31 Oct 17
The post that was quoted here has been removedSo if the key is doing 1/5 of basic work pay, then using say $10/hr in the US as some measure of minimum to get by then we would pay them 2 bucks an hour for an equivalent work week of 40 hours or 80 dollars a week times 4.3333 which works out to about $340 per week. Not even as much as in Finland.
31 Oct 17
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedHas anyone done the numbers on what it costs government to provide a bureaucracy to ensure compliance with rules and conditions attached to every welfare dollar they dole out, and how much they would save if they just gave out a ubi without any strings attached?
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @whodeyApparently in your fantasy the poor and dispossessed, y'know the huddled masses and such, should just take a number while you enjoy the spoils of a system that is systematically bankrupting and destroying the economy and ecology of the world around it.
Wait....wut?
Is it like the US? I just cross the border and I'm a citizen getting money?
01 Nov 17
1 edit
We get a basic wage here (Aust.)but I'd prefer a piece of land. Such a big country with few people ... why not?
The powers that be is why not. They dont want you going out into the bush and growing your own food. They want you to spend every cent of that small income on food from their shops, electricity from their dirty coalmine, luxury goods with around 80% tax.etc.
One day ...
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @mchillThey've possibly come to the unfashionable conclusion that people might be more productive if you treated them humanely.
This is the same country that has such high achieving students, despite assigning little or no homework. Maybe the rest of the world should take notice.
Nah, couldn't possibly be that simple.
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @kmax87That’s what the Finnish pilot-scheme is trying to work out.
Has anyone done the numbers on what it costs government to provide a bureaucracy to ensure compliance with rules and conditions attached to every welfare dollar they dole out, and how much they would save if they just gave out a ubi without any strings attached?
I knew it had started, I didn’t know the evaluation had already taken place. Has it?
I’ll have to look into it. The theory is that it’s actually cheaper than the whole system we have in place now. The outcome could be a game changer!
01 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @shavixmirI like the rationale of the program, in that you incentivise people to do more because it's in their own interest to do so as they will directly benefit. I'm sure there will be those that will attempt to abuse this system, in the same way that those with enormous wealth try and hide their money from the tax office, but on the whole, making people feel valued by making them responsible for their actions and not penalizing them for bad luck or poor decisions has got to be a more enlightened way to run a society.
That’s what the Finnish pilot-scheme is trying to work out.
I knew it had started, I didn’t know the evaluation had already taken place. Has it?
I’ll have to look into it. The theory is that it’s actually cheaper than the whole system we have in place now. The outcome could be a game changer!
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @kmax87In what ways do you imagine the system might be abused? That's the whole point of it: since you get it unconditionally, it can't be abused, and you don't need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.
I like the rationale of the program, in that you incentivise people to do more because it's in their own interest to do so as they will directly benefit. I'm sure there will be those that will attempt to abuse this system, in the same way that those with enormous wealth try and hide their money from the tax office, but on the whole, making people feel valued ...[text shortened]... izing them for bad luck or poor decisions has got to be a more enlightened way to run a society.
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSilly me, I'm still thinking like someone trapped inside a neo-con frame where welfare is always cast as a great priveledge and not a right. As a consequence of that way of thinking, its almost a reflex to justify any payment government gives out and be on the defensive lest anyone should say that the person receiving this benefit will become a lzy good for nothing sponge.
In what ways do you imagine the system might be abused? That's the whole point of it: since you get it unconditionally, it can't be abused, and you don't need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.