Imagine this: as you're worried about how to pay bills and make your rent, you get a check from the government for $876. Every month.

That's what Finland is doing. The Nordic nation is getting closer this month to finalizing a solution to poverty: paying each of its 5.4 million people $876 tax-free a month — and in return, it will do away with welfare benefits, unemployment lines, and the other bureaucracy of its extensive social safety net.

The concept, called basic income, has been a popular source of debate among academics and economists for decades, though Finland would be the first nation in the European Union — and the first major nation anywhere — to actually implement the idea on a universal basis. The basic income was popularized by the economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a "negative income tax."

The Finnish proposal, which is still being drafted by the country's social welfare institution, Kela, would reportedly give each Finn 550 euros a month to start.

As a result, Finland would scrap nearly all of its other benefits programs. In Finland, as in the U.S., people get welfare benefits according to their incomes.

In contrast, the universal basic income would go to every citizen regardless of how much money he or she makes — rich or poor.

In Finland, the push for a basic income comes as the country's economy is struggling. About 10% of Finland's population is unemployed as Finland tries to claw its way out of a three-year recession.

The most recent economic forecast from Finland's finance ministry, for autumn 2015, begins flatly with grim news and little hope for a better future: "The Finnish economy is in a serious situation. GDP growth is close to zero. Unemployment is rising and unemployment spells are becoming longer. Even once the recession is over, growth will be painfully slow."

As the economic picture gets darker, more Finns support the idea of a monthly check to every Finn, struggling or not. Nearly 70% of Finland's population is in favor of a basic income, according to a September poll. In April, voters elected the country's Centre party, which campaigned in favor of a basic income, to a controlling position in the government. The basic income is, however, popular among followers of nearly all the nation's parties.

But the scheme has its drawbacks. Finland is strapped for cash, with a major push for austerity — or cutting government costs — underway.

The universal basic income would require the equivalent of nearly the entirety of Finland's revenue, and then some, which would imply higher taxes down the line for the nation's already struggling households.

Finland's 800-euro-a-month plan, distributed among every single person in the country including babies and teenagers, would cost 52 billion euros a year, and 47 billion euros if you count only adults.

Those are enormous numbers and a tough haul when the entire government's revenue for 2016 is expected to be only around 49.1 billion euros.

Finnish politician Carl Haglund campaigning in Finland in April. The country's election in April was a landmark moment for universal basic income. Image: Vesa Moilanen/Lehtikuva

Finland is already highly indebted, with the country owing the equivalent of more than 58% of all the goods and services it produces in a year, and its central bank has warned that might double.

Finland's economic situation is set to get worse because of major demographic shifts. Finland's population is rapidly aging — faster than any other country in the EU. A fast-aging population is a major problem for several reasons. It means a country's workforce will shrink, as people retire from work - which in turn means the population will be less productive. Another reason: the country's revenues will fall and its economy will stagnate over time because there are fewer people working and paying income taxes, which make up the majority of a country's revenues.

Still, the idea has recently been picking up speed on a local level for years, since the big global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recessions and economic struggles in major countries. In Switzerland, a years-long push for basic income grew steadily in popularity until the nation's parliament rejected it in October. The Dutch city of Utrecht is in the process of a pilot project on basic income, and seven other cities in the country have announced their intention to explore the idea, which has been discussed in the Netherlands since the 1970s.

Manitoba, in Canada, tried the idea in the late 1970s, creating, briefly, "the town with no poverty." A subsequent study by Duke University researchers found that during its "MINCOME" experiment, Manitobans had lower rates of hospitalization, particularly for mental health problems and accidents.

With income inequality a growing concern for nearly all countries, many have experimented with basic incomes. A 2008 academic study found that simple cash transfers were effective and cheap, keeping down administrative costs; a government grant of $100 in Colombia, for instance, cost only 70 cents.

In theory, the concept of the basic income is politically appealing because it satisfies people who are on the left, who are concerned with strengthening social safety nets, as well as people who are conservative and opposed to large bureaucracies. A single check cut to each citizen seems to appeal to both sides.

Different countries respond differently, however. In Switzerland, the referendum for a universal basic income actually drew ire from both sides and was roundly struck down in a vote of 149-14, as conservatives feared a monthly check would increase both laziness and a wave of unsustainable immigration, while those on the left objected to wiping out the welfare system.