by Kate McFarland | Oct 15, 2016 | News, Research
As previously reported in Basic Income News, Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, submitted a report on basic income experiments to the Finnish Government on March 30. Previously released to the public only in Finnish, the report is now available in English.
Kela’s report describes and analyzes several basic income models, including a “full” basic income of at least 1000 EUR per month, which would replace all existing social insurance programs, a “partial” basic income of under 800 EUR per month, and a negative income tax. It additionally examines conditional programs such as a participation income.
In the conclusion of its report, Kela advises the Finnish government to adopt a partial basic income model for its experiment.
In August, Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health drafted a bill authorizing the basic income experiment. This bill revealed that the government plans to test of a partial basic income of 560 EUR per month, distributed to a random sample of 2,000 individuals who are between the ages of 25 and 58 and currently receive unemployment assistance. The Ministry’s proposed legislation also made clear that experiment will be designed specifically to test whether a partial basic income incentivizes employment.
The English version of Kela’s 62-page report is now available as a free download from its website (see link below). This version also includes a postscript concerning the bill drafted by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, including a summary of criticisms of the bill and an explanation of the government’s decision to adopt the chosen experimental design.
Kansaneläkelaitos Kela; Social Insurance Institution of Finland Kela (2016) “From idea to experiment. Report on universal basic income experiment in Finland”
Link: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/167728
Photo: CC BY-NC 2.0 Aaronigma
by Andre Coelho | Oct 15, 2016 | News
(Photo credit to: Lonely planet – Taroko Gorge, Taiwan)
A political party in Taiwan, called the Basic Welfare Party (formerly known as the Taiwan Republican Party) includes the basic income as a core policy. The groundwork for the party is still being established as of January 2017. The BWP was initiated by members of Taiwan Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association and Yu Hua Zhai charity vegetarian restaurants in Taiwan. The party’s goal is to promote constitutional, legislative and judicial reform. With these goals, the BWP hopes to contribute to the realization of a country that acknowledges the importance of social welfare and the law, ensuring the right to a minimum livelihood through the establishment of an unconditional basic income for all people. As of January 2017, the BWP does not yet have a chairperson and is seeking individuals to fill the role.
One important figure in Taiwan is Dr. Tien-Sheng Hsu, Taiwan’s Family Medicine and Psychiatrist medical doctor as well as the Seth mental and physical clinic president. On June 5, Dr. Hsu spoke about Switzerland’s movement for the referendum on a basic income in a public speech. When discussing the basic income policy, Hsu said that hypothetically if he were the president of the Republic of China, he would give every citizen 30,000 New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) per month. In the same speech, he claimed that independence and reliance must forever be actively interwoven. In some ways, reliance allows our creativity to flourish. Because of this, Hsu said that if everyone’s basic security was taken care of with 30,000 NTD, then people would be more willing to take risks to achieve their ideal careers or life.
Dr. Tien Sheng Hsu
On June 8, Dr. Hsu and a doctor of international relations, Dr. Xinyi Ma, hosted the talk show “Voice of A-Sheng” which discussed international and domestic Taiwanese news from the perspective of mental and physical health. This program also brought up the Switzerland referendum on basic income. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma discussed the possibility of the people of Taiwan launching its own basic income referendum.
Dr. Hsu and Ma wondered whether such a referendum would pass in Taiwan, but Hsu said he approved of the essence behind Switzerland’s proposal, which was to guarantee a basic standard of living for every person. Dr. Hsu also said an important consideration is how such a basic income would be funded in Taiwan.
On several occasions, Hsu seemed to joke that he should become the President of the Republic of China so he could give 30,000 NTD to every citizen. It us unclear if Hsu is serious about his presidential aspirations or if the comments were meant to illustrate the effects of a hypothetical basic income.
During the program, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma also analyzed the topic of unconditional basic income from a psychological perspective. They maintain that “You create your own reality.” They defend that, when people go back to their inner state of grace, with their basic survival guaranteed, they feel protected by love, wisdom, mercy, creativity and the magical power of the universe. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma begin with the premise that every person’s existence is loved, every person in the universe is cherished. From here the whole society is then built, letting our humanity gain greater degree of freedom within. They say that if most people move in this direction, perhaps the social system we desire could really be built. Take the people from Switzerland, Finland and Holland: these are regions from which the Taiwanese people can learn from.
According to Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma, if the idea of the basic income does not bring in our inner-selves, but rather employs the violent power of government, then it has again been distorted. Thus we must create the basic income from within, rather than from extrinsic pressure that makes everyone adhere to a certain system. So, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma urge, let’s use our intrinsic nature to embark on this endeavor. We can then achieve the feeling of inner richness and, in a state of grace, the proper external reforms will follow.
Editors note: The above article was revised on January 23, 2017 to add context about the nature of Dr. Hsu’s comments and included links to the original speeches. The article was also updated to reflect the current status of the Basic Welfare Party and to reflect the name change of the group from the Taiwan Republican Party.
Written by Juku Shenguang: Founder, Vice-president and Secretary-General of Taiwan Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association
Translated by Tyler Prochazka
Reviewed by André Coelho and Kate McFarland
by Citizens' Income Trust | Oct 14, 2016 | Opinion
There was an uncanny similarity between two referenda held in June: the UK’s referendum on whether to remain in the European Union, and the Swiss referendum on a Citizen’s Income. In each case, the ballot paper asked a simple question: whether to remain or leave, and whether to establish a Citizen’s or Basic Income – an unconditional income for every Swiss citizen. In the latter case, the wording was explicit that the Swiss federal government was to decide on the level of the Basic Income and on the means of funding it.
And then in both cases the campaigns leading up to the referenda were less about the referenda questions than about very different issues.
In the Swiss case this was largely the fault of the proposers of the referendum question. The wording having carefully left the decision as to the level of the Citizen’s Income to the Swiss government, the campaigners then suggested a level of 2,500 Swiss francs per month – about £400 per week. It was largely this that led to so many members of the Swiss parliament asking people to vote against the proposal; it was the proposed figure that dominated the campaign; and it was the fear of the massive tax increase that would have been needed to fund such a large Citizen’s Income that led to so many people voting against the proposal. All of this could have been avoided quite easily. If the campaigners had wanted to inform the debate about potential levels of Citizen’s Income and possible funding methods then they could have undertaken the kind of careful costing work that we and others have undertaken in the UK. If that had happened, then the government could have made clear the level of Citizen’s Income that they would be likely to agree on if the referendum were to pass, and the debate and the decision might have been rather more rational.
Having said that, the referendum was in many ways a success. The referendum was held; it contributed significantly to media and public interest in Citizen’s Income, both in Switzerland and around the world; and 23% of the Swiss population approved of the idea. The referendum will be seen as an important stage in the Swiss and global Citizen’s Income debates.
In the British case there was always going to be a problem. Public understanding of the European Union is almost non-existent, so the only information that most people had available to them were the halftruths that campaigners on both sides and the press chose to feed to them. Members of the public were told that we could avoid EU workers having the right to live and work in the UK and trade within the single market, even though the European Commission had made it clear that remaining within the single market was conditional upon allowing EU workers to live and work in the UK. Throughout the campaign, leaving the EU was touted as a way of preventing immigration, whereas most immigration is from outside the EU and was therefore nothing to do with the question on the ballot paper.
There are two lessons to draw from these two referenda. One is that referenda are a bad idea in the context of an ill-informed public and a biassed media. The question on the ballot paper might be a simple one, but if it is about a complex reality then even generally well-informed members of the public might have little understanding of the possible consequences of a referendum result – whatever that result might be. In relation to complex issues about which members of the public understand little, representative democracy is the least bad system of government, and it is safer than referenda. It enables proposals informed by a civil service to be debated in a parliament and in committee, to be amended, to be tested in another parliament, and then amended again. Such a method has to be preferable to a one-shot referendum ill-informed by emotive campaigns. This is not to suggest that referenda are never appropriate. If the public is well informed about the issue on the ballot paper, if campaigns are based on evidence, if experts are heard, and if the print and other media see it as their role to educate rather than to persuade, then a referendum has some chance of assessing an informed population’s view on the question on the ballot paper. The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence came closer to this ideal referendum than either the Swiss Basic Income referendum or the recent British referendum on EU membership; and the Swiss Basic Income referendum came closer to it than the British referendum on EU membership. It would take a massive educational effort to enable the UK’s population to gain a sufficient understanding of the desirability and feasibility of a Citizen’s Income to enable it to compare a benefits system based on a Citizen’s Income with the current system. Whether such an educational effort is possible, or such an outcome feasible, must be in doubt: in which case the safer method will be for the institutions of representative democracy – Parliament and the Government – to evaluate the arguments for a Citizen’s Income and to decide in accordance with their findings.
The second lesson to draw is that careful research is essential if any future debate about Citizen’s Income is to be sufficiently well informed. It has been a pleasure to see recent well researched reports from the Royal Society of Arts, the Adam Smith Institute, and Compass, and up to date costings and other statistics relating to a particular illustrative Citizen’s Income scheme have recently been published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. We hope soon to be able to publish costings and other information relating to a couple more illustrative schemes, and we also hope to have available soon some information on how a range of typical households’ net incomes would be affected by some illustrative schemes. We would like to see even more research organisations involved in the rigorous testing of the financial feasibilities and consequences of illustrative schemes.
There is a connection between the Swiss and British referenda: EUROMOD, the microsimulation programme that we use to evaluate illustrative Citizen’s Income schemes. The programme’s development is funded by the European Union. We are very much hoping that the UK will continue to be involved in the European collaboration that makes such a useful piece of research infrastructure possible.
Another connection is the one between Citizen’s Income and important factors in the British European Union referendum. Widening inequality and deep social divisions appear to have been important motivations for voting to leave the EU, even though leaving the EU is unlikely to remedy the situation and might even make it worse. A Citizen’s Income would help to reduce inequality and to heal social division. It is therefore essential that widespread informed debate on Citizen’s Income should take place, and that the institutions of representative democracy should decide to implement a Citizen’s Income: perhaps informed by an advisory referendum.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 13, 2016 | News
United States President Barack Obama addressed universal basic income in a question in an October 12 interview with Wired Editor-in-Chief Scott Dadich and MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito.
The interview covers a plethora of issues surrounding the political, economic, and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. After discussing regulation, funding, and cyber security, among other topics, it is Obama who turns attention to the economic implications of AI and, in particular, the specter of technological unemployment:
One thing that we haven’t talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren’t spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about “Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?”
He then expresses optimism regarding the possibility for continued job creation in the face of technological progress (“historically we’ve absorbed new technologies, and people find that new jobs are created, they migrate, and our standards of living generally go up”); however, he proceeds to warn that the government must do what it can to ensure that the gain do not simply go to a “small group at the top”:
Low-wage, low-skill individuals become more and more redundant, and their jobs may not be replaced, but wages are suppressed. And if we are going to successfully manage this transition, we are going to have to have a societal conversation about how we manage this. How are we training and ensuring the economy is inclusive if, in fact, we are producing more than ever, but more and more of it is going to a small group at the top? How do we make sure that folks have a living income? And what does this mean in terms of us supporting things like the arts or culture or making sure our veterans are getting cared for? The social compact has to accommodate these new technologies, and our economic models have to accommodate them.
Following up on Obama’s remarks, Ito broaches the topic of UBI:
… I don’t know what you think about universal basic income, but as we start to see people getting displaced there’s also this idea that we can look at other models—like academia or the arts, where people have a purpose that isn’t tied directly to money. I think one of the problems is that there’s this general notion of, how can you be smart if you don’t have any money? In academia, I see a lot of smart people without money.
In reply, Obama acknowledges that the debate over UBI would continue over the coming decades and, moreover, highlights another influential argument often given in its favor–recognition of the value of unpaid (and underpaid) labor:
[W]hether a universal income is the right model—is it gonna be accepted by a broad base of people?—that’s a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years. You’re also right that the jobs that are going be displaced by AI are not just low-skill service jobs; they might be high-skill jobs but ones that are repeatable and that computers can do. What is indisputable, though, is that as AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated—the computers are doing a lot of the work. As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions. We underpay teachers, despite the fact that it’s a really hard job and a really hard thing for a computer to do well. So for us to reexamine what we value, what we are collectively willing to pay for—whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, moms or dads who stay at home, artists, all the things that are incredibly valuable to us right now but don’t rank high on the pay totem pole—that’s a conversation we need to begin to have.
Last June, President Obama was asked about universal basic income in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview. Specifically, the interviewers asked about Obama’s view on UBI as a possible solution to economic disruption caused by globalization, and Obama replied by explaining that automation would likely produce even greater disruption (perhaps deliberately courting UBI supporters), while not taking a firm stance on–or even explicitly mentioning–UBI.
Obama’s recent remarks, then, may represent his most direct–and most sympathetic–comments on UBI to date.
On November 8, Americans will vote on the next President, to be inaugurated on January 20. Frontrunner Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken about basic income rarely, and has not expressed support. In an interview with LinkedIn’s Daniel Roth (“From bots to Brexit: Hillary Clinton explains how she’ll manage this uneasy economy”), published on June 28, she directly rejected the policy –saying that she’s “not ready to go there” and instead focusing on job creation and expansion of the earned income tax credit.
References
Davey Alba (October 12, 2016) “We must remake society in the coming age of AI: Obama,” Wired.
Scott Dadich (October 12, 2016) “Barack Obama, Neural Nets, Self-Driving Cars, the Future of the World,” Wired.
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: “President Barack Obama observes the Cybernetic Human Robot” CC BY-ND 2.0 U.S. Embassy, Jakarta
by Kate McFarland | Oct 13, 2016 | News
Enno Schmidt, one of the founders of the people’s initiative for an unconditional basic income in Switzerland, was interviewed as a part of TEDxBasel 2016.
Questions addressed in the 11-minute interview range from “Would people stop working with a basic income?” to “How does the money feel about this?”
Video: TEDx Talks, “Discussing the merits of Unconditional Basic Income”; published on YouTube on Aug 30, 2016.
Cover Photo: CC BY-NC 2.0 Generation Grundeinkommen
