Finland considers a universal basic income for all citizens

[oldnemesis]

Folks, please try to realize that there exists in all modern societies a stratum of the population that simply is unable to take care of itself no matter how much money we throw at them.

In the U.S. in the 1970's 'deinstitutionalization' led to the dumping of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill/mentally incompetent people onto the streets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

It is hard for people in mainstream society to understand what this is all about when our only exposure to such people is to have them ask us for spare change at the train station.

Let me just tell you a little story:

When I worked in center city Philadelphia I used to pass, every day, a homeless woman who lived on the pavement on Chestnut street. She was unspeakably dirty, and mumbled incomprehensively...asking for change. In the old days she would have been institutionalized fed, bathed and given medication (against her will). But the new deinstitutionalization laws put her instead on the pavement on Chestnut Street.

In the beginning I used to give her a couple of dollars every day, assuaging my conscience... but I soon realized that she was probably unable to use that money in any productive way... not to mention that someone would steal it from her.

So instead I used to stop in a hoagie shop when I left my work and buy her a sandwich and a drink. I used to have to put the bag on the edge of her territory or she would start screaming like a banshee (self protection). Sometimes I would walk around the block to see that she was able to get the sandwich and drink and use it.

Awarding her 800 euros a month would not have solved her problems.

People who are desperately poor in our society are that way for a reason. Alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, these are just some of the stories that are out there.

They are largely unable to take care of themselves. Dumping a monthly stipend on them and considering our responsibilities met is all too easy.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-health-america

One of the many deficits of our society is the lack of education we provide our young people about poverty. We should require a year of service between high school and college.

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_Volunteer_Corps

Just think if Trump had spent a couple of years serving the poor.

 

[Sig]

Guys, we already have this in the US times 100. I do agree to simplify this whole mess we just eliminate ALL benefits and give people an annual check. The dems in this country would NEVER support this because the idea of partialing out the benefits is what begets votes. Black people get this.....single moms get that....students this....immigrants that....etc. It's how you build voting blocks. The reason the "political right" supports this in theory is that it DESTROYS the democratic base. It renders their vote useless because you can't pander to them anymore.

But that aside, when you add up all the welfare benefits in this country, they come out to a lot more then $800 a month. Medicaid, food stamps, section 8 housing, reduced utility bills and then social security income. It's WAAAY more then this. Many economists fear that by giving people a lump sum and "hoping" they use it for food and living expenses, you run the risk of them not using it for that and still needing more. The reason we break it down in this country into these separate categories is precisely so people get what they NEED.

Now that is for the very poor. Now let's move to the idea of giving ALL people 800 bucks a month. Again, we do this in spades already we just use different distribution mechanisms. For example, the mortgage interest credit on your house is one of the biggest BS giveaways to the middle class. The earned income tax credit we give Americans for simply re-producing is another one. That's REAL money in the mail, not a tax deduction.

I highly doubt the left in this country would EVER support this idea unless they are suggesting we give this check out in "addition" to all the other free money handouts we give. I do agree in theory simplifying the process by just saying, here you go, do what you want with it, when the food runs out, don't ask us for more, is much more fair and efficient then breaking welfare down into all these categories where voting blocs are available for the highest bidder.

You may want to consider if we, as a country, will ever actually follow through with the "when the food runs out, don't ask us for more" route. I think it's important to consider that, because it's pretty certain that we won't let people starve to death regardless of their poor decision making or money management skills. The practical impact of this is that any savings from this type of idea won't actually be recognized because at the point kids, the disabled, the elderly, or the mentally ill start dying because they've been "cut off" is the point we reinstitute a safety net to ensure they don't. Except it's a less efficient safety net because it was thrown together at the last minute and is addressing a population already far into a danger area. Much like the idea that we somehow save money by using emergency rooms as a general practice for the poor.

 

[Maverick74]

You may want to consider if we, as a country, will ever actually follow through with the "when the food runs out, don't ask us for more" route. I think it's important to consider that, because it's pretty certain that we won't let people starve to death regardless of their poor decision making or money management skills. The practical impact of this is that any savings from this type of idea won't actually be recognized because at the point kids, the disabled, the elderly, or the mentally ill start dying because they've been "cut off" is the point we reinstitute a safety net to ensure they don't. Except it's a less efficient safety net because it was thrown together at the last minute and is addressing a population already far into a danger area. Much like the idea that we somehow save money by using emergency rooms as a general practice for the poor.

Of course this will never happen. That was the point I was making. While in "theory" this method might appear efficient and save money, in the real world, we get hit twice. This is in fact what really happens in gov't. We come up with a subsidy or benefit for a particular group to address a problem and we end up paying that cost plus the original cost that never got resolved in the first place. So yes, I'm aware we will never let the indignant die from starvation, etc. Therefore we will never implement this policy from Finland, much to the dismay of all the struggling traders on ET.

 

[ETcallhome]

Of course this will never happen. That was the point I was making. While in "theory" this method might appear efficient and save money, in the real world, we get hit twice. This is in fact what really happens in gov't. We come up with a subsidy or benefit for a particular group to address a problem and we end up paying that cost plus the original cost that never got resolved in the first place. So yes, I'm aware we will never let the indignant die from starvation, etc. Therefore we will never implement this policy from Finland, much to the dismay of all the struggling traders on ET.

many people use up all their foodstamps before the end of the month. They may spend the last week hungry, but not starving.

 

[Maverick74]

many people use up all their foodstamps before the end of the month. They may spend the last week hungry, but not starving.

Yes, but those food stamps have to be used on food. If it were simply cash they could spend it at Best Buy.

 

[ETcallhome]

Yes, but those food stamps have to be used on food. If it were simply cash they could spend it at Best Buy.

oh, i'm sure there would be plenty of loan sharks who could loan them until next payday at 120%
the problem is, once a guy gets in the grips of drugs, he will no doubt blow his whole wad on drugs and nothing but drugs
but hetting back to food stamps, it has always been my contention that everybody should get foodstams with no means testing. Make them transferable so light eaters and the wealthy could give to football players.

 

[Maverick74]

oh, i'm sure there would be plenty of loan sharks who could loan them until next payday at 120%
the problem is, once a guy gets in the grips of drugs, he will no doubt blow his whole wad on drugs and nothing but drugs
but hetting back to food stamps, it has always been my contention that everybody should get foodstams with no means testing. Make them transferable so light eaters and the wealthy could give to football players.

Uh, there wouldn't. I don't think you understand. Let me walk you through this. Food stamps are delivered by what is known as an EBT card. It's like a credit card. You go to the cash register, you give the cashier your EBT card and they deduct from the balance on the card. You can NOT borrow against the card. How the hell would a loan shark ever get his money? I will give the gov't credit for changes they have made over the years to make this process better. For example, I cannot give you my EBT card. You have to show ID when you use it to verify it is you. EBT cards can no longer give you cash back, it can only be used for purchases. And the EBT card will "reject" certain purchases. Modern technology is wonderful isn't it.

Now to your idea of making them transferrable. ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is the whole point to the EBT card. To make it NON-TRANSFERABLE. You really think we want to create a black market for food stamps? WTF. You would only be perpetuating the very problem you are trying to solve. There is no reason to give food stamps to the wealthy. There is a huge administrative cost to this process and that money could be better spent giving it to the people who need it vs issuing 330 million cards.

 

[Sig]

Maverick,
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the acceptance by you and others here of a Finland type payment as long as it goes to everyone and is the same for everyone. I wonder if there isn't space for some kind of agreement here if your thoughts are similar to the rest of the conservative side that is against entitlements in general?
I think most liberals think that what conservatives are against at its core is wealth redistribution, which would still happen under this Finnish model as long as taxes were still progressive. If they're OK with the Finnish model, I think the vast majority of liberals would be on board with that too. Your description of the voting bloc issue probably would be a stumbling block amongst the professional politician class, but I'm talking the majority of liberal voters. Do you think your views (supporting something like this model to replace the existing entitlement model) represent the majority of conservatives who generally oppose entitlements? If so, that's actually pretty exciting to hear as someone who's generally on the other side of that argument.

 

[ETcallhome]

Uh, there wouldn't. I don't think you understand. Let me walk you through this. Food stamps are delivered by what is known as an EBT card. It's like a credit card. You go to the cash register, you give the cashier your EBT card and they deduct from the balance on the card. You can NOT borrow against the card. How the hell would a loan shark ever get his money? I will give the gov't credit for changes they have made over the years to make this process better. For example, I cannot give you my EBT card. You have to show ID when you use it to verify it is you. EBT cards can no longer give you cash back, it can only be used for purchases. And the EBT card will "reject" certain purchases. Modern technology is wonderful isn't it.

Now to your idea of making them transferrable. ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is the whole point to the EBT card. To make it NON-TRANSFERABLE. You really think we want to create a black market for food stamps? WTF. You would only be perpetuating the very problem you are trying to solve. There is no reason to give food stamps to the wealthy. There is a huge administrative cost to this process and that money could be better spent giving it to the people who need it vs issuing 330 million cards.

the cost is mostly in the means testing
the loansharking only applies to the finland experiment, not foodstamps
I'll give you the transferability one. I was thinking more of grandparents and parents transfering to their kids.

 

[Maverick74]

the cost is mostly in the means testing
the loansharking only applies to the finland experiment, not foodstamps
I'll give you the transferability one. I was thinking more of grandparents and parents transfering to their kids.

No, the admin costs are tremendous. It's a technology device and like all technology it has to work or it's rendered useless. Giving out 330 million cards would be a nightmare. Look at how difficult it was to get the healthcare.gov website working properly. What did that cost...100 million just to fix the website? No, it's not practical. Look, if grandparents need to transfer their food benefits to their kids then you are implying the benefits are too low and we would be better off raising the benefits rather then engage in this silly market place where family members have to swap cards to their kids just so they can eat and where kids can swap cards at school to score some dope. Ugh....guys keep this simple please.