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.
I want to become an artist and move to Ireland now.
I hope duch 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.
Imagine Irish homeless turn to storytelling as an art in order to be eligible for the pay? That would be incredible.
The question is: Who or what determines if you are an artist?
This is why unusual 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 refused to tow the line figure it out in their own.
*universal Took me a minute 😅
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.
Tax haven country gives artists some money to get by. The worst thing about it is the hypocrisy.
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
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. It’s laughable you were down voted
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.
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 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 played, or feeling useless and getting payed. Most people would rather feel useful in a practical sense.
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.
Fear is a good motivator for committing crime. But not for getting a job.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that’s unfair.
Crabs in a Bucket
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.
This program has been terminated by Irish Arts minister Bucket O’Crabs.
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.
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.
“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.
Ireland: do implement and study a program and agree it is working and they will continue it.
Users who are jealous: “this is unfair” “how that even work” “I am an artist”
Yeah, lots of sour grapes in here. It’s kinda pathetic.
For those, like me, that are curious how they decide who’s eligible…
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.
How else would you handle distributing a limited resource pot without making judgment about what art is good/valid?
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.
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.
oh yeah. its kinda like when people talking about a penny costing more to make than a penny but metal coins last much longer in circulation than bills. so if its actually used for its intended purpose then its not an issue as each penny realizes many pennies over its lifetime. The problem comes if the value is so desperate that people hold on to them as a value store. I firmly believe this type of understanding is lacking in our politicians who love half of what keynes said but like to ignore the other half.
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. 😡
Trying to rank who is the better artist objectively sounds like a nightmare
Well to start, it would be easy to weed out people who consider themselves artists but nobody, NOBODY likes their “art.”
Nobody in the Irish government has actually used the label “universal” for this program by the way.
Good. Then people discussing it should stop saying “ubi.”
I think this is really cool, and I support it. Kudos!
That being said, I don’t think $1500 is enough… but also, how did they even determine $1500 to be the #? This article left me with some questions.
It may not be perfect, but it’s absolutely a step in the right direction. I just need more info to understand more.
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?
This. The only way this could possibly work is if it’s universal.
as long as influencers dont count as artists, does this sound great
edit: i still want everyone to get UBI and like rather have artists + influencers than none
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.
i mean i get what you mean, and i ofc also want UBI for everyone
But i still think giving it to influencers specifically at this point is just further encouraging shitty behaviour, i think this will just make even more people try that, and to get any relevancy they would have to be even worse as a person to get any attention… And i doubt that they would not be greedy enough to not take not any extra money from whoever is offereing it.
I think it should be considere that they would litteraly influence others and i doubt it would be in a better way then it is currently.
i think i would be fine with litteraly any other group of people instead, and also influencers are probably not included anyway tho
(ofc there are probably some good influencers, but they are drowned out by all the others)
edit: but like i think i still would rather have artists + influencers ubi then none
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.
You’re giving the right fucks. UBI for all.
i edited my comment tbh for me it was kind of obviouse that i am not against UBI but fine, i guess it was not
wtf even is an “influencer?” 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 don’t 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 you’re using it too? how would we legally separate between artists like me and whatever an influencer is?
In the current context i mean any of these “lifestyle” people, i mean these that basically create nothing, whose content is either just about themself, like a vlog or them live streaming how they play a game while they add nothing of value to it, or these whose content is them beeing a menace on socitiy, or pointless drama or ragebait stuff.
I dont think any of this is art.
But i dont mean anyone that actually does create something, so i dont mean online comedians like you, that is an artist for me in this context.
I actually think it is kind of hard to define, influencer is probably not even the right word for what i mean, but i have heard people use it for what i ment… But yeah i am probably using the word wrong
nah i get ya. i use the word the way you describe it as well. but i have seen commentary channels referred to as influencers which i didn’t think was right.
Thankfully the article lists everyone that’s eligible and not eligible.
it was only a question of when i get called out on this lol
The price of not only forming a conclusion, but expressing it before collecting information.
Not true! I’m definitely not eligible, and I’m not listed anywhere in the article.
