Finland considering giving every citizen €800 a month

[macmodder]

Over tax the super rich and they'll just go elsewhere.

Over tax corporations and they'll just go elsewhere.

It may be true that individuals will go abroad, although I doubt that it's aywhere near the numbers that we're led to believe.

Corporations will not however. They will use whatever tricks their acountants can devise to pay less tax, they will offshore themselves, double dutch etc. But at the end of the day even if the government manages to plug all the loopholes, there is still profit to be made so they will stay and make that profit, even if higher taxation has reduced it by 10%.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Conscript the monetarily handicapped.

While I am against military conscription, enabling a system of public works like we had in the 1860's during the cotton famine certainly warrants looking at as a way of providing work for the unemployed that want to work - with the obvious caveats that the work should be paid at min wage or higher (i.e. none of this working 30hrs for your £73 JSA).

Meaningful work for reasonable wages - full employment should be the goal. Wont happen though, as for capitalism to succeed, it requires a certain level of unemployment.

Originally Posted by NickK View Post
Over tax the super rich and they'll just go elsewhere.

Over tax corporations and they'll just go elsewhere.

Good riddance - there'll be enough non-selfish entrepreneurs to fill the market gap they leave.

 

[marmalade]

Ridiculous unless other state handouts are cut. Finland is having to raze taxes to pay for all the Migrant hordes arriving in the country and Sweden for example is borrowing big to pay for the vast hordes of economic migrants swamping them. Finland's standard of living must diminish as its economy can not sustain its present level of luxuriant ease. One should not forget the economic downturn the country is experiencing:more that 10 per cent of the population out of work and thereto 22.7 per cent of younger people looking for a job. It's wonderful country spent several weeks in the summer exploring from my boat - it would be sad to see thing deteriorate

 

[PMKeates]

Good riddance - there'll be enough non-selfish entrepreneurs to fill the market gap they leave.

Quite a claim!

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Ridiculous unless other state handouts are cut. Finland is having to raze taxes to pay for all the Migrant hordes arriving in the country and Sweden for example is borrowing big to pay for the vast hordes of economic migrants swamping them. Finland's standard of living must diminish as its economy can not sustain its present level of luxuriant ease

Net immigration to Finland was 16k in 2014 and it will be only slightly higher in 2015. Finland, like other developed western nations, requires a certain level of immigration to maintain their GDP, and most of their migrants contribute to their economy, rather than being a burden on it.

Your assertion that immigration is a drain on Finland (or that they have a "horde" of immigrants coming) is false.

Quite a claim!

But correct none the less.

 

[grimm]

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.

A flat payout to people who "qualify" will not get rid of all of the pointless administration that goes on at the moment though. It would have to be given to everyone without there being any qualifying criteria. What you are describing is simply what we have now but with benefit cuts to bring everyone onto the flat rate. We would still need most of the government departments to decide who qualifies and to administer it.

 

[Eurofighter]

Not a good idea. A disabled person who can't work should get more money for example.

 

[shroomz]

Not a good idea. A disabled person who can't work should get more money for example.

Why? If the money is enough to live on, what makes anyone, disabled or otherwise, worth more than anyone else?

 

[Mr Jack]

The benefits bill comes to £217bn, so this would be a £150bn rise (baring in mind there would still be an admin cost).

I would think that a substantial proportion of the pension's bill would need to maintained. Many would take the view that they paid into the system in the expectation of a certain level of income and now have the right to expect the state to pay out to that level. The exact numbers on what that would mean are difficult to determine but I would guess at about £30-£40bn required to maintain pensioner income.

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.

But because the entire of the money spent on a citizen's income is returned to the citizens it's a bit of a misnomer to characterise it as a tax rise.

 

[Mr Jack]

Why? If the money is enough to live on, what makes anyone, disabled or otherwise, worth more than anyone else?

Because the costs of being disabled are higher.

 

[Woden]

Why? If the money is enough to live on, what makes anyone, disabled or otherwise, worth more than anyone else?

Because being disabled makes life more expensive

 

[shroomz]

Because being disabled makes life more expensive

Good point

 

[bloodiedathame]

Good point

Well surely it depends on the severity.

 

[shroomz]

Well surely it depends on the severity.

Which is why one sum fits all wouldn't necessarily work,unless you are ready to say that those who have a higher requirement to survive are worth less because that's what they'd get with a fixed amount. So you try to proportion this subsistence money according to severity and several steps and exceptions later end up right where you started.

 

[estebanrey]

Universal Basic Income is a brilliant idea, but one I don't think everywhere is quite ready for yet. It will have to happen at some point though, unemployment is only going to go up, and there'll reach a point where this is simpler, possible, and logical. In an ideal world, machines produce almost everything we need for a low cost, and we heavily tax the super rich (i.e. the machine owners) to redistribute the wealth, and the cycle of money continues, just in a fairer fashion than before.

Of course it's gonna need a pretty heavy change in society, but I think we're going to see more and more of this over the coming years. Maybe 10, 20, 50, but it'll happen.

People have been saying the same thing ever since the motor engine was invented. It's never happened though, because new types of job/work are invented to replace them.

 

[hurfdurf]

It may be true that individuals will go abroad, although I doubt that it's aywhere near the numbers that we're led to believe.

Corporations will not however. They will use whatever tricks their acountants can devise to pay less tax, they will offshore themselves, double dutch etc. But at the end of the day even if the government manages to plug all the loopholes, there is still profit to be made so they will stay and make that profit, even if higher taxation has reduced it by 10%.

It's already happening

Today's example.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/06/cadburys-owner-paid-no-uk-tax-last-year

They have done exactly what they promised they wouldn't do when they purchased the company.

No one is being held accountable.

 

[estebanrey]

Why? If the money is enough to live on, what makes anyone, disabled or otherwise, worth more than anyone else?

Why is Lord Sugar worth several thousand times more than I do despite us both working?

People with disabilities from birth or from accidents (i.e disabilities that aren't self inflicted) should get all their medical needs financed and then given the average wage as disposable.

Why should someone who has no chance to fulfil their potential be given the same as able-bodied people to can work but choose not to?

 

[shroomz]

Why is Lord Sugar worth several thousand times more than I do despite us both working?

People with disabilities from birth or from accidents (i.e disabilities that aren't self inflicted) should get all their medical needs financed and then given the average wage as disposable.

Why should someone who has no chance to fulfil their potential be given the same as able-bodied people to can work but choose not to?

You haven't read my subsequent posts, have you?

 

[kitch9]

While I am against military conscription, enabling a system of public works like we had in the 1860's during the cotton famine certainly warrants looking at as a way of providing work for the unemployed that want to work - with the obvious caveats that the work should be paid at min wage or higher (i.e. none of this working 30hrs for your £73 JSA).

Meaningful work for reasonable wages - full employment should be the goal. Wont happen though, as for capitalism to succeed, it requires a certain level of unemployment.



Good riddance - there'll be enough non-selfish entrepreneurs to fill the market gap they leave.

You mean the non-selfish entrepreneurs who are willing to financially risk everything getting a business off the ground only to be hammered by tax if it does get off the ground?

Loads of them I imagine.

The lefty delusional rabble never ceases to amaze me.

 

[balky12]

Why is Lord Sugar worth several thousand times more than I do despite us both working?

People with disabilities from birth or from accidents (i.e disabilities that aren't self inflicted) should get all their medical needs financed and then given the average wage as disposable.

Why should someone who has no chance to fulfil their potential be given the same as able-bodied people to can work but choose not to?

None of that makes any sense?

Lord Sugar is worth several thousands more than you because he owns a successful enterprise built on supplying a demand.

Why should disabled people get given 'the average wage' was disposable? Even the average family doesn't have the average wage as disposable?

Disabled people do not get given the same as lazy able bodied people who do not work?