Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#91

Post by ForRealsies »

jackvalentine wrote: post #53
snarf21 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the other thing that is weird when you read the article is that it wasn't UBI at all. It only went to people from a set that was unemployed. This "trial" just removed all bureaucracy and removed restrictions on side jobs, etc. I'm not sure what you could learn from this experiment. The things a lot of people want to know is can UBI provide a safety net for the poor and allow people to quit a toxic job without f…

Yup that's my point exactly - it's just less restrictive unemployment benefits. As you said the really interesting stuff from UBI is people quitting shitty jobs (or, working part time at shitty jobs instead of 60 hours a week) and doing something else with their lives.

But you cannot ignore the "less interesting stuff" from UBI. I'm curious in the statistics of long term unemployed who start to do something with their lives that they weren't doing before UBI.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#92

Post by peterwwillis »

fxj wrote: post #60
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #47

Things you need to live: food, dwelling, energy, transportation, healthcare. (And necessary for a thriving economy/government: trade skills, education, military) Self-sustaining would be very plausible on extremely modest amounts of income if the government subsidized the dwelling, energy, transportation, and healthcare. It may be unnecessary for large portions of a nation to work if people produced their own goods a…

I would call food, dwelling, healthcare, communication(internet) the four basic necessities. So why not providing these for free and for the rest, just tax other sources of income by a fixed rate depending on how much is needed to provide the free ones?

For the first two, humans are pretty capable of providing for these themselves. Having the government provide it alone is a single point of failure, and simply adds cost and complexity where it isn't necessary.

Healthcare is definitely something which could benefit from subsidy, considering how advancements in it often require large coordination of R&D, manufacturing, schools/practice, etc. Communication is just not necessary at all to live.

Transportation, energy, and education are also necessary to enable a means of production, trade, and basic self-sufficiency of living. Paying for these individually is not only less efficient, it hampers the ability of the economy to grow by limiting who has the means to contribute to it. If you can't get to work, you can't do work, and you're basically a burden on society. And having to pay for the energy needed to do things like cook your food and heat your home is just another thing which is inefficient, especially considering different parts of a country may have different access to energy resources.

I'm not well read on tax policy so I don't know the best way to fund these ventures, but it would be obvious that one group would need to be taxed heavily while the other was taxed lightly, due to the difference in the use of or contribution to subsidized resources.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#93

Post by tachudda »

matte_black wrote: post #61

Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? A free home, free utilities, free food, a basic vehicle, free clothes, free healthcare? If you’re happy with these things you’re set, if you want more you work for it and acquire money. Seems like this would accomplish the same goals of UBI, but with less risks and impact on the economy, and at some point you can benefit from economies of s…

Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#94

Post by yorwba »

matte_black wrote: post #68
AndrewDucker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people vary. And while you may need a slightly larger vehicle (because of family size) and are therefore willing to spend a bit less on a home, so live further out, others may make the opposite tradeoff. UBI gives people the ability to make the tradeoffs that work for them personally, rather than being stuck in a one-size-fits-all situation.

You do not need UBI for that, you just need a few more options or packages for people to choose from, which would be trivial to provide.

More like one package per person. Of course that's still trivial to provide, as you say. You just give everyone a fixed set of points they can allocate to the options available according to their needs. I propose to call those points "money".

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#95

Post by Uninen »

The article is a bit misleading since AFAIC there are no agreed plans yet on the next steps. The title implies that the project is totally cancelled, but all of the major political parties in Finland are proposing their own solutions for replacing it. Because of upcoming elections, this is a fairly hot topic.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#96

Post by japhyr »

telchar wrote: post #80
whb07 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already large versions of UBI already in place, just by another name. If you take a look at Saudi Arabia and other rich gulf states, there’s essentially large cash transfers to citizenry for just being alive (and of course not revolting). It is of course telling that Saudi Arabia has no sort of industry and the little they produce via Aramco has large swaths of imported experts working for them. Same applie…

Of course that's not just a basic income, that's a full cushy income. A better example with be Alaska which uses ok revenues to give a subsidy to residents of the state.

We get about $1000/year, and the cost of living here is higher than just about any other state. You can't really compare the Alaska PFD to a UBI.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#97

Post by alkonaut »

loceng wrote: post #72
alkonaut wrote: post #40

I can't see how it's theoretically possible to do a small scale experiment with UBI. If not everyone gets it, you can't see the big impact on the economy (what happens with supply/demand/inflation). And if it's with a short horizon, then people still have to plan for life after the UBI experiment. You can't give up the career you are going to need to make a living in 2 years time, just because you get paid a small su…

Also, we can predict a lot of the major impacts something like UBI will have, however part of the plan must be to implement plans and strategy to manage for these - in particular, whenever new money is introduced into a system, many for-profit systems will increase their pricing, which then trickles down into every other system requiring to increase their pricing. There has to be a floor created, and there needs to b…

I think it's also important to remember that the effects would be wildly different between countries with big social safety nets (such as Finland), and countries withouot.

For countries with lots of extensive welfare programs, a small UBI is shifting money from various programs into UBI, thereby removing administrative overhead - rather than "new money".

For example: every parent in sweden gets $160 child allowance ($320 for a single parent), regardless of income, and with no application required. We don't have dental included in the universal health plan - instead there is a subsidy of $70 per person per year. Students get an allowance of nearly $400 a month (allowance, not loans)

And so on and so forth. There are lots of these allowances and subsidies that under a UBI system would just disappear and be part of the UBI in the nordic countries.

That's why I don't see it as such a massive step. First you go to an enormous welfare state, then you change that to a UBI system. It's then less of a leap.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#98

Post by slx26 »

nabc45 wrote: post #83
drdaeman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everybody thinks UBI is a great idea Irrespective of anyone's personal opinion, I'm absolutely sure it's not everybody. And there are valid reasons for this - but every opponent also imagines something different, just as proponents do.

I also don't think it's a good idea at all. It may be a cultural thing but I'm sure most people in my surroundings will stop working and eventually even fall for substance abuse. I can see myself falling for that. Have you even seen how many NEETs are there? That would go over the roof. I think these UBI discussions are monopolised by people who live in a bubble.

I do not disagree, but I think it's also interesting to consider the following: currently there's a lot of suffering caused by poverty. Or by the frustration derived from the need to get/keep a job to avoid poverty. Those economic needs might have some positive effects, but they also push the society in very wrong directions. Also, for many people the reality sucking so much is exactly the reason that leads them to become NEETs, addicts, depressed, indifferent, conformists, etc.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#99

Post by matte_black »

tachudda wrote: post #93
matte_black wrote: post #61

Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? A free home, free utilities, free food, a basic vehicle, free clothes, free healthcare? If you’re happy with these things you’re set, if you want more you work for it and acquire money. Seems like this would accomplish the same goals of UBI, but with less risks and impact on the economy, and at some point you can benefit from economies of s…

Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but o…

To me this is just throwing money at a poverty problem and hoping it will fix itself.

It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living.

A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time.

It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.

Re: Finland is scrapping plans to extend its basic income project

#100

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

magduf wrote: post #89
swebs wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very similar to the FairTax bill that's been proposed since the 90's. Only with FairTax money comes from sales tax rather than income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

"FairTax" doesn't work because sales tax is extremely regressive. Rich people don't spend nearly as much of their income as poor people, and they frequently don't even spend it inside the country. Sales tax just ends up hurting the working class the most.

Quote from page:

>Internet purchases would be taxed, as would retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States (collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection).[53]

Post reply on HN