As Ireland’s $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?
With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.
Earlier this month, Ireland’s government announced its 2026 budget, which includes “a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year” among its expenditures.
Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.
YES please!
Good news. I hope Canada gets there, but I doubt we will. We are too focused on oil expansion and infrastructure to pay any mind to the ‘dirty poors’ right now.
If we had kept Petro Canada as a crown corporation past the 1980s, we could be funding UBI NOW, but of course, conservatives fucked that up.
conservatives fucked that up
That was a Conservative + Liberal special, both of them selling off our assets all over the place.
We wouldn’t have foolishly gotten rid of the railway in the country if our past governments weren’t so corrupt.
This should be the default for anybody in the world. From there on work if you want more. We are social, economical and technologically capable of doing it. Is the 1% the ones preventing it from happening.
In France, the biggest hurdle is our pension system that stifles education, health, and infrastructure spending but even the electorate wants the boomers to earn more when they already get 110% of what working people do. Still the UK’s triple lock might make them more of a gerantocracy in the future. Also note that if you read the official statistics for pensions in Grance the ones by gov workers are counted towards the budget of said institution. So now 90% of new education spending is actually getting to boomers. 1/4 is already for them. 1/3 of military spending too etc
France is a tax haven for millionaires why do you complain ?
Deeply unserious comment. France is one of the countries in which the system is the most distributive and the taxes the highest.
You fail to mention how fair the taxes and redistribution are, and they are ever more unfair every passing year.
It is very swrious and it is a good reason to tax the rich. And they just decide they shouldn’t.
0.00004% (billionaires over world population), but yeah. Somebody please tell me why we’re using technology to “make money” instead of progressing the human living standard
I wish, a country would finally decide to give general basic income and would flourish in many new creative companies of all sort fucking all the established big corporations only existing to hinder real progress…
Bravo Eire!
Basic income AND a liveable minimum Wage should be mandatory. Our societies have evolved so that we have more than enough of everything already.
Had this been the US our government and the Far Right would say artists owe them $1500 a month.
Feels like this is going to devolve into a bit of an Old Boys Club. As in, only ‘recognised’ artists get the basic income, and who decides who gets recognised? Art organisations, and those will very quickly restrict their membership or else be flooded by anyone who claims to be an artist and can get an AI to spit out some slop and get some moron to buy it.
Then, the government can go to those art organisations and go “Right, no more art critical of the government or we won’t be recognising your organisation for the Basic Income scheme”, thus cutting off the funding for the membership and, driven by the need to eat and survive, said membership will alter their art to be more comfortable to whoever happens to be in charge at the time.
They should just give a basic income to everyone
Shift the zero
It makes sense
You’d reduce so much cost
Which is paid by the government
Which is paid by your taxes
Give your tax money to the people who needs them not the people who decide who needs money
This is basically what happens in Brasil. We have a government funding program for a few decades now. The big names (ie. Friends and family) get up to a million to make their bad movies and the small folk never get approved.
I worked in the ministry of culture. We were petitioning for funding on EU programs to open libraries in small cities (50k EUR) while singers got that from the ministry for a single performance. Not to pay for the stage and lights, that was just the singer.
Every publisher has to send copies of every book to the national archive. There isn’t enough budget to catalogue or correctly store them, so they lay in gigantic warehouses gathering dust and being eaten by mites. It is so bad it is considered hazardous environment so it is super expensive to fix it.
But the famous director gets hundreds of thousands every year to make shitty movies nobody sees, because that one time 20 years ago he did something good.
But the famous director gets hundreds of thousands every year to make shitty movies nobody sees, because that one time 20 years ago he did something good.
To be fair, this is also how it works in Hollywood.
Why did basic income fell of our radar? And were left with fasism everywhere?
Because wealth loves Fascism, and and has the propaganda power.
The question is: Who or what determines if you are an artist?
Being paid to create art, that’s the literal job description
And it’s not a full UBI, it’s got an assessment as part of it
This is why universal* basic is the proper way. We’re heading toward a world where there will never be enough existing jobs for everyone who wants to work, let alone those who can’t work, and finally the smallest cohort, those who don’t want to “work” at all.
The administrative burden of means testing so many people is absurd. And when you do and they fail then what?
People who are against looking after the unemployed rarely say the quiet part out loud. That they don’t care about homelessness, disease, violent crime, or whatever, since they can isolate themselves away from it. The law works for them, and so does the system, so they’re safe. So let the peasants who refuse to tow the line figure it out on their own.
*universal Took me a minute 😅
Fuck, oops. Swipe typing on Android is a minefield of typos. But it’s so fast one handed.
One day AI will properly fix my typos. Maybe.
I agree with this, but I want to ask a question as this has come up in topic recently in a friend group. Do you not worry that “universal” becomes “stipulated”?
I don’t think there’s a meaningful difference. If you’re a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you’re of working age. No exceptions.
It’s not the only progressive policy that’s needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there’s a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That’s the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.
They’ve been saying this for decades and this was the birth of bullshit jobs.
You mean in Ireland?
So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.
It would be the end of “bullshit jobs” and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers’ market.
You’ll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.
Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.
Immigrants probably wouldn’t get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.
You yourself?
Are you using most of your day being creative, or do you have steady employment? You don’t need an authority to determine who is an artist
That would lead to loads of self-proclaimed “artists”.
No, it would lead to loads of self-proclaimed artists. Successful and real are not the same thing
Wishing to be an artist does not make it so. There is a lot of human slop in “arts”.
Here it is guys, found who’s the authority on what is art and what is slop
Everyone is his or her personal authority on what is art and what is slop. That’s what makes art subjective. Which also makes defining who is an artist subjective.
For my PERSONAL perception, quite a lot of what is sold as art is slop. If you consider randomly splattered paint or rusty heaps of steel “art”, fine, that is also your PERSONAL decision.
So you are saying that no single authority can define who is or isn’t an artist because art is personal? I agree.
Here’s the prior guidelines. You generally had to show your membership in an art organization and that you made an income selling art. Then they just randomly picked names of those people.
Hmm, a rather random approach, then.
What? How is it random? Having sold your art makes you a professional artist, by definition. Then they sampled at random because it’s a pilot program
How is it random?
Then they sampled at random because it’s a pilot program
Well, I see a connection here.
Then you’re daft.
You have to be a part of an art organisation (as in a governing body that requires paid membership to join), and to have proof of being paid, multiple times, for making art
And yes, in your own words: Then they [sic] sampled at random (emphasis added)
for the initial trial period, also in my own words.
It’s no longer in the trial period. No random samples. Just have to be a member of the governing body (which does take effort and a nominal fee to join)
You do know the definition of Pilot Program, right?
Here it is;
Pilot Program: To test the feasibility of a path of action that is aiming to become more widespread, by choosing a smaller subset of the eligible people and then using the program on only that subset and analysing the results. If results are positive, then the program is approved and becomes widespread, if the results are negative or no change, then the program is not approved
The document linked is about the Pilot Program, the details of the Full Program are not yet known, but it can be presumed that it will be the exact same as the Pilot Program minus the Random Sampling (as the point is to cover everyone that is eligible)
Edit: spelling
I want to become an artist and move to Ireland now.
I hope such sentiment on a broad scale doesn’t overwhelm ireland, leading to capitalists saying such a system doesn’t work and nobody ever implementing it again.
UBI has been tried since the 1960s with the results that you describe
Well shite.
Don’t misunderstand, I am for UBI, but historically, it’s been tried over and over, and never heard from again. I suspect the need of the ruling class to watch ants take public transit to perform ritualistic useless “work” is what really drives the economy.
Oh, I did not misunderstand, don’t worry. Still though, shite. And what you’re describing id just another angle on the problem of social construction of value. The thing is though, try a thousand times and it will work once and if people like it, it gets to stay in one form or another. We’ll get there.
As laudable as a program as this is, it stings a bit being in Ireland, which has essentially become a tax haven for multinational corporations. It is nice to support the arts, but it shouldn’t come off the backs of shadily robbing world governments of billions in tax revenues. The cultural impacts of this have become extremely toxic, and hostile to the arts overall internationally.
It also seems like a strange job program. I’m close with someone who works for a US company that incorporated in Ireland. The company is required to have a number of Irish employees who live in the country. Those employees don’t do anything.
Tax haven country gives artists some money to get by. The worst thing about it is the hypocrisy.
Ireland, which has essentially become a tax haven for multinational corporations
And crappy singers from mid-tier boomer bands.
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the world governments.
You do realize that it’s mainly the poor people who are suffering when the rich don’t get taxed, right? It’s the governments getting robbed, yes, but that wasn’t the main takeaway from that comment.
Everyone in here crying about artist getting money and trying to make me think it’s a bad thing is summarily dismissed from my mind.
i think the problem is that it is Ireland that does that because Ireland is infamously a big tech tax haven so it makes any policy they make automatically bad because capitalism
The problem is people are crabs in a bucket. Same shit when minimum wages go up, or on a lower community level, when people’s friends do well they get shitty too. People are the worst.
that is correct too.
I’ve been struggling for years, living in poverty since I was 18 despite having just about the best education you can have in my field. I’ve made desperate decisions and risky moves to keep a roof over my head all while being spat on by all sorts of people and weathering wave after wave of politically motivated anti-intellectualism and it’s 2AM and I’m exhausted from digging a fucking trench to install pipes for the shitty house in the middle of buttfuck nowhere that I’ve had to move to in order to be able to work from home…
And this piece of news made me cry a little. Even though I don’t live in Ireland.
Cause I know how it is to feel like there’s no way out and to watch how everyone consumes art daily like addicts all while saying artists don’t matter and we should be grateful for the “privilege” we have and yelling “get a real job” anytime you complain.
And that’s my piece. Bring on the logical arguments. I’ve laid out my feelings.
Also, UBI for everyone would be fucking amazing. Why we’re not doing that is beyond me. It’s like “they” think that without a “carrot on a stick” everyone will stop working. If I had a penny for everyone who practically can’t think straight because of how worried they are about basic needs I’d probably save those pennies for my own basic needs. Fear is not a good motivator for workers.
Fear is a good motivator for committing crime. But not for getting a job.
If you expected a comfortable life as an unknown artist without a side hustle, that was naive as hell. Market doesn’t give a fuck about your degree.
deleted by creator
Why we’re not doing that is beyond me. It’s like “they” think that without a “carrot on a stick” everyone will stop working
The people who takes care of your sewage would likely also want to do something else fulfilling. But the difference is that they feel a sense of duty, the sense that those other lazy bastards that get to play music or do ‘nothing’ wont do it. Then they are left with the feeling of either doing something useful for others and get payed, or feeling useless and getting payed. Most people would rather feel useful in a practical sense.
Edit: spelling
deleted by creator
Also, UBI for everyone would be fucking amazing. Why we’re not doing that is beyond me.
You can do it right now. Create a club to share a part of everybody’s income as UBI.
Downvoters, you would have to pay for it anyways with higher taxes. Why not do it voluntarily among those who want it?
This exists already, it’s called mutual aid, I’m participating in it when I can.
The reason why this won’t work on a large scale without a societal shift is the same as why UBI isn’t implemented already. It’s capital leeching off a big share of resources from labor.
If we replace the capitalists with a fair sharing system, we could implement a generous UBI and also your effective net salary would go up.
Or, if you want to go a more reformist route, you can implement a very aggressive progressive taxation scheme (a-la FDR) to force rich people to contribute more. That way once again, we can implement UBI without your taxes going up.
If we replace the capitalists with a fair sharing system, we could implement a generous UBI and also your effective net salary would go up.
Which is essentially communism and a goal too far away.
Or, if you want to go a more reformist route, you can implement a very aggressive progressive taxation scheme (a-la FDR) to force rich people to contribute more.
Why should the rich share with the average person if the average person doesn’t want to share with the poor?
Start with the average person and the rich will join.
Which is essentially communism
No, it’s more like total welfare state socialism. Not yet achieved anywhere, but might happen within our lifetimes in China.
and a goal too far away.
Only because most working-class people think that, with a bit of class conscience is totally within our grasp.
Why should the rich share with the average person if the average person doesn’t want to share with the poor?
Because the average person, world-wide, is struggling to get by and doesn’t have much in terms of extra resources, because the rich are stealing a significant portion of the labor value. Meanwhile the rich (who, again, are stealing the resources from the working person) are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stupid bullshit that even they don’t really need. It’s pretty clear that we should indeed start with the rich.
Start with the average person and the rich will join.
Lol. No. The rich will never do anything other than short-sighted profiteering unless directly threatened with imprisonment or death. Otherwise they would be joining the mutual aid orgs which already exist almost everywhere.
Because the average person, world-wide
Of course, because the average person in the West is already rich.
So there are the resources for an UBI.
are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stupid bullshit that even they don’t really need.
Make it $800 billion. That would give each person $100.
It’s pretty clear that we should indeed start with the rich.
It us not. The rich can prevent you from starting if you need them to participate but nobody is preventing you from doing it yourself.
No. The rich will never do anything other than short-sighted profiteering
Even if they do, it’s just $100 more. You don’t need them.
Make it $800 billion. That would give each person $100.
I’m not talking about just taking the bullshit money away. The combined assets of “big” capitalists worldwide is in high-double-digit trillions of dollars. That would be enough for a livable UBI for everyone, for some time at least. Redistributing the rest of the capital more equitably is trickier but also worthwhile.
It us not. The rich can prevent you from starting if you need them to participate but nobody is preventing you from doing it yourself.
As I’ve said, I’m participating in local mutual aid communities when I can.
Even if they do, it’s just $100 more. You don’t need them.
Even $100 is considered an OK monthly salary in some places of the world. But redistributing all the wealth more equitably would mean a lot more than $100.
Stop defending capitalists, they will never appreciate it or give you anything in return.
without the threat of destitution how will will force people to work shit jobs for shit pay?
That’s why it will never be approved by a parliament.
It has to be done privately. That way, it would be like a union for everybody. That should lead to everybody earning more so that the membership fees pay for themselves.
But as the voting shows, it’s a tough sell.
we have something like that in our tenant unions - we drop extra money to support lonely elderly
We have voluntary programs, they are called charities and they gave so little participation that they have to pick and choose their battles and ensure they spend money on those that care.
Also hard to know if the charity is efficient, competent, and free of corruption.
UBI needs universal participations on contributor and recipient to maybe work. Hard to say even then since the nature of it resists meaningful experiments, and the few actual programs tend to fall well short of even “basic” income.
Charities are not sustainable. There needs to be recurring income.
UBI needs universal participations
Why? Only honest people are needed who are willing to work if they can.
I just dont get this thing with “artists”, if you cant get people to buy your art, buy your albuns, buy a ticket to your show then you are not an artist, you are just an entertainer of yourself! If my company cant sell their product will the government give us 1500£ too? its the same thing, if my product is shit i wont sell, period
A ton of influential and world renowned artists were very unsuccessful during their life.
I’m not even sure if clarification came come to someone who’s perceived view of “the arts” is already so negatively embedded into a capitalistic hellscape. I was fortunate enough to have an upbringing around artists and schools that encourage expression through the crafts (even in the south, it was a strange/beautiful time).
My suggestion would be to look into Graffiti art if you’re trying to understand the non-commercialized sectors and the impacts they can have on society (link). It’s not always about the work itself, but the inspiration it may cause others as well.
If that doesn’t help, try to think of it in terms of another non-paid sector. Should the government promote FOSS creators with an income if the output improves society as a whole? This is an investment into a society you wish to see, such like education, not a financial statement which needs to show profits at the end of the quarter.
Biggest difference, if your company has a profitable year… who gets the extra income? An artists effect isn’t valued in “capital produced” unless your an art dealer/corporation which is a whole different sector you might be confusing with an actual “artist”. Art begets art, art inspires and motivates dreams and visions, it’s such a long philosophical debate you can see it being drawn out by Plato in The Republic if you had the joy of taking any intro-philosophy classes (you should look into it, you might agree with some of the cases presented).
Lastly, an abundance of art has always been controlled by the wealthy (might be why you view it as a commercialized product).
In previous centuries the power and wealth of monarchs, emperors and other supreme rulers gave them enormous influence over the employment of artists and changes in artistic taste and style. Understandably their portraits are the largest and grandest, and their palaces are the most richly decorated with expensive paintings.
Taxing said wealth, and allowing the people to freely express themselves without the moderation of the wealthy is a step forward from what was previously and currently being used for the artistic pipeline (you must produce the most valued or commercialize-able creations to continue existing). If the monarchs and wealthy of the world can’t convince you that art is important (their art in this instance), I’m not sure how to reach you if it’s just a stubborn personal take you refuse to budge from.
most people don’t do art to make a living. it’s a fun bonus and it is absolutely OK. Now when you’re a professional commercial artist who does commissions and other stuff - yeah, that’s a problem. However, you need to keep in mind that the infrastructure for culture commodification (making money from art) has been broken since the late 90s. There were short periods when the emergence of new tech made it seem like it is almost possible but the window was always too short to capitalize.
So an artists worth is determined by external, financial factors? What?
is determined by results! If you have a song and no one want to ear it are you an artist?
Well, there are plenty of famous artists who only became famous after they died. Contemporary popularity doesn’t guarantee historic/cultural impact.
I’m not aware of the specific requirements of this program, but Iteland also has a case for cultural preservation, particularly with works in the Irish language, which may not have the international appeal necessary to make a good profit but are important for intrinsic reasons to Ireland.
There’s also the case to be made that in order to become a great artist, you must first be a bad artist - and there aren’t that many jobs for internships/apprenticeships in the arts, especially as some of the more “basic” jobs (cheap graphic arts, copywriters, muzak, etc.) are snapped up by AI.
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this. I would also be concerned with “antiestablishment” works possibly being excluded.
think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this.
Yes, thats just my point, i agree in some help if, and only if, the artist do some kind of work around their comunity or some pro bono kind of jobs, i dont know how to explain it exactly. But i cant agree pay to an artist that is trying to sell millions of records or have millions of viewers of any kind, because thats not art, its a product he/she is selling. Its and interesting debate indeed
I suppose you could do it a la “The Dispossesed” where you spend one day/week doing community service
A lot of gatekeepers in the comments who seem to love the idea of a UBI, but hate any attempt to test the viability of one.
I think this is a great step towards proving the benefits of a UBI for the greater population. I believe supporting the arts is always a positive endeavour, so using them as the pilot program kills two birds with one stone. I think that randomising who gets to enter the pilot program may allow some people to game the system, but the benefits outweigh the possibility of one schyster scamming a paycheque. The lottery system stops this becoming a bonus for established or famous artists, and supports creatives in all areas.
All in all, this is a good thing, and the people who want “all or nothing” are short sighted.
but hate any attempt to test the viability of one
How many more before people are convince it works? I think this is one of those studies or referendums where the powers-that-be and its supporters keep running the test until they get the one result they want. Besides, with the burgeoning automation, UBI is needed. If not, at least universal basic services could be done instead, where we are provided with housing and utilities for free, if the concern that over-accumulation of capital through free handouts might lead to abuse or crash the economy or some vague similar notions
There’s been lots of studies, it works.
You can’t just do a "study’ of UBI. Every single study attempt I’ve seen looks like: -They have funding from something or another, they do not model the taxation half at all -They end up means testing because they can’t model taxation, so they fixate on those in need exclusively. -They tend to last maybe a year or two. The beneficiaries know this is a limited term benefit and need to make the most of it. -They do not target everyone, so the local market won’t even notice the difference in base earning power. You still have lots of poor people excluded from the study. -They did not just force people into the program, participants had to actively seek out participation.
What the experiments have repeatedly proven is that welfare can work to give motivated poor people a needed reprieve to get their feet on solid ground, which we already knew. We haven’t had an actual “study” of real UBI, just studies on welfare that they say is about UBI. About the only difference from actual welfare programs is that the participants are not audited to try to make sure the benefit shuts off the second they get a job. Which may be a good indicator at least that auditing the benefits could stand to be more lax.
UBI might work, but to date we haven’t actually tried it in any useful way. We have universal income in some places, but it’s generally well short of even basic.
Social Security for seniors is UBI, that’s the biggest study you’ll every find. Also, Alaska gets dividends. I think you’re looking at it very narrowly for some reason.
Alaska is too small a payout. No one could have even basic needs meet there. It faiils the criteria for “basic”.
To receive social security, you can’t earn too much money. You generally have to choose either receive benefits or work. Also your payout depends on your specific pay in. You have to get paid during your younger years to “earn” your social security.
Alaska is too small a payout. No one could have even basic needs meet there. It faiils the criteria for “basic”.
True, but Social Security is big enough to live on.
To receive social security, you can’t earn too much money. You generally have to choose either receive benefits or work. Also your payout depends on your specific pay in. You have to get paid during your younger years to “earn” your social security.
Still based on taxes, they know how to make it work. It’s Basic Income regardless. I’m cool with that as a start.
Still based on taxes, they know how to make it work.
The basic logistics or the least of the open questions.
If every one gets 2k a month, how do prices react? Social security participants are only a subset of participants in the economy.
If everyone’s compensation is equal, guaranteed, and sufficient assuming prices didn’t just screw up, can you still get people doing work like sanitation? Social security is from a mindset that no productive prior is no longer required. It pays more to someone that made 100k a year than someone that made 50k a year, so your get proportional to what you put in.
Has the concept of UBI been around long enough to fulfill your requirements? A 20-year study across a large population would of course be superior, but shorter-length studies with less people are necessary to prove/disprove whether those large scale studies should be funded. Not to mention the ethical implications of forcing someone into a large scale study like that before any results have been shown at all.
I think it’s fine to be skeptical of anyone considering UBI to be “case closed”, but small studies being done before large studies is standard practice. You can’t give that kind of grand scale funding to every hypothesis that pops into someone’s head, so it’s a reasonable way of determining what shows promise and should be looked into more.
It’s less a matter of needing years under its belt and more about paying out an actual basic income to everyone regardless of means testing or work requirements and without an expected end date for participants. We’ve just not seen it done at all.
