The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (at the University of Toronto) is holding a discussion of basic income (guaranteed annual income [1]) on Wednesday, October 12.
Panelists include federal Senator Art Eggleton and scholar Michael Mendelson (Caledon Institute of Social Policy).
Eggleton and Mendelson will discuss the extent to which left-wing and right-wing proponents of “basic income” really do agree on policy –and, in light of this, whether a progressive basic income policy is practically feasible:
While the idea of a ‘Basic Income’ or a ‘Guaranteed Annual Income’ is attractive to many across the political spectrum, this attraction may be due to the idea remaining vague enough to encompass a range of what are actually very different programs.
On the one hand, those on the right see a relatively small unconditional payment to all adults replacing almost all other income security programs and many social services. Libertarian advocates of a Basic Income see it replacing even Medicare for the poor and the young. The right sees the Basic Income or Guaranteed Annual Income as reducing government expenditure or at the worst with the income guarantee low enough so that it is fiscally neutral.
On the other side of the spectrum, the left sees the program as offering an unconditional benefit large enough to lift everyone out of poverty, while leaving social insurance and many other programs, and certainly all social services, intact. In the left’s vision, taxes would rise radically to cover the costs and the beneficial result would be significant income redistribution.
For those looking for progressive change that can meaningfully reduce poverty and inequality, the question is whether there is a practical way to implement a Basic Income or Guaranteed Income, which might not accomplish immediately the full-scale goals of sweeping away all poverty and radically redistributing income, but which would represent significant progress from where we are today. Or, are progressives advocating for a Basic Income or a Guaranteed Annual Income, actually playing into the hands of a right wing agenda?
Senator Eggleton has been an outspoken advocate of the basic income guarantee (BIG) within Canada’s Liberal Party. Last February, he tabled a motion in the Senate calling on the federal government to fund a pilot study of BIG. (For more information, see Eggleton’s HuffPost article “Time for Canada to Test a Basic Income“.)
Michael Mendelson has served as a consultant for Canadian governments and institutions, in addition to publishing numerous articles on social and fiscal policy. Along with Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Ernie Lightman, Mendelson wrote “A Basic Income Plan for Canadians with Severe Disabilities” (Nov 2010), a proposal to replace Canada’s welfare programs for persons with disabilities with a guaranteed minimum income.
The event is open to the public, with no registration required.
For more information, see the event page (“Is it Time for Basic Income?“) at the website of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[1] In the event description, as in much of the Canadian discourse, the terms ‘basic income’ and ‘guaranteed annual income’ are used roughly synonymously to refer to programs that, through the use of direct cash transfers, aim to ensure that no individual’s income falls below a level needed to obtain basic necessities (similar to the use of the term ‘basic income guarantee’ elsewhere).
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: Monument to Multiculturalism (a sculpture unveiled by Art Eggleton during his time as mayor of Toronto) CC BY 2.0 Shaun Merritt
We’ve deleted it.
Given medical goods & services for sick and disabled are provided to all age groups in the proposal, the following list seems to encompass common variations of basic income I’ve read about where items 3.1 and 3.2 may be considered add-ons or supplemental sources of financing.
1: Cadillac Basic Income (greater than poverty level)
2: Full Basic Income (poverty level)
3: Partial Basic income (less than poverty level )
X.1 Univeral income
X.2 Citizen or Permanent Resident Income (skewed for permanent residents)
X.3 Citizen Income (skewed for citizens)
X.X.1: Working-Age Basic Income (for 18-64 age adults skewed for higher-benefit Social Security recipients)
X.X.2 Individual Basic income (for all adults)
X.X.3: Family Basic Income (skewed for single mothers and large families)
X.X.X.1: Permanent Basic Income (Tax clawback tapering minimum income)
X.X.X.2: Tapering Basic Income (Hazlitt version or Friedman negative income tax)
4.1: GDP-Growth Social Dividend (Milner, Douglas)
4.2: Commodity-Resource Social Dividend (Alaska oil fund)
…
In other words, a discussion that provides a common understanding or open-ended nomenclature of basic income may be a fruitful endeavor to save time, reduce confusion and build consensus as the result of debate. If a concise form already exists, please point me to it.
In the above comment, I meant 4.1 and 4.2, not 3.1 and 3.2. I did forget one more very important classification:
X.X.X.X.1 Inflationary basic Income (Funded by money printing)
X.X.X.X.2 Non-Inflationary Basic Income (Funded by taxation)
I’m not gonna try to guess which ones are left or right, LOL.
Basic Income is a great idea, Before the turn of the century, such a system may not have made much sense, but with the advanced state of the economy, it really is the system of the future. (or, it really is a magic bullet. here is why:)
problem: Low aggregate demand, slow gdp growth, income inequality. Solution: basic income would increase spending and demand for goods/services because they could more.
problem: Slow business growth/innovation/etc. Solution: basic income would allow would-be entrepreneurs to start a business easier with less risk and a safety net in case it doesn’t work out.
problem: Not many jobs/poor paying jobs/part time work. Solution: basic income would give a boost to everyone that holds a low-paying part time job, and it would give people better mobility to change jobs and increase their earning potential.
problem: labor shortages in certain economic sectors. Solution: basic income would not have a steep claw-back rate allowing previous unemployed, welfare recipients, retirees, etc to work without penalty. (if the labor shortage is because the pay is so low because the business relies on migrant labor from outside the country, that is a separate issue)
problem: shortage of right skills for certain jobs. Solution: basic income would help enable people prepare/train for requirements of jobs that require more or specialized skills.
Fear: Inflation. Why it’s a myth: Deflation is what we are trying to combat. We have negative interest rates, and slow job growth. Inflation wouldn’t happen if the basic income amount was modest.
Fear: High taxes. Why it’s (not so high). Higher spending by the poorest segments of the population would increase the taxes paid. And, because people aren’t so scared of losing all of their money because they have a basic income, maybe they would spend more (and pay more taxes)
Fear: Why would people work? Why wouldn’t they? if the government didn’t demand that they pay back all or a portion of the benefits that they are currently receiving, I’m sure many more people would work
Fear: Government debt would explode. Japan has the highest GDP to debt ratio. they don’t have inflation problems. quite the opposite. It’s affordable for the government to have high debts because interest rates are so low and there are plenty of people willing to buy government bonds. (plus they are trying to stimulate spending, hence the debt) So, basic income may initially grow the debt, but if implemented gradually with increased taxes shortly after, it wouldn’t disturb the system.
In solution Basic income is the best system, and is much better way of distributing money than bailing out banks or nearly bankrupt major companies, having multiple benefits entitlement systems, or trying to create jobs through one time funding grants or economic initiatives etc. etc.
Universal Basic Income is the best solution IF it is kept very simple, equal for all adult citizens, tied to actual living costs and completely universal thus simplifying everything that is governmental and saving huge amounts (to pay for the simple concept of UBI), and freeing massive amounts of government workers and others to pursue other endeavors.
It has to be substantial enough to eliminate all government welfare and disability programs.
It should be substantial enough to replace government pension income in the future (It cannot negate monies that had been already paid into government pension through past employment deductions of course)
Universal Basic Income should not be garnishable…..This maintains Universal Basic Income for it’s intended purpose which is to provide a basic income for sustaining basic living needs (and not something that can be used to borrow money against).
The caution here is that IF UBI is made to be a complicated addition to an already complicated government system, then it will fail.
Keep it simple! KISS UBI :)