DS Forums

 
 

Finland trials basic income for unemployed


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 02:07
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
Legal avoidance costs the treasury nothing. They can't collect the money as it was never legally due, under the rules.
...Except in the cases of buffed-up billionaires exercising influence to ensure they can dodge large amounts of tax.

It's especially rife here in Australia with mining businesses. When business was booming, the argument was that they could avoid tax because of the contribution to the economy through jobs and exports (why they still couldn't pay a little tax on their billions of profits, beyond me); and now that the mining industry is slowly dying a death, the argument is that making them pay tax would kill off the industry once and for all.

Which why mining magnate Gina "One Buffet Ain't Enough" Rhinehart is living a very polished life, whilst campaigning for lower wages, foreign workers, and benefit events for the 'friendly' parties in Government. But then again, she can barely keep down a stable relationship with her own children.

Now we're left with a generation of "cashed-up bogans" who have overspent, and a Government desperately trying to revive a dying horse. It's all well and good to spew the old mantra of 'Government should spend less' (we're having the same bollocks of 'austerity politics' here), but making tax exceptions just hasn't paid off in the long run, harms small businesses (who can't compete, even with tax concessions), prevents low-paid workers from having more money to give to the economy, and leaves the necessary services starved of the money they need.

Nobody likes tax, but it's a necessary evil, and why on Earth those who can afford to pay their share should have theirs made an exception at the expense of everyone else really is beyond me. It's an absolute mind**** that we're only just broaching the subject of multinationals.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 02:21
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
"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
But 'reasonable' doesn't just relate to what you can afford to buy at Christmas. Cheap and cheerful Christmas - yeah, you can do that (I once gifted two Diet Coke cans wrapped in tin foil). But after paying rent, bills, council tax (as I alluded to earlier) and being left with sod-all at the end of it, would suggest something unreasonable.

I know the then argument is, "well get a better job", "get a second job", "relocate somewhere cheaper", but that's all reliant on having the means to do so.

We had some rich bint here on television say, "Well, start your own business, that's what I did!". Which is all well and good, but if you've got a population buying cheap because they can only afford cheap, then it's big business, not small, that profits, a real Catch-22.

I'd much prefer to shop locally, but when wages aren't great, no-one can be expected to pay double the price at your local business when you get twice, thrice or four times the amount of stuff for the same price at the big shop down the road. Then we wonder why shops are struggling (down in part to technology, I agree, but that's also within the same principle of affordability) and people aren't spending as much as we want them to, or only spending in selected businesses.

I'm not at all proposing that I have the answer, or that the answer is simple; only that the current system is rusty and antiquated, and full of ridiculous theories and misconceptions (such as 'big businesses would avoid our country's economy if we made them pay tax!' - I really doubt that, to be honest).
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:51
Andrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,649
Giving people a guaranteed income with no chance of losing it would be no disincentive from breaking the law.
I didn't say it was. I said it would 'make them less tempted'. That means a removal of an incentive which is not the same thing as a disincentive.

Poverty is a major cause of criminal activity so alleviating it should somewhat reduce it.

http://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-and-crime
Andrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:11
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,731
Everyone is a tax avoider to some degree! buy fresh veg? why not get them ready done in a meal and you can give the state 20% of the price in tax, why drive a fuel efficient car? surely something that does 50 gallons to the mile is better for the states finances!

It will be nice to see some real numbers from a proper test as I think it could work and save the system a lot of money and boost the economy.
Maxatoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:32
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
Legal avoidance costs the treasury nothing. They can't collect the money as it was never legally due, under the rules.
HMRC estimate that billions are lost annually by legal avoidance. More is lost by evasion. They represent around a fifth of total estimated annual loss, currently around 34 billion. However, the estimated tax gap has decreased over the last decade, including a slight decrease in avoidance.

Well just for you - how about giving them money so that they feel less tempted to resort to a life of crime?
Blackmail? Not wishing to control their own immoral capability is a criminal's own responsibility and choice and regardless of their income. There are a lot of other factors involved besides the easiest excuse.
If everyone had exactly the same income there would still be people living in poverty and without question some of them up to their eyeballs in debt with lots of virtually worthless must have "stuff" to admire and boast about instead.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:57
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,532
HMRC estimate that billions are lost annually by legal avoidance.
The money is not lost, because if it is avoided legally under the rules, then it was never due.

If I didn't owe you a tenner, you can't go on to say that you have lost a tenner because I have avoided giving it to you. I don't actually owe it to you in the first place.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:11
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
The money is not lost, because if it is avoided legally under the rules, then it was never due.

If I didn't owe you a tenner, you can't go on to say that you have lost a tenner because I have avoided giving it to you. I don't actually owe it to you in the first place.
Well - it's more like renting a room out to somebody and them not paying the rent, rather than a tenner owe.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:13
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
The money is not lost, because if it is avoided legally under the rules, then it was never due.

If I didn't owe you a tenner, you can't go on to say that you have lost a tenner because I have avoided giving it to you. I don't actually owe it to you in the first place.


The money is lost because tax avoidance is legal. Round and round and round.....
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:15
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,532


The money is lost because tax avoidance is legal. Round and round and round.....
But money never actually owed is not "lost"

Round and round indeed.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:16
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,172
But money never actually owed is not "lost"

Round and round indeed.
It's lost because tax avoidance is legal.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:18
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,532
It's lost because tax evasion is legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.

Avoiding taxes within HMRC's own rules means it cannot ever be accounted for and is therefore not lost. It doesn't cost anything. You can't lose something that was never yours to begin with.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:06
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,720
My life has been nothing but glamour since I started getting benefits. Everyone should try it.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:15
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
Tax evasion is illegal.

Avoiding taxes within HMRC's own rules means it cannot ever be accounted for and is therefore not lost. It doesn't cost anything. You can't lose something that was never yours to begin with.
Most tax avoidance goes against HMRC desires, and the also the will of Parliament.

Saying that money is "lost" is entirely reasonable.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:19
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,532
Most tax avoidance goes against HMRC desires, and the also the will of Parliament.

Saying that money is "lost" is entirely reasonable.
What the state might prefer you to do, in order to increase their yield is irrelevant. If you structure your affairs so as to avoid tax, legally within the rules written by them, then they can't really argue that they have lost anything.
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:06
mikw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 34,391
What the state might prefer you to do, in order to increase their yield is irrelevant. If you structure your affairs so as to avoid tax, legally within the rules written by them, then they can't really argue that they have lost anything.
We've got ourselves into a terrible mess.

The government are too scared to plug loopholes in case it make Britain a less attractive place to invest. Now they're chasing the most poorest and sickest in society to get money. And it's costing them more than it's saving. Not good, and unethical.

I think the proposed citizen's income is a very good idea.
mikw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:36
CravenHaven
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in the Sun (ツ)
Posts: 11,219
I'd certainly offer more incentives to work and that includes making the lifestyle on benefits a lot less glamorous, not necessarily less money, but literally the bare necessities. I feel sorry for poor kids of these stupid, lazy, self entitled parents saying they can't feed their kids or have a nice christmas while smoking like chimneys and drinking like fish. I think that's a crime in itself.
I never knew people took that exploitation TV like "Bored and blagging benefits" and "Social Scroungers" completely seriously. Well, the programs must be educational then.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
CravenHaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:56
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,720
I never knew people took that exploitation TV like "Bored and blagging benefits" and "Social Scroungers" completely seriously. Well, the programs must be educational then.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seems they do.Rather sad really.

I wonder if they want all people on benefits to live in bare necessities or just certain benefits.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:10
FingersAndToes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,485
This sounds interesting. This article gives very little information, but with a small trial group it's easy to test, and see how it works. The current situation for unemployed people discourages looking for a job, as many times your immediate income decreases if you start working.
FingersAndToes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:14
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,412
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.
The idea is to give a basic income to everyone, not just those not working. But for those not working, the fact that they will be better off for every hour of work they do would surely be an incentive to do so.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:25
davor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 5,189
You can't live on €560 in Finland, especially in major cities where only rent goes as high as €1000 p/m, and the cheapest pizza would be €15. Basic income should never be introduced as it is always worse than benefits. So, if you are poor or unemployed, you would not be able to make ends meet on Basic income. That's what they have tried in Switzerland and the people rejected it.
davor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:31
Andrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 16,649
The idea is to give a basic income to everyone, not just those not working. But for those not working, the fact that they will be better off for every hour of work they do would surely be an incentive to do so.
Yah. Someone offers to employ you for the week shifting boxes in the run up to Christmas and you can just do it. No need to inform DWP or worry about being worse off. Just an extra £100 in your pocket.
Andrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:40
Pumping Iron
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22,979
The idea is to give a basic income to everyone, not just those not working. But for those not working, the fact that they will be better off for every hour of work they do would surely be an incentive to do so.
This would benefit the middle income earners massively, but at the detriment to those in real need. How is someone capped at such a low basic income supposed to afford to live? It wouldn't even cover the rent across much of this country. From a selfish POV I'd be up for it, as my household would be better off, but most of it would go on luxuries such as extra holidays and meals out.
Pumping Iron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:57
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,720
This would benefit the middle income earners massively, but at the detriment to those in real need. How is someone capped at such a low basic income supposed to afford to live? It wouldn't even cover the rent across much of this country. From a selfish POV I'd be up for it, as my household would be better off, but most of it would go on luxuries such as extra holidays and meals out.
When inflation started running at 10% a year and interest rates shot up to control it then there may not be any extra money.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:59
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,412
This would benefit the middle income earners massively, but at the detriment to those in real need. How is someone capped at such a low basic income supposed to afford to live? It wouldn't even cover the rent across much of this country. From a selfish POV I'd be up for it, as my household would be better off, but most of it would go on luxuries such as extra holidays and meals out.
Not sure that you'd be that much better off on a middle income, as presumably tax rates would have to go up to pay for the basic income. Which would have to be set at a level where it doesn't penalise those in real need.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:02
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,720
You can't live on €560 in Finland, especially in major cities where only rent goes as high as €1000 p/m, and the cheapest pizza would be €15. Basic income should never be introduced as it is always worse than benefits. So, if you are poor or unemployed, you would not be able to make ends meet on Basic income. That's what they have tried in Switzerland and the people rejected it.
Not that I think the price of pizza is a good measure of cost of living, but you need to shop around more if you think the cheapest pizza in Helsinki is €15.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51.