undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAdamConwayIE1mo ago0 comments

You don't have to wonder whether or not it returns value to the tax payer. The Irish government already monitored the pilot program for two years, publishing all of the details and findings. [1]

"The headline finding from this social CBA is that for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received €1.39 in return"

This came about as a mixture of greater economic activity from participants, cultural impacts that saw public-facing artist activities increase, and improvements to wellbeing of participants that reduced their requirement for psychological interventions by the state. The state also predicts that the further roll-out of this program will benefit consumers with lower prices for artistic works, as there will be more supply overall.

The scheme has been quite popular here in Ireland. Given the history of Ireland when it comes to art (both in the sense of spoken and written word, and in other mediums), it makes sense to introduce a scheme like this to safeguard and uplift those who produce art.

[1] https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...

0 comments

closewith1mo ago

Thanks for linking the CBA. I hadn't seen that before

> "The headline finding from this social CBA is that for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received €1.39 in return"

Okay, so if you read the CBA, the net fiscal cost of the pilot was:

* Gross pilot cost (2021–2025): ~€114 MM

* Tax revenue: ~€36 MM

* Social protection savings: ~€6.5 MM

* Net fiscal cost: ~€72 MM

So for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received 37¢ in fiscal return. So it's an unambiguous fiscal cost, a net loss.

Of the "Total monetised benefits", €80 MM of the benefit was in "wellbeing gains", as measured by the WELLBY test, which is calculated based on a single survey question:

> “Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, where 0 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied"?

The €80 MM in "wellbeing gains", which is the sole decided of whether this pilot was a net positive or a net negative to society, is because on average, the 2,000 pilot scheme participants had a very approximate 0.7–1.1 increase in score when asked the above question during the pilot as compared to before the pilot. Each 1 point is deemed to be worth €15,340.

That's it. There's no economic return - it's a proven economic cost. There's no proven social benefit. No demonstrated effect on art prices or availability.

The pilot was successful - if you consider it to have been - solely because the artists who received payments as part of the pilot had an improvement in Wellby satisfaction score when they were asked via survey. If you remove this factor, the pilot was an abject failure.

Supernaut1mo ago

Nicely set out. I completely agree with you. I'm also pretty certain - and I say this both as a lover of the arts and as a taxpayer - that I will see no benefit whatsoever in my life, or to society in general, from the works produced under the aegis of this programme.

You know what would have been a worthwhile use of that €114 MM? Improving the pay and conditions of our naval personnel. That way, the nation might now be able to put more than one patrol boat out to sea at a time.

Loudergood1mo ago

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

2 more replies

closewith1mo ago

Can you imagine the net WELLBY increase if the DF were paid a living wage?

monknomo1mo ago

I think you two are using different definitions of society.

In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

In the previous comment society seems to be construed more broadly and encompass both non-economic activity and economic activity outside the collection and disbursement of tax funds.

closewith1mo ago

> In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

No, that's not correct. I specifically separated the pure economic impact from the society impact, but the only societal impact used to quantify the success of the pilot scheme is that the people paid a basic income by the scheme had higher life satisfaction as measured by a single survey question.

That is the basis used by Government to claim that it's a social benefit.

Personally, I support the arts and I think that culture, health, housing accessibility, safety, fitness, happiness, and companionship are all better measures of a society than GDP or other fiscal metrics.

Right now, we have a health, housing, and social crises desperate for resources - resources that are allocated exclusively through Euro budgets. This pilot scheme has not demonstrated any cultural or social impact at all. Only the aforementioned increase in recipient satisfaction.

Meanwhile people in dire situations face multi-year waits for operations, or dying of a treatable stroke/MI due to a lack of ambulances, or death by suicide as the mental health services are overwhelmed.

Is the WELLBY score of these artists more important the WELLBY score of parents awaiting their kid's operation for the second or third spring? Or burying their children? Or raising them in hotel rooms?

Ireland is only economically successful. We are failing our citizenry abysmally outside of fiscal terms and basic income for artists should be allocated while hundreds of more pressing needs are left unmet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

closewith1mo ago

Thanks for linking the CBA. I hadn't seen that before

> "The headline finding from this social CBA is that for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received €1.39 in return"

Okay, so if you read the CBA, the net fiscal cost of the pilot was:

* Gross pilot cost (2021–2025): ~€114 MM

* Tax revenue: ~€36 MM

* Social protection savings: ~€6.5 MM

* Net fiscal cost: ~€72 MM

So for every €1 of public money invested in the pilot, society received 37¢ in fiscal return. So it's an unambiguous fiscal cost, a net loss.

Of the "Total monetised benefits", €80 MM of the benefit was in "wellbeing gains", as measured by the WELLBY test, which is calculated based on a single survey question:

> “Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, where 0 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied"?

That's it. There's no economic return - it's a proven economic cost. There's no proven social benefit. No demonstrated effect on art prices or availability.

Supernaut1mo ago

Loudergood1mo ago

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

2 more replies

closewith1mo ago

Can you imagine the net WELLBY increase if the DF were paid a living wage?

monknomo1mo ago

I think you two are using different definitions of society.

In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

In the previous comment society seems to be construed more broadly and encompass both non-economic activity and economic activity outside the collection and disbursement of tax funds.

closewith1mo ago

> In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

That is the basis used by Government to claim that it's a social benefit.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse