by Tyler Prochazka | Jul 8, 2016 | News
This past month, United Kingdom’s Compass advocacy and publication website published an analysis of the basic income. The report discussed how the basic income could be introduced in the UK, and how it would interact with other social service programs.
One of the authors, Stewart Lansley, a Compass associate and visiting fellow in the School of Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, discussed how “income support is being weakened while secure work is becoming less available,” and how the basic income would address the impending “robotic revolution.”
The Compass report mentions the sanctions that have been introduced in UK’s entitlement system and how that was leading some to fall through the cracks. What do you think the biggest challenge of the UK’s current entitlement system is and how does the UBI address it?
Britain’s system of social security – complex and unpopular – needs a fundamental rethink. With much greater reliance on means-testing, and the erosion of the role of universal benefits, it has moved sharply away from the original Beveridge blueprint. Further, the level of conditionality has been raised, with governments exercising greater and greater control over the lives of claimants, making the system much more punitive and intrusive. Since 2013, more than one million claimants have been sanctioned, leading to a loss of benefits for between one month and three years for some of the most vulnerable of claimants.
Mass sanctioning has led to an increase in destitution and has been one of the principal drivers of the great surge in dependency on food banks. By guaranteeing a weekly income, even at a modest rate, a universal basic income (UBI) would boost the universal element of income support, reduce dependency on means-testing and bring an end to sanctioning.
What are the economic and societal risks that the UBI schemes outlined in the Compass report address?
A UBI would help tackle two key economic and social risks. First, the widespread insecurity and growing risk of poverty associated with work. Today, more than 60 percent of those in relative poverty in the UK are in work, a significant rise compared with the immediate post-war decades. By providing a guaranteed, if modest income, a UBI offers a more robust safety net in a much more insecure, low paid and fragile working environment and will help reduce the risk of poverty amongst those in work.
Secondly, whatever its ultimate impact, the impending technological and robotic revolution is set to bring further disruption and upheaval to jobs and pay. Crucially, a UBI offers an effective way of providing income protection from the wider repercussions of accelerated automation. Further, the robotic revolution may eventually bring significant productivity gains, though to what extent and when remains uncertain. Although these are yet to be realized, these could offer potentially new and significant social and economic opportunities. There is a very real risk, however, that the gains – if they are realized – will be colonized by a small powerful elite, leading to a further jump in inequality and a surge in joblessness. A UBI would play a key role in ensuring that such gains are more evenly shared.
Do you think the alignment between the left and the right over the UBI is sustainable once the specific policy details for implementation are worked out? For example, the report makes clear the UBI would not be revenue neutral nor would it eliminate all means-tested benefits, which might alienate some supporters on the right.
The right and left see a UBI from very different standpoints. The right favours a basic income as a way of achieving a smaller state, and would see its introduction as an opportunity to sweep away a range of other forms of social protection. This is undoubtedly the motive behind the support coming from some Silicon Valley enthusiasts.
The left, on the other hand, views such a scheme as part of a strong state, as a way of securing a robust income floor, of tackling poverty and as a means of promoting equal citizenship. For the left, it is a profoundly democratic and egalitarian concept that promotes both security and greater personal freedom, and a recognition that all citizens have the right to some minimal claim on national income.
These views are clearly incompatible and it is inconceivable that a scheme could be devised that satisfied both sides. Left supporters are clear that a UBI scheme must be seen as a supplement to the wider public provision of services and not as a substitute. A continuing and strengthened role for the public provision of key public services and other forms of state intervention including a generous living wage remain essential as a way of creating further platforms for a more equal and just society.
What other benefits might a UBI offer?
Integral to the concept of a UBI is the promotion of greater freedom and choice, progressive changes with transformative potential. By providing basic security, it would give people more time and more bargaining power in the labour market. With a growing debate about how to balance work-life commitments in an era of much more insecure work, a UBI would offer people greater flexibility between work, leisure and education, and over the type and length of employment while providing greater opportunity for caring and wider community responsibilities. Some might choose to work less or take longer breaks between jobs. Others would be incentivized to start businesses. Some might drop out of work entirely to care or retrain while others might devote more time to leisure, personal care or community support and less to paid work. But implicit to a UBI is that all lifestyle choices would be equally valued.
Importantly, a UBI would both acknowledge and provide financial support for the mass of unpaid work, disproportionately undertaken by women, in childcare, care for the elderly and voluntary help in the wider community.
It would value but not over-value work. The solution to working age poverty has traditionally been through a mix of decently paid employment and state income support. But income support is being weakened while secure work is becoming less available. One of the great strengths of a basic income is that it separates survival from employment and production. Tackling poverty would become less dependent on the ‘work guarantee`.
In the various schemes outlined in the report, it is noted that some form of disability benefits and others would be preserved with the UBI. How would these benefits likely operate with a UBI and how would they change?
Because a flat rate payment makes no allowance for those with additional needs, some types of means-testing would need to stay, even as we moved over time to a fuller and more generous scheme. A feasible UBI system would, for example, need to be supplemented with, at least, the continuation of disability benefits and additional help to cope with high and variable essential living costs, especially housing and childcare.
To deal with the additional costs of disability, existing benefits for disabled people would remain and run alongside the UBI. In the simulations of different UBI schemes in the report, we have retained the Personal Independence Payment and Employment and Support Allowance.
What would be the benefits of creating a Social Wealth Fund to finance the UBI?
Creating a UBI-linked social wealth fund would be one way of securing an independent source of funding outside of the general tax pool. Social wealth funds are a potentially powerful tool in the progressive policy armoury. They are collectively held financial funds, publicly owned, and used for the wider social benefit of society. Such funds have been widely used across a range of countries and would ensure that a higher proportion of the national wealth is held in common and used for public benefit and not for the interests of the few. They are a way of ensuring that at least part of the benefits of some economic activity are pooled and shared amongst all citizens and across generations.
There is already one example of a fund dedicated to a citizen’s payment, one operating in Alaska since 1982. Here, the returns from a sovereign wealth fund, funded by oil revenue, are used to pay an annual citizen’s dividend. There is an important principle involved in such an arrangement: that citizens are the proper owners of the environment and have the right to share equally in its benefits. The benefits from a common asset should not be hived off to a small number of private owners.
Although the UK has already spent most of its oil revenue, there is no reason why such a social wealth fund could not be established using other sources of income. These could include the dividends from a range of other assets – including other natural resources – and the occasional one-off taxes on windfall profits. As in Alaska, such a fund could be allowed to grow over time, with part of the proceeds from its management paid back into the fund, and part used each year to partially fund a UBI scheme. Over time, such a fund could grow significantly, sufficient to help top up any shortfall necessary to pay for a workable UBI scheme.
An alternative, and more radical way of paying for a dedicated UBI fund would be by the dilution of the heavy concentration of capital ownership, achieved through a small annual charge on the owners of shares. Such a proposal was originally made by the distinguished economist and Nobel Laureate James Meade in the 1960s, as a direct way of tackling the risk of ever-growing inequality. Such an idea was widely debated and discussed in the UK, and in some European nations, in the 1970s and 1980s, while one version of such a scheme – the wage-earner fund – was introduced in Sweden in 1981 and lasted for 10 years, though it was not used to fund a UBI or citizen’s payment.
The report notes the growing support across Europe and the UK for the UBI. What are some steps UBI advocates can take to make it a reality?
The pilot schemes being planned for Canada, Finland, the Netherlands and France are having a profound effect on the wider debate about UBI. These forthcoming experiments are helping to build momentum in support of an idea that, until recently was confined mostly to a few think tanks, commentators and academics. Crucially, they will help provide some evidence of the dynamic effects – including on the incentive to work, employment patterns, changes in participants’ well-being and the reaction of employers.
The pilots have helped build interest in the UK, and it is now time to start building on that to promote a much wider national debate on the issue.
Ultimately, a real test of how such a scheme would work depends on the application of a proper, lengthy and adequately sized pilot with a control group. To take advantage of these developments, the UK campaign should follow the lead taken by others and work to build to case for its own pilot scheme.
by Tyler Prochazka | Jul 7, 2016 | News
“Shouldn’t I have enough to eat? And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?”
These are the first lines from the song that shook up this year’s North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress. The song, “Just Because I’m Alive,” was performed live at the congress by musician Brandy Moore, an advocate for the basic income.
Moore is starting a GoFundMe campaign to help fund a studio version of the song that she hopes to release in August. Moore said she has already raised over 10 percent of the goal, and hopes “the momentum keeps going.”
One of the primary reasons that Moore supports the basic income is that it would let all of us be “free to do what we want with our lives.”
“I believe that art is a priceless contribution to society and that artists should be valued. I believe that all the unpaid work that people carry out in our society should be recognized as priceless as well. Anytime anyone is caring for another who cannot care for themselves in some way,” Moore said.
About two years ago, Moore came across the idea of basic income on Facebook and, as she puts it, became “intrigued.”
Her curiosity did not stop there . Moore was inspired to write a song about basic income and wrote it in “one sitting.” She said she started with the first two lines of the song “and everything else flowed out of that.”
Moore said that it is important to create art related to the basic income, because art “has the ability to touch hearts and inspire minds in a very immediate way.”
“It gives a voice to feelings and subjects that people often find hard to talk about in words to each other about, but still need to be expressed. It helps people feel less alone and more connected with the rest of humanity,” Moore said.
“It beautifies our lives. It captures people’s attentions and gets conversations going. It can make an unfamiliar idea feel more acceptable because it has touched people in a deeper way than it would have by just talking about it.”
Ursule Critoph, an attendee at NABIG, said Moore’s performance “struck a chord” with the audience. Critoph said using art to promote the basic income will help “appeal to the human heart and spirit.”
“While Brandy never mentioned the words basic income, her lyrics express the essential foundations that underlie the importance of a guaranteed basic income. Appealing to the universal human need for affirmation, food, shelter and other aspects of a full life is critical to convincing persons that access to a basic income must be a universal right,” Critoph said.
Maria Wong, a worker at the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, also listened to Moore’s live performance. She said loved the lyrics because it illustrated the reason she is “fighting” for the basic income: “it’s a human right.”
Wong said the basic income would help women, such as those at the shelter.
“Women experience poverty at higher levels because of their responsibilities to care for family and lack of options or value in the workforce. We think a Guaranteed Livable Income will give women more autonomy and be less invisible in society,” Wong said.
Prior to becoming a full-time artist, Moore worked as an office temp, but she said she “hated the way it would suck all my energy away,” so she started focusing wholly on her music.
She said she thinks that others should also have the choice to do what they love.
“We were meant to be free,” Moore said. “And when enough of us believe that we deserve to be free, we will be.”
Click here to see the live performance.
Lyrics:
Shouldn’t I have enough to eat?
And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?
Where no one can take what doesn’t belong to them,
And I don’t have to look over my shoulder
Why must I pay for my existence
And why must I prove my worthiness
I have a right to basic needs
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I don’t look like you
And I don’t act like you
And I could never make it in your world
But I still deserve a decent life
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I’m alive. Just because I’m alive
I’m hungry
I’m cold
I’m lonely
I feel
Just like you do
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I’m alive. Just because I’m alive
Alive Alive Alive
Just because I’m alive
Shouldn’t I have enough to eat?
And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?
by Tyler Prochazka | Jun 4, 2016 | Opinion
One of the masterminds behind the upcoming Swiss referendum on the basic income Enno Schmidt said that no matter the outcome on June 5, he will still have achieved his goal of starting a widespread discussion about the issue.
Schmidt started his basic income advocacy back in 2006 and has been pushing the idea through films, lectures and articles ever since. In 2013, he and others collected over 120,000 signatures in order to get the basic income up for a referendum in Switzerland, which he said was not an easy task.
In anticipation of the upcoming referendum, Schmidt answered some questions about the past, present and future of the basic income in Switzerland and beyond. Some of the quotations have been edited for clarity.
Why did you found the initiative basic income? What was your intention for the initiative in 2006? Have your goal’s changed?
The reason was to make the people more free in their decisions about their life and in their personal responsibility to live according to their own intentions.
The right to political initiatives for everyone in Switzerland and the Direct Democracy made it possible to come up with this proposal to create a general discussion throughout the entire population and to finally achieve a referendum.
The intention was to give all people a basic income unconditional in order to create a society with more variety, less fear, and more productivity in a much broader sense. Also part of the goal was to bring the idea of unconditionality to our otherwise purely functional conceptions of living. Ultimately it represents the question about what it means to be human. The goal did not change but has been enriched with more and more significance. Aspects such as the upcoming data economy, the need to strengthen civil society, the necessary power shift towards the citizens all contributed to this conception.
How did you happen upon the concept of the basic income? Why do you think you were drawn to the idea?
Because the basic income refers to the individual, not to a specific circumstances. It does not determine people, it enables everyone to come into play in society. It does not judge what people do. It’s a base of human kindness and a protection of privacy. It’s about respect and appreciation towards the other and it’s about self-determination. Thus new the new and unforeseen can happen and develop. Today there is no more lack of material goods. The productiveness in the old sense increases with ever less human labor. We need a space for the new productivity as we face our current challenges. We have to rethink the income supply and examine our values. Separating income and work reveals the value of work. No one should be blackmailed with his livelihood. The right to work is the right to do what you really want to do. This right needs a right to income. The unconditional basic income is a democratically coordinated income, not negotiated economically. The logic and beauty of the idea has drawn me.
How would you compare the public’s interest in the basic income in 2006 to the interest/support right now?
Ten years ago, we moved across the country, organized events and let others come up for discussion. We still do. But now the media has come from all over to us and spread the idea worldwide. We started from a little point with nearly no knowledge in society about the idea. And still we are far from a majority convinced of the basic income. But attention and acceptance has greatly increased. Not only in Switzerland. But Switzerland has the benefit of direct democracy. With our campaign for the vote we managed to even get some of the opponents of the basic income to acclaim the concept as the new idea for Europe. The interest grew rapidly after the World Economic Forum in Davos discussed the unconditional basic income as the most innovative and intelligent solution for the upcoming digitalization era, and once again grew rapidly due to the upcoming vote.
How do you feel about your chances with the upcoming vote?
With this vote, we will have established the subject firmly in society. If one in five votes is yes, then that is incredible progress. So much has moved in the minds, in fixed opinions, and new eyes have appeared. It’s the first time in history that this issue is discussed in an entire population with the serious background of a referendum to vote on and decide.
By this vote the majority may vote no, but the vote itself is an opportunity to introduce an unconditional basic income to society. But maybe in ten years the next referendum will result in a majority voting yes. Therefore, it is not so much a question about how we feel about our chances, but we already have taken the chance to create a public and broad debate about the basic income unlike anything seen before. This vote is a milestone on a path on which the debate is getting stronger at home and abroad.
Can you describe the process of getting the initiative on the ballot? How did you feel when the initiative was successfully scheduled for a public vote?
I felt as if the gate was opened for a heavenly reality and a really human approach, for an big event and great chance. When the Federal Chancellery had approved the people’s initiative, we had 18 months’ time to gather at least 100,000 valid signatures of Swiss citizens. This is not online. You have to go on the street in all types of weather. That is not easy. While doing so a new dynamic developed. “Generation basic income” converted the severe toil into a sporting competition. We turned the large number into achievable goals, with each individual collecting visible results, and over the long run a series of successes.
When we submitted 126,000 signatures on October 4, 2013 in the Federal Chancellery, I had the feeling of having made gotten the essentials, that the way was now open for a general major debate in society. The referendum itself is already a point of arrival. We offer the proposal: The citizens vote.
How has your outlook changed for the prospect of the basic income over the last ten years?
I realized early on that a basic income will come. The idea is as strong as the idea of democracy or human rights. It is of the same kind. It is even the same idea. The question is not whether it comes, but how it comes and by whom, by what interests. This prospect has been confirmed over the time. Already in the design of the meaning of an unconditional basic income is its way of being introduced. An unconditional basic income not only allows more flexibility, it also requires more. It comes through the people who are affected or it comes out wrong. It may not come automatically as a result of automation. It may not come from the rich to the poor and not as an economy measure. It should not be a new feudalism, no philanthropic colonialism and not to plug old holes. If the unconditional does not affect everybody, it is for no one. The comprehensive and greatness of this idea became even clearer for me and thus also the possibilities to use it quite differently.
What would the implications be if the Swiss vote yes on the referendum? What would the implications be if they vote no — including for you and your advocacy?
With a majority yes the introduction will be prepared and probably start with pilot projects such as in Finland. This will take some years. About the amount of a basic income and the type of finance it probably will come to next public votes. Also other points of the basic income can lead to new referendums. Overall, I think, it will need 20 years. With a majority no the discussion also will go on. This referendum has given such a strong thrust to the debate. The development will go along as well, just not within the authorities. Also pilot projects can arise in some cities and cantons. And the development in other countries continues. We see things not isolated in Switzerland. We see it in conjunction with the other areas experimenting with the basic income. Another referendum in Switzerland is possible and the introduction will go more quickly. Time does not stand still and an unconditional basic income becomes more and more inevitable.
by Tyler Prochazka | May 16, 2016 | Opinion
Back in the 1990s, China started experimenting with a minimum income guarantee that topped off incomes to a minimum level set by local governments. China called the program dibao, meaning minimum livelihood guarantee, expanding the program nationwide in 2007.
In Beijing the urban monthly dibao standard is 1050 RMB ($161.50 USD) and the rural standard is 800 RMB ($123.04 USD). For urban residents, this is about five dollars USD a day.
However, even this paltry amount often does not make it to those in poverty.
A report by the World Bank found that for every 10 RMB spent on the dibao, only 1 to 2.4 RMB reached individuals in poverty (cited by the Economist). The World Bank also found the dibao program only lowered the poverty gap by 6.5 percent.
Corruption and inability to determine households’ poverty status have plagued the program. According to Lu Yang in the Indian Journal of Labour Economics, based on 2010 survey data only 21 percent of poor households were able to receive the dibao, while more than half of dibao recipients were above the poverty line.
Many local governments go to great lengths to investigate whether dibao households are secretly hoarding wealth, visiting recipients’ homes and observing whether the household has too many “high quality” products to qualify.
Others are concerned with the dibao’s effect on the poor’s effective marginal tax rate. Higher effective marginal tax rates lower the likelihood that a household member will seek work.
If a household’s average income per person goes above the dibao standard, they could sacrifice the entirety of the benefit. Each household member raises the household’s dibao standard by 100 percent. For example, in Beijing where the standard is 1050 RMB per month, a two-person household would face a 2100 RMB dibao standard. In turn, larger households are more susceptible to the problem of high effective marginal tax rates.
In some instances, it is possible that a household will have a 100 percent effective tax rate due to the dibao benefit. In these cases, the household will have the same income regardless of whether a household member chooses to work or not. Based on data from an essay in Population and Development a family of three in Tianjin with one household member employed would have the same income as an identical family that does not work at all. Clearly this has the potential to undermine labor participation if the drop off is this steep in reality.
China plans to lift 70 million people out of poverty by 2020. Such a massive undertaking requires a robust social welfare system. As it stands, the dibao program is not equipped to do this heavy lifting.
However, the dibao does provide a starting point for China to experiment with universal coverage.
The 2014 World Bank report conducted economic simulations that demonstrated expanding dibao coverage was more effective than increasing the benefit size at lowering the poverty gap.
Like the dibao, the central government of China could initiate pilot programs that universalize the dibao cash transfer, eliminating the income and wealth requirements to qualify for the dibao benefit.
Universalizing the program would potentially address many of the issues plaguing dibao, such as the high effective marginal tax rates and low rate of impoverished individuals that receive the dibao.
China’s economic miracle successfully lifted the most individuals out of poverty in world history. To do so, China undertook some dramatic reforms that completely reshaped Chinese society. Now in order to completely eradicate poverty, China may want to take yet another drastic step with a universal basic income guarantee.
by Tyler Prochazka | Apr 28, 2016 | News
Even some free-market advocates are lining up in favor of the basic income. Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute argues that the basic income would be an improvement on the current capitalist system.
First, Bowman argues that the basic income will alleviate in-work poverty. That is individuals that work but are still in poverty. As automation eliminates many jobs, this will be increasingly essential.
Second, Bowman points out that a basic income will lower the complexity of the current welfare system. Instead of having many specific welfare programs, the government would replace it with a simple cash grant.
Third, Bowman believes the basic income would allow for other reforms that would raise living standards. For example, allowing for greater immigration and lowering investment taxes. Moreover, a basic income may replace the minimum wage, which Bowman said causes unemployment for some workers.
Sam Bowman. “A neoliberal case for a basic income, or something like it.” April 18, 2016. Adam Smith Institute.
