Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income

Well, people here have talked about this being a possibility before, now it's happening. Finland is going to experiment with giving some poor people subsistence money. The idea is that this is different from normal welfare, where if you start making money you lose benefits. They think this way more people will actually work since they won't lose this income from making money. I know most people here will hate this idea, but it may work better in the long run. Time will tell.

money.cnn.com...

It doesnt say whos going to pay for it though, The only way something like this would work is if all the country's resources, IE coal, gas oil minerals ect, were seized from the corporations and given to the people, Ran by the people and 100% of profits given to the people, otherwise you would just be taking more money from the working population and giving it to the non working population.

This kind of experiment has been done in the USA for years. You just haven't heard about it. I knew a guy in the seventies who was part of one of these programs. He got $600 a month (Bear in mind this was 1970 or so.) He spent all the money on turquoise jewelry.

a reply to: CB328

Its a good idea in theory in that you save costs on determining who is for the benefits and even for those a bit richer it might encourage them to go out and spend a little extra at the local restaurant.

It also brings everyone under the tax scheme as you'll need a bank account for it to be paid into so they'll be able to monitor a lot more info on the populace.

a reply to: CB328

If you really want a good analysis of the types, pros, cons, and problems / solutions of each, check here:

object.cato.org...

originally posted by: schuyler
This kind of experiment has been done in the USA for years. You just haven't heard about it. I knew a guy in the seventies who was part of one of these programs. He got $600 a month (Bear in mind this was 1970 or so.) He spent all the money on turquoise jewelry.

Back in the seventies if I got something like that It would have been PARTY time. I would have opened a business selling kitchen utinsils, Just pots though.

I aint going to lie If they offered me this I would do it.
I would volunteer somewhere but being 42 and going through a huge midlife crisis I would do so much more with the time I have left.
Time the most important thing for us all.

originally posted by: CB328
Well, people here have talked about this being a possibility before, now it's happening. Finland is going to experiment with giving some poor people subsistence money. The idea is that this is different from normal welfare, where if you start making money you lose benefits. They think this way more people will actually work since they won't lose this income from making money. I know most people here will hate this idea, but it may work better in the long run. Time will tell.

money.cnn.com...

"Most people" do in fact not hate the idea of somebody giving them money for doing nothing other than existing.

What "most people" have a problem with is some people getting money for nothing other than existing but not everybody, combined with the likely/inevitable tax increase that comes with it.

originally posted by: schuyler
This kind of experiment has been done in the USA for years. You just haven't heard about it. I knew a guy in the seventies who was part of one of these programs. He got $600 a month (Bear in mind this was 1970 or so.) He spent all the money on turquoise jewelry.

Turquoise jewelry ( esp. in the seventies ) is a good investment , in more ways than one . Good for him , and the cottage industries ( for the most part ) he supported .

If you do that for everyone, its not much different than quantitative easing. The amount of goods a,d services available wont substantially change though it provides an income floor.

I know most people here will hate this idea, but it may work better in the long run.

As most people should hate it.

WHERE does money come from ?

Other than the obvious. An entity the STATE created called the Federal Reserve.

'Guaranteed' income!

You mean them evil corporations since they make EVERYTHING we use on a daily basis?

If I got free money, no questions asked -- being completely honest, I'd just sit around and drink, smoke, do drugs, play video games, surf the internet, post here, and watch porn all day until I die. All while LOLing at the idiots weak enough to give me their stuff without me even robbing them.

I'd basically be a crackhead with a home. The only reason I'm not a crackhead right now is because the crackhead lifestyle is being homeless and hitting rock-bottom.

Right now, unfortunately, I'm forced to work, not do too many drugs or drink too much, and live a clean, productive life.

I'm a musician who works to survive. If this happens in the US I'd never work again, just do my music. I'd become a leech that does nothing but play guitar and consume. Paying people not to work isn't a solution for anything. Truth....

Here in Finland (yes, i live here) if you are unemployed etc you get anyways something like rent + 500 / month, but the money comes from many places, it takes lots of bureaucrazy (xcuse mua my english ) and is complex and tiring system for even the people who work at the "industry". The new trial period is nothing groundbreaking. You would get that money anyway if you happen to fall on that category.

The idea was that instead of this money, that money and whatnot money that all effect another and makes it so complex you would just always get this X money + what you earn. It should be lot cheaper, less byrocrats, less offices and so on. Somehow our politicians managed to water down the essence of this experiment, so the results are fixed and this trial will fail even before this trial period is over. Someone wants to this go south...

a reply to: WUNK22

I can see the governments paying folk not to have kids tbh for a couple of generations then over population solved.

For everyone asking where the money came from, it was a pilot program and if I recall correctly was from a non-profit, but honestly if this was to be done, the money could easily come from:

Selling your smartphone, PC, tablet's processing power,
Selling personal data day to day as in what you buy, why and so forth. ( trust me, it's worth a lot )
Selling yourself as a data packet deliver system, yes, become part of the internet.

Could also fill out surveys questionnaires
Or wear advertising clothing and bet paid for it.

There is so many ways that we all could have extra incomes or basic incomes and still be contributing to society it's not funny, in fact it's pretty infuriating since what I listed is just a few things I could think of off the top of my head. Imagine what can be done if we invested time and money into this and came up with very functional ways to open up more resources to those without much access to them.

We need a whole new system of econimics and bitcoin just being bitcoin isn't enough, it's great because the concept it being spread around, but sad because it's the 1st big one and doesn't do much else, for a cryptocurrency to be truly functional it needs to be multi-functional addressing needs of today's society.

originally posted by: ilpero
Here in Finland (yes, i live here) if you are unemployed etc you get anyways something like rent + 500 / month, but the money comes from many places, it takes lots of bureaucrazy (xcuse mua my english

) and is complex and tiring system for even the people who work at the "industry". The new trial period is nothing groundbreaking. You would get that money anyway if you happen to fall on that category.

The idea was that instead of this money, that money and whatnot money that all effect another and makes it so complex you would just always get this X money + what you earn. It should be lot cheaper, less byrocrats, less offices and so on. Somehow our politicians managed to water down the essence of this experiment, so the results are fixed and this trial will fail even before this trial period is over. Someone wants to this go south...

President Reagan once pointed out that if you cut out all the bureaucracy and middle-men involved in handouts and just wrote checks no-questions-asked instead, you could afford to feed + house every person on welfare and send them to 4 years of Harvard.

originally posted by: WUNK22
I'm a musician who works to survive. If this happens in the US I'd never work again, just do my music. I'd become a leech that does nothing but play guitar and consume. Paying people not to work isn't a solution for anything. Truth....

They are paying them anyway. But this way in the prosess they can "employ" half of our working age university graduate women and keep up an illusion of Finland being really progressive and stuff, cause so many of our women are highly educated and work in important jobs in important officess. If they just gave approximately same sum to these people without feeding this bloated welfare system unemployment rate in finland would skyrocket. These poor social workers would actually have to find a honest job.
We who actually produce goods have to pay for this asylum. I would welcome this new system anyday instead of this passivating, suffocating social security system that we have now. People can't accept temporary jobs because that would make them poorer. Just think about insanity here...

most already have "guarenteed income" it's called welfare...
I could go for having the gov't say something like, okay, let's say it costs $1000 a month for one person to live, and let's say the figure the additional cost of each child is say $200... in their eyes.. I'm just picking numbers out of thin air by the way..
so, instead of having the welfare system, which probably has a payroll that's insane, we have a check sent out to every person, and child the first of the month... but then as you earn money through the month, the gov't has a claim on a portion of any money earned up to the amount that has been given. of course, if you are sure that you will be earning over that amount anyways, you can opt out of the system and avoid the hassle.
or... what the heck just give that amount to each person, child, and well, let the companies take advantage of it and reduce their labor costs.. I don't know.
but eventually, as automation grows, something like this will be needed for the economy to continue, and who will be paying for it will be mostly those automated businesses that will be raking in more profits because of the decrease in labor costs...
that is if there will actually be a decrease in labor costs.. I kind of find that one questionable

originally posted by: WUNK22
I'm a musician who works to survive. If this happens in the US I'd never work again, just do my music. I'd become a leech that does nothing but play guitar and consume. Paying people not to work isn't a solution for anything. Truth....

The difference between a musician and a leech isn't day job or no day job. It's do you play in your spare time boredom at home, alone, or would you provide tunes for people via albums or at a venue (park, restaurant, concert hall, etc) if you could?

My brother fancies himself a musician, a guitarist to be specific. He's never played for anyone's ears but his own in his life. His lifelong best friend (and likely inspiration) has recorded multiple albums in various genres, after acquiring, learning & then manning the instruments himself. Not to just do because meh, bored, but to explore styles, broaden his mastery, and ultimately share with others. HE is the musician, not my brother, IMO. There is no point in mastering an art if no one shares in it's appreciation, to be blunt.