Posted: Dec 08, 2015 1:19 am
jamest wrote:The whole point of a Welfare State is that it should seek to redistrube wealth from the rich to the poor, not to all, since then the poor will get less than they would/should.
I guess the argument would be that it's just a simpler way of achieving the same thing, so you don't have to have a complex system of checks. Obviously you would actually increase the tax on the wealthy so that they effectively don't get this benefit. In principle, it's no different from allowing everyone to use the NHS for free, even though there are plenty of people who could afford to insure themselves privately. In fact, in the UK, isn't child benefit applicable to everyone regardless of income levels? I don't really have a problem with that, but politicians don't like it, because means testing enables them to have a lower rate of income tax, which is what looks better to the voter, even if you're effectively throwing away a lot of money in the process.
The issue you're going to have with this is that while that amount of money might be an average living wage for the country, it doesn't reflect the different costs that people have. I can only assume that rents in Helsinki are more expensive than elsewhere in the country, for example. People with children have much higher costs than those without. And people with disabilities would still presumably need additional support to pay for certain services and facilities.