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

Options
12467…16

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    The only issue i’d Have with it is that either wages would fall, so most people wouldn’t see a difference, or the price of everything else would go up in which case the very people who this is supposed to help would suffer as much or more than they already do.


  • Options
    #93
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    I always smirk at how lefties get in a tizzy about, as they put it, "non-progressive" taxes.

    But "non-progressive" handouts?

    Yeah, they are fine magically. :-)

    Left-wing economics isn't just through the looking glass; it is through a looking glass melted on an upside-down stove.


  • Options
    #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I just think the cost of living would adjust upwards to make the extra income meaningless.
    Not really, as there will still be a large number of people who will receive only the UBI and nothing else, so any attempts to price gouge will be resisted in those areas.


  • Options
    #95
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not really, as there will still be a large number of people who will receive only the UBI and nothing else, so any attempts to price gouge will be resisted in those areas.

    Canny happen without proper regulation of things like rent, for example. We already have a situation where people working full time are paying astronomical amounts of rent.


  • Options
    #96
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really, as there will still be a large number of people who will receive only the UBI and nothing else, so any attempts to price gouge will be resisted in those areas.

    So poor people in poor areas won't be able to afford things, what's new?

    It's a quick way to hyperinflation. Might be some short term benefits but can't see it as a long term solution for anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kylith wrote: »
    Canny happen without proper regulation of things like rent, for example. We already have a situation where people working full time are paying astronomical amounts of rent.
    With housing, there is an artificial shortage in the major cities and the government are quite happy for that situation to continue as there are a few landlords in the Daíl who benefit greatly.

    Nothing to do with UBI


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So poor people in poor areas won't be able to afford things, what's new?

    It's a quick way to hyperinflation. Might be some short term benefits but can't see it as a long term solution for anything.
    Not really, all that will change is that part time workers will have an income improvement over non-working people.


  • Options
    #99
    badtoro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    It will decimate the public service

    There's an excellent reason to back it to the hilt.


  • Options
    #100
    badtoro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I just think the cost of living would adjust upwards to make the extra income meaningless.

    That's one of my concerns as well. "Free money" often comes at a cost.


  • Options
    #101
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really, all that will change is that part time workers will have an income improvement over non-working people.

    If anything is universal, by definition any wealth gained will be cancelled out.

    You can work part time and still claim the dole in Ireland, not that it really matters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    It will decimate the public service,

    badtoro wrote: »
    There's an excellent reason to back it to the hilt.
    The public sector -v- private sector battle is a complete false flag, both are very expensive and can be very inefficient or efficient depending on the management.

    The only real difference is that public sector profits go back to the government and private sector profits go to shareholders.

    It's in the interests of shareholders everywhere that private sector is preferred over public sector.


  • Options
    #103
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    badtoro wrote: »
    That's one of my concerns as well. "Free money" often comes at a cost.

    People thought when the wives started to get jobs as well that they would have all this extra income but of course the economy adjusts if things like that happen on a large scale.


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    If anything is universal, by definition any wealth gained will be cancelled out.

    You can work part time and still claim the dole in Ireland, not that it really matters.
    No with UBI, any type of work will provide for a significant increase in income, rather than the benefits being reduced as one earns more (a bit like walking up the down escalator).


  • Options
    #105
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No with UBI, any type of work will provide for a significant increase in income, rather than the benefits being reduced as one earns more (a bit like walking up the down escalator).

    Yes, as I said with UBI, if everybody has it, it's essentially worthless.
    I presume Finland will still have progressive taxation, so as one earns more, the "benefits" will still be reduced. But hey, everybody will have some monopoly money to play around with.

    This is far from a new idea also.


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Yes, as I said with UBI, if everybody has it, it's essentially worthless.
    I presume Finland will still have progressive taxation, so as one earns more, the "benefits" will still be reduced. But hey, everybody will have some monopoly money to play around with.

    This is far from a new idea also.
    Not really, it is only social welfare payments that are stopping some people from being completely destitute and dying of starvation.

    The UBI is given regardless of income (like child benefit) it makes little difference on the average income earner whether the people on UBI are subsisting on that money or are doing part time work to improve their income.

    UBI will be toilet paper to the higher income earners anyway, so why would they care.


  • Options
    #107
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Doesn't UBI just move the demand curve upwards a bit?
    I fail to see what that achieves beyond prompting a 'wage'-price inflationary spiral.


  • Options
    #108
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really, it is only social welfare payments that are stopping some people from being completely destitute and dying of starvation.

    Fine, I never said that wasn't the case?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The UBI is given regardless of income (like child benefit) it makes little difference on the average income earner whether the people on UBI are subsisting on that money or are doing part time work to improve their income.

    Yes...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    UBI will be toilet paper to the higher income earners anyway, so why would they care.

    Grand.:confused:

    That doesn't rebut my point that any "benefit" applied universally will by definition have very little to no effect.


  • Options
    #109
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Yes, as I said with UBI, if everybody has it, it's essentially worthless.
    I presume Finland will still have progressive taxation, so as one earns more, the "benefits" will still be reduced. But hey, everybody will have some monopoly money to play around with.

    This is far from a new idea also.

    To get the money to pay the UBI, taxes would massively raise. Housenumbers: You get paid 2000 monthly, in future you will be paid 1000 UBI and 1000 from the company as the taxes will rise. 1500 become 1000+500 and 10000 become 1000+6000. So high earners will be taxed more.
    To add to this, the UBI would allow people taking jobs that are not well paid but be more productive to society. Like I read this old joke recently:

    A corporation hired several cannibals that had to promise not to eat anyone. Four weeks later their boss remarked that they were doing a great job, but a cleaner disappeared. The cannibals denied any involvement. After the boss left one of the cannibals asked who the idiot was who ate the cleaners as they were eating managers and no one noticed anything, but the cleaner was doing something.

    What is true if you think when looking at today’s job world. Whom would you miss more: Cleaners, nurses or financial managers? One side gets paid peanuts, the other ones a fortune.
    In theory with the UBI the wages of cleaners and nurses should increase as they are needed and with the UBI there is no need for them to take the work based on the need to work, but instead of passion. Companies will have to offer better wages to get staff. Fun note and real story, I think the German bank, granted their senior staff a massive bonus, while also having scored a massive financial loss. Their excuse: They cannot find better staff. That in a nutshell is the problem with today’s economy.
    The UBI should also enable people to take risks and be creative, start a business or offer their services without the risk of losing all income. And this has be proven already right with trial runs. People didn't stop working.


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    topper75 wrote: »
    Doesn't UBI just move the demand curve upwards a bit?
    I fail to see what that achieves beyond prompting a 'wage'-price inflationary spiral.
    No, the money in the hands of the unemployed would remain about the same, the real difference will be that it removes the stigma of "being unemployed" and it allows the freedom of working part time without being penalised.

    Ultimately, it will mainly benefit minimum wage part time workers.
    Those who can't work or can't find work will at least not feel like "scroungers".

    It will also allow the natives to lake on work that only migrants currently do as it will supplement their UBI.

    Migrants won't be eligible for the first few years in the country or they will have to claim it from their home countries.


  • Options
    #111
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,117 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    As it is, one can argue that, everyone over 66 is on a form a UBI. They are not asked to do anything in return for their noncontributory OAP. We have not had chaos or anomie.

    BTW UBI is not solely a left wing concept. Some right wing economists and conservative politicians support it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Harika wrote: »
    To get the money to pay the UBI, taxes would massively raise. Housenumbers: You get paid 2000 monthly, in future you will be paid 1000 UBI and 1000 from the company as the taxes will rise. 1500 become 1000+500 and 10000 become 1000+6000. So high earners will be taxed more.
    To add to this, the UBI would allow people taking jobs that are not well paid but be more productive to society. Like I read this old joke recently:

    A corporation hired several cannibals that had to promise not to eat anyone. Four weeks later their boss remarked that they were doing a great job, but a cleaner disappeared. The cannibals denied any involvement. After the boss left one of the cannibals asked who the idiot was who ate the cleaners as they were eating managers and no one noticed anything, but the cleaner was doing something.

    What is true if you think when looking at today’s job world. Whom would you miss more: Cleaners, nurses or financial managers? One side gets paid peanuts, the other ones a fortune.
    In theory with the UBI the wages of cleaners and nurses should increase as they are needed and with the UBI there is no need for them to take the work based on the need to work, but instead of passion. Companies will have to offer better wages to get staff. Fun note and real story, I think the German bank, granted their senior staff a massive bonus, while also having scored a massive financial loss. Their excuse: They cannot find better staff. That in a nutshell is the problem with today’s economy.
    The UBI should also enable people to take risks and be creative, start a business or offer their services without the risk of losing all income. And this has be proven already right with trial runs. People didn't stop working.

    It sounds a lot like socialist fantasy I'm afraid.

    This theory is ignoring that fact that an economy is not a static thing and cost of living will adjust to this extra income, especially if this extra income is guaranteed for everyone.

    Here's the problem with trials....they aren't happening universally! They are happening with a select few lucky people. That's selective basic income(the dole), not UBI.


  • Options
    #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »

    That doesn't rebut my point that any "benefit" applied universally will by definition have very little to no effect.
    It does to those who want to earn a living but can't because any extra earned will be clawed back in taxation or costs involved in doing the job, for example travelling to and from a low paid job plus the tax and cuts in benefit could make someone worse off.


  • Options
    #114
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    Think it was social justice Ireland's report that looked at ubi.

    It considered that the likes of medical cards, most welfare payments and other social supports would be gone. For doctors/hospital costs there would have to be a form of compulsory insurance but some basic health services would be free.

    The onus would be on the individual to work to improve their situation as most of the so-called welfare "freebies" would be gone.

    I think the overall cost of such a scheme meant a marginal tax rate of 57% and that would rely on a large workforce paying tax.


  • Options
    #115
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It does to those who want to earn a living but can't because any extra earned will be clawed back in taxation or costs involved in doing the job, for example travelling to and from a low paid job plus the tax and cuts in benefit could make someone worse off.

    Is the example you are making in Ireland? A significant number pay no income tax.

    You can simply adjust the taxation or credits if this was the case anyway which I would imagine would be a fairly small number considering there's plenty of people doing low paid jobs.


  • Options
    #116
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    Ush1 wrote: »

    This theory is ignoring that fact that an economy is not a static thing and cost of living will adjust to this extra income, especially if this extra income is guaranteed for everyone.

    Income wouldn't really increase for the majority of people, as while you get the extra income of the UBI, you pay higher taxes for working. But you are right, there are lot of issues with it, still it is inevitable to look at models for the future as the way the workforce is structured today will be not sustainable in future.
    The machines are coming, and in future machines and AI will take over jobs from the workforce. e.g. there are steel factories that in the 60s employed 3000 people and now only employ 150 people with an output that is tenfold.
    In theory this workforce should move into services, and they did. Now the AI is taking over here. A company who once employed 1000 people in services is now employing only 300 people with answering ten times as much service requests. Most of the time you won't even realise that you are dealing only with a machine. So where should those 700 unemployed walk people now? That is where the UBI comes in to solve that issue.
    Austria has 500000 unemployed people with 50000 positions open, it should be clear that a harder whip won't work here.


  • Options
    #117
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Harika wrote: »
    Income wouldn't really increase for the majority of people, as while you get the extra income of the UBI, you pay higher taxes for working. But you are right, there are lot of issues with it, still it is inevitable to look at models for the future as the way the workforce is structured today will be not sustainable in future.

    So tax the rich with nicer lipstick. Fair enough.
    Harika wrote: »
    The machines are coming, and in future machines and AI will take over jobs from the workforce. e.g. there are steel factories that in the 60s employed 3000 people and now only employ 150 people with an output that is tenfold.
    In theory this workforce should move into services, and they did. Now the AI is taking over here. A company who once employed 1000 people in services is now employing only 300 people with answering ten times as much service requests. Most of the time you won't even realise that you are dealing only with a machine. So where should those 700 unemployed walk people now? That is where the UBI comes in to solve that issue.
    Austria has 500000 unemployed people with 50000 positions open, it should be clear that a harder whip won't work here.

    I agree but this is a very different conversation and a very different problem to solve.


  • Options
    #118
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So tax the rich with nicer lipstick. Fair enough.
    And it is in their interest, as history has shown that nothing is more dangerous for them than big parts of a population that have nothing to do.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    I agree but this is a very different conversation and a very different problem to solve.

    I disagree as the UBI is a possible solution to the problem.


  • Options
    #119
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Harika wrote: »
    And it is in their interest, as history has shown that nothing is more dangerous for them than big parts of a population that have nothing to do.



    I disagree as the UBI is a possible solution to the problem.

    History has shown that the rich don't like paying tax, and who defines who is rich is a dangerous thing.

    UBI may not solve a problem that may never come, just as much as the current systems in place, so yes I disagree there.


  • Options
    #120
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    Ush1 wrote: »
    History has shown that the rich don't like paying tax, and who defines who is rich is a dangerous thing.

    OFC who likes to pay taxes? Still sometimes people have to be forced to their luck.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Harika wrote: »
    What is true if you think when looking at today’s job world. Whom would you miss more: Cleaners, nurses or financial managers? One side gets paid peanuts, the other ones a fortune.

    All well and good until you go to look to get a mortgage to buy a home, or a loan for a car to travel to work, only to find out that the nurses and cleaners don't know how to process your application.

    I remember a carpenter telling me years ago that my job in Software Development was useless in comparison to what he could produce with his hands.


Advertisement