Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7985
Not every dollar is a US dollar, Grasshopper.barrett wrote: The first sentence of the link the OP provided reads:
"Finland’s government is drawing up plans to pay every citizen a basic income of euros 800 ($1,165) each month, scrapping benefits altogether."
Am I the only one bothered by the bad math?
Oh, man, I didn't realize the Canadian $ had gotten hammered that badly... or that the USD had gone up so much in recent weeks.Pet Hog wrote:Not every dollar is a US dollar, Grasshopper.barrett wrote: The first sentence of the link the OP provided reads:
"Finland’s government is drawing up plans to pay every citizen a basic income of euros 800 ($1,165) each month, scrapping benefits altogether."
Am I the only one bothered by the bad math?
Awesome!!! <dances a jig>MangoMan wrote: Finland has just unveiled plans to pay every citizen $1,100 per month in lieu of any welfare benefits. Specifically:
The tax-free payments would replace all other benefit payments, and would be paid to all adults regardless of whether or not they receive any other income.
The amount $1165 is so low you can't live off of it except in really frugal and extreme circumstances, i.e. lower class. So that's an incentive there to get a job you're actually interested in when you won't lose your $1165 safety net. That's not how welfare works currently, so its a highly regressive tax rate to try to get your way out of it. It's a fuckin' stupid system.jafs wrote: Some might find it odd to give everybody money, when many of the recipients don't need it, preferring to help people who need help rather than everybody. Others might dislike the lack of requirements to receive the money, so that anybody (even lazy bums) just gets a check. Still others might feel that this will discourage participation in the job market, which would be a bad thing.
On the government side, if implemented well, this would probably result in a loss of government jobs, and people don't like losing their jobs.
You're such a fossil. Been there, done that. It doesn't work.Mountaineer wrote: Seems to be just another income redistribution method to make more people dependent on government. I prefer that those who are able, do something to earn their government welfare - e.g. clean up trash on the roadside. Why give money to those who do not need it? I prefer lower taxes.
I believe it was a state-imposed social structure; in reality it will be self-organized via free market choice which is why there is currently philosophical opposition to school choice. They can see the writing on the wall.Libertarian666 wrote: And here I thought that everyone recognized Brave New World as dystopian fiction.
I'd have to check on costs of living in Finland to see what that would get you.MachineGhost wrote:The amount $1165 is so low you can't live off of it except in really frugal and extreme circumstances, i.e. lower class. So that's an incentive there to get a job you're actually interested in when you won't lose your $1165 safety net. That's not how welfare works currently, so its a highly regressive tax rate to try to get your way out of it. It's a fuckin' stupid system.jafs wrote: Some might find it odd to give everybody money, when many of the recipients don't need it, preferring to help people who need help rather than everybody. Others might dislike the lack of requirements to receive the money, so that anybody (even lazy bums) just gets a check. Still others might feel that this will discourage participation in the job market, which would be a bad thing.
On the government side, if implemented well, this would probably result in a loss of government jobs, and people don't like losing their jobs.
I'm especially suspicious about potential subsidization. Scandinavian countries do a lot of it which is why everyday prices are high and supply is restrained.jafs wrote: I'd have to check on costs of living in Finland to see what that would get you.
But, I agree that our system isn't well-designed, if the idea is to help people become more self-sufficient. We should find a way to do that.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... imum-wages
Just as the U.K. raises its minimum wage and as Bernie Sanders's demands for a 50 percent increase in minimum pay keep winning him votes in the U.S., some politicians in one of the world's most socialist countries, Sweden, are in favor of going in the opposite direction. They could be right, especially if nations can find a way to unhitch basic subsistence from work.
Sweden, along with some other countries with big social safety nets -- Denmark, Norway, Switzerland -- doesn't have a legally mandated minimum wage.
So maybe they shouldn't have let in all of those immigrants with no job skills, cultural familiarity, or ability to speak the language, eh?Minimum wage laws or strong unions that bargain up wages are a problem in any country with big immigrant inflows. Newcomers are at a disadvantage because of poor language skills and educational backgrounds that are often incompatible with the host countries' labor market requirements. No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available. Instead of working for social justice, high minimum wages create an extra barrier for the integration of the least socially secure people into society. Such barriers can result in ghettos, rioting and the recruitment of disenfranchised immigrant youths by terrorist groups.
