The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL.<p>The only person I know getting this money was already semi-retired after selling their house in London and retiring to the Irish countryside, and basically just noodles around on the guitar now and then.
>The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist.<p>Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist?<p>How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?
> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist.<p>Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April.<p>But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true.<p>> So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL.<p>Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”.<p>Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible.<p>Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this.<p>> The only person I know getting this money<p>In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery.<p>Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
Irish here. It's a cultural thing. Ireland is the only country in the world whose national symbol is a musical instrument.<p>Art is seen as a worthwhile endeavour even if it can't necessarily support itself as a private endeavour. It's for the same reason galleries and museums are subsidised by the government.<p>Anyone can call themselves an artist but to receive this money you would have to have a portfolio of work that is approved by the application programme.<p>Ireland already has a competitive economy. There is more to a country than economics and that includes promoting things like art to foster a sense of identity and promote Ireland on a world stage.<p>Milton Friedman wouldn't approve and we're okay with that.
We have a similar scheme in Slovenia. Don't know the details but there's the concept of a "free artist".<p>At a minimum you need a registered business, regular exhibitions or performances in your field, you have to register with the ministry of culture, and can't have a job. Contract work is allowed and encouraged. Also you are expected to apply when the government issues a Call For Creatives.<p>I think you get paid minimum wage as long as you continue fulfilling criteria.
Interesting concept, seems like it is a way to pay less taxes as an artist, not really a pay but it will make it easier to live. Not sure about the selection process though..<p>> Self-employed in culture can be given the right to pay social security contributions from the state budget.<p><a href="https://e-uprava.gov.si/si/podrocja/izobrazevanje-kultura/zaposleni-v-kulturi/pravica-do-placila-prispevkov-za-socialno-varnost.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com&lang=si" rel="nofollow">https://e-uprava.gov.si/si/podrocja/izobrazevanje-kultura/za...</a>
This seems like it mostly funnels money to rich kids, to be honest. Nobody else can afford to already be an artist.
Working artists, spouses, and semi-retirees are relatively common.<p>‘2,000 creative workers’ would make this quite competitive, even if it’s only 20k USD/year that could easily enable people to be artists who wouldn’t make a career of it on their own.
Poor people and middle class people produce art. They both work as artists or do art on the side as a hobby. It is not that expensive either.<p>Expectation that you have portfolio does not strikes me as outrageous either.
Milton Friedman wouldn’t have approved of a basic-income scheme restricted to artists. He would have argued that restricting the benefit to artists would distort incentives for choosing a profession in a way likely to reduce social welfare, and that eligibility by profession is a “welfare trap”: it’s hard to stop being an artist and start being something else when it means losing your guaranteed income.<p>But Friedman would have supported a broad basic-income scheme. We know this because he did support one. It was his proposal in 1962 of a “negative income tax” [0] (in <i>Capitalism and Freedom</i>) that gave rise to the movement to replace traditional social welfare programs with simple schemes that just give money to poor people. (This movement led to the Earned Income Tax Credit [1] in the United States.)<p>Friedman’s negative income tax is equivalent to the contemporary notion of a guaranteed basic income (but not to a <i>universal</i> basic income, as only people earning below some threshold would receive it). Like most economists, Friedman believed that people (even poor people) can typically make their own economic choices better than a government program can make those choices for them. (He was likewise not opposed to redistributive policies per se.) That was the root of his advocacy for market-based mechanisms of organizing the economy.<p>0. The idea dates to at least the 1940’s, but Friedman’s book is typically credited with popularizing it. See, e.g, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax</a>.<p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit</a>
It's not remotely a basic income scheme. It's a state stipend for acclaimed artists. Don't know about Ireland, but Norway has had this for over 100 years (kunstnerlønn). It's basically a court poet institution, ever so slightly broadened.
[flagged]
Soon: everyone is an artist.
It's not like Ireland is getting rid of unemployment insurance. And insurance sales and carpet installation are professions where there are jobs that actually pay a living wage.<p>A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture. For thousands of years that activity was sponsored by monarchs, royalty and other nobility. Up until actually quite recently, most first world countries with<i>out</i> monarchs and nobles also provided substantial support for the arts.
I understand your perspective. However, those trades, and most work in general, differ from art. Art is vital to our society, yet the current reward system optimizes for the worst art and the worst people.<p>We need more art that pushes boundaries and remains controversial. Instead, we favor the type of artist who attracts the most attention through their personality, whether because of their looks or a manufactured edgy image, while producing mundane, lowest-common-denominator work. We must support contemporary artists who move us forward rather than remaining stuck in popularity contests or constant nostalgia.<p>Under the current system, it is almost inevitable that influencers use their status to promote gambling ads and NFTs, ruining the lives of their fans. We need to break this cycle of rewarding increasingly poor behavior while making it harder for independent artists to earn a living.
They should get basic income too, good idea
Agreed. Can just all myself an artist to get other people's tax money?
It seems there are 2000 positions and 8000 applicants. The program cost $74M, but more than paid for itself:<p>> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
It’s also not permanent. It’s for three years and then once off one can’t apply to the program for another three years.<p>Reminds me of the WPA<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project</a>
They were wise to limit it, otherwise Ireland would see an unprecidented rise in the number of artists in its population.
there is art in getting other people's tax money, so yes
<i>Now look at them yo-yos,<p>that's the way you do it<p>You play the guitar on the MTV<p>That ain't workin',<p>that's the way you do it<p>Money for nothin'<p>and your chicks for free<p>We got to install microwave ovens,<p>custom kitchen delivery<p>We got to move these refrigerators,<p>we got to move these Color TVs...</i><p>Dire Straits, <i>Money for Nothing</i>, 1985<p>Guest artist: Sting<p><a href="https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Dire-Straits/Money-for-Nothing-Remastered" rel="nofollow">https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Dire-Straits/Money-for-Not...</a>
These guys are less stubborn when it comes to ruining your life for some vision?
Unemployed artist still make art
>I don’t get it.<p>Your bio says:<p>> I'm not trolling. I actually want to know the answer, although my comment may feel less than diplomatic.<p>And so here is the real test. After reading the numerous responses to your question, do you get it?
Because any modern unemployment insurance program (which Ireland has) will be a percentage based on salary. Struggling artist aren't exactly making regular money like a formerly employed salesperson or carpet installer would be.
they do deserve, but looks like this is a pilot for UBI.
If anything, it's a pilot to confuse people about UBI and hopefully make it unpopular. It's not basic, and it's not universal.
> "[...] looks like this is a pilot for UBI."<p>Did you have to be the party pooper? People were trying to indulge one of the most noble and timeless of pursuits: pissing on the poor! >(
What kind of undervalued labor do unemployed salespeople and carpet installers perform during unemployment?
I hate to reply with a joke but you are one, so:<p>1. Nobody likes insurance salespeople
2. Unemployed carpet installers do not exist<p>...and I'm done commenting on Hacker News. What a group of interesting forumusers this is that yours is the top comment.
Anyone can become an artist with no skill and minimal effort while being a carpet installer requires skill and effort. If you are a carpet installer just call it art and get the money
Artist speaking. A similar scheme was employed by Holland for many years. The state committed to buy at least one artwork from each artist per year and predictably their warehouses became filled with crap art that no one wanted.<p>That being said, wise governments recognize the value of some kind of support of the arts. One reason for the incredible esteem that Korean culture is held in within Asia is the Korean government's active support of its filmmaking, TV and music industry. This was also true in Renaissance Italy (courtesy of the Medici family) and in 17th Century France (courtesy of Louis XIV). It was even true of the CIA's active support of abstract expressionism. The payoff of such support is soft power, which is a very real force.
Even in the US we see cities becoming desirable place to live when they successfully cultivate a film scene, or an art school, and being dead when they don't. But this feels like a better approach than a basic income (which is an invitation to idleness)--make it <i>easy</i> to use the environs for film, streamline permitting, provide cheap capital, solicit locals for public installations.
> crap art that no one wanted.<p>Through the kunstuitleen they leased and sold art to galleries and private homes. It was like a library for contemporary art which paid struggling artists and their families, while also exposing the public to more art.<p>To say that "no one wanted" is a massively overblown. Thousands of art pieces lived happily in many Dutch homes.
OK, maybe my use of that phrase was a bit ill-judged. However, aside from supporting artists, what did the initiative achieve? Keeping artists off the dole should not be, IMHO, a goal in itself. The reputation of Dutch culture at the time was not brilliant, though neither was it bad. A strategic attitude would have been more effective... maybe target one or two artists and promote them.<p>The Young British Artists (YBA) boom of the 80s was a product of the innovative teaching environment of Goldsmiths' college plus the drive of people like Damien Hirst, who organized the ground-breaking Freeze exhibition. The British Council did their best to capitalize on this.
This is admittedly a tangent, but I love that British (and apparently Irish) government programs are commonly called "schemes". To American ears, it always sounds like some grand confidence trick is being pulled.
As an Irish person, in normal speech the word "scheme" has exactly the same shady connotations as it does for Americans. Calling someone a "schemer" is a common insult. I've always assumed the government started using the word in a rare moment of honesty and it stuck.
In India too, discounts and promotional policies are commonly called 'schemes.' I learned the hard way that in the US, the word has a negative connotation when I asked my rental office about any 'schemes,' they looked at me with total shock.
Similarly, "doubt" has a negative connotation in the US, but I see it often used as a synonym for "question" by Indian speakers of English.
That's hilarious! I hope y'all cleared up the confusion quickly.
Growing up in the UK, we would be sent to a “play scheme” during the school holidays. Weird phrase.
In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts has issued more than 128,000 grants, totaling more than $5 billion, to fund the projects of American artists. These subsidies have not lacked controversy, and were eventually challenged at the Supreme Court level, during the Clinton administration.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts_v._Finley" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art...</a><p>If you or your parents would like to sample a NSFW taste of your tax dollars at work, try this deep cut from Plaintiff Karen Finley: <a href="https://youtu.be/5gk6JCeGExo?si=FEqZtLlDiQDr0_XI" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/5gk6JCeGExo?si=FEqZtLlDiQDr0_XI</a><p>What criteria of artistic merit, cultural relevance, and common decency will Irish artists need to meet, in order to qualify for their basic income?
They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929.<p>Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
There was also the WPA program in the USA:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration</a><p>The work also included infrastructure projects, and often would create public art to decorate the infrastructure. That is why you'll see far more decorative work when looking at bridges from that era, for example.
There's a lot of weird and wonderful stuff from that era which came out of the WPA, like the American Guide series. I think we understand that period of time in the US on a deeper level thanks to it.
I remember learning about this in high school, but grew up in a part of a large city that only really developed after the 1940's, I didn't think much of it. However, the name was catchy so I had it stashed in my memory somewhere.<p>As I've gone on to live in a few older cities, I have been surprised the number of times that I have (for example) come across a bridge or tunnel or whatnot and seen a big serif "WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION 1936" plaque on one side of it. It always feels like stepping into an alternate reality where history is more present and real.<p>It feels like a silly way to phrase it, but growing up where only a handful of buildings were older than 40 years, encountering history in a more banal form, like a simple bridge with some engravings, always feels more impactful than seeing some 500-year-old castle, monument or other touristy site.
they hired artists and builders, they had a nice run of building domestic concentration camps that would make Nancy Pelosi scream ice faster than you could blink
Oddly enough I have just finished making the same observation and used the word 'crap' to describe the result, without even seeing your comment.
Sounds a bit like if the state invested in startups … hm wait.
I have a feeling that this art will end up all over the walls.
[flagged]
Your mind will be blown once you discover rent seeking behaviour.
Surely you mean a <i>worker owned factory</i>.
Marxists don't like Basic Income and it's incompatible with Marxist ideology.<p>"Marxism" has just become thought-terminating shorthand for "thing I don't like".
Tell me you've never opened a book from Marx
[flagged]
Sweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level.<p>Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output.<p>It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold.<p>Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
I'd bet what happens is that it just funded a bunch of children of upper middle class families.<p>Scholarships and this kind of funds happen elsewhere and are based on merits. They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits.<p>If you are too rich, then you wouldn't need this kind of fund.<p>If you are below upper middle class, then you would have a hard time competing with children from that class.<p>The upper middle class isn't rich enough to fund the kid but is good enough to accumulate a lot of merits.
You're sort of right. This particular grant is extra curious because it's typically been given to already highly accomplished artists. Sweden is a small pond and although there are a few fun outliers in this crowd, most of them make out the upper echelons of the Swedish cultural societé. Some were born straight into it. Others, no doubt, had parents who could put them there and knew someone who knew someone. One, for example, is Swedish nobility and the son of a diplomat. Another was the son of a Swedish secretary of state.<p>While I'm sure there are some wholly self-made virtuosos on the list, it does give off an air of apparent nepotism.
>They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits.<p>I'd argue they are well equipped to <i>give the appearance</i> of merit, rather than performing higher on <i>actual</i> merit.
That's not true.<p>We can easily look at countries like Vietnam and Thailand where the merit is basically exam-based. Extremely difficult to cheat or "give the appearance".<p>The upper middle class's children perform very well. The top universities are full of these children. They are the top of the country. They are math/computer/science olympiads<p>If you are too rich, then the children are too spoiled. If you are too poor, then you don't have time and space to study nor access to private tutors.
Previous discussions:<p>3 months ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900</a><p>4 years ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176</a><p>People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)<p>Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
I dont see how we are getting "answers". Disagreeing with program design is not a question.<p>Tbh though, that doesn't sound that special. Many countries subsidize artists.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?<p>There are <i>far</i> more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...<p>Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
I hope to be the next Rothshild, give me a trillion!
Many people who work as schoolteachers, grocery clerks, etc. at one point might have had ambition to be the next James Joyce.
Those can go and do normal jobs like grocery clerks. While doing their art in free time. Like many famous artists were doing.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.<p>But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
I’m all for encouraging people to create art.<p>But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.<p>I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
> ...I think people who benefit...<p>325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.<p>Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
artists dont do "normal" and generaly experience reality from a particular, and personal point of view, and grocerie store managers and young artists will almost certainly have mutualy antagonistic points of view. artists thrive in random spontainious environments, but forget about food, so we give them money, that they give to normal grocery store clerks, and we all forgo the seething frustration that would result from your suggestion.
Since only people with a wealthy family safety net have the wherewithal to call themselves artists, these schemes just end up as a transfer from poor to rich (kids)
iirc from previous criticism I saw on this a majority of the trial recipients were retirement age adults, but all the same people much wealthier with the privilege to have time/money to spend doing art. Younger artists? Not established enough.
Deeply ironic that those who claim to support socialism are so okay with taking from the poor to give to the rich.
If they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI.<p>Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit.<p>But again, this is just a grant programme.
> not a UBI<p>Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is <i>not</i> UBI:<p>>> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income<p>>> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government.<p><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/publications/basic-income-for-the-arts-pilot-scheme-your-questions-answered/" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...</a> - C-f for "universal"
Basic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant.<p>This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s.<p>This seems to be the same thing.
Society needs art. Artists produce art. There a pantheon of greats that had no commercial success in their lives but moved our culture, we’d be so much more culturally impoverished if we’d insisted they become shit plumbers.
It is not a grant. It <i>is</i> UBI. People who advocated for UBI always said they will spend time creating art, etc. if they didn’t have to work for income. So here it is, the dream come true.
Ok, let me guess, without looking at the article .... is it a "pilot" that's rolled out to a small number of people, for a limited period of time, and its success is judged by surveying those people on whether they were happy to get free money? I bet it was.
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,<p>Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
Close<p>> Ireland rolled out a permanent basic income scheme for the arts on Tuesday, pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week following a trial that participants said eased financial strain and allowed them to spend more time on projects.<p>> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. O'Donovan said he would like to increase the number of recipients over time.<p>> Over 8,000 applicants applied for the 2,000 places in the pilot scheme.<p>> A report on the trial found it lowered the likelihood of artists experiencing enforced deprivation, and reduced their levels of anxiety and reliance on supplementary income.
This is not basic income, it’s a grant for artists.<p>Still a good idea though.
It's wild to me how many people in the comments see any form of government doing anything as shady. It is doubly wild to me that using public funds to create art is seen as a bad thing.
>pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week<p>>The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.<p>Is it really correct to call this UBI? It is hardly universal if it applies to only 2000 selected artists.<p>Seems more like a 3-year grant, similar to the art grants awarded by the national endowment for the arts.
The term universal isn't used in the article.
All these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side.<p>Here is how to do it properly without waiting for the federal government and currency: <a href="https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basic-income-in-communities/1069" rel="nofollow">https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...</a>
They've re-branded for the release, and removed "Universal".
It's not universal if only selected individuals get it. And you can't live on 325 euros in a place like Ireland. So it's not even basic income. But it's a nice temporary subsidy.<p>Proper basic income has never really been tried. It would have to be universal (for the entire population) and be enough to live on.<p>Most countries have non universal basic income in the form of benefits, state pensions, food stamps, and various social security insurance programs. One way or another people that can't or won't work still get enough to survive. Mostly, countries don't let their citizens starve. They mostly don't put them out on the streets. And if people get sick, generally hospitals/doctors will help. You won't necessarily get a very nice version of all that in most countries.<p>If you think of basic income like that, UBI is actually not that much of a departure from that status quo. It just establishes that as a bare minimum that everybody gets one way or another. The reason that the idea gets a lot of push back is that people have a lot of morals about having to earn stuff which then results in complex rules to qualify for things only if you are unable to earn a living. Which then turns into a lot of complex schemes to establish non universal income that comes into a variety of forms and shapes. But it adds up to the same result: everybody is taken care off.<p>A proper UBI would have to award it to anyone. That's what universal means. It would be a simplification of what we have now. If you are employed, you would get a chunk of income from UBI and the rest from your employer. Basically, you work to add income on top of your UBI and it's between you and your employer to sort out how much you work and how much you earn. If you get unemployed, you fall back to UBI. UBI would be untaxed. But if you work or earn income you pay taxes. Company earnings are taxed as well. And you pay VAT when you buy stuff. Those revenue streams are what already fund things today.<p>People think of UBI as extra cost but it could actually be a cost saving if done properly. There's a lot of bureaucracy that's no longer needed. You could still layer insurances and benefits on top of course. But that would be more optional. And you could incentivize people to work that are currently actively incentivized to not work (e.g. to not lose benefits or get penalized on their pensions).<p>People forget that the status quo is not free either and that it requires an enormous, convoluted bureaucracy that also costs money. UBI could end up being simpler and cheaper.<p>The hard part with UBI is balancing fairness and financial viability and implementing it in a way that isn't massively disruptive and complicated. You'd need to incentivize most people to still want to work while making the system generous enough that people can opt not to. That's not a solved problem and the key show stopper. Many people that work object against anyone getting anything for free. But if you consider the status quo, we already have a lot of people not working anyway. And we all pay for that already. That is actually a rather large percentage of people that are allowed to vote in many countries.<p>Mostly the moral arguments against UBI are what perpetuates the very inefficient and costly status quo. We just keep on making that harsher, more complicated, and more expensive. Effectively if you work, you are paying extra for all that inefficiency. Worse, you can work your ass off your whole life and still have to worry about having enough to retire, the affordability of housing, or being able to afford essential health care.
And? that's what "rolling out" is about, to test and gradually use the scheme if it works
The trouble is that paying a few people to not work is very very different from paying <i>everyone</i> to not work.<p>We need people to work to produce the things they need to live. As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen. This fantasy of being able to live without working is out of touch with the cold hard reality.
> As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen.<p>New Zealand pays a pension to everyone over 65, whether or not they are working. No means testing and little political will to move the age upward.
About 25% of those over 65 work, and the percentage is growing.<p>There are multiple reasons this could be true (eg, limited savings forcing work).
The lack of means testing obviously saves money and shenanigans working out who is entitled, though the ‘universal’ nature limited how much a needy recipient can get.<p>I argue this is a test case on UBI.
> paying a few people to not work<p>not in this case though. as explained elsewhere, the artist is a dying career choice in ireland owing to economic reasons. no artist == drub society therefore the incompetent government intervenes the only way incompetence approves: free money. making the state function is much harder, and that’s not what these politicians signed up for. reducing electricity bill by 50% is a herculean task so how about jacking up taxes in one place and giving it back as free money in another? this is the modus operandi of the irish government.
The problem is soon (and to some extent currently) there won't be enough work for everyone, and there definitely won't be enough to support them at a historical lifestyle level.<p>I guess those people continuing to live (or live semi-well) would be fantasy to you. I'm not sure where society will go at that point.<p>The western world has sold a 'we are improving your life' story to get buy in from the masses. What do you propose? Other options used in the past were typically state provided bread and circuses and/or waging war.
Your entire idea of economics is backwards.<p>There is more than enough work for everyone right now, and (outside of recessions) we will not run out: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy</a><p>As more and more work is automated, the lifestyle level <i>increases</i> rather than decreases. Automation lets you produce more with the same amount of labor, increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. This is the sole reason we're not subsistence farmers right now.<p>War does not help the masses; it is purely destructive and one of the worst things you can do for the economy in the long run.
And yet my kids standard of living is worse. Their optimism about their employment is worse. I never used to know people working multiple very menial part time jobs to survive other than people restarting their lives. When I was young people working second jobs were saving money for a vacation or using them to pay for a fancy car, not as part of their basic budget/means of earning an income.<p>"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"<p><a href="https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-top-workers-industries-fortune-global-forum/" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t...</a><p>"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible "
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779</a><p>War is unproductive and a destructive use of resources but that doesn't change that it has historically be an outlet for unused labor. My point was that if we don't approach things intelligently/intentionally we can end up with crappy unwanted/unintentional outcomes.
How soon is "soon"? I don't know about Ireland but the US unemployment rate remains near record lows. We still don't have robots that can snake out a plugged toilet.
I'm not sure the exact trajectory but it's going pretty quickly now.<p>"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"<p><a href="https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t</a>...<p>"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible " <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779</a>
[flagged]
This is such a bad faith argument. Society has largely agreed that welfare is a valuable thing to do, from disability to social security. Calling taxation theft just says that you aren't able to be rational about this.
> Calling taxation theft<p>From reading their comments here, it seems to me that they are saying the theft occurs when labor is sold for a pittance in foreign markets so that things produced by said labor can be sold at a lower price (as compared to when more expensive labor is hired) in domestic markets. ("Basic income" = other people work as slaves in a factory somewhere so you can sit at home and "discover yourself.") The UBI would logically be an extension of that whereby the UBI program itself can only be funded by this disparity and therefore any beneficiary of such a program must be participating, however indirectly, in that theft. (Perhaps especially if one is a loud proponent of such a program.)<p>Ostensibly, from this perspective, one might consider whether the laborers should benefit more from their labor, rather than the consumers of products which are produced by said labor. It doesn't seem a particularly disagreeable or irrational perspective, at least on its face, though the seemingly disparaging mention of Marxism looks out of place given this perspective is rather Marxist.<p>Of course, whether one refers to that as "theft" is up to them; I'm just offering this alternate perspective since I didn't read it the way the parent did.
Not sure how you reconcile this take with "People don't like being robbed, PERIOD, especially not to pay for a bunch of weed smokers to sit at home relaxing on their dime. There will be blood."<p>This person doesn't like taxation. Tough.
Ah, missed that. For what it's worth, I can kinda read that sentence both ways but it does seem easier to read as being anti-tax. Actually, taking the two quotes juxtaposed like this, their take reads quite a lot like "think of the third-world laborers" in defense of billionaires.<p>Edit:<p>Oh, and their reply.
It's a "he", not a "they", FYI. In case you were considering actually addressing its thoughts, rather than attacking some ridiculous strawman.
I still cannot see how you get that impression.
I don't see much of a point in replying with this comment. It reads like your point is "I don't understand your perspective so it must be wrong", which is folly.<p>If you're looking for a suggestion of how to gain such an understanding, I've certainly got one of those: put more effort into arguing in favor of perspectives you disagree with. Not only will it help you to understand the disagreeable point of view, it will additionally help you to strengthen your beliefs.<p>I appreciate the added context nonetheless.
I’m looking for you to back up your perspective with context in this thread that gave you that perspective.
Your perspective is you want to take my hard-earned money and give it to some pothead to sit at home and "do artwork."<p>My perspective is I'd rather keep my weed money to myself.<p>And that's exactly what I shall do. Want to fight about it?<p>Your plans to rob society even more than your ilk already do are selfish, idiotic, and will end in ruin--deservedly so.<p>I have spoken.
Jesus Christ didn't like taxation either. He preached that it was theft also. That's one big reason why they murdered him, then sent Paul (aka Saul) along to invent a new 'explanation' of the Parable of the Coin more favorable to the Roman viewpoint.<p>Regardless of whatever pretense you put on, you are in fact a member of a gang of thieves plotting to rob your next victim, just as Lysander Spooner explained in the 1800s:<p><pre><code> "If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can (and will) hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists." - Lysander Spooner
"If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, an honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner
"The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready at all times to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved." - Lysander Spooner
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
</code></pre>
Hint: We are now in the "raising of the spirits of the dead" phase of prophecy; the above being an example of what is meant by that phrase. You Are Here.
> <i>What is it about robbing one group of people to pay another that you would expect to "work"?</i><p>Well, let's say we get one or two more breakthroughs in AI, and it succeeds in automating literally every job that can be done at a computer. And then it starts investing heavily in robotics. This would render human labor as uncompetitive as horse labor is today.<p>At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.<p>This actually seems at least as likely these days as a warmed over libertarian argument that, "Taxes are really just <i>slavery!"</i>
> At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.<p>Well, there is a third basic scenario; where the billionaires who control the AI use it to help get rid of all the poors once they're no longer necessary.<p>If that were true though, we'd probably see them all frantically scrambling to control AI, buying private islands and blackmail networks, getting heavily involved in pandemic preparedness programs, genetic engineering, virus research, instigating massive wars, buying up all the media and politicians, creating massive surveillance programs and building deep underground bunkers. Stuff like that.<p>So, nothing to worry about.
> robbery: the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force.<p>The language of Shakespeare and Seuss deserves better than this mindlessness. It is not robbery because it is not unlawful.
Why only for artists?
Weird way to call homeless people.
here is the government report - <a href="https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA_CBA_Final_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA...</a><p>The cost benefit analysis includes a euro value to attribute to better wellbeing, using the WELLBY framework and apply £13,000 per WELLBY
But how will they ever create good art without suffering and poverty?
Does the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
That's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work.<p>I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
>The randomly selected applicants<p>Why would you want to randomly select here?
That's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
I'm not sure that's true. What kind of rich brat will go through the trouble of all that for a couple hundred euros a month?<p>Random isn't a bad way of doing it in any case though.
I agree that it's a problem. But how do you prevent it from been overflowed by people like me that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle?
Why wouldn't you? How do you define merit to artists? Many of the greatest artists of all time lived their entire lives in poverty and desperation.
To not have selection bias so you can measure the effects
Random selection is possibly the fairest way to select almost anything, depending on your definition of fair.
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
I bet you also think government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
And thinks that s/he's a winner and the stuff s/he enjoys is made by winners, and the stuff s/he doesn't like is made by losers. Merit, universal, objective = ME; Worthless, narcissistic, special interest = YOU.
So good for Ireland!!
> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.<p>So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
The program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary).<p>So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
Won't this kind of shaft their employment prospects as well?<p>Other industries don't move as fast but a 3 year layoff in tech could be a career death sentence.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years<p>Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
“Ireland offers long-term grants for artists” is how this would have been written 50 years ago.<p>The idea is not new, only the rhetoric.
Grants operate differently over here. You have to write a submission, proposing works and budget and generally justifying. It is assessed by a committee. Politics gets involved. And a few people get larger chunks of money and the people holding the purse strings retain control on what is produced. It is essentially work on commission for the government, except you rarely get 100% of your costs covered.<p>Whereas in this Irish program, it is less money for more people chosen by lottery. The only editorial control is who is qualified to enter the lottery. It is also subsidizing the artist and not the art work, with artists working in cheap mediums receiving the same as artists dealing with high costs. So you are still going to need a grant or commission if you work in monumental bronze.
That seems like... insane discrimination ?
Yes, most of us are programmers. The government should support us, too, since we'll soon be less useful than trad musicians.
It... isn't?
If the Irish truly want this, I'm glad for them.<p>But in my view, arts should be funded by people in private. Any spare resources the government can muster up should be invested in improving the security and quality of life for its people. If no one ever goes hungry, and their medical needs are met swiftly, and justice is swift and accessible to all. then I can see the appeal in funding arts. But even then, sciences can meaningfully and in the long-term improve humans' lives.<p>I don't even know if the arts would benefit from this. Will the government arbitrate whose art is better? Private persons would, they won't fund a terrible artist. and from what I know about artists, the rejection and failure is instrumental to revelations and breakthroughs in their art. Without that, will the state be funding or facilitating mediocrity in art?<p>Imagine if this was for entrepreneurs. If the government will provide income so long as you're starting businesses. If you didn't have much to begin with, it might prevent you from giving up businesses that are failing, hold on to that restaurant years after it's failed because you like the vibe, and your needs are met. But if you'll eventually be in danger of running out of money to support yourself, you'll be forced to shut doors early, learn lessons and move on to something better.<p>I'm just making a case against dreams being kept alive artificially on life-support. And of the consequence of not having adversity when needed. I don't know if it's true, but I remember an analogy of artificial biospheres failing to grow trees and plants early on, because they didn't simulate wind. the trees needed the resistance, push and adversity of wind to thrive.<p>But I'll digress, I'm not saying Ireland did wrong, just putting my thoughts on the subject out there. They know what they're doing, I'm sure. And this is sounding too much like damn linkedin post, and on HN too of all places, talking about entrepreneurship, shame on me! :)
My wife is an artist and she absolutely hates this.<p>For a start, it's a lottery. 2000 randomers who call themselves artists will get no-questions-asked income regardless of their skill or importance as artists. We have people who are full time carers for family members who get less money in their allowance, and it's means-tested.<p>So you can be a millionaire heir / heiress, independently wealthy and still be eligible for it. One artist on Twitter bragged about getting it, and has been using the "extra money" to go on long holidays. It's basically free world travel for her.<p>Also, what is an artist? There's one guy on twitter who gets this income and really, he just seems to take bad semi pornographic photos. Like the world really needs more of that.<p>Another lady my wife knows personally is a terrible artist, never had any talent and doesn't make money. No sense of colour, no line skills, just paints awful blobs in awful colours. She's 100% in favour of this scheme and won't shut up about it on twitter.<p>My wife has been struggling to make an income from her art for decades, but has created a small business around it, wedding stationery, other print fits. Guess what? She probably doesn't qualify as "an artist" she "runs a small print business". She also thinks that the government could do a lot of practically things to make life easier for artists but it's easier to take your budget and just give it to random artists. No effort, no real benefit. It's laziness and incompetence.<p>I know exactly one "real" artist whose paintings will genuinely be hanging on walls for hundreds of years. He has no business around his art, he literally paints and holds exhibitions to sell his work. His name is famous in art circles and you can instantly recognise his style whenever you see it. His work is truly amazing. He has a wife and two kids and struggles sometimes. The long gaps between exhibitions, the worry that an exhibition won't go well. Anxiety, depression. Did he get this magic lottery? Did he <i>fuck</i>.
> Ireland began the three-year trial in 2022<p>Did anyone take a note of what kind of output the artists produced? Was any of it any good?
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.<p>"Permanent", I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"basic income scheme <i>for a few selected</i> artists"
Really cool! Looking forward to the findings of that study!
Dublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc).<p>Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
> Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage.<p>What's far worse is hearing a sing along <i>in the original release</i>. Listen to Strumpella's "Spirits"-- those are paid crises singers!<p>Edit: clarification
Why is "singing along" a relevant metric?<p>In Dublin's best music venues, nobody is singing along because it's brand new material from brand new artists. If you're singing along to well known songs in Temple Bar then I'm afraid you're missing some of the best music the city has to offer, in venues like Whelan's, Workmans, Sin É, The Grand Social etc.
Grafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets.<p>Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
I need to hear more about the baseball cap thing.
Especially since Yankees hats are EXTREMELY common in Dublin.
Europeans don't really play baseball, presumably they all wear football and cricket hats instead.
I heard Emily Blunt say on Graham Norton, "We know your American with your baseball cap." I know that's the UK but maybe it holds true for Dublin too.<p>The looks were strange and from women in their 20s as I walked around Dublin. Im not much to look at yet do not receive such looks or rude behavior (one purposely did not hold the bathroom door at starbucks as I waited my turn 25 feet away waiting to get in rather she purposely pushed the door to close) at home in the DC region or my travels throughout the US and Europe. Another American mentioned a similar experience too. My friend traveling with me he was not wearing a hat & did not experience any such thing.
No, that's just Europe. First, they often pay to visit a bathroom there so the pushing the door close is just preventing you from freeloading. Second, Europe is denser than the US and so has cultures that don't have as negative a take on being rude. Some parts are worse than others.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
<rant><p>the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation?<p></rant>
lol
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
This is just the state contracting 2000 artists to do nothing...