Finland plans to maybe perhaps pay each citizen 800 euros per month in national basic income proposa - Polidicks

[quote=The ABC] Imagine no more social welfare benefits or income support packages. Instead, you receive $1,190 deposited into your bank account, each month, tax-free. Finland is planning to pay all of its citizens, regardless of income levels, 800 euros ($1,187) per month as part of its plan for a national basic income. According to the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) the payment would replace all other benefit packages. It is hoped the plan will decrease unemployment rates, which were at high levels of 8.7 per cent in October. In Finland, taking on low-paid temporary work can leave people worse off due to a decrease in welfare payments, as well as slow reinstatement of benefits once the job is over. If the population of 5.4 million Finns was given 800 euros each every month, it would cost the government 52.2 billion euros a year. The government has projected a 2016 revenue of 49.1 billion euros. While other countries are also looking at implementing a national basic income, Finland has the highest rate of public approval for the plan. About 69 per cent of the Finnish population are in favour of the idea, according to Kela research. Finnish prime minister Juha Sipila has spoken in support of the proposal before, saying: "For me, a basic income means simplifying the social security system." The Dutch city of Utrecht is also planning to trial basic income next year, though the payments would only be for welfare recipients. The parliament in Switzerland voted strongly against a motion for a basic income in September, but a referendum on the issue is planned for next year. [/quote] I think implementing universal basic income is an excellent idea. I'm super interested in seeing how it works out in the real world. [url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-07/finland-proposes-to-pay-each-citizen-800-euros-a-month/7006596]The ABC[/url]

Title's a bit fucked. Interesting proposal, though. I certainly wouldn't mind getting straight up money rather than welfare.

It definitely makes some sense. A lot of welfare systems (in the US in particular) struggle with recipients not wanting to work at all, as low paying wages can lead to them making less money working than they would staying at home. Not to mention the penalties for having both parents present, making it harder for them to raise children than for single mothers in some cases. There are so many little clauses and quirks to such systems that really hurt the actual recipients and replacing them with something this simple could work pretty well.

I like it.

I'm certainly not against it

How does this work actually? If you don't want to work you just live on those 800 euros a month? Lots of people would just do this. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Actually, it should be less for people that own property because 800 euros could cover rent + basic food. If you already have an apartament, you should get less. This makes it less stressful. Also, less homeless people.

[QUOTE=blah2;49264850]How does this work actually? If you don't want to work you just live on those 800 euros a month? Lots of people would just do this.[/QUOTE] Theres not much you could do with just 800 euro.

Hello incoming inflation! Wooooooo

[QUOTE=iAmaNewb;49264861]Theres not much you could do with just 800 euro.[/QUOTE] A couple gets a 20 mp single room apartament (separate kitchen and bathroom) for about 500 600 euros, in a big city. then they use the remaining 1000 - 1100 euros to live off. Then stay at home play videogames, stream on youtube and slowly get cash.

Is it just for unemployers or every citizen? I can't understand very well from the OP

[QUOTE=DogGunn;49264866]Hello incoming inflation! Wooooooo[/QUOTE] That's an old argument and you can read an opinion about it here: [url]https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7[/url]

is "Print Email Facebook Twitter More Finland" in Finland or somewhere else?

on short-term this would be good for me since I'd get more money, but long-term if I can't find a full-time job I'd have less money than in the current system. It would certainly make it more difficult to live in Helsinki where I've lived my entire life. Don't know how to feel about it. Simplifying the system is very much needed though. Right now you might need to carry papers between three different institutions and there's all kinds of overriding clauses and shit no mortal can comprehend. It doesn't feel like the government understands them either considering how many times I've been overpaid and have had to pay back a year later.

[QUOTE=blah2;49264850]How does this work actually? If you don't want to work you just live on those 800 euros a month? Lots of people would just do this. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Actually, it should be less for people that own property because 800 euros could cover rent + basic food. If you already have an apartament, you should get less. This makes it less stressful. Also, less homeless people.[/QUOTE] That seems like that'd make more homeless people since they'd get a home and lose the income to pay for it in a cycle. Also, its a basic income, not some plan to make being unemployed super comfy. This is a good system. Hopefully the EU doesn't flood them with economic immigrants and make it unsustainable.

This is an absolutely awful idea. The proposal cannot be budgeted for without any significant change in receipts. Just the program would cost more than the total projected revenues for the Finnish government next year. Nevermind that even if other programs could be cut back or replaced, the government would still have to pay for many other obligations - salaries of public employees, public healthcare expenses etc. So what that would mean, for the proposal to be revenue neutral, is that the value of the basic income would have to be so small, while taxes would have to be hiked up. If it's income tax that is increased, that creates a disincentive for people to get into employment, because why bother if you'd lose half of your wages, or more, to tax? If it's VAT that is increased or broadened, the 'real benefit' of the basic income is greatly diminished as a unit of currency would buy less. If it's company tax that's increased, it's going to be the same as what would happen with a VAT increase, while also deterring enterprise, investment and minimise retained earnings for re-investment - in things that could create wealth and employment. But hey, free money is cool, right?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;49265118]This is an absolutely awful idea. The proposal cannot be budgeted for without any significant change in receipts. Just the program would cost more than the total projected revenues for the Finnish government next year. Nevermind that even if other programs could be cut back or replaced, the government would still have to pay for many other obligations - salaries of public employees, public healthcare expenses etc. So what that would mean, for the proposal to be revenue neutral, is that the value of the basic income would have to be so small, while taxes would have to be hiked up. If it's income tax that is increased, that creates a disincentive for people to get into employment, because why bother if you'd lose half of your wages, or more, to tax? If it's VAT that is increased or broadened, the 'real benefit' of the basic income is greatly diminished as a unit of currency would buy less. If it's company tax that's increased, it's going to be the same as what would happen with a VAT increase, while also deterring enterprise, investment and minimise retained earnings for re-investment - in things that could create wealth and employment.[/QUOTE] The green party in the UK apparently pushed something similar to this. Here is a guy talking about it (he's not green party and from his other videos/people he associates with he seems pretty conservative) [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkM1KAQkzsU[/url] Seems like a good system. + more money in the consumers hands = more money spent to stimulate the economy = economic benefit

[quote]According to the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) the payment would replace all other benefit packages.[/quote]i'm all for streamlining the rampant bureaucracy like this [quote]In Finland, taking on low-paid temporary work can leave people worse off due to a decrease in welfare payments, as well as slow reinstatement of benefits once the job is over.[/quote]i've had some first hand experience with both of these points and i'm glad they've finally noticed them

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49265132]The green party in the UK apparently pushed something similar to this. Here is a guy talking about it (he's not green party and from his other videos/people he associates with he seems pretty conservative) [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkM1KAQkzsU[/url] Seems like a good system. + more money in the consumers hands = more money spent to stimulate the economy = economic benefit[/QUOTE] Another way to stimulate the economy would be to reduce tax burdens and simplify tax compliance (broader tax bases with fewer exemptions and deductions etc). Both reduced rates and reduced deadweight loss of tax compliance can also have a positive economic effect. I'm not necessarily proposing that for the circumstances in Finland, but there are more-efficient alternatives to 'tax and spend' policies.

[QUOTE=bunguer;49264901]That's an old argument and you can read an opinion about it here: [url]https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7[/url][/QUOTE] I'm glad you correctly called it an opinion. I've seen countless others take it as gospel. That is one person's theory - and they're a person who has dedicated their whole life to spruiking basic incomes. It's an interesting read, but take it with a grain of salt as you would any other similar theory. There are plenty of other economic theories out there that would suggest that introducing a basic incomes would cause inflation on essentials.

Pretty expensive to do actually, its only 52200140000 or fifty-two billion two hundred fourteen million four hundred thousand extra euro a month based on current population.

It'd be awesome if it works as intended, but I worry that it'd cause an increase in prices and a decrease in salaries. The impact on economy would be incredibly extensive. The people planning it however are the experts, not me.

Well at least you'd be future proofing for when we outsource our service and transportation industries to robots.

Going to be interesting to see how it turns out. Might be used as a case study for other countries

[QUOTE=Talishmar;49265295]It'd be awesome if it works as intended, but I worry that it'd cause an increase in prices and a decrease in salaries. The impact on economy would be incredibly extensive. The people planning it however are the experts, not me.[/QUOTE] you could imagine social care payments in the first place would do both already.

Awesome! I sincerely hope it works out!

I haven't really looked into this much but isn't it already kind of like this? If you can't manage the social services will help you and you will in most cases get a basic income temporarily until you can find work and if you can't (usually due to medical reasons) you'll end up on welfare. This seems to just simplify that process. [QUOTE=Teddybeer;49265185]Welfare sponge here, will that plan sounds great and probably is great for the first few months that shit starts to suck hard and fast. Been there, done that, spoke to people that are legally no longer required to find work but still do (and then have a long road of rules to deal with it). Work tends to bring rhythm and social interaction to those that have trouble doing it on their own. This might be a good encouragement so people can do the jobs nobody wants to do because they pay complete shit or provide better elderly care because that shit is a financial drain.[/QUOTE] I'm also a welfare sponge and my experience has been the same. Most people actually want to work.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49265266]Pretty expensive to do actually, its only 52200140000 or fifty-two billion two hundred fourteen million four hundred thousand extra euro a month based on current population.[/QUOTE] The national income would get rid of the other welfare systems (apartment rent assistance, joblessness payouts etc) so I suppose they'd almost cancel eachother out in terms of cost?

How do I move to Finland?

[QUOTE=Orkel;49265449]The national income would get rid of the other welfare systems (apartment rent assistance, joblessness payouts etc) so I suppose they'd almost cancel eachother out in terms of cost?[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it also cut down the costs since it'd require less bureaucracy and time.

These kinds of programs have always sounded odd to me. There's gotta be a tax increase to support it, right? Otherwise the revenue would plummet? I've never seen a program like this explained in detail so I'm probably missing some important facts