Page 1 of 2
#2
This will massively reduce the need for government employees and will save every citizen a lot of time. I like it.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#3
I wonder where that money comes from?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#4
Quote by Arby911
I wonder where that money comes from?

The article says that it will cost the government more money than it actually makes. Also they plan to eliminate most social programs in exchange as well as raising taxes.
#5
Indeed, I reacted before reading that they couldn't actually afford it. That's some fucked up governing. Hello Greece v2.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#6
Quote by WaterGod
The article says that it will cost the government more money than it actually makes. Also they plan to eliminate most social programs in exchange as well as raising taxes.


I know, I read the article. I just wondered if anyone else did, and realized that this "plan" involves sending out more money than the Gov't receives in total.

This isn't a plan, it's a fantasy.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#7
Quote by Arby911
I know, I read the article. I just wondered if anyone else did, and realized that this "plan" involves sending out more money than the Gov't receives in total.

This isn't a plan, it's a fantasy.

I also wondered if this would lead to increased inflation. Wouldn't giving everyone a bunch of money quickly devalue it?
#8
Quote by WaterGod
I also wondered if this would lead to increased inflation. Wouldn't giving everyone a bunch of money quickly devalue it?


If they reduced Gov't services by the same amount or more it would be a wash, but from what I'm reading that's simply not possible.

I'm not sure why you would need to give everyone the stipend? I worked for a company based out of Finland some time back and none of the people I met needed it. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide it to anyone with an income less than a certain threshold? Even if they set the threshold at 50% of the national average income it would still help a lot of people and maybe there would even be money left over to pay Gov't employees and keep the lights on and the rent paid in Gov't buildings.

It appears that someone didn't think this through very well.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#9
I assume it will mean that there will be a massive increase in taxes, which would offset the increase in income for most and leave only the poor with the actual 800. Meaning that the gain would be the reduction in bureaucracy.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#10
It's a bad move considering they can't actually afford it. Also $800 seems like a higher amount than is necessary. People like me who are currently unemployed and living with their parents don't really need that much (not that I'd complain if IDS started offering me double what I currently get!)
I have nothing important to say
#11
Quote by Neo Evil11
I assume it will mean that there will be a massive increase in taxes, which would offset the increase in income for most and leave only the poor with the actual 800. Meaning that the gain would be the reduction in bureaucracy.


I know what you mean, but giving people extra money and then increasing taxes to take it back from some of them doesn't seem to me the most efficient distribution methodology.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#12
Quote by Arby911
I know what you mean, but giving people extra money and then increasing taxes to take it back from some of them doesn't seem to me the most efficient distribution methodology.

I agree. My experience (well maybe my sister's experience) with the benefits side of things has really shown that there is a massive bureaucracy and waste there. They seem to have programs for every single case, and then you have to go there or be on the phone for hours to make sure they did not make any mistakes etc. It seems that the taxation side of things here work better than the giving money away. So I'd still expect a small gain compared to the current situation, but I agree with you that it comes with a massive unnecessary side.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#13
Quote by Neo Evil11
I agree. My experience (well maybe my sister's experience) with the benefits side of things has really shown that there is a massive bureaucracy and waste there. They seem to have programs for every single case, and then you have to go there or be on the phone for hours to make sure they did not make any mistakes etc. It seems that the taxation side of things here work better than the giving money away. So I'd still expect a small gain compared to the current situation, but I agree with you that it comes with a massive unnecessary side.


Careful with that, you'll lose all your lefty cred...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#15
You guys really think they haven't done basic revenue vs expense costs before implementing this plan? Maybe you geniuses should call Finnland and be like "yo, did you know you might not be making enough for how much you'd be paying?" And then they'd be like "OH shit. Yup, you're right. Thaat would be bad. Thanks for the heads up."
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#16
>increase taxes
>eliminate social programs
>give you money


Seems a bit like moving a 5 dollar bill from your left pocket to your right pocket
PM me for newts
#17
Babies are getting $800 a month? That's $800 more than I make, lucky bastards.
Quote by DisarmGoliath
Facesitting is a violation of freedom of speech, because how can you speak when you have an ass covering your face?
#18
Quote by Carnivean
You guys really think they haven't done basic revenue vs expense costs before implementing this plan? Maybe you geniuses should call Finnland and be like "yo, did you know you might not be making enough for how much you'd be paying?" And then they'd be like "OH shit. Yup, you're right. Thaat would be bad. Thanks for the heads up."


I already phoned them, they're aware of it now
My God, it's full of stars!
#19
I would just like to point out that it's not confirmed yet

Personally I already get a comfortable amount of welfare as a student I'm not skilled enough in economics to have an overall opinion on the plan
#20
Will they get rid of subsidized healthcare? I feel like that might fuck over the people who need it the most. Here's your $800 and your $50,000 hospital bill. I'm no economizer and I don't understand how this is supposed to work.
#21
Quote by Carnivean
You guys really think they haven't done basic revenue vs expense costs before implementing this plan? Maybe you geniuses should call Finnland and be like "yo, did you know you might not be making enough for how much you'd be paying?" And then they'd be like "OH shit. Yup, you're right. Thaat would be bad. Thanks for the heads up."


this is the best post you've ever made
#22
Finland has a VAT tax of 24%, so the gov't there is getting money from that. All in all, doesn't sound too different from the Fair Tax that is being batted around in the US.
#23
aw yehh





EDIT: I dont even need extra money but whatever, if it's free why not
Last edited by sam b at Dec 7, 2015,
#24
Will be interesting to see what kind of influence that program could have over here. The LPC has explored the idea of a basic income before. Proposals I've seen from people writing blogs would eliminate EI as part of the expenditure cuts. I could see that backfiring seeing how EI here can insure up to almost 50k$ of income. Without it, relying solely on the basic income, people would actually have to live within their means and put aside an emergency fund in case of long-term unemployment. It's a very reasonable trade-off, but most aren't very good with money so I could see this blow up in their faces.
#26
Quote by Eastwinn
this is the best post you've ever made


What a pleasant backhanded compliment
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#27
Quote by sashki
Will they get rid of subsidized healthcare? I feel like that might fuck over the people who need it the most. Here's your $800 and your $50,000 hospital bill. I'm no economizer and I don't understand how this is supposed to work.

Finland is in the middle of a recession, so this could just be a sneaky way of enacting austerity without people realizing it.
#28
This would make more sense if you only recieced this when having an income under a certain figure.
#29
Quote by WaterGod
Finland is in the middle of a recession, so this could just be a sneaky way of enacting austerity without people realizing it.


Not directly to your point, but I wonder when/why we started referring to living within one's means as "austerity" if it was in relation to a Gov't?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#30
Quote by Zerath
This would make more sense if you only recieced this when having an income under a certain figure.



Isn't that still unfair to the people right above the cutoff?

Say the cutoff is $1200/mo. So if you make $1100/mo. you get another $800, putting you at $1900/mo., where as someone earning $1200/mo. doesn't receive anything.


And then how do you account for people with variable income?
PM me for newts
Last edited by StewieSwan at Dec 7, 2015,
#31
Quote by sashki
Will they get rid of subsidized healthcare? I feel like that might fuck over the people who need it the most. Here's your $800 and your $50,000 hospital bill. I'm no economizer and I don't understand how this is supposed to work.

What subsidized healthcare?
#32
Quote by Zerath
This would make more sense if you only recieced this when having an income under a certain figure.

Yes, they're clearly wasting money on people who don't need 800 a month. It would be better to give it to the unemployed so they can keep their head above while they search for a job. Otherwise this is just financially irresponsible.
#33
Quote by Zerath
This would make more sense if you only recieced this when having an income under a certain figure.


What you're suggesting would create both significant disincentives for work and greater opportunities to cheat the system.
#35
Quote by WaterGod
Yes, they're clearly wasting money on people who don't need 800 a month. It would be better to give it to the unemployed so they can keep their head above while they search for a job. Otherwise this is just financially irresponsible.


I don't see how it's wasting money if it all gets taxed backed above a certain level. It's plain old income redistribution.
#36
Quote by StewieSwan
Isn't that still unfair to the people right above the cutoff?

Say the cutoff is $1200/mo. So if you make $1100/mo. you get another $800, putting you at $1900/mo., where as someone earning $1200/mo. doesn't receive anything.


And then how do you account for people with variable income?


Sliding scale, 1$-1$ for anyone above the threshold. If you make $1500 you get $500 etc.

Now, you may say "well that's not fair either, since the lazy prick making $1200 ends up with the same total amount as the harder worker making $1900, and you might be right. (Except about that lazy/hard worker part, you should be ashamed of that!)

But since I don't think any of it is "fair", as it's all robbing Peter to pay Paul what Paul has done nothing to earn, what's a little more forced equity going to hurt?


As for variable income, fuck them. (By which I mean I don't feel like addressing it right now... )

Quote by Godsmack_IV
I don't see how it's wasting money if it all gets taxed backed above a certain level. It's plain old income redistribution.


It's doubling the bureaucracy required, once to distribute it, and again to recoup it. It's inefficient.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Dec 7, 2015,
#37
Quote by StewieSwan
Isn't that still unfair to the people right above the cutoff?

Say the cutoff is $1200/mo. So if you make $1100/mo. you get another $800, putting you at $1900/mo., where as someone earning $1200/mo. doesn't receive anything.

And then how do you account for people with variable income?


Yeah I guess that would create an incentive to work less so that your paycheck is under the cutoff, which in theory could mean that more jobs are available as more people work less hours. In Practice I don't think it would work though! Still, it is a cool concept if you want to do something that initially might not bring you an income like for example music or any other art.

Quote by WaterGod
Yes, they're clearly wasting money on people who don't need 800 a month. It would be better to give it to the unemployed so they can keep their head above while they search for a job. Otherwise this is just financially irresponsible.


Yes that would be the best option, but at what point is an individual defined as employed if he or she pursues something they want to do in for example the arts, 100 dollars?

Quote by Godsmack_IV
What you're suggesting would create both significant disincentives for work and greater opportunities to cheat the system.


In what regard do you mean by cheating the system?

At best, it would mean a lower unemployment rate, since people will work less hours as they can afford more leisure time, causing firms to have a higher demand for employing additional individuals to cover the hours lost.

At worst, it would mean that people outright disregard working at all, creating a massive understimulation of the whole economy until it breaks.

So it is quite a gamble, but it will be interesting to see the results
#38
Quote by Zerath


Yes that would be the best option, but at what point is an individual defined as employed if he or she pursues something they want to do in for example the arts, 100 dollars?




You're considered unemployed if you are actively looking for a job but haven't found one. If you're not looking for a job then you're not considered part of the labor force and thus are not included in the percentage of unemployed. Currently the US has an unemployment of 5.4% whereas Finland has 10%. Having unemployment at 5% doesn't mean 95% of Americans have jobs, just that 5% are looking and have registered as unemployed.
#39
Kudos to Finland for trying this out. As automation advances, unemployment will become a major issue and the basic income model is inevitable. Let them work out the kinks for the next decade or so...

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#40
Quote by Arby911
It's doubling the bureaucracy required, once to distribute it, and again to recoup it. It's inefficient.


The recouping part already exists. If anything, means testing is wasteful.

Also, in Canada at least, it can be argued that the distribution part already exists via GST rebates.
Last edited by Godsmack_IV at Dec 7, 2015,
Page 1 of 2