Finland considering giving every citizen €800 a month

[dowie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...idering-giving-every-citizen-800-a-month.html

Authorities in Finland are considering giving every citizen a tax-free payout of €800 (£576) each month.

Under proposals being draw up by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela), this national basic income would replace all other benefit payments, and would be paid to all adults regardless of whether or not they receive any other income.

I am quite interested in seeing how well this works - could simplify a lot of things and remove plenty of the faff and general butt hurt surrounding benefits.... no need to worry about disability assessments or whether you've applied for enough jobs or remembered to turn of for meetings... you get the same fixed amount as everyone else, if you want more then you go out and get a job - which you're quite obliviously incentivised to do as you're not going to lose any of your basic income.

Tis unlikely to be introduced over here though - plenty of people on benefits, especially in the south east, would be taking too much of a hit

 

[dowie]

Thats the idea. Plus the massive economic output of having so many more consumers, and placing more power back to the working man by giving them an option not to work in a soul destroying job, forcing wages for rubbish jobs to go up. Universal basic income is a fantastic idea and the future, i'm just sad I wont live to see it.

I'm not sure there would be many more consumers? We already have welfare in this country too - this standardized payment would just simplify the system. Plenty of unemployed people already get this amount. Difference is with a standard payment given to everyone there is a massive incentive to at least do some work.

Its an interesting thought.

I wonder if the cumulative effect of removing disability benefits, shuttting down the job center and other things that would be made redundant by this would make up for the required spend?

I think the idea is for it to not cost any more overall, it certainly makes things efficient.

It would just cause inflation in things like rent.

unlikely - more likely it would cause the opposite effect in some expensive areas in terms of property prices etc..

think about how much we spend on the unemployed at the moment - housing benefit + JSA or ESA or whatever they're claiming can easily exceed 800 EUR a month

there is a clear incentive to work with this national wage system, you also don't get to occupy much needed housing in expensive inner city areas, you don't get rewarded for having extra kids - you can work and earn more or you can go and sit on your ass in some cheap part of the country watching Jeremy Kyle. No bitching about sanctions or people not recognising 'muh condishuns'... you just collect your standard national wage like everyone else and are responsible for your own life.

 

[dowie]

The benefits bill comes to £217bn, so this would be a £150bn rise (baring in mind there would still be an admin cost). Income tax currently raises ~£160bn. While it's an interesting idea, we'd need to vastly increase government income to pay for it. £150bn isn't far off a 25% increase in revenue!

A scheme like this would have to be met with hikes in the higher and top rates of tax that not only removes the value of the citizens income, but goes some way toward funding it for the unemployed and for basic rate payers. We'd also need significant hikes in other taxes - income tax can't come anywhere close to funding a worthwhile citizens income. There's no way this country is going to be in favour of the idea.

you're looking at it the wrong way - it is flawed to assume that everyone is supposed to get an increase from this - as you point out it would need tax changes

you change the tax brackets too so that people in work get roughly the same net income - obviously you'll get some people gaining or losing slightly to some extent but doing a calculation that assumes an increased cost of the value of this benefit per head of the population as you seem to have done there initially is completely flawed... so long as most people aren't worse off from this then it wouldn't be that hard to impliment

 

[dowie]

 

[dowie]

why are you being offered a 'senior' lecturer position while as an undergrad?

surely you'd have a PhD and then a few post doc positions to get through first?

 

[dowie]

putting you on a scholarship? You mean you're getting funded like most PhD students? And having you appointed as a lecturer in your third year?

sounds pretty dubious - I'm assuming this is some form of ex poly and a vocational course rather than a serious research university

 

[dowie]

Lancaster.

this all sounds very fishy - you're not even a third year undergrad student yet are claiming to have been offered a position as a 'senior' lecturer after a PhD you haven't even started and will also start teaching during your third year

while I'm sure some third year students and masters students assist with tutorials etc.. the idea of you being a lecturer while a third year and/or jumping straight into a 'senior' lecturer role immediately after PhD sounds very suspicious

 

[dowie]

ok here is a list of academic staff - everyone with the title 'lecturer' already has a PhD

http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/por...cc9-696fb49506e3)/people.html?filter=academic

yet you're going to be a 'lecturer' in your third year - in which case should we expect to see a 'Mr' whatever your name is appear on there in a year or so?

Also given these people with the job title 'lecturer' have all completed PhDs how can you be confident part way through your undergrad that you're going to be appointed to a 'senior lecturer' job immediately after your PhD, which you haven't even started, when all these other PhD holders are not yet 'senior' lecturers? Especially given that all the other senior lecturers seem to have a fair few publications under their belts going back a few years and you're still taking taught courses.

 

[dowie]

Currently at BF&C, next year at Lancaster.

hang on

where have you been offered the teaching job

senior lecturer at a university is a bit different to teaching at a local college...

 

[dowie]

you're not sure why I'd be confused at someone still studying for their undergrad to be appointed as a lecturer and be given a contract for some senior lecturer job for when they finish a PhD they haven't even started yet? How about the fact it is very unusual and just doesn't seem to make any sense regardless of how gifted you are as a student.

 

[dowie]

fair enough I won't derail the thread further - I was just curious as it sounded very very unusual... still good luck with the PhD, tis nice to have a tenured position lined up for when you finish it