This basic income experiment has plenty of flaws.
Many people get DOUBLE that from government as benefits anyway, so the premise of that experiment is flawed. The disintensives for smallish amount of work still continue.
Finland has additional benefits for rent, additional benefits for supported children and increases to standard unemployment benefits for having to support children.
This isn't really the basic income as most people understand it. It really doesn't replace benefits bureaucracy with something more streamlined that deals away with disincentives.
By disintensives I mean the situation in which reduction of benefits and cost of getting to work eat the salary and there is almost nothing left from the work if its a part time job.
The New Zealand Treasury did a basic analysis on a Guaranteed Minimum Income a while ago (2010) that's a good read, with a lot of actual numbers crunched: <a href="http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Wor...</a>
The largest concerns about basic income are that it will reduce the incentive to work for at least some people, and that it is phenomenally expensive.<p>Why not solve both problems by simply eliminating income tax on lower income brackets instead? This is cheaper, easier to implement and less politically contentious (we already embrace the notion of progressive taxes, and who doesn't like a tax cut?). It also gives the money directly to those who need it most.<p>I suspect many people support basic income because they fundamentally believe in a world where you shouldn't have to work to make a living. They use arguments like helping the poor, or putting everyone on an even playing field, or the claim that tech will eventually destroy jobs anyway as Trojan horses for this agenda. I don't agree and I think most people would disapprove of basic income if you told them that it was intended to undermine the culture of working and earning to make your own living.<p>If you really want to help the poor and the working class, support the elimination of income tax on the lower income brackets instead of basic income. It is a simpler, better, cheaper, and less divisive solution.
Could somebody living in Finland comment on what 560 euros per month will get you?<p>Edit: Looking at some stats here [1] and it looks like 565 euros is enough to rent an apartment outside of city center. It also looks like one could potentially find something for 450 which leaves pretty decent money for food and perhaps a bicycle for transportation? Definitely not enough if you consider utilities though. That's some rough living.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Finland" rel="nofollow">https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?cou...</a>
This is fundamentally unemployment benefit paid to those out of work coupled with working tax credits paid to those in work.<p>Nothing new to see here at all other than the elimination of the ridiculous requirement to look for jobs that don't exist - because there aren't enough jobs.<p>Not enough jobs is still the issue, and nothing has been done to redress that. Nothing changes until the buyers market in labour is turned into a sellers market.
I don't see basic income working in its purest form but then again that is not what this is. This reminds me of the reforms done to the Norwegian pension system, which allows people to keep working after retirement without reduction in pension payments. This was to encourage people who are healthy to work longer than the standard 67 year retirement age.<p>To my knowledge this has worked well in Norway, and so I suspect a similar change can work well for the unemployed.<p>I think we are going down the wrong path with endless reports, and threats to get unemployed people back into the workplace. I think it would be better with stronger focus on positive encouragement.<p>I won't claim to fully understand the theory of guaranteed basic income, but as it has been explained to me it seems inherently flawed in its purest form. The whole point of a welfare system is that members of society will occasionally experience dramatic situations which can get very costly, whether from unemployment, serious illness or accidents. That means sudden spikes in money requirements. A socialized system can handle that as those spikes are evened out over a large portion of people. But a universal pay is constant to my understanding and thus won't fluctuate with need.<p>This all it can really solve is hindering people from lacking basic necessities like food, shelter and clothes. You can make a system which pays enough to handle every possible case unless you make the payment really high. A young healthy individual will require less basic income than a disabled person in a wheel chair with expensive medications and customized house and car.
Well if valley types have their way and automate 40% or more of jobs in the next ten years, then what actually is the alternative? This or major uprisings and violent clashes?
Finland is one of the best places to adopt basic income.<p>We already have comprehensive and complex welfare system that creates pockets where effective marginal tax rate is above 100% (going to work part time reduces welfare, net effect is negative). In the lowest income service industry almost half of workers would earn the same if they were unemployed. Fears of people not working if they get the same money without working seems to be false.<p>There is already two groups of Finns that get kind of basic income. Underage children and old people. Underage children get unconditional sum of money (goes to parents of course). Old people have guaranteed small pension.<p>This test has many faults, (its only for unemployed, basic income would be for everyone) but it's unconditional like basic income should be. People get the same amount of basic income even if they find work, or work only part time.
Why limit the experiment to unemployed people? It would be interesting to see what people already earning a living do when receiving this no-strings-attached income.
Note that this is an experiment to observe the behavior of those who are on unemployment benefits when they get unconditional benefits. It is not yet universal income, even on a small scale (as it is conditional on the current benefit status).<p>Note that any "complete" welfare state more or less guarantees, that you will get X income (or at worst, incur a cost of X). Even if you refuse to work, society will make sure you aren't hungry. There is universal healthcare etc. So the money is already spent - a basic income only changes the dynamics by also offering it to those who work.<p>Offering it to people who work might reduce the number of worked hours, which would be a positive effect (might create more jobs, improve health etc). It comes at an increased cost of course - but that can be offset by increasing income taxes.<p>If money is distributed and taxes are <i>not</i> increased, then it is a form of stimulus. In that context, a Basic Income should be compared to central bank stimulus (artificially low interest rates etc). If you want to make absolutely sure that stimulus money ends up spent in the economy, as opposed to saved or transferred abroad etc - then a BI seems like a better idea.
That's pretty pointless... it has absolutely nothing to do with basic income. It's a limited time stipend. The recipients' behavior would only be identical if they were so dumb as to not plan more than a month ahead.
I don't understand, how do governments plan to have a long term sustainable basic income for citizens when AI and other technological developments put a large percentage of people out of jobs?
> The scheme is part of the measures by the centre-right government of Prime Minister Juha Sipila to tackle Finland's joblessness problem.<p>I like this is not even proposed by a leftist government. The Scandinavian left-right scale maps outside the political spectrum of many countries.
Haha lucky, seems like one of those "idealized situations"<p>If we automated everything, where does money/value come from.<p>I still don't completely understand how money works "it's a ledger, faith, gateway of energy" a doctor is worth more than a janitor (not arguing that)<p>Just when there are no skills involved, everyone's the same, would money still have a purpose.<p>Though I like the idea of basic income. I wouldn't mind that myself and I could remove the fear of being homeless from my mind and focus more on web development.
The HN headline ("Free money for all") is a bit misleading. The article states that the basic income will only be given to 2000 randomly selected unemployed people.
Good initiative since 1% have 99% wealth <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475</a>
As humans, we are inherently Lazy.<p>What's the incentive to start looking for work if there are no strings attached on how you can spend money? Is Finland the only country in the world that has 0 junkies, 0 prescription addicts, 0 dads paying child support?<p>I agree with @aswanson, this is headed for inflation, or an even worse financial disaster.<p>Side Note: Is it easy to immigrate to and naturalize as a Citizen? I'm buying my ticket.
Basic Income is another failed Utopiasm and it depresses me that seemingly intelligent people are falling for its populist simplicities. But this is the age of Trump so I should expect no less.
1. $587 a month in many cities in the US will barely rent a room.<p>Even in St. Louis (<a href="https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-st-louis-rent-trends/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-st-louis-rent-tre...</a> ), average monthly rent for a one bedroom apartment is $1000 a month. In LA, it's over 2000 a month, in NY it's 2700, in Detroit it's at 1000.<p>SNAP (Food stamps) give about $255 a month. That means that out of UBI, about $300 is left over for rent.<p>2. If everyone in the US gets $587 a month, that's 1.5 trillion a year.<p>The current US federal budget is 3.8 trillion.<p>That's about a quarter of current US federal budget, and we still have to give an actual livable stipend to the truly poor (SNAP, section 8, medicare), some kind of defense, leave some for state/city tax, federal infrastructure programs (freeways/trains).