Finland’s Basic Income Experiment was the world’s first statutory, nationwide and randomized basic income experiment. That experiment, in which preliminary results have already been reported on, several research questions were asked: How did the Basic Income Experiment affect participants’ employment? What were the effects on health, livelihoods and experiences of government bureaucracy? In interviews, how do the participants perceive the significance of the experiment in their lives?
The final results of the basic income experiment will be released on Wednesday, May 6th 2020, online. In this webcast, researchers present findings of the basic income experiment on employment and well-being of the participants.
The results presented are based on an analysis register data from both pilot years as well as on face-to-face interviews with the participants in the experiment. In addition, survey data has been analyzed more comprehensively than before.
The webcast will be held, in Finnish, from 1 pm to 2:15 pm and, in English, from 2:20 pm to 3:00 pm (Finnish time, GMT+3). The webcast is open to anyone interested.
The results are predictable: net recipients of the program fared well (money with no strings attached improved their situation). This is not hard to believe, it’s what has also been found elsewhere and is entirely unimportant. The important question to be answered wrt. UBI is the effect on people who become net contributors to such a program. Is there a randomised controlled trial where people are forced to fork over an extra portion of their income so that the others can get their net payout? I didn’t think so.
Some of the highest tax countries (highest government expenditure per capita or as a percent of GDP) also have the highest quality of life. Higher taxes don’t increase quality of life per se, but they also don’t reduce quality of life per se. It seems that people don’t mind being taxed if the government uses the money to maintain a high-performing economy and society. So the question is what public policies will produce that effect? A universal basic income might be very effective.
Buongiorno Manuel Barkhau
La traduzione automatica non mi è particolarmente chiara .
In ogni caso, la conoscenza dei sistemi monetari e della moneta fa comprendere che il denaro utilizzabile per un reddito di base (magari gestito con una contabilizzazione complementare) non va assolutamente a gravare sui redditi dei cittadini.
Il perchè non gravi sui cittadini è ovviamente da spiegare.
Vedremo se riusciamo a dialogare.
Carlo A.
As I was the director of the Canadian experiment with basic income in the 1970s , I have maintained an interest in BI since then and am now focusing on how the Covid-19 crisis might help to advance government interest in basic income.
Ron Hikel
Certamente le difficoltà create dalla pandemia Covid-19 potrebbe essere una opportunità, la comprensione circa la creazione del denaro è seme indispensabile per chi deve o voglia prendere decisioni in merito.
Se credi, prova a prendere in considerazione una complementarietà promozionale come il Progetto VAL.AZ.CO. propone. E fammi sapere cosa ne pensi, potremmo coordinarci e approfondire.
Ciao Carlo A.
The argument that UBI cannot be afforded and the question of how it will be paid for need to be dealt with.
It will cost money, even if replacing some benefits.
Knowledge of the money creation system is needed. This information can be found in The Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin Q1 2014 website article “Money Creation in the Modern World: an introduction.”
Bank of England working Paper No. 529 explains the role of The BoE in supporting the private=for-profit creation of the UK money supply. This is the “Western” model of money creation. Money is debt and both are commodities.
How money is created, who gets to create it and who gets to benefit from the operation of the money system are all political decisions and the keys to human progress, or more of the same but worse.
la mancanza di una cultura generale intorno ai sistemi monetari e la creazione del denaro sono una difficoltà certo.
Gordon Wilson
L’equilibrio tra potere politico (per il bene pubblico) e potere privato (banche con finalità speculative) sarebbe una chiave possibile. qui in Italia un certo equilibrio vi è stato fino al 1981 . poi quell’equilibrio è stato distrutto,…..
“””””In soli quindici anni dal suo avvio è costato agli italiani oltre mille miliardi di euro, per poi continuare a gravare sulla nostra economia fino a soffocarla: è il divorzio tra Banca d’Italia e Tesoro, avvenuto nel 1981 per volere dell’allora ministro Beniamino Andreatta. Con un atto quasi univoco, cioè una semplice corrispondenza epistolare con l’allora Governatore della Banca d’Italia Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Andreatta mise fine alla possibilità del governo di finanziare monetariamente il disavanzo.
https://scenarieconomici.it/banca-ditalia-tesoro-il-divorzio-piu-caro-della-storia-ditalia-di-ilaria-bifarini-e-palma/
Ciao A
Must be paid for by tax of some kind, the only magic money tree is fraud, gambling and inheritance.
Take the principle that the introduction of UBI should not affect an individual on the national average wage. The UBI payment directly offsets their tax free allowance. So we all start paying tax earlier, the thresholds at which we pay more tax are also lower. We still pay a form of sales tax, when we buy stuff.
UBI can be seen as an extension of child benifit, when a birth or naturalisation is certified the person gets a form of UBI in their name which may be administered by someone with power of attourney over their financial delaings. When they turn 16 the get PoA over their own UBI which they can use to live on whilst they study or learn a trade. When they start earning they start paying taxes. When they retire they can still suppement their UBI with a private annuity or other investment income.
UBI does not stop us needing to assess and help those who have the greatest need and lowest ability to be financially independent, so it does not do away with some form of social care funding.
Buongiorno Anonoman
Il reddito base potrebbe sostituire e unificare tutte le forme di spesa per assistenze a diverso titolo.
Come pagarlo e con quale costo finanziario, è una scelta di politica/economica.
La tua battuta incipit iniziale mi fa capire il tuo orizzonte conoscitivo dei sistemi monetari.
L’apertura ad un reddito di base a cittadini minorenni, potrebbe essere un buon avvio.
Thanks for the post, Andre Coelho. I agree wholeheartedly
About Andre Coelho
Il mio cuore si è spinto oltre al pensiero di come sarebbe bello.
Ha trovato e coordinato informazioni tali da formulare un progetto realizzabile, con la dovuta informazione e formazione nonché gradualità.
Se riterrai opportuno potrai collaborare e sostenere il progetto.
Ma forse ne hai anche tu ..uno.
Ciao Carlo A.
Warren Tighe
E’ certamente una scelta “politica” di organizzazione e gestione per un benessere non solo economico ma anche di salute psicosomatica. E potenzialmente liberatoria di creatività.
It is degrading to treat the poor like medical laboratory rats to see if they respond to a bit more cash with what the experimenters consider wise. Would you be surprised if someone addicted to tobacco and alcohol given more money uses it to drink a higher grade of cider or tailor-mades rather than roll-ups. The problem is not the money, it is the habit.
It is only by implementing UBI as it says on the tin, that is, “universally” over a very long period of time, and depending on the level of UBI set and its linked effect on redistribution of wealth, that any real answers will be found as to the effects of UBI and even then they will only answer the questions that are asked, and the conclusions will not be uncontroversial.
Let all types of social scientists accept the limits of their crafts.
Let’s get on with an introduction of UBI at the minimum meaningful level, I would say that of the nation state.