So judging by the math from Bloomberg, they're giving 800 euro a month to everyone regardless of need. Why would you do that? (52B/12/800=5.4 million=population of Finland).
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.