• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Finland wants to give everyone 10k per year

Finland has a population of 5.4 million people and 10 percent unemployment.The government will have to raise taxes to cover the cost of the program.
Click to expand...

If it is going to reduce or save the cost of welfare, why the need to raise taxes? When unemployment is 10%, raising taxes doesn't seem to be the answer to anything.
 
How does giving money to people who don't require money save you money. I'm sure the bureaucracy of deciding who needs money isn't free, but I can't see how essentially giving welfare to everyone saves money.
 
Ug i accidently deleted my post...

I would equate it to going to a flat tax. With a flat tax you would be eliminating most of the paper work or IRS. Of course you maybe creating more unemployment, but those people would be relocated.

It does not solve the underlying problem of lazy people. I would have a scale and give more to people working and less to people not working. Maybe give out bonuses to working parents. I think i would have an income cut off though. If you are making at least several hundred grand a year you don't need the extra boost. I would like to see some economists perspective on this.
 
jitter77 said:
Ug i accidently deleted my post...

I would equate it to going to a flat tax. With a flat tax you would be eliminating most of the paper work or IRS. Of course you maybe creating more unemployment, but those people would be relocated.

It does not solve the underlying problem of lazy people. I would have a scale and give more to people working and less to people not working. Maybe give out bonuses to working parents. I think i would have an income cut off though. If you are making at least several hundred grand a year you don't need the extra boost. I would like to see some economists perspective on this.
Click to expand...

I think the only way it saves any money (assuming that is possible) would be that it goes to everyone. This removes an bureaucratic interference and red tape. When you start adding things to it, you have to add in the bureaucrats to cope with it. Then politics/lobbyists get involved and, BOOM, no money saved, just a different welfare system.
 
Finland has but 5.5 million people, and lots of natural resources. As such they can get away with this. T

The USA has 109.6 million living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau. This is 35.4% percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States.
 
Actually, I listened to a Finnish educational leader speak. Finland is on top of the world with their educational system. He said Finland actually doesn't have much in the way of natural resources, but is a world leader in innovation due to their educational system.
 
If we did that here, two things would happen. 1) It would make harder to hire people than it already is because welfare pays people pretty good to sit home and watch TV, i.e. I'd rather sit home for a little less money than have to get up every morning and go to work for a little more. I run want ads on Craig's List and the local unemployment office continually and get almost zero applicants. 2) A lot of the people getting the "free" $800 would quickly ***** that it isn't enough and in short order some Democrats would run for office on a platform of giving them more.
 
I smell this becoming a program in addition to the ones already in place. The Finns are opening Pandora's box,
 
Ron Burgundy said:
If we did that here, two things would happen. 1) It would make harder to hire people than it already is because welfare pays people pretty good to sit home and watch TV, i.e. I'd rather sit home for a little less money than have to get up every morning and go to work for a little more. I run want ads on Craig's List and the local unemployment office continually and get almost zero applicants. 2) A lot of the people getting the "free" $800 would quickly ***** that it isn't enough and in short order some Democrats would run for office on a platform of giving them more.
Click to expand...

Well I think Welfare already pays people well. Between food stamps, cash assistance, and medical you are looking at a lot of money monthly. I would give less to non-working people and give more to people out there trying. I just dont know how feasible the whole thing would be.
 
jitter77 said:
Well I think Welfare already pays people well. Between food stamps, cash assistance, and medical you are looking at a lot of money monthly. I would give less to non-working people and give more to people out there trying. I just dont know how feasible the whole thing would be.
Click to expand...

how to make a good idea infeasible. Add government.
 
so essentially their government is saying that they'll take, er, tax less since they'll be "giving" money back to people.

how much will that cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top