5 ms·

> Society has not disintegrated. Obviously not because of this income scheme and not complete disintegration, but Irish society is under extreme strain from ho

> Society has not disintegrated. Obviously not because of this income scheme and not complete disintegration, but Irish society is under extreme strain from housing pressures, rising living costs, and growing polarisation that is tearing at social cohesion. It's frustrating to see funds allocated to this scheme when health, housing, transport, etc are all failing apart.

dgb23 8mo ago
That's a problem with all tax havens. They drastically increase inequality and inflate assets, especially housing and rent.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
  Australia isn’t a tax haven, it’s a tax supermassive black hole. And we have wildly out of control inequality, inflated asset prices, and unaffordable housing, out the wazoo.
BryantD 8mo ago
All true, but let's not lose track of relative costs. The income program provides €33,800,000 a year (2000 participants, €325 a week, 52 weeks in a year). Double that to account for cost of managing the program -- that seems too high to me, but I want to err on the side of caution for this analysis. Some percentage of that money flows right back into the economy, of course. Meanwhile, ignoring windfall corporate taxes, Ireland ran a €7.4 billion deficit in 2025. So the cost of the program, ignoring the money flowing back into the economy, is under half a percentage point of the budget? Those small amounts do add up, but I can't see this as relevant competition to the cost of shoring up health, housing, and transport. I don't have good estimates of how much those costs are, which is why I'm using the deficit as a relevant proxy, but still -- we ought to avoid the trap of seeing numbers which are large to you and me and forgetting that other numbers are larger by orders of magnitude. (There's a term for this which slips my mind.)
- TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
  This program has nothing going for it. That 33 million could have built, let’s say, 66 houses and housed, let’s say, 264 people (66 families of four) for a generation before needing much in the way of maintenance. But no, fuck the working poor, let’s fund artists. Myopic.
  - jmmcd 8mo ago
    You didn't read the article. The scheme gave positive return on investment.
    - closewith 8mo ago
      > It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis. I'd love to see the breakdown on this, because in my experience with Government comms, if it was a straightforward economic win like an FDI or industrial announcement, they'd headline the figure. Unquantified phrases like "reduced reliance on other social welfare payments" are usually spin at best.
      - lbreakjai 8mo ago
        This sentence sounds like "We saved 1000€ on benefits thanks to this 1500€ totally not a benefit payment!"
      - jmmcd 8mo ago
        I understand your point, but in response to GP (they should spend this money on houses for other poor people instead), the reduced reliance on other social welfare is totally legitimate to count.
        closewith 8mo ago
        I agree, but another commenter linked the cost-benefit analysis and it really is creative accounting to get to a positive net social return. The net fiscal cost after accounting for increase tax revenue and social protection savings was €72 MM. This was then offset to get to a positive net social gain by €80 MM in "wellbeing gains", as measured by a single survey question called the WELLBY test: > “Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, where 0 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied"? The €80 MM in "wellbeing gains", which is the sole decider of whether this pilot was a net positive or a huge net negative to society, is because on average, the 2,000 pilot scheme participants had a very approximate 0.7–1.1 increase in score when asked the above question during the pilot as compared to before the pilot. Each 1 point was deemed to be worth €15,340.
nilamo 8mo ago
Why fix one problem, when another problem also exists?
- closewith 8mo ago
  Classic false dilemma. You're trying to frame my comment as “we can only ever fix one problem” when it is, in fact, “we have constrained resources and urgent systemic failures and so prioritisation is important”. For example, Budget 2026 did not address the €307 million structural shortfall in university funding. Is basic income for artists a better allocation than third-level education? Or capital expenditure on cancer care? Or NAS opex? I specifically disagree with this allocation of funds as we live in country filled with specific solvable structural and life-limiting problems that should be solved before artist wellbeing.

dgb23 8mo ago

That's a problem with all tax havens. They drastically increase inequality and inflate assets, especially housing and rent.

TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
Australia isn’t a tax haven, it’s a tax supermassive black hole. And we have wildly out of control inequality, inflated asset prices, and unaffordable housing, out the wazoo.

BryantD 8mo ago

All true, but let's not lose track of relative costs. The income program provides €33,800,000 a year (2000 participants, €325 a week, 52 weeks in a year). Double that to account for cost of managing the program -- that seems too high to me, but I want to err on the side of caution for this analysis. Some percentage of that money flows right back into the economy, of course. Meanwhile, ignoring windfall corporate taxes, Ireland ran a €7.4 billion deficit in 2025. So the cost of the program, ignoring the money flowing back into the economy, is under half a percentage point of the budget? Those small amounts do add up, but I can't see this as relevant competition to the cost of shoring up health, housing, and transport. I don't have good estimates of how much those costs are, which is why I'm using the deficit as a relevant proxy, but still -- we ought to avoid the trap of seeing numbers which are large to you and me and forgetting that other numbers are larger by orders of magnitude. (There's a term for this which slips my mind.)

TheSpiceIsLife 8mo ago
This program has nothing going for it. That 33 million could have built, let’s say, 66 houses and housed, let’s say, 264 people (66 families of four) for a generation before needing much in the way of maintenance. But no, fuck the working poor, let’s fund artists. Myopic.
- jmmcd 8mo ago
  You didn't read the article. The scheme gave positive return on investment.
  - closewith 8mo ago
    > It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis. I'd love to see the breakdown on this, because in my experience with Government comms, if it was a straightforward economic win like an FDI or industrial announcement, they'd headline the figure. Unquantified phrases like "reduced reliance on other social welfare payments" are usually spin at best.
    - lbreakjai 8mo ago
      This sentence sounds like "We saved 1000€ on benefits thanks to this 1500€ totally not a benefit payment!"
    - jmmcd 8mo ago
      I understand your point, but in response to GP (they should spend this money on houses for other poor people instead), the reduced reliance on other social welfare is totally legitimate to count.
      - closewith 8mo ago
        I agree, but another commenter linked the cost-benefit analysis and it really is creative accounting to get to a positive net social return. The net fiscal cost after accounting for increase tax revenue and social protection savings was €72 MM. This was then offset to get to a positive net social gain by €80 MM in "wellbeing gains", as measured by a single survey question called the WELLBY test: > “Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, where 0 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied"? The €80 MM in "wellbeing gains", which is the sole decider of whether this pilot was a net positive or a huge net negative to society, is because on average, the 2,000 pilot scheme participants had a very approximate 0.7–1.1 increase in score when asked the above question during the pilot as compared to before the pilot. Each 1 point was deemed to be worth €15,340.

nilamo 8mo ago

Why fix one problem, when another problem also exists?

closewith 8mo ago
Classic false dilemma. You're trying to frame my comment as “we can only ever fix one problem” when it is, in fact, “we have constrained resources and urgent systemic failures and so prioritisation is important”. For example, Budget 2026 did not address the €307 million structural shortfall in university funding. Is basic income for artists a better allocation than third-level education? Or capital expenditure on cancer care? Or NAS opex? I specifically disagree with this allocation of funds as we live in country filled with specific solvable structural and life-limiting problems that should be solved before artist wellbeing.