Jump to content

Finland and the Basic Income experiment

Recommended Posts

Here’s a helpful article from the bbc, which I thought interesting  - I also watched a video aweek or so back but can’t find the link. The main takeaway I took was that no matter how much money you give someone, they aren’t necessarily going to make decent choices.

 

Finland basic income trial left people 'happier but jobless' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the second article I’ve read today on this topic.

What neither says is what the basic unemployment benefit was/ how much more did they get, and also what other benefits did they get eg the Finnish equivalent of Housing Benefit/Council Tax/child Benefit etc etc. 

Difficult to make a judgment without further info.

(OK -they were happier but that’s not really a basis to change the whole benefits system)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

Incorrect, it is replacing benefit payments to the unemployed, so not ‘everyone’ gets it. The idea is that it provides a minimal income that can be added to by obtaining work.

 

the experiment isn’t new and so far findings are that it does not encourage the unemployed to seek meaningful income to top it up.

The general concept is that everyone gets it though.  It doesn't work if you have to assess whether people are eligible or not, nor is it as described a "basic income".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

The general concept is that everyone gets it though.  It doesn't work if you have to assess whether people are eligible or not, nor is it as described a "basic income".

Correct, which is why the Finnish example is half-hearted. The Dutch did the same thing, calling it a 'low-rule benefit replacement' in a trial in 2017. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

 

Mossway - no need for money trees, just a rebalancing of personal taxation. Most people in the UK already are entitled to a significant amount of 'benefits' that are construed in many meaningless manners. Just simplifying all that and giving every citizen over a certain age a basic income will likely work out cost-equitable.

 

Re. flat tax and 'letting the rich of the hook' - it isn't neo-liberal, it is market liberal. If you are prepared to work your value on the employment market should be recognised. A flat-tax of 30% on any income over 10K means that if you work stacking shelves at Tesco for 18k a year, you come home with £22,600 instead of 18k, at the same time you've paid £5,400 towards universal income.

 

If you work for Microsoft and make 150k a year, you come home with 115k a year and have paid 45k towards universal income, enabling another 4,5 people to receive it.

 

Regardless, taxation is a highly contentious topic and I'll happily admit some see it differently. That doesn't mean I should follow the crowd, or indeed not provide arguments as to why I feel my proposal would be fairer. What I will add is this - we are heading towards a future where salaried work becomes unsustainable, automation will scrap thousands of traditional jobs and it will become increasingly important to have a strong debate on how we respond to that.

At first scan of your description, the way it is worded sounds fine.

But, the person earning £18k at tesco, is actually still in net receipt of £5k ish benefits. That is going to apply to a hell of a lot of people. I can't see there enough £150k earners to cover the millions getting £5-10k basic income.

Plus lots will sit back on the £10k and do no work, or little bits and pieces to top up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, woodview said:

That wasn't obvious from your opinion though. What was the 'spurious' thing you meant when talking about looking for work?

Is the sum paid meant to be enough to live on, then any salary earned is a top up?

So if it was in the UK everyone over 18 would get say £10k per year? So if you did nothing you'd get £10k and if you were on £40k salary, you'd end up with £50k? How does it affect tax for the employed?

Yes, that's the idea.

And in the Finnish experiment I believe that of the participants, if they found work, it made no difference, they continued to receive the sum, if they lost work again, it made no difference.

They WERE unemployed to start with though, which wouldn't normally be a requirement for a basic income.

 

How does it affect the tax?

Well, whilst it might seem expensive in the general concept.  You can adjust tax rates a little higher because now everyone is being given money for free (in your example 10k, so perhaps remove the 10k tax free band and all earned income immediately falls into the 20% bracket).  You can also do away with a huge portion of the DWP.  Reams of bureaucracy that no longer need to exist, no need to assess people for so many different variations of benefits, no need for teams and managers, no need for sanctions and legal departments to fight about them, no need for buildings and offices.  The job centre can refocus on actually finding people work, instead of trying to find fault and cancel payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, woodview said:

 

Plus lots will sit back on the £10k and do no work, or little bits and pieces to top up.

This doesn't seem to be true, not from the Finnish or the Dutch experiment with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ontarian1981 said:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot.

 Above explains what Ontario have been doing about a basic income plan for the past 3 years.

Looks like it's being cancelled.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/02/canadian-basic-income-pilot-cancel-ontario-lawsuit-doug-ford/581890/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, carosio said:

 Yeah, I know that it was only a three year pilot and time was up next month.I expected the new Conservative government to scrap it like all the social programmes that the former Liberal govt. had going. The new Premier Ford is a bit of a tyrant in a lot of people's eyes. He is a hard line right winger, that's for sure.

Edited by Ontarian1981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, that's the idea.

And in the Finnish experiment I believe that of the participants, if they found work, it made no difference, they continued to receive the sum, if they lost work again, it made no difference.

They WERE unemployed to start with though, which wouldn't normally be a requirement for a basic income.

 

How does it affect the tax?

Well, whilst it might seem expensive in the general concept.  You can adjust tax rates a little higher because now everyone is being given money for free (in your example 10k, so perhaps remove the 10k tax free band and all earned income immediately falls into the 20% bracket).  You can also do away with a huge portion of the DWP.  Reams of bureaucracy that no longer need to exist, no need to assess people for so many different variations of benefits, no need for teams and managers, no need for sanctions and legal departments to fight about them, no need for buildings and offices.  The job centre can refocus on actually finding people work, instead of trying to find fault and cancel payments.

I'd be interested to see a calculation done on it.

here's my 30 second one. We spend £160bn on benefits. 55 million adults (a guess) = £3k per annum net each adult average.

So with the basic income model, how does that work in terms of x million unemployed, x million on nmw, and x million on average salary? Would be interesting if anybody has got half an hour and a big fag packet.......

 

 

As a side issue, I think this is going to become interesting as time progresses and we see more and more automation cutting more lower paid jobs (ie the shelf filling example, checkout staff etc) . 

Edited by woodview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 

 
 

 

Edited by Ontarian1981
Post is a duplicate of what is already here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.