Jump to content

Finland and the Basic Income experiment

Recommended Posts

Can't explain it because you don't want to have to defend it.

9 hours ago, carosio said:

The DWP though do class State Pension as a benefit?

There are many individuals and families who would spend their UBI (in fact any amount) within 2 weeks; what would happen then I do wonder.

Nothing special...

If people aren't capable of budgeting with UBI then they aren't capable now are they and they wouldn't be capable no matter how they get an income.

Share this post


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

Can't explain it because you don't want to have to defend it.

Nothing special...

If people aren't capable of budgeting with UBI then they aren't capable now are they and they wouldn't be capable no matter how they get an income.

Ok, so what happens to them (and their kids presumably) if they do burn through all their money in a week? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Ok, so what happens to them (and their kids presumably) if they do burn through all their money in a week? 

What happens to them now?  How is this a problem related specifically to UBI and not to existing systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

What happens to them now?  How is this a problem related specifically to UBI and not to existing systems?

They cant burn through a months money in a week cos they don't have it. 

 

And if they burn through a weeks money there is only a week to wait for next payment.

Share this post


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

Can't explain it because you don't want to have to defend it.

Nothing special...

If people aren't capable of budgeting with UBI then they aren't capable now are they and they wouldn't be capable no matter how they get an income.

That's true ( example below), but presuming there's no safety net, such as emergency payments or foodbanks, they are up the creek. I am under the impression that the purpose of UBI for low income families was intended to make entities such as loan sharks etc redundant?

 

I know a married elderly couple on state benefits - disability, housing, council tax etc (which makes my state pension look like pocket change), but  7 -10 days before their next payment (no food in the house or credit on the electric meter!)  it's usually spent (bookies, fags, sky) so then they turn to friends, relatives and  loan sharks to tidy them over.

Edited by carosio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loan sharks aren't government run, recommended or endorsed, but the idea is that if people were given sufficient income then they wouldn't NEED to resort to such things.

If people are so incompetent with money that they still blow it all and have no money for food then I'm sure that loan sharks would still be happy to lend to them, since they're predatory and will be able to make money from people in such states.

 

The idea though is that far less people should end up in that situation, which more often than not occurs not through incompetence of budgeting, but through benefits being disrupted, or stopped, due to sanctions or mistakes or having worked 1hr too much last shrove Tuesday.

 

I can't see how your hypothetical elderly couple whose finances you know all about in intimate detail would be any worse off if their various payments were replaced by another payment with a different name.  Can you?

 

So if they wouldn't be worse off, and many many people would be better off, what's the actual objection or problem?

Share this post


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

 

 

So if they wouldn't be worse off, and many many people would be better off, what's the actual objection or problem?

How would many many people be better off? Is this from the admin savings, that could be dished out? Or does it mean the people who are actually working cough up more?

I don't mind paying more tax, for the NHS, education etc but I do if it's just going to be distributed without being on the basis of need.

Edited by woodview

Share this post


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

I can't see how your hypothetical elderly couple whose finances you know all about in intimate detail would be any worse off if their various payments were replaced by another payment with a different name.  Can you?

 

So if they wouldn't be worse off, and many many people would be better off, what's the actual objection or problem?

First, I wish they were hypothetical -  it is a fact that some can be acutely aware of the habits and finances of others, possibly, even amongst the family.

 

Secondly, I suppose I was angling  for a suggestion of whether there could be anything that might exist (for the destitute) beyond that "red line" of the UBI, if all state benefits were withdrawn.

 

Furthermore, there's the question of who could not qualify for UBI, if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that any good accountant can manipulate figures and find loopholes to benefit the client, but there comes a point when one cannot massage the figures further.

 

We know the government both misleads and lies when it is convenient, or as once said being economical with the truth, which is euphemism for blatant lying.

 

We know that officially  the government collect taxes in various form to the sum of  £809bn https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/22/where-does-the-uk-government-get-its-money-and-what-does-it-spend-it-all-on.

AND we know the COUNTY IS IN DEBT, but no one ever ask deeper questions as  the answers suggest the whole banking system is crooked, and decigend to be crooked , to exploit individuals as government alike.   Banks know the cost of everythng and the vale of nothing as the BAKING CHRISIS proves!

The Bank of England released a quarterly bulletin last year, in March, entitled "money creation in the modern economy." It states, clearly, that the private commercial banks have a monopoly over the creation of money.

 

If the money supply was nationalised the government could be the sole issuer of money, provided checks and balances are in place.   The state could create and issue money free of debt in order to finance public services and infrastructure projects.

 

Instead the government has given a private banking cartel the privilege to create money and must borrow from the same banking cartel (through the issuance of gilts), when it could easily create money on its own without needing to go into debt?

 

The BoE is already nationalised. It is accountable to a Parliamentary cross-party committee. that the government would counter the debt with state-issued money free of debt. It would be a countercyclical system so that there would be a constant supply of money in the economy. Money would not be destroyed when it is repaid, as it is the case now. Money would be created at the same rate as private loans are being repaid and credited to the Treasury's account to be issued into the economy debt-free.

 

One of the biggest scams was qualitative easing which was designed specifically to bailout the bankrupt financial system. It was form of debt free money which entered the financial markets but did not benefit the real economy

 

The Joke on people is that central banking cartel / system was set up so that only private banks can create money because they ALONE could charge interest on the money they create.  One is encouraged NEVER to ask the logical question:  Why shouldn’t  the state take on this role so that base money was interest free.  The private banks can issue money out of nothing and lend to the government without debasing the currency, so the next BIG QUESTION IS ….why can't the government do the same? Why won’t the government create money for itself via the central bank?

The Answer is simple: Those financial cartels have influenced political power.

 

So with the BANKING CARTEL being the driving force at the heart of the debt-based monetary system  NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

 

So OUR  GOVERNMENT does not need  to go into debt, and would be able to finance public services without creating a debt.

 

BUT WITH THE BANKING MAFIA in control forcing a debt based interest rated system  on all our governments, we will remain at the mercy of these highly educated, influentially powerful crooks who help shape the laws thus legitimising what any citizen would be put in  prison for.  Just try making a few billion MISELLING  and what happens if you got caught red handed, over and over again,  manipulating  markets,  not forgetting LIBOR!!!   Given a knighthood maybe?

Edited by justinelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, carosio said:

First, I wish they were hypothetical -  it is a fact that some can be acutely aware of the habits and finances of others, possibly, even amongst the family.

 

Secondly, I suppose I was angling  for a suggestion of whether there could be anything that might exist (for the destitute) beyond that "red line" of the UBI, if all state benefits were withdrawn.

 

Furthermore, there's the question of who could not qualify for UBI, if any.

Would there be anything available if they spent their entire UBI in a splurge?  Well no.  Much like there isn't if they waste all the benefits to which they are entitled.  Perhaps for people with problem spending it could be given to them on a weekly rather than monthly basis.  But that won't stop them getting into problem debt.  Short of declaring them wards of the court, there's no much more to do.  Adults have to be responsible for themselves, the state is not a parent.

 

Well, it's entirely theoretical UBI at the moment, so we can create any theoretical criteria we like.  Have to be >18 or >16 and not living with parents for example.  Have to have citizenship or a right to live and work in the UK and be resident for >3 months or 12 months (not sure, don't want to encourage benefits tourism, also don't want to unfairly exclude people).  Etc, etc...

 

I can't see though how converting all benefits to a guaranteed (higher) payment could make anyone worse off.

 

 

Re: Justinelle, what do you think quantitative easing is.  That's the government creating money.

And government debt is not to local banking organisations.  Nor is it problematic.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


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

 

Re: Justinelle, what do you think quantitative easing is.  That's the government creating money.

And government debt is not to local banking organisations.  Nor is it problematic.

We spend £48bn per year servicing the debt. That's about £1600 per year per taxpayer. Not problematic?  Sounds like a new thread topic.

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.