Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Finland - Citizens' Income trial goes live

Recommended Posts

Limited, 2,000 people currently unemployed are getting it for two years from 1 Jan whether they remain unemployed or start work.  £475 per month / £6,000 per year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4086068/Unemployed-Finland-paid-6-000-year-social-experiment.html

It will be interesting to see if this works. 

The level chosen is a good choice; if I had received that at 21 then I may have had a few years off but would be expecting to work at some point as I wouldn't want to be at that subsistence level forever. 

The downside would be that a lot of people would retire early if they could access that to tide them over until their pension kicks in.  If you're not paying rent or mortgage then that's enough to live on reasonably comfortably, especially so if you have savings that you can dip into for new car, holidays etc. I would foresee a mass exodus of 55+ workers from the workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would people retiring early when they could afford to and making jobs available for younger people who actually wanted them be a 'downside' ?

It's exactly these sort of things that make a CI such a great idea in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ccc said:

Why would people retiring early when they could afford to and making jobs available for younger people who actually wanted them be a 'downside' ?

It's exactly these sort of things that make a CI such a great idea in the first place.

It's a downside for the companies involved and the economy in general because the best people in a company are the experienced ones.

Upside if you want to work there of course because there will be many vacancies to be filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's a downside for the companies involved and the economy in general because the best people in a company are the experienced ones.

Upside if you want to work there of course because there will be many vacancies to be filled.

Maybe short term a downside but long term a huge benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ccc said:

Maybe short term a downside but long term a huge benefit. 

Why do you think that?  Sure there are always some old duffers that you could do with moving on but people with 30+ years experience who can do their job with their eyes shut and have all the experience to handle unexpected things are the core of any company. 

Every time I have to get some information from another department I always ask somebody aged 40+ as they are going to be the ones that know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots will stay on because they want to.

They like the job and/or the money so the retired lifestyle but on a budget won't be for them. It gives people freedom and a bit more choice though. I don't see how anyone can see that as a bad thing.

It's not compulsory retirement at 55 !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these 2000 on the trial taxed differently if they get employment? I assume all earnings will be taxed? (that may be the case in Finland anyway?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as a free lunch.

I'm surprised the lawyers aren't already jumping on this. Those that are not part of the 2000, should sue for discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Snagger said:

Are these 2000 on the trial taxed differently if they get employment? I assume all earnings will be taxed? (that may be the case in Finland anyway?)

Interested to know this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ccc said:

Lots will stay on because they want to.

They like the job and/or the money so the retired lifestyle but on a budget won't be for them. It gives people freedom and a bit more choice though. I don't see how anyone can see that as a bad thing.

It's not compulsory retirement at 55 !!

For each individual it will be a great thing; I think a lot will choose to go.

Thinking about the last few cases of early retirement for people I've worked with several have wanted to move to nearer family, in one case a couple wanted to travel before getting too old.  They were all very experienced and doing a very good job.  In their cases they would have gone several years earlier if they had a £6k free income so there are probably lots who would go.

You don't have to dislike work to want to leave it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

For each individual it will be a great thing; I think a lot will choose to go.

Thinking about the last few cases of early retirement for people I've worked with several have wanted to move to nearer family, in one case a couple wanted to travel before getting too old.  They were all very experienced and doing a very good job.  In their cases they would have gone several years earlier if they had a £6k free income so there are probably lots who would go.

You don't have to dislike work to want to leave it. 

Well good for them.

It would only be an issue for companies if they are run poorly.

Older experience people always need replacing. This isn't exactly new.

It will just be at a different point - for those that decide to choose it. 

If they are so amazingly important to the company ? Well they can offer them a nice annual bonus to stay on a little longer. Some would take this - some would not.

We are talking about people here who have worked 35-40 years of their life. If they are able to choose to exit earlier at the expense of having less spending money - then fan ******ing tastic !!!

If a company can't cope with this they should be shut down. People can leave most roles at a months notice anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Limited, 2,000 people currently unemployed are getting it for two years from 1 Jan whether they remain unemployed or start work.  £475 per month / £6,000 per year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4086068/Unemployed-Finland-paid-6-000-year-social-experiment.html

It will be interesting to see if this works. 

The level chosen is a good choice; if I had received that at 21 then I may have had a few years off but would be expecting to work at some point as I wouldn't want to be at that subsistence level forever. 

The downside would be that a lot of people would retire early if they could access that to tide them over until their pension kicks in.  If you're not paying rent or mortgage then that's enough to live on reasonably comfortably, especially so if you have savings that you can dip into for new car, holidays etc. I would foresee a mass exodus of 55+ workers from the workplace.

In this country maybe but Finland i doubt it very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions:-

  • How will you pay your rent on £475 a month?
  • Average tax rate on average salary is just under 30% in Finland - significantly higher than the UK.  Even so, I wonder how they'd pay for it if it was truly universal?
  • Can anyone answer how UI is actually paid for? Bear in mind the UK is already net borrowing like crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's paid for with the same money - tax or debt - that we pay all benefits with at present. 

The mess the UK finances are in really should be seen as a different discussion to this imo. 

A CI isn't about trying to balance a countries books - it's about changing the entire way that a countries population sees work and benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Some questions:-

  • How will you pay your rent on £475 a month?
  • Average tax rate on average salary is just under 30% in Finland - significantly higher than the UK.  Even so, I wonder how they'd pay for it if it was truly universal?
  • Can anyone answer how UI is actually paid for? Bear in mind the UK is already net borrowing like crazy.

It doesn't require extra money just for existing wealth to be redistributed. The banks gambling it away and the elite hoarding it needs to stop. If we bring in rent control to LHA rates then £475 might be enough. When there's a will there's a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So two non-specific answers to how it is paid - "it just will be, don't worry about it".

I'm sure there will be no further exacerbation of the rich dodging taxes if they are (technically) taxed even more.  I'm sure they won't dodge it even more  / go offshore if that's the case.  So basically, f3ck the middle classes - they can pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.