Ireland’s Fianna Fáil party will include a commitment to a Basic Income of €230 a week in its manifesto for next year’s general election.
The news was revealed by Fianna Fáil spokesperson for social protection and social equality, Willie O’Dea in an interview with the Sunday Times newspaper. O’Dea said that he will outline the plan in the party’s social protection policy document, which is due to be published in a few week’s time.
This commitment makes Fianna Fáil the most significant party in Ireland to support Basic Income, they are currently the largest opposition party and are usually the third largest party in opinion polls, not far behind those in front. The €230 Fianna Fáil proposal is also higher than that suggested by Social Justice Ireland, who presented a Basic Income affordability study at a BIEN conference in 2012. The Green Party also supports Basic Income but has never campaigned on it nor laid out a concrete proposal.
In terms of costing, the document says that refunding tax credits would be the first step to a Basic Income and that “Any income earned above [the Basic Income] would be taxed at a new single rate.”
The policy document will also outline some of the justification for Basic Income, making a number of criticisms of Ireland’s current taxation and social welfare system, noting that social work such as caring and volunteering go financially unrewarded. It will further mention that “It would promote gender equality, as all forms of ‘work’ are rewarded, not just paid employment.” and that “It would remove poverty traps and unemployment traps, as seeking paid employment or increased income would still be worthwhile.”
The inclusion in Fianna Fáil’s manifesto reflects the increasing political support Basic Income has been receiving worldwide in the last year.
Abstract: Thomas Piketty’s recent book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” provides a great deal of empirical support for the observation that the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the growth rate of the economy as a whole (g); i.e. “r > g”. From this observation, Piketty derives two important insights: entrepreneurs eventually become rentiers, and except during unusual circumstances, inequality tends to rise over time. This paper views Piketty’s observation against the institutional setting that has prevailed over the period of his study and makes two additional observations. First, whether Piketty’s two insights follow from his observation depends not simply on whether r is greater than g, but on whether the difference between the two is greater than the consumption of the capital-owning group. The relative size of capitalists’ consumption and capital income is not obvious, and therefore, more evidence is needed to confirm the connection between Piketty’s observation and his insights. Second, the statement r has been greater than g is more accurate than simply r is greater than g. Whether r continues to exceed g depends crucially on the political and institutional environment in question. Economists tend to view one specific institutional setting, a version of laissez faire, as natural. But there is no natural set of property institutions, and those that have prevailed over the two centuries of Piketty’s observations are extremely favorable to capital owners. Awareness of the flexibility of potential property institutions raises many ethical questions and makes many tools available to address inequality—one of the most obvious being the taxation of rent on capital distributed as a basic income.
