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

graeme104 said:

Honestly pretty much any other plan would be better than this one. The problems with a universal basic income are many. First off, how would the government get the money for it without taxing people who are actually working and producing goods.

Click to expand...

They are getting the money too in Universal Basic Income. Corporations pay taxes and you can implement excise taxes too. The Federal Government already does on gasoline to help finance interstate construction.

Anyways, unless Americans are in fact a country of mentally challenged people, their best and brightest ought be able to figure out a way to finance the thing. I mean... no one is asking any of them to find cures for all the multitudes of cancers afflicting mankind. The damn Inca were able to provide housing and food for everyone, not a singular homeless person, centuries ago. Likewise with the remarkable Jesuit run Reductions for Amerindians in Latin America. And you are telling me the buffoons of modern day America with all their "we have science," and we are "secular" can't do a 10th of what these people did centuries ago?

This would lower production and as a result there would be less food on the shelf and higher prices. Another problem would be manipulation. Some people would prefer to be on the basic income than working in a low paying job and would choose to be a burden rather than a productive citizen.

Click to expand...

Why do you care? A fear you are missing out?

I remember when all those 9-11 families, rich families too, right away started demanding the Federal Government break them bread ($$$) because their mistress, gay lovers, son, cheating husband got killed in a homicide. Poor American families had members getting whacked for eons the Fed's never came running with duffel bags of money for them.

So, the loudest "I'm against this," are the 1st American running up to the front of the line pushing others out of the way to get a baked potato from the Government when their butts are on the line. That opened my eyes and taught me all these people lie. I've never seen people run so fast to the Government in all my life.

But if your argument where true then US needs to pull out of South Korea and from out of Europe and the Middle East, because our welfare is decentivizing these people from taking care of themselves, of their own national security.




Every American is John Wayne, a cowboy, until the Brazil or Mexico they want comes to the USA with a zeal and commitment to snatch their daughter or wife off the road. Then all of a sudden, they aren't cowboys but wan't the welfare system on the local and state police and Federal, the FBI, to ride into the welfare rescue to get their daughter back before they get a second ear of hers in the mail.

So, this is how we going to do this, like Tupac at roughly the 4:10 mark to the end.

Warning: Video Has Profanity.



Warning: Documentary Trailer with Profanity.

YouTube Movies
Published on Apr 13, 2015

In Sao Paulo, kidnapping is an established business - lucrative and hectic. For four years a film crew followed the police department's anti-kidnapping division (DAS), riding along to locate houses holding captives, listening in on phone calls, freeing horrified victims and busting criminals.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

It's not like they have a choice and there's plenty wrong with it.

But as we've found, it's tough to provide inexpensive, quality healthcare. So I dont have an alternative to suggest.

Click to expand...

Fifty-four percent of the Discretionary Budget goes to just the DoD. (See here.)

What do you want, Guns or Butter* (Health Care)?

Stop that DoD WASTE and we've more than enough funds for a National Healthcare System ...

*When I first learned that phrase in Economics 101 we were trying desperately to extract ourselves from a futile war going on in Vietnam. We've learned nothing since. Nothing!!!!

countryboy said:

Exactly. We have to vote for the bill to see what's in it. It's the liberal way. :roll:

Click to expand...

Look, enough of the adle-headed nonsense!

National Healthcare Systems have been running for decades in Europe. And this is the consequence:


One is either blind or an idiot not to see the difference ...

How nice for Finland. :roll:

Lursa said:

It's not like they have a choice and there's plenty wrong with it.

But as we've found, it's tough to provide inexpensive, quality healthcare. So I dont have an alternative to suggest.

Click to expand...

How does Europe do it?

By the National Healthcare System that mandates the costs (of all healthcare services):
*So, there are no GPs as in the US that earn $200K a year (check that average salary at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if you like).
*Pharmaceutical costs are also stipulated by the NHS, so they are much lower here in Europe than in the US.

The US is wedded to private-medicine, which is why each and every one living there is being screwed! Apparently, we, the sheeple, have no idea whatsoever of the rip-off costs of American national healthcare ...

Lursa said:

Totally disagree. On both points.

Click to expand...

(I'll drink to that! ;^)

graeme104 said:

Taxpayers are working in order to pay give him money which he doesn't work for. This is wrong.

Click to expand...

Tax payers are giving much larger sums to farmers to actively despoil the soil of the land by over fertilisation and poisioning with weed killers etc.

Tax payers are generally giving much larger amounts to those on social security.

This is the cheap option and will allow those who don't fit into the corperate structure for whatever reason, often temporary, to find their feet and develope.

Absentglare said:

Sorry, i was not specific. I am debunking the idea that people should be forced to contribute before they are eligible to receive. I am explaining that we all receive long before we are even capable of contributing. So this was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum against the general principle that people need to "earn" resources before they are worthy of them.

In this way, it is obvious that all humans should receive some minimum investment. Do you agree?

Let's move on. I originally used the word income, rather than investment. Actually, i find the two interchangeable in this context. My opinion is that humans continue to contribute value to society. In that way, an income is an investment in their continued contributions. The distinction then becomes what strings to attach to the investment: does it go away at age 25? How much money is sent how often? Etc.

The system we have now is that the parents provide the investment. The government assists the parents through things like tax credits. This is why we have such a lopsided economy, one where wealthy kids almost always succeed and poor kids almost always "fail".

Now, you may notice that i put "earn" in quotes and i put "fail" in quotes.

First, "earn". I say it that way because often the rich aren't contributing in proportion to their income, they're the ones taking income from the rest of us. They're just doing it within the legal framework, and we have a religion-like obsession with capitalism that closes a nice, convenient circle of logic.

Second, "fail". I see the economy as a system of incentives. When we have one person fail to achieve financial success, it might just be that that person was not very good and did not deserve to be rewarded by society. However, when we have a hundred million people sitting close to if not under the poverty line, it is obvious that our system of incentives have failed them. If your production line has a single failure, it might be a fluke. If nearly every product made by the production line has the same failure, something is wrong with the system.

Click to expand...

Every economic system ever devised has had winners and losers. The world needs floor sweepers and doctors.

RetiredUSN said:

Every economic system ever devised has had winners and losers. The world needs floor sweepers and doctors.

Click to expand...

And it significantly harder for someone from a poor background to become a doctor. It inhibits social mobility, which is basically what the American dream is.

countryboy said:

Exactly. We have to vote for the bill to see what's in it. It's the liberal way.

Click to expand...

If ignorance were bliss, you'd be a very happy person ...

Lursa said:

It's not like they have a choice and there's plenty wrong with it.

But as we've found, it's tough to provide inexpensive, quality healthcare. So I dont have an alternative to suggest.

Click to expand...

They do have a choice. It is Privatized Medical Insurance and it is considerably more costly.

None the less, for those who can afford it, it is indeed popular. Why? Their own advertizing states the answer:

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is designed to provide medical treatment and support to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. But while it provides a valuable service, paying for private health insurance offers three key advantages: shorter waiting times, quicker diagnosis and better facilities such as a private room.

Click to expand...

I know many well-off Brits who have such insurance.

Nonetheless, here in this forum, I am not addressing the problems of "those who have", but of "those who have not" ...

Lursa said:

Totally disagree. On both points.

Click to expand...

Great.

But, you should know, here you are in a "debate forum".

One liner responses are useless, and are they ever many around here!

Maybe you'd be happier telling the world (in a one-liner response) that you disagree on a Message Board somewhere ... ?

Absentglare said:

Either human life has value, such that every human should receive an income, or it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I think this kind of shaming tactic would be better directed toward the people who can work, but choose not to and expect others to take care of them.

RetiredUSN said:

Every economic system ever devised has had winners and losers. The world needs floor sweepers and doctors.

Click to expand...

Then you're admitting that their work has value.

Moon said:

I think this kind of shaming tactic would be better directed toward the people who can work, but choose not to and expect others to take care of them.

Click to expand...

Shaming tactic?

There's no shame in honesty.

Lursa said:

If I didnt want "more"....horses and the acreage to keep them, I could easily take a job making half of what I make...a much easier job too. Or just work part time.

So if you want to take even more of my money to give to people that can work but wont...you can forget it.

I work my butt off to earn 'more'. If people dont want 'more,' let them work less but not expect 'more' from me.

Maybe we should look at the people cyclically, habitually, on welfare in this country and see where they land in terms of their 'hobbies,' are they similar to the man in the example in Finland? What, if polled, do you think they would say they would like to contribute to society if they didnt have to work?

Click to expand...

Actually, if correctly structured, the guaranteed minimum income would probably reduce government spending, free employees from inefficient labour in the public sector into the private sector and improve the socioeconomic ootimum of the society.

joG said:

Actually, if correctly structured, the guaranteed minimum income would probably reduce government spending, free employees from inefficient labour in the public sector into the private sector and improve the socioeconomic ootimum of the society.

Click to expand...

So then who's doing the inefficient labor in the public sector?

Glen Contrarian said:

You don't get it. Even as our labor participation rate has become less, our productivity rate has steadily risen. The only possible explanation for that is either working the people many, many more hours...or investing in automation. The answer is the latter.

Click to expand...

Except what you are alleging isn't true. Productivity is starting to fall.

Lursa said:

So then who's doing the inefficient labor in the public sector?

Click to expand...

Well, compared to what would be a question. But regarding a situation of a GMI or Negative Tax you would no longer have all the public employees doing redistributive jobs such as poverty housing management and means testing for programs no longer needed. Compared to the very simple mechanism of redistribution via GMI or NT these persons are inefficiently employed now.

joG said:

Well, compared to what would be a question. But regarding a situation of a GMI or Negative Tax you would no longer have all the public employees doing redistributive jobs such as poverty housing management and means testing for programs no longer needed. Compared to the very simple mechanism of redistribution via GMI or NT these persons are inefficiently employed now.

Click to expand...

You avoided the question. Who would be doing the "inefficient labor?"

Absentglare said:

Shaming tactic?

There's no shame in honesty.

Click to expand...

That's true. You should try it sometime.

backpacker said:

Except what you are alleging isn't true. Productivity is starting to fall.

Click to expand...

1 - you provided no proof.

2 - even if there was a current indication of a downturn of productivity, that's NO indication of a long-term trend since any such measures will show ups and downs. The important measurement is the long-term trend.

Glen Contrarian said:

1 - you provided no proof.

2 - even if there was a current indication of a downturn of productivity, that's NO indication of a long-term trend since any such measures will show ups and downs. The important measurement is the long-term trend.

Click to expand...

I would think that google works for you. Since it apparently doesn't, https://www.google.com/search?q=worker+productivity+declining&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

backpacker said:

I would think that google works for you. Since it apparently doesn't, https://www.google.com/search?q=worker+productivity+declining&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Click to expand...

Mm-hmm:

Lafayette said:

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

Excerpt:

​

We are a nation that feels just giving money away is somehow backward or even useless. People are people, and if they don-wanna-werk, then they wont regardless of the money shoveled at them for free.

Perhaps that's a vestige of two-centuries ago when working had a mystical almost-religious air about it. Most of America was considered a "haven free from religious persecution", which was rampant at the time in Europe. (The16th century.)

Of course, we've evolved (supposedly) since then! We no longer fight over Religion but the one over political persuasion is nonetheless vigorous. At least in breath, and thankfully not in bullets.

Which simply goes to show how, as human beings, we have evolved. We no longer kill one another, but we do turn a blind-eye to the 46 million of our population who live below the Poverty Threshold. Not quite the same as slaughtering people in battle though, is it.

A MIT study of the matter (see here) did come up with the basic facts, however. Which are these:

​

"So, what! That's the way the cookie crumbles" - some will say.

Of course, those who do think in that manner are the ones who are typically earning far better incomes - so why, indeed, should they care that a Basic Income can extend livespans?

They have far more important matters to concern them. Like today's DJ-value ...

Click to expand...

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.