Universal income leads to greater employment

[bellisarius]

The problem with the study is they don't know which of the two measures that were passed had the greatest effect. It basically invalidates the study as having any scientific merit. The other issue is Finland being primarily a homogeneous society. Even if the experiment wasn't tainted by the second measure it would be uncertain if the result there would translate to a heterogeneous society such as we have in the US.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The problem with the study is they don't know which of the two measures that were passed had the greatest effect. It basically invalidates the study as having any scientific merit. The other issue is Finland being primarily a homogeneous society. Even if the experiment wasn't tainted by the second measure it would be uncertain if the result there would translate to a heterogeneous society such as we have in the US.

You obviously have very little knowledge of the peoples of Finland...homogenous society, yah right...

 

[PaxNurgle]

I am pretty leery of the concept of universal income, as it is more likely to lead to greater INFLATION than it is to greater employment.

It's one of those "sounds great on paper..." kind of things. I don't think it would work out very well in the US. In countries with a much larger GDP relative to population, and higher tax rates (e.g. scandinavia or even Canada) it might be far more feasable than in the U.S. The goal should always be to get more people paying INTO the system than being paid out of the system. I say this neither as a "liberal" or a "conservative" but rather as an "Economist."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Canada has toyed with this twice, once back in the 1970's on a small scale in Manitoba, and once a couple years back in all of Ontario.

While both programs were scraped by the incoming government after an election, the general direction of both showed improved outcomes for the recipients, better over all health, and accommodation.

In Ontario there was a high percentage of people being able to move out of the existing welfare system and make great inroads to becoming self sufficient with no need for government social assistance.

Since the programs were very short lived ( under 2 years in both cases) it is very hard to determine if the basic income supplement cost would be offset via savings in the social assistance programs.

The bulk of studies of the results suggest just that, however until one Government has the intestinal fortitude to implement a program for a long term such as 5 to 10 years, basic incomes will just be a debated issue.

 

[BluesDriver66]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

It's cheaper to house the homeless than to deal with the services they consume living on the street.

It's cheaper to have universal health care that covers everyone than private insurance doesn't.

It's better to have free universal education that's available everyone than an uneducated population in a competitive world market.

But the worst thing in the world is if a poor person gets something for free in this country. Even if it's cheaper and benefits society as a whole. Poor people getting free stuff is an abomination. Especially if they are an ethnic minority.

Don't expect common sense solutions to our social problems in the U.S. For all the professed love for Jesus in this country poor people are truly the most hated and despised.

 

[DeYaKen]

It's cheaper to house the homeless than to deal with the services they consume living on the street.

It's cheaper to have universal health care that covers everyone than private insurance doesn't.

It's better to have free universal education that's available everyone than an uneducated population in a competitive world market.

But the worst thing in the world is if a poor person gets something for free in this country. Even if it's cheaper and benefits society as a whole. Poor people getting free stuff is an abomination. Especially if they are an ethnic minority.

Don't expect common sense solutions to our social problems in the U.S. For all the professed love for Jesus in this country poor people are truly the most hated and despised.

Sad to say that it is the same here in the UK. Here if you recieve unemployment benefit and get the offer of work for one day only, every penny you earn on that day is deducted from your benefit and from then on you are classed as part-time employed. This is supposed to incentivise people to find work. There is a hostile environment designed to make it harder to claim benefit. The result is more dependence on charities and food banks, petty crime increased to the point where the police no longer attend incidents of shoplifting and have to be pushed into even recording it as a crime. The stupid thing is that we seem to be happy to pay more tax to ensure that poor people get less but rich people get more.

 

[CornusKousa]

It's cheaper to house the homeless than to deal with the services they consume living on the street.

It's cheaper to have universal health care that covers everyone than private insurance doesn't.

Cheaper for who?? The freeloaders or the people paying the bills?? LOL

Get a fuckin' job.

But the worst thing in the world is if a poor person gets something for free in this country. Even if it's cheaper and benefits society as a whole. Poor people getting free stuff is an abomination. Especially if they are an ethnic minority.

From the idea that there is free shit to the race baiting at the end, this is pure bullshit.

What's an abomination is the attituded that because you exist you're entitled to a share of everyone else's labor for sitting on your ass. This is the USA, land of the free, not the Nanny States of America, land of the well cared for.

If you want a sweet tits life that's on YOU, not everyone else. that's the unavoidable individual price of freedom.

Don't expect common sense solutions to our social problems in the U.S.

Certainly not from the left, they do fee fees and ignore common sense.

For all the professed love for Jesus in this country poor people are truly the most hated and despised.

You're conflating hated/despised with not being entitled to a portion of my labor by the government putting a gun to my head for it.

Awwww guess you'll have to do robberies all on your own without the help of the state.

 

[CornusKousa]

Sad to say that it is the same here in the UK. Here if you recieve unemployment benefit and get the offer of work for one day only, every penny you earn on that day is deducted from your benefit and from then on you are classed as part-time employed. This is supposed to incentivise people to find work. There is a hostile environment designed to make it harder to claim benefit. The result is more dependence on charities and food banks, petty crime increased to the point where the police no longer attend incidents of shoplifting and have to be pushed into even recording it as a crime.

Exactly....they want you to stop sucking up other peoples money and make your own.

Get a job you bums.

The stupid thing is that we seem to be happy to pay more tax to ensure that poor people get less but rich people get more.

*rich people giving up 40+% of their income*

DeYaKen: Rich people are getting more!!!!

How are rich people getting more by having huge chunks of their income taken by the state to "care" for you bums that are so fucking retarded you can't even feed yourselves or wipe your own ass without a nanny state to hold your hand through the process??

That's as silly as when the left thinks not taxing people is GIVING people more money....by not forcibly taking it from them under threat of death.

Where do you think tax money comes from?? Hint: not poor people.

 

[DeYaKen]

Exactly....they want you to stop sucking up other peoples money and make your own.

Get a job you bums.

If that's what you want then don't have a system which actively discourages people from taking work when it's offered. The system in the UK does exactly that whereas Universal Basic income encorages them to take work when it's offered. Because they get to keep the money they earn, without losing any UBI there is no barrier to work.

*rich people giving up 40+% of their income*

DeYaKen: Rich people are getting more!!!!

In \uk you would be talking about the upper middleclasses, those earning over £45,000 pa. They are not rich people. Rich people are able to negotiate with the taxman, invest in offshore tax avoidance schemes so that they pay less tax than the average manual worker.

How are rich people getting more by having huge chunks of their income taken by the state to "care" for you bums that are so fucking retarded you can't even feed yourselves or wipe your own ass without a nanny state to hold your hand through the process??

I know this will come as a surprise to you but it is possible to have a reasoned argument without resorting to personal insults. In fact the use of such terms usually shows that you have a weak argument. Since you obviously do not understand how the system works, allow me to enlighten you.

in a system without any support for those who cannot work or find employment. the unemployed will find other means of supporting themselves. If this means resorting to crime that is what they will do. (see Marslow's hierarchy of needs). That means that the taxpayer will have to pay more for increased policing and more prisons. A means tested system as currently used in the UK you then employ people to administer the scheme, police the scheme and investigate abuse. In the UK we employ 100 benefit fraud investigators for every 1 tax fraud investigators. Universal Basic Income does away with all of that so your desire to punish the poor for being poor is actually costing you money.

That's as silly as when the left thinks not taxing people is GIVING people more money....by not forcibly taking it from them under threat of death.

Where do you think tax money comes from?? Hint: not poor people.

So are you saying that rich people use none of the facilities provided by the state using tax income? I guess you must think that since that would be the only justification for not asking them to pay their fair share of tax.
Who do you think provide the roads that their employees use to get to work and their trucks use to carry the products and raw materials. Who pays for the policing of their business premises and multiple houses. Where does the money come from to educate their workforce so that they are able do the job. Even their jetting from one house to another costs the taxpayer money. Apparently it is OK for the taxpayer to provide such things to the rich but not to use some of the money to support those less able.

In short you appear to want to return to dickensian days.

 

[CornusKousa]

If that's what you want then don't have a system which actively discourages people from taking work when it's offered. The system in the UK does exactly that whereas Universal Basic income encorages them to take work when it's offered. Because they get to keep the money they earn, without losing any UBI there is no barrier to work.

I would rather just put limits on the welfare.

It's supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

In \uk you would be talking about the upper middleclasses, those earning over £45,000 pa. They are not rich people. Rich people are able to negotiate with the taxman, invest in offshore tax avoidance schemes so that they pay less tax than the average manual worker.

That's why I put "rich" in quotes.

No, rich people aren't able to negotiate with the tax man either...loads of mother fuckers who had it all sitting in prison right now because they tried to negotiate with the tax man.

In reality they are just people who have either been taught how to work/use the system or got enough money one way or another to hire lawyers/accountants who do it for them professionally.

Universal Basic Income does away with all of that so your desire to punish the poor for being poor is actually costing you money.

I don't desire to punish the poor for being poor.....I desire not to be punished for not being poor.

Major difference.

And ok argument if it actually solved the crime issues.

But since we already have to have prisons, how bout follow the laws and make your own money.

So are you saying that rich people use none of the facilities provided by the state using tax income?

Not at all. But they pay for the shit for everyone to use so...why shouldn't they get to use it??

I guess you must think that since that would be the only justification for not asking them to pay their fair share of tax.

Define "fair share"...because I'm pretty sure the many thousands of dollars they all hock over for their use permits is in fact their fair share.

Use taxes are fair. I have no problem with them.

Public services...totally within even the most hardcore of liberals, even libertarians support these to some extent, as a social leaning liberal I support quite a number of them myself.

Who do you think provide the roads that their employees use to get to work and their trucks use to carry the products and raw materials.

Who pays for the policing of their business premises and multiple houses.

Where does the money come from to educate their workforce so that they are able do the job.

The people who use those services, property owners and the consumers businesses collect all those taxes and fees from.

Apparently it is OK for the taxpayer to provide such things to the rich but not to use some of the money to support those less able.

It's not just the rich who are provided those things. Poor and rich alike get to use public shit and they pay the same price.

Very liberal in nature. Equality.

If you want to raise taxes to provide for a public HC service I support that too.

What I'm not behind is the compulsive need of "progressives" to arbitrarily terminate the private market in the process....to that most non-"progressive" Americans will say "get fucked commie scum. " and rightfully so.

In short you appear to want to return to dickensian days.

No I'm wanting 2 things.

1) Keep things liberal, because M'uricah is a liberal nation, allowing as many people possible to live the kind of life they want and I love that about the USA. It's a beautiful thing and we would be foolish to abandon those ideals that allow us to live and let live.

2) Keep it federalized for the same reasons above. Man I WANT everyone to have it their way. I want CA and NY to go ahead and regulate 2A down to the absolute limits of what SCOTUS will allow. Socially? Have a no ID needed HC for anyone who shows up with their hands out UHC, do a UBI too. Do ALL of it. Proggie states need to do what they feel is best for them. But they need to let other states do the same.

Alaska? Montana?? Keep it liberal right/libertarian.

Varying degrees of moderate states, do your thing!

Uber socially conservative folks? Do you their thing and regulate abortions the same way California regulates guns...right to the limit of what the SCOTUS will allow.

I want people to have a place to live the lives they want to live in communities that suit their needs...that's the whole fucking point of the USA and having all these states, the pursuit of happiness.

Price is that the control freaks on both sides have to stop trying to bully each other through DC, get back to sharing military, infrastructure, currency and kick most of this hot button crap back to the states where it belongs before there is a fight.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, everyone work for their own shit, that's the USA, that's freedom.

And it should stay that way.

Oh how did I miss this little gem?

The unintentional irony of a unemployed and unemployable parasite on the government dole lecturing us that "Work is Freedom"?

 

[CornusKousa]

Oh how did I miss this little gem?

The unintentional irony of a unemployed and unemployable parasite on the government dole lecturing us that "Work is Freedom"?

Rob lying and then rewriting what I wrote to suit his lie.

Working FOR YOURSELF, having a right to your own labor or what you call toxic shitsludge ideology?? Is freedom.

This is in stark contrast to "progress" where your labor is owned collectively and everyone is entitled to their "fair share" of your hard work.

 

[Tim2run]

You obviously have very little knowledge of the peoples of Finland...homogenous society, yah right...

Compared to the United States, yes, it very much is.

 

[domroger]

It is worth trying for 5 years as part of a post Covid package ,the world needs a stimulus .

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rob lying and then rewriting what I wrote to suit his lie.

Working FOR YOURSELF, having a right to your own labor or what you call toxic shitsludge ideology?? Is freedom.

This is in stark contrast to "progress" where your labor is owned collectively and everyone is entitled to their "fair share" of your hard work.

LOL, you're at best a "hobby gardener" and you couldn't make a profit selling pot in California. Your overhead exceeded your income so you ran afoul of the "hobbyist" tax exclusion, that's why you had to pack up your 2002 Toyota Tundra and move to a cheaper state.

Your primary household income is your government welfare check and whatever your numma 2 wife brings home from her accounting job. You don't make enough to support yourself, let alone your new "family".

 

[Dingobaby]

LOL...99.9999% tax rate!!! Everyone is a slave to the state....lefty paradise!!

Tear your ass's kids, go get that FREE LUNCH!! LOL

You sound like a teenage girl being all melodramatic and lying.

Very sad.

 

[CornusKousa]

LOL, you're at best a "hobby gardener" and you couldn't make a profit selling pot in California. Your overhead exceeded your income so you ran afoul of the "hobbyist" tax exclusion, that's why you had to pack up your 2002 Toyota Tundra and move to a cheaper state.

Your primary household income is your government welfare check and whatever your numma 2 wife brings home from her accounting job. You don't make enough to support yourself, let alone your new "family".

Oh look, Rob making up ad hom again, because he can't actually argue his politics on their merit.

 

[CornusKousa]

You sound like a teenage girl being all melodramatic and lying.

Very sad.

A "Progressive"....exactly what I was going for.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Compared to the United States, yes, it very much is.

Go back and read what bellasorus wrote, he did not compare it to the US ..now did he? SpearChucker

Perhaps you should do some reading as well, instead of spouting off your typical bullshit...

You going to dis on the owners again and get banned again? That was fun to watch...*chuckles*

 

[YDB95]

You sound like a teenage girl being all melodramatic and lying.

Very sad.

Indeed. I don't suppose it's even worth asking for a cite on the "99.999% tax" claim.

 

[CornusKousa]

Indeed. I don't suppose it's even worth asking for a cite on the "99.999% tax" claim.

How else do you plan on paying for "Free everything for everyone!!!" welfare utopia??

Some proggies like all the Green New Deal folks are ready to spend over 100 TRILLION dollars to get green....how the fuck are you guys planning on paying for that?

Show your math on that whole squeezing blood from a stone plan.

 

[DeYaKen]

I would rather just put limits on the welfare.

It's supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

The more limits and regulation you put into a system to ensure it is only a "Safety Net" the more people suffer because they don't know how to manipulate the system. More important to you is the fact that it costs you more money because everyone monitoring and policing the system has to be paid by the taxpayer.

That's why I put "rich" in quotes.

No, rich people aren't able to negotiate with the tax man either...loads of mother fuckers who had it all sitting in prison right now because they tried to negotiate with the tax man.

In reality they are just people who have either been taught how to work/use the system or got enough money one way or another to hire lawyers/accountants who do it for them professionally.

Now that leaves me puzzled because it was recently revealed that your president payed only $750 tax in the two years prior to his being elected. That's less than the average plumber would pay. Now if it is true that Rich people pay 45% of their income as tax (as you stated earlier) He was either able to negotiate his tax bill down or he is not the rich man he claims to be.

I don't desire to punish the poor for being poor.....I desire not to be punished for not being poor.

Major difference.

And ok argument if it actually solved the crime issues.

But since we already have to have prisons, how bout follow the laws and make your own money.

Who is to say that you are being punished for anything? Ever since the banking crisis our countries have been taking tax dollars and giving them to the banks in a system called quantitative easing. The only people who have benefitted from that have been the bankers who have taken huge bonuses
because the taxpayer has effectively propped up their share price. Now imagine that money being given to the people to spend and see what a difference that makes to everyone. A poor person does not invest a windfall in an offshore hedge fund, they spend it. when they spend it. Retailers get a share of the money, employ more people and buy more product. The producers and service providers also benefit. eventually the money will arrive at the banks, but look at the stimulus it gives to the economy before it gets there. It's not a matter of making you pay more but choosing to spend the money in a different way. The resulting increase in employment means more tax receipts to pay for it all in the longer term.

Yes you already have prisons and in some states they spend more money on prisons than on schools. However, if you reduce crime you reduce your need for prisons and they so you'll need less and therefore spend less. Until you are close enough to those who struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, you will probably not accept that honesty is a luxury but sadly it is. Ask yourself what you would do if for whatever reason you were unable to work and all your savings were used up. Desperate people do desperate things. What Universal Basic Income does is that it removes the desperation.

Not at all. But they pay for the shit for everyone to use so...why shouldn't they get to use it??

OK turn the argument around. Since they use more of the facilities provided by the taxpayer why shouldn't they pay more?

Define "fair share"...because I'm pretty sure the many thousands of dollars they all hock over for their use permits is in fact their fair share.

Use taxes are fair. I have no problem with them.

Public services...totally within even the most hardcore of liberals, even libertarians support these to some extent, as a social leaning liberal I support quite a number of them myself.



The people who use those services, property owners and the consumers businesses collect all those taxes and fees from.



It's not just the rich who are provided those things. Poor and rich alike get to use public shit and they pay the same price.

Very liberal in nature. Equality.

OK turn the argument around. Since they use more of the facilities provided by the taxpayer why shouldn't they pay more? That surely is capitalism. If you use the airspace more than Joe Public surely you should pay a greater share of the cost of providing air traffic control. The same argument applies to policing and roads etc.

If you want to raise taxes to provide for a public HC service I support that too.

What I'm not behind is the compulsive need of "progressives" to arbitrarily terminate the private market in the process....to that most non-"progressive" Americans will say "get fucked commie scum. " and rightfully so.

Now that's where you've got it all wrong Universal Basic Income does nothing to inhibit the private market, quite the opposite it encourages the entrepreneur by taking away one of the barriers. If you have enough to survive you have less to lose by striking out on your own. This is probably why the Fins have found that it has increased employment rather than suppressing it. I used to run a domestic appliance repair company. Had my wife not had an income that could support the family, I wouldn't have done it because my duty to support my family would have been more important than my desire to free myself from an employer that was doing everything wrong. Having that certainty of survival enables you to take risks.

I have lived in an ex-communist country and believe me Universal Basic Income is something they would hate. It takes away one of the ways that the state used to control the people. There system for healthcare was similar to yours. Instead of having to prove you have insurance they had to prove that they were in legitimate employment and paying taxes before they would treat you.

 

[Tim2run]

Why should people even be employed?

Just give everyone a basic "Universal" salary and they will spend it...



:nods:



... it's a no-brainer. For sure.

 

[CornusKousa]

Why should people even be employed?

Just give everyone a basic "Universal" salary and they will spend it...



:nods:



... it's a no-brainer. For sure.

And if people need more? JUST PRINT IT!!!

It's just perfect, I can't believe nobody has ever thought of "Free everything for everyone!!" before so that everyone can just go all in on hedonism.....I mean what could possibly go wrong with that??

 

[Tim2run]

It's just computer keystrokes.

We can eliminate the debt with just a few keyclicks...