Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,900
- Location
- Oxon
And state pensions surely?
Finland considering giving every citizen €800 a month
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
And state pensions surely?
Even got a full time job. Friend of mine got caught big time, money laundering charges, proceeds of crime tried to take his house etc. I had to do something. I stand by my stance of not paying tax on something that my government won't legitimise, and even had some experts tell me it's far more trouble than its worth at my previous income, brings more scrutiny than anything else.
Please don't attempt to take the thread off topic by making it about me though. I know you are fond of 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.
I think the idea is for it to not cost any more overall, it certainly makes things efficient.
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.
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! And that's without confronting the reality that a £576/month citizens income would drop any in to poverty because it simply isn't high enough to offset the cost of living in much of the UK.
Tax rises aren't popular in the UK, and we'd need very significant ones in order to make this work. I can't see it being popular TBH.
Last edited:
Always thought this ideas was a nice idea. How you go about implementing it, or if the figures work is another thing altogether. But in principle I can't see anything wrong with it.
For arguments sake EUR800 a month. Don't want to work? That is your income for the rest of your life. Enjoy.
Want to work? Great stuff. EUR800 can be a nice little extra for you.
I don't think it would upset the employment figures either.
For arguments sake EUR800 a month. Don't want to work? That is your income for the rest of your life. Enjoy.
Want to work? Great stuff. EUR800 can be a nice little extra for you.
I don't think it would upset the employment figures either.
it is legitimised and legal. i know quite a few who do it (you need to have it on the books for mortgages etc)
its just i always find it funny how tax evaders are always so keen to spend other peoples money.
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
Last edited:
anyway this scheme is basically a reward for those who already have money for people who actually need benefits this is a massive cut, and would basialy force huge numbers of people onto the street.
the cap which is about 500 a week is claimed to be awful, dropping it to 525 a month would be catastrophic.
the cap which is about 500 a week is claimed to be awful, dropping it to 525 a month would be catastrophic.
That's not what 2 different financial experts have told me, nor is it the recent experiences of a friend. PM me if you would like to discuss it further.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
This sort of system would only work here if you change many socio-economic factors to accommodate it. One of major changes would have to be in housing availability and limits on house ownership. Lower income earners would suddenly be able to afford higher rent prices and the competition for renting/home owning will shoot up since as soon as you turn an adult and have a low paying job, you can afford to move out and live on your own (we are also in a culture which encourages this).
I disagree that this will lead to higher birth rates as the biggest culprits when it comes to having too many children often don't consider the economic impacts or take it to account when it comes down to it.
I think if the government wanted to introduce this system, they would also have to put strict rules in place to control rent prices. Maybe they could implement a system which forces people which own more than one house to have to use a Government operated agency to let it out through them. They take a small fee for management much like current agencies, but the rent prices are kept to a reasonable level to discourage the culture of buying to let for profit. Many People would not be happy but i have little sympathy for those who have more than everyone else yet want to further the gap between them. The system would discourage more people buying to rent out since they wouldn't profit as much from it and would have less control over the renting and management of the property.
The benefits should also be relative to the expenses rather than given to everyone. To avoid tax dodgers, you are required have certain amount of taxable income to get a mortgage and the amount of benefits is relative to the basic living expenses of food/shelter (adjusted slightly by area). It will be harder to claim you live in an expensive area when you don't, due to the government run housing agency. If you paid off your mortgage and now own the house you may receive a slight cut in tax but a reduction in benefits to prevent people from working less and living on benefits (we need to discourage benefit culture by controlling the need for it rather than removing it all together).
Obviously my plan would have many opportunities to work around the controls but i feel it is fairer. Whacking in the Finnish system as is would likely end up making the problems we face in other areas of society like housing/rent/unemployment worse.
I disagree that this will lead to higher birth rates as the biggest culprits when it comes to having too many children often don't consider the economic impacts or take it to account when it comes down to it.
I think if the government wanted to introduce this system, they would also have to put strict rules in place to control rent prices. Maybe they could implement a system which forces people which own more than one house to have to use a Government operated agency to let it out through them. They take a small fee for management much like current agencies, but the rent prices are kept to a reasonable level to discourage the culture of buying to let for profit. Many People would not be happy but i have little sympathy for those who have more than everyone else yet want to further the gap between them. The system would discourage more people buying to rent out since they wouldn't profit as much from it and would have less control over the renting and management of the property.
The benefits should also be relative to the expenses rather than given to everyone. To avoid tax dodgers, you are required have certain amount of taxable income to get a mortgage and the amount of benefits is relative to the basic living expenses of food/shelter (adjusted slightly by area). It will be harder to claim you live in an expensive area when you don't, due to the government run housing agency. If you paid off your mortgage and now own the house you may receive a slight cut in tax but a reduction in benefits to prevent people from working less and living on benefits (we need to discourage benefit culture by controlling the need for it rather than removing it all together).
Obviously my plan would have many opportunities to work around the controls but i feel it is fairer. Whacking in the Finnish system as is would likely end up making the problems we face in other areas of society like housing/rent/unemployment worse.
Last edited:
A flat payout would make a lot of sense and go a long way to simplifying the ridiculous benefits system we have, but giving it to everyone would be pointless. If they change it so it's given to the people who need it, rather than those who currently qualify, then we'd be a lot better off as a nation.
You're right. I wasn't considering that the extra £150bn is being paid out mostly to those who don't need it. £31.7bn of that figure would be paid to higher and top-drawer taxpayers. If a citizens income covers the basic cost of living then there isn't even really any reason to keep the tax-free allowance or to keep the basic rate of income tax so low. Earned income essentially becomes a means to pay for luxuries, and can therefore be taxed at a higher rate.
I still think it's a hard idea to sell though. We're very tax averse in this country - most voters would give more thought to the tax increases than the overall net effect of the changes. I doubt it would be a popular policy, with the papers highlighting the 'obscene' cost and 'ridiculous' tax hikes.
Last edited:
The reality is this.
1. People work to provide their offspring with the best chance going forward - nature doesn't care about the others.
2. Taxation is seen to be artificially simply undoing the effort that people do to propel their own kids forward.
3. Lazy people will simply absorb funding for free.
The only thing is rich people only need the sperm and eggs from other rich people or people with the genetics (usually good looking in trade).
Money is the abstraction of force and power that provided status within a tribe or tribes that existed before economic times.
1. People work to provide their offspring with the best chance going forward - nature doesn't care about the others.
2. Taxation is seen to be artificially simply undoing the effort that people do to propel their own kids forward.
3. Lazy people will simply absorb funding for free.
The only thing is rich people only need the sperm and eggs from other rich people or people with the genetics (usually good looking in trade).
Money is the abstraction of force and power that provided status within a tribe or tribes that existed before economic times.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
This will end with the population of the people with guns/bullets cut in half and the 34% slaving away for them.
Cool pseudo political psych there bro, shame it doesn't stack up with any evidence and therefore, is not reality.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Yeah, but the trouble is over here, is that we're terrified of giving stuff to those that don't deserve it (undeserving poor, Daily Mail articles on unemployed with mobile phones and xboxes etc). Trouble is, we've got lots of groups (tax payers alliance, UKIP, Tories, red Tories etc) saying that no one deserves handouts, so we'll never get to Finland's level of enlightenment.