Ireland Is Making Basic Income for Artists Program Permanent

It is almost impossible to receive housing benefit in Ireland. Legally all landlords must accept it, practically few to none in major cities do.

> The pricing of housing is defined by supply and demand.

About 20% of Irish homes are bought by investment funds, another huge (difficult to specify) percentage are bought to rent by small to medium sized landlords. The Irish state Land Development Agency build around 3.5k homes per year, meanwhile Davies estimate the state needs around 93k new homes per year. Investing in any kind of investment fund or ETFs is taxed at 41% under the exit tax in Ireland. In addition, the “deemed disposal” rule means investments are taxed as though sold every eight years, even if they haven't been.

These are all artificial extreme pressures on housing in Ireland specifically, that mean that this is not a simple 'supply and demand' problem. It's a supply and demand of people who need housing vs entities who require profit - and have concomitant class affiliations and monies to spend on political influence problem.

We have three awesome control groups currently:

(1) Retirees with skills don't suddenly decide to become entrepreneurs when they reach 65.

(2) people on the dole don't suddenly become entrepreneurs. We even used to have a specific programme in New Zealand for the unemployed to start their own business . . . I'm fairly sure it didn't work.

(3) mothers on the DPB get a good whack of money even with kids that don't need Hyde time investment. It is rare to see them do anything more entrepreneurial than an under-the-table job.

I love your optimism, but it isn't realistic.

A good portion of my salary is already taken by Tax and the government wastes it. I've seen the waste first hand when contracting for both Local, Nation Government. I was so disgusted by this, I have made every effort to avoid working with them.

I've also seen this waste happen in large charities and ossified corporations. The former also disgusting me as I know they would simply piss away a few thousand on complete BS, that took a whole village to collect and for it not to go towards the stated purpose of the charity. As a result I don't donate to any charities that aren't local.

Every-time someone suggests a tax increase, I know for a fact they haven't seen the waste happen first hand.

> UBI isn't about giving everyone free money. It's about giving everyone a safety net, so that they can take bigger economic risks and aren't pushed into crime or bullshit work.

Giving everyone a safety net will require giving people money that is taken from others. To the people that benefit it is seen as "free" and will become "expected" and won't be treated as a safety net.

Being a responsible adult is about reducing the amount of risk you are taking, not increasing it.

So what you will be doing it teaching people to essentially gamble and people did similar during COVID. Some people took their cheques and put it into crypto, meme stocks or whatever. Some won big, most didn't.

I've met people in my local area that have lost huge amounts of money on risky investments, everything from property developments, to bitcoin. Creating an incentive for risk taking without the consequences is actually reckless, a massive moral hazard and will simply create perverse incentives.

> The upper half of society will only see the indirect benefits, like having greater employment/investment choices due to more entrepreneurialism.

You will be taxing those people more and they will have less to invest. The reason why many people invest is because they have disposable income that they can afford to risk.

By taxing people more (which you admit would have to happen), they will have less disposable income and will be inclined to invest less as a result.

This feels like it violates the social contract where we all produce things other people want/need, and in return we get the things we want/need. It feels wrong that artists get a special carveout there, where they get to produce things other people don't want (at a livable price) and everyone else is forced to create the things they want/need anyways.

This would be different to me if it were a full post-scarcity thing that everyone gets because the prior contract is based on a scarcity that doesn't exist anymore. This feels wrong because it both acknowledges that scarcity still exists, while taking money from the people producing those scarce goods to fund creating goods that are overabundant to a degree where the creators are destitute.

If we were collectively creating so many car tires that they were being sold below marginal cost, the solution would be to make fewer tires and have the workers go make something else. It reads wrong to me that for art the solution is just to levy taxes and continue making more than the market can bear.

It's possible. It's possible that there can be a similar gap between "the amount people are willing to pay" and "the amount I need to live on while I pursue my career in snail sniffing". So what? That's why my snail sniffing is purely a hobby.

There is no numerical value of UBI that makes any sense in Canada. Rent is expensive and toys are cheap.

You need universal basic services with income being a thing you use for toys and vices. So this hypothetical artist should instead get paid what other people are willing to pay but need $0 in pay for basic food, water, healthcare, and housing.

Plenty of artists become very, very wealthy.

https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books

Publishers have an interest in publishing stuff that doesn't sell as long as ticks some other check-boxes to appear prestigious or politically correct for the time.

Should society bear the costs of maintaining artists who produce things that are not in demand or have low value?

Why is this a thing that needs "correcting" in any field, and why anyone would start with art, a thing my children can do with their fingers and some paint?

The only one of those that's justifiable for UBI is some sort of ID requirement to prevent double-claiming.

It’s easy to find talk, for example from people who think universal healthcare should be applied differently to people who live an unhealthy lifestyle.

There’s also all other consequences like vetting immigration that will crop up as well.