Slashdot Mirror
Is Finland's Universal Basic Income Trial Too Good To Be True? (theguardian.com)
It was one year ago that Finland began giving money to 2,000 unemployed people -- roughly $652 a month (€560 or £475). But have we learned anything about universal basic incomes? An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Amid this unprecedented media attention, the experts who devised the scheme are concerned it is being misrepresented. "It's not really what people are portraying it as," said Markus Kanerva, an applied social and behavioural sciences specialist working in the prime minister's office in Helsinki. "A full-scale universal income trial would need to study different target groups, not just the unemployed. It would have to test different basic income levels, look at local factors. This is really about seeing how a basic unconditional income affects the employment of unemployed people."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
Do we actually know that?
I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
Raised our taxes?
I dunno about YOU, but I'm going to see MORE back on my tax returns.
And I'm not some billionaire.
Wait 10 years.
The bill made permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary ones for individuals. The reason is that reconciliation (the rule that let them pass the bill with only 51 votes) says the bill can't raise the deficit after 10 years. So at the 10 year mark the corporate tax cut is partially paid for by a tax hike on individuals.
Of course this is fake math since the GOP doesn't actually expect the individual cuts to expire. In 10 years they expect a Democratic administration to be in power, an administration who will be faced with either letting the cuts expire (and getting blamed for raising taxes on the middle class) or renewing the cuts and finding a way to pay for them.
I stole this Sig
For a few years, then your taxes will creep up.
But only if we elect Democrats, since they all voted against the tax bill and all the Republicans voted for it... so Republicans a few years from now would vote to keep the cuts permanent, and obviously Democrats would get rid of the tax cut.
Rare to see an AC on Slashdot argue so clearly why the whole country should vote Republican!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the idea is that most people, even people with severe limitations, want to do something. There is a percentage who will choose long-term to do nothing, however the cost of policing that exceeds the cost of accepting some leakage.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
For me, it *should* in the long run be a little better (though my withholding actually increased a shade), at least for the temporary interval.
For single parents and parents of 2 or more kids, unless they know to go rework their withholding, they will probably be blindsided by increased withholding, though they will have big refunds unless they fix that. The old W4s didn't give the companies enough info to accurately set withholding. There is a chance they make an educated guess about exemptions as to whether they are children, but that could lead to another problem.
For folks with any dependent adults in their household that they are not married to, they lose exemptions and no child tax credit to make up for it. If a company mistakenly assumes adult dependents are children and set withholding accordingly, they will be in for a particulary nasty surprise come filing time. Either way, it's a bad tax plan for having an adult dependent.
The biggest problems are:
-It's a shell game with the rates and standard deduction versus exemptions that end up with personal income taxes being about the same, despite all the rhetoric
-All those shenanigans were an excuse to pass a rather gigantic and meangingful corporate tax cut
-Signing up for a reduction of revenue to the tune of 1.5 trillion without any certainty of spending cuts is not exactly a fiscally responsible move. It's making things far worse, and then after making the mess using it as an excuse to go after medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and other 'entitlements', which will *really* hurt the lower class. If they had explicitly put those sorts of spending cuts as part of the tax bill, it wouldn't have passed, which says something about how obviously unpopular such a concept would be.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yes the money has to come from somewhere. But it's possible that this saves money elsewhere. The goal is not to give people money so that they stay home and watch cat videos, but to see if this actually gets them out and get jobs. This is an experiment only, because they have a radical idea that government should see what works and what does not work instead of relying on ideological gut feelings.
Unemployed people are a big drain on the coffers in many ways. Finland already supplies many basic services with a high tax rate. If they can save money in the long run that's a good thing.
The article also makes it clear that this idea was not a far left idea but came the center-right.
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING. Do we actually know that? I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
Well the real question is does everyone need to do 'something that benefits a corporation' to bring value to the world. Someone do 'nothing' that sits at home and has no goals or ambition - well they are better off being paid not to work anyway - because they are going to do a shit ass job and make life worse for everyone else. Someone who might enjoy painting or creating art/song/etc. may do so now instead of taking up another job calling people to renew their car warranty. Is that still 'nothing'? Are we net better off?
If the 'worthless jobs' of working at a fast food place double your take home - would people treat them with more respect - because no boss will put up with lazy crap because at the back of their heart they worry about the kid at home that needs food/a home?
There are so many interconnected threads to the idea of what someone might do with the money.
As to the 'people given the option WILL DO NOTHING' - well that's 100% provable lie. We don't need the study to know this.
Answer to this question - is another question - How many billionaires that never need to work another day in their or their great great great grandkids lives - sit at home and do nothing?
This program is neither universal or basic.
No, it's testing a specific aspect of a universal basic income, exactly what you'd want a responsible government to do.
It's simply another welfare program.
No, a welfare program is designed to maintain the well-being of citizens, this is an experiment to see if a universal basic income will reduce unemployment.
And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
Taxes, some of which will hopefully be paid by these people, reduced benefits from other programs, and reduced administration in running the program.
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
But we don't know how big that segment is, or exactly how they are distributed, this will shed light on that question.
So, all that's been created is an incentive not to achieve anything.
They already had an incentive not to achieve anything, traditional welfare programs.
What this does do is reduce some pressure to find work, but it also removes some incentives for not entering the workforce (such as losing benefits).
I stole this Sig
Sweden, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Germany, ...
There's plenty of countries where the tax rates are high that offer a WAY higher quality of life than most of the US for most of its people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Far-right in Europe is generally still left of the GOP. My guess is 90% of our parties would be chased off as "commies" with pitchforks in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, I believe that the 1 Trillion increase to the deficit assumed annual GDP growth of 4%+, which is not going to happen. If growth is lower, then the 1T deficit increase will be far, far worse. In no case will it be lower than 1T; the GOP used every magic number they could getting it that low, and their estimates have been terribly incorrect
My taxes are going down for now, but it's not worth it.
I'm getting tired of all the AC's who are polluting \. with Trump comments in every thread. While I can understand mentally ill people can be affected by TARD (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder), the fact that Trump is living in their brains, rent free, and infecting everything they do and say is unfortunate. It will be my tax dollars which pay for their medication, therapy and future involuntary committal to an institution.
You miss one basic fact in the 'analysis'
These are Finns, not Americans.
there is a reason that Scandinavian (and yes, Finland is marginally that, but hey) socialism 'works' (at least better than other places), and that is that they still have a moderate number of people who are responsible, proud to be reasonably self sufficient, realise that stupid actions tend to lead to actual and bad consequences, etc.
IMHO, a lot of that comes from living somewhere where tripping over on the wrong winters day can, and does, kill people. Not planning ahead when a storm is coming can and does kill people.
These countries are NOT America. They may have their own issues (and certainly do), however they are a very very different place.
Unfortunately they are being slowly infected by 'American Exceptionalism' and all the BS that seems to drag along with it, however they are less far along that diseased path.
TL;DR - Finns are more likely to work even if they dont have to - which you would understand if you know some Finns, however they can also do math, and wont work if it means they come out worse off.
The main flaw in that study (that I can find after a couple of minutes) is that the statistics are completely wrong. The median income figures used are *post-tax*. The swedish figures are ignoring the income used to pay for everything in the state:
* free healthcare.
* free education.
* paid parental leave.
* subsidized childcare.
* much much more.
The correct comparison is the gross income figures. In the swedish case somebody earning around the median level is paying about 25% in direct (visible) taxation, and about 65% in invisible employer contributions. I.e. If their headline (visible) salary is $40000, they receive about $30000 after tax, but their total tax ia about $30000 taking into account mandatory social contributions from their employer. Their actual gross salary is about $60000 and this study treats it as $30000.
Tldr: the study is deliberately using the wrong income figure to make a false comparison.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php