16 ms·

Finland Is Considering Testing Giving Every Citizen €800 per Month

• duncan_bayne 11y ago
  "Because this time, incentives won't play out the way they have every time variations on this experiment have been tried throughout history" or "Let's make earning a living optional, and funded by the productive members of society, and see how that pans out". I'll grant you it'll be easier and cheaper to implement than other versions of a taxpayer funded welfare state, but I imagine the outcomes will be the same, and the (im)morality is no different.
  • AndrewDucker 11y ago
    Yes, it should play the same way that basic income has worked in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME i.e. it shouldn't reduce work, except in kids staying in school longer and women taking longer time off to look after babies.
    • duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Are you reading the same article as me? "The results showed an impact on labor markets"
      • AndrewDucker 11y ago
        Yes. And if you read to the end of that section, you (a) discover that the changes were minimal "working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women" and (b) discover that the reason was "Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education" Which is how I described it in my comment.
        • duncan_bayne 11y ago
          It clearly did reduce work, and the article spells out how. You're just okay with the reasons for that reduction, which is quite a different thing to claiming there was no reduction.
          • ende 11y ago
            A reduction in working hours does not equate to a reduction in productivity. We should be striving to minimize time spent working while maximizing productivity as a basic goal of capitalistic society. Also this old argument about reduced work incentives is becoming increasingly invalid as an expansion in permanent structural unemployment due to automation, hyperefficiency, and globalized labor markets is spelling the end of industrial labor to begin with. Meaning that there simply are not enough jobs to go around, regardless of incentive. It's one thing to chalk unemployment up to laziness in an era of abundant opportunity, it's quite another in a post-industrial era of labor scarcity.
            • VLM 11y ago
              I've never seen a better post for the old quote about the future already being here, just unevenly distributed. Web frontend devs with ivy degrees living in SV don't have much permanent structural unemployment, well at least until they get older. Its a bit more of a current issue for the other 7.3 billion people in the world.
            • Natsu 11y ago
              I hope you're right. I fear you're wrong. I used to work in a job that I don't think was very amenable to automation. It was a terrible job and I don't miss it one bit. I doubt anyone would want to work it if they didn't actually need money. Sure, maybe we can live without windows or something, I just don't know how many such products there are. Money isn't everything, after all--there has to be something you can actually buy with that money. And if nobody or almost nobody is willing to make those things any more, what then? That's the part that scares me. I'm sure we can print enough money for everyone. I'm not sure how much of anything there will be to buy with it. And all the arguments for this are "it's the right thing to do" rather than "we know we can make this work because..."
      • abandonliberty 11y ago
        Perhaps you could reflect upon why you allowed this subject to deprive you of basic logic skills and make you rather confrontational. Andrew highlighted the areas where the policy had an effect on work. I would suggest that if you cannot dispassionately handle simple logic in a non inflammatory comment that your views may be rather clouded.
        • beat 11y ago
          That's really meta.
        • duncan_bayne 11y ago
          Leaving aside the fact that his summary was entirely at odds with the facts in the article (which he later mentioned) - yes, this topic does get my blood boiling. I think that compulsory taxation is as wrong in principle as slavery, and that socialism and the welfare state risk destroying society in the long run. They certainly have destroyed subsets of society already. It really surprises and dismays me to find so much support for such a socialist idea on HN, too, which is usually relatively supportive of capitalism. My inner cynic wonders if it's because people would like to cash in on such an idea on the way to Ramen profitability.
  • irremediable 11y ago
    To my knowledge, what you've said is just as incorrect as what the parties you oppose said. There haven't actually been that many studies, all considered, and the studies there have been weren't conclusive. I think Finland would be better off testing the idea (e.g. in a single city, eligible population fixed at the start) before committing to it. There would doubtless be problems with the test, but it would give a better idea of what to expect.
    • kiiski 11y ago
      The article didn't mention it, but my understanding is Kela is planning to do a pilot phase where they give 550 €/month to a group of people selected by lottery across the nation.
  • bryanlarsen 11y ago
    Given that an apartment in Helsinki costs 900 Euros a month, 800 Euros a month cannot be considered a living.
    • blacksmith_tb 11y ago
      What would an unemployed Finn do currently in that situation? Is their some sort of more generous housing assistance that would be replaced? It seems like the 800 Euro allotment would be enough for 2+ roommates or a couple to afford housing and minimal other expenses.
      • nordify 11y ago
        Housing assistance is up to 80% of rent, up to a maximum of 400 euros per month.
      • cobaltblue 11y ago
        It's a good time to own property in Finland. If I was a landlord there, say I have about 20% vacancy over the year. After this change, I should expect to have a larger pool of applicants because whether they work or not people now have an extra 800 Euros per month that can go directly to a nicer apartment, or at least to one with 2 roommates instead of 4. Joke's on them, though, I just raise my rent cost across the board by 800 Euros per month (probably less as everyone else will want to try and capture this, including other landlords who I'm competing against) and change it around if it's too high until I get back to my acceptable vacancy numbers but with a bigger profit.
        • bmm6o 11y ago
          Poor people having more disposable income means it's a good time to sell things that they want, like food and shelter. Joke's on them!
          • cobaltblue 11y ago
            Indeed food is another thing whose price will rise. Meaning that because the supply pipeline is relatively fixed, when the demand goes up (due to more people with disposable income) things will either sell out more quickly or the price will go up resulting in a drop in demand to match the previous levels but now more money is in the hands of the suppliers. Only if an increased demand looks very sustainable will a company increase its supply output ahead of schedule.
  • RobertoG 11y ago
    "and the (im)morality is no different." Morality is relative, but I don't understand your views on it. If a society is rich enough to give a good life to all their members, is it immoral to do it? What about keeping a big part of the population afraid of how are they going to pay the rent tomorrow so you have cheap and available workers? is that moral? specially when we live in the richest societies of history? People that believe in the overwhelmed goodness of markets should investigate a little more history. For instance: the ten hours bill in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories_Act_1847 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories_Act_1847) and how the "laissez faire" crow of the time opposed to "restrict the working hours of women and young persons (13-18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day" because its immorality.
    • eanzenberg 11y ago
      Which current society is rich enough to give a good life to all of their members?
      • RobertoG 11y ago
        which is not? Do we have the infrastructure (or can we build it) and the knowledge or not?
      • beat 11y ago
        Depends on your definition of "good life", but mine is making sure you don't have to worry about shelter, food, or vital medical care. And every industrialized nation can afford that, easily.
        • duncan_bayne 11y ago
          That's true. So why do we feel the need to coerce people into paying into such systems? The more I investigate it the more I think it's because of the power such systems grant the coercers. Consider the uproar over Zuckerberg having the temerity to spend his money on charity in the way he pleases, instead of the State getting to choose.
  • CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    Another empirical study to counter your first point http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-transformative-potential-of-basic-income-grants/ http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t... Regarding the morality of it, there's a good argument to be had from the position that it's fair compensation for the allocation of property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
  • rifung 11y ago
    I'll upvote you because I think you have a valid opinion, and you shouldn't be downvoted because your opinions differ from others. We need other opinions to have a healthy discussion after all. I just want to say that first of all, you can certainly be productive without generating an income. All the people who contribute to OSS projects are certainly productive despite not being paid to do so for example. Also, the idea that if you don't need to make a living, you will be lazier or less likely to work is actually incorrect, at least according to this: http://economics.mit.edu/files/10861 http://economics.mit.edu/files/10861 I'll be honest in admitting I haven't gotten around to reading it, I've only read the conclusion and intro, so please do correct me if I was wrong. Finally, and this is more personal, I really do believe that most people will do better work if they are not pressured to make a living. For example, if university professors didn't have to earn a living, I imagine they would spend all their time doing research instead of using most of their time now doing administrative tasks. I can't imagine anyone became a professor thinking they wanted to go to meetings; certainly all the people I've met who wanted to become professors did it in spite of the fact they knew they would have to deal with a lot of nonsense because they could not imagine doing anything besides research. How many PhD students in CS end up in industry because the academic environment is awful? I suppose you could argue that by joining industry they are more productive but I'd argue that both are productive, but an individual would be more productive working where their passions align. I think most people here would not be doing what their job requires but instead contribute to OSS, and honestly we probably have better software as a result.
    • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I am in complete agreement that people can be productive and positive to their society without working. My girlfriend and I are both STEM graduates, but if income hadn't stagnated for the last 30 years and my earnings could support the two of us, she would be a housewife in a heartbeat, and it would also greatly benefit my utility, such as gaining an extra 40 minutes a day at minimum from being dropped off at work instead of walking to and from the employee parking lot. The additional time, energy, and mental health could help boost my work performance and increase my chances of raises and promotions. We often wonder what Western society lost when the private sector discovered that feminism was profitable.
• bargl 11y ago
  I'll be interested to see how this plays out because it sounds like the current "welfare" in Finland is similar to that in the states, where getting a job equates to taking a paycut (because you no longer qualify) so why work (which is a constant argument). I like the idea of a system that still has incentives for people to work but doesn't leave them hanging if they can't find a job.
  • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I think consumerism is the incentive to work, even with a basic income. If your state provides you with enough for food, shelter, clothing, and a little discretionary cash, it'll show. The friends who work and can afford nicer houses, tastier food, and newer clothing will notice. So will the people you take on dates. Ultimately, I think people will want to work. It gives them something to do and the money to afford things they want but don't need. If everyone followed Keynes, we would be happy with working ten hours a week to maintain a 1930s standard of living.
    • LunaSea 11y ago
      Although I agree with you I'm not sure how it would play out in practice. I played MMORPGs a long time ago on french speaking servers and the amount of unemployed people playing that game and that had zero incentive or motivation to go work was incredible. Of course this is an example but not everyone want's to be a productive member of society.
      • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        Why should they? I like my work even though I don't like working. I think it's depressing to think that a technologically utopian humanity would insist on work as a requirement to live. From a public policy standpoint, paying people to essentially stay at home and be passive consumers can be quite beneficial. They aren't supporting themselves through crime and they're placated to the degree that they won't want to protest the establishment. And if they want anything more out of life than the basics, they'll have to work for it. Living on welfare alone (even if it's nationally guaranteed) doesn't sound like attractive mate material to me. Exception: could result in poorly handled out of wedlock births. Possible mitigation by increasing benefits to incentivize birth control?
• tosseraccount 11y ago
  This is an old idea. Nixon proposed this for America in 1969: http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%80%99s-moment-sun?page=0,2 http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%...
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    And Thomas Paine long before that https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
    • tosseraccount 11y ago
      Cents must have been more common back then.
• Tiktaalik 11y ago
  This was experimented with in Canada for a period of time in the 70s in Dauphin, Manitoba. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME
  • dghughes 11y ago
    I've read about that before I think it was a good idea but maybe not perfect. These days quite a few people work only to get on EI they use it as income then work under the table for cash. If a guaranteed minimum income were to be the same amount as EI + cash that could work but there is no way to police under the table cash work. One problem I can imagine is in some areas with really low cost of living there may be no incentive to work. You are thinking "But how can someone live on (800 Euros) $1,173 month?". Quite a few people in the countryside of where I live will survive on $5,000 per year that's $416 per month. They get their cheap beer or bootleg beer, bootleg cigarettes or buy it in bulk, grow a garden, fish and hunt. It's a subsistence lifestyle many are used to living.
  • giarc 11y ago
    I believe there was a PlanetMoney podcast about it as well.
• masterponomo 11y ago
  Jossa haen tämän edun?
• dev1n 11y ago
  how about Finland pays people to work instead of this? If you can't find a job, Finland pays you 800 a month to get to work on infrastructure projects. In early Colonial America everyone had to help out in some way, or else they were denied food. I don't know why we never extended that idea.
  • spatulan 11y ago
    Because its morally bankrupt?
    • yummyfajitas 11y ago
      It's morally bankrupt to give people a job?
    • cpursley 11y ago
      And taking someone else's money at gunpoint is not? Taxes ain't voluntary, you know.
      • run4yourlives2 11y ago
        Of course it's voluntary. You are more than welcome to leave the country.
        • cobaltblue 11y ago
          The US still demands my taxes 10 years after I leave the country.
          • cpursley 11y ago
            Minor correction: Not 10 years after you leave, but for 10 years after walking into a US embassy and relinquishing citizenship. Only then, you have the privilege to pay tax to a state you no longer are a citizen of for the next 10 years. For all other US citizens working overseas, you owe uncle sam a tax return every year no matter if it's for 5 years or 50. Only two nations in the world tax their citizens who live abroad. The other one is an African dictatorship.
• simonh 11y ago
  I like the idea of a basic income. It gets rid of the poverty trap and the negative effects seen in the studies so far don't look too bad. I look forward to seing the results of these experiment. If you make a change like this though, I think a lot of other adjustments logically follow. Adjusting the previous benefits and tax system is a no-brainer. The cost has to be funded somehow. Beyond that though, there are a lot of other regulations and laws that would need to be reconsidered. There doesn't seem any sense having a minimum wage for example if you already have a basic income. It would also seem reasonable to relax some job protection legislation to create a more flexible labour market. In the UK if you quit your job you are not entitled to unemployment benefits, but that disadvantage would be gone. It would be easier for workers to go on strike because they'd still get the basic income. I think it would be reasonable in exchange to reduce the costs to employers making redundancies.
  • beat 11y ago
    With a guaranteed income to fall back on, it would be much easier for jobs to rely on market forces for wage-setting, and not need a minimum wage. After all, potential employees would have a better choice.
    • themartorana 11y ago
      True, but you do have to be careful of companies taking advantage of the state - think Walmart in the US and how many of their employees still rely on public assistance. Zero minimum wage had the potential to set up a near zero cost workforce if the minimum wage isn't actually enough to be picky with employment.
      • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        Walmart isn't known for being a great place to work. If people can live at minimum without having to work, Walmart can kiss its artificially cheap workforce goodbye.
        • jeremyt 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• lordnacho 11y ago
  Note there's no marginal disincentive to work. Marginal. You get the money no matter what, so you're not faced with the take-this-job-or-stay-on-benefits problem that often comes with modern welfare systems.
  • _delirium 11y ago
    Yeah, that's the main change here, and I think probably a positive. The Nordic countries already have close to a universalist welfare system, where you're more or less guaranteed an income sufficient to live on. So the change here isn't about whether you should be able to live without working: that's basically already true, and has been for decades. The change is about whether to pay out a basic income unconditionally rather than via the traditional welfare system, which excludes employed people, people with assets, etc. I'm less familiar with the specifics of Finland's system, but in Denmark, if you run out of savings and eligibility for other sources of support (unemployment benefits, etc.), you fall back on a last-line "cash assistance" (kontanthjælp) which is something like $1500/mo, and can be received indefinitely. But you lose it if you get a job, so it can provide a disincentive to work in some cases, especially if your only job options are low-paying ones. Just paying out a basic income unconditionally wouldn't have the same issue, since any employment income would be in addition to the basic income, vs. the current scheme where your job income replaces the cash assistance.
    • fossuser 11y ago
      I feel like a lot of the universal income would be lost to rent increases that seem likely to happen. It's really hard to predict the actual outcome though. Would be an interesting experiment.
      • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        The alternative result could be construction in very cheap housing given the predictable price floor for 100% of the population. If you can be sure your tenants will pay rent then you will want them at your building. The low-medium quality housing stock may suffer as the people on minimum income could be priced out while those who work may want fancier digs.
• PlzSnow 11y ago
  Just to clarify, Finland is NOT going to give every citizen €800 per month. It is NOT going to implementing basic income. People read what they want to read, if it fits their political narrative. A tiny administrative section in Finland is trialling it, but it's only being pushed by a minority left-wing, and it has no chance of being implemented in reality. This story can be filed along with the "Sweden implements 6-hour working day", which was also arrant nonsense.
  • csvan 11y ago
    Shhhhh...you will scare away the clicks, and heaven knows we need clicks!!
  • jsnell 11y ago
    Your statements in the 3rd paragraph are incorrect. There is no ongoing trial, just a plan to have a trial start in about a year. The parameters (e.g. location, the monetary sums, exactly which existing social security mechanisms it replaces) are still undecided. But it seems very unlikely that they'd run the test in just a single location like you're suggesting. It is also not being pushed by a left-wing minority, but by the most conservative government Finland has had in decades (consisting of the conservative party, the centre party and the nationalist party). At least right now the idea appears to have very broad support in the polls, though that could of course change once there's a concrete proposal.
    • maus42 11y ago
      I'd rather say that the support is not uniform. The most left wing party supports unrealistically generous basic income plan, some people in the (right wing) government parties support a much more modest plan (that might actually end up downscaling current system or not) or at least support running this planned test. However, no one has any idea if they have a majority support in the government parties, and there's also opposition to "giving everybody free money", "it will bankrupt the state". I understand that the greens also have their own, different basic income plan. The moderate left wing party (social democrats, in opposition) and the unions oppose all basic income projects; they built the current welfare system.
• jhulla 11y ago
  There is a key component missing from this proposal: what benefits will be cut? As written in the article: "this national basic income would replace all other benefit payments" There are many cases where unequal benefits payments are considered politically, morally and ethically acceptable by the majority of society. E.g. the blind, the handicapped, war veterans, orphans, victims of crime, volunteers... For example in the US, the blind may deduct expenses from their income before taxes that others may not. This is an unequal benefit that we collectively accept. In Finland's proposal, what will happen to benefits for special cases?
• randomname2 11y ago
  Finland has been in a depression for a while. Their GDP is still 6pc below its previous peak. [1] If this is a last desperate ploy to prevent secular stagnation one has to wonder how effective this will be, and how "temporary" - for now this is sold as temporary but the moment it is withdrawn their economy would truly crater. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/12001895/Finlands-depression-is-the-final-indictment-of-Europes-monetary-union.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/12001895/Finlands-depress...
  • raintrees 11y ago
    Thanks for the link. I had read another rendition of this, but it was heavily flavored with hysteria wusing terms like "helicopter money." This looks more like a work-around attempt to correct their economy after major commodities slump, Nokia problems, etc. Being in the Euro camp, they are unable to devalue their currency, as a country might normally choose to do...
• ollifi 11y ago
  This is a good topic to discuss, but terrible article. They are planning on running a test on some basic income schemes[1]. Finland is going through austerity measures and I don't think basic income fits in to current political landscape. [1]http://blogi.kansanelakelaitos.fi/arkisto/2842 http://blogi.kansanelakelaitos.fi/arkisto/2842
  • dang 11y ago
    Ok, we added "testing". "Considering testing giving" is terrible English but amusingly reflective of the contortions headline writers subject stories to.
  • pc86 11y ago
    Should I read into the fact that Google translate has changed to the title to "Klikkausjournalismi eat credibility of journalism?" :)
• t0mk 11y ago
  I will try to comment in E-prime, the sliced bread of HN today :D. In Finland, a welfare state indeed, you can quite easily slack off on the social benefits already. If you take up unemployment insurance, you can basically get 18 months of 70% of your salary after you get fired or quit. The insurance (or union membership) costs around 100 EUR a year. A lot of people I know count on this, or already take advantage of it. I see that as a quite big thing, it must drain a lot of money from somewhere if you think about big companies letting people go by big numbers, plus people in 20s or 30s going for one-year backpacking trips. The 800 EUR probably just makes it more simple for the social system to distribute the benefits. Plus some innovation karma for Finland, yay! edit: I fogot my main point: even though it feels somehow discouraging to pass money to slackers, I still don't mind paying the high taxes - I haven't found any other reason that makes Finland so nice place to live!
• malchow 11y ago
  Milton Friedman was a longtime advocate of a basic income, which in his precise parlance was called a Negative Income Tax. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM) Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points, alas, although it is probably the most humane and effective method of delivering help to the poor. It also has the advantage of getting more people to, you know, actually file tax returns.
  • Florin_Andrei 11y ago
    > Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points What was the rationale? It seems like a leftist issue to me.
    • protomyth 11y ago
      I can imagine that control of how people spent the money (food stamps versus cash) would be a problem in the US. Programs versus direct payment does tend to show up as an issue. Look at the ND gaming compact with the tribes. The casino money can go into social service programs but not direct payments. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how that has gone.
      • r00fus 11y ago
        DOesn't look like you really know why, but you're just asserting I think it's fiscal conservatives who are against it, and many Democrats as well. The "left" doesn't really exist politically in the US.. what you have remaining now is the non-rightists (mostly corporatist Dems).
        • protomyth 11y ago
          No, I know why. I spent a bit of time in the 90's doing the whole political thing. Programs and no-direct money were very important to the left (for the US definition). The right has its own issues with the concept of a lot of the programs.
• pjlegato 11y ago
  The institution of a basic income was a primary factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire. Once people grew accustomed to it, they supported any politician who increased it, regardless of any other factors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae "Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." -Juvenal
  • protomyth 11y ago
    It would probably be politically untenable to have your voting rights tied to if you are taking the money or not. A modern version of land owners getting to vote and no others.
  • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    On top of that being an irresponsibly reductionist approach to the downfall of an enormous pre-industrial empire that not only had to defend vast borders but also deal with the economic crippling of having its olive groves in North Africa torched (which take 5 years to bear fruit and were among the biggest sources of Roman revenue), your comment seems to ignore the nature of technology in society today. Advances like self-driving cars could ultimately put entire human industries like trucking and the many towns that support them out of business, even if it makes things much cheaper. Ditto for, say, 3D printing. Would all those unemployed truck drivers and factory workers (not to mention their hairdressers, store clerks, prostitutes, etc.) cause no disruption to society? It is sometimes cheaper to placate people than to let them suffer.
  • dibujante 11y ago
    Ah, yes and no. First you need to ask the question: "why was a basic income instituted?" It was instituted to buy votes, of course. But why were people's votes for sale so cheaply? During Rome's ascendancy, the citizen-soldier institution sent hundreds of thousands of Roman men out into the world on military campaigns. As their successes grew, so did their terms of military service. In turn, this lead to the collapse of the farms that these men used to work in order to provide for themselves and their family. These farms were purchased by the patrician class, and worked by slaves. Within a few generations, wealth inequality in Rome was so bad that most of the households that had previously been small landholders were reduced to urban poverty. Some Roman politicians did attempt to address this stifling inequality (such as the Gracchi brothers). After the Senate repeatedly murdered such "class traitors", the compromise of bread and circuses became the Senatorial (and later, Imperial) solution to the problems that the Senatorial classes had themselves caused. Universal income in Rome was a symptom of a completely dysfunctional society. Rome collapsed because its working classes ceased to work, but its working classes ceased to work because its ruling classes ceased to rule for the benefit of the many. Rome was brought down by its wealthy elite. If modern Western societies really are analogous to Rome (which they probably aren't), then universal income may herald the collapse. However, if it does, then this collapse will have been ultimately precipitated by the aggregation of power in the hands of the wealthy. In any case, pointing the finger at the Roman poor is a historical trend that was conjured by Rome's ruling classes to justify their own positions (think of all the howling about the "welfare poor" by the well-off in North American society today) and later by conservative British historians to justify the lopsided distribution of wealth and power in their own society. Rome's poor built the Roman Empire.
• DHJSH 11y ago
  If you divide the U.S. Annual Budget by the population you get about $4,000 person. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=U.S.+Population+%2F+U.S.+Budget http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=U.S.+Population+%2F+U.S... This means that every American who doesn't pay at least $4,000 in Federal Income Taxes is receiving money from the Government.
• microcolonel 11y ago
  Certainly is refreshing to see a significant reduction in bureaucracy in an EU state. If the public generally supports this, then I guess we'll just have to see how it turns out. I don't think there's much else to say but good luck.
• joshschreuder 11y ago
  What about people who already have a significant income per month? Doesn't it seem wasteful to give them more money each month, rather than say, working on the homeless problem directly with this money, or increasing the amount given, but reducing the scope of people it is given to? Can someone explain the logic here?
  • drdeca 11y ago
    Well, that could be handled as part of taxation? If someone has a very high marginal tax rate, then it would have a very small impact on their income and on govt spending? If it isn't received above some income level, but is received entirely below that income level, then there would be a disincentive of that given amount against going a little bit above that income level. And, maybe that's fine? But if it is why not just incorporate that into taxes? If there is a sharp threshold, it seems like trying to make that threshold as low as possible would be dangerous, because it might cause a personally significant disincentive against working, or getting a job that pays more. But if it was significantly higher than the apparent lowest possible safe value, that would seem unfair for the same reason? So, if instead of a sharp cut-off, there could be a gradual cutoff? That seems pretty similar to the basic income or negative income tax ideas though. But not necessarily identical, just of the same form. ok so if f(x) is the amount of taxes minus the amount of govt income that one must pay (so, negative numbers would be net receiving money from the government) , and x is other income, then, f(0)<0, uh... I forget where I was going with that. d/dx (x-f(x)) > 0 seems reasonable to expect? I suppose it could be <0 at a small area where it wouldn't have much impact, (or have a discontinuity, but same thing basically. ) but I'm not sure what the advantages of having that would be.