It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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....


What's wrong ( and so many things RIGHT ) with you being able to play music all the time ?
Also , I'm a musician and It IS work ... if you're committed .
When there is money to be made , people are often subsidized . Do you think those guys with boats at Fisherman's Wharf are making a living on fish ? Or , paid to be there - looking ' rustic ' ?
Get your priorities straight and play music .




posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

In Finland, you would be STARVING and playing your music,
since you would BARELY be able to get a roof over your ., not to mention food.
See, that amount of money is ALL that EVERYONE would get, no other benefits whatsoever.

Want to be a slacker?
Go a., try to live on with that amount of money in Finland.

I dare you.
I DOUBLE dare you.
edit on 2-1-2017 by LionOfGOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColaTesla
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.


Who cares who ' makes ' the money ? For , that is where it comes from .
Think about the Bush/Obama bank bailouts . I am not a math wiz , but here's how I see it :
1 Trillion = 1 Trillionaire .
Or 1000 billionaires
Or 1000000 millionaires
Or 1000000000 thousandaires ...
The people bailed out will shred that money ... you and I would have changed everything by spending it .
I do see your sensible logic , but - I'm not sure it applies , given where the dough comes from .



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328



I know most people here will hate this idea


I do hate this idea.

There is no such thing as something for nothing and someone (i.e. taxpayers) are going to pay for it eventually. Sure it may come from oil sales or other assets, but it eventually ends up taking from one group of people to give to another.

Also, the entire idea of receiving something for doing absolutely nothing is ludicrous to me. I mean, its simply unnatural.

If an animal doesn't hunt it starves and humans are animals.
edit on 2017/1/2 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Oh dear, run away!!



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RedDragon

For some reason, I doubt that. Once you get the partying out of your system, humans have an innate desire to learn and produce. Sitting around all day produces nothing.

I've known a bunch of people on disability, they can literally sit around and play video games all day without a care in the world. All that I've known though? They've all gone to school, taken classes, and at least attempted to get past their disability and hold a job.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   




There aint nothing wrong with welfare son its called FREE MONEY. Hell our family has survived 6 generations off welfare.


So where does it end for these people? Once you start getting free money for life why bother even working or anything. Soon everyone will want their something for nothing.

What was that saying.. Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Better have a lot of fish to give.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: CB328



I know most people here will hate this idea


I do hate this idea.

... ends up taking from one group of people to give to another.

Also, the entire idea of receiving something for doing absolutely nothing is ludicrous to me. I mean, its simply unnatural.

If an animal doesn't hunt it starves and humans are animals.


First , you don't have to take from me ( though people have ) , I pretty much get huge selfish pleasure from giving . For what that's worth .

Most animals get something for nothing , at least ' in the moment ' . I mean , what are those fat lion cubs ' doing ' ?
Maybe , they will ' do ' something , if they get a chance ...
My 2 cents , and I hope a few others will pitch in .



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Slakecontagia

I am fully supportive of YOU giving as much as you want to causes that are important to you. I simply don't want to be part of your scheme for saving the world.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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.


Like you do.

It was the 1970's for goodness sake.
edit on 2/1/17 by Cobaltic1978 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The only welfare plan I have seen that I have agreed with is one hungary has passed.
A grant for a house to married couples who plan or have children. The recipients must not be on welfare though.

I don't worry about people doing nothing and dying. I worry much more about the dysgenic problems, raising generations of unskilled morons who suck the governments teet dry. Creating a terrible culture separate from the rest of the populace.
Not worried about the guy in mom's basement watching porn, that genetic material aint gonna make it.
If only there was a way to punish single motherhood/fatherhood without punishing the child. And was not invasive(tube tying, castration).



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Slakecontagia

I am fully supportive of YOU giving as much as you want to causes that are important to you. I simply don't want to be part of your scheme for saving the world.

You get me wrong . I am demonstrably top of the food chain .I was a destroyer by trade .
My selfish pleasures ( like ' giving ' ) I should keep to myself .
Take the fake money and stuff your pillowcase... and worry about this program or another .
You may as well give this ' money ' to someone on the street , who will spend it in your neighborhood - it will , methink , go further than my tax dollars , that's all .



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

It baffles me how so many people have such a poor grasp on how money works.

If you double the income of everybody, the cost of everything must also double.
If you give everybody $500 a month for nothing, the cost of living per person *must* go up by 500 a month, plus over. for dealing with redistribution.

That money has to come from somewhere. If you want to fix things, look into banning debt- which includes all current first world currencies.
Remember, just over a hundred years ago, your average American owned the land they lived on. Banks used debt to steal everything from everyone.

This socialist nonsense is stealing from Peter to pay Paul, then taxing Paul to pay Peter. Meanwhile the banks and governments take their cut in both transactions.

Boggles the mind how people want to pay $1000 a month to receive $900 for "free". Ten years ago I had enough respect to not participate in taking advantage of that mind set for profit, but now I wish I had so I could retire while that mind set starves itself to death.
edit on 2-1-2017 by lordcomac because: Correcting auto correct. I miss my BlackBerry, it had a good UI



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColaTesla
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.


Incorrect I'm afraid friend. Its well documentation that banks create money out of thin air through the establishment of credit accounts and its becoming increasingly well known. Given that govt are supposed to the highest authority in the land, there is no reason why they cannot create money out of thin air, for their own uses, using the exact same method the banks use.

A common misconception is that the govt only has tax payers money to spend and overseas borrowings. Well this is a lie on both counts. Tax is a word that's used to disguise the word interest that banks have to pay on borrowed money. The only reason the govt does not create money just like the banks do is because the banks wont let them.

No doubt you've noticed that nearly all countries have ever rising national debts. This is not because govt the world over are spending tax money they don't have, its because of interest. First the borrow their budget money from the banks then they have to pay interest on it. It does not matter how many hands it passes through on its journey, the fact is that money to pay interest to the banks also has to be borrowed into existence, in the first place from the banks.

Many people think govts borrow money from other govts but if this was the case then all that has to be done is for every country to forgive each others debts and we would all go back to zero national debts wouldn't we?

I suspect you might be greatly advantaged if you read this:

The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,

and:

Bank Lie by Chris Fields.

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. - Lord Acton



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of a UBI. It isn't to pay people to do nothing, it's to make e it easier for people to find work.

In most current welfare models if you start work you lose most your benefits. This means that unless you can find a sufficiently high paid job with enough hours then it might not be viable for you to take the job effectively trapping people on benefits.

A UBI just gives everyone a minimum amount that they can then increase by working. It's not in my view the best solution but it's probably a lot more effective than what most countries use at the moment.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

The main difference is an important one though... In this case, the recipients are likely to spend the money in a local economy, rather than bank it or invest it.

In theory, increasing velocity of money, which QE most asduredly has not done.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Many Countries do this now, in pockets. It's good for Fatherless Children and Widows. Old People also benefit. People helping those who can't help themselves beats tossing them into the street to eat out of trash cans.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Are you suggesting that the banks simply print more money to give to the citizens?
Surely if you understand fractional reserve lending, you understand inflation.

If you give everyone free money every month, the cost of living will go up by that amount, plus tax, for everyone. There is no version of this concept that gets around that outcome.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Azureblue

Are you suggesting that the banks simply print more money to give to the citizens?
Surely if you understand fractional reserve lending, you understand inflation.

If you give everyone free money every month, the cost of living will go up by that amount, plus tax, for everyone. There is no version of this concept that gets around that outcome.


Thanks for your reply.

Suggest you read up on quantitative easing - thats exactly what it was and it may still be going on now. When it was talked about it was being done for too big to fail banks. ( suggest you read fraud-on-the-london-stock-exchange a little 5-6 page free Ebook.)

Also: If you give everyone free money every month, the cost of living will go up by that amount, plus tax, for everyone. There is no version of this concept that gets around that outcome

Perhaps, but I doubt it because it will create jobs long before it has that effect and it would only happen after full employment is reached.

Just a note on inflation. Remember, that govts do create money now but only about 5-10% of the money in circulation. This is because govts only create banknotes and coins. (When we go cashless which is beginning to happen now, the banks will create 100% of the money in use in any country in the world.)

Banks on the other hand create 90-905% of all money in circulation via creation of credit. Most importantly, note that there is no law in any country limiting the amount of credit banks can create. - think in terms of booms and busts here. ie 1929 and its aftermath.

Suggest you would be helped by reading: The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown.


edit on 4-1-2017 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join