12

Simplify Welfare: Finland gets it!

Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago to Economics
69 comments | Share | Flag

I can get behind this simplification to the Welfare System. Simple. Also should ditch minimum wage.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
    Since there are no Objectivist politicians, I don't fully trust any of them. We all know that welfare is used by politicians in order to garner votes. If that power is taken away, both sides will rant. But, if by some miracle it manages to happen, something even worse and probably crazier will replace it. Always keep in mind that power and money are the true motivators for those within the Beltway. The only difference between them is degree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 9 years, 4 months ago
    What Welfare system? According to the story, EVERY adult citizen is going to get this...not just the needy. What, exactly then, IS the purpose?

    If Finland would simply:
    1. Cancel all student debt
    2. Offer free college to all
    3. Pay a $15 minimum wage to campus workers
    They could fix everything!

    Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am intrigued by plans to fund the gov't on voluntary contributions, but I've never seen it work. It's easy to say all taxation is theft, but right now we don't even have a way to phase out all taxation slowly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 9 years, 4 months ago
    Let's see. I get $875/mo. I like to gamble or do drugs or just buy nice clothes and get my hair and nails done. What if I have a kid? More than one kid? What am I going to do? Budget? or am I going to take this money and run with it?

    Are there cost controls on goods and services? Will merchants see this as an opportunity to raise prices?

    Give your kid a generous monthly allowance. Tell them this is all the money they have for the month. See what happens...at least until they learn you mean it. Also, will you really mean it? Check out how often you find an "exception" and give the kid more money.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is the same idea but only in the sense of the single deduction for Right to Life which ought to be a clear cut number in any system. We have a sort of phony one and if you can figure out how to do it along with the social security income tax and without Turbo Tax good luck.

    The IRS exists for two reasons. Citizen Control and Citizen harassment. They serve no other useful purpose.

    No matter what level the percentage is all it takes is that percent taken off the top like any sales tax and transmitted by the employer to the government..But no they have to play games and ensure a population that lives in fear. At least the producing portion of the population. The looters and moochers could care less.

    I don't agree with giving out the checks but making Right To Life an up front deduction on any income makes eminent sense. What right does government have to take that which we depend on merely to survive? Answer? No right. Then why isn't it an uip front deduction right after income? I don't mind if its adjusted to local costs of living. But as a giveaway like the unearned Earned Income Deduction. Hell no unless it applies to everyone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thinking about the world where the majority, but not all, (90%+) of labor is provided by automated systems and robots I keep coming back to schemes such as this one.

    I don't like the idea of taking money from production to provide an income for the idle but when we reach a world where there simply isn't something productive for a significant portion of our population to do we will have to deal with this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 4 months ago
    Would never work here. Bleeding hearts who love to spend other people's money would find numerous loopholes to keep their favorite giveaway program going in addition to the guaranteed national wage.

    The fiction is that such an injection of cash would stimulate the economy, but that's delusional, sort of like Nancy Pelosi's claim that every welfare dollar spent somehow generates $1.75. The first screaming would come from the "living wage" crowd, who would point out that the program would be unacceptable unless it equaled $15/hr ($30,000 annual).

    We aren't yet in the Star Trek world, where all necessary labor is provided by automated systems and robots, and people only work if they want to. I'm not so sure such a world would be a good thing, or the beginning of our species' extinction. My mind keeps returning to "Forbidden Planet," and the fate of the Krell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 4 months ago
    if the really wanted to end welfare they would say you will get it for the next 5 years and if you still don't support your self move to another country like the usa.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jhagen 9 years, 4 months ago
    Sounds like they're taking a page from the FairTax system. Wonder if they're thinking of implementing the rest of it in the long run.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago
    Logically this makes sense, however the bleeding hearts will not accept that someone could waste all their money and still end up on the streets. Also it is still theft.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 4 months ago
    It is still theft and involuntary servitude. Also it doesn't work. Do the math. Pick what you think is a "living wage" and multiple it by the number of adults likely to take/need it. Then work out how much more you have to take from everyone else to pay for it. I think you will see it doesn't work on a mathematical level as well as not working on the ethical level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My comment was in no way comparing their system to the POS in the USSA. I was merely suggesting that since they are so generous we should send all the Syrians there without delay.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's something like the right to life exemption but the truth is within five to a good chunk will still be RTLifers for Lifers. But I would have finished an extra degree or two and many like me would have moved up. The really smart ones would put that money or their salaries away and whatever the amount was would have retired wealthy. They used to say any savings account beginning with $5,000 at birth would outdo social security up until 2008 when the government ran all those banks out of business with no other deposits..... So for me...

    I can't see that as a sound investment anymore if the system is under control of the current government.

    At this point almost anything qualifies as better based on trust alone... We went from the gold standard to the credit standard to the faith standard to the fear standard. And there it sits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Better than what we do now. Cheaper and fairer. Still redistribution, but less wasting at the government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago
    At last a place to send all the immigrants that the racist in chief wants the people of the US to support while struggling like Atlas to hold up the world.
    (Yes, please read carefully;^)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 4 months ago
    Yes. It takes money away from bureaucrats and administrators and gives it to the poor. Critics will say the poor might mis-spend it, but in some cases I say they'll spend it way more wisely than the gov't.

    Many citizens oppose giving significant aid to the poor, but "reform the [insert product or service name] system" sounds better. It leads to the creation of agencies that are hard to shut down.

    I agree with the ideas in this article.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo