by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 16, 2015 | News
With supporters such as Charles Murray and Friedrich Hayek, the Basic Income has been a rare example of a welfare policy that transcends ideological boundaries. Sam Bowman recently reiterated his support for the basic income in a short article on the Adam Smith Institute blog.
“I’ve long made the case for a basic income (aka a Negative Income Tax) on the basis that it would simplify the welfare system and make sure people always have an incentive to work,” Bowman says.
In addition to noting the economic impact of a basic income, Bowman points to Charles Murray’s argument that a basic income could jump-start civil society. According to Murray, a basic income would help civic organizations become “much more vital, helpful and responsive” to the needs of the community. Bowman concludes that, if Murray is correct, a basic income could be a solution to both “primary poverty” and “secondary poverty”.
Sam Bowman, “Would a basic income reinvigorate civil society?”, Adam Smith Institute, December 8, 2015.
by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 13, 2015 | News
Amid the many dramatic headlines about Finland’s Basic Income, Dylan Matthews breaks down the history and elements of the plan, which he describes as “the most methodologically rigorous and comprehensive test of basic income to date,” in a recent Vox article.
After taking office last May, Finland’s center-right Prime Minister Juha Sipilä began pushing for a basic income trial. The currently planned experiment, which will be conducted by a team off experts from think tanks, universities and other research centers, will begin in 2017 and end two years later.
According Olli Kangas, director of research at Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, which is tasked by the government with presenting proposals for testing the basic income, Finland has several potential models for testing a basic income: a full basic income, a partial basic income, and a progressive negative income tax, in addition to miscellaneous other approaches, such as monetary incentives for desirable behavior. For the full context of these proposals click here.
It is possible that the trial will include both a nationwide random sample, with participants selected in a lottery, and the selection of districts in which all households will receive a basic income. The former approach will allow researchers to observe effects across demographics, while the latter will provide evidence of the effect of a basic income on an entire community.
Dylan Matthews, “Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income, explained”, Vox, December 8, 2015.
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 29, 2015 | News
“Tom Woods by Gage Skidmore 3” by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Woods_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg#/media/File:Tom_Woods_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg
Libertarians are known for their general skepticism toward government programs. However, some libertarians have still flirted with the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as an alternative to the current welfare state. Tom Woods, a noted advocate of libertarianism, recently debated BIG advocate Matt Zwolinski on his podcast.
Zwolinski argued that a BIG can be defended from the standpoint of pragmatic politics from the standpoint of justice. He suggested a plan in the vein of that recommended by libertarian economist Charles Murray: an annual $10,000 cash payment to every American adult.
Woods challenged Zwolinski on the basis that a BIG would violate an individual’s right to the fruits of their labor.
Zwolinski responded that many libertarians hold “idealized” accounts of how individuals accumulated property in the past, ignoring the injustices created as property was and is distributed. A BIG could alleviate some of the inequality caused by these injustices, Zwolinski argued.
Taking on a Georgist position, Zwolinski said that property cannot be fully owned. Ignoring the unjust way property came about and failing to rectify it through a policy like a BIG is a “rationalization of privilege,” he said.
For the full YouTube video of the podcast, click here.
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 27, 2015 | News
In the 90s, the United States implemented some of the most far-reaching changes to welfare in modern American history. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans to “end welfare as we know it” and eliminate welfare’s supposed corrupting influence on the poor. Except the “corrupting influence” of government assistance never existed.
A recent article by the New York Times pointed out that recent research contradicts the theory that a social safety net undermines positive behavior among the poor.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that cash-assistance programs in six low-income countries did not discourage work. Furthermore, a World Bank review of 19 quantitative studies found that cash-assistance in Latin America, Asia and Africa was not wasted on “temptation items,” such as tobacco and alcohol.
“Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods,” the World Bank report said.
Other supposed negative impacts from welfare, such as birth out of wedlock and encouraging generational poverty, have been demonstrated to be unfounded by other research.
This trove of research demonstrates that the commonly accepted myth about welfare’s “corrupting influence” is not as well-founded as many may believe. However, research has shown clear benefits from the UBI system, including alleviating poverty, increasing entrepreneurship and improving impoverished children’s educational outcomes.
In theory, unconditional assistance may encourage some individuals to frivolously spend their money. In practice, however, the research shows most individuals utilize cash-assistance to better themselves and their families.
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 26, 2015 | News
As cryptocurrencies grow more popular and more people look at resources like this Bitcoin Up Test while looking for reliable software to help them trade, more opportunities to change the financial world as we know it. As they mature, they may offer a method for providing a basic income to citizens across the globe, argues Alyssa Hertig in an article in Vice. Advocates like Greg Slepak, founder of Group Currency, believe that basic income has not yet been adopted on a large scale due, in part, to “government incompetence” in safe and efficient delivery of the funds. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can potentially avoid this problem and with more and more people choosing to find out more about Bitcoin Era Ervaringen, it could a great way to tackle financial problems.
Bitcoin, like other cryptocurrencies, can be programmed to automatically pay out a basic income to members. It also provides a secure ledger, accessible to all members, for the delivery of funds. This allows a basic income to be implemented among consenting individuals without the passage of legislation. However, before implementing the same, it is important to understand how to buy bitcoin and use it. Resources for the same could be found on the web, which could be used to gather information about it.
That said, Hertig describes two new platforms, UCoin and Ethereum, that might to be used to allow a basic income to be distributed through a system like Group Currency. Other technological advances may simplify the process of implementing a basic income even further.
Alyssa Hertig, “How Bitcoin Could Make Distributing a Universal Basic Income Actually Possible“, Vice, August 12, 2015.
With supporters such as Charles Murray and Friedrich Hayek, the Basic Income has been a rare example of a welfare policy that transcends ideological boundaries. Sam Bowman recently reiterated his support for the basic income in a short article on the Adam Smith Institute blog.
