Finland to pay all its citizens 800 euros a month to fight unemployment

[Maxperson]

Not to the person on welfare.

Then why screw them like that? Give them the $80 and teach them a skill to get a job that makes even more and move that person into being a productive member of society.

 

[delericho]

Then why screw them like that? Give them the $80 and teach them a skill to get a job that makes even more and move that person into being a productive member of society.

Because giving them the 80 euros means not spending that same money on schools, or hospitals, or rehabilitating prisoners, or any number of other worthy causes.

The principle should be that people should be given welfare money according to their need. The need in this case is 10% lower for the second child than for the first, so it is right to at least consider whether that money can be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, that's a really good point.

Finland is part of the EU, and any EU citizen is entitled to move to any EU country and must be treated the same as a citizen in terms of employment rights, benefit payments, and so forth. Which means that, in theory at least, the entire population of Greece could move to Finland and would become eligible for the payment.

But the Greek will not suddenly all want to move to a different country, so it's a purely theoretically thing. People don't uproot that easily. You need basically a shooting war in your country to see mass movement like that.
And if it were to happen, there would suddenly be a big Greek Community in Finland that needs all kinds of goods and services provided to them, and will pay taxes and what not. It will create new jobs, basically.
And any type of already existing welfare system has to deal with the same principle.

I would presume, though, that the lawmakers have considered this, so they'll probably put a residency requirement on it - that is, whether you're a citizen or not, you have to live in Finland for X years before you become eligible for the payment.

I don't know the exact details, but I suspect that you must have registered your primary residency in the country to get access to its entire welfare system. In some (if not all) countries this requires you to have a home (rental, owned, shared) and to be in the country a certain number of days.

 

[delericho]

But the Greek will not suddenly all want to move to a different country, so it's a purely theoretically thing.

Well, I did say it was theoretical. But not entirely - because of the difficulties in Greece in recent years, significant numbers of young people have been leaving for other parts of the EU. Though I should hasten to add that such movement has been in search of work, not benefits.

I don't know the exact details, but I suspect that you must have registered your primary residency in the country to get access to its entire welfare system. In some (if not all) countries this requires you to have a home (rental, owned, shared) and to be in the country a certain number of days.

Yep, that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned a residency requirement.

 

[Umbran]

Not to the person on welfare.

Yeah, really. If losing 10% of your income is no big deal for anyone here, please, by all means, give it to me!

 

[Neonchameleon]

So what? It is a global problem, we all have to do our part. If as individuals we all say our acts do not matter, we'll solve nothing.

That isn't my point. Its that our life style is the problem. Giving more money to people might solve some problems, but it will not solve the more important one that can only be tackled by lowering our living standards and buying power.

The people for whom 800 euros a month is lifechanging aren't the problem. This has a minimal impact on that especially as those better off lose that 800 euros back in progressive taxation. However it allows more people to go into e.g. writing rather than onto the treadmill which keeps their consumption down.

This has if anything a negative impact on hyperconsumption.

 

[Maxperson]

Because giving them the 80 euros means not spending that same money on schools, or hospitals, or rehabilitating prisoners, or any number of other worthy causes.

There aren't many causes more worthy than helping kids in need. Not schools, hospitals, or prisoners. Welfare already doesn't cover what is needed, making it even worse just creates situations where those kids end up in hospitals, as prisoners, and they drop out of schools. Better to just keep them from ending up in situations that are "worthy" causes.

The principle should be that people should be given welfare money according to their need. The need in this case is 10% lower for the second child than for the first, so it is right to at least consider whether that money can be better spent elsewhere.

They don't get what they need even with the full amount.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, really. If losing 10% of your income is no big deal for anyone here, please, by all means, give it to me!

Who said anything about 10% of income? 10% of one kid......$80. That's no big deal.

 

[delericho]

There aren't many causes more worthy than helping kids in need. Not schools, hospitals, or prisoners. Welfare already doesn't cover what is needed...

We're talking about a proposed (and major) change to the way welfare is handled. The inadequacies of the current system are clear to me, but they're also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[delericho]

Who said anything about 10% of income? 10% of one kid......$80. That's no big deal.

To quote Dickens: "Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.""

It's not the amount of the difference that makes it a big deal.