a very significant rise in taxes to cover the astronomical cost of such a program

    Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    4. Only residents get it, so what's stopping Irish people claiming it and going abroad and living comfortably? an army of administrative people to make sure that doesn't happen? (800 euros of guaranteed free cash per month is significantly higher than the average wage in many countries)

    Leave the country for 3/12mths and your payments cease. It's more than 800, then again you can buy a house in timbucktu for just a few pennies, comparisons to other locations is largely irrelevant as long as there is strict migration controls.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    5. UBI clearly doesn't encourage people to take up unemployment (Finnish findings)

    Small sample group, maybe they were in locations where enterprise/work was limited no matter the resources. Maybe they knew it was a time-limited trial and didn't want to jump on the work-train knowing they'd loose benefits when the temporary track ended.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I've dipped into a few of these UBI threads and they always seem to be high on speculation and very low on actual details/maths/economics

    The thing is more and more countries realise it's on the way, hence the preperations and trails increase.


  • #389
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    I mostly agree with this except the negatives, the migration issue is a diversion - it's for citizens only

    the inflation would be very limited as the UBI is replacing welfare payments in the main so most unemployed people who choose not to work part time will be no better off.


    One disadvantage would be for employers who have really bad working conditions will find it almost impossible to find workers.

    Thats not a disadvantage because it means they would have to offer improved working conditions

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #390
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    There is also a HUGE cost saving to the state because they could massively cut the number of Social Welfare civil servants and sell off most of the social welfare offices in the country.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There is also a HUGE cost saving to the state because they could massively cut the number of Social Welfare civil servants and sell off most of the social welfare offices in the country.

    :pac:

    UBI is a silly concept and trying to force it on some macro scale doesn't really prove anything.

    Automation and loss of jobs is a separate issue, one that is very open to debate.


Advertisement