DS Forums

 
 

Finland trials basic income for unemployed


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 15:08
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
Channel 5 seem to think living on benefits is glamorous.
Yeah, they really do enjoy their programs on benefits and debt collectors, don't they?
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 15:13
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
Do you mean tax evasion?
Whatever, both evasion and avoidance mean everyone is forced to pay the price by having to subsidise the lot of them and the latter are very wealthy to be able to afford tax avoidance schemes.
If everybody else has to "subsidise" a treasury that thinks it is down due to monies that it was never actually owed because of legal avoidance, then that suggests to me that the country is simply spending money it doesn't have.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:15
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
What does it have to do with "buying votes"?
I think the argument there is that any Government who gives out money to the populous is granted a guaranteed vote.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:18
BBWorldWideFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Purgatorium
Posts: 17,627
OK - but the issue there is shit wages and baby benefits. I honestly do know how you feel, when I was last in the UK, I was doing agency supply work in Education, on a good day it'd be £70 a day, £50 on a reasonable, but being temp it was never guaranteed, and some weeks I'd scrape by on £50 for the whole, and that was before rent/bills/council rates and saving for the dreaded unpaid school holidays (which is why I ended up on the dole temporarily). I think I was entitled to either £78(?) a week or fortnight on benefits. I don't live an luxuriant lifestyle, but it was difficult to get by on a wage, let alone on the dole. I don't think I've ever eaten so much plain couscous in my life (£1 for 750g - can't argue with that).

But then when you add kids in the mix, the choice is either to support them or not to. Ideally, people would just put a ****ing condom on and stop breeding, let alone the abhorrent act of breeding for benefits, but if you can't stop that, the alternative is either to take kids into an already overcrowded state care system, or not to provide money for said kids. I agree wholeheartedly that the system is being abused, but if that's the necessary burden of at least in part preventing kids being in squalor, then necessary it is...

It's utterly absurd it took this long to get the so-called 'living wage' (provided you can get the hours), and it especially pisses me off when you hear of the bastards at the top fiddling expenses or tax arrangements. That's why in principal I'm just not against new ideas like the one mentioned above being trialled.
What you've said is quite reasonable, and I do agree it is a necessary burden, and although I'm not in favour of this idea, I was merely just having a rant lol

Oh yeah they're worse, and with the amounts of money they get away with hiding away yet the punishment doesn't reflect the crime they've committed. In some ways I do think money is the roots to many evils.
BBWorldWideFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:18
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,419
I think the argument there is that any Government who gives out money to the populous is granted a guaranteed vote.
Not if all the parties support the same scheme. Which they probably would if it was fully in operation and proved successful.
jjwales is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:22
BBWorldWideFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Purgatorium
Posts: 17,627
Channel 5 seem to think living on benefits is glamorous.
Channel 5 is run by braindead dipshits though,
BBWorldWideFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:26
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
If everybody else has to "subsidise" a treasury that thinks it is down due to monies that it was never actually owed because of legal avoidance, then that suggests to me that the country is simply spending money it doesn't have.

They do have the money, from taxpayers always having to pay more.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:39
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
A basic income is the below (not what is described)

Everyone gets it forever (from 16/18?) so no means testing, administration, sanctions
You get it in work or not in work
It probably is the future when many people will not work (due to automation).
Surely there would have to be some conditions. What about prisoners or those with previous convictions? What about people who move here from another country? What about those who leave to work or retire abroad?
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:43
Belligerence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ghosts Forge
Posts: 38,994
I could imagine the Mail and 'scrounger of the week' on This Morning frothing the mouths of the nation if it were implemented here.
Belligerence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:58
mikw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 34,391
I can actually see saving the tax payer money, and it ensures poverty ends, far too sensible an idea
mikw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:58
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
It isn't a basic income as it is only for those who are unemployed but it appears it continues to be paid if you get a job so it becomes a basic income but only for those who were unemployed but are now not. Very strange.
The basic income will be paid and deducted from any benefits they already receive.

I wonder what that will make their monthly income in total?
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:26
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
I can actually see saving the tax payer money, and it ensures poverty ends, far too sensible an idea
How will it ensure that poverty ends? It might help some people but you can't make everyone spend their income sensibly. Give extra money to an alcoholic, drug abuser or gambling addict and your are just fueling their vice.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:35
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
...Or that the wages aren't reasonable enough.
"Reasonable" depends on your expectations, people have to earn to live on whatever income they have
One Christmas many years ago I was made redundant having had no income for the previous three months as the company I worked for was going bust. No money for Christmas yet we made the most of it, a cheap compendium of games provided hours of fun - so much so that my children asked if we could do it again
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:37
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
They do have the money, from taxpayers always having to pay more.
The argument for avoidance is that it "costs the treasury X billion pounds", when in fact legal avoidance costs them nothing. If they are squeezing everybody else because they can't legally collect avoided tax, then the blame lies with the government, who should cut spending.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:38
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
That's my point. I don't want to take food out of little kids mouths, I want to ensure they're getting a fair upbringing because some lazy parents who probably had a crappy upbringing themselves would rather indulge themselves before their kids.

My parents went hungry when I was young just to see me through tough times. I respect the hell out of them for that but that shoudn't have happened, they were both unemployed for a grand total of a month between them, and the minute I was old enough to go to nursery my mum didn't take long to get back out there either. Perhaps that's why I have this attitude, because they instilled a strong work ethic in me. The benefits system was intended to provide people with a safety net, not a lifestyle.

Sorry, I missed your point
I totally agree with what you say
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:56
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
The argument for avoidance is that it "costs the treasury X billion pounds", when in fact legal avoidance costs them nothing. If they are squeezing everybody else because they can't legally collect avoided tax, then the blame lies with the government, who should cut spending.
Both legal avoidance and illegal evasion costs them and us money.

I think we need more details.
How long will they continue to receive it after they get a job?
How long does someone have to be unemployed to qualify?
I can see it being abused
I agree there isn't enough detail. Is there anything which isn't abused?
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:18
Happ Hazzard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire
Posts: 1,639
Giving free money for people for not working is never the answer. People need to make themselves employable, and given a little bit of money to subsist on while they do this. Not given money forever for sitting on their backside just wasting air.
Happ Hazzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:47
Andrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,649
Not given money forever for sitting on their backside just wasting air.
Well just for you - how about giving them money so that they feel less tempted to resort to a life of crime?
Andrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:14
muggins14
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Pit of Despair
Posts: 50,126
OK - but the issue there is shit wages and baby benefits. I honestly do know how you feel, when I was last in the UK, I was doing agency supply work in Education, on a good day it'd be £70 a day, £50 on a reasonable, but being temp it was never guaranteed, and some weeks I'd scrape by on £50 for the whole, and that was before rent/bills/council rates and saving for the dreaded unpaid school holidays (which is why I ended up on the dole temporarily). I think I was entitled to either £78(?) a week or fortnight on benefits. I don't live an luxuriant lifestyle, but it was difficult to get by on a wage, let alone on the dole. I don't think I've ever eaten so much plain couscous in my life (£1 for 750g - can't argue with that).

But then when you add kids in the mix, the choice is either to support them or not to. Ideally, people would just put a ****ing condom on and stop breeding, let alone the abhorrent act of breeding for benefits, but if you can't stop that, the alternative is either to take kids into an already overcrowded state care system, or not to provide money for said kids. I agree wholeheartedly that the system is being abused, but if that's the necessary burden of at least in part preventing kids being in squalor, then necessary it is...

It's utterly absurd it took this long to get the so-called 'living wage' (provided you can get the hours), and it especially pisses me off when you hear of the bastards at the top fiddling expenses or tax arrangements. That's why in principal I'm just not against new ideas like the one mentioned above being trialled.
Only some places pay the 'real living wage' which is higher than the Government's supposed living wage. http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage "For people who are paid the real Living Wage it means the difference between just getting the government minimum and earning enough to afford the things you need to live, like a decent meal, a warm home and a birthday treat for your children.

Full time employees earning the real Living Wage earn £45 a week more than those on the government minimum, and £95 a week in London." Unfortunately this is a voluntary scheme, but at least some employers are realistic enough to participate.

I see on this thread there are still people banging on about people living on benefits instead of working, when we know that most people on benefits are pensioners and the low paid working people of this country, who couldn't survive without top-up wages. Yet people still continue to moan about lazy benefit recipients.

The fact that the supposed Government living wage is so low that people receiving it have to receive top-ups from welfare to survive, is not the fault of those in receipt of welfare but those who pay the disgustingly low wages.
muggins14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:22
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
Both legal avoidance and illegal evasion costs them and us money.
Legal avoidance costs the treasury nothing. They can't collect the money as it was never legally due, under the rules.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:38
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
Only some places pay the 'real living wage' which is higher than the Government's supposed living wage. http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage "For people who are paid the real Living Wage it means the difference between just getting the government minimum and earning enough to afford the things you need to live, like a decent meal, a warm home and a birthday treat for your children..
What's "real" about the "Real Living Wage"?

Is that higher rate really enough to have your own home and raise a couple of children in London? I wouldn't want to do it.

What about the Really Real Living Wage?
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:48
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
Well just for you - how about giving them money so that they feel less tempted to resort to a life of crime?
The best way of keeping people away from a life of crime is a full time job. People who are worried about losing their job tend not to beak the law as much as those who are unemployed.

Giving people a guaranteed income with no chance of losing it would be no disincentive from breaking the law.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:07
smcbeath
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,246
So I take it that all current benefits are scrapped and replaced with universal basic income. No more housing benefits etc. This is surely a good thing.

If you only get £100-£150 per week and you have to pay all your bills, surely that*is not enough and you will have to pick up a job, maybe 20 hours a week, for most people. Obviously people will be forced to share homes, stay with there parents etc if they don't want to work.

So it could create more jobs, as full timers go part time and free up some homes
smcbeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:21
mikw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 34,391
How will it ensure that poverty ends? It might help some people but you can't make everyone spend their income sensibly. Give extra money to an alcoholic, drug abuser or gambling addict and your are just fueling their vice.
It would be a lot better than the current system, it costs more to enforce that the money the claimants get.

Perhaps if people felt a bit more secure they'd be less likely to turn to drugs and gambling.
mikw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:13
starry_rune
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,654
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7505411.html
starry_rune is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22.