Flat-cheque government support

  Flat-cheque government support. In the past five years, several developed and developing countries have run trials of a new government support scheme in which a subset of residents are periodically sent a flat cheque from the government, regardless of their employment status or other attributes. A famous example is presently running in Finland,Proponents argue that such policies reduce the administrative burden and other stressors associated with distributing support via the conventional tax and transfer system, reduce inequality by setting a lower bound for income, and eliminate the work disincentives caused by welfare clawback. Detractors argue that the support received is not tailored to the needs of those receiving it and may reduce work incentives further, and that expanded programs based on the idea of flat-cheque support (such as a universal basic income) would be prohibitively expensive. Choose two economic thinkers whose lenses you use to critically analyse the Finnish trial. Would they be for it or against it? Why? Are there other policies they would rather pursue to tackle the problems associated with precarious work, inequality, and the administrative inefficiencies of the welfare state? What do they believe is ultimately the best way for the government to provide social support? Do they agree or disagree with one another? economic thinker: John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx could you also add short biography for both thinker