|
|
|
|
|
|
by effn
4723 days ago
|
|
|
> You can do that in most Nordic countries, and it has many more benefits than disadvantages. For example, you can walk safely everywhere because everyone has sufficient social security. Street robberies and whatnot are practically non-existent. To me that sounds like an argument against BI. You're basically saying that we can have the social safety benefits of BI for only 10% of the cost by using means-tested programs . Since that's what the Nordic countries are doing, and according to you it works really well. |
|
|
No, BI can cost the same amount as Nordic social security, while increasing motivation to work and helping people more. (Source in Finnish: http://www.vihreat.fi/files/liitto/Perustulolinjapaperi.pdf ).
Nordic social security works better than American social security, that's fore sure, but it can be improved on. The main problem currently is that social security assumes that people are either unemployed or employed full-time. This assumption is increasingly false. There's more and more part-time (and 'part-period', e.g. full-time for 3 days only etc.) and freelancing work.
Basic income really means social security without that assumption. If you work 0h/month, you get 100% social security. If you work 120h/month, you don't get anything (because you'll pay for the basic income through taxes). If you work 60h, you'll get someting in-between.
And there's no paper work or bureaucracy.