by Guest Contributor | Jan 13, 2017 | Opinion
Imagine entering a website for your country which after answering a few questions would inform you how much money you would receive from a basic income. This is net of any increased taxes from each of the financing models proposed to finance the UBI. This site will also tell you how the country would be affected overall. Each of the variables are listed and are changeable, which gives those interested the ability to measure results from all possible outcomes.
We have this now in a Google Docs spreadsheet form, and it has been forwarded to all the members of the international BIEN outreach group of which I am a member. The original Excel version can be found here.
The outreach group has several objectives. My primary focus in this group is the collaboration, communication, connection, and mutual support of the international groups who are working on modelling, financing and forwarding a universal basic income.
At the congress earlier this year, I presented a paper on a European wide basic income financed by a collective goods and services or value added tax. This was a costed model which indicated that an increase of the European VAT rate of 16 percent to 22 percent would be sufficient to finance a basic income of 150 to 200 Euros for everyone in the European union over the age 18. The expected results for Europe was people had more money to spend, there was increasing employment, no need for austerity measures, big savings in bureaucracy and healthy economies in Europe with the measures they need to cope in a changing world.
While 96 percent of people in Europe would be better off with this UBI, a higher percentage could have been achieved by having a tax-free income allowance as well with a slightly higher GST rate. I was not able to model this, as it impacts individual member budgets while I was seeking a collective UBI agreement keeping with the existing aligned VAT rates across Europe. However, this is the suggestion that I made to the New Zealand government last year.
The Labour party here, along with all the left-leaning parties, have indicated an interest in or directly support UBI. I find that reading other people’s spreadsheets brings on a headache so I have designed an interactive model that hides away the calculations and simply delivers the results of each financial model in a dollar value for your individual circumstance.
I have made this template available to the BIEN international community. They would need to enter their own existing welfare budget, the country tax and VAT incomes. It also asks for the population income and taxation per income band. Doable from web sources in some countries, but needing real work and government assistance in others. It does offer a way to map financial results given different financing models.
While we could disperse this information through our own networks, I have an additional objective in that there are six questions that the website would require you to answer, most of which relate directly to the calculation of your personal UBI net advantage. While the other asks whether you would leave your job if you received a UBI. I will consult with the parties here as to whether they need anything further answered as there were hints of a UBI financed by a capital gains tax which would be interesting to compare.
The four models currently considered are:
- Tax free earnings to $100,000 and UBI of a higher amount financed by a raise in GST.
- A moderate UBI financed by a raise in GST.
- A lower UBI financed by the top tax rate.
- A lower UBI financed by increasing the income tax by the same percentage.
My conclusions are as follows:
- The bottom earners of less than $16,000 are best off with the model (1) as are the people earning more than $70,000.
- The middle earners from $16,000 to $70,000 (the majority) are better off with model (3) however the top tax rate would need to be more than 100 percent and therefore it is not possible.
- Model (2) has the second best overall result of $10,187 average extra money per person yearly. Model (1) has the best of $13,376.
- Model (4) has a similar overall result to model three of an $8,604 average additional income per person annually.
The spreadsheet also adds the total cash benefit for the entire population, and I hope that if this was put to a vote that this would be given due attention, as the extra cash received by many from the top tax being increased is not much more than from the tax-free GST model. The country total is $47 billion for the GST model compared to $26 billion for the top tax. This gap widens as the variables are changed.
My conclusion is that the tax-free GST model is the best method of financing UBI for New Zealand.
My hope is that someone will first audit these findings and bring about this information being shared on a website. This way, people get a chance to view what a UBI means to them and their country. The questions answered will help developers with the data they need to see what the likely outcomes for their country would be.
A final note – A tax on spending enables people to save with the extra UBI they receive, seek employment without a punishing higher tax rate, get a entry-level job without paying any tax on it and still receive the full UBI.
UPDATE: Added new spreadsheet version.
About the Author:
Peter Brake is a self-employed accountant in a busy public practice and a part time organically certified olive farmer. A member of the BIEN outreach task-force, one of four members charged with creating a space in the next congress for Bien affiliates and international developers of UBIs to share their progress, discuss common problems and brainstorm common solutions. He is actively involved with the British, European, Indian and New Zealand UBIs.
by Guest Contributor | Jan 11, 2017 | Opinion
On January 9th, Zygmund Bauman passed away at the age of 91. He is considered one of the great philosophers and sociologist of our time, who introduced the concept of “liquid modernity” to describe the postmodern age.
He is the main character in the recently released documentary “In the Same Boat” where he urges to tackle global problems on a global scale, and suggests exploring new roads such as a universal basic income.
Read more in this review: “Man vs machine, or man ahead with machine?”
MACHINE VS MAN, OR MAN AHEAD WITH MACHINE?
Written by: Bart Grugeon Plana
In the modern era, digital technology is substituting human brain power in a similar way as the steam engine did in the eighteenth century, making muscle power inefficient. Would it be possible, however, to harness this digital revolution for the benefit of humans and the planet, to share prosperity? The documentary “In the Same Boat,” which is being released in several countries throughout Europe, has opened up this interesting debate.
We are in the middle of a new industrial revolution and with the advance of Artificial Intelligence, this process is affecting an increasing number of sectors in the economy. Not only is traditional blue-collar work being carried out by machines, but also work that requires specifically human capabilities. In the coming years, for instance, the self-driving car will turn the transportation sector on its head.
This revolution in productivity can be seen as good news, since machines will do our traditional work and we can dedicate our time to education, care, hobbies and services. Also, new technologies and the availability of huge amounts of data allow us to optimise the planet’s scarce resources. However, there is no guarantee that the increase of wealth will be spread over the inhabitants of the planet with any criterion of equity. There is a real risk that the ownership of machines will be reduced to a small number of people and that the great majority of the world’s population will be left without the means to generate an income.
Most countries in the world have seen income inequality rise during the last decade, in part because of the technological revolution. Economic data (Link 1) show that since the year 2000, the western economy has invested more in technology and less in human capital. This strategy has endowed innovative entrepreneurs with more benefits, without creating more jobs or raising average incomes. The generated wealth went to a tiny minority. Wealth accumulation can come if you already have financial capital and know how to invest it, but if you depend on selling your skills in the labour market, it becomes more difficult to make a living.
When looking at the data of the concentration of wealth, there isn’t much margin for many interpretations. There are 62 people in the world that are as wealthy as the poorest half of the global population. In the US, the middle class is endangered; in the period of economic recovery between 2009 and 2013, the top one per cent of the population was assigned 25 times more of the national revenue than the rest (Link 2).
Many people feel that they are being excluded from the labour market, and they are aware that they have little chance to win the race against the machines. The solution is to learn to work ahead with technology and to think about a strategy to create wealth together, says Erik Brynjolfsson, an expert in information economy (Link 3).
“We are in full transformation towards the society of the 21th century, and the outcome is still open: either with shared prosperity, or, at the contrary, with more inequality. This decision depends on our individual choices and on our strategy as a society. The power is in our hands. Technology is merely an instrument,” Brynjolfsson said.
RECONCILIATION OF POWER AND POLITICS
Image still from ‘In the Same Boat’
The dominant political debate today doesn’t pay much attention to the digital revolution we are experiencing, and mainly focuses on creating favourable conditions to stimulate companies to create as many jobs as possible.
This way of thinking conforms to the paradigm of the second half of the 20th century, when we got used to the idea of ‘full employment’, explains sociologist Zygmund Bauman (Link 4). In our social consciousness, the normal situation is to be in employment and a person that is ‘un-employed’ does not fit this normality. However, in the new technological world, the techniques of the past don’t seem to work, and a solution for the structural problem of unemployment hasn’t yet been found. In Europe, 8.5 per cent of the active population has no job, with significant regional and age variation (Link 5). The situation in Greece and Spain is the most alarming.
According to Bauman (Link 6), we don’t know how to regain control over our economic system because it operates on a global scale: “With just one click on a computer, a company can decide to move 100.000 jobs from here to another part of the planet where labour conditions are more interesting,” he asserts, “Capital and finance move without restraints, but labour does not.”
Looking for solutions, citizens turn to the political class who ultimately can’t influence the economic decision-making process. “They have a local sphere of action, mainly at the level of the nation-state, but power is organised on a global scale and escapes from political control. This divorce between power and politics is the essence of the problem of our society in transformation”, says Bauman, who considers it is a task of all citizens to reconcile both (Link 7).
For the first time in human history, all inhabitants of the planet are interconnected and are interdependent. If we want to resist the populist and protectionist wave that is extending over the globe after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, we must think about different ways to organise work and to distribute wealth. Several experts insist that we should radically rethink the foundations of our society and they propose an open dialogue to come to sensible solutions.
WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT
The documentary “In the Same Boat” made a momentous effort to open this debate and to project the voices that invoke a new paradigm. Zygmund Bauman, Serge Latouche, Tony Atkinson, Mariana Muzzucato, José Mujica and many others explain why the current labour model has hit a dead end. With a cinematographic style, spectacular photography and a varied musical palette, the film is fresh and inspiring, even whilst dealing with such a weighty subject as the future of humanity.
Zygmund Bauman considers the message of ‘In the Same Boat’ the complete antithesis of Margaret Thatcher’s famous slogan ‘TINA’; claiming that “There Is No Alternative” to the liberalisation of all parts of society as it is the only way to guarantee welfare. On the contrary, the polish sociologist proposes to “change the course of the boat that all inhabitants of the planet are in”. He believes that the new paradigm of the 21st century should cut the ties between income and work. “We should abandon the idea of working to make our living. We cannot condition the right to live to the interests of the company we work for,” he argues (Link 8).
The documentary proposes a universal basic income as one of the solutions to fair wealth redistribution. It is not considered a charity for the misfortunate, but rather a technological dividend of the past — a common right. Mariana Mazzucato (Link 7), an economist specialized in technological innovation, explains that “innovation largely depends on public financing and on a collective effort. Moreover, innovation today is a heritage of discoveries of the past.” In other words, what makes your smartphone smart (battery, GPS, Internet, mathematical algorithms, touch screen, etc.) are no individual or private inventions, but are the result of the effort of society as a whole with publicly-funded research programs. Why is it then that the benefits of this technological heritage go to just a privileged minority? How can it be justified that the cost and the risk of research is burdened by the public, but the rewards are privatised? If technology allows us to delegate work to machines due to the effort of many generations, wouldn’t the legitimate heir be society as a whole?
The film has arrived at the precise moment to put the current economical and institutional crisis into a wider perspective. Hopefully it can help to spark a global debate about the necessary societal changes.
“In the Same Boat” was released in Spain in November 2016 and will be screened in other countries during 2017. Members of the Basic Income Network that want to organise local screenings can contact the team on the Facebook page www.facebook.com/inthesameb.
Included is the trailer of the documentary and the presentation with Zygmund Bauman, talking about the future of work. Barcelona, February 2016.
About the author:
Bart Grugeon Plana works as an investigative journalist for the Barcelona based newspaper La Directa, and collaborates with other news platforms such as Apache.be and Ouishare Magazine. He has a special interest in common-based peer production, collaborative economy, platform cooperativism and energy transition.
Trailer In the Same Boat
Interview with Zygmund Bauman
Link 1 the great decoupling
https://hbr.org/2015/06/the-great-decoupling
Link 2 US inequality
https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/107100.pdf
Link 3 Brynjolfsson
https://raceagainstthemachine.com/
Link 4 Bauman
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2013/05/europe-is-trapped-between-power-and-politics/#
Link 5 EU unemployment
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics#Unemployment_trends
Link 6 Bauman
https://wpfdc.org/images/docs/Zygmunt_Bauman_Living_in_Times_of_Interregnum_Transcript_web_I.pdf
Link 7 Bauman
https://directa.cat/actualitat/zygmund-bauman-ordinadors-poden-fer-nostra-feina-essers-humans-serem-redundants
Link 8 Mazzucato
https://marianamazzucato.com/the-entrepreneurial-state/
by Guest Contributor | Jan 9, 2017 | Opinion
Seth Ackerman, Mateo Alaluf, Jean-Marie Harribey, Daniel Zamora. Contre l’allocation universelle , Lux Éditeur. Kindle Edition, 2016
Review by: Pierre Madden
This is a book written by and for French intellectuals. Hegelian and Marxist notions are bandied about like so many baseball scores. Nevertheless, the message is plain and the reason for the vigorous opposition to Basic Income (BI) is clear. Some of the points inviting skepticism are well taken. Tracing the origins of BI back to Thomas More and Thomas Paine is in fact quite a stretch. The same familiar More passage is always quoted but have you ever seen a different one? We are dealing here with a posteriori myth making to establish legitimacy.
For this group of authors, the concept of BI is a part of neoliberal ideology. “The concept of BI is tied to the emergence of neoliberalism both in its response to the crisis [in post-war social protection] and in the conception of social justice it embodies.” Furthermore, in the words of economist Lionel Stoléru “the market economy can encompass the fight against absolute poverty” but “it is incapable of digesting stronger remedies against relative poverty.” The latter refers to income inequality rather than to deprivation.
Neoliberalism is opposed to the concept of social rights. A generous BI would be prohibitively expensive without cutbacks in “collective” spending such as welfare, education, public pensions, health, etc. Market forces would replace the idea and institutions of social justice. The “equality of chances” defended by neoliberalism would lead to a society that is more meritocratic but no less unjust, claim the authors.
It is no secret that wealth has increased dramatically since the 1970s but that the rich have benefited disproportionately. BI is seen by the authors as a Trojan horse in the heart of Social Society, whose purpose is to undo all of the social programs developed in the 20th century before the advent of neoliberalism. Proponents in the libertarian left argue that BI would be the “Capitalist road to Communism,” in the words of Philippe Van Parijs himself. BI is seen as a synthesis of liberal and socialist utopias. A description of the conflicting attitudes towards work will best illustrate the divergence in approaches. The classic leftist view is that a citizen’s work defines his contribution to society and tends to conflate work and employment. It is up to society to validate each member’s work effort. The authors claim that BI proponents refuse to accept the idea that work can be a factor for social integration, thus their view that full employment is not a useful goal. On the contrary “the social utility of an activity cannot be established as valid a priori; it must be submitted to democratic approval.”
What democratic approval would mean in practice is not explained but then the Swiss were asked to approve BI with few details provided and 23% voted in favour. Another argument in favour of BI is that it would enable natural caregivers in the home to provide for the young, the sick and the elderly. The authors of this book cannot agree that these activities are valid work in the Marxian sense. To believe otherwise, they say, is “to espouse neoclassical propositions omnipresent in economic pseudoscience.” Some feminists also oppose BI because they see it as a trap to keep women in traditional roles.
So, is BI just a neoliberal plot to destroy the social protections developed in the post-war years by the social state that are inextricably linked to the strength of labour? If not a conspiracy, BI is presented as the culmination of the free market utopia in our collective neoliberal imagination.
The four writers of this tract are nostalgic of more coherent times:
“Since Durkheim,the sociological tradition considers that in developed societies, the division of labour and the resulting specialization of functions produces a solidarity that assures social cohesion. The assignment of individuals to social positions does not only depend on their own will. Impersonal social forces, determinism, belie the claims that attribute to individual merit alone the possibilities of emancipation. The more autonomous the individual the more dependent he is on society. We cannot therefore be but ourselves, anchored in our individuality, to the extent that we are social beings.”
This is no longer the world we live in. In a post-industrial sharing economy, we are still social beings but employment where labour is pitted against capital no longer defines us. The nostalgic socialist authors are justifiably suspicious of neoliberal aims to cut existing social programs but these have a long history and broad support. Making sure that BI beneficiaries do no receive less than before is a part of any serious discussion or test of Basic Income. Vigilance is always appropriate but not to the extent of, as we say in French, tripping on the flowers woven into the carpet.
Book reviewer biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
by Guest Contributor | Dec 24, 2016 | Opinion
“Quatinga Velho, the lifetime Basic Income”
The nonprofit organization ReCivitas distributed a basic income to residents of the Brazilian village Quatinga Velho from 2008 to 2014. In January 2016, ReCivitas launched a new initiative, Basic Income Startup, which aspires to resume the Quatinga Velho basic income payments and make them lifelong.
A new initiative, the Basic Income Projects Network, aims to bring together other nongovernmental organizations that wish to start their own privately-funded basic income pilots.
Marcus Brancaglione, president of ReCivitas, writes this update:
The ReCivitas Institute is an NGO founded in 2006 that works to apply factual guarantees to human rights in independent public policies.
Since 2008, we have developed and sustained the Unconditional Basic Income pilot project in Quatinga Velho, Brazil, which is an internationally recognized project in Basic Income studies and research.
As of January 16th, 2016, Basic Income payments are now permanent, and no longer just a part of an experiment. For 14 people the Unconditional Basic Income has started to be for a lifetime. Now, with our enhanced peer-to-peer model, they also contribute, according to their ability to do so, to these payments.
The project is now called BASIC INCOME STARTUP, because for every 1,000 Euros donated, for no additional cost, a new person that lives anywhere that 40 Reais can make a difference (that is, a person that really needs that money) will start to receive the lifetime basic income.
And it bears emphasizing: for every 1,000 Euros that are donated, RECIVITAS will remove one person from the most abject conditions of primitive deprivation — the kinds of conditions that every Basic Income activist should never forget actually exists.
This project was designed during our last trip to Europe in 2015, while we observed the inequality between refugees and European citizens.
In Brazil, the Brazilian Network for Basic Income is being formed by local communities and independent institutions. The aim is to expand and replicate the model in the ghetto, forgotten places of the world, because poverty has a face and an address, therefore programs that fight poverty do not need focusing techniques or conditionalities, because the people who are in dire need of help already live in segregation.
ReCivitas would like to use this rare opportunity to invite other projects and local communities that are paying, or wish to pay, a basic income, to join us and form the Basic Income Projects Network.
Through partnerships with local organizations, the Quatinga Velho model can be replicated in any community around the world, including ones with the same difficulties: with small amounts of their own capital, no governmental support or support by private corporations, and some amount of international solidarity and support.
We have decided to propose this partnership, especially after the World Social Forum, for two reasons. First, because we have finally realized how much we have accumulated in shareable knowledge in these ten years— knowledge that must be shared with those who really want to accomplish things. Second, because we want to help in the construction of these new projects, especially the ones that are more open to those who really need them.
For more information about the network, including the terms of the partnership for participating groups, please see the “Basic Income Project Network” page on the ReCivitas website.
Marcus Brancaglione, President of ReCivitas
by Guest Contributor | Dec 23, 2016 | News
Professor Krustyo Petkov, a prominent Basic Income advocate in Bulgaria and the former Chairman of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions, passed away on the night of Friday, 23 December, after a painful illness.
In the past years the professor struggled with cancer but continued to work.
Krustyo Petkov Petkov is a Bulgarian scholar and politician, chairman of the United Labour block, founded in 1997. He was Chairman of Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria from 1990-1997.
He was also an MP from the parliamentary group of Coalition for Bulgaria in the 39th National Parliament.
Professor Petkov was born on 18 November 1943 in the village of Knyaz Aleksandrovo (now Dimovo). He graduated from the School of Irrigation in Pavlikeni and in 1968 graduated with a degree in “Political Economy” at the University of Economics “Karl Marx” – Sofia (now the University of National and World Economy).
In 1986, he defended his doctoral dissertation on the issue of labor relations and was appointed professor of sociology at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”.
Professor Petkov specialized in sociology, sociology of labor economics and social policy at the Academy of Sciences in Novosibirsk, the International Institute for Labour in Geneva, at the University of Economics and Political Science in England.
He has participated in university programs and seminars in the US, the University of Michigan, Berkeley, Duke and others.
Professor Petkov is renowned for advocating the idea of Basic Income in Bulgaria and beyond. Thanks to his active support, Bulgaria gathered 300% signatures above the quota for the European Citizen’s Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income from 2013 through 2014.
He helped a lot with his huge public and policy experience in creation of a modern political party, which included in its program the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income in Bulgaria: the Bulgarian Union of Direct Democracy, BUDD.
He was a speaker at the meetings of Unconditional Basic Income Europe 2014 and 2015.
May he rest in peace!
Photos from “Почина проф. Кръстьо Петков – след тежко и мъчително боледуване” (epicenter.bg).
