That's addressed, but it seems like it doesn't change the fact that it's a net loss
"""
The original cost of the pilot was €105 million, but after accounting for tax revenues and reduced social welfare payments, the net fiscal cost dropped to just under €72 million.
"""
The values you cite just seem like really small amounts overall compared to the cost of the program.
Again, though, my core issue here is that I _want_ UBI, and what this gives us is empty tokenism (if the pilot were this successful, shouldn't we want to immediately open it to all artists?) at the same time the government has managed to produce a catastrophically bad housing crisis and a collapsing health system.
Oh I would love UBI too. That would be great. But I don't feel like that's what they're trying to sell this as. It's "Basic Income for the Arts". To me it's equivalent to various tax breaks/credits. People get 'free' money just because they've had children. Various industries get large subsidies. This seems equivalent.
>> if the pilot were this successful, shouldn't we want to immediately open it to all artists
It sounds like this would be the goal but it depends on what is allotted to the program in the budget.
Budget sensitivities are exactly why it's frustrating when this program is presented as a net financial gain. If it were, budgeting for it would be a lot easier.
""" The original cost of the pilot was €105 million, but after accounting for tax revenues and reduced social welfare payments, the net fiscal cost dropped to just under €72 million. """
The values you cite just seem like really small amounts overall compared to the cost of the program.
Again, though, my core issue here is that I _want_ UBI, and what this gives us is empty tokenism (if the pilot were this successful, shouldn't we want to immediately open it to all artists?) at the same time the government has managed to produce a catastrophically bad housing crisis and a collapsing health system.