Comment by kisstheblade | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kisstheblade | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately I don't think this is going to work as long as there are any other benefits paid on an "individual basis", eg some cultures here get extra money for their traditional dresses paid for by social security! And if you have kids and have spent all your "basic income" then you will still get new strollers (top of the line) etc for your babies, or cellphones for yor self and your family, with paid plans. Or your electric and internet bills paid. The left will never agree to ditch these subsidies.

And the biggest issue is that housing is also paid for spearately under this plan (as per the article). Nowadays the situation living in helsinki center is that only rich and unemployed people can afford to live there. You know, "close to where the work is!".

They should pay you a lump sum and you would live where you wanted using only that money. Too bad if you can't afford the most expensive place to stay where "the work" (=pubs and bars) are.

In more remote places (but still cities) you can have a studio appartment for probably 200 euros per month.

They could tweak it so you get your basic income, if you forgo other forms of subsidies (as Milton orig. proposed). Also, Russians can't just cross the border and become eligible as it appears it's citizens only. And I wouldn't begrudge Laplanders, life up there is austere.

If they choose this, then "rational" unemployed would move to the outskirts and rent cheaper properties till they could afford more expensive apartments (via new jobs). Hope they can keep it free of interference so it can be gauged for success or failure.

>citizens only

No it's not. Currently all wellfare in Finland is based permanent residence. But if you don't have permanent residence, the social services will get you one if you just are in Finland "permanently". Which happens if you can claim that you have no other safe place to go. Or if you have family here. Or if you have no other citizenship.

Russians can't come over the border right now. But if there is ever a civil war in Russia, then we are fucked. If Russia starts to move Syrian refugees through russia just to fuck with us, we are in deep shit.

Some people are really worried about immigration. While it's not a problem right now. Some people are really worried that we are not perceived as fascist. Some people are really worried about refugees who are here. Nobody gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria.

Getting citizenship means you have to do military service, but you gain nothing from it. Currently it is punishment really.

That's a lot of assumptions and scaremongering that have nothing to do with the article.

Could you explain me what there is assumtions? And what there is scaremongering?

"if there is ever a civil war in Russia", "If Russia starts to move Syrian refugees ..." and "Nobody gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria" are assumptions.

Scaremongering: the process of saying or doing something in order to deliberately make people feel worried or frightened [http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/scarem...]

I assumed that I was talking to international crowd. Who don't really care too deeply about Finland, but would appreciate perspective. I really didn't think anybody would be scared, save maybe other Finns.

I started those two sentences with the word "if", making no judgement on how likely they are. Do you suggest that in HN it's not cool to gauge options and speculate?

"Nobody gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria" This is admittedly my personal perception. The only article in finnish so far that actually suggests political action to help Syrians in Syria, that I have read was also written by me.

I have a hunch that you are too a Finn. And that you read between lines bit too much.

> That's a lot of assumptions and scaremongering that have nothing to do with the article.

I beg to differ. In Norway we are getting lots of "refugees" which has been safely in non-warring European countries[1], seeking asylum here, simply because its a known thing we have higher "wages" for asylum-seekers than other European countries.

It may be cold hearted, and it may not be a popular opinion, but my take on it is that these people stopped being genuine refugees 4000kilometers ago. They are now welfare-shoppers. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue anything else.

We're getting a flood of people right now, and the result is that our asylum institution can't scale to handle them all.

All historical data suggests that they will all be non-working, non-integrated people, living on government benefits for years to come, and for those who manage to become a productive part of society, they will still be less productive than regular citizens, for a multitude of reasons. Historical data also says most of them wont return, but still will have the same rights to government provided benefits, pensions, etc. Nothing personal, nothing racist, but they will be a net loss for the national economy.

All these things accounts to a massive increase in government welfare-related obligations, costs and spending. Now and in the future. Our "future budget" is already too big to handle, accounting just our regular citizens. With this flood we're facing future bankruptcy.

To avoid that means taking away future pensions. It means we stop maintaining infrastructure like roads now. It means cutting costs all over. The costs are very real.

And now Finnish people may fear that such an offer like this will land them in the same situation: That they too will become a "too sexy" target for welfare-shopping ex-refugees. It's not fearmongering. It's a very realistic scenario. I can't say I would blame them for thinking that way.

[1] http://imgur.com/YDegTCn

Finland already has high rate of refugees compared to Estonia or France(?). I don't think UBI changes that picture at all, as the refugees already get any money citizens would.

At very least the perverce incentive of wellfare to non-citizens should be acknowledged. But that's not politically correct at the moment.

I don't think it's good for the refugees themselves either in the long run. Their children could have been doctors, lawyers and engineers in Syria, Egypt of Turkey in 2050. Now they are destined to be third class citizens in cold and dark north.

careful, there are some hard facts (or more like hard-to-argue financial projections unless never-before-seen miracle happens), but they tend to go against common socialist sense here on HN.

I mean, I think I understand them. They are very clever, see what is wrong with this world (and there is plenty), and aim for biggest obvious culprit (be it 1% topic, evil corporations etc.) and say "if we fixed this, all will be good from now on". Well, life, economies or markets don't behave like that. People are aholes, lazy, selfish, greedy, messed up, not caring about anything but themselves.

I like solutions to problems just like the next guy, but only those who factor these basic built-in human flaws, so they can work long-term outside the paper they are written on. All other are just a hidden additional financial (and other) cost to all of us.

I'm gong by the article which states: "as indicated by Kela’s Research Department Director Olli Kangas. It is considered that all Finnish citizens would be paid an untaxed benefit sum free of charge by the government, 800 euros"

So, not sure if that would change in implementation.

With regard to perceived fascism nations typically act in self interest. This is why they go to war. Neither China nor Russia typically much care about what anyone else thinks, whether it's human rights orgs, etc. Actually, most places don't care. It's mostly Europeans who are afraid to look nationalist. You really don't experience doubt of identity in most other countries.

Now, I get it that one day we will have to transcend the idea of nations and embrace global globalization and beyond internationalism, but we're just not there yet. Maybe another couple of hundred years.

My impression is that this "permanent recidence" stuff is justified with Finnish constitution.

It states that everyone how can't earn enough money to live on it, has right to wellfare. This "everyone" is basis for recidence based wellfare. How it's not basis for enormous levels of development aid beats me.

Which cities have you seen those 200 €/month apartments in? When I was studying in Joensuu (a city of ~75k), a 25-30 m^2 apartment there cost around 500-550 €/month (unless you're lucky enough to get one of few student apartments from the city). I'm a bit skeptical that you can get a (non-subsidized) place for 200 € in a city, and having to have a car will bring the cost up anyway if you move to the country (good luck finding work without having to commute to the city).

Well ok a bit on the low side, but it is possible (especially if you share the appartment).

http://www.vuokraovi.com/vuokra-asunto/kankaanpaa/keskusta/k...

Why do you have to commute? Take the bus to the interview, it's not like you have to commute every day to the city centre to find a job.

And further, I believe the high rent prises are in large part because of the subsidies. If people actually would pay just what they (themself) can afford then the prices would be lower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com