A Portuguese civic movement for the promotion of basic income, named RBI-TT, has been collecting answers to a simple questionnaire on basic income, having done so already in 2016 and 2014. This way, it is possible to measure how people’s opinions change over time, at least those that answer the questionnaire online.
The questionnaire sets forth the following questions:
Where you already familiar with the basic income idea?
Do you support it?
Would you support it if it was paid for with European funds?
Would you support it if it implied eliminating unemployment benefits and reducing the highest pensions?
Would you support it if it implied an increase in taxes for everyone?
Would you support it if it implied such taxes that your net income would be reduced?
Additional questions aim at characterizing the respondents, according to age, gender, degree of schooling, occupation/activity and income level. This year’s evaluation is still ongoing, but the previous two editions gathered 2677 valid answers in total, allowing for relevant analysis.
Over these questionnaires, the percentage of people already familiar with the concept rose from 67 to 74%, while those not familiar with it get to like it at first sight, in a 51 to 72% rise, from 2014 to 2016. Here, it also clearly shows that the financing mechanism is crucial. On average, 73% of respondents support a basic income financed by European funds, while only 23% support a version which would leave them with less net income than today. This low support level for the latter version is, however, much higher among low earners than in high earners. Other interesting results are such that there is a higher incidence of unemployed or retired people supporting a basic income eliminating unemployment benefits and reducing higher pensions, than from those studying or working. And that men are more informed about basic income than women, even though the latter are more supportive of the concept.
The RBI-TT movement (UBI-AA standing for Universal Basic Income – From All to All) rests on a basic income solidarity mechanism which can be understood in this article, which was presented at the BIEN Conference 2018 in Tampere, Finland.
The plenary sessions of the BIEN Congress 2018 are now available to view, here (all).
Individually, the recordings can also be watched in the following embedded links.
Philip Alston, “Should We Frame Basic Income as a Human Right?”
Louise Haagh, “The Ethics and Economics of Basic Income Revisited”
Lena Lavinas, “Can Basic Income Resist the Financialization Logic?”
Evelyn Forget, “The Basic Income Path to a Healthier Society”
Roundtable Plenary on basic income experiments with Jamie Cooke, Sarath Davala, Evelyn Forget, Loek Groot and Olli Kangas, moderated by Philippe Van Parijs
On September 15th 2018, Donut-D-Day brought together various Dutch organizations and citizens committed to integrated systemic reforms to fight climate change, socioeconomic inequality, and unstable financial systems. The organizers used Kate Raworth‘s model of Doughnut Economics to imagine possible approaches that would balance the need for minimum standards of living for all people (the social foundation), within the environmental limits of the Earth. This day was intended to be the first encounter of longer series of meetings, aiming to connect people working on themes that are strongly linked and to facilitate their integration and collaboration.
Kate Raworth was present through a prerecorded video presentation in which she emphasized how we are currently overshooting the donut on both sides, with poverty and hunger in the center of the donut, and climate change and environmental destruction on the outside of the donut. In order to eliminate human deprivation while staying within planetary boundaries, she argues we need economies that are distributive and regenerative by design. Sources of wealth creation, particularly housing & land, energy generation, enterprise ownership, money creation, and info & technology, will need to be pre-distributed. Simultaneously, we will need to work within the cycles of the living world toward a circular or cyclical economy, investing in renewables, recognizing the potentials of waste, creating systems of repair and share, and pushing for open source standards, resources, and data. She invited people to join the discussion groups on these topics on her website.
The second presenter was Harold Boven, an economist and co-initiator of the plan Courageously Forward by the Young Democrats, which is a financially covered plan for basic income that would end all poverty in the Netherlands. Harold presented data from a Dutch study (CPB, 2016) that could not find any positive results of the 6.5 billion euros invested in activating employment policy to get unemployed people into jobs. He emphasized that basic income would not lead to inflation because it is fiscally financed and does not require the introduction of extra money. According to him, a basic income of €1200/month per single adult and €300/month per child, adding €600/month per adult when sharing a household. He presented a financing mechanism to cover the 164 billion euros annual cost for such a policy, which would come from the elimination of existing welfare programs (134 billion), the introduction of lightly progressive property taxes (14 billion), environmental and energy taxes for companies (14 billion), and inheritance taxes (2 billion). Disability payments would remain untouched. Apart from the usual advantages attributed to basic income, Harold added that it is a response to the failure to the current system and dissatisfaction with the political establishment, while presenting an alternative for emerging populism.
Anne Knol, from Environmental Defense, shared her insights on what she learned about the incredible complexities of interconnections between environmental and social problems. Anne estimated that science guides about 5% of debates, while emotion, lobby, and the interests of political parties guide the rest. She argued that campaign leaders need to present appealing stories that can compete with the story of capitalism and the widely spread and accepted idea that the market should be allowed to run its course. Anne reminded the audience about the donut economics, and to the dangers of overdoing policy on the environmental front, and then affecting people on the bottom of the income scale. On the other hand, there is the fear that if people’s standards of living are risen, that could lead to more environmental excesses. Hence the need to work on both “sides” of the donut simultaneously, ensuring a just distribution of both the costs and the benefits of environmental policies.
Herman Wijffels (Wikipedia)
The last main speaker of the day was Klaas van Egmond, professor of Geosciences at the University of Utrecht, co-initiator of the Sustainable Finance Lab, and board member of the NatureCollege. He discussed the problems in the current configuration of our financial system and the reforms necessary to break with the types of practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis and that will result in more problems in the future in they remain unchecked. Klaas explained that, in a healthy society, the main goal is the expression and implementation of values, as supported by the economy, in turn supported by the financial system. Klaas proposed that clear boundaries between the public and the private must be reinstalled, banks must not be bailed out and cannot have the power to create money. The community misses out on 40-50 billion euros per year due to money creation by private banks. This could instead be used to fund basic income and a smooth transition to sustainability. These measures would break with the cycle of growth and collapse, lead to a stable economy, and allow for complete elimination of government debts.
The day was wrapped up by Herman Wijffels, co-chair of Worldconnectors and until last October professor of sustainability and social change at the University of Utrecht. He emphasized that our current system is socially and economically dysfunctional and has been bought by capital. According to him, we are facing the end of material growth due to the exhaustion of natural resources and are on a journey through the desert to find a new promised land. Wiiffels spoke about a new type of society, with a fairer distribution of wealth, while putting the planet first. Basic income and financial reform would be key elements in the transformation of the capitalist system. In addition, he said that we need to acknowledge that masculine values are no longer appropriate for the 21st century and we should embrace feminine values, which would mean a greater care for life, connections with the Earth and all people on it.
Benoît Hamon, a former representative of the Socialist Party in France, and who ran for the French presidency in 2017 on ideas like legalizing cannabis, euthanasia, protecting “common goods” (water, air, biodiversity) in the Constitution and basic income. He lost that first run at the presidency, but is still politically active through the recently formed party named Génération.s.
In a recent short video (posted on Facebook) he criticizes elected President Emmanuel Macron, calling him cynical for not being coherent and truthful on the basic income topic. President Macron had shown openness to basic income in the past, but now, according to Hamon, has failed to follow up on his former interest by not abandoning the Revenue de Solidarité Active (RSA), a means-tested, behaviour dependent benefits program now existent in France. Hamon supports that this cynicism derives from the fact that Macron is using the basic income concept to talk about “the fight against poverty” in France, while keeping up the RSA program on the background. He adds that “it is not honest” to put this level of conditions and obligations on 9 million poor people in the country, while asking for nothing to millionaires.
Hamon also suggests that this attitude is used towards environmental policy as well, in which Macron will talk about ambitious environmental goals, but then leave in place policies which are “on radical opposition” to those goals. Concluding, Hamon call Emmanuel Macron a “specialist in counterfeits”, both on the social and environmental agendas.
Chicago’s City Hall building green roof. Picture credit to: Urban Matter
Earlier this year, the city of Chicago hit the news by introducing a resolution that would summon a taskforce to run and study a basic income trial within the Municipality. That resolution, put forth by Alderman Ameya Pawar, included the summoning of stakeholders, foundations, philanthropists and academics, to develop a basic income trial model providing an unconditional $500 /month to one thousand families in Chicago. This was in addition to the restructuring of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which will in itself be a subject of study.
That initiative received opposition from the Chicago Tribune, the most popular newspaper in the city. The paper published an editorial where it argued that the basic income trial was unaffordable and that Chicago officials should instead be finding ways to “raise incomes among working-class and poor residents”. Among the alternatives (to a basic income, experimental or full-fledged), the editorial referred to the deregulation of the private sector, which would “generate employment and boost incomes”.
Despite this opposition, Chicago leaders, including Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Ameya Pawar, just announced (through the Economic Security Project (ESP) the formation of the taskforce to which the resolution referred, having been called the Chicago Resilient Families Task Force. This cutting-edge group will explore and coordinate the basic income trial in the city, relying on an EITC modernization, which is how they will provide the monthly benefits to recipients.
The referred Task Force, in which the ESP is also investing, will be co-chaired by Tom Balanoff (Service Employees International Union President in Canada) and Celena Roldan (CEO of the American Red Cross of Chicago and Northern Illinois), and will include “civic, religious and community leaders in addition to elected officials and academics”. It will produce a report with specifications on the basic income trial, and put forward policies to reduce poverty and rise middle-class citizens incomes.
After Stockton, Chicago is now paving the way for furthering basic income in the United States, amidst a choir of opponents (including the above mentioned Chicago Tribune editorial and others).
