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.
Also:
Selection process
The department expects a high volume of applications and it will not be possible to provide funding to all eligible applicants.
Selection will be a non-competitive process. Once an applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria they will be included in an anonymised random sampling process to determine the pilot participants from the pool of eligible applicants for the BIA Pilot.
Funding for the scheme will allow for approximately 2,000 eligible applicants to participate in the pilot scheme.
So it's a lottery? WTF.
Lotteries avoid issues with the deciding committee handing these to their friends.
To an extent, it also can provide better data on outcomes. Instead of biasing for the most motivated, it includes a wider pool, so of whom may otherwise be seen as "unworthy". Then people do people things.
Not just "to an extent." Randomised Controlled Trials (lotteries) are the gold standard for evaluating policy. The political optics for the general public unfortunately aren't great, but the resulting data will be much more ironclad to refute anyone who argues for repealing such a scheme in the future.
Sure, it's not without advantages, but it waters down the concept quite a bit. Which may or may not be a bad thing, I guess - lots of people could use a basic income.
you see this a lot with these pilots. its funny because you don't really see the actual benefits until everyone gets it. Someone can breathe and take some classes to get into a profession or take some time to get into better shape to become a first responder or start a business.
also by the way what i find interesting is that UBI wouldn't actually have to pay for 100% of people's living expenses. imagine i get a $100, then i'm gonna spend $30 of that on food at a nearby restaurant, so the chef and waiters are gonna get money, which they then spend again ... what i'm saying is that $1 in UBI does far more than $1, because people are gonna spend it and then other people are gonna have it ... so you probably need to pay far less than 100% of living expenses, only like maybe 30% could be enough.
edit: this has nothing to do with your comment, i just wanted to write it somewhere.
A competitive system is more what I was expecting. So, somebody who's a big name in Irish art but doesn't currently make a living would get priority above someone who just has an Etsy shop.
That is a judgement call, but not neccesarily about the worth of the art itself.
A lottery among pre-selected candidates. Just about anything can be considered to be art, so it is inevitable that there would be far more demand than fulfillment. After all, if they gave $1500 per month to anyone who claimed to be an artist, literally every single citizen would suddenly become committed to their "art."
I'm already a musician, but if I weren't, I'd become an artist today.
Yeah, exactly. If the selection isn't competitive it's vaguely art-themed more than anything, in practice.
This is kind of ridiculous and not even ubi. Universal means universal. And this is clearly not universal. So if only some people get the grant, there needs to be a talent competition and the 2000 best artists should be the winners. Otherwise imagine being objectively a better artist than someone else who got the grant and you didn't get it. š”
Trying to rank who is the better artist objectively sounds like a nightmare
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.
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
Also, UBI for everyone would be fucking amazing. Why weāre 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?
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.
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 doesnāt 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.
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.
That attitude is why the wealthy will always insist on means testing to oppose progress...
The attitude we need is:
I hope as many people as possible get it now, and we'll keep working on the rest.
Influencers suck, pretty much as a rule.
But everyone deserves to live. And them being UBI proponents and constantly talking about it because they're genuinely happy they got it is a hell of a lot better than them taking cash from a billionaire to pit us against each other.
but like i think i still would rather have artists + influencers ubi then none
Right...
But first you posted a comment about how pissed you were that another group were getting it and they shouldn't.
Even if you know you meant "everyone should get it"...
You didn't type that, you were manipulated instead into only saying a group you don't like shouldn't get it.
No one reading your initial comment was/is capable of reading your mind. You did what the wealthy wanted, and may have influenced those who just read your first comment.
Youāre giving the right fucks. UBI for all.
wtf even is an āinfluencer?ā i am an online comedian posting my own material to an audience of 90,000-100,000 followers. i am not trying to be an influencer. i donāt want to be seen as even a micro-influencer. it seems that word is given to anyone who is trying to be an entertainer online.
is that how youāre using it too? how would we legally separate between artists like me and whatever an influencer is?
Thankfully the article lists everyone that's eligible and not eligible.
Not true! I'm definitely not eligible, and I'm not listed anywhere in the article.
The price of not only forming a conclusion, but expressing it before collecting information.
Low hanging fruit, and everything
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 āall or nothingā 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.
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.
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 Switzerland, 77% of the population voted against. Granted, the 1% may have influenced the voters by spending money on campaigns, or even by creating a narrative over decades. And maybe that proposal was too ambitious. But in the end, it was not just the 1% who voted against but 77%. There is still a lot of skepticism against UBI, despite all the positive evidence.
There is no evidence. What we know is that generally, throwing money at poor people will have positive effects, thats it.
We have no idea how prices will react, we have no idea how culture around work might change when people grow up with such a system, we have no idea how employment will change and we have no idea what people will actually use their freedom for.
I am personally in favor of some kind of UBI but not because i believe without a doubt in its positive effects but i believe that the world belongs to all of us and simply being born entitles you to parts of the "fruits of the land" and if UBI really doesn't work out i guess we might just deserve our fate.
I agree we don't know what exactly would happen if UBI was implemented globally, and what the large-scale effects would be. But saying "there is no evidence" goes too far. There have been UBI experiments, both intentional and by accident.
We generally know how people react in different contexts to different variants of a low to moderate UBI, what the health and work outcomes are, etc. Sure, a "full" UBI would be different. But it would be silly to expect people to react in a completely different way from what we have already seen, at least for a low UBI.
If you need a reminder about past experiments, listen to Scott Santens (youtube, 10min, from 2020). He is obviously very biased (UBI advocate) but he knows all the nuances about past UBI experiments.
Oh i am not saying that there isn't positive implications for small scale experiments i am saying that this isn't waterproof evidence that we would see the same effect when done countrywide because the parameters change massivly.
France is a tax haven for millionaires why do you complain ?
It is very swrious and it is a good reason to tax the rich. And they just decide they shouldn't.
that's unfair. what classifies as "art"? am i an artist? I'm not sure.
i think a major point of the UBI scheme was the broad democratic support because everyone benefits from it. if only a specific group of people gets it, that's just another way to split the society. not what we need.
thatās unfair.
Crabs in a Bucket
This program has been terminated by Irish Arts minister Bucket O'Crabs.
haha yeah :) but no, actually, i want them to have UBI, i just want everyone else to have it as well :) that's a difference.
also by the way what i find interesting is that UBI wouldn't actually have to pay for 100% of people's living expenses. imagine i get a $100, then i'm gonna spend $30 of that on food at a nearby restaurant, so the chef and waiters are gonna get money, which they then spend again ... what i'm saying is that $1 in UBI does far more than $1, because people are gonna spend it and then other people are gonna have it ... so you probably need to pay far less than 100% of living expenses, only like maybe 30% could be enough.
Or less. Alaska's dividend program is a couple thousand a year and significantly reduces its poverty rate.
Defining living expenses is tough. If everyone is homeless, getting them a studio or tiny house seems basic, but if everyone is in a studio, getting them into a one bedroom seems basic. If everyone struggles to get enough clean water to drink, having water for drinking and washing seems basic, but if everyone has plenty of wash water then they want pools and irrigated golf courses. The way human brains are programmed with a hedonistic treadmill means we will never feel like 100% of our living expenses are covered. But every sustainable bit of help we can set up society to deliver makes our society richer.
*hedonic treadmill.
Well, our current system is unfair. So you can get on board with helping struggling artists, or you could rather more people struggle.
If this scheme works out, it doesn't take much to think this could be applied to more and more groups.
It has to start somewhere, and opposing this because it doesn't immediately include everyone is short sighted and selfish imo. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good here.
It gets even more unfair: participants get selected by chance (if they fulfill the criteria)
BUT it's just a pilot project. I hope it's successful and gets implemented for everyone - I mean everyone has the potential to become an artist if money isn't the deciding factor anymore.
Who knows how many great musicians, painter, etc. are stuck in a 9-5 job? I for example want to create a game... Not really "art" in the classical sense, but creative and prone to bring me next to no money unless I have a lot of luck.
Hell, even scientists might be more free in what they want to study if money is less of a problem...
UBI might be a great thing and I agree that art isn't the only thing that could benefit from it.
How many great artists, thinkers, and other potential geniuses are actually out there in the world, but they were unable to fulfill their potential because they had to struggle just to survive?
Imagine how many Ramanujans are actually out there, unable to do what they're great at because they're being crushed by the capitalist machine.
"Art" is such an interesting notion. I think it's safe to say that we currently call people "artists" if they're able to commodify their creative output. Whereas in reality, all humans are capable of creative expression. You are an artist. We all are. And UBI should be given to everybody!
I would guess, it means you have an art degree or something of the sort.
Reminds me of when Ireland uploaded one of the most ridiculous rap videos ever to their country's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
They've always prioritized the arts, mostly because the English have been trying to erase Irish culture for centuries.
It makes perfect since why Ireland would prioritize Irish artists.
One of those guys does the blindboy podcast now, it's well worth a listen.
āmostly because the English have been trying to erase Irish culture for centuriesā
What on earth are you on about? Do you think anyone in England is waking up thinking about ways to suppress Irish culture? You do realise that England and Ireland are separate countries now?
Do you think anyone in England is waking up thinking about ways to suppress Irish culture?
...
When someone says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, do you think that person is talking about every common Israeli citizen, or specifically the Israeli government?
Like, this confusion is a much larger problem than Ireland/England. So I want to put a good effort into explaining it.
But first we need to get on the same page that the English royal family isn't even eth ically English, they're a cadet branch of the old French royalty before the French decapitated all their royals...
So pretty much the only people who's had to put with the English royal family more than the Irish, are the English commoners. That's why the English language is such a mess, there was no upper society enforcing rules on it as it grew, because the ruling English didn't consider themselves English, they were the ruler of the English people.
Their culture was already pretty much erased by the time the English royals starting carrying about "England" and that was mostly just so the English royalty kept their heads. In private they likely don't see themselves as English so much as as they see England as a representation of them, which is why they try to erase every other culture.
I hope some of that made sense because like I said, it's important to understand when people criticize a country, they're almost always referring to the government of said country, and not every last citizen...
Mate I'm English and let me tell you, you have no fecking idea how badly our previous generations have treated the Irish basically from the 12th century up to 1996.
Also feel free to ask the Welsh and Scottish for their takes as well on English suppression of their cultures.
If Ireland wants to invest in it's cultural capital to expand it's horizons outside of Whisky, Guinness, St. Patrick, etc. that have been co-opted and stereotyped by the Anglosphere, then good on them!
A good place to start would be checking out Kneecap.
Can't wait for other new works that Irish artists will create from this investment.
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.
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
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 š
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 āuniversalā becomes āstipulatedā?
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.
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.
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.
Either UBI for everyone or UBI for no one. Lest we forget, money for this comes from of decades of collaboration in European tax avoidance by greedy multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share in the other EU countries they operate in.
Otherwise, UBI is a great idea.
edit: "-excludes for example journalism or books for educational purposes, for example: textbooks, technical manuals, writing created for advertising or publicity purposes."
Yeah, you wouldn't want journalism or education to be freely accessible as an ocupation... This has to be the most ridiculous ubi experiment in the last decade.
Ireland has a history of supporting artists, mostly with large tax breaks for ARTISTS. While journalists and scholars use writing extensively in their careers, they are not "artists" in the way that people tend to think of that concept. They are not creating art, they are creating knowledge. That's an honorable endeavor, but it is not strictly art.
mostly with large tax breaks for ARTISTS
i mean yeah that barely costs ireland anything as artists are typically poor and therefore barely pay taxes anyways ... /s
Except that it has attracted major artists, with major fortunes, such as Rod Stewart.
I wasn't implying journalism is art, I'm implying no government is going to give you the tools to depose them.
Regarding "ARTISTS", let's see how many of the supported artists actually develop a craft rather than just producing content.
Many many many popular historical artists were not popular in their own time. The if it's be an artist or go work for a living, that's still people paying for things in their communities for however long that is. It's entirely worth it even if they just create content. It's a fair place to start imho
The overwhelming majority of the EU population works in services industries, whereas we lack specialized tradespeople like construction specialists. If forced to choose, I'd rather see that UBI go to them to support an early retirement plan for those underapreciated classes that have physically demanding work. Anyone can be an artist, especially if we don't need to have two jobs to make rent.
We already have basic income but just for some people. Would it be better to abolish those programs or keep them?
Either UBI for everyone or UBI for no one.
UBI for some.
Little American flags for others
This would fix me
I hate being alive.
I don't know if I would stop working, between my wife and I we currently make a little bit more than that both working full time.
But my mental health would just go through the roof, almost all of my anxiety and depression is rooted in financial instability because I am shit poor at saving and was more interested in skiing than college.
Being able to work part time when I need a break and not fall behind the stupid money driven eat race, I think I would be a lot healthier and happier.
I feel like this won't last long (maybe 10 or 15 years), because they'll end up prioritizing seniors.
Why would a politician prioritize artists when the majority of voters are seniors who want their pensions?
"I'd rather be an out of work musician than an out of work pipefitter." -- The Commitments
Basic income AND a liveable minimum Wage should be mandatory. Our societies have evolved so that we have more than enough of everything already.
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.
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.
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.
They should just give a basic income to everyone
Shift the zero
It makes sense
Youād 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
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.
Yeah, lots of sour grapes in here. It's kinda pathetic.
Had this been the US our government and the Far Right would say artists owe them $1500 a month.
In case anyone wanted info from the Irish Citizens Information Board: [Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) https://share.google/BLpgqipdMH1y42mb1](Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) https://share.google/BLpgqipdMH1y42mb1)
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 progressā¦
The criteria for artists they provide is not good. Maybe Ireland is different, but I think broadly, we need more bridge builders than music bands. Both require skill, practice, hardwork and require "art" skills. The difference is, people tend to care about the oversaturated one more. We need both, but one is much more underutilized.
It is a good point, though I suppose the argument would be that it's easier for a bridge builder to find paying work than an artist
Bravo Eire!
It's weird that doing this just for artists flew there. I can only imagine the uproar that idea would generate here.
It's not weird if you know Irish history.
For centuries the English has tried to erase Irish culture.
Something the vast majority of Irish aren't happy about...
This spreads Irish culture, so theres likely a lot of support for it. Like, think about how much 99% of the world hates the English for erasing their culture and centuries of human rights abuses...
The only culture that's been fucked with by English royalty more than England is Ireland. And there's a lot of culture pride there as a result because they've never given up.
For sure, it must be a more respected occupation there. The entirety of Ireland basically being the IRA, I'm not so sure about.
Soooo... Not universal?
The article explains.
Universal means for everyone no?
Doing trials is the way we get data to support UBI for everyone. Saying āIf I canāt have it too, no one can,ā is how we get a shitty world.
I wonder sometimes, if we all get UBI, what happens to home ownership? It might be enough to pay rent, but probably not save up for and afford a mortgage. Would the government then own all real estate? Which it would then farm out to private corporations to manage. Effectively making all of the property owned by corporations?
I mean that's kind of how it works right now.
But UBI is just basic income, to make sure people can get on their feet. It works as a springboard to enable people to achieve higher goals, like home ownership.
Im not wholly knowledgeable on UBI but I imagine you can still make money on top of the basic income. Like as an artist you can still sell works, do commissions and whatnot you just dont have to stress nearly as much about covering the basics when works dont sell and there are gaps in customers. You still can have savings and the like. Best cases at some point housing would be cheap enough that one could realistically buy a house outright with good financial planning instead of it being owned by a bank
Having corporations do basic functions is a mistake of neoliberalism, which literally cannot conceive of anything without a profit motive.
I do agree that government ownership is tricky because they have to act as both regulator and vendor, but it can be done.
This is just the set up to Master and Margarita
ireland fought a bloody war of independence from the UK as far as i know. i'm not an expert of irish history but the irish have hated england after being mistreated by england for a long time or sth.
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 1500Ā£ too? its the same thing, if my product is shit i wont sell, period
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.
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.
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
Under this logic Scientists are useless and just waste time with abstract ideas with no real applications. Money should go to blue collar workers who actually build and make the things we consume in an everyday basis. /s
UBI is the answer. More resources for the people, not less.
What is the point of living without art and culture? That sounds like being a worker bee, without any honey.
You're not allowed to listen to music, watch movies, read books or look at pictures now. Because they are useless.
Or decorate your home, or paint your walls anything but flat grey, or even wear any clothes that are anything more than utilitarian. Because anything for style is artistic, and therefore useless.
Can I ask how old you are, and what your parents do/did growing up?
I don't want to come off as mocking, but it sounds like you don't understand the role art plays in a functioning society.
Artists explore ideas at the lowest level of a chain of creativity that extends up to scientists and decision makers. In the same way that rocket engineers rely on physicists and chemists to uncover the science that underlies engineering, and physicists and chemists require mathematicians the uncover the math that underlies physics and chemistry, artists essentially research the human condition to allow their society to weigh whether building a rocket is worth doing; where it should go; what it should do; who should be on it; etc.
Our collapsing society could in some part be blamed on the fact that our economic system has failed to fund research into the ideas and social technologies that we need to transition away from obsolete social systems.
I think you are abstracting and giving too much credit to art. I would define myself as an absolute noob in art though in other fields I am pretty capable and creative. It is all about the desire to do something. And it is not art and philosophy that should be leading our society but logic
Artists... yes, because god knows, theres a shortage of those insufferable pricks running around... You ever meet an art student? You will never, in your life, meet a more entitled own fart sniffer.
Surely theres a better, more deserving group of people out there that could make use of this kind of program? Single parents? Kids from low income families, looking to get into higher education? Why, O, fucking why, is it "artists"???
well you sound like an enjoyable person
I dont "sound" like anything to you. And I actually can be quite fun, unlike art students who have had the reputation of being stuck up cunts for longer than Ive been alive. But sure, attack my character and not the content of the comment. That always make you look real fucking smart, and not at all like a fucking moron trying to get worthless internet points off a heavily downvoted comment...
youāre not disproving them tho.
And why should I? Why is my being fun or not have anything to do with other groups in society being more deserving of and offering more tangible evidence of, this being a good thing? Why am I the topic of conversation at all???
You dont have to answer that, we both know why. Because its only ever morons who attack the poster and not the post. The way to go was challenging what I said, not that I said it and that because Im "not fun" I should be ignored.
Honestly, imagine being this fucking butthurt because I said kids from underprivileged/poverty backgrounds would be better for something like this than fucking "artists". The utter fucking state of the world.
Fucking cringe.
Entitled? Nah, you're thinking of business majors.
No, Im not. The reputation of art students is well known, and has been for more than 50 years. Case and point, Hitler was a fucking art student.
Inb4 random people drawing a dickbutt a month on some random piece of paper to qualify as "artist" and get free money from the government.
All these good sounding programs sound great in theory, until you find out that the lobbist controlling their actual enactment will make it a lot easier for CEOs to request the funds than actual homeless artists
I see this as a clever step in that direction. Make it relatively easy to apply. Wait ten years, point to the lack of widespread abuse and then make it available to everyone.
All these good sounding programs sound great in theory, until you find out that the lobbist controlling their actual enactment will make it a lot easier for CEOs to request the funds than actual homeless artists
No, means testing is so ignorant people switch from:
We should all get this
To
The people I don't like shouldn't get this
If people drawing one dick but a month gets this, it's only so people like you will be turned against UBI.
Shits too important to allow that ignorance to go unaddressed.
Because after it's explained, you either get back on the side of the people, or make it obvious that you're just against UBI for reasons other than you said
What in the never took art history trying to force a topic can't read the room off topic ass shit are you drinking?
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. āIronicā prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the articleās mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. āIronicā prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the articleās mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
For those, like me, that are curious how they decide who's eligible...
https://www.gov.ie/...
save