
How Finland plans to implement the first nation-wide basic income in the EU - imartin2k
http://finlandpolitics.org/2015/11/05/710/
======
mc32
I'm glad someone is trying it out. Hope they offer insight into what works
what doesn't and any caveats. It may also be a bit early, as automation isn't
in its stride yet.

Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. Whether their
model can be adapted to say Indonesia or the US or Japan is to be seen.

The main source of ideas was from Milton and the Nixon administration who with
the economy going south looked for alternative means for people to "make" a
living.

"...Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal
wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed
it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax"

So it'd be accompanied by a loss of minimum wage floor as well as it should be
as low as possible (approx USD 1000/mo after initial trial phase in Finland.)

It's not a comfy lifestyle by any means, but could get people off the streets
who otherwise would not have the means.

Given those parameters, with a few exceptions, I don't see this implementation
undermining people's will and want to work and at the same time it has great
upside in simplicity and affecting their poorest citizens positively.

~~~
mcv
I'm pretty left-wing (I consider myself a libertarian socialist), but I agree
with Friedman. Once you have a livable basic income, you don't really need a
minimum wage and progressive taxation anymore. Those things exist primarily to
guarantee livable conditions for the very poorest, but Basic Income would
guarantee those livable conditions in a far more simple and effective way.

Two important effects of this would be:

a) the labour market would become a lot more open and free. At the moment,
employers wield all the power because employees _need_ a job. It's not a free
market if you can't say no to a deal. With basic income, people can say no if
the offer is too bad. But if your alternative is starvation, a terrible job
for too little pay is still better than nothing. Minimum wage exists to limit
the employers' power to exploit people who have no option to say no.

b) It fixes the unemployment trap. For people with unemployment or disability
benefits, getting a low-pay part-time job often means they end up with less
money (or the same money and more costs) despite them taking the effort to
work, because they lose the benefits. This discourages people from working.
With Basic Income, you keep that income if you get a job, so you always get
ahead by working, even if it's only a little. There's nothing fraudulent
anymore about doing little jobs while unemployed.

I'd probably prefer both the basic income and the tax to be a bit higher than
Friedman would like them to be, but that's part of the standard political-
economic give and take. As long as the Basic Income is at least enough for
decent food and rent, I'm happy.

~~~
notahacker
If you don't have progressive taxation any more, you're either going to be
unable to pay for the BI or seriously hurt the middle classes. If the rich pay
lower [net] taxes, someone else pays more (assuming you're not on the right
hand side of a Laffer curve)

~~~
toadi
Don't know how it's at your end but where I'm from it's the middle class that
pays for the taxes. I'm middle class and in the highest tax bracket.

Rich people have money. Making money using money is almost not taxed here. So
they escape the taxes.

~~~
charlesdm
Part of the problem is that most middle class people don't have excellent
accountants and tax attorneys. So they're an easy target. Whereas, if you're
truly wealthy, you will optimise your taxes etc more. Most also don't mind
going to court to challenge the government on certain bits of the law, if the
risk/reward ratio makes sense.

If you are paying 40-50% in tax, they're probably only paying 15-20%

~~~
marcosdumay
That's why I'm a big fan of VATs (with a displacing BI).

Yes, they are regressive. So are income taxes, the only difference is that
people lie (even to themselves) about those.

~~~
charlesdm
I think VAT is great, if we can lower overall taxes. For example, I wouldn't
mind seeing a high tax on luxury items. But a balance needs to be found within
existing tax systems. In general, we shouldn't tax investments and labour as
much. Those both create value. If I'm actively investing and getting great
returns, I'm helping the economy.

Personally I'm quite a big fan of the Estonian tax system. You pay tax once
you take money out of the company (i.e. when you want to spend it)

~~~
kspaans
Woah, Estonia has a Land Value Tax! Baller! Reading about it briefly, I like
the simplicity of it. I guess that's what you get when you can start
relatively fresh like Estonia did (see also their e-citizenship and
e-government efforts).

------
piokoch
Basic income idea always resambles me a lot Lex Frumentaria introduced in
ancient Rome by Gaius Gracchus. The idea was exactly the same - give people
"basic income", that is alomost free grain. Was Gracchus successful? Not
really, he died in a rather miserable way.

In addition Rome was weakened by that law. First of all even if budget could
not afford free grain, there was no way to put end to that law (Rome was a
democracy, croud wanted free grain). The other unwanted effect was migration
of people from villages to the city (hey, there is free food there, so what's
the point working hard).

I encourage every supporter of basic income to learn more about that Roman law
and how it affected Rome.

When we start giving money we need to think about a number of issues:

1\. Someone needs to earn these money, someone will have to be taxed and that
someone will not be happy. Rich people tend to know how to avoid taxes. So it
may turn out that in a few years it will be hard to provide money for basic
income, unless a given country has sufficient natural resources to finance
basic income.

2\. How basic income will affect inflation (if it is going to increase it, it
may happen that basic income becomes worthless shortly)

3\. How basic income will affect democracy - I can imagine a party which main
program point will be "increase basic income" (Gaius Gracchus was outbid by
his competitors) - a croud might vote for a random wacko without thinking
about further consequences.

4\. And, at the and, as there is a question if basic income is ethical. We
take money from X to give that to Y, this does not sound good when we think
about things like ownership, justice - obviously that depends on ethical
system one prefers.

If it turn out that basic income caused economical problems in a given country
(higher inflation, high taxes, capital escape, budget deficit) then who will
have to pay for that failed experiment?

It may happen that potential beneficiaries of free income (economically
weaker, poorer people) will have to pay for it much more then they got.

~~~
jboggan
Bravo. In the long run the people most harmed by the full implementation of
these schemes will be the underclass they purport to aid.

The people that are supposed to pay for all of this are by definition the
people who are clever enough and powerful enough to figure out how to avoid
paying for it. Raise taxes enough on those juicy Silicon Valley salaries and
you'll see large tech companies decreasing salaries while compensating with
corporate housing, transportation, and stock that is taxed at a lower rate.
The money simply won't be there, not in the amounts needed or anticipated.

------
kisstheblade
Unfortunately I don't think this is going to work as long as there are any
other benefits paid on an "individual basis", eg some cultures here get extra
money for their traditional dresses paid for by social security! And if you
have kids and have spent all your "basic income" then you will still get new
strollers (top of the line) etc for your babies, or cellphones for yor self
and your family, with paid plans. Or your electric and internet bills paid.
The left will never agree to ditch these subsidies.

And the biggest issue is that housing is also paid for spearately under this
plan (as per the article). Nowadays the situation living in helsinki center is
that only rich and unemployed people can afford to live there. You know,
"close to where the work is!".

They should pay you a lump sum and you would live where you wanted using only
that money. Too bad if you can't afford the most expensive place to stay where
"the work" (=pubs and bars) are.

In more remote places (but still cities) you can have a studio appartment for
probably 200 euros per month.

~~~
mc32
They could tweak it so you get your basic income, if you forgo other forms of
subsidies (as Milton orig. proposed). Also, Russians can't just cross the
border and become eligible as it appears it's citizens only. And I wouldn't
begrudge Laplanders, life up there is austere.

If they choose this, then "rational" unemployed would move to the outskirts
and rent cheaper properties till they could afford more expensive apartments
(via new jobs). Hope they can keep it free of interference so it can be gauged
for success or failure.

~~~
vlehto
>citizens only

No it's not. Currently all wellfare in Finland is based permanent residence.
But if you don't have permanent residence, the social services will get you
one if you just are in Finland "permanently". Which happens if you can claim
that you have no other safe place to go. Or if you have family here. Or if you
have no other citizenship.

Russians can't come over the border right now. But if there is ever a civil
war in Russia, then we are fucked. If Russia starts to move Syrian refugees
through russia just to fuck with us, we are in deep shit.

Some people are really worried about immigration. While it's not a problem
right now. Some people are really worried that we are not perceived as
fascist. Some people are really worried about refugees who are here. Nobody
gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria.

Getting citizenship means you have to do military service, but you gain
nothing from it. Currently it is punishment really.

~~~
lentil_soup
That's a lot of assumptions and scaremongering that have nothing to do with
the article.

~~~
josteink
> That's a lot of assumptions and scaremongering that have nothing to do with
> the article.

I beg to differ. In Norway we are getting lots of "refugees" which has been
safely in non-warring European countries[1], seeking asylum here, simply
because its a known thing we have higher "wages" for asylum-seekers than other
European countries.

It may be cold hearted, and it may not be a popular opinion, but my take on it
is that these people stopped being genuine refugees 4000kilometers ago. They
are now welfare-shoppers. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue anything
else.

We're getting a flood of people right now, and the result is that our asylum
institution can't scale to handle them all.

All historical data suggests that they will all be non-working, non-integrated
people, living on government benefits for years to come, and for those who
manage to become a productive part of society, they will still be less
productive than regular citizens, for a multitude of reasons. Historical data
also says most of them wont return, but still will have the same rights to
government provided benefits, pensions, etc. Nothing personal, nothing racist,
but they will be a net loss for the national economy.

All these things accounts to a massive increase in government welfare-related
obligations, costs and spending. Now and in the future. Our "future budget" is
already too big to handle, accounting just our regular citizens. With this
flood we're facing future bankruptcy.

To avoid that means taking away future pensions. It means we stop maintaining
infrastructure like roads _now_. It means cutting costs all over. The costs
are very real.

And now Finnish people may fear that such an offer like this will land them in
the same situation: That they too will become a "too sexy" target for welfare-
shopping ex-refugees. It's not fearmongering. It's a very realistic scenario.
I can't say I would blame them for thinking that way.

[1] [http://imgur.com/YDegTCn](http://imgur.com/YDegTCn)

~~~
vlehto
Finland already has high rate of refugees compared to Estonia or France(?). I
don't think UBI changes that picture at all, as the refugees already get any
money citizens would.

At very least the perverce incentive of wellfare to non-citizens should be
acknowledged. But that's not politically correct at the moment.

I don't think it's good for the refugees themselves either in the long run.
Their children could have been doctors, lawyers and engineers in Syria, Egypt
of Turkey in 2050. Now they are destined to be third class citizens in cold
and dark north.

------
jbb555
I don't see how this can possibly work.

I'm reasonably well paid, and pay a lot of tax. I can save quite a bit. I
could afford to live for 5 years from my savings without working. But not
forever, so I still work.

But if someone was to give me 800 euro a month then I could live of my saving
for maybe 20 years instead. Certainly long enough to get to retirement....

So why would I work? I wouldn't. So not only would this cost 800 euro a month
directly but also the 4000 euro a month in taxes I would have paid.

It doesn't take many people to do the obvious thing...

~~~
onion2k
If that's what you actually want to do, why don't you negotiate with your
employer to work 1 day a week for 1,600 euros a month? You'd have twice what
this basic income pays and you'd have 80% of the free time you want. That has
to be a good deal, right.

The fact is, there are very few people in your position, and fewer still who'd
give up their considerable income in order to not work. Very few of us work
_just_ to live; we all want more than that. The number of high earners who'd
quit their jobs is minimal. However... The number of low earners who'd quit is
_much_ bigger. That's the problem that society will need to deal with - the
cost of things like retail and domestic services like cleaning will go up
considerably because people won't do the work unless it pays relatively well.

~~~
saiya-jin
not entirely, market will find its way around in long run, ie immigration
(legal or illegal), illegal employment etc. all net loss for state.

people want to pay as little as possible to get as much as possible, that's
natural to all of us.

~~~
onion2k
_people want to pay as little as possible to get as much as possible, that 's
natural to all of us._

I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of businesses that do very well
selling less at a higher price - there is perceived value in buying an
ethical, artisan or luxury good. Perhaps people wouldn't mind paying a bit
more if it meant society was better off if they could actually afford to. The
notion of doing things for the "maximum possible happiness", even if it means
you're worse off yourself, isn't new. Jeremy Bentham was writing about
"felicific calculus" more than 200 years ago -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus)

------
kriro
I'm glad someone tries it but remain very skeptical.

If you take the proposed eventual 800 Euro and assume every single citizen
will get it (roughly 5.5 million in Finland) that would be 52.8 billion
Euro/year. For comparison the net domestic product of Finland is 216.9 billion
(bad indicator but one i could find with a quick search)

I think if you do this, every citizen should get the base income and only
income above it and corporate income should be taxed. Currently the average
income in Finland is about 3.1k/month. So on average that's 2300 Euro taxable
income (once again grossly simplifying). You'd need to tax that at roughly 35%
to refinance the base income. Not sure if the corporate taxes and hiking the
35% to say 50% (+savings on all the stuff that is now covered by the 800 like
unemployment, retirement) can make up for all the other costs (infrastructure,
education, health care, police, military etc.)

There's also the standard questions of "why not ask for more" and "what will
people do with the free time, why should they work". Which are the interesting
questions that an experiment could help answer.

~~~
derefr
Remember that basic income displaces payouts from other social programs. How
much do social welfare and unemployment programs pay out in Finland?

Also remember that, although everyone theoretically gets an equal slice of a
basic-income pie, there's nothing stopping a government from making taxes more
progressive to claw back the wealth transfer from anyone who was living
comfortably on their own income and didn't really need the help.

~~~
millstone
I wonder about non-payout social programs, especially those aimed at children,
like Head Start or SNAP (food stamps) in the USA. Will basic income enable
recipients to make more efficient choices? Or will recipients squander it,
diverting money away from nutrition and child development?

~~~
derefr
Now you've got me imagining children receiving their own basic incomes, with
the government getting to decide how some proportion (30%? 100%?) of their
monthly allocation gets spent, and the parents getting handed the rest.

Something interesting with basic income is that it erases the traditional
"income flow" that makes it make sense for parents to have one bank account
that they own, and pay for all family members out of it. Under basic income, I
could see each family member defaulting to having their own bank account to
receive deposits.

You could go _way_ more wild in the "enforcing spending on childen" with that
setup than anything food stamps do. You could require that e.g. the government
gets to audit the expenses on all "child" accounts to ensure they're _for_ the
child; and additionally require that parents only buy things "for" their
children by first transferring money from their own account to the child's,
and only then spend what is now _the child 's_ money on the item.

~~~
adrianN
Such an audit scheme would introduce huge bureaucracy and cost immense amounts
of money. It also opens the door for all kinds of corruption. Who decides
which things are ok to spend money on "for children"? Lobbyists?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Without audits you also get corruption. Some parents are quite willing to pick
their children's pockets.

It's far from clear why you want to give our most vulnerable people absolutely
no protection from the corrupt. We could also save money by abolishing the
SEC, FINRA, and the EPA - do you also favor this?

------
datashovel
A few points that I thought would be worth making here. I read through all the
comments a little while ago and was surprised no one was pointing these out.
Maybe they're too obvious, but I think worth the space since many comments
seem to contradict these:

1) I think you can't just consider the implications of how people will behave
as employees once they're earning a Basic Income. How employers will simply
take advantage of the system and force people to work for less. If anything I
think it will put more pressure on businesses to make sure they're paying
enough, otherwise they won't have the manpower to grow their business. Then
there's the argument about automation. There will be only a few companies who
can do automation to compete in this new economy. If anything I think it's
worth mentioning that not only will it make it easier for large corporations
to attempt to take advantage of people, but I think it will make it far easier
for regular citizens to become employers. For example, I think people will be
far more willing to accept terms that pay only equity in a company than they
would be today.

2) With regard to "what will people do with all of their spare time". I think
perhaps the dystopian future many people imagine will happen for a few weeks
where people celebrate, get drunk and party all day because they don't have to
work. Eventually I imagine that life will catch up to most people. They'll
have hobbies, they'll start businesses, they'll contribute to non-profit
efforts. And one of the most important I think, they'll have the time to
engage with their government to ensure it remains loyal to its citizens and
not to special interests.

NOTE: And to clarify I think these points are made with regard to a "Basic
Income" and not a "Minimum Guaranteed Income". Basic Income IMO is the far
superior choice. Minimum Guaranteed Income seems to give all the benefit to
the large corporations and little to no benefit to the average citizen besides
guarantee that they'll remain out of poverty for their entire life.

~~~
Shivetya
We can hope they find hobbies, instead idle minds tend to destructive habits.
Let alone all those idle people are ripe for exploitation by political groups
and the like.

The hard part with a BI is finding incentive for many to do more than the
minimum required to survive. We might be creating that dystopian future simply
by defining through law the minimum required to keep people from rising up. In
other words, we create a permanent lower class whom we keep just happy enough
they don't take out stuff.

I think BI is an interesting idea but the dangers are too high unless you find
something for people to do. Don't wait for them to find it, most never will
try. BI needs to come with some public service at the minimum if not employed

------
hcarvalhoalves
Here's one thing I don't understand: isn't this just going to inflate prices?

If I have an apartment for rent, and now I know _everybody_ is getting,
unconditionally, a $ 800 paycheck, what keeps me from raising the price by the
same amount? The people who _do_ work will still be able to pay my price, and
there'll be demand for it.

~~~
harryf
In most Western European countries rent is tightly controlled so it's not
possible for landlords to make big increases overnight.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
Ok: what keeps me from raising prices, period?

Also, rent was just one example. In the long run it seems inflation will just
go up unless there's heavy regulation of the market, at least on basic goods
and services (housing, food, clothing, etc).

~~~
nordify
Nothing keeps you from raising prices. However, just because people have more
money does not mean competition will stop. In fact competition might increase
and prices go down, as there is more money to be made and risks/costs go down.

------
everslick
An aspect greatly overlooked in this discussion here is, that an UBI would rid
us from a ton of bullshit jobs people are currently forced to do, just to get
by. So in a way, an UBI can lead to degrowth eventually, which decreases
pollution, traffic jams, energy consumption, waste a.s.o.

I'm looking forward to see what people are going to do with the spare time.

------
rasse
As a Finn, my primary concern is whether or not basic income will just inflate
rents.

~~~
746F7475
Why would they? Would people in general be "earning" more money from basic
income than current benefits? I mean you can't increase rent past the point
people are able to pay.

~~~
switch007
> I mean you can't increase rent past the point people are able to pay.

You can increase them past the point that people on lower wages/basic income
can pay, driving them out of desirable or semi desirable areas to cheaper
areas. See London as an example.

~~~
746F7475
But I don't see why you need to live in London? You might like it and want to
live there, but then you need the money to be able to.

Like I could move to Helsinki if I wanted to on my current salary, but I see
no reason to do so. I live in smaller city (or maybe it's even considered a
town) and I have plenty of extra money left over after my rent.

~~~
switch007
I don't need to nor, personally, want to. However, the people already there
have a right to be there, especially those born in London, who grew up there,
who have families, jobs, community involvement etc.

------
api_or_ipa
I can't really take an article seriously when it refers to Milton Friedman as
a Libertarian. He's most certainly not. He was a leading Chicago school
adherent.

~~~
jkldotio
Words in English are frequently polysemic. There are well established
philosophical, "left" and "right" meanings to "libertarian" which seem to have
evolved in that order.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology)

Friedman is clearly closest to the last camp and even self-identified with it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism_and_the_Republican_Party)

Obviously for an article pitched at a general audience, rather than an
academic one, some people won't know Friedman so it's not unreasonable to
expect them to clarify. I presume that's why they added the following lines
immediately after calling him a "libertarian economist".

"Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage
system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it
should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax (which means
that the tax would be universal and at the same rate for all). So in reality,
what Friedman was pushing for was a system which would provide employers with
people ready to work for lower salaries at no additional cost to employers."

I can't see how any reasonable person could read that and then claim the
article was putting Friedman in the wrong camp or being misleading or
inaccurate regarding that point.

------
ThomPete
A lot of people discuss UBI from two angels.

Either _" people will mostly work but it's a better way to secure those who do
not or cannot"_ Or _" a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why
would they when they get money for just sitting on their hands"_

However thats the wrong perspective for this.

UBI is a potential solution IF you believe that most jobs will be gone which
also means that most taxation schemes like income tax will be gone to. If you
are still thinking about this as a solution to getting jobs back or there
aren't enough people to pay for it then it's already a dead discussion.

So the key premise for this discussion is not whether it will solve our job
problems or whether people will be lazy and not pay income tax. The key
premise is that the productivity gains and price decreases by automation is
used as some of the leverage for society to build a self sustained ecosystem
for humans to live in. Where technology is a kind of photosynthesis that allow
for the distribution of goods and wealth even though everyone mostly ended up
working with producing said good.

~~~
grecy
> _" a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why would they when
> they get money for just sitting on their hands"_

Every person in Australia over 22 and under retirement age can get extremely
generous welfare, forever. It doesn't matter if you've never had a job, etc.
etc.

A single person gets $1046/mo

With children is $1200/mo

[http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/newstart-
allowance)

Are Australians sitting around on their hands? Some are, sure, but the vast
majority don't want to live the life that ~$1k/mo buys.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not my claims I was talking about what a lot of people say when it comes
to this discussion.

~~~
grecy
Yep, I was backing you up.

------
thomaskcr
I think the only way for basic income to work is a very clear definition of
what is and is not luxury. I think a lot of the issues with minimum wage and
welfare debates stem from different people having different definitions of
what should be paid for by those services.

We see this with the minimum wage debate -- everyone's definition of a "living
wage" is different. Does basic mean house, car etc in a nice area or does it
mean that if you're not working you can afford to live only where the cost of
living is low? I think this needs to be really clearly laid out so down the
line the intention of the money is clear.

If it's clearly laid out ahead of time, then in the US situation for example,
someone complaining that they cannot afford an apartment in an expensive area
without working is not evidence for a need to raise the basic income, it's
evidence they need to move or find a (better) job.

~~~
vlehto
It may sound weird, but this is not that big problem in Finland. We don't have
too much that sort of arguments. Our politics is lot more consensus/compromise
based than U.S. politics. This means people disagreeing in quantity can be
sorted out. But the big parties can veto this stuff for no apparent reason
what so ever.

Our left is more communist than U.S. left. Some of them don't give a shit what
is "living wage". They think government should give them all excess money
possible. And if there is no excess, then take loan to support some arbitrary
standard of living for everybody. "You don't have to pay debt" "tax the rich
more".

But people don't really believe them. Most Finns still think that "average
Finn is somewhat sensible person". The whole multiparty system can exist,
because we mostly agree on stuff. It's just the details that are different.
When I go to vote, I don't think "how to save the country from the evil
Kokoomus". I think what party could nudge the system to better direction.

Being cohesive small nation state is cosy. But the hivemind can be scary at
times. Currently police is trying to pass internet surveilance legistlation
and it's not much protested. Because "average Finn is somewhat sensible, they
would not do this if they didn't really have to".

------
dcw303
What are the schools of thought regarding inflation? It seems to me that any
mass handout would quickly raise the cost of living and nullify any benefit.

~~~
littletimmy
Why does it seem that way to you?

"Cost of living" in basics like rent and food is what people buy anyway. How
is having a basic income going to change that, unless you had like a huge
homeless/starving population that can suddenly now get homes/food?

~~~
dcw303
I admit that I don't know that much about basic income but had assumed that
everyone would be "better off" by the same amount. Others in the thread have
kindly informed me that is not the case, and that taxation will take out the
benefit for higher earners.

I must say that doesn't sound very "universal" to me.

~~~
littletimmy
Even if we give $30,000 to EVERYONE, the poor will be more better off than the
rich because $15,000 to $30,000 is a much bigger jump than $400,000 to
$415,000. But the price of basics is not going to change that much because
everyone buys them already.

The "universal" part is that this is a universal floor on living standards
that applies to everyone.

------
jkot
I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income.
It translates as 'minimal liveable income' and is paid to people who have no
other income. It is about 60 euro/month in Czech republic. In Germany it is
about 300 euro/month, but can easily go up to 1000 euro/month with all extras.

Problem is that one has to prove he does not have any other income. That could
be problem for some people, for example illegal foreigners. Or divorced
fathers who have income on paper, but everything gets confiscated for alimony.

~~~
danielbarla
> ... and is paid to people who have no other income

So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a
guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called
"welfare cliffs".

An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month
being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make
sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd
go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is
much more complex than that, but that's the idea.

~~~
krzyk
Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0,
after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis,
at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money
and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the
same as $0 where we started.

~~~
danielbarla
To some degree, I'm sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering
of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc. But I don't think
it can get to the point that you're specifying, simply because prices will
always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price
fixing.

But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity
and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower.
Essentially, what we're talking about is that people below a certain threshold
are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in
the long run. E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because
they are living day to day. By giving financial independence to everyone, you
are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals. It'd also give
more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees
that innovation is an overall net win.

Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this
would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and
companies, and it'd redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones. It can be
argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is
rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more
evenly. Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather
rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.

------
laotzu
I'm all for a UBI but I'm very skeptical of the feasibility of implementing
one based on the dollar or any paper based monetary system that is not an
actual standard and scientific measure of resources, and none of them are to
my knowledge.

An efficient UBI would be implemented using a computer based mathematical
measurement system.

We've already got a surplus of food, water, and shelter to take care of all
humanity, we just haven't figured out how to measure and distribute it
properly.

Technologies such as machine vision and video/image recognition could keep a
real time measurement of the global resource stockpile. Feed that into an open
source distributed ledger for all to see, and then distribute it based on a
demand algorithm using solar powered drones for maximum efficiency.

~~~
maaarghk
No problem Mr Asimov.

------
Amorymeltzer
Also from today: [http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-
finland/](http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-finland/)

>The Finnish economy is 11% smaller than its 2008 peak, making it look more
like Italy or Spain than the stronger “core” countries of the euro zone.
According to the latest monthly estimates, Finland’s economic output shrank by
a daunting 2.6% in September versus the year before, the worst result in more
than two years

------
transfire
Kudos to Finland! I think their BI may be a bit high (the trial amount seems
about right), but inflation will adjust to the amount so it won't really
matter much.

I think it is wrong to think of BI as an income one could actually live
comfortably on, as this article seems to. That would provide too much
disincentive to be unproductive. Rather a BI should be just enough to keep
people from starving and freezing and enough to bootstrap a life with.

~~~
saiya-jin
Not sure about Finnish example, but where I am right now (Switzerland), social
security does exactly that, without major costly experiments with god know
what results.

In fact, system is so effective that if you end up unemployed, for one year
you'll be given 80% of your former salary (capped, but to 120,000 CHF!) so you
are not burdened with looking for cheaper accommodation etc which is very hard
here. If you cannot find anything in 1 year, then other services kick in, of
course with much lower cash flow. It works remarkably well.

------
RobertoG
There are some propositions for calling 'basic income' a 'technological
dividend'.

Changing the name changes the debate about it in a manner that is, maybe, more
appropriate for the modern times.

At the end of the day, a basic income it's only possible in affluent
societies, and it's technology what makes a society affluent.

------
giorgosts
Here in Cyprus we have guaranteed minimum income benefit of 480 euros since
2014
[http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&int...](http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&intPageId=3249)

~~~
seszett
That's not the same though, I believe most countries have a guaranteed minimum
income (520 euros in France) but unlike basic income, minimum income is not
unconditional.

It disappears if you earn money from a job, which creates (some) disincentive
to find a job, and requires elaborate rules to reduce this disincentive (like
reducing the benefit progressively relative to the total income, etc).

Basic income on the other hand is unconditional, so whatever job you have you
won't feel like you're losing on benefits (at least, that's the idea).

------
jugbee
The title is misleading, since all the Baltic countries have basic income for
like 20 years. If anyone's interested - in Lithuania it's 305euros, in Latvia
350, in Estonia, if i'm not mistaken it's something about 400

~~~
kwhitefoot
We are all interested but some references would be handy. Are you sure that
you have not confused this with a CONDITIONAL minimum income? That is one that
is only available to people who don't have an income, a means tested payment.

Also even in the Baltic states EU400 is surely not much for a month.

------
grp
I want to think basic income is a good idea.

But how the "bonus salary" will be calculated in the case of political jobs
(to legislate) and above all army? Is there any texts on this subject?

~~~
JupiterMoon
I assume "current salary" \- "basic income" = "bonus salary" would be a good
place to start.

------
tn13
This makes sense only if we are getting rid of all other welfare.

~~~
MarcusVorenus
The article says it will replace some other benefits that Finns currently
have. If the project works then I assume other welfare programs will be folded
into the basic income over time.

~~~
tn13
Yes. That is a smart thing to do but generally there is a strong resistance
from different branches of government responsible for delivering those welfare
schemes. The arguments tend to be "but that person will spend it on drugs".

------
Zklsalue8
This is going to be hilarious.

Finland, you so silly.

