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

[Absentglare]

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 ...

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

 

[Lursa]

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

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.

 

[joG]

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

Then you might want to start with the humans living in destitution in countries they really can’t make a livelihood for themselves or their families.

 

[Absentglare]

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.

We don't need "the work product of others", but we ALL need resources to survive, all of us. At the very least, we need land to live on. Land is a resource. We allocate resources with money.

Every human being is born completely incapable of taking care of themselves. Every single one would perish without an investment from others.

So if you think people should "earn" their value with work before they receive anything of value, then you think human civilization should end. This is absurd, and obviously not what you believe.

The investment into human children MUST come from someone else. It has to. That is literally the only way humans will survive: they must be given resources.

 

[Absentglare]

Then you might want to start with the humans living in destitution in countries they really can’t make a livelihood for themselves or their families.

Governance makes one responsible for one's neighbors, but not necessarily for foreigners outside the purview of said governance.

 

[Lursa]

We don't need "the work product of others", but we ALL need resources to survive, all of us. At the very least, we need land to live on. Land is a resource. We allocate resources with money.

Every human being is born completely incapable of taking care of themselves. Every single one would perish without an investment from others.

So if you think people should "earn" their value with work before they receive anything of value, then you think human civilization should end. This is absurd, and obviously not what you believe.

The investment into human children MUST come from someone else. It has to. That is literally the only way humans will survive: they must be given resources.

That is NOT what you wrote:

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

Please dont change the goalposts.

Where would that "income" come from otherwise?

 

[Absentglare]

That is NOT what you wrote:



Please dont change the goalposts.

Where would that "income" come from otherwise?

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.

 

[Lafayette]

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

What is the value of life of anyone below the Poverty Threshold level (with an income of $24K/year on average) versus a Bill Gates?

The same. No different. Each want to live decent lives.

How do you do that on $24K/year. I don't know how, do you ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

Did you ever check out the US experiments in negative taxation?

The program in Finland is working just fine.

And I hope to have further news from the north within the year. The idea WILL CATCH ON and spread.

Before it gets the Italy, however, may take a long, long time. Still, it's inevitable ...

 

[Lursa]

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.

I would be more than happy if we could support all children and the retired in comfort. THe disabled as needed.

Otherwise, I believe all should contribute. And I see no reason why younger people cant work while developing their careers, either in that industry/profession or otherwise.

That's over simplified but that's it. I certainly do see the need for incentives, considering normal human behavior. Motivation is a very good thing IMO. I see only disaster (for those of us that are willing to work) if there is nothing to motivate people.

 

[Lafayette]

You are comparing a tiny nation smaller than Montana with 5.5 million very homogenous people--that's 3 million less than live in New York City alone--with a highly homogeneous population to the USA with its 330 million people, a widely diverse population and terrain, broad distances, and wide variances in cost of living?

Finland vs United States Economy Stats Compared

Put our population and other fixed demographics into Finland, and I doubt they would do any better than we do.

A country is a country is a country. They are all pretty much the same (low, middle and upper classes), with the sole exception of population size.

Believe me, the Finnish "experiment" WILL CATCH ON. As new ideas go, the northern countries are always the front-runners.

It could take another 10/15 years to catch-on in the rest of Europe. I remain nonetheless convinced it WILL HAPPEN universally in Europe.

As for the US, I have my doubts. The US innovates technology very well, but not bold, new social ideas ...

 

[Lafayette]

It will fail.

That's what they said at the inset of the British National Healthcare System, the first in Europe, in 1950 - and yet it is still there humming along. The Brits complain mightily about it (not enough beds), but not a one would give it up ...

 

[Lafayette]

Finland has the population of Minnesota.

So what?

A good idea is a good idea. There is no reason why it cannot alleviate somewhat real poverty. (And they have a poverty-rate a bit more than one third of the US (5.3%).

Americans are smitten by the Glamour of Wealth. The more you have, the more you want.

All useless glitter, or fool's gold - take your pick ...

 

[Lafayette]

Their women are way better looking than ours too. Ever been to Finland?
Clean, low crime, terrible place

Yes, and most all very well educated. Meaning only that the ladies started to obtain university degrees earlier than the rest of Europe.

The Finns do a lot of things right. But, it doesn't stop them from migrating to the sun of southern France. Not as many as the Brits, however ...

 

[Lursa]

A country is a country is a country. They are all pretty much the same (low, middle and upper classes), with the sole exception of population size.

Believe me, the Finnish "experiment" WILL CATCH ON. As new ideas go, the northern countries are always the front-runners.

Totally disagree. On both points.

 

[Lafayette]

Please explain how a test program of 2,000 people in Helsinki somehow proves UBI could work here. That's a rather large leap of logic.

Who needs proof to start a program and see?

Of WHAT exactly are you (plural) afraid ... ?

 

[Lursa]

That's what they said at the inset of the British National Healthcare System, the first in Europe, in 1950 - and yet it is still there humming along. The Brits complain mightily about it (not enough beds), but not a one would give it up ...

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.

 

[countryboy]

Who needs proof to start a program and see?

Of WHAT exactly are you (plural) afraid ... ?

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

 

[Absentglare]

I would be more than happy if we could support all children and the retired in comfort. THe disabled as needed.

Otherwise, I believe all should contribute. And I see no reason why younger people cant work while developing their careers, either in that industry/profession or otherwise.

That's over simplified but that's it. I certainly do see the need for incentives, considering normal human behavior. Motivation is a very good thing IMO. I see only disaster (for those of us that are willing to work) if there is nothing to motivate people.

We have more than enough resources to provide for all of our basic human needs, at least within this country. If we all had food, water, and shelter, our basic needs would be covered, and all work would be voluntary. We could quit or find a new job without having our livelihood leveraged against us.

But i think we all know that that isn't quite enough. We all have desires; internet service, a cell phone, etc. IMO, those are the things we should work for. People are going to be miserable if they're working for dog food. Honey is a better motivator than vinegar.

And we know from psychology that giving people immense wealth doesn't actually make them any more motivated or happier in the long term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

But even if we assume that having money takes away motivation to produce, wouldn't that make pandering to the rich an even more ridiculous proposition?

 

[Lursa]

We have more than enough resources to provide for all of our basic human needs, at least within this country. If we all had food, water, and shelter, our basic needs would be covered, and all work would be voluntary. We could quit or find a new job without having our livelihood leveraged against us.

But i think we all know that that isn't quite enough. We all have desires; internet service, a cell phone, etc. IMO, those are the things we should work for. People are going to be miserable if they're working for dog food. Honey is a better motivator than vinegar.

And we know from psychology that giving people immense wealth doesn't actually make them any more motivated or happier in the long term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

But even if we assume that having money takes away motivation to produce, wouldn't that make pandering to the rich an even more ridiculous proposition?

And we do work for them. But each raise in taxes takes more from my discretionary income.

It happened here in WA St with healthcare. I went without for more than a yr because my rates when up a ridiculous amount for the lowest plan (that offered little) while my hard earned discretionary dollars would have gone to others for their health care. *I* could not spend my own health care dollars on my own health care...they went to others.

As it worked out, I didnt need healthcare during that period and the tax penalty inflicted on me (the FULL tax penalty) was still only about a third of what I would have paid out for health care I never used. It was a risk for sure, but it was just too damn unfair that others would get healthcare with MY $ and I really didnt.

I would never say $ makes people happy...but choices you make in your life can and my lifelong dreams arent cheap. I'm willing to work for them.

 

[rowena]

A day will come when I think a universal basic income will be necessary. We aren't there yet.

Maybe Mark Zuckerberg should start paying all Facebook account users a fee every time they post.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Our population is growing slower than our economy and there is no indication of wage pressures connected to low unemployment rates, so there is nothing economically that suggests the economy doesn't have slack that still needs to be taken up by automation.

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.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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. 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.

You're great at pointing out the problems...but what is the SOLUTION? Got a solution? Meaning, one that will provide steady, good-paying jobs for the people who obviously want to work, but who lost their jobs to automation? And how will you pay for that solution, if you have one?

 

[Greenbeard]

As it worked out, I didnt need healthcare during that period and the tax penalty inflicted on me (the FULL tax penalty) was still only about a third of what I would have paid out for health care I never used. It was a risk for sure, but it was just too damn unfair that others would get healthcare with MY $ and I really didnt.

I don't really care to get into your spending habits, but this is striking. The mandate penalty this year was 2.5%. You're saying you don't value health insurance at 7.5% of your income? Particularly when I believe you've said previously you're out of subsidy range (i.e., income in excess of 400% FPL)? Makes me wonder what chunk of your budget you think health care should take up in the 21st century.

The applicable percentage of income (i.e., people's contribution toward the benchmark silver plan) for people with incomes lower than you--those undeserving subsidy-eligible folks sapping your hard-earned tax dollars--goes up to 9.5% of income. That's people with lower income than you, paying more of their income toward a thing that most people view as an essential, alongside housing and food.

 

[Lursa]

I don't really care to get into your spending habits, but this is striking. The mandate penalty this year was 2.5%. You're saying you don't value health insurance at 7.5% of your income? Particularly when I believe you've said previously you're out of subsidy range (i.e., income in excess of 400% FPL)? Makes me wonder what chunk of your budget you think health care should take up in the 21st century.

The applicable percentage of income (i.e., people's contribution toward the benchmark silver plan) for people with incomes lower than you--those undeserving subsidy-eligible folks sapping your hard-earned tax dollars--goes up to 9.5% of income. That's people with lower income than you, paying more of their income toward a thing that most people view as an essential, alongside housing and food.

Esp since I got almost nothing for my $$. Or would have, if I had gotten it. I would have had to pay alot before I even got to my $6300 deductible.

ANd most people dont view it as essential...many do, but many dont, that's one reason Obamacare failed....esp. young people just took their chances.