by Jason Burke Murphy | Jan 30, 2019 | News
The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland, Leo Varadkar, has just endorsed a carbon tax in which all funds go to a direct cash dividend. This came in a letter to the Green Party of Ireland and has been confirmed by the press. Varadkar was responding to questions posed by Eamon Ryan during a session of the Dáil (Parliament). Ryan calls for “an increase in [the] carbon tax in which every single cent would go back to the Irish people—a dividend.” Eamon Ryan is the Green Party’s leader in the Dáil (Parliament).
Ryan considers Varadkar’s response to be an endorsement of the Green proposal. The Green Party has issued a press release. In it, they express pleasure to hear that the government likes combining a carbon tax with a cash dividend but stress that they consider alternative energy and transportation to be their highest priority in addressing climate change.
In his address to the Dáil and in an interview on the Irish Times’ “Inside Politics” podcast, Ryan calls for an increase of €20 per ton in the carbon tax, with an increase of €5 per ton each year until it reaches €90 per ton. The tax revenue would be entirely returned to the public as a dividend. (If you consult the podcast, discussion of the carbon tax and dividend begins at 20 minutes and forty seconds).
Illustration posted by Eamon Ryan on his Twitter feed.
“Every single cent that will be raised will be returned with a check in the post.” In the podcast, journalist Hugh Linehan makes it clear that this would be cash that goes directly to everyone in Ireland. Ryan points out that those with lower incomes would come out with more cash than they have to pay in increased taxes. He sees this as a way to avoid a popular revolt against a carbon tax like the one Emmanuel Macron has seen in France. He hopes that this will retire the debate over the carbon tax and achieve larger changes in energy and agriculture. “[The carbon tax and dividend] will deliver maybe five, ten, fifteen, or twenty percent of the change we need.”
The Irish Times is considered the paper of record in Ireland.
The Green Party (Camhaontas Glas) has two members of the Dáil Éireann. If they gain more seats in the next election, they are considered a likely coalition partner in a future government.
The current government is run by Fine Gael, a party that caucuses with Conservative parties in Europe but seeks to be seen as pragmatically responsive to poverty and ecological issues. Ireland has seen campaigns to prevent increased water charges and to promote public action on housing.
The Irish Times has surveyed government leaders in Ireland who seek to emphasize that carbon tax increases would be “revenue neutral”, returning all funds to citizens as a dividend. The dividend is seen as a way to meet the climate change obligations set by the European Union without harming lower-income people.
In the discussion of the carbon tax and dividend, there is no discussion from the government or the opposition parties of the carbon tax and dividend as a basic income. Green Party Leader Eamon Ryan is very careful to stress that the dividend is just a small part of a plan to make Ireland ecologically responsible.
A year ago, the Irish Times ran an opinion piece in which Ian Goldin presumes a basic income would be financial destructive and would replace existing programs. Basic Income News columns have demonstrated the method Goldin uses to make his calculation is flawed. The mistake here is to calculate gross costs instead of net costs. This means that basic income can be implemented without cuts in other social provisions. Calculations show that the poverty rate could be brought down to zero if three to four percent of a country’s GDP is dedicated to a basic income.
The idea that a carbon dividend is a basic income has not arisen in the Times or in the debate in the Dáil. The term “basic income” has not come up in the discussion of the carbon tax. This reflects a pattern found elsewhere. If a dividend is debated as an answer to poverty, it faces more scrutiny than if it is debated as a repair for the regressive effect of another policy.
Basic Income Ireland and Social Justice Ireland promote the idea that basic income has emancipatory potential. The idea that three to four percent of a country’s GDP could fund a dividend that abolishes poverty is still not being debated by any of the parties currently in the Dáil.
by Andre Coelho | Jan 29, 2019 | News
“The answer is blowing in the wind”. Picture credit to: BBC News.
It’s official. Twenty-seven Nobel Laureate economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, fifteen former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers and two former secretaries of the US Department of Treasury now agree: a carbon-tax must exist, and its dividends should be distributed back to all US citizens. It is relevant to say that most of these co-signatories are ‘former’ actors of these important economic institutions, which may leave an open question mark on whether the present officials at these institutions also corroborate their support for this basic income-like carbon taxation policy.
According to long-time basic income advocate and researcher Philippe van Parijs, “this amounts to the endorsement of the Paine argument for basic income by a remarkable congregation of US top economists of all colors”. That would be granting a basic income as a right of existence to each citizen, in this case for sharing the Earth’s atmosphere; hence the right to live in a clean, climate change-free version of it – at least while there are anthropogenic carbon emissions being dispersed into the atmosphere.
The “Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends” is written in the form of a short list; short enough to be replicated here:
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives.
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.
It may also be relevant to acknowledge that “economic growth” and “competitiveness of American firms” can be read as central in this statement, which might leave another question mark on whether these top economists and advisers would still support a related policy if it, by any chance, didn’t involve these iconic aspects of modern-day capitalist economy. Also interesting is the reference to “cumbersome regulations”, which should be scrapped, and of the acceleration and “diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services”. This also sounds reminiscent of a contemporary known driver of orthodox, 21st century economic theory: green growth.
Guy Standing, another long-time defender of the basic income policy, writing from Davos, where the world’s richest discuss money and politics at the highest level, has said that he considers this Economists’ Statement as “a major move toward basic income”, adding that he “even had agreement from Larry Fink on one panel debate.” This could indeed be very relevant, since Fink is one of the richest people alive today and therefore his net contribution to a basic income-like policy is, potentially, very large. Other participants at Davos, such as Martin Wolf from the Financial Times, have expressed more cautious approaches to this radical proposal, having said, “I have not been in favor, but I would not be against it, if it were introduced”. This could arguably be the equivalent of saying if a basic income were introduced, he would not reject the payment, but would not support it, either.
The complete co-signatory list for the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends can be read here.
Article reviewed by Dawn Howard.
by Andre Coelho | Jan 27, 2019 | News
Indian farmer pouring fertilizer. Picture credit to: The National
As indicated before, there is political movement in India in the direction of basic income. Particularly in the state of Telangana, which started the implementation of its Rythu Bandhu (Farmer Investment Support) program in May 2018. Other Indian states, namely Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chattisgarh, have also introduced farm support initiatives, but Telangana conveyed the novelty of unconditionality. Sarath Davala, Vice Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and coordinator of the India Network for Basic Income (INBI), has written extensively on this matter, as well as contributed with clarifications and specifications on social media.
In a nutshell, the current Rythu Bandhu program in Telangana, features the following characteristics:
1 – It is universal. All farmers with a land property registration are entitled to 4000 Rupees (50 Euros) per acre per season, making it 8000 Rupees (100 Euros) per annum. Cheques or money transfers were made directly to farmers bank accounts;
2 – It is unconditional: no conditions were prescribed. The farmer needn’t even cultivate. It is left to the farmer what he / she wants to do;
3 – It is called Farmer Investment Incentive Scheme. It was not called welfare, but termed as an investment. This means that, unlike conventional welfare schemes, such as loan waivers or crop insurance scheme, it is not intended as a relief after a calamity has hit, but as an investment.
Telangana has also introduced state-financed life insurance for farmers, over 5,8 million potential beneficiaries, and covering a sum of 500 000 Rupees (6190 Euros). The annual premium, paid by the government, is to be 2000 Rupees (25 Euros). Normally, if anyone wanted life insurance, they would have to visit a particular website to buy a policy, but now, the government is implementing these policies themselves.
This first attempt at unconditionality has had its problems, though. The program was criticized for being regressive, since no account was made for redistribution of these benefits to farmers, and so rich farmers were also getting the money from the government. And, since these farmers owned more land, they receive a greater portion of the investment. Another downturn was that tenants, or landless farmers, haven’t benefitted from the program since these do not possess property rights.
To address this last problem, the state of Odisha has announced in December 2018, and will roll out the scheme between February and March this year, pretty much the same as in Telangana but including landless tenants, estimated to cover around 1 million people (and their direct families). Under Odisha’s scheme, there are also available loans (for crop) at zero interest rates. In Jharkhand, Odisha’s neighbour state up North, the farmer assistance plan also disburses a fixed unconditional value per acre of cultivable land, 5000 Rupees (62 Euros) per annum, directed at small farmers (owners of less than 5 acres), for the next 4 years, benefitting over 2 million workers. So, in Jharkhand, rich farmers will be mostly excluded from the scheme. On the border with Bangladesh, in the West Bengal state, the scheme is somewhat more complex. Starting in February 2019, there will be a crop insurance for farmers land, with the state covering its premium. Plus, the same cash transfer as in Odisha will be rolled out, but with spending conditions (on seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, etc.). On top of that, a life insurance similar to Telangana’s, but covering only 200 000 Rupees (2470 Euros). West Bengal state farmer support scheme is directed at an estimated population of 7,2 million small and marginal farmers.
Other states, like Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, have also announced and are implementing policies to help farmers, namely in-kind benefits and loan waivers. But, overall, and according to Sarath Davala, is it a very positive thing to “see a shift from many conditionalities to unconditional”. However, he points out that these policies should not be lightly called “basic income”, as they depart in several ways from definitions of basic income (as, for instance, that of BIEN). Telangana’s policy is neither individual (it is family-based), nor universal (only for farmers, and not even for all of them), nor basic (not enough to cover individual basic needs). However, it does go a step further as far as the unconditional part is concerned.
The State Bank of India (SBI) has also taken an interest in unconditional cash transfers to farmers, although at the expense of the universal basic income (UBI) policy, as presented in a recent report. The SBI confirms that unconditional cash transfers will have a more “meaningful impact” on farmers, than conditional policies applied up to now. However, it advices against UBI, stating that a “cash transfer scheme is always a better option than a UBI scheme. Many countries have found that UBI does not address the structural problems and is at best a solution in interregnum”. It remains unclear, though, how did the SBI found that one policy is superior to the other, in the lack of real UBI implementation around the world. Also, the SBI does not mention which “structural problems” UBI was found not to solve, and in which countries.
More information at:
André Coelho, “India: Telangana, unconditional cash transfer to farmers and more“, Basic Income News, January 21st 2018
Sarath Davala, “Why Narendra Modi May Answer Farmers’ Distress With a Basic Income Plan“, The Wire, January 11th 2018
Anshuman Kumar, “Farmers gain as schemes bring direct benefit to parties“, The Economic Times, January 18th 2019
“Unconditional cash transfer to farmer better option: SBI report“, The Economic Times, January 22nd 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jan 24, 2019 | News
The structure of the Conference has been updated.
BIEN Civic Forum will be held on the 22nd of August. On this day, having been called “India Day”, two major plenary discussions will be held: one that focuses on the Indian state of Telangana and its policy initiatives related to basic income, and a second one about the more general debate at the Indian national level.
As for the Thematic Areas for Plenary Sessions, these have been improved and detailed, as follows:
- Ideological Perspectives and Diverse Worldviews on Basic Income
Exploring different ideological perspectives and worldviews that see an unconditional Basic Income as a desirable component of a more equitable and inclusive society
- Women’s Care and Unpaid Work: Is Basic Income an essential component of a new paradigm of Equity?
What implications and impact would basic income have on the lives women who constitute more than half of the global population? Can we talk of a sustainable society as long as we steal labor from women? Can an unconditional basic income remedy this structural inequity?
- Is Basic Income the Foundation of a Caring Economy and Society?
Is it possible to build an economy and a society that is based on values of caring, sharing and partnering rather than power, domination and control? Is an unconditional basic income an essential ingredient of such a society?
- The Emancipatory Potential: What forms of Freedom and what kind of Community Life does Basic Income promote?
Basic Income experiments across the world have demonstrated repeatedly that an unconditional basic income has a strong emancipatory effect of its recipients. It loosens the constraints of existence and liberates the mind to seek a life and a community better than what we have now. What implications does this freedom and emancipation have on us and the communities that we dwell in?
- Basic Income, the Commons and Sovereign Wealth Funds
Our society privileges and celebrates private inheritance, but it equally turns invisible what can be called our public inheritance, and the fact that it is people who own natural resources and the state is just a custodian. This perspective if implemented can radically transform the way we view, manage and account for our natural wealth and endowments.
- BI Pilots: Opportunities and Limits of Evidence
In both the low-income countries and in high-income countries, there have been basic income pilot studies. While we already have the results of some of the studies, by mid-2019, we are likely to have more results. The Congress will deliberate both the results and also what they can achieve in terms of policy change
- Basic Income and Political Action: What does it take to transform and idea into policy?
It is one thing to have strong evidence from pilot studies and something else to get the acceptance of the policy makers and persuade them to act on it. There have been some pioneers among politicians and policy-makers across continents who have taken the plunge and implemented different versions unconditional income transfers, inspired by the spirit of the idea of basic income. Do we see them as first steps towards a full UBI? Or as distortions of the idea?
- Development Aid and Corporate Philanthropy: Is Basic Income a Better Paradigm and Way Forward?
In recent years, there has been a great deal of rethinking about the effectiveness of the current paradigms of giving aid either to countries or to communities. Unconditional Basic Income is increasingly emerging as a radical alternative to conventional notions of giving aid. We witness this shift as much within the UN think-tanks as that of corporate philanthropy.
As for thematic areas for concurrent sessions have been updated and completed:
- Ideological Perspectives on Basic Income
- Women’s Care and Unpaid Work: Is Basic Income the new paradigm of Equity?
- Basic Income in Development Aid Debate: Is there a Paradigm-shift?
- Religious Perspectives on Basic Income
- Basic Income as a Foundation of a Caring Economy and Society?
- What forms of Freedom and What kind of Community Life does Basic Income promote?
- Basic Income and Blockchain Technology: Are there Synergies?
- Basic Income, Poverty and Rural Livelihoods
- Basic Income, the Commons, and Sovereign Wealth Funds: Is Public Inheritance an emerging issue?
- Basic Income Pilots: Opportunities and Limits
- Basic Income and Political Action: What does it take to transform an Idea into Policy?
- Basic Income and Corporate Philanthropy: Is Basic Income a better paradigm and way forward?
- Basic Income and Children
- Basic Income and Mental Health
- Basic Income and Intentional Communities: What does this Experience Teach us?
There will also be a Short Films Exhibition, organized in partnership with Grundeinkommen Television (Gtv), which a is part of the Initiative Grundeinkommen, a pioneering civil society initiative established in 2008. Guidelines for submission:
- The length of the Film should be below 15 minutes;
- Your film should be made in 2018 or 2019 and be shown for the first time to a wider audience at the Congress;
- The film should be in English or with English subtitles;
- Entries should reach latest by 1st June 2019;
- A committee appointed by INBI will select the entries for exhibition at the Congress;
- Two of these selected films will be jointly rewarded INBI Short Film Prize of 500 US Dollars each.
For further information and to submit films, please contact Enno Schmidt, Chair of the Committee. ennoschmidt@me.com.
General registrations can be made here. For paper abstract submission (in MS Word document between 300 and 500 words), please email to: 19biencongress.india@gmail.com.
The Congress is supported by:
LocalHi – travel and logistics
NALSAR University of Law
SEWA Madhya Pradesh
WiseCoLab
Mustardseed Trust
Everyday.earth
OpenDemocracy
CEPS, Center for Ethics, Politics and Society
Gtv, Grundeinkommen Television
by Andre Coelho | Jan 23, 2019 | News
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cartoon. Picture credit to: Folding Hamster.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) “keeps kicking ass”, as put by Nathan Robinson, editor-in-chief of the Current Affairs magazine. Unlike other young left-wing politicians in the past, who end up conforming and moderating their views on important political issues, according to (Democratic) Party Elders’ advices, AOC keeps a sharp edge, which has already won her the name “radical”. Instead of falling into meekness or fright, she has actually embraced the nickname, by stating that “I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country.” And she gives examples: Abraham Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation signature, Franklin Roosevelt with the first Social Security program. Among others, for sure.
According to some, then, AOC has been pushing nothing but “radical” ideas, ever since she was elected as an MP in Congress, last November. She starred the presentation of a Resolution which outlined the very ambitious “Green New Deal”, allowing the United States to meet its environmental duties as far as energy use and production are concerned. Using that same document, she has been also advocating for nothing less than the end of gender and class divisions in the American society, along with the abolition of poverty. Moreover, she has mentioned that the pursuit of basic income will probably be a part of a real progressive agenda for the country.
Not happy with that, and because “she doesn’t take crap”, AOC went on to defend that taxes should be raised to as much as 70% for the ultra-rich. Naturally that this proposal was met with horror by many right-wing politicians, but it seems that, actually, the proposal is sensible and is backed by 59% of Americans (recent poll by The Hill-HarrisX). This apparently “radical” proposal is also supported by mainstream economists like Paul Krugman, plus a surprising 45% of Republicans (71% of Democrats support it). AOC hasn’t found these survey results surprising, since she recognizes that “What we see, overall, is that the vast majority of Americans know that income inequality is one of the biggest issues of our time”. This fair tax hike would, according to Washington Post’s Jeff Stein, be enough to cover for Bernie Sanders’ public college plan, erase over half or deeply alleviate student debt in the US, get Barack Obama’s plan to offer universal prekindergarten off the shelf…or a very modest unconditional income of 280 US$/year for every adult citizen in the country.
On a final note, AOC has also shown to master online communication, which really helps her message coming through and, most importantly, get discussions going. Using Trump’s favorite online toy, Twitter, her comments have generated more monthly interactions (11,8 million) than the sum of three of the most popular Democratic senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, which is also more online interaction than the largest American corporate media outlets…combined.
More information at:
Nathan J. Robinson, “How AOC is changing the game”, Current Affairs, January 14th 2019
Jessica Corbett, “Call Me a Radical’: Ocasio-Cortez Suggests 70% Tax Rate for Ultra Rich to Help Pay for Green New Deal”, Common Dreams, January 4th 2019
André Coelho, “United States: Democrats add basic income to a climate change addressing plan”, Basic Income News, December 9th 2018
André Coelho, “United States: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentions basic income at a Netroots Nation event”, Basic Income News, December 29th 2018
Jake Johnson, “As Poll Shows Majority Back 70% Tax Rate for Ultra-Rich, Ocasio-Cortez’s “Radical” Proposal Proves Extremely Mainstream”, Common Dreams, January 15th 2019
Jeff Stein, “Ocasio-Cortez wants higher taxes on very rich Americans. Here’s how much money that could raise”, The Washington Post, January 5th 2019
Jake Johnson, “As Congresswoman ‘Keeps Kicking Ass’ on Social Media, Ocasio-Cortez Rejects Idea ‘Some Subjects Too Complex for Everyday People’”, Common Dreams, January 14th 2019
