by Andre Coelho | Jun 16, 2019 | News, Research
The National Academy of Social Insurance recently (April 2019) published a paper where the idea of implementing a relatively small basic income ($200-$400 per month, at least initially) has been explored by authors William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, supported by the Economic Security Project. The paper goes into detail on potential mechanisms by which this basic income might be implemented in the USA.
This study intents to deliver information on how to fulfil the vision outlined in the historical document “Need for Security”, from 1935, where it was clearly summoned that “the one almost all-embracing measure of security is an assured income. A program of economic security, as we vision it, must have as its primary aim the assurance of an adequate income to each human being in childhood, youth, middle age, or old age—in sickness or in health.”
From the paper synopsis it can be read:
This concept paper examines the possibility of providing a base level of income to certain subsets of, and perhaps to all, U.S. citizens as a means to increasing their economic security. The authors begin by highlighting the extent of contemporary financial insecurity and continue with a discussion on how an assured income program might complement existing social insurance and social assistance programs. This is followed by an examination of past and present programs that share goals with the assured income concept described, and an exploration of how these programs might provide a basis for the Social Security Administration’s administering an assured income benefit.
More information at:
William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, “Assured Income”, National Academy of Social Insurance, March 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 14, 2019 | News
Rashida Tlaib. Picture credit to: HuffPost.
On the 30th of May, 2019, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib hosted the 13th Congressional District Women and Families Roundtable with community members and advocates from across the Redford district (Michigan) (1). The roundtable took place at the Redford Community Center in Redford Township, and was attended by elements of local advocacy groups, teachers, union members and community members at large.
She stated that “This roundtable was the first of many that we will have to make sure we are staying rooted in what the community needs back here at home, not in Washington, D.C”, concluding that “The LIFT+ Act is just one part of ensuring that our families have the resources they need to thrive”.
The bill LIFT+ (Plus) Act announcement was made at this roundtable venue, with community members and advocates from across the district. According to Tlaib, the bill can put money in people’s pockets, through a refundable tax credit that can be paid monthly, to buy just about anything people struggle to purchase today. Community members broadly agreed that the issues most affecting them are income equality, livable wages, leave policies, comprehensive and affordable health care, and affordable childcare.
The bill itself (LIFT – Livable Incomes for Families Today), now introduced by Rashida Tlaib, is complementary to a previous text (S.4 bill) introduced by Senator Kamala Harris earlier this year (January 3rd), under the same name (LIFT). It intends to “provide relief for low and moderate-income households by introducing a new tax credit for working class individuals and families”. Under this policy, a tax credit of up to 3000 $/year (250 $/month) per adult is attributed, while families can get up to 6000 $/year (500 $/month). Eligibility is not dependent on being filed for paying taxes, so any adult can qualify if earning less than 50000 $/year (or less than 100000 $/year for constituted families). No conditions are put on how beneficiaries spend the money.
The scheme is designed as a NIT (Negative Income Tax), being dispensed on the basis of the preceding year’s tax record of the individual/family, phased out linearly when individual gross earnings fall into the 30000-50000 $/year amount. According to the authors and their teams, the LIFT+ Act would lift about 3 million children and 9 million families out of poverty, and effectively increase the earnings of about 123 million workers.
Note (1) – Redford is a town on the western border of Michigan’s largest city, Detroit, with around 48400 inhabitants
by Andre Coelho | Jun 12, 2019 | News, Research
According to a recent report (May 2019) by UCL Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), guaranteeing universal basic services (UBS), such as health care, education, child care, transportation and digital information, would be more beneficial to low income groups than universal basic income (UBI).
It is argued, in the referred report authored by Anna Coote, Pritika Kasliwal and Andrew Percy, that “extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals”. That assertion is linked to a yet to be published article by Coote and Yazici called “Universal Basic Income, A literature review”, while the present report does not “consider the case for UBI in any depth”. The discussion defending UBS, in the report, seems then to be unilateral. However, cost considerations between the two systems, for the United Kingdom reality, have been done in a previous report (from 2017). From these calculations, the authors have reached the conclusion (stated after the 2019 report’s release) that UBS would cost around 10% less than UBI to implement in the country.
Andrew Percy, co-author of the report (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and Citizen Sponsor at IGP, has said that “universal access to basic public services must be the foundation of 21st century welfare that delivers real social security, allows people to make meaningful choices about their work, and can be delivered in an affordable and practical way”, which doesn’t seem to pitch UBS against UBI. Others, like Will Stronge (Autonomy think tank) and Mathew Lawrence (Common Wealth think tank), explicitly consider UBI and UBS to be complementary in an evolving model for society.
Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal
Anna Coote and co-author Edanur Yazici have also recently (April 2019) published another report (signing for the New Economic Foundation), entiled “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective”, which clearly rejects UBI in favour of a UBS. That study has been published by the global trade union federation Public Services International (PSI), financially supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. This particular report was analysed by UBI activist Scott Santens, who has written that it is “a prime example of a disinformation campaign designed to manipulate public opinion against the idea of universal basic income”, and a “shameless propaganda” move.
The publication of the 2019 report on universal basic services, by the IPG, has also spurred a reaction in Guy Standing, a lifelong researcher, economist, author and activist for UBI. According to him, in an article published in Open Democracy, “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”. He adds, concluding, that these systems “address different needs and stem from different rationales. But having cash enhances freedom of choice, is potentially more empowering and can be more transformative. I plead with those advocating ‘Universal Basic Services’ to stop juxtaposing the idea of more and better public services with giving people basic income security.”
More information at:
Laurie MacFariane, “Universal services more effective than a Universal Basic Income, argues new report”, OpenDemocracy, May 16th 2019
Scott Santens, “‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says New Prime Example of Fake News”, Medium, May 31st 2019
Guy Standing, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income”, Open Democracy, June 6th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 10, 2019 | News
The World Health Organization (WHO) is organizing a High-level Conference on Health Equity, happening on the 11–13th June 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hosted by the Government of Slovenia, it will provide evidence and information on the solutions that can be implemented to reduce health inequalities and accelerate progress towards better health, well-being and prosperity for all in the European Region.
This conference will envolve public health and other senior government officials from throughout the European region, and will be condensed in a report which will also be available in Russian. It will also feature an extensive paper on basic income, authored by Louise Haagh and Barbara Rohregger, where basic income policies are analysed under the light of health effects and inequities.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 8, 2019 | News
Louise Haagh, presently Reader at the University of York, and Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), just released a new book, through Polity: The case for Universal Basic Income. A summary is featured on the editor’s page:
Advocated (and attacked) by commentators across the political spectrum, paying every citizen a basic income regardless of their circumstances sounds utopian. However, as our economies are transformed and welfare states feel the strain, it has become a hotly debated issue.
In this compelling book, Louise Haagh, one of the world’s leading experts on basic income, argues that Universal Basic Income is essential to freedom, human development and democracy in the twenty-first century. She shows that, far from being a silver bullet that will transform or replace capitalism, or a sticking plaster that will extend it, it is a crucial element in a much broader task of constructing a democratic society that will promote social equality and humanist justice. She uses her unrivalled knowledge of the existing research to unearth key issues in design and implementation in a range of different contexts across the globe, highlighting the potential and pitfalls at a time of crisis in governing and public austerity.
This book will be essential reading for anyone who wants to get beyond the hype and properly understand one of the most important issues facing politics, economics and social policy today.
Louise Haagh will be featured in several events and talks in the next few months, given this recent publication. These include Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Institute for Public Policy Research, University of Bath, BIEN Ireland, BIEN Congress in India, BIEN-RSA Civic Forum in Scotland, and at a range of local venues in the United Kingdom, for instance the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Café Economique, and North Yorkshire Humanists, as well as internationally at the World Health Organisation‘s (WHO) High-level Conference on Health Equity in the WHO European Region, to be held in Slovenia.
More details can be found in an online Appendix.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 7, 2019 | News, Research
Apart from experimental designs testing basic income-like policies, in small scales, theoretical evidence keeps mounting, showing that basic income is not a pipe dream, but a practical reality within our reach. Published earlier this year, a new report issued by the Compass think tank demonstrates just that. It proposes two models for change in the British social security system, one that installs a partial basic income for a cost of 28 billion £/year (approximately the benefits cut per year since 2010), and another that would rise the unconditional transfer of the first model through the operation of a “citizens’ wealth fund”.
As a summary, it can be read in the report’s conclusions:
The to models presented satisfy the feasibility tests set out earlier. Both models:
- Are progressive: they raise the incomes of low-income households at the expense of those on the highest incomes, cut poverty and reduce inequality; the greatest benefits go to the poorest;
- Provide a basic income for all, while reducing the level of sanctions; Britain would finally have a secure income floor set to rise over time;
- Become more progressive and more powerful anti-poverty instruments as basic income payments rise;
- Help to correct the gender imbalance of the present system;
- Ensure that there are almost no losers among the poorest households
- Apply a new 15% rate of income tax, an additional 3% on each rate of income tax, and an extension of national insurance payments.
It is still worthy to say that the 28 million £/year figure cited above can be collected in a variety of ways, for instance reversing the freezing of diesel and petrol excise duties since 2010 (9 billion £/year), reversing cuts in corporate tax rates from 18 to 28% (26-28 billion £/year), reduce the number and value of tax reliefs (ex.: eliminating the “entrepreneur’s relief”, saving 2,7 billion £/year), phasing out financial support to home owners and private landlords (which mainly benefit property developers) (8 billion £/year), among other possibilities. All these imply reversing tax cuts and attributed benefits to the relatively wealthier members of British society, which makes them quite progressive measures.
More information at:
Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed, “Basic Income for All: From Desirability to Feasibility”, Compass, January 2019
