theadvancedapes It will be very interesting to see this play out. There is so much more theory and opinion surrounding this approach than there is experience.
It says that the Netherlands have been trialling the approach. I wonder if there is preliminary data there? veen -any idea?
Basic income is hot & happening here. Just today, a few big municipalities voted to deregulate social benefits - a move against the newly introduced Participation Law, which introduced more rules and regulations to social benefits. A lot of cities are developing plans for basic income experiments, but I don't think any one of them has started giving money away yet. It's a popular idea here in no small part because the organization that controls and regulates social benefits is so awfully inefficient at getting people to work again.
If we get to a point where people can rely on being able to survive decently independent of gainful employment - no strings attached and no blaming involved - we will quickly begin to see positive changes in society. I'm quite sure about that. Right now I know plenty of people, myself included, who would do a lot more in terms of voluntary or low paying work in critically important sectors (refugee support, caring for the elderly and so on) if they could realistically afford to do so.
Obviously it's all speculation and it's too early to tell yet, but I have a feeling that this will not really benefit the poor people. I saw a comment from Finnish guy (who knows how right/legit he was) and he said if you got a lot of benefits, you will be having less when the new rule is active and I can see how this happens. In Germany you also get a certain amount of money if you're too poor, but on top of that you get unemployment money (if you worked before), you get benefits for school trips for your children, vouchers for school books, they pay you a flat, and much more, and if you add all that up, I don't know if a certain amount will make up for that even if it looks like a lot at first. How to circumvent or even prevent that, I don't know, but I think it might not be the solution we're looking for, maybe it might make the situation for the lower class even worse, depending on what gets cut on the other ends. Only time will tell...
It's probably cheaper than what they already spend on benefits, or the same. and then people can choose to spend it on what they want. Idunno if I think it's a good idea, but that's the logic.
Oh I totally get that. I'm a huge fan of Milton Friedman and this is what he suggested way back in the early 1980s and what instead morphed into the earned income tax credit. I just wonder why you wouldn't means test it, if in case Bloomberg based their calculations off of actual Finnish releases instead of just back of the napkin math, which is not guaranteed. It would add complexity to the system which would cost some money, but if only a minority (say 25%) needed the mincome, then giving it to everyone seems to reduce the funding that would end up being available to those in need. For example if you have 800 available for everyone, and that includes giving to those who do not need it, then why not give fewer people 1000 Euro?
My assumption is to avoid any ambiguity and bureaucracy. The means testing is done on the tax end. So while a wealthier person is getting €800, same as a low income person, the wealthier person is paying more than €800 back to the state while the low income person is paying very little tax.I just wonder why you wouldn't means test it
If this was 50 years ago sure, but we live in an age of computers. These decisions are strictly financial and tax documents easily give you the metrics which compel these decisions. Deciding who receives the money should be pretty straightforward and a small group of people could quickly and efficiently handle an appeals process at a very low overhead cost easily paid for by the savings accrued by not giving people money who don't need it. Either way, this article is false so it doesn't really matter.