SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Basic Income is a subject that regularly surfaces in Soylent discussions, so here's a story about Finland's impending experiment with it:
Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587 US), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.
Olli Kangas from the Finnish government agency KELA, which is responsible for the country's social benefits, said Monday that the two-year trial with the 2,000 randomly picked citizens who receive unemployment benefits kicked off Jan. 1.
Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.
The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 euros per month, according to official data.
Also at The Guardian and swissinfo.ch.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:04PM
The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.
This, all by itself, will doom this experiment to failure. While the State won't pay anymore than it already does, the recipients won't be any better off than they are now. This will have zero net effect. So what's the point?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:24PM
So what's the point?
Savings on the current highly complex bureaucracy for citizens and state at cost <0?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:15PM
Also, freedom. Big brother says I can't have more than two roommates while getting housing assistance and I can't afford community college with my existing one roommate, but if big brother would F off I could have a little frat house here and get my degree in the profitable field of underwater basket weaving so I can later get a job as a barista and get off welfare, times like a million Millennial kids.
There will be problems. A lot of government handouts are based on targeting "lower IQ segments" as beneficiaries while making the application process so incredibly complicated that only "higher IQ segments" can correctly apply when ironically they are likely already successful anyway and are going to be successful no matter if they're helped or not. I've seen this with some government contract handouts and small business administration programs where you can't get the program unless you have a degree and full time job in SBA studies, but if you have a degree and full time job in SBA studies your business will auto-fail, unless you're a regular Einstein in which case your business will likely succeed anyway regardless if it gets help or not (something like you'd get more revenue running your business 20 hours per week rather than interfacing with the SBA for 20 hours per week). Obviously this specific example varies greatly with department, level of govt, and over decades of time.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:07PM
The advantage should be in administrative savings. Since they've decided "We're giving these people this amount of money per month no matter what they do with it", they don't have to assign a bureaucrat to check in and make sure that it's being spent on food and housing rather than vodka and weed. However, since they've also decided "we're going to deduct an identical amount from other benefits these people get", I suspect that it's going to end up being an administrative headache rather than an administrative pain-reliever.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:27AM
Yes, for during the test, there will of course be administrative headache and more byrocracy, but you have to be able to separate the stuff that is caused by the test and what is caused, because the of the system being tested.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:07PM
While the State won't pay anymore than it already does, the recipients won't be any better off than they are now
It might make sense in Finland. TFA says:
Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it.
...which implies that the Finnish system normally requires claimants to account for how they spend their benefits. The UBI payments are no-strings. Also, unlike the benefits they replace, these payments won't be clawed back immediately the claimant takes a job. The main point of the experiment (again, according to TFA) is to see if it is an incentive or disincentive to look for work.
One of the problems with complex means-tested welfare benefits systems - especially the more generous European ones - is that they create "poverty traps" whereby getting a job at best leaves you no better off. At worst - where there are multiple benefits, from different departments or branches of government - coming off benefits can leave people significantly worse off (e.g. you get a job, come off welfare, then find that your kids no longer get free school meals, you have to pay for doctor's prescription, you lose travel concessions etc.)
Really, what UBI means at present is that you scrap virtually all benefits and concessions, replace them with a single, unconditional UBI payment and then gradually reclaim the UBI through the income tax system as people earn more. Tricky to tune correctly, but far easier (and cheaper to administer) than dealing with multiple, interacting benefits.