Is Finland's Universal Basic Income Trial Too Good To Be True? (theguardian.com) 534
It was one year ago that Finland began giving money to 2,000 unemployed people -- roughly $652 a month (€560 or £475). But have we learned anything about universal basic incomes? An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Amid this unprecedented media attention, the experts who devised the scheme are concerned it is being misrepresented. "It's not really what people are portraying it as," said Markus Kanerva, an applied social and behavioural sciences specialist working in the prime minister's office in Helsinki. "A full-scale universal income trial would need to study different target groups, not just the unemployed. It would have to test different basic income levels, look at local factors. This is really about seeing how a basic unconditional income affects the employment of unemployed people."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
Yes. Yes it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
This program is neither universal or basic.
It's simply another welfare program.
And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
So, all that's been created is an incentive not to achieve anything.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
Do we actually know that?
I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the idea is that most people, even people with severe limitations, want to do something. There is a percentage who will choose long-term to do nothing, however the cost of policing that exceeds the cost of accepting some leakage.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need to work to reliably eat and keep a roof over your head, but you CAN'T find work anywhere due to illness, lack of (the right) skills, past crime history making you undesirable for hiring etc., then spending your time stealing stuff becomes very attractive. If you have a reliable income and you're basically a good person you stop stealing stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes the money has to come from somewhere. But it's possible that this saves money elsewhere. The goal is not to give people money so that they stay home and watch cat videos, but to see if this actually gets them out and get jobs. This is an experiment only, because they have a radical idea that government should see what works and what does not work instead of relying on ideological gut feelings.
Unemployed people are a big drain on the coffers in many ways. Finland already supplies many basic services with a high tax rate. If they can save money in the long run that's a good thing.
The article also makes it clear that this idea was not a far left idea but came the center-right.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, you will have unemployed people. When there is one job and two people, whether one wants the job and one wants to not do it or whether both want it but only one gets it has the same net result.
It's heaps cheaper (for everyone involved, government, employers and even the unemployed, or the employee, respectively) if you remove those that don't even want the job from the equation.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this is why I see the largest number of homeless people sleeping on the streets than I have ever seen, while the news programs are all proudly announcing that the unemployment rate is at a record low because the economy is totally awesome. It's bullshit. These people get written off because it makes the numbers look good.
In any event, this Finnish thing is an EXPERIMENT. It is not concluded, they want to see if this idea works or not. But no, Slashdot says experiments are stupid, just go with your gut feelings, because science isn't popular anymore.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING. Do we actually know that? I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
Well the real question is does everyone need to do 'something that benefits a corporation' to bring value to the world. Someone do 'nothing' that sits at home and has no goals or ambition - well they are better off being paid not to work anyway - because they are going to do a shit ass job and make life worse for everyone else. Someone who might enjoy painting or creating art/song/etc. may do so now instead of taking up another job calling people to renew their car warranty. Is that still 'nothing'? Are we net better off?
If the 'worthless jobs' of working at a fast food place double your take home - would people treat them with more respect - because no boss will put up with lazy crap because at the back of their heart they worry about the kid at home that needs food/a home?
There are so many interconnected threads to the idea of what someone might do with the money.
As to the 'people given the option WILL DO NOTHING' - well that's 100% provable lie. We don't need the study to know this.
Answer to this question - is another question - How many billionaires that never need to work another day in their or their great great great grandkids lives - sit at home and do nothing?
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's really the crux of the question isn't it.
Not all people are the same. People have different values and ways of being.
The rich person who worked hard all his life is going to find it hard to sit home doing nothing. They're going to keep working to be great like Jeff Bezos. Or they're going to charity like Bill Gates. Or they're pursuing their passions like Elon Musk.
Heck, I have part of that personality as well. I can't sit home and do nothing. I have to do something; be it write or workout or pr
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is so bad about doing nothing? Many of our jobs are artificial anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not artificial if you get money for it, with which to buy things. doesn't matter how pointless you might think a job is, only how much the person paying your believes it is.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
not artificial if you get money for it, with which to buy things.
The money is real, but the work is artificial. So much of what happens is bullshit make-work that's unnecessary replication of effort, which happens only so that people can get paid. But there are environmental costs to work, so bullshit make-work is just spending the biosphere to maintain capitalism. Does that sound smart to you?
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, useless jobs (or to be more accurate, "growth") are to captialism like prayer is to christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
What is so bad about doing nothing?
Try it some time. Very soon you start to hunt around for things to do. Shortly after that you begin to find ways of rationalising your time-wasting as productive, like "if aliens invade and challenge the earth to minesweeper, I'LL BE READY."
> Mr Piccolo: You CAN'T play someone in Minesweeper, it's a single-person game!
Re: (Score:3)
Try it some time. Very soon you start to hunt around for things to do. Shortly after that you begin to find ways of rationalising your time-wasting as productive
So I will become a php developer? A lawyer? A gender studies professor? An economist?
Also, during my periods of unemployment I usually either partied a lot or learned new skills (kernel programming, ocaml, story writing, performance). I find these skills productive for me, and this is more important than being productive to a rich man.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are really offended by other people doing nothing. They think there is a pride to work (there's reasonable room to debate), and that pride can be earned by the threat of starving to death.
Re: (Score:3)
And then they tell me that capitalism is not a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Funny)
Good news, no one is asking you to pay a dime. The government's paying for it.
Also, it's probably cheaper than putting down an insurrection, or dealing with the crime that people turn to to feed themselves
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, we are so SO far past that.
I am offended by other people who are not doing anythings children being given priority access to health and education over my children, because I choose to not do nothing.
I suspect the next stage will result in me being offended that what I have worked my life for is taken away and given to people who did nothing, because I am 'entitled' (ie: I worked hard, and saved, and ended up without towering debt) and they are 'victims' of me having dared to try.
Of course the powers tha
Re: (Score:3)
I am offended by other people who are not doing anythings children being given priority access to health and education over my children, because I choose to not do nothing.
So am I, which is why I'm in favour of UBI, especially the "universal" bit rather than the "means tested" or the "single mother" or the "disability* support" (*where disability is defined as anything other than being 100% perfectly healthy).
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this. Consider it a subsistence existence payment. The payment for denying the people the right to subsist by being a hunter gatherer. What right do you claim to be able starve people to death, by denying them a subsistence existence and killing them slowly in prison or fast with a bullet should they dare to attempt a hunter gatherer existence. By what right do you claim to be able to force slave labour or starvation and any claim on that right also provides a claim on the right for people to kill anyone who attempts to deny them a subsistence existence. A human being has a right to exist and the right is expressed by being able to exist to survive, not to be turned into a slave via threat of starvation, imprisonment until death or summary execution.
The simplest definition of capitalism, 'my capital worth is worth more than you life', in fact as many people as need to perish in order to preserve my capital value and that is the fact of capitalism, the legalisation of capital worth being greater than human worth.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know...
In the past (up until WW2, I guess), many creative types of work and technological advancements were brought to fruition by people who did not need to work, otherwise said they had the means to live comfortably without having to work. Still, they have produced very useful things, both in art and science.
Not saying this can repeat nowadays, but you can't dismiss it either.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that Microsoft and Facebook were founded by college students living on daddy's dime.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know... In the past (up until WW2, I guess), many creative types of work and technological advancements were brought to fruition by people who did not need to work, otherwise said they had the means to live comfortably without having to work. Still, they have produced very useful things, both in art and science. Not saying this can repeat nowadays, but you can't dismiss it either.
Exactly this. There are no doubt tons of good ideas out there that will never get acted on because it's too much of a risk. Heck, I'm a smart dude and have research projects I'd like to pursue, but I can't take the risk that they wouldn't pan out because I have a daughter to support, and I like having a roof over my head.
If people are given a chance to follow their dreams, we're going to benefit with a lot of amazing art and science (we'll also get a lot of crap art and science too... bu that's the price ya
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, and by taxing trust-fund babies to provide welfare services, we incentivize them to work instead of living off inherited wealth.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweden, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Germany, ...
There's plenty of countries where the tax rates are high that offer a WAY higher quality of life than most of the US for most of its people.
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main flaw in that study (that I can find after a couple of minutes) is that the statistics are completely wrong. The median income figures used are *post-tax*. The swedish figures are ignoring the income used to pay for everything in the state:
* free healthcare.
* free education.
* paid parental leave.
* subsidized childcare.
* much much more.
The correct comparison is the gross income figures. In the swedish case somebody earning around the median level is paying about 25% in direct (visible) taxation, and about 65% in invisible employer contributions. I.e. If their headline (visible) salary is $40000, they receive about $30000 after tax, but their total tax ia about $30000 taking into account mandatory social contributions from their employer. Their actual gross salary is about $60000 and this study treats it as $30000.
Tldr: the study is deliberately using the wrong income figure to make a false comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh dear, irony levels have hit maximum. I suggest that you read a bit more carefully. Yes, the claim that you quote is made in the article that you link to. But is it true?
Well, in the article that you link to they provide a link to the underlying dataset from the OECD that they used. The link is actually the part that you bolded in your quote. Let's follow that link to http://stats.oecd.org/Index.as... [oecd.org] and continue reading.
You need to click the sidebar pull out on the right-side to get the metadta descript
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
If they do nothing instead of spending their time committing crime it might well be worth it. If my options are to pay people to stay at home or to pay police, prison guards, and and much larger legal system I'd prefer to avoid creating bigger government for no real benefit.
Also, we're already paying loads of taxes to fund various welfare programs. You could have a reasonably sized UBI by getting rid of the various different programs and putting everything towards a UBI instead. That also has the added benefit of greatly simplifying the system and making another huge chunk of government bureaucracy redundant.
No system is going to be perfect, and there will always be people who try to take advantage of the system or who add no value to society, but they exist independent of the system. However, that shouldn't stop us from making pragmatic choices when possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many people on
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore: it is my opinion that many of the proponents of UBI are disingenuous, and do wish to be living in a world where they get handed money, and will do nothing other than sit on their behinds, being fat, lazy, and contributing nothing to anyone other than themselves, with not a care in the world for the fact that they're just parasites.
Well, opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one.
In civilised countries, there's already a considerable social safety net. You can wish that away to a post scarcity world if you wish but I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.
The point of UBI is to rearrange the existing social safety nets (and taxes to match) to simplify the bureaucracy. The idea is to greatly reduce the administrative costs of running the system and also remove some of the things that disincentivise work.
For example, you can get job-seeker's allowance in the UK if you're between jobs. But it takes a while to kick in after your job finishes. That prevents people taking short jobs inbetween finding a better one because the cut to the jobseekers allowance after the job ends ends up being a net negative. That kind of thing vanishes.
Another thing, the UK tax system already fairly closely approximates UBI + flat tax (for income above a certain threshold), using a complex system of piecewise constant tax bands. My rougher approximation of the negative part, where benefits kick in is much harder to do accurately but it veeery roughly holds there too.
So, why not replace that entire hot mess of benefits and tax bands with basic income and flat tax? The numbers come out very similar but it's a hel of a lot easier to administer.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't have UBI here in Norway, but we do have a welfare program which is like a "last resort" where the only qualifications is that you're a legal resident, you don't have any other income or savings and you don't qualify for any of the more specific benefits like disability, unemployment and so on. It's not grand but you don't go homeless and you don't need to beg in the streets, I don't think we're the only social democracy in Europe with a program like that. I just checked the statistics and a little
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
This program is neither universal or basic.
No, it's testing a specific aspect of a universal basic income, exactly what you'd want a responsible government to do.
It's simply another welfare program.
No, a welfare program is designed to maintain the well-being of citizens, this is an experiment to see if a universal basic income will reduce unemployment.
And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
Taxes, some of which will hopefully be paid by these people, reduced benefits from other programs, and reduced administration in running the program.
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
But we don't know how big that segment is, or exactly how they are distributed, this will shed light on that question.
So, all that's been created is an incentive not to achieve anything.
They already had an incentive not to achieve anything, traditional welfare programs.
What this does do is reduce some pressure to find work, but it also removes some incentives for not entering the workforce (such as losing benefits).
Re: (Score:3)
>Taxes, some of which will hopefully be paid by these people, reduced benefits from other programs, and reduced administration in running the program.
This tired argument again?
1. These people are getting barely enough money to live on in the first place. They will not be paying taxes.
One of the reasons they don't work is working means they lose benefits. But they don't lose the UBI by working, therefore more will enter the labour force (to get extra money) and pay more taxes.
2. Just _reduced_ benefits? What happened to eliminating those altogether? Reducing won't eliminate overhead.
I don't know all the details of this implementation. But I'd assume that some would be eliminated entirely and others remain, overall a reduction in benefits paid and administration.
3. Reduced administration will not pay for the difference. Shall we do some math?
No it will not. The bulk will come from taxes. The reduced administration just makes things more efficient.
Apparently minimum cost of living is something like $15000/year in the US, so let's set UB to that level. There are 308 million people living in the US. Simple multiplication tells us we need $4.6 trillion/year to pay for UBI.
The total US federal income for 2016 was $3.3 trillion.
Remember coupled with that m
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently minimum cost of living is something like $15000/year in the US, so let's set UB to that level. There are 308 million people living in the US. Simple multiplication tells us we need $4.6 trillion/year to pay for UBI.
No one except people trying to cut down straw men proposes a UBI system where it's exactly the same as the current system plus UBI on top.
You revamp the tax system in parallel so the for the majority of people, the UBI is offset by the extra taxes. In other words the tax goes up so th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering that we simply don't have enough work for everyone, having a group of people who isn't going to compete for jobs is not really something I'd mind too much...
Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was in high school I was a delivery driver for a drugstore. There was one "subsidized income" neighborhood where everyone was on welfare (I knew since they paid with welfare "stamps" for prescriptions) yet one had a nice porsche in the driveway, most had expensive electronics, etc. After a while I realized, that a good percentage of these people worked odd jobs "under the table" while collecting welfare - one guy drive delivering pizza for example and I asked him once about it - he said that delivering pizza was not going to sustain him and his family, and that he wouldn't do it the income was declared and simply deducted from his welfare (plus all the paperwork associated with it was a deterrent too), but will do it as "extra money" - along the reasoning of this finish study.
While I've always strongly believed that welfare should be a second chance, a social safety net to allow people to take bigger risks, rather than a way of life, the reality is that there will always be people who will do nothing unless starving, there are some on welfare which would contribute to society if welfare was in a form of basic income rather than welfare you have to qualify for. It also seems more fair and simpler to administer - everyone gets it, even the super-rich.
No, No its not.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You miss one basic fact in the 'analysis'
These are Finns, not Americans.
there is a reason that Scandinavian (and yes, Finland is marginally that, but hey) socialism 'works' (at least better than other places), and that is that they still have a moderate number of people who are responsible, proud to be reasonably self sufficient, realise that stupid actions tend to lead to actual and bad consequences, etc.
IMHO, a lot of that comes from living somewhere where tripping over on the wrong winters day can, and does, kill people. Not planning ahead when a storm is coming can and does kill people.
These countries are NOT America. They may have their own issues (and certainly do), however they are a very very different place.
Unfortunately they are being slowly infected by 'American Exceptionalism' and all the BS that seems to drag along with it, however they are less far along that diseased path.
TL;DR - Finns are more likely to work even if they dont have to - which you would understand if you know some Finns, however they can also do math, and wont work if it means they come out worse off.
Re:No, No its not.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Debunking the Myth of Socialist "Success" in Scandinavia
Hmm let's see. The opening line is:
Well the opening line is a huge pile of politically slanted bias and we're only 10 words in. With an opening like that I'm not going to waste my time giving something so obviously biased the "benefit of the doubt".
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take that as, "you have no data to prove it wrong."
You can take it as that if you like, sure.
Overloading people with garbage ot the point where they won't read it doesn't make your arguments correct, however.
Re: (Score:3)
The world does not exist to tirelessly rebut whatever crap you can come up with.
If the opening line is utter crap why should I look any further? Either it's representative of the author is wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing this myth, but oddly, countries that have a strong social system and hence a distribution of money to the bottom don't suffer from higher inflation than countries that distribute money up towards those that already have more than they can spend.
The reason for this is simple: The amount of goods and services that can be offered is not fixed. If you have 100 instead of 10 people wanting and being able to pay for a haircut, prices for haircuts don't go up. Instead, more barber shops open and mor
Re: Yes. Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
$24 Million for a government to spend on an experiment that may reorder all of society seems downright cheap - possibly irresponsibly low.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, please learn to read, and then do so.
If the title is in the form of a question... (Score:5, Funny)
...the answer is "no".
This bit of libertarian free market horseshit clickbait is all about what they "hope to learn", not what they've actually learned.
The one bit of factual data shown in this story is as follows:
This is what passes for compelling data in right-wing neo-liberal economic circles..."one participant".
Finland is a great country. You know why you don't see people lining up to move to the US from Finland? Because they have hot blondes, great black metal bands and excellent vodka. Also, education and health care are free and both spouses get at least six months of paid parental leave when they have a kid. Socialism, and more economic liberty and mobility than the U.S.of A. The only downside is that it gets dark for a big part of the year. But that's what the hot blondes and vodka and black metal are for.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Take note that race is essentially the top reason the parent lists for people not leaving Finland. It's white people with blonde hair. There is little difference between that and Trump's racist comment about wanting more immigrants from Norway.
There's more than a little difference.
Extolling the positive virtues of a race is a type of stereotyping, but it's often done in the way of finding positives for each race that's stereotyped so it's not that harmful.
But Trump asking for fewer people from a black country and more people from one of the whitest countries is almost explicitly indicating a preferred race.
Re: (Score:3)
But Trump asking for fewer people from a black country and more people from one of the whitest countries is almost explicitly indicating a preferred race.
Of course Leftists think that. As a practical matter race is very likely to be a key lens for them, and a distorting one at that.
Meanwhile others might look at the issue and consider the fact that Norway's population is highly educated, has a generally similar culture, society, government, values, is a peaceful society with an advanced economy. Many speak English. They are NATO allies. As such Norwegians might be likely to both fit in well to American society and make significant contributions. Why, it'
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, there is absolutely NO difference. But hey, you lump Nazis together with Commies, so even trying to educate you is probably a lost cause.
Re:If the title is in the form of a question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Far-right in Europe is generally still left of the GOP. My guess is 90% of our parties would be chased off as "commies" with pitchforks in the US.
Re:If the title is in the form of a question... (Score:4, Funny)
Suicide is more of a hobby in Finland than a social issue.
Just a different perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Finland has the Nordic model of social democracy. A heavily regulated capitalist economy with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level..
And tell me, if free universal health care and education and collective bargaining and comprehensive welfare aren't "socialist" then why do all the right-wing jackoffs always complain about them being socialist? And if those things are not socialist, then can we please have those things in the US? I'm
Makes sense considering human nature (Score:2)
Now we have 3 bums sitting on welfare because nobody will hire them for minimum wage and then they will lose welfare and besides they can't afford daycare for their kids. With UBI and no minimum wage, two bums pay the third one some change to watch the kids and go blow up balloons in birthday parties to earn money for some joints. Before long, bumtown with a collapsed economy has people trading with each other for services, some earning enough to pay back their UBI in taxes. In the meantime, everyone is sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could also try what China does - give more loans/grants for starting businesses...
This might explain why the local DFO outlet has eleven stores selling mobile phone cases, and fifteen stores selling handbags. I didn't realise we had such a cell phone case shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd prefer them to spend their last bucks on a gun and blow your head off for the 20 bucks in your wallet?
Somebody think of those wretched public servants? (Score:4, Interesting)
I dunno what the real estate market is like in Helsinki but 140 euro a week would be lucky to pay the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment where I live, a decent sized industrialised city in the Southern Hemisphere.
For those that believe in small government, a universal income would slash the number of public servants overnight - those who currently administer unemployment schemes in ensuring that 'dole bludgers' have met the appropriate conditions to continue receiving payments. This would also apply to administering veterans' affairs, disability support and aged pension.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno what the real estate market is like in Helsinki but 140 euro a week would be lucky to pay the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment where I live, a decent sized industrialised city in the Southern Hemisphere.
140s euros a week is more than enough to pay a mortgage in many places. Not desirable places, but nobody said that you should get to live someplace nice for free.
Disabled in the U.S. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know a similar situation exists with people on disability benefits. They can earn around $1,000 a month without losing benefits and health insurance. Many find part time work to earn just below the limit. However they're then trapped unable to accept a pay raise or seek promotions. Considering the benefits they receive it may be worth $1,000-$2,000 to remain on the program.
How does one go from earning $1,000 to roughly $3,000 in one jump? Some take classes or gain a certification that enables a career change, most stay part time indefinitely.
I think the country in the article already has universal health care so it's a fairly similar situation. Without the fear of losing their benefits I think a lot more would take the time to seek greater earnings.
example of why it is destined to fail (Score:2)
One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
and this demonstrates why such programs ultimately fail. In the course of a year speaking to a 140 people somehow consumed all his time so he couldn't start a business? REALLY? being generous and saying each of these took 2 hours of his time what the fuck did you do with the other 1200+ workable hours of the year? no incentive to work means their is always an excuse to not work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're partially right. This kind of person is never going to succeed in business - his best hope is to get a job where other people manage his time. However that doesn't mean the entire program must fail. There will be some people who can't/won't make a UBI work but perhaps there may be enough who can/will that it provides a net benefit to society.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it's worth researching to see if some form of UBI ends up working well enough to be useful.
"You're part of a study to see if people are lazy" (Score:2)
UBI hard to study in 'limited' capacity.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In trial runs of UBI, the participants know that the trial will end. So if *hypothetically* people would go lazy secure in the knowledge they will have a UBI, this won't prove anything as they won't be that secure in the income.
A negative result would be really discouraging, a positive result would be too ambiguous.
What kind of UBI (Score:2)
There are two flavors of UBI. If the money is enough to live, then employers have to convince workers the jobs are worth it. If it is too low to live, workers must take any job, and employers can pay less because there is UBI, this is just a socialized help for the employers.
At $652, it depends where you live. In some cities, this is clearly the second flavor of UBI.
The 24 Million Dollar Question. (Score:2)
"...This is really about seeing how a basic unconditional income affects the employment of unemployed people."
A dozen countries have decades of statistics from millions of welfare recipients.
You could have found that answer a hell of a lot cheaper than $24 million.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Raised our taxes?
I dunno about YOU, but I'm going to see MORE back on my tax returns.
And I'm not some billionaire.
Re:Trump takes our money. What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Raised our taxes?
I dunno about YOU, but I'm going to see MORE back on my tax returns.
And I'm not some billionaire.
Wait 10 years [wikipedia.org].
The bill made permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary ones for individuals. The reason is that reconciliation (the rule that let them pass the bill with only 51 votes) says the bill can't raise the deficit after 10 years. So at the 10 year mark the corporate tax cut is partially paid for by a tax hike on individuals.
Of course this is fake math since the GOP doesn't actually expect the individual cuts to expire. In 10 years they expect a Democratic administration to be in power, an administration who will be faced with either letting the cuts expire (and getting blamed for raising taxes on the middle class) or renewing the cuts and finding a way to pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The deficit that many are predicting from this tax cut also assumes annual GDP growth of 2%, not the 3%+ we're running right now. Get back to 3% - the average we're used to seeing - and the deficit will come down.
Your assumption is garbage because high debt is certain to bring down GDP growth as an increasing portion of the nation's capital is diverted to debt service. Or in other words, get used to watching China's tailpipes.
Re:Trump takes our money. What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I believe that the 1 Trillion increase to the deficit assumed annual GDP growth of 4%+, which is not going to happen. If growth is lower, then the 1T deficit increase will be far, far worse. In no case will it be lower than 1T; the GOP used every magic number they could getting it that low, and their estimates have been terribly incorrect
My taxes are going down for now, but it's not worth it.
Re:Trump takes our money. What's the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Trump takes our money. What's the difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
Excuse me. If we are running 3% growth right now, why do we need the tax cut?
Re: (Score:2)
10 years, HAH. The tax giveaways to corporations are so extreme that in order to keep under the 1 trillion dollar/10-year limit, the personal tax cuts expire after only 5 years.
Re:DNC Hates middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the reason the individual income tax cut is not permanent is because the DNC voted against it? Had they gotten 9 DNC Senators on board the tax cut for workers would be perm?
Sounds like we need to boot out DNC that hates middle class workers and get the GOP another 9 seats at the least so we can make it perm for us.
Yea, its the GOP that did something for the workers that is evil, while the DNC that shit on us is our friends?
Fuck off.
So your plan is a massive corporate tax cut (without removing any of the corporate deductions) AND an individual tax cut when your country is already running a huge deficit?
When do you plan on paying down that deficit?
(and it's fun how you manage to blame the Democrats for the GOP's awful tax bill)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unsure. I will pay more in taxes because my income will likely go up, that's one factor. But I will not get the same tax breaks I used to. My best guess is that I will pay slightly more, but it'll be small enough that it won't matter. Most charts I see out there show that the larger your itemized deduction, the more likely the taxes will go up, and people taking the standard deduction will benefit the most. I haven't used the standard deduction in years.
That's ok if your deductions are high because y
Re:Trump takes our money. What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
For me, it *should* in the long run be a little better (though my withholding actually increased a shade), at least for the temporary interval.
For single parents and parents of 2 or more kids, unless they know to go rework their withholding, they will probably be blindsided by increased withholding, though they will have big refunds unless they fix that. The old W4s didn't give the companies enough info to accurately set withholding. There is a chance they make an educated guess about exemptions as to whether they are children, but that could lead to another problem.
For folks with any dependent adults in their household that they are not married to, they lose exemptions and no child tax credit to make up for it. If a company mistakenly assumes adult dependents are children and set withholding accordingly, they will be in for a particulary nasty surprise come filing time. Either way, it's a bad tax plan for having an adult dependent.
The biggest problems are:
-It's a shell game with the rates and standard deduction versus exemptions that end up with personal income taxes being about the same, despite all the rhetoric
-All those shenanigans were an excuse to pass a rather gigantic and meangingful corporate tax cut
-Signing up for a reduction of revenue to the tune of 1.5 trillion without any certainty of spending cuts is not exactly a fiscally responsible move. It's making things far worse, and then after making the mess using it as an excuse to go after medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and other 'entitlements', which will *really* hurt the lower class. If they had explicitly put those sorts of spending cuts as part of the tax bill, it wouldn't have passed, which says something about how obviously unpopular such a concept would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and as such, any scenario which should rationally tie the two things together should come together as one bill, rather than passing the very nice sounding bill first, thereby forcing your own hand to do the unpopular thing (and ultimately timing it conveniently around election years, in the hopes that the bad part *looks* like the fault of your opponents).
Tank tax revenue, then come in and say "oh look, we can't afford welfare, well shucks, guess we have to gut it".
Or conversely, "yay, dispersing money
Re: (Score:2)
You may or may not see more back... for the middle class, for a couple of years, some people will see decreased taxes. Some will see increased taxes. However, for sure you will see a tax hike when the cuts disappear (I believe in 8 years). Whereas the tax cuts that benefit the ultra-rich go on forever. Basically it's a cynical way for the politicians to be able to vote for the billiionare benefit w/o taking as much flak.
Interesting you argue to vote Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
For a few years, then your taxes will creep up.
But only if we elect Democrats, since they all voted against the tax bill and all the Republicans voted for it... so Republicans a few years from now would vote to keep the cuts permanent, and obviously Democrats would get rid of the tax cut.
Rare to see an AC on Slashdot argue so clearly why the whole country should vote Republican!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The tax cuts are going away. It's a REPUBLICAN tax plan. They are the ones who drafted it in secret and rammed it thru. YOUR tax cuts are going away. TRUMP's tax cuts are in place forever. Anything else you are thinking is "alternate facts".
Re: Interesting you argue to vote Republican (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it could be changed. Heck, the Constitution can be amended. But as it stands today, the Republicans have passed a gift for the ultra-rich, with some hand waving to fool the peasants. Wouldn't think that would work, but apparently it is.
Re: Interesting you argue to vote Republican (Score:4, Insightful)
The last administration pissed away $10T in 8 years, and that's considered 'irresponsible'.
The current administration puts forth a plan to incur $1.5T over the next 10 years, and they are trying to destroy the economy?
Re: (Score:2)
And... Based on the fact that even fairly simple math is too complicated for you, I can both understand why you are only getting paid $60k year in an IT job, and horrified that you haven't been replaced yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Godwin much? Please point to gas chambers. Your childish statement dishonors those who fought them, those who died, and trivializes the real seriousness of Nazism. Please grow up.
I get MORE back (Score:2)
Re:I can see the 1% is here posting as AC (Score:4, Informative)
Many folks who itemized deductions will pay more. The standard deduction doubles, eclipsing the reason for most people to itemize, and that *sounds* good.
Except if your were a household of three or more, you are giving up exemptions. So before if you could itemize beyond 12k, you would be able to deduct more than 24k, since your itemized deductions combined with your exemptions pushed things over. The doubling of the standardized deductions render those itemized deductions moot. If you took standard anyway, it's a wash if it's 3, and worse if you have more, *deduction* wise.
If your dependents are kids, the doubling of that tax credit is likely to make up for any downsides and then some. If you have adult dependents... well you are screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a married couple with one child. This means one child tax credit, 3 exemptions, and standard deduction of about 12k (formerly).
Let's say you previously could itemize to deduct 14k. So you take that plus your exemptions and you deduct a total of 26k. Child tax credit of 1k on top of that. A family of 4 would have deducted 30k, or 28k if it were the standard deduction.
Now under the new plan, the standard deduction is now 24k, which is well more than the 14k you could have deducted before, so you'
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Troll!
Hello high-numbered poster with an english-as-a-second-language-sounding nick!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Giving people money for not working will not encourage them to work. This is so illogical that it's laughable.
If I don't have to work then I have lots of time to do what I want to do, which is to do retromods and repairs, build drones, crap like that. Lots of people want to produce things, if only they had the time. Lots of people want they crap they want to make, or fix. Our system is dependent on looting and defiling the environment in order to provide people jobs which we say they have to have just because. Capitalism as it is being practiced depends on endless growth, but only amoeba and mushrooms grow endlessl
Re: (Score:3)
Your logical flaw is to assume that the amount of money for working and not working is the same. If those 600something bucks is enough for you, don't go to work. Personally, I couldn't even live a week off that.
And bluntly, if you can't earn more than 600 bucks by working, the problem is that salaries are too low and someone not paying more does not deserve getting employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it isn't the obvious thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't eat, I get desperate. Whole countries have been overthrown by people who had nothing to eat and hence the choice of either starving to death or fighting for food.
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that the income tax on people making more than X can just be increased by the UBI amount. And then it's the same as not paying them UBI, but it saves a lot of paperwork.