by Kate McFarland | Nov 27, 2016 | News
Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), has issued a cautionary statement against the province’s interest in pursuing a basic income guarantee.
The OPSEU leader’s statement comes in response to the comprehensive report published by Hugh Segal, the lead adviser to the Ontario government’s impending pilot study of a basic income guarantee, which was published on November 3.
Thomas worries that the adoption of a basic income guarantee, which enjoys much of its support from politicians on the right, would be followed with cuts in essential public services:
“Basic Income has had the support of right-wingers for decades now because of the expectation that it would reduce the government’s role in providing services, and shift that work on to families and communities. Given the direction the current Ontario government is taking on social services, I think Ontarians have every reason to be skeptical.”
“We support the goals of raising incomes for people living in poverty. We support extra counselling. We support reducing the stigma associated with social assistance. But we aren’t convinced Basic Income will do these things. If anything, it may make people a little less poor, for a little while, until public services end up on the chopping block. I’m worried that this Basic Income is just part of the Liberals’ larger plan to further privatize the province.”
Instead of a basic income guarantee, Thomas supports raising the minimum wage, expanding and increasing existing social assistance programs like Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), and maintaining funding for public services.
Segal argues in his report that a basic income should be tested as a replacement for OW and ODSP, which place limits on recipients’ earned income and work participation and thus require extensive monitoring of recipients. OW, for example, requires that recipients demonstrate “financial need” and prove that they are making “reasonable efforts” to obtain employment (in the absence of extenuating circumstances). ODSP requires that recipients document proof of a disability. According to Segal, the main purpose of the pilot is to test the effectiveness of an unconditional income guarantee against what he describes as “broad policing, control, and monitoring” inherent in these programs.
If Segal’s recommendations are adopted, Ontario’s pilot will examine–among other impacts–the cost of administering a basic income guarantee in comparison to OW and ODSP, as well as its relative effectiveness in improving health, education, and workforce participation. Segal also urges that the pilot be designed such that no participant would be financially worse off under the basic income guarantee than under these existing programs.
Thomas’s skepticism is not an unusual response from a progressive critic of basic income. In the United States, for example, anti-poverty researcher and advocate Robert Greenstein (President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) has argued that any politically feasible basic income has a high risk of leaving tens of millions of poor Americans worse off–since, to attract right-wing supporters, the policy would most likely accompany massive cuts in other programs and services (see also Greenstein’s interview in Vox). Earlier in the year, writer and attorney Joel Dodge raised similar concerns about right-wing basic income proposals in an interview with Basic Income News (following up on his article for Quartz on the same topic).
Thomas’s remarks were publicized via a OPSEU press release. The OPSEU represents more than 130,000 employees of the provincial government of Ontario (as reported on its website).
The government of Ontario is currently accepting public feedback on Segal’s report, both online and via in-person meetings, until January 31, 2017.
Reference
“OPSEU sounds note of caution on Basic Income plan” (OPSEU Press Release from November 18, 2016).
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Top photo: OPSEU at Toronto Pride Parade, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 David Allan Barker
by Kate McFarland | Nov 25, 2016 | News
Karl Widerquist, BIEN co-chair and co-founder of Basic Income News, was interviewed on a TRT World program, The Newsmakers, as part of a special segment on poverty.
In the six-minute interview, Widerquist discusses poverty and inequality in the United States and argues that a universal basic income is necessary for freedom, addressing the question of whether it is fair to give money to those who don’t work.
TRT World is the international English-language TV channel of Turkey’s national public broadcaster Turkish Radio and Television Corporation. The Newsmakers is a 30-minute program aired multiple times daily. As the channel describes it, “With in-depth reports and strong, unfiltered debates – The Newsmakers examine the people and the stories that are shaping our lives.”
Stay tuned after Karl’s interview to see the artwork of Stephen Wiltshire, a British artist who can draw cities from memory after only briefly viewing them from helicopters.
Photo: Abandoned house in New Orleans, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Gilbert Mercier
by Kate McFarland | Nov 24, 2016 | News
British journalist and broadcaster Paul Mason, author of Post-Capitalism: A Guide to Our Future, recently delivered a lecture in Amsterdam in which he points out the need for a universal basic income as a partial solution to changes in the economy due to new technologies. He raises related concerns in an article in The Guardian published shortly thereafter.
On October 25, author Paul Mason delivered a lecture at the De Balie culture center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, wherein he argues that technological advancement has been not only correlated with but in fact a cause of economic stagnation. He attributes this to several characteristics of new information technologies: the ability to automate more jobs and job tasks, the ability to produce and reproduce goods at very low (even zero) marginal cost, and the ability to combine data through networks to generate new goods not reflected in standard measures of economic growth.
In addressing how the left should respond, Mason says, “Our long-term aim should be to push more and more economic activity [to be] done outside the market and the state.” This requires, in part, that we “end [the] reliance on wages for work.” In this context, he continues: “We need quickly to pursue the experiments with the universal basic income … and aim within 10 years for states to be in a position to roll out the policy itself.”
He goes on to add, however, that UBI alone is insufficient; the state, for instance, should also provide “cheap basic goods” (he mentions housing, healthcare, education, and transportation) and promote open source and non-profit businesses.
The entire lecture, along with the Q&A session, can be viewed below. Mason has also published a text version of his lecture on Medium.
https://vimeo.com/188859000#t=8m42s
In an October 31 article in The Guardian, Mason again broached UBI as a potential solution to technological unemployment — predicting a world in which smart technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, cause paid work to become scarce and sporadic. Here, in passing, Mason also links UBI to the potential fulfillment of Marx’s vision of a society in which people are free to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, [and] criticise after dinner” without ever assuming an occupational identity as hunter, fisher, cattle-rearer, or critic.
References
Paul Mason (October 27, 2016) “Postcapitalism [in Amsterdam]” Medium.
Paul Mason (October 31, 2016) “The battle over Uber and driverless cars is really a debate about the future of humanity” The Guardian.
Photo: Paul Mason in 2015, CC-BY-SA-4.0 DTRocks via Wikimedia Commons
by Kate McFarland | Nov 24, 2016 | News
The Goenchi Mati Movement advocates for the reform of mining practices in the Indian state of Goa. Its proposals include the investment of all money from iron ore mining into a permanent fund, which would be used to finance a citizen’s dividend.
Similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, the fund’s income would be distributed equally to all citizens in the form of an unconditional cash grant, providing all Goans with a basic income.
Founded in 2014, the Goenchi Mati Movement (GMM) aspires to reform mining practices that it believes to deprive residents of Goa their deserved share of the natural resources in their homeland, while also rapidly depleting these resources and damaging the environment. Describing the state’s mining practices, the GMM’s Manifesto says, “The total loss was enormous: nearly twice the state revenues, or over 25% of per capita income, or thrice the poverty line. The loss was effectively a per head tax equally on everyone. A few have become rich from our children’s inheritance. This is clearly not a reasonable situation.”
While iron ore mining has a long history in Goa, it expanded rapidly during the mid-2000s, and quickly became plagued with malpractice and illegal activity. In September 2012, the Supreme Court of India temporarily suspended mining in the state while hearing a public interest litigation. In its final judgement in April 2014, the Supreme Court declared all mining activities to have been illegal, largely due to mining companies’ lack of valid leases and licenses.
The environmental action group The Goa Foundation submitted a series of letters to the government of Goa in 2014, wherein it demanded the recovery of losses due to illegal mining and a restructured mining system based on the Goenchi Mati Principles. However, the government did not respond and began renewing the leases of Goa’s iron ore mines near the end of the year. By early 2015, the government had renewed the leases of 88 mines.
The GMM Manifesto
The Goenchi Mati Movement has published a Manifesto that outlines its proposal, which centers on six core principles (bold typeface in original):
1. We, the people of Goa, own the minerals in common. The state government is merely a trustee of natural resources for the people and especially future generations.
2. As we have inherited the minerals, we are simply custodians and must pass them on to future generations.
3. Therefore, if we mine and we sell our mineral resources, we must ensure zero loss, i.e. capture of the full economic rent (sale price minus cost of extraction, cost including reasonable profit for miner). Any loss is a loss to all of us and our future generations.
4. All the money received from our minerals must be saved in the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund, as already implemented all over the globe. Like the minerals, the Permanent Fund will also be part of the commons. The Supreme Court has ordered the creation of a Permanent Fund for Goan iron ore and already Rs. 94 crores [about 3.8 million USD] is deposited.
5. Any real income (after inflation) from the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund must only be distributed to all as a right of ownership, a Citizen’s Dividend. This is like the comunidade zonn, but paid to everyone. [The comunidades of Goa are traditional villages in which land is owned collectively. Comunidades pay an annual dividend, called the zonn, to residents.]
6. The implementation of these principles will be done in a transparent participatory process with the people of Goa.
The GMM launched its Manifesto at a press conference on Monday, November 21, and hopes soon to publish it in multiple languages, as well as to develop a variety of supplemental materials (e.g. animated explainer videos, video-based FAQs, and even songs and street theatre).
GMM’s Claude Alvares and Rahul Basu at press conference
The Permanent Fund and Dividend
As stated in the manifesto, an important first step towards the creation of a Goan iron ore permanent fund is already in place: in April 2014, the Supreme Court of India issued an order that mandated the establishment of such a fund, which presently holds Rs 94 crores (or about 3.8 million USD). Commenting on the significance of the permanent fund, Rahul Basu of the GMM states, “It is, to our knowledge, the first such permanent fund on intergenerational equity grounds to be ordered by judicial pronouncement. If it stands up to the legal challenges, which will then also clarify some aspects of the order, it can become a global legal precedent, which makes it potentially very powerful.” However, the Supreme Court’s order did not require that the permanent fund be used to finance a citizen’s dividend.
GMM Workspace
According to the Goenchi Mati Movement, the citizen’s dividend is a crucial component of the mining reforms for several reasons. First, it gives Goan citizens a stake in the minerals in their land, creating a stronger bond between the citizens and the commons (as one of GMM’s blog posts puts it).
Second, it leaves the government without money from the sale of the state’s minerals. In the absence of money from iron ore, the government might then be forced to tax its citizens to raise revenue. Following thinkers like Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (the authors of Why Nations Fail), GMM argues that this change would promote good governance: “If the government wants to do all the various good things that need to be done, let them make a case to the people directly. If the people feel the government is good, they will agree to whatever new tax is imposed.”
Third, it compensates for what GMM sees as a bald injustice. As Basu describes it, any appropriation of parts of the commons–such as minerals and the land containing them–is effectively a “per head tax” or a “negative UBI” (that is, a practice that takes a share of resources away from every citizen).
Further reflecting on the moral significance of the dividend, Basu comments:
“Fundamentally, we are turning a lump sum mineral into a perpetual stream of Citizen’s Dividend. The Citizen’s Dividend today is given equally to everyone, achieving intragenerational equity. The perpetual nature of the Citizen’s Dividend achieves intergenerational equity. In a sense, each generation benefits to the extent of the real income. From this, we get to a practical example of the Golden Rule (the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself), but even across generations.”
GMM has been influenced by the model of Alaska’s Permanent Fund and Dividend, and also considers itself closely aligned in its thinking with Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based organization that promotes global action for the adoption of carbon tax and dividend policies.
Speaking about GMM, BIEN co-founder and honorary co-president Guy Standing said:
This is the optimum way of promoting community development while giving every man, woman and child a sense of basic security and pride in their community. It is enlightened, it is sensible, and it is eminently feasible.
Goan State Elections
With state elections to take place in early 2017, the Goenchi Mati Movement is urging Goans to vote only for politicians who will implement its Manifesto, and is currently devoting much of its attention to this political action.
As other sources confirm, mining policy is expected to be a central area of debate in the 2017 state elections. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), a relatively young party in Goa, promises sustainable mining practices, while meanwhile calling for a doubling of the mining cap. Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the Goa Foundation oppose the AAP’s plans, calling for greater restrictions.
The two major parties in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress, were in power during the controversial and illegal practices documented by the Goa Foundation — the Congress while the illegal mining practice themselves were occurring, and the BJP when the leases of the companies were renewed.
GMM states, “We urge whichever Government is elected in 2017 to immediately cancel the leases and reframe a fair and just mining policy for the people of Goa. We request the Public to join our campaign, fight for what is rightfully theirs and urge them to vote for those politicians that will change the system.”
GMM has produced a short video to emphasize this message:
Other Activities
Outside of direct political action, the Goenchi Mati Movement has been adopting other strategies to raise awareness of its vision. For example, on November 11, it sponsored an art show intended to promote reflection on the shared inheritance of the citizens of Goa. While this initial show was centered on paintings, GMM plans to host a second art show featuring cartoons, and third featuring photography.
Basu states, “Artists are at the leading edge of thinking, and they influence the masses in subtle and long term ways.”
Scenes from GMM’s Art Exhibit
Additionally, the Goa Foundation is engaging in litigation — a challenge to the structure of the Goan permanent fund (including the demand for citizen’s dividend), and a challenge to the 2014-15 lease renewals of the mines — and beginning to undertake academic research.
GMM Members at Create-a-Thon
BI-Related Reading from GMM
Rahul Basu and Deepak Narayanan (August 3, 2016) “Viewpoint: What can we learn from a campaign for zero-loss mining in Goa?” Citizen’s Income Trust.
Connects the activities of the Goenchi Mati Movement to the worldwide movement for basic income. Published on the blog of BIEN’s UK affiliate, the Citizen’s Income Trust.
Goenchi Mati (September 20, 2016) “Why should all mineral receipts be saved in the Permanent Fund?”
Argues that mineral receipts should be saved only in a permanent fund.
Goenchi Mati (October 28, 2016) “Why a Citizen’s Dividend? Why only a Citizen’s Dividend?”
Addresses the counterargument that some of the revenue of the iron ore permanent fund should go to the government instead of directly to the citizens.
Longer Video on the Goenchi Mati Movement (22:59)
Thanks to Rahul Basu for supplying information and photos, and for reviewing an earlier draft of this article.
Cover Image CC Frederick Noronha
by Kate McFarland | Nov 23, 2016 | Research
Malcolm Torry, director of the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) and co-secretary of BIEN, has prepared a report on implementing a citizen’s income (i.e. a basic income for UK citizens) for the Institute for Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW).
Malcolm Torry (picture: Citizen’s Income Trust)
In a report written for ICAEW’s opinion column, its “Outside Insights“ series, Torry develops four different proposals to implement a basic income guarantee wherein weekly cash grants are disbursed in equal amounts to all adult UK citizens. (As mentioned below, however, two of the proposals recommend that the government move toward a universal basic income by first introducing equal and unconditional cash transfers within certain subpopulations.)
As is common in the UK, Torry refers to the policy as a “citizen’s income”, which he defines as “an unconditional, non-withdrawable income, paid automatically to every individual as a right of citizenship” — or, roughly, a universal basic income for citizens. (Here, I will use the terms ‘basic income’, ‘UBI’, and ‘citizen’s income’ interchangeably.)
On Torry’s proposals, the amount of the payouts would be the same for all citizens, regardless of earnings, although higher earners might be taxed more heavily. This is slight but notable difference from the form of basic income guarantee under consideration by the government of Ontario, for example, which is planning to test a model wherein the amount of the cash grants is tapered off with earnings (that is, a negative income tax).
The ICAEW report briefly addresses several common objections to basic income, and reviews the types of “feasibility” analyzed in detail in Torry’s book, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, published earlier in the year –including (to use his terms) financial, psychological, behavioral, administrative, political, and policy-process feasibility.
A Citizen’s Income: Four Schemes
Against this background, Torry investigates four specific models for implementing a basic income:
1. The first proposal is to introduce a universal basic income at a level at least as high as the UK’s current benefit cap, which would replace current means-tested social assistance. Torry notes that this scheme would be most feasible in a highly automated economy, in which a portion of the proceeds on machine production could be used to fund the citizen’s income, and wherein any potential work disincentive effects of the UBI would be benign to the economy. However, he does not believe that it is currently financially feasible, since financing it would require either massive increases in income tax rates or additional sources of revenue.
2. The second proposal is to introduce a smaller level of UBI (e.g. £60 per week for working age adults) without abolishing current means-tested benefits. Under this scheme, the government would take account of the amount of income received through the UBI when determining eligibility for additional social welfare benefits. Torry states that this scheme could be funded by a 3% increase in income taxes. However, he hypothesizes that it would be unpopular (psychologically infeasible) due to the redistribution of money from income earners to other working-age adults.
3. The third proposal is to phase in a UBI by gradually introducing it to successive age-cohorts of young adult. Torry recommends that the government begin with a universal child benefit £45 per week per child under the age of 16, and a citizen’s income of £60 per week for each person 16 years of age. The latter would then retain the citizen’s income in subsequent years, while those who turn 16 would begin to receive it.
Torry notes that, without additional pressure to implement a fully universal basic income, it could take 40 to 50 years for the entire population to receive the unconditional benefits. However, he believes that it is one of the most feasible options (on all dimensions of feasibility).
4. The fourth and final proposal, which Torry also considers to be relatively feasibility, is to phase in a UBI in the opposite age-wise direction: beginning by introducing the benefit to “pre-retired” adults (e.g. those over age 60) who voluntarily opt into the program.
The ICAEW has more than 147,000 members worldwide from the finance professions. The organization itself does not take an official stand on citizen’s income.
Read More:
The full report is available for download from the ICAEW website: Malcolm Torry, “How might we implement a citizen’s income?“
The CIT has also published a blog post summarizing the results of the report: Citizen’s Income Trust (November 16, 2016) “ICAEW report on implementing Citizen’s Income”
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Cover image: “Chartered Accountant’s Hall” CC BY-SA 2.0 R4vi
