A basic income for everyone? Yes, Finland shows it really can work

[Lafayette]

I would agree with the general idea of basic income, after much public discussion and fine-tuning.

But your claim that 'we no longer kill one another' is far removed from reality.

Frankly, yes, I must agree with you. I could have made that statement differently.

My apologies ...

 

[TurtleDude]

Ridiculous.

So, the rest of us all have to work harder in order to pay for guys like the one in the article who wants to make shaman drums to sell. What he doesn't realize is that if his drum sells are not netting him enough to care for his six children, then he needs to make the drums in his spare time and get a day job like the rest of us.

he should have not had 6 kids to start with either. irresponsible breeding causes much of society's problems

 

[Harshaw]

Wow. *IMO* respect is also part of valuing human life and assuming that people require the work product of others in order to survive is disrespectful. Or that automatically taking that work, that effort, that 'sweat of their brow' from people against their will (and it's not always,) is also disrespectful and devalues human life.

What is it called when someone is forced to work against their will for the benefit of someone else?

 

[Mach]

The Finnish plan is not a proposal of new taxes, it's the opposite. It's an experiment they are trialing to use the EXISTING funding, to achieve better outcomes, and potentially to cost taxpayers *less*.

It basically takes the payments from all the myriad of convoluted, fraud-prone, etc., bueracratic systems in place that deal with unemployment, welfare benefits, food stamps, etc., (or whatever the Fin equivalents are), and combines it into one single payment, tied to an individual, if they are unemployed. (It's only going to unemployed in this case, likely due to Right-wingers changing it to be about *jobs*). The idea is to dramatically reduce all the government money spent on managing all those separate systems and enforcement and verification, etc., into one easy to manage payment. Reduce government largess...you'd think the faux-libertarian types would be all over it. After all, it's just a trial of this...it's not some big seismic change anyway.

One payment, more easily managed, it does NOT incentive having lots of babies as TurtleDude is offended at the sub-humans procreating without his approval. He'd be for it in that case? Nah, why bother to read!

It does not "steal more from the rich", or whatever the broken-record libertarian-esque posters claim, this particular trial is taking existing funding and spending it in what they hope will be more efficient for everyone overall.

It's not really a universal income/basic income at all, it's more of an unemployment benefit in this case. They are testing in what is a complex system, to see if they can achieve better outcomes.
You basically list the pros/cons of the current system, and they have proposed a system that in discussing it with sensible people, may have more in the pro-column, and fewer in the con, than the status quo.

It's a trial with just 2000 people (maybe too small), it's a very, very *conservative* investigation into a more efficient government that is designed to promote productive employment.

But here we have the clown car of usual suspects talking nonsense about a proposal they never actually took the time to read. No wonder we have a moron like Trump in office.

 

[Olddemocrat]

Ridiculous.

So, the rest of us all have to work harder in order to pay for guys like the one in the article who wants to make shaman drums to sell. What he doesn't realize is that if his drum sells are not netting him enough to care for his six children, then he needs to make the drums in his spare time and get a day job like the rest of us.

Maybe, maybe not. Would you be opposed to a pilot program which could either validate or invalidate the concept for americans???

 

[HowardBThiname]

Maybe, maybe not. Would you be opposed to a pilot program which could either validate or invalidate the concept for americans???

Yes, I would oppose the program. We already have welfare, rent assistance and food stamp programs for those who don't make a living wage, and those programs are designed to provide the necessities. I would oppose a basic wage program based on the fact that we need to be careful with taxpayer money if we're going to subsidize the poor. While fraud exists, it's less likely to occur with the programs I mentioned, but it's much easier for someone to spend cash( that should go to feed his children) on booze, or some other frivolous thing. When we use taxpayer money, it's our responsibility to ensure that it goes for what it's supposed to go for. Too much room for abuse in a basic income program.

 

[Olddemocrat]

Yes, I would oppose the program. We already have welfare, rent assistance and food stamp programs for those who don't make a living wage, and those programs are designed to provide the necessities. I would oppose a basic wage program based on the fact that we need to be careful with taxpayer money if we're going to subsidize the poor. While fraud exists, it's less likely to occur with the programs I mentioned, but it's much easier for someone to spend cash( that should go to feed his children) on booze, or some other frivolous thing. When we use taxpayer money, it's our responsibility to ensure that it goes for what it's supposed to go for. Too much room for abuse in a basic income program.

And if tried elsewhere and works elsewhere would you still be opposed to a limited trial here???

These people are exchanging the dole with all of its hoops and pitfalls for a significantly smaller amount without the strings etc,

 

[HowardBThiname]

And if tried elsewhere and works elsewhere would you still be opposed to a limited trial here???

These people are exchanging the dole with all of its hoops and pitfalls for a significantly smaller amount without the strings etc,

"Exchanging the dole." That's a curious description. Yes, they are already receiving help from the government, but, from what I can tell, the basic wage would be more, not less. And, the kicker is that we already have a high percentage of folks who can't manage money, so throwing more at them seems fool hardy.

No, I still oppose it. Too much risk. Too great a chance of the money not going where it should go.

And, I don't feel as though it's ethically right to hand one person money while another works two or three jobs for the same amount of money.

What we need is a way to install pride in these people so they strive to make it on their own. The man in the OP has six kids and wants to make shaman drums. That's not acceptable. He needs to find a day job and his drums in his free time. It is not the place of the government to raise his children -- but it's especially not the job of the government to enable him to goof off like that. We all want to be artsy, but we know we need to work.

 

[Olddemocrat]

"Exchanging the dole." That's a curious description. Yes, they are already receiving help from the government, but, from what I can tell, the basic wage would be more, not less. And, the kicker is that we already have a high percentage of folks who can't manage money, so throwing more at them seems fool hardy.

No, I still oppose it. Too much risk. Too great a chance of the money not going where it should go.

And, I don't feel as though it's ethically right to hand one person money while another works two or three jobs for the same amount of money.

I think there is a point being missed. With the Finn, the award was significantly less than the dole, and absent worry and fear of "welfare police", he was free to generate income which probably would be subject to taxes. Looks like a plus on both ends if it works. You see it differently I'm sure.

]