by Andre Coelho | Apr 29, 2019 | News
Jurgen De Wispelaere and Eduardo Suplicy, at the Catholic University of São Paulo.
The Brazilian Basic Income Network (Rede Brasileira da Renda Básica) was finally formalized on the 26th of April, 2019. The organization had been formed in 2010, when the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) 13th Congress was organized in São Paulo, Brazil. At the time, BIEN members where received by Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Interest in basic income has been rising in Brazil, as well as around the world, and so a decision was made to formalize the Brazilian Basic Income Network, the Brazilian affiliate of BIEN. This was done at a meeting last Friday, where its new statutes and objectives were examined and its members elected. Also, study groups were also formed, in order to find ways to institute the Citizens Basic Income (in Brazil) as expressed in the Law 10.835/2004, approved by the National Congress and sanctioned by President Lula on January 8th, 2004.
The event was held at São Paulo’s City Council, in its Auditorium Sérgio Vieira de Melo, from 2 to 6:30 pm. Related to the event, two other speaking events were held in the city. On Thursday, April 25th, at the Catholic University of São Paulo, Jurgen De Wispelaere spoke about “Experiences of Basic Income in different places in the World” and on Friday 26th, at BookShop Tapera Taperá, Lena Lavinas presented a talk entitled “Citizen Basic Income: A Social Policy for the XXI?”, an initiative of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
by Andre Coelho | Apr 26, 2019 | News
Scott Santens
Back in September 2016, Scott Santens gave an interview, published in Forbes Magazine, which he now reads on this podcast. Near the end of the podcast, Santens says what might summarize his position on the relationship between basic income and work:
If we truly do want a free society, we should care about making a free market for labour, and we should recognize that the work people choose to do voluntarily, is the work people do best.
by Andre Coelho | Apr 26, 2019 | Opinion
Creativity has nothing to do with money. That might sound strange, in a world where some artists get rich beyond recognition, and thousands go by unrecognized. But when someone creates something, he or she does it out of a primal urge to give life to something new, to express feelings and to show there is more to a human being than meets the eye.
Money is about access to resources and trust. Of course, an artist needs access to resources, like any other human being, and to trust and be trusted in the use of human talent. They need things in order to survive and thrive. There is no such thing as an absolutely independent person. We are all interdependent. What sometimes gets difficult to understand is the role of art in society. Because, what is art anyway? And, is it important? If so, are there art forms we should value, and others which are worthless?
A society without art is a dead society. Surely, it is not indispensable for survival but, really, who wants to just survive? Our brains have grown too large to be satisfied only with the comings and goings of getting shelter, food, water, and clothing. At the end of the day, we all crave for song, story, and image. For some kind of beauty. Granted, people like different things, and that is why there are audiences, smaller or larger, for every conceivable form of art. But to say some art products are genius, and others are rubbish, misses the point.
First, because that is simply not true. Art quality is totally relative to taste, culture, and time. Even to a particular personal disposition: the same song might appeal to us on a sunny day, but not on a rainy one. Secondly, because to say something is rubbish implies that whoever thinks otherwise is somehow wrong, or inferior. That is also wrong. There are no second-rate humans or species. Nature does not create inferior beings: all are part of this universe’s creation, and unique as such. Hence, all beings are equally important. Even if we do not like what they do.
This brings us back to the original point: selling art makes no sense. Because let’s face it, when we love something, it is not about the money. We may worry we do not have enough of it to go to that concert, or to buy that book or, from the creator side, to spend enough hours creating without knowing if that will generate enough income to sustain a human life within this society. But the primal thrust is related to feeling. To the need to feel, not to have enough food on the plate. And that is something universal.
So, probably, in no other human activity will a universal basic income make more sense than in the arts. If creators are freed from the nonsense of selling their art, for a bunch of coins or for millions, eventually people will also be freed from the need to pay for it, which is what we all want. For who is he or she that does not like to be offered a gift?
by Andre Coelho | Apr 24, 2019 | News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz4ZflSFVrs
Andrew Yang, the only Democrat presidential candidate to the US elections in 2020 announcing a basic income policy in his platform, has been on CNN Presidential Town Hall, solo featured on the latest 14th of April.
At this televised campaign event, Yang was clear about his intentions to help Americans transition through these present times of great transformation and uncertainty. Central to his campaign is the Freedom Dividend policy (unconditional 1000$/month for every adult starting at 18) which, according to him, will be a key policy to help people to retrain, gain other skills and stay active in entering this new age of automation. He points out other potential benefits to be gained from the Freedom Dividend, such as deep reduction of bureaucracy, paternalism in social services, stigma for beneficiaries and social security running costs. He also referred the increased leverage power accruing to individual workers and unions, if they had such a thing as the Freedom Dividend to fall back onto.
In the show, he was faced with most of the important questions asked to any presidential candidate, namely related to policies in economy, employment, health, education, housing, drug use and possession and gun control. The environment was, however, a clear absence in this CNN’s Town Hall show, which could be an indication of what really are the priorities in the minds of American people. Specifically, speaking about the employment issue, Yang was direct to say that “the goal should not be to save jobs, the goal should be to make our lives better”, which is very different from what other Democratic candidates (e.g.: Bernie Sanders) are saying (Federal Jobs Guarantee). Nevertheless, Andrew Yang is certain that the Freedom Dividend “does not solve all problems for all people, but it will move us in the right direction”.
Faced with the inevitable question on how to pay for the Freedom Dividend, Yang underlines the importance of “we have to go where the money is”. As an experienced entrepreneur, and specifically one related to technology, Yang has an idea about how much money tech giants (e.g.: Facebook, Uber, Google, Amazon) have, and how much they owe in federal taxes. So, according to him, effectively taxing these companies will make up for the most part of the Freedom Dividend cost, plus any savings possible from eliminating obsolete social benefit schemes (due to the implementation of the dividend).
He also attributes the rise of hate ideologies (e.g.: white supremacy) as a result of a dysfunctional economy, because poor, stressed people are easier to scare into these hateful discourses. Removing, therefore, “the economic boot off people’s throats” will definitely help diminish these polarizing hate agendas which, according to him “have no place in our society”. Yang also believes the Freedom Dividend will improve people’s chances of getting better housing conditions (although refers municipal intervention as important, in order to provide for affordable housing) and better school performance. On the latter, he cites research that says 75% of kid’s performance at school depends on non-school factors, among which one of the most important is economic condition. Hence, the Freedom Dividend can also help kids learn more, and better.
More information at:
André Coelho, “United States: Andrew Yang is not only talking about basic income: if elected, the idea is to implement it”, Basic Income News, 15th March 2019
Jason Burke Murphy, “Unites States: Andrew Yang reaches milestone: likely to be in a televised debate”, Basic Income News, 19th March 2019
by Andre Coelho | Apr 22, 2019 | News
Wall painting in Sheffield.
The Universal Basic Income (UBI) Lab Sheffield, a campaigning group working from the city of Sheffield, northern UK, has written to all the 84 city councilors in the region, as a move to have them support a local basic income experiment.
The main driver behind the initiative is to “ensure that nobody is economically left out, and that nobody lives in poverty”, in the words of Sam Gregory. This basic income experiment, as proposed by the UBI Lab Sheffield, would be applied in one of three ways:
- Removing conditions from social benefits from around 4000 ill or disabled people (while another 4000 people group act as control group) (costing around 18 million £);
- Paying 130 £/month (Note 1) to 4000 adults living next to each other (for instance, in a neighbourhood) (costing around 23 million £);
- Applying different tax and benefits rules to a 4000 people group, whereas one subset would get, unconditionally, 6000 £/year, disabled or retired people would receive benefits above that level, and children would benefit from a smaller amount. Costing 60 million £, the test pilot would be funded by a new income tax (applied only within that 4000 people group), ensuring that all those earning less than 25000 £/year would see a net raise in their income.
This experiment is set to last for three years, according to the UBI Lab Sheffield’s design strategy. The idea is to measure several outputs, including but not limited to participation in the (paid) workforce, such as broader activity and personal care. Interviews and other qualitative studies would also be a part of all options, as described above.
Campaigners consider Sheffield a promising basic income test ground, but recognize that the city has no funding options for such an experiment. So, it would have to depend on central government financing, which can be more difficult, considering all the political agitation at the moment due to the Brexit-related issues (Sheffield was one of Britain’s cities to marginally vote pro-Brexit). However, the Labour Party is strong in Sheffield (holds 53 out of 84 seats in the city council), and its candidates for the upcoming elections in May already asked UBI Lab Sheffield for information. Sheffield Green Party is also supporting an UBI experiment in the city, as part of its campaign to the city council elections.
Note 1 – The National Living Wage in the UK is around 1300 £/month (calculated from hourly living rate for workers aged 25 and over).
More information at:
Mike Brown, “Universal Basic Income: Brexit-Voting Sheffield May Be England’s First Test”, Inverse, April 1st 2019
Mark Bryan, Jason Leman (lead authors), “Proposal for a Sheffield pilot“, UBI LAB Sheffield, March 2019
