More than one in five (210,000) of Scotland’s children are officially recognised as living in poverty , a level significantly higher than in many other European countries. In 2013/14 the proportion of children in Scotland experiencing poverty remained at 22%, after increasing from 19% in 2011/12 [iii]. This increase is in-keeping with independent modelling by the Institute for Fiscal studies (IFS) which forecasts a massive increase in child poverty, with up to 100,000 more children living in poverty in Scotland in 2020 than in 2012. This forecast does not take account of policy announcements, such as the decision to freeze working age benefits, made since January 2014.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-31908888

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/urban-and-rural-poverty-scotland

Gotta make sure the swiss have money in the bank to do that. Otherwise their market will crash :o

i'm curious to see how it works out on the finland test atleast[...]

I pity all those economists since apparently everybody knows better than them. If there is indeed this Finland test with a small sample size then what the test measures are the effects on peoples behavior when you make them more wealthy. Will they all become lazy drunkards and couch potatos quitting their job? Won't they change their lifestyle at all or will they suddenly start working like crazy. This is then a sociology experiment but it's nonsense to take such an experiment out of context and generalise the results to make statements about a stade wide unconditional base income.

The problem with this Finland experiment is that it only looks at one aspect of the unconditional base income and not at the other aspect which is about the money having to come from somewhere which would be the rest of Finland here. So in order to generalise this experiment the people of the small town would have to support the unconditional base income themself. If everybody paid the exact same amount they get out of it then it would be quite boring so you would have to let the more rich guys of the town pay more than they get out of it. The effects are then quite obvious, the rich guys would move away, leaving the town worse than before, stripped of it's elite.

When neglecting the possible effects on human behavior (which would be economically negative) the effects of the unconditional base income are imo quite simple to understand. If the state distributes the money freely without anyone having to pay then the amount of money rises so inflation will also rise, counteracting the effect of the unconditional base income. If however the state takes the money from the rich then it's just basic socialism which has failed already countless of times. In the end the state can just move money around but can't magically create wealth. Some goverments favor the rich while others favor the poor. I can understand both aspects however I get quite annoyed when I hear political parties promising a new concept to make life better for everyody without any losers of the new way.

Edited 6/8/2016 17:39:42

The problem with Basic income is that it's only sustainable for a short amount of time in very rich communities (like Switzerland). On a global scale, it's just plain ridiculous. If all the annual income in the world, all $72.6 trillion of it were evenly distributed to everyone in the world, each person would get $1029.72 a year in income (to put this into context, this is comparable to the average incomes in Chad, Lesotho, and zimbabwe). And while this does help some people who live in extreme poverty, it doesn't really help that much, since the current poverty line is around $430 annually.

And since people in the income bracket only make up 16% of the worlds population, you're really harming the vast majority of people to marginally benefit the few.

So, while you can redistribute income to people in your community, this is really just propaganda to make the idea seem better than it actually is, since if you actually implemented it on a wide scale it would be disastrous. The simple fact is, these people do not live in poverty, and simply by being in your community they are richer than a lot of people. They don't need any additional money from the government, and this money instead needs to go towards investment in poorer countries.

Edited 6/8/2016 17:57:54

More than half a million Scots, including 100,000 children...

This is interesting, Butler. From the exact source you listed, it says something less than half of what you said, and what is parallel to what I said.

Hmm... ;)

http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

This is the source I took the quote from, and all of the sources I listed said that poverty is on the rise in Scotland.

i believe you have a preconceived prejudice against the idea, not for what it is but for what it represents culturally.

While that is the case for many who are right economically, I don't believe it is for me; and if a 2 household is getting 78000 $ each year for doing naught, it goes far beyond "folk shouldn't get money that they don't earn" - it goes to "working won't get you a significantly higher amount of money", when the median income is less than half of that 78 000 $ (~30 000 $) - it goes to that noone would want to work.

And I live in one of the most socialist countries there are (Belarus).

basic income might not be for everyone, i give you that, but i believe it's still worth testing the model on small communities and check if it works. switzerland, for it's size and culture seemed like a very good place where it could work. but clearly it's not culturally ready to consider it seriously yet.

This is like Marxism: everyone is expected to do things "out of the good of their hearts" for the "greater good". It'd be great, but I don't see enough folk complying with that anywhere except in villages with less than 300 folk where everyone knows everyone. It would be better for everyone if the work strength still worked, but it's not better for anyone, if you catch my drift.

Villages can't really accurately model - when's the last time you helped a friend with something? And contrast that with doing commune work, when's the last time you did that? Folk help the folk that they know to be good much better than an abstract, unknown, some bad, being such as society.

i don't believe they'll all stop being alcoholics with this program, but some might use the opportunity to seek new meaning in life, doing what they enjoy doing instead of wallowing in self-pity and drinking their troubles away.

I think it would help a bit. However, Finland has a wonderful job-guarantee system that should be implemented in more countries, but basically everyone is guaranteed by the government a job, and while there is no official government minimal wage, they do give the work unions loads of strength to negotiate minimal wages. So there's no stress about finding jobs. The welfare is already pretty generous, and healthcare is free, so these drunkards could go to a clin if they really wanted to. However, if you give folk money, they might distract themselves with expensive hobbies, and kick their alcoholism, but I doubt this would be many folk. And the overall bad effects would outweigh any good ones, though it depends on how big it is, I guess. If it's 19 folk or something, it could work.

I can understand both aspects however I get quite annoyed when I hear political parties promising a new concept to make life better for everyody without any losers of the new way.

+1; most leftists and rightists are both too sure of themselves than they can really be.

I believe in the principle that, if you are not working, you should be given welfare/benefits by the government so you can live (defined as: have a roof over your head, eat enough, and raise a family)

I believe that the government should make sure you're healthy, which means not starving or sick, while taking as little money as possible. Roof over your head, you can live without.

Furthermore, a better system would be a job-guarantee up to a livable income, which in Britain, I estimate, is about 1600 £ a year.

the reason why we are the region with the second least poverty in the UK

Don't be nifty, there is no poverty in Britain. Not even under the broad meaning of 2 £ a day. Less than 0.00%, that's what the IMF endsaid. National poverty lines, yeah, Scotland voted in a pretty leftist party, and so it makes sense that they have less poorer folk.

If all the annual income in the world, all $72.6 trillion of it were evenly distributed to everyone in the world, each person would get $1029.72 a year in income (to put this into context, this is comparable to the average incomes in Chad, Lesotho, and zimbabwe).

It's more like 10k $ each year and that's not counting purchasing power. Also, I did some calculations and found that America alone could comfortably take in all 800 million million folk living under the 1.9 $/day line, taking a third out of the average income in America. It's more than doable; I think what you've calculated is pretty misleading.

It's more like 10k $ each year and that's not counting purchasing power. Also, I did some calculations and found that America alone could comfortably take in all 800 million million folk living under the 1.9 $/day line, taking a third out of the average income in America. It's more than doable; I think what you've calculated is pretty misleading.

When literally everyone has the same amount of money, purchasing power is a non-issue. There is no "counting purchasing power".

Also yes, I dropped a zero off the end. It is actually a number comparable to the average income in Malaysia or kazakhstan. And don't get me wrong, I'm totally for taking in as many people as we can. If it means sending helicopters to syria, africa, and eastern europe to take home a few hundred million people to live here then great, let's do it.

Edited 6/9/2016 12:33:15

people bitch it will never work, so people do a tester in response, people bitch a tester is not a real proof of concept and it still will never work on a larger scale. yeah, well, no shit, but you have to start somewhere to prove it's socially beneficial and economically viable. discussing it ad eternum with people who are against it on principle ain't going to help prove it works.

there seems to be this preconceived notion that basic income is just an alternate social welfare system that will undoubtedly need to be supported even more by the working class to give privileges to the poor and slackers. while it's concept and purpose is not that at all, as you would know if you would bother reading about it.

if implemented properly it would actually allow for lower taxes, giving more benefits for hard workers. plus you wouldn't be paying so much for goods and services on your local economy, and they would be of better quality.

sure the basic income system could still fail in some cultures. i still think it's worth testing it out first and drawing the conclusions afterwards.

Edited 6/9/2016 13:04:53

it still will never work on a larger scale. yeah, well, no shit, but you have to start somewhere to prove it's socially beneficial and economically viable. discussing it ad eternum with people who are against it on principle ain't going to help prove it works.

It doesn't matter where you start. If the idea is only implementable in small communities, it is not a good idea, It is a bad idea.

you failed to see the point.

it is implementable in both small and large communities.

No, it's not. If it is implemented on a worldwide scale, everyone gets the living standards of kazakhstan. I don't know about you living in Cozy portugal, but as an american I would not want to start living at the standards people from kazakhstan and malaysia do.

Edited 6/9/2016 14:01:57

You say about cultures.

What "cultural" blocks would theoretically make basic income of this level not doable in Switzerland?