Turkey seems to be stepping up, the flow of refugees has trickled to a halt. Not sure what behind-closed-doors deals have been cut, hope it doesn't involve Turkey getting entrance to the EU.

I see that nobody in Finland has ever passed an algebra class.

Maybe while they're at it, they can legislate pi = 3.

So they tried to put a certain libertarian appeal into this: "Here's your money. If you spend it unwisely, don't blame me." But of course that's not the way it will work. People who blow their money will come back wanting additional benefits (because "we have the greatest need"). There will be demands and threats, and maybe the occasional riot. The government will cave. That will mollify them for just a bit, and then will come yet more demands. You know where this leads.

So...49.1 billion in revenue, 46.7 billion for welfare, which means that they'll have 2.4 billion for everything else.

Unless they deficit spend. Greece is on line 1 for you, Finland. Eventually those bloodsucking payday loan guys want their money back.

Remember this, from 2002?

One commentator, back then, said "Basement kids, rejoice!"

Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5,10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents' spines, Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on supporting adult children until they find a job to their liking.

Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high unemployment rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of Naples, where the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who is in his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the smartest parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on supporting his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations. The parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict handed down earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this," he told Reuters.

I believe the intent is to eliminate gov't provided services and use the budget otherwise committed to administering them to all citizens. It's been run on a small scale, supposedly with promising results. I hope it works for them, personally. It ought to remove the disincentive to work for those who rely on benefits programs.

Hmmmm, 'All citizens receive' so that could not apply to migrants and refugees, who take a long time to become citizens. Eliminating gov't services to the poor, which might have applied to migrants and refugees. So I can see it as a potentially good thing depending on the wording.

You know how I would run welfare?

You want benefits? You sell every thing you own aside from what you can fit into two armed services duffle bags.

That money is given to the government, any money you have in any account is given to the government

In every county seat we'll build a few high rise buildings and you can have a 400 square foot studio apartment.

No appliances over six cubic EXTERIOR feet.

Communal bathrooms/laundry on every floor.

Communal kitchen on the ground floor.

Commit a crime against another resident or run a criminal enterprise out of your room and no more welfare for you for life.

No cash exchanges hands, no payments are made to anyone ever, all you get is room and board and no more than 400 square feet.

Communal building transportation does not go more than 10 miles from the building

Lenona, please tell me that's from The Onion...

Cousin Dave;

Not from the Onion:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/06/philipwillan

From the Guardian. In my mind it is even worse because the father is estranged from his wife and son. I hope the father gets some good lawyers to write a will to keep the rest of his assets from his estranged wife and son when he dies.

As for the Finnish thing; yea, I would agree to simplifying benefits.

You lost your job? Well, here is ONE lump sum - and that's all you get. No housing allowance, no food stamps, no whatever extra. If you want to blow it all on drugs or booze or whatever, that's your choice. If you want to use it for necessary expenses or schooling, then good for you - make something better of your self.

But, if you blew it - well tough luck. Go beg for the rest of your life - but nothing more from the hardworking tax payers.

However, we all know, as Cousin Dave's crystal ball so accurately states at 6:39, it won't work that way. Those folks who blow their money will demand even more - and the government will cave.

So they tried to put a certain libertarian appeal into this: "Here's your money. If you spend it unwisely, don't blame me." But of course that's not the way it will work. People who blow their money will come back wanting additional benefits (because "we have the greatest need").

Spot on Cousin Dave.

That's too complicated Lujlp. And it would still fail. It is amazing how little some people want as long as they don't have to work for it.

I'm of a simpler bent. There is a fixed tax for welfare. Anyone can apply. Last years revenues spit evenly among this years recipients. Fewer payers and more takers, everyone gets less. People decide to work for a living instead, every beneficiary gets more. Fix tax, not fixed benefit. No deficit spending ever needed. And no reliability for people to get soft on.

True enough Ben, but I like using that argument to trap people into revealing their want of public funds has nothing to do with their NEEDING help, and everything to do with wanting a free ride in comfort.

So many people react with horror at the idea of not living where ever ad however they want on someone elses dime

I've got a few friends that need enough food to eat and some basic shelter from the elements (i.e. a tarp mumu would suffice). And that is the end of their ambitions in life. If you don't want them pooping in the street you need to provide a free bathroom.

Sad I know. But that is how small some people's ambitions are.

Personally, I've given up on need based welfare. Need, fair, yada yada are all such subjective words. Lenona thinks parents need to pay for their children's college education. She points out where the Italian courts think parents need to support their children in the manner which they have become accustomed to. (A perfect example of social 'justice'.)

Every time we set up need based benefits people change their actions to fit the criteria. So estimates on cost are never accurate and perverse incentives for people to harm themselves are created. In order to control costs we then generate complex rules to limit the number of beneficiaries. This ends up excluding those who we most want to benefit (those who have never used benefits in the past and probably won't in the near future) and instead focus our support on permanent beneficiaries. This happens for the simple reason only the permanent leaches have spent the time and effort to learn the paperwork to stay on the dole. In effect getting benefits is their job. Marx's to each according to their need just doesn't work. For one thing the bureaucracy can never tell what one person's need is compared to anyone else.

So I continue to stump for defined contribution welfare. People hate the idea but it really fixes most of the problems with the current welfare system.

Lenona thinks parents need to pay for their children's college education.
_____________________________________

Not sure what you mean.

I DO think that it's fair for kids to expect at least a LITTLE parental help with either college or trade school. Not everyone can get a scholarship, and not every young person can earn a lot of money and really study at the same time. How likely is it that you, as an 18-year-old, will earn a good living if you don't even go to trade school?

Another thread, from June of 2014- "Diplomas vs. Dirty Jobs":

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/28/diplomas_vs_dir.html

I said:

I like to say: "It's OK if you don't want to go to college. What's not OK is using that as an excuse not to read, especially newspapers, OR as an excuse not to be multi-skilled, OR as an excuse to bum off your family indefinitely."

Even college graduates need to work on being multi-skilled - even if it means spending most of their spare time on useful hobbies rather than useless ones, such as watching sports on TV. After all, you never know when you're going to lose your job and need skills that you have but you never used before. (Speaking of losing jobs, I just saw something on CBS Sunday Morning about how a lot of malls are being torn down because so many people shop online):

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-dying-breed-the-american-shopping-mall/

Quote: "No new enclosed mall has been built since 2006, and Lewis predicts fully half of all our malls will close in the next 10 years."

I think every parent of a lazy teen should say: "If you don't want to go to college OR trade school after high school, you will have to move out immediately, get a job, and never ask me for money again. See? No matter what you choose in life, you'll have to get great grades to convince SOMEONE you're a real worker. So, get going."

Lenona thinks parents need to pay for their children's college education.
_____________________________________

Not sure what you mean.

I DO think that it's fair for kids to expect at least a LITTLE parental help with either college or trade school. Not everyone can get a scholarship, and not every young person can earn a lot of money and really study at the same time. How likely is it that you, as an 18-year-old, will earn a good living if you don't even go to trade school?

Another thread, from June of 2014- "Diplomas vs. Dirty Jobs":

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/28/diplomas_vs_dir.html

I said:

I like to say: "It's OK if you don't want to go to college. What's not OK is using that as an excuse not to read, especially newspapers, OR as an excuse not to be multi-skilled, OR as an excuse to bum off your family indefinitely."

Even college graduates need to work on being multi-skilled - even if it means spending most of their spare time on useful hobbies rather than useless ones, such as watching sports on TV. After all, you never know when you're going to lose your job and need skills that you have but you never used before. (Speaking of losing jobs, I just saw something on CBS Sunday Morning about how a lot of malls are being torn down because so many people shop online):

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-dying-breed-the-american-shopping-mall/

Quote: "No new enclosed mall has been built since 2006, and Lewis predicts fully half of all our malls will close in the next 10 years."

I think every parent of a lazy teen should say: "If you don't want to go to college OR trade school after high school, you will have to move out immediately, get a job, and never ask me for money again. See? No matter what you choose in life, you'll have to get great grades to convince SOMEONE you're a real worker. So, get going."

I may have been a little short hand but you prove my point Lenona. Terms like 'fair' or 'need' are amazingly squishy. One of my great grandparents thought it was 'fair' to take care of your kids till they turn 16. Then they are an adult. At which point he told my grandfather to get off his farm and don't come back unless he had a job. As I pointed out above I know people who consider basic toilet facilities optional.

So getting consensus on what are 'basic needs' or 'fair' in the US with it's widely varying cultures is a fools errand.