• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

In a social experiment, Finland starts giving a $587 monthly income

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,570
Likes
27,373
#1
In a social experiment, Finland starts giving a $587 monthly income to 2,000 citizens

Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros, or $587, in a unique social experiment it hopes will cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.

Olli Kangas from the Finnish government agency KELA, which is responsible for the country's social benefits, said Monday that the two-year trial with the 2,000 randomly picked citizens who receive unemployment benefits kicked off Monday.

Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.

The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 euros per month, according to official data.

Kangas said the scheme's idea is to abolish the “disincentive problem” among the unemployed.

The trial aims to discourage people's fears “of losing out on something,” he said, adding that the selected people would continue to receive the 560 euros even after receiving a job.

A jobless person may currently refuse a low-income or short-term job in the fear of having his financial benefits reduced drastically under Finland's generous but complex social security system.

“It's highly interesting to see how it makes people behave,” Kangas said.

“Will this lead them to boldly experiment with different kinds of jobs? Or, as some critics claim, make them lazier with the knowledge of getting a basic income without doing anything?”

A similar idea, called a universal basic income, has been promoted by some as an answer in the U.S. to the displacement of low-skilled workers by robots and other automation.

The guaranteed income would be provided to every adult, enough to support a basic standard of living, regardless of whether they were employed.

Some proponents see guaranteed incomes as a way to prepare for an economy that produces fewer jobs. Others see it as a way to cut back existing government security net programs.

Two local councils in Scotland are considering introducing trial programs with basic incomes later this year, in Glasgow and Fife.

The unemployment rate of Finland, a nation of 5.5 million, stood at 8.1% in November with some 213,000 people without a job — unchanged from the previous year.

The scheme is part of the measures by the center-right government of Prime Minister Juha Sipila to tackle Finland's joblessness problem.

Kangas said the basic income experiment may be expanded later to other low-income groups such as freelancers, small-scale entrepreneurs and part-time workers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-finland-guaranteed-income-20170102-story.html
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,321
Likes
4,601
#2
more....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-finland-ahead-us-guaranteed-215943486.html

Finland just rolled out a pilot program to test universal basic income, or UBI . And while the idea of regular cash handouts may sound tantalizing, out-of-work Americans shouldn't hold their breaths.

The Scandinavian country announced yesterday that 2,000 randomly-selected, unemployed individuals between the ages 25 and 58 will receive a monthly cash payment of 560 euros ($582.90) for two years.

The payments will continue even if the recipient finds work . The goal, according to the Finnish government, is to increase employment.

A privately funded pilot program is in the early stages in California, but the United States as a whole is well behind Finland in implementing any kind of guaranteed income.

"Finland is ahead of the U.S. in lot of progressive ideas," says Karl Widerquist, the founder of Basic Income News and an Associate Professor at SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University, in an email with CNBC.

"Finland already has universal health care. The next step is a universal right to a basic income. With Finland's more progressive politics, it's not surprising they're ahead of the U.S. in the movement for basic income," says Widerquist.

Taxes are higher in Finland, too, which makes it more feasible for the government to pay its citizens, Martin Ford, author of The New York Times-bestselling novel "Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future," tells CNBC. "They have the means to pay for a basic income by converting existing programs," he says.

Although unemployment benefits in Finland are generous, the way they're currently structured can, perversely, keep job-seekers from taking new positions.

"Many workers in Finland who used to have good jobs with Nokia, for example, are now unemployed. Lots of these people have skills and could try to start businesses or maybe work for another small business at lower pay. But the traditional unemployment program doesn't allow this. If they earn any money, they lose all their benefits," says Ford.

"So a basic income is a way to structure the safety net so that unemployed workers have an incentive to work to the extent they can, without the fear of losing their benefits."

Also, while there are about 5.5 million people living in Finland, there are more than 320 million in the United States. Diversity in the U.S. makes it harder for some Americans to feel compassion for each other, suggests writer Misha Chellam, founder of the start-up training company Tradecraft. Chellam is also a signatory of the Economic Security Project, a newly founded research organization dedicated to learning more about the implications of UBI.

"It may be an empathy gap," says Chellam.

"Finland is a small, homogeneous country with less than six million people. This may make Finns more empathetic toward fellow Finns' struggles, as they share many cultural similarities. The sense of 'Americanness' can be a bit harder to pin down in a nation of almost 320 million people hailing from all parts of the world."

The U.S. will only adopt UBI if automation results in mass unemployment, Ford believes.

"I don't expect it to happen smoothly. I expect that, especially here in the United States, it's going to happen when we have a crisis. We will have a big problem first," he says.

Despite cultural resistance, Widerquist insists that cash handouts are a viable idea even in the U.S.

"Basic income works everywhere. We can all realize it is so, if people just have to give up their belief that the rich should have the right to tell the poor what to do," he says.
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,106
Likes
3,255
#3
So give people money so they'll find a job? Riiiiiiight.....
 

Montecristo

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
764
Likes
648
Location
SE Michigan
#5
So, to lower the unemployment rate they are going to pay unemployed people a basic "salary" that won't be taken away if these people find a job even if it is below what they feel they should be paid or were being paid before they became unemployed.

Talk about a government scheme of income redistribution!
Why not cut the taxes of those citizens and business' that are being extorted into supporting this program and leave them more money to spend into the economy, then remove minimum wage and give the business the opportunity to hire more people without having to pay additional taxes that would be collected and redistributed as the economy expands under the additional funds that are now being spent into the economy?
Viola! Higher employment rates and a growing economy simply by reducing governments attempt to "manage" the economy.
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
1,395
Likes
1,515
Location
driving thru flyover
#6
So, to lower the unemployment rate they are going to pay unemployed people a basic "salary" that won't be taken away if these people find a job even if it is below what they feel they should be paid or were being paid before they became unemployed.

Talk about a government scheme of income redistribution!
Why not cut the taxes of those citizens and business' that are being extorted into supporting this program and leave them more money to spend into the economy, then remove minimum wage and give the business the opportunity to hire more people without having to pay additional taxes that would be collected and redistributed as the economy expands under the additional funds that are now being spent into the economy?
Viola! Higher employment rates and a growing economy simply by reducing governments attempt to "manage" the economy.
Where the hell you get these kinda ideas? Sarc
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,493
Likes
18,475
Location
You can't get there from here.
#11
I may move there. I could use an extra $587. Anybody know the cost of living over there compared to here?

I know two women over there, one still speaks to me. Maybe I'll ask her to hook me up.
We should be in Poland in the spring, maybe I'll defect to Finland.
 
Last edited:

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
150,313
Likes
40,296
#13
The Dangers Of A "Universal Basic Income"


by Tyler Durden
Jan 18, 2017 5:15 AM


Submitted by Nathan Keeble via The Mises Institute,

Finland has announced that it is conducting a social policy “experiment” which deserves closer examination. Through 2017 and 2018, Finland will provide a guaranteed basic income of 560 euros to 2,000 randomly selected welfare recipients. This benefit will be subtracted from other, currently existing welfare benefits that participants may be receiving, and, crucially, the payments will continue regardless of any other income that is earned. If a participant of this program finds a job, the government will continue to pay them the 560 euros in addition to any other income.


The Finnish government hopes — and many believe — that this program will help to alleviate poverty as well as make inroads in reducing the country’s current 8.1 percent unemployment rate. This test trial is supposed to prove it, potentially opening the door for a full implementation of a universal basic income (UBI).

Why People Support a Universal Basic Income
The universal basic income is being considered as a partial or complete replacement to the current means-tested system of welfare. Under the current system, welfare recipients’ benefits taper off and eventually stop, completely, based upon how much income individuals independently earn. Naturally, this creates a disincentive to rejoin the labor force, because people fear a reduction in total income as welfare benefits are removed or if they believe the added income from a job isn’t worth the labor. Demonstrated very simply, if someone is currently receiving a total income of $1,100 through a means-tested welfare program, many will be less likely to seek a job which will result in similar income levels, as most prefer leisure to labor.

Supposedly, the UBI’s main innovation is that it manages to largely avoid this long standing failure. Since everyone would receive the established basic income regardless of other income earned, proponents believe that people would still have strong income based incentives to work. Some have gone even further, suggesting that the program will be a positive for employment because the financial cushion provided by a UBI will help people in the transition from unemployment to employment. For instance, a struggling entrepreneur or artist could, in part, rely on it while building support.

For these reasons, the UBI has gained support from the entire political spectrum, including libertarian-leaning think tanks like the Niskanen Center.

Where UBI Proponents Go Wrong
A universal basic income is not the god-sent welfare policy that it initially seems to be. It does not create incentive to work. It won’t help solve unemployment, and it will not alleviate poverty. The truth is that a UBI will exaggerate all of these factors in comparison to what would exist in a more unhampered market. There is even reason to think that it would be worse in the long run than traditional, means-tested welfare systems.

First, UBI does not eliminate the disincentives to work that are inherent in welfare programs; it simply moves them around. This program must be financed after all, and any welfare system, including the UBI, is necessarily a wealth redistribution scheme. Wealth must be forced from those who have it to those who do not. This means that at some point on the income ladder, people must go from being net receivers of benefits to being net payers of benefits.

The progressive taxation that is necessary to finance a UBI means that the more a person earns, the higher percentage of their wealth will be taken from them. The work disincentives are therefore still very much present in the tax system. They’ve simply been transferred onto different, higher income groups of people.

UBI Diminishes the Power of Consumers in Directing the Marketplace
The universal basic income shares another problem with traditional welfare systems. Far from promoting the unemployed from searching for work the market rewards, it actually subsidizes non-productive activities. The struggling entrepreneurs and artists mentioned earlier are struggling for a reason. For whatever reason, the market has deemed the goods they are providing to be insufficiently valuable. Their work simply isn’t productive according to those who would potentially consume the goods or services in question. In a functioning marketplace, producers of goods the consumers don't want would quickly have to abandon such endeavors and focus their efforts into productive areas of the economy. The universal basic income, however, allows them to continue their less-valued endeavors with the money of those who have actually produced value, which gets to the ultimate problem of all government welfare programs.

In the marketplace, wealth is earned by generating value. When someone buys a good, they’ve earned the money they are spending by having produced something else. This is not so with welfare programs like a universal basic income. Money is forcibly taken from those who have produced enough to earn it, and given to those who haven’t. This allows for people who aren’t producing wealth to continue to consume scarce goods. Eventually, all government welfare leads to the consumption of wealth, or, at the very least, a reduction in the amount of wealth that would have been accumulated otherwise. When entrepreneurs have less need to respond to the needs and desires of their customers, consumers will find themselves with fewer choices and with lower-quality choices.This means that overall welfare makes everyone poorer than they would have been in a free market.

How Finland Really Can Reduce Poverty
If Finland (or anywhere else) wishes to help alleviate poverty and unemployment, the best steps to take are in the directions of reducing the cost of living and creating conditions favorable to plentiful employment.

Charles Hugh Smith recently outlined the basics:

This may seem obvious, but the conditions required for work to be abundant and the cost of living to be low are not so obvious. For work to be abundant:
  • It must be easy to start a business.
  • It must be easy to operate the new business.
  • It must be easy to make a profit so the business can survive the first few years and,
  • It must be easy to hire employees.
All these factors require an environment of low-cost compliance with regulations, low tax rates, low costs of transactions, reasonable transport costs, reasonable cost of money (but not near-zero), reasonable availability of capital for small enterprises, local and national governments that actively seek to smooth the path of new enterprises and existing enterprises seeking to expand, and a transparent marketplace that isn't dominated by politically dominant cartels and subservient-to-cartels government agencies.

This matters because the number one cause of the high cost of living is artificial scarcity created and maintained by monopolies, cartels, and the government that serves their interests. Artificial scarcity imposed by cartels and a servile state is the primary cause of soaring costs in a variety of sectors.

In Scandinavia, as in most countries, its is becoming increasingly difficult to open and sustain businesses. In Scandinavia especially, labor unions exercise immense power over private business, pushing up costs and raising barriers to entrepreneurship and creating new businesses.

As has always been the case, it is necessary to create wealth before it is possible to redistribute it, and policies that encourage movement toward less productive types of work will fail to produce the wealth that government planners would like to spread around.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-17/
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,321
Likes
4,601
#14
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/d...ic-income-experiment-finland-not-looking-good

Universal Basic Income Experiment in Finland Not Looking Good

By Daniel Mitchell | August 1, 2017 | 11:09 AM EDT

The notion that government should automatically give everyone money – a policy known as “universal basic income” – is now getting a lot of attention.

From an economic perspective, I acknowledge that the idea should not be summarily rejected. Here’s some of what I wrote earlier this year.

“… there actually is a reasonable argument that the current welfare state is so dysfunctional that it would be better to simply give everyone a check instead.”

But I’m nonetheless very skepitcal. Simply stated, the math doesn’t work, people would have less incentive to work, and there would be “public choice” pressures to expand the size of the checks.

So when the topic came up as part of a recent interview, I criticized the proposal and praised Swiss voters for rejecting – by an overwhelming margin – a referendum that would have created a basic income in that nation.

"
"

My reaction was probably even more hostile than normal because I don’t like it when guilt-ridden rich people try to atone for their wealth by giving away my money.

Moreover, it’s silly for Zuckerberg to use Alaska as an example because of its oil wealth and small population.

That being said, if I had more time, I would have been more nuanced and pointed out that we hopefully will learn more from some of the experiments that are happening around the world, especially what’s happening on the other side of the north pole from Alaska.

The New York Times published an in-depth preview of Finland’s experiment late last year. Here’s a description of the problem that Finnish policymakers want to solve.

“… this city has … thousands of skilled engineers in need of work. Many were laid off by Nokia … While entrepreneurs are eager to put these people to work, the rules of Finland’s generous social safety net effectively discourage this. Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. For laid-off workers from Nokia, simply collecting a guaranteed unemployment check often presents a better financial proposition than taking a leap with a start-up.”

For anyone who has studied the impact of redistribution programs on incentives to work, this hardly comes as a surprise.

Indeed, the story has both data and anecdotes to illustrate how the Finnish welfare state is subsidizing idleness.

“In the five years after suffering a job loss, a Finnish family of four that is eligible for housing assistance receives average benefits equal to 73 percent of previous wages, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That is nearly triple the level in the United States. … the social safety net … appears to be impeding the reinvigoration of the economy by discouraging unemployed people from working part time. … Mr. Saloranta has his eyes on a former Nokia employee who is masterly at developing prototypes. He only needs him part time. He could pay 2,000 euros a month (about $2,090). Yet this potential hire is bringing home more than that via his unemployment benefits. ‘It’s more profitable for him to just wait at home for some ideal job,’ Mr. Saloranta complains.”

So the Finnish government wants to see if a basic income can solve this problem.

“… the Finnish government is exploring how to change that calculus, initiating an experiment in a form of social welfare: universal basic income. Early next year, the government plans to randomly select roughly 2,000 unemployed people — from white-collar coders to blue-collar construction workers. It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income. The government is eager to see what happens next. Will more people pursue jobs or start businesses? How many will stop working and squander their money on vodka? Will those liberated from the time-sucking entanglements of the unemployment system use their freedom to gain education, setting themselves up for promising new careers? … The answers — to be determined over a two-year trial — could shape social welfare policy far beyond Nordic terrain.”

The results from this experiment will help answer some big questions.

“… basic income confronts fundamental disagreements about human reality. If people are released from fears that — absent work — they risk finding themselves sleeping outdoors, will they devolve into freeloaders? ‘Some people think basic income will solve every problem under the sun, and some people think it’s from the hand of Satan and will destroy our work ethic,’ says Olli Kangas, who oversees research at Kela, a Finnish government agency that administers many social welfare programs. ‘I’m hoping we can create some knowledge on this issue.’ … Finland’s concerns are pragmatic. The government has no interest in freeing wage earners to write poetry. It is eager to generate more jobs.”

As I noted above, this New York Times report was from late last year. It was a preview of Finland’s experiment.

People have been getting checks for several months. Are there any preliminary indications of the impact?

Well, the good news is that recipients apparently like getting free money. Here are some excerpts from a report by Business Insider.

“… some of the 2,000 recipients are already reporting lower levels of stress. The $600 they receive each month might not be much, but it’s enough to put some people’s anxiety at ease.”

But the bad news is that the handouts are giving people the flexibility to reject work.

“Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela’s legal benefits unit, told Kera News. ‘There was this one woman who said: “I was afraid every time the phone would ring, that unemployment services are calling to offer me a job,”’ … Scott Santens, a basic income advocate and writer … says basic income redistributes power into the middle-class — namely, to turn down unappealing jobs.”

The last sentence of the excerpt is particularly worrisome. Some advocates think universal handouts are good precisely because people can work less.

It’s obviously too early to draw sweeping conclusions, especially based on a couple of anecdotes.

However, a recent column in the New York Times by two left-leaning Finns suggests that the data will not be favorable to universal handouts. The authors start with a basic explanation of the issue.

“Universal basic income is generating considerable interest these days, from Bernie Sanders, who says he is ‘absolutely sympathetic’ to the idea, to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and other tech billionaires. The basic idea behind it is that handing out unconditional cash to all citizens, employed or not, would help reduce poverty and inequality … As a rich country in the European Union, with one of the highest rates of social spending in the world, Finland seemed like an ideal testing ground for a state-of-the-art social welfare experiment. … Kela, the national social-insurance institute, randomly selected 2,000 Finns between 25 and 58 years of age who were already getting some form of unemployment benefits. The subsidies were offered to people who had been unemployed for about one year or more, or who had less than six months of work experience.”

But then they denigrate the study.

“… the Finnish trial was poorly designed … The trial size was cut to one-fifth of what had originally been proposed, and is now too small to be scientifically viable. Instead of giving free money to everyone, the experiment is handing out, in effect, a form of unconditional unemployment benefits. In other words, there is nothing universal about this version of universal basic income. … The government has made no secret of the fact that its universal basic income experiment isn’t about liberating the poor or fighting inequality. Instead, the trial’s ‘primary goal’ is ‘promoting employment,’ the government explained in a 2016 document proposing the project to Parliament. Meaning: The project was always meant to incentivize people to accept low-paying and low-productivity jobs.”

Maybe I’m reading between the lines, but it sounds like they are worried that the results ultimately will show that a basic income discourages labor supply, which reinforces my concerns about the entire concept.

Yes, the current system is bad for both poor people and taxpayers. But why would anyone think that we’ll get better results if we give generous handouts to everyone?

So if we replace all those handouts with one big universal handout, is there any reason to expect that somehow people will be more likely to find jobs and contribute to the economy?

Again, we need to wait another year or two before we have comprehensive data from Finland. But I’m skeptical that we’ll get a favorable outcome.

P.S. The Wizard-of-Id parody contains a lot of insight about labor supply and incentives. As does this Chuck Asay cartoon and this Robert Gorrell cartoon.

P.P.S. Since I rarely write about Finland, I should point out that it is ranked #20 for economic liberty, only four spots behind the United States (and the country is more pro-market than America when looking at non-fiscal policy factors).

P.P.P.S. On the minus side, Finland has decided that broadband access is somehow a human right. On the plus side, the country’s central bank produces good research on the burden of government spending, and its former president understood the essential flaw of Keynesian economics.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute. Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax and international tax competition.
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,061
Likes
2,534
#15
I liked this part:
"people's fears “of losing out on something,”"

LOL, what, like losing out on free cheese?
Cheese is something
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,061
Likes
2,534
#17
In the USA the FSA gets more than that in free food every month
I know, I stand behind them in the grocery line

Their sir-name is gonzalez or lopez or hernandez and they drag at least half of their brood with them into the store
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,206
Likes
15,149
Location
America!
#18
In America when you get assistance and start to make more money they immediately cut back your benefits. So what happens is that you get situations where a single mother often has to choose between working more hours for the same pay or working less hours and spending more time with her children. The children will usually win.

I don't want government welfare at all, but if we are going to do it then there needs to be reform.
 

hammerhead

Not just a screen name
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
3,868
Likes
3,482
Location
On a speck of dust
#19
I received a nice letter and a check for $300.00 from George II, once. My life just hasn't been the same.

So what's the going rate for hookers over there? Is blow cheap? wouldn't want to waste this money on food, clothing or shelter.
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,493
Likes
18,475
Location
You can't get there from here.
#20
Really, for the best outcome when dealing with humanity, we need to kill the welfare state. Either a person is willing to provide for himself, or die. Can't feed / clothe / house your children, well bring back the orphanages. The outcome has to be better than paying losers to raise a new generation of losers.

Successful people are breeding less or not at all. Life's failures and losers are pumping out kids at record rates. Time for some drastic corrective actions.
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,493
Likes
18,475
Location
You can't get there from here.
#21
I received a nice letter and a check for $300.00 from George II, once. My life just hasn't been the same.

So what's the going rate for hookers over there? Is blow cheap? wouldn't want to waste this money on food, clothing or shelter.
Are you writing about the money Congress & Bush got together and sent out in the spring [if I remember correctly] back before the Great Recession?
If so, I distinctly remember that money being taken back when filing my next income tax. It was a loan I didn't ask for. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
150,313
Likes
40,296
#22
If so, I distinctly remember that money being taken back when filing my next income tax. It was a loan I didn't ask for. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
In my opinion it was done to placate American taxpayers who may have had a problem with their prez giving their hard earned tax dollars to a pack of crooked, lying, thieving banksters as a reward for screwing up the worlds economy.

This particular prez also gave us the never ending war on terror, the ever popular TSA and never ending war in the middle east.

And since then it seems that every prez has just kept-on-keeping on.
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,086
Likes
4,146
Location
Northern most Southern State
#23
We have something similar in the US. It is called the earned incom tax credit. A person with three qualifying children is eligible for up to $526 a month while working. This is on top of SNAP and free/reduced lunch stuff and likely Medicaid for the kids.
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,493
Likes
18,475
Location
You can't get there from here.
#24
In my opinion it was done to placate American taxpayers who may have had a problem with their prez giving their hard earned tax dollars to a pack of crooked, lying, thieving banksters as a reward for screwing up the worlds economy.

This particular prez also gave us the never ending war on terror, the ever popular TSA and never ending war in the middle east.

And since then it seems that every prez has just kept-on-keeping on.
I agree, creation of "homeland security" mess was a giant mistake.
War on Terror AKA Mideast Wars = Israeli Security Wars.
TSA = The airlines did this prior to the TSA, and should go back to them. Why is the taxpayer paying this?

You may be correct about the tax rebates as to motivation, however I remember the story being they needed the people to spend money to jump start the economy [it was pretty bad as I remember, the commute that was a giant traffic jam before the collapse was an easy drive after, a lot less people going to work].

I dug into the memory hole.

CNN story about the 2008 money only had a headline, the story itself and the video are gone.
Found a story from Sept, 2016 about the "failure of the 2008 stimulus package".
https://www.thebalance.com/bush-economic-stimulus-package-3305782
$300 stuck in my mind, and here's why:

The Bush stimulus gave 20 million retirees on Social Security and disabled veterans a check. They received $300 ($600 for couples) if they earned at least $3,000 in 2007 in benefits. However, those on SSI alone did not receive checks. (See SSI and the Tax Rebate Checks).

I know I got this. I don't remember if it had to be included in "earned income" for that year. Where I think I was confused was this, which was also "rebated":
The Bush Administration received Congressional approval for its $168 billion Economic Stimulus Package in 2008. The package eliminated taxes on the first $6,000 of taxable income for individuals and the first $12,000 of income for couples. A rebate check was mailed out to taxpayers, in amounts as follows:

  • Individuals up to $600.
  • Married couples up to $1,200.
  • Those with children $300 per dependent child.

The rebate amounts were reduced for individuals with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.

I would have to dig in my records but the amount that sticks in my mind was $700, which was taken back in that year's taxes. If I remember correctly. If I have time later I will dig it up [2008 tax return].

There was also another Bush rebate in the summer of 2001, but I don't remember much about that.

I do remember Bush The First cutting withholding taxes before his try at a second term, I remember being pissed off as he did not cut the taxes - just the withholding amount to make citizens think they were doing better financially. Just meant you got a lower tax return after the election or owed money. Very cynical and manipulative move on his part.
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,493
Likes
18,475
Location
You can't get there from here.
#25
We have something similar in the US. It is called the earned incom tax credit. A person with three qualifying children is eligible for up to $526 a month while working. This is on top of SNAP and free/reduced lunch stuff and likely Medicaid for the kids.
Exactly. Plus factor in Government subsidized housing for certain citizens and not others. Heck, in Louisville they even gave out government money to "spruce up" the front street facing exteriors of certain private homes in certain low income communities that just happened to be majority black.
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
1,395
Likes
1,515
Location
driving thru flyover
#26
Really, for the best outcome when dealing with humanity, we need to kill the welfare state. Either a person is willing to provide for himself, or die. Can't feed / clothe / house your children, well bring back the orphanages. The outcome has to be better than paying losers to raise a new generation of losers.

Successful people are breeding less or not at all. Life's failures and losers are pumping out kids at record rates. Time for some drastic corrective actions.
Sounds extreme. I like it.
 

latemetal

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,939
Likes
2,734
#29
As wages fall, spending falls too, now no point in giving money to those already well off as they will just save it as they currently do. This UBI crap is just trying to get the economy going by giving "helicopter money" to those most likely to go out and buy something.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,387
Likes
3,279
#30
This is the beginning of the end for Finland. Adios Liberal morons!
 

latemetal

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,939
Likes
2,734
#31
The day anything is born is the day it starts to die...the Finns will do fine.
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,321
Likes
4,601
#33
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700

Finland's basic income trial falls flat

By Laurence Peter BBC News
7 hours ago

The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.

Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.

"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers.

Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.

The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.

Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.

Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.

But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.

"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.

Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.

Another Kela researcher, Miska Simanainen, said "reforming the social security system is on the political agenda, but the politicians are also discussing many other models of social security, rather than just basic income".

When Finland launched the experiment its unemployment rate was 9.2% - higher than among its Nordic neighbours.

That, and the complexity of the Finnish social benefits system, fuelled the calls for ambitious social security reforms, including the basic income pilot.

The pilot's full results will not be released until late 2019.

OECD finds drawbacks
In February this year the influential OECD think tank said a universal credit system, like that being introduced in the UK, would work better than a basic income in Finland. Universal credit replaces several benefit payments with a single monthly sum.

The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.

In contrast, the OECD said, universal credit would cut the poverty rate to 9.7%, as well as reduce complexity in the benefits system.

Another reform option being considered by Finnish politicians is a negative income tax, Prof Kangas said.

Under that scheme, people whose income fell below a certain threshold would be exempt from income tax and would actually receive payments from the tax office.

The challenge is to find a cost-effective system that incentivises people to work, but that does not add to income inequality, Tuulia Hakola-Uusitalo of the Finnish Finance Ministry told the BBC.

What do others say about basic income?
Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.

Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.

US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment.

Y Combinator will select 3,000 individuals in two US states and randomly assign 1,000 of them to receive $1,000 per month for three to five years. Their use of the unconditional payments will be closely monitored, and their spending compared with those who do not get the basic income.

In 2016, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.

Supporters of the proposal had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,834; $2,558) for adults and also 625 Swiss francs for each child.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
10,186
Likes
9,219
Location
Montana
#34
"Social experiment" = social engineering.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,206
Likes
15,149
Location
America!
#35
It could work if they have a small population and a huge amount of natural resources that they are exporting.

This wouldn’t work in the USA.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,577
Likes
5,221
Location
On the top shelf.
#36
It could work if they have a small population and a huge amount of natural resources that they are exporting.

This wouldn’t work in the USA.
I don't know, it didn't work out too well for Saudi Arabia, small population, lots of natural resources. All that income produced over educated millionaire playboys who funded world terrorism and yet the country still has to import nearly everything it needs and created zero innovation with all that talent.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
10,186
Likes
9,219
Location
Montana
#37
It could work if they have a small population and a huge amount of natural resources that they are exporting.

This wouldn’t work in the USA.
It would never work for any population because of human nature. All you get by giving handouts is entitlement mentality and low values that go along with it.
 

madhu

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
901
Likes
587
#38
Sterilization should be the prerequisite to getting handouts.
The govt wants the sheeople to have kids and raise them, so that they can be tax paying slaves. The population demographics say for Italy, if they don't have enough children, the social security and other govt approved ponzi eps will blow up. Hence they keep their borders open for able bodied Syrian refugees who can withstand marathon walking across several borders.

All this govt handouts of universal basic income is deceit and will not be sustainable. They give it to a select few people for a limited amount of time and then declare that their social experiment a grand success. Then after a few yrs or decades, the money dries out and everyone will have to get their asses to work.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
10,186
Likes
9,219
Location
Montana
#39
The govt wants the sheeople to have kids and raise them, so that they can be tax paying slaves.
The government wants the dumbest people to have kids and the smarter people not to have kids so that the offspring will be easy to control and tolerant of corruption.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,850
Likes
5,777
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#40
In America when you get assistance and start to make more money they immediately cut back your benefits. So what happens is that you get situations where a single mother often has to choose between working more hours for the same pay or working less hours and spending more time with her children. The children will usually win.
Or it just causes them to find ways to work off the books while still collecting the maximum amount of freebies.