Finland: Did the basic income experiment work?

[Independent voter]

6 mins

Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.

The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job.

The Finnish government wanted to see if this financial incentive encouraged people to get jobs or start businesses.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-eu...xperiment-work

[NED funded]

Finland is for cucks. Kenya is where its at.

[mojojojo202]

There won't be proper results published till the end of 2020 so it's pretty hard to know at this point in time.

Anecdotal evidence I have seen tends to suggest it has worked reasonably well.

It's biggest hurdle (not just in Finland) still remains ideologically motivated politicians and bureaucrats.

[Iphie]

Depends on who you ask, if you ask me, having been part of the experiment, I felt it worked pretty well.
If you ask opponents of the programme then no, it it didn't work

[ati87]

Basic income experiments like this are faulty as long as the money people get and spend isn't being pumped back to the economy.

Even if the results on a small scale work out the problem lies on a national scale. In the Netherlands we had our national railroad company avoid Dutch taxes by leasing there own wagons back from a Irish subsidiary. Ideally if I buy a train ticket or any product for that matter that money goes from me > company > workers > company > workers > company etc instead of me > company > ?????

I believe we don't need a basic income on a large scale if we could tackle these tax avoidance scheme's. It's not really that hard but governments all over the world don't really want to tackle this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I can already tell you it works, UBI is a great idea, not only will is solve massive poverty, but it will also stave off crime and drug use. What is even better is UBI basically pays for itself, because the basic needs of the most vulnerable being met, only means those resources go back into the very economy it was taken from, in short, even if you were very very greedy and didn't care about the poor, this is a great way to move them out of the way.

Increase property value, and create jobs for those who want to work that earn above the basic UBI. However if you aren't greedy and do care about people this actually helps the most vulnerable get very basic needs and offers them a ramp meaning (no appreciable excuse to not obtaining more) outside of ones own individual effort or merits.

The way we deal with this now doesn't work, you have people competing to do fucking job, that nobody wants, and those with jobs nobody wants bitching and complaining about those that don't work them. Meanwhile poverty in the way of homelessness, lack of food and nutrition in addition to health needs sky rocket.

UBI should be as basic and common sense as conserving natural land and wild life. Because people are part of that environment we all rely on.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Basic income experiments like this are faulty as long as the money people get and spend isn't being pumped back to the economy.

Even if the results on a small scale work out the problem lies on a national scale. In the Netherlands we had our national railroad company avoid Dutch taxes by leasing there own wagons back from a Irish subsidiary. Ideally if I buy a train ticket or any product for that matter that money goes from me > company > workers > company > workers > company etc instead of me > company > ?????

I believe we don't need a basic income on a large scale if we could tackle these tax avoidance scheme's. It's not really that hard but governments all over the world don't really want to tackle this.

I agree with that last part, the problem is, that is as pie in the sky and taxes massive wealth up to 70% it isn't going to happen as long as the interest being served doesn't go to people taking more out than putting more in and that sure as shit is NOT those in poverty.

The reason we spend so much on social services is because a big chunk of that is spent on corporate loopholes and subsidies in other words corporate welfare, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is, whether its one end or another those with are simply NOT paying even a fraction of what they take out, that is the problem.

[Adolecent]

It's biggest hurdle (not just in Finland) still remains ideologically motivated politicians and bureaucrats.

Mega-tax the very rich, and give a basic income to the entire planet. And if the very rich don't comply it's time to bring back the 1789 guillotines.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Especially as automation continues to replace people.

Yep exactly, and there is no going back unless some how the very few can curb the population explosion that is coming. Meaning you could outlaw automation today, and fill every job with a person it still not going to fix the problem.

Which is we have more people and less of the resources being manged and going where they need to go. In fact resources are being squandered so badly it's stifling innovation and industry.

This is why education is so important.

- - - Updated - - -

Mega-tax the very rich, and give a basic income to the entire planet. And if the very rich don't comply it's time to bring back the 1789 guillotines.

Haha the thing is even if you Mega Tax the very rich the Large Chunk aren't going to notice shit. Unless those dollars are actually already being invested.

The best example I can give is what's going on with clean fresh water, which is in my view the MOST important issue in the world right now bar none.

If the supply of fresh water dwindles to only so that a select few can have it, does it really matter how those gained it when determining that yes everybody needs water and fresh water to live.

Taking the water from those that have it like with money to make sure everyone can drink water, is sane, it's logical, There is no counter argument. The public good is more important than individuals right to leverage the suffering on people for profit or more water than they could ever use in a 1000 life time or their family all for the sake of of a flawed idea, that any one person could ever have earned or deserved such a position.

[fothwothe]

The major problem with the scheme comes with the next financial crisis. Then the elite has to find someone to blame for the failure of bankers and they may well choose to demonize "lazy" UBI claimants,-and there will always be a tiny proportion of wasters as there is in every society. As demonization of migrants now is more to do with perception actuality I doubt UBI would survive persistent media attacks.

It is very easy to demonize any large group by pointing at the extremes, you can imagine the headlines "Child Killer Claims UBI is his right!" etc.

It is a good idea but it won't survive the divide and rule tactics of the political elite.

[endersblade]

Finland is for cucks. Kenya is where its at.

- - - Updated - - -

Mega-tax the very rich, and give a basic income to the entire planet. And if the very rich don't comply it's time to bring back the 1789 guillotines.

I've never understood this logic. Let's punish the people that worked their way up to the top to give money to the people at the bottom. Throwing MORE taxes on the 'mega-rich' isn't going to solve much. So much of our current economic structure needs to change so that more people can live above the poverty line, but more taxes is not the answer.

Even if you were super wealthy, would you want to deal with 65% of your income disappearing? Why? Because rent prices are fucking ridiculous, we pay outrageous prices for medical and education...things that the rich generally aren't responsible for. Not EVERY rich person is the CEO of a corp trying to leech all the money they can from you. But you want them to pay for it? How about we fix the problems first before creating more?

[Adolecent]

Throwing MORE taxes on the 'mega-rich' isn't going to solve much. So much of our current economic structure needs to change so that more people can live above the poverty line, but more taxes is not the answer.

BS. Leveling incomes is a proven tactic.

[Gorsameth]

Basic income experiments like this are faulty as long as the money people get and spend isn't being pumped back to the economy.

Even if the results on a small scale work out the problem lies on a national scale. In the Netherlands we had our national railroad company avoid Dutch taxes by leasing there own wagons back from a Irish subsidiary. Ideally if I buy a train ticket or any product for that matter that money goes from me > company > workers > company > workers > company etc instead of me > company > ?????

I believe we don't need a basic income on a large scale if we could tackle these tax avoidance scheme's. It's not really that hard but governments all over the world don't really want to tackle this.

And why are you talking about tax evasion in a topic about UBI? The two are not related.

I've never understood this logic. Let's punish the people that worked their way up to the top to give money to the people at the bottom. Throwing MORE taxes on the 'mega-rich' isn't going to solve much. So much of our current economic structure needs to change so that more people can live above the poverty line, but more taxes is not the answer.

Even if you were super wealthy, would you want to deal with 65% of your income disappearing? Why? Because rent prices are fucking ridiculous, we pay outrageous prices for medical and education...things that the rich generally aren't responsible for. Not EVERY rich person is the CEO of a corp trying to leech all the money they can from you. But you want them to pay for it? How about we fix the problems first before creating more?

US medical costs are a result of lack of regulation. Nothing to do with tax avoidance or basic income.
And since regulations are the work of communist devils its a problem that is unlikely to be solved in the forseeable future.

[Vatrilian]

These are failed rehashed ideas of the communist systems of old. They had universal income in the Soviet Union it failed miserably. This will fail miserably and is an idea when we didn't have historic unemployment and wages were not rising. People rather work for a living than get a hand out.

[Biomega]

I've never understood this logic. Let's punish the people that worked their way up to the top to give money to the people at the bottom. Throwing MORE taxes on the 'mega-rich' isn't going to solve much. So much of our current economic structure needs to change so that more people can live above the poverty line, but more taxes is not the answer.

The logic is that you take more money from those who already have a lot of money, rather than taking that money from those who have little to begin with (assuming you want the same overall tax yield). It's about shifting the burden to those who can carry it better.

While I agree that "more taxes" isn't just the answer to every economic problem, and that low taxes can have a lot of beneficial effects on an economy, I also think that it's not unreasonable to ask those who have more to give more. That's how society works, it's an agreement to share responsibilities and support each other, and those who can do more should do more.

This issue is often the subject of hyperbole in rhetoric, so it's important to be careful what we are talking about. Nobody is saying we should strip the rich of all their possessions. Nobody is saying the rich should all just pay for slackers and moochers. But you can't tell me that if someone has a few billion dollars it's unreasonable that they give a larger portion to society than someone who has a few thousand dollars.

Even if you were super wealthy, would you want to deal with 65% of your income disappearing? Why? Because rent prices are fucking ridiculous, we pay outrageous prices for medical and education...things that the rich generally aren't responsible for. Not EVERY rich person is the CEO of a corp trying to leech all the money they can from you. But you want them to pay for it? How about we fix the problems first before creating more?

I definitely agree that there are a lot of systemic problems present that are not directly related to taxation. However, many of them ARE related to a general mindset that favors the wealthy, directly or indirectly. WHY do you think rents are so high, and medical costs are so ridiculous? Because people want to make more money, and because those that have a lot of money have the means to influence policy to that end. Higher taxes won't solve those problems. Solving those problems is going to be a long, grueling process. And the problem is that you have to pay for things while you go through that process - and taxing the rich is a good way to tackle that. There's some long-term benefit to higher taxes for the rich, too, of course, but I absolutely agree: systemic issues are the most important thing to address if you want to effect long-term change. They are, unfortunately, also a very difficult problem to solve, because those responsible for changing it also have a vested interest in, you know, not doing so.

[sam86]

I believe we don't need a basic income on a large scale if we could tackle these tax avoidance scheme's. It's not really that hard but governments all over the world don't really want to tackle this.

and they never will unless pressured constantly... i'm surprised for being so informant, ur last lines don't show u know why that happens
those big companies can and do manipulate media, they are willing to spend 5 million on media to manipulate ppl to avoid taxes than to pay 5.000001 million as taxes, most ppl are ignorant sheep who will just listen to the easiest media access to them (used to be tv, now social media etc), u just need to feed them false info, and the politicians will do what the big companies want since they also control the votes
the most famous example is facebook ceo, who avoid taxes by paying for a charity organization that has the right to make 'some' profit that has a board of directors whose he is part of (or its leader, can't remember), he is literally paying taxes to himself to profit, yet almost no one gives a f8ck

- - - Updated - - -

US medical costs are a result of lack of regulation. Nothing to do with tax avoidance or basic income.
And since regulations are the work of communist devils its a problem that is unlikely to be solved in the forseeable future.

us medical problem is out of control, there are lot of evidence it is overpriced for manipulation, it is so corrupted that u can smell it even here in egypt, and egypt was nicknamed capital of corruption 2 years ago (venzuella beat us easily now)
in fact for a 1st world country, i'm surprised how corrupted it was (can't call myself expert about it, but did see 2 documentaries regarding it)

[Slybak]

This is a somewhat related analog as it involves direct transfers, but Housing First programs have a very good track record of seriously reducing persistent homelessness and cutting into endemic poverty by *drum roll* giving away housing units to homeless people on a no-strings-attached basis.

The thinking is twofold: First, that it would cost the state less to do that than to maintain it's current course, where homeless people would do things that cost taxpayers a lot of money anyway like commit some petty crime just to get a few nights' stay in the county jail or injury themselves to spend a night in a hospital bed. Second, that once people had a reliable roof over their heads then the other problems associated with endemic poverty would be easier to solve; getting a job was easier, getting medical care was easier, kicking a drug habit was easier, etc.

The largest case study is Utah, where it was implemented on a statewide level with positive results (~90% reduction in chronic homeless in over ten years), but its ability to produce a good ROI is often constrained by how homelessness is defined - i.e. not all homeless people are categorized as "chronically" or "persistently" homeless. But those who do qualify even when more restrictive criteria are used see enormous benefits and there are material cost reductions for goverments.

[cubby]

There won't be proper results published till the end of 2020 so it's pretty hard to know at this point in time.

Anecdotal evidence I have seen tends to suggest it has worked reasonably well.

It's biggest hurdle (not just in Finland) still remains ideologically motivated politicians and bureaucrats.

And that's where it will remain until fully implemented WAY down the road. It's a great idea after most of our workforce has been put out of a job through automation and nano-tech printing. But we've a few HUGE milestones to get through first.

[zorkuus]

Even if you were super wealthy, would you want to deal with 65% of your income disappearing? Why? Because rent prices are fucking ridiculous, we pay outrageous prices for medical and education...things that the rich generally aren't responsible for. Not EVERY rich person is the CEO of a corp trying to leech all the money they can from you. How about we fix the problems first before creating more?

No, but every greedy busineness is run by greedy rich people. They are the problem, they are the ones inflating prices skyhigh.

[kaid]

I am dubious how well any results will be unless it is long term enough for people to feel like it is safe and something they can plan on to see the full repercussions of this change.