Finland Will Enact a Guaranteed Income for all Citizens of 800 Euros a Month

[Anonymous]

The concept might be worthy in principle.



But from where does this money come from?



State welfare is funded by those who work for a living. Their hard earned cash pays for others to NOT work.



Nope. That is not fair.

The idea is that it would save money because it would REPLACE other social programs and the the serpents with their defined benefit pension plans. Singapore gives money directly to recipients rather than the costlier way through civil serpent middle men.

So, it reduces the operating costs of social programs, but not the benefit to those that need help?

It's cheaper, it gives the recipients real choice and it produces better results for society and the people being helped.

Who gets to collect the money? Anyone over the age of 18? What about people like my son that travel outside the country? Would they be paid to do that?

 A guaranteed annual income or GAI would face challenges when it comes to replacing existing programs that serve specific purposes and/or target certain groups (Old Age Security, the GST/HST Credit, and programs for the disabled, to name a few).



There is a risk that the bulk of the current system would be preserved, making the GAI ultimately an add-on rather than a replacement program.



Implementation of the program could be an administrative disaster, with one-time costs so large they overshadow the program's potential savings.

There is a lot to consider seoulbro.

And number one on the list is how could it possibly become a reality.

[Anonymous]

It sounds A-OK in theory, but the devil is in the details.

I don't see how it is possible to cut everyone a check each month.

[Anonymous]

It sounds A-OK in theory, but the devil is in the details.

I don't see how it is possible to cut everyone a check each month.

Particularly in a country like Canada where all three levels of government would have to agree to reform and some would have to abdicate responsibility for income support to make way for for a GAI.



It's hard to imagine someone like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne agreeing to close shop on a provincial project, even if it was entirely duplicated by a new federal program.

[Anonymous]

It sounds A-OK in theory, but the devil is in the details.

I don't see how it is possible to cut everyone a check each month.

Particularly in a country like Canada where all three levels of government would have to agree to reform and some would have to abdicate responsibility for income support to make way for for a GAI.



It's hard to imagine someone like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne agreeing to close shop on a provincial project, even if it was entirely duplicated by a new federal program.

It sounds complicated.

[J0E]

The concept might be worthy in principle.



But from where does this money come from?



State welfare is funded by those who work for a living. Their hard earned cash pays for others to NOT work.



Nope. That is not fair.

What they should do instead is provide guaranteed income as a supplement rather than the base.



In other words, if a person is working but has difficulty making ends meet, then provide them with the supplement.



There are people like single working moms who support themselves on their kids on minimum wage full-time jobs.



So in their case, they'd get a supplement on top of the wage they're getting.



In other words, to keep this program viable, they'd have to pay into it.



they could still get it, but working at even a minimum wage job would provide them with the incentive to go out and work in order to collect it.



At the same time, they'd have to report all earnings, and the government would have a right to access their bank accounts and get info about their work activities.



Give something to get something.



But they shouldn't make it totally free.



As indicated, where is the money gonna come from? who'll pay for it? And if the State tries to support everyone this way, then it'll end up going broke.

[Anonymous]

The concept might be worthy in principle.



But from where does this money come from?



State welfare is funded by those who work for a living. Their hard earned cash pays for others to NOT work.



Nope. That is not fair.

What they should do instead is provide guaranteed income as a supplement rather than the base.



In other words, if a person is working but has difficulty making ends meet, then provide them with the supplement.



There are people like single working moms who support themselves on their kids on minimum wage full-time jobs.



So in their case, they'd get a supplement on top of the wage they're getting.



In other words, to keep this program viable, they'd have to pay into it.



they could still get it, but working at even a minimum wage job would provide them with the incentive to go out and work in order to collect it.



At the same time, they'd have to report all earnings, and the government would have a right to access their bank accounts and get info about their work activities.



Give something to get something.



But they shouldn't make it totally free.



As indicated, where is the money gonna come from? who'll pay for it? And if the State tries to support everyone this way, then it'll end up going broke.

 ac_umm

[Anonymous]

^I would seek job finding advice from that unemployed loser oddstain before I would listen to Joe's economic wisdom.

[Anonymous]

^I would seek job finding advice from that unemployed loser oddstain before I would listen to Joe's economic wisdom.

Joe is entitled to his opinions Shen Li even if you don't like them.

[J0E]

^I would seek job finding advice from that unemployed loser oddstain before I would listen to Joe's economic wisdom.

Joe is entitled to his opinions Shen Li even if you don't like them.

Well, I'm not saying anyone should get anything for free - they should have to pay for it.

I don't think anyone should be able to sit on their butt for doing nothing - otherwise the system will go broke, just like it almost did in pre-Thatcherite Britain. Given them some incentive to get it - at least hold down a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week to qualify for this supplement.

Perhaps those getting the Guaranteed Income Supplement pay a premium from their own taxes.

And only then they'd get their $300, $400 extra to cover whatever they needed.



I'm not against this kind of subsidy after hearing about stories of single mothers in the United States who went out to work, leaving their kids to stay at home to take care of the house, and then one of them died in the bathtub by drowning because mommy wasn't at home to take care of them because she couldn't afford to and was trying to make ends meet. There's a point at which it doesn't make sense  to punish them poor so much that their own kids die because they couldn't afford to take care of them.



Here's a story about a woman who went back to work to pay the bills, left her child in care of someone else, and the child died.



http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out-baby-died-after-first-day-work/">http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out ... -day-work/">http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out-baby-died-after-first-day-work/



When I was living in the States, I also a remember another single mom in California named Donna who died of meningitis at the age of 27  after she was not properly diagnosed. She went to work, then died on the job. She left 3 young children behind for the State to take care of.

[Anonymous]

^I would seek job finding advice from that unemployed loser oddstain before I would listen to Joe's economic wisdom.

Joe is entitled to his opinions Shen Li even if you don't like them.

Well, I'm not saying anyone should get anything for free - they should have to pay for it.

I don't think anyone should be able to sit on their butt for doing nothing - otherwise the system will go broke, just like it almost did in pre-Thatcherite Britain. Given them some incentive to get it - at least hold down a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week to qualify for this supplement.

Perhaps those getting the Guaranteed Income Supplement pay a premium from their own taxes.

And only then they'd get their $300, $400 extra to cover whatever they needed.



I'm not against this kind of subsidy after hearing about stories of single mothers in the United States who went out to work, leaving their kids to stay at home to take care of the house, and then one of them died in the bathtub by drowning because mommy wasn't at home to take care of them because she couldn't afford to and was trying to make ends meet. There's a point at which it doesn't make sense  to punish them poor so much that their own kids die because they couldn't afford to take care of them.



Here's a story about a woman who went back to work to pay the bills, left her child in care of someone else, and the child died.



http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out-baby-died-after-first-day-work/">http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out ... -day-work/">http://mom.me/blog/25093-mom-speaks-out-baby-died-after-first-day-work/



When I was living in the States, I also a remember another single mom in California named Donna who died of meningitis at the age of 27  after she was not properly diagnosed. She went to work, then died on the job. She left 3 young children behind for the State to take care of.

I don't know a lot about the guaranteed income Joe, but it's an interesting idea.