Taipei to hold second annual UBI Asia Pacific conference

Taipei to hold second annual UBI Asia Pacific conference

The second annual Basic Income Asia Pacific conference will be held in Taipei, Taiwan on March 17 and 18. This year’s theme is “Asia Pacific’s Economic Future.”

Keynote speeches will be delivered by Enno Schmidt, the Swiss referendum leader, and Dr. Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the UNICEF basic income trials in India.

“The focus on Asia is necessary to understand how we are going to interpret the idea regionally – given Asia’s own specificities and peculiarities. This conference is going to open this much needed conversation. This event is yet another milestone achieved by the UBI Taiwan, one of the most dynamic national groups,” Davala said.

Leading thinkers in academia, government and NGOs from Taiwan, mainland China, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States will join the conference to discuss the challenges facing the Asia Pacific and potential solutions, such as basic income.

Dr. Hermann Aubie is a lecturer at Aston University in the United Kingdom. His research specializes on comparing basic income movements in East Asia and Europe.

“This conference offers a rare and precious opportunity in the Asia Pacific region to build upon the wave of renewed attention that Universal Basic Income gained in recent years to discuss actively how we can create a wider consensus and concrete initiatives that build upon existing basic income designs and pilot implementations across the world,” Aubie said.

The entire conference will be live-streamed on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook account, including both English and Chinese audio simultaneous translations.

Taiwan has recently lowered the threshold for referendums, which has opened the possibility for a UBI referendum in Taiwan. This will be a topic of particular focus for two of the presentations at the conference, including Schmidt who will present on how Taiwan can lead Asia with a UBI referendum.

“With the introduction of Direct Democracy this year in Taiwan, the UBI Taiwan proponents have the same chance and political tool to turn UBI into a nationwide discussion and to push it to a people’s vote like the Swiss have done,” Schmidt said.

The conference coincides with increased discussion of basic income in the Asia Pacific, with the UN Development Program holding roundtable discussions on basic income in Beijing, China last October and December, as well as Korea discussing designs for a a pilot program.

“With the second annual UBI Asia Pacific regional conference approaching, we have expanded into two days, allowing us to share our ideas of how to improve society through implementation of Universal Basic Income,” said Ping Xu, co-founder of UBI Taiwan and UBI Asia Pacific.

The conference will examine the economic and social challenges facing the Asia Pacifc region, and will assess what a basic income policy can do to address these issues, such as inequality, automation, globalization, demographics, and environmental issues.

Last year’s conference attracted 100 participants and thousands of online viewers. The conference helped bring attention to basic income in Taiwan, with the formation of a UBI summer fellowship program and discussions with the Taichung Social Affairs Bureau about a potential pilot program.

The event is organized by National Chengchi University’s (NCCU) College of Social Sciences, and NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies. It will be held at NCCU on March 17 and NTU on March 18. The event’s volunteers and coordinating team are part of UBI Taiwan.

“At this juncture of history where poverty and inequality are rising rapidly, I think we urgently need a “new universalism” of the kind UBI promises. There’s a long road and a lot of work ahead of us to make it a reality, but as more and more people place their hope in UBI’s emancipatory potential to protect their livelihood, human rights and dignity, we just can’t afford to disappoint such expectations,” Aubie said.

Writing Assistance from: James Grant

Obamacare’s model can solve basic income’s cost issue

Obamacare’s model can solve basic income’s cost issue

As income inequality continues to soar in the US and around the world, progressives are in a heated debate as to what the most effective policy may be to address growing precariousness.

My recent article reflected a left-leaning criticism from Philip Harvey of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as unaffordable from a political standpoint, and counterproductive in advancing politically feasible solutions such as a job guarantee.

There has been much research done on the subject of basic income’s cost. Karl Widerquist has become a prominent voice on this subject, arguing that the net cost is the true cost that should be considered.

In reaction to my interview with Harvey, Widerquist said the arguments about UBI’s cost were misleading, and in reality UBI is far more inexpensive than simplistic calculations let on.

“If the government gives a dollar and takes a dollar from the same people at the same time, it doesn’t cost anyone anything. According to my analysis, UBI can eliminate poverty by putting $539 billion in the pockets of low-income people after they’d paid their taxes and received their UBI. The only meaningful cost of that UBI is higher-income people have to make do with $539 billion less in their pockets after they’ve paid their taxes and received their UBI,” Widerquist said.

In “Financing Basic Income: Addressing the Cost Objection,” a book edited by Richard Pereira, also argues that the actual cost of basic income is largely overstated. Pereira told me that basic income can create a surplus to lower taxation burdens elsewhere.

“The demogrant is similar, with a seemingly much larger cost upfront.  I say ‘seemingly’ because as some major studies that I reference explain, the demogrant can be “calibrated” to achieve the same result/cost as the NIT,” Pereira said.

The book persuasively addresses the critics that say UBI is too expensive. Other savings noted by Pereira’s book, such as those from reduced crime and improved health due to UBI, are important in the calculation of basic income’s net surplus. However, these topics deserve a separate consideration.

One area basic income advocates need to emphasize more is this clawback of basic income. As basic income pushes up an individual’s income, it subjects a person to paying back a portion of their UBI under the current income tax system, as Pereira’s book notes. Moreover, many individuals relieved from poverty due to UBI will no longer qualify for other welfare benefits.

As such, the actual long-term tax rates needed in a world with UBI is probably substantially lower than what the gross cost would suggest, because the government will start receiving a portion of everyone’s basic income back to use for the following year’s UBI.

A benefit of the Negative Income Tax (NIT) is that the gross cost and net cost are the same, because they immediately clawback the NIT credit in one’s taxes. This tax is politically superior to UBI’s indirect clawback through other taxes. However, a monthly UBI paid upfront to all in the same amount is still desirable to NIT because it ensures that everyone receives the funds, especially in the event an individual experiences a financial emergency and does not have the time or ability to apply for assistance.

Basic income advocates can learn from the payback scheme in the Affordable Care Act and combine the UBI proposal with a phase-out in the Negative Income Tax (NIT).

A helpful analogue is the ACA’s clawback of insurance subsidies. An individual can receive healthcare subsidies based on the previous year’s income tax, but pay back some or all of the subsidy through their income tax if they make more the following year. This lowers the amount that the government has to tax for the following year to pay for new subsidies.

The basic income could be paid upfront in the same amount to each individual on a monthly basis. However, the clawback from high-income earners should be more explicit, with a NIT type phase-out based on annual income taxes for high earners.

Perhaps 50 cents could be paid back on each dollar earned above $50,000. The rest of the clawback (and net funding for low-income basic incomes) can occur in indirect ways, such as through carbon taxes or financial transaction taxes.

Having high-income earners pay back their UBI through the income tax means that other taxes will not have to be raised as significantly. It may be helpful in the political realm to with this built in clawback because it is easier to understand.

At the end of the day, a UBI is likely the most effective way to end global precariousness. It’s time to get down to the specifics of how we make a UBI above the poverty line politically possible.

“There is no benefit to working people to being under the constant threat of poverty, homelessness, and destitution, if they have refuse or find themselves unable to take orders given to them by more privileged people. We need to build an economy based on positive incentives, not threats. A generous UBI can do that. A job guarantee cannot,” Widerquist said.

Professor argues for job guarantee over basic income

Professor argues for job guarantee over basic income

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is gaining more traction in mainstream discourse, but the academic debate has been heating up for years. One scholar with a sympathetic but critical eye towards basic income still believes it is not the best priority for activists.

Philip Harvey, a professor of law at Rutgers, wrote that a job guarantee could eliminate poverty for a fraction of the cost of UBI — $1.5 trillion less.

Harvey argued in 2006 that the focus on UBI may be crowding out more realistic policies that could achieve the same ends.

“[Basic Income Guarantee] advocates who argue that a society should provide its members the largest sustainable BIG it can afford – whether or not that guarantee would be large enough to eliminate poverty – are on shaky moral ground if the opportunity cost of providing such a BIG would be the exhaustion of society’s redistributive capacity without eliminating poverty when other foregone social welfare strategies could have been funded at far less cost that would have succeeded in achieving that goal.”

When I interviewed Harvey this month, he said his views have largely stayed the same and he still sees a fundamental difference between the advocates of UBI and job guarantee.

“The most important driver of that difference is the inherent attractiveness of the UBI idea. It really is an idea that captures the imagination and admiration of all kinds of interested parties with different kinds of agendas. The job guarantee idea, on the other hand, attracts people who are more into the weeds of policy analysis.”.

There is a big debate about which type of cost calculation is most relevant for UBI, since wealthy individuals would have most or all of the basic income taxed back.

Basic income scholars such as Karl Widerquist argue it is more accurate to calculate UBI’s “net cost” which subtracts the portion of the basic income that is taxed back, as individuals are essentially paying back the benefit.

Harvey argues that, from a political standpoint, people will not view UBI in such a way: “The problem with Karl’s argument is that he that he thinks that people will think the way he does, when there’s no evidence to support that given the way they think about other analogous government benefits.”

Harvey notes that, since the gross cost of UBI proposals is typically a high percentage of a country’s overall GDP, there are tradeoffs that must be considered when pushing for basic income.

“On a practical level, that’s the biggest problem that UBI advocates face is that they don’t have a good answer to why it’s worth spending that much money on this kind of benefit as opposed to spending that much money or a far lesser amount of money on other benefits that would serve the same purpose.”

Many basic income proponents have argued that the job guarantee would have much higher administrative costs than the basic income, and thus say it is a less attractive proposal.

Interestingly, Harvey argues the high administrative costs actually serve the purpose of the guarantee because the administration of the program also creates new jobs: “The goal of the job guarantee is to provide jobs and as long as the jobs you provide are helping to achieve your goal, it doesn’t matter whether if they’re administrative jobs or non-administrative jobs, they still count.”

The plan he proposes is for the government to offer grants to nonprofits and government agencies to create jobs that fulfill their mission to help the community. For example, installing rooftop solar panels and advocacy work.

“Why not give not-for-profit organizations the opportunity to compete head-on with government agencies to see who can do the most good with the resources made available to them through the program?”

Allowing for this competition would avoid the criticism that the government cannot create productive work.

“You can design a job guarantee program to avoid the relative incapacity or possible incapacity of governments to create meaningful jobs.”

Harvey has designed the ‘Jobs for All’ congressional bill with former Congressman John Conyers, who recently resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.

When pushing for basic income, Harvey believes the opportunity cost, both in the time spent advocating UBI and then financing it, may be too great.

“Unless you can argue that you are prepared to provide a UBI that is really adequate to eliminate poverty, you’ve no business advocating a program that would leave people in poverty because it was inadequate.”

Author’s editorial note: I plan to write a follow-up article to discuss and analyze some of the points made by Dr. Harvey.

CHINA: UNDP holds basic income roundtable in Beijing

CHINA: UNDP holds basic income roundtable in Beijing

In a sign of the major progress Universal Basic Income (UBI) has made in Asia, the United Nations Development Program in Beijing hosted a roundtable discussion on basic income last week. Professors from China’s most influential universities spoke at the roundtable about the potential for a basic income pilot program in China.

Patrick Haverman is the UNDP Deputy Country Director for China. Haverman said he wants to work with academia and government to determine if basic income experiments in different areas of China are feasible.

“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’, careful consideration of a wide variety of responses will be essential,” Haverman said during his opening remarks. ”It is very important that we can foster collaborative discussions around potential options to address poverty and inequality into the future, and the role of UBI should not be overlooked.”

The roundtable also discussed the benefits and likely challenges of implementing a Universal Basic Income in China. A large topic was how UBI could improve on the dibao system, which is China’s means-tested unconditional cash transfer program. Dibao currently has issues with targeting the subsidies toward people in poverty, which many participants at the roundtable noted UBI’s universality could potentially alleviate.

Shi Li, a professor at Beijing Normal University, said Chinese people in poverty receive the dibao because of poor targeting. In his research, Li and other researchers found that nearly 88 percent of poor residents in China do not receive dibao stipends. Remarkably, administrative costs of means-testing were three times more than the actual transferred amount.

The large size and economic disparities across the mainland mean it may be difficult to implement a national UBI that is not adjusted based on residence, others noted.

The event was co-hosted by the International Labour Organization, which presented on the potential disruption of automation on employment during the roundtable. Haverman said an advantage in China is that smartphone penetration is high and many businesses now accept digital payments. This means it may be most efficient to send basic incomes to digital wallets.

“Almost everyone has a phone, so if we find a pilot zone I think we should take a look at it,” Haverman said.

Furui Cheng an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law’s Business School, said the China Basic Income/Social Dividend Research Network is working with UNDP to plan the next steps for a pilot program in China.

Cheng said they are looking to work with local governments and raise money from technology companies.

“Basic income is the probable alternative for the future global social security system, which is facing unprecedent challenges now,” Cheng said. 

“We shall learn the experiences of global existing basic income experiments as much as possible, and we welcome any suggestions from any supporters,” she said.

Zhiyuan Cui, a professor at Tsinghua University, has written how China could emulate the Alaska Permanent Fund to implement UBI. Cui explained that Jay Hammond, the Alaskan governor who created the Permanent Fund, said he often felt “closer to Beijing than Washington DC.”

Yang Tuan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said the size of China means it would be a good place “to come up with many types of experiments” for basic income.Tuan, who supported the implementation of dibao when she was working for China’s social security system, said the economic dynamics of China have changed since dibao started.

“(In the past) I have been against western mechanisms of social security,” she said. “But today I think the context of China is different.”

According to Haverman, the UNDP is planning to release up to three more working papers, addressing topics such as financing UBI in China, as well as its effect on work hours.

 

To see UNDP China’s press release, go here.

To see the original UNDP China working paper, go here.

To inquire about the UNDP project contact Cheng Furui: cfr1978@163.com

Basic income national proposal released by ‘UBI Taiwan’

Basic income national proposal released by ‘UBI Taiwan’

UBI Taiwan held a press conference to describe their proposal to give every Taiwanese citizen a basic income each month. Skeptics and supporters were given details of how Taiwan could feasibly implement such a policy.

Taiwan’s extremely low tax rates coupled with a highly developed economy make Taiwan a feasible candidate to establish an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI), the group said.

UBI Taiwan was established in 2016 to bring attention to this policy in Taiwan, where it has not yet been a major topic of national discussion.

On the heels of the press conference, UBI Taiwan has scheduled meetings with political party representatives in Taiwan.

The national proposal briefing cover

UBI Taiwan’s basic income proposal does not include a means-test or work requirement, which means, essentially, every Taiwanese citizen would receive a stipend. Under this proposal, adults would receive 10,000 NTD per month ($330 USD) and children 5,000 NTD per month ($165 USD).

The group argued such a policy could help to alleviate income inequality, which has been growing steadily in Taiwan. It may also address some of the financial anxieties related to having children, which has created a demographic crisis on the island.

According to the white paper briefing, UBI would lower the rate of low-income families in Taiwan by 66 percent – from 25 percent currently to 8.5 percent after basic income.

The proposed amount is two-thirds of Taipei’s poverty line, which is the highest in Taiwan.

The press conference was held on October 20 at National Taiwan University’s conference venue. They outlined several methods to realize such a policy in Taiwan, focusing on either immediate or gradual implementation.

An immediate implementation would have a “gross cost” of 15 percent of Taiwan’s GDP, the group said. Ray Song, the research director for this national proposal, said the “gross cost” is misleading because it does not account for how much individuals would pay back their basic income in taxes.

Oscar Han, UBI Taiwan’s lead welfare researcher, discusses the benefits of UBI. The press conference had immense interest and was unable to provide tickets to the large number of Taiwanese who applied to attend. 

The “net cost,” which calculates how much the government is actually sending out as a basic income and not receiving back in taxes, is 3.2 percent of Taiwan’s GDP, according to the research team’s calculation.

The group argued one step Taiwan should immediately take to pay for UBI is implementing a carbon tax.

A carbon tax in Taiwan would follow South Korea, which has recently implemented a carbon trading scheme, and Japan, which heavily taxes fossil fuels and is beginning a “climate change mitigation tax.”

Taiwan currently has no carbon tax, but rather subsidizes fossil fuels by 20 billion NTD a year.

A tax on carbon of around 900 NTD per ton that increases 60 NTD per year would generate 1.7 trillion NTD in revenue over ten years, according to the proposal’s white paper.

The Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research also found a carbon tax in Taiwan could generate 239 billion NTD in revenue a year by 2021.

During the question and answer session, Tyler Prochazka, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder and fellowship director, said adding a UBI on top of Taiwan’s existing social welfare system would put Taiwan closer to average welfare spending in developed countries.

The UBI Taiwan research team leadership answers questions during the press conference. Left to right: Jiakuan Su, Tyler Prochazka, Ping Xu, Ray Song, Oscar Han

“It is noteworthy that 70 percent of Taiwanese would benefit from this policy,” said Oscar Han, UBI Taiwan’s lead researcher for social welfare.

Wealthier families would still receive the basic income, but they would likely pay more in taxes than they receive from UBI, Prochazka noted.

There are several overlapping the social welfare policies in Taiwan that could be substituted by basic income, according to Song.

During the question and answer session, one audience member was concerned that eliminating other social welfare could leave some people worse off.

Prochazka explained that UBI Taiwan is not advocating eliminating any particular social welfare program, but that some would naturally fade away because a basic income would raise many individuals above the qualifying standard to receive the aid.

Considering the political difficulties with immediate implementation of UBI, the other option outlined was to model Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which has been providing a partial basic income to Alaskan residents for decades based on oil revenues and other investments, and gradually phase-in a basic income starting with young Taiwanese.

The Taiwan Permanent Fund (TPF) would collect revenue from taxes, such as a pollution tax, and invest the revenue back into the economy in order to pay out the dividends as a basic income.

The TPF proposed by UBI Taiwan would require an increase in taxes of 5.2 percent of GDP, but it would require several years to phase-in as the fund grows from its investments.

There were audience members who said they thought the phase-in for the Taiwan Permanent Fund would take too long. Song said that their calculations for the phase-in were based on conservative adjustments to taxes.

“This is the most conservative version (of our Permanent Fund plan),” Song said. “If the public is willing to increase taxes more quickly, this would allow us to achieve faster implementation of a full UBI.”

One audience member was skeptical that a basic income would improve labor relations, and she thought business owners would lower their wages in response.

Jiakuan Su, the lead taxation researcher, said that a basic income could give an employee more influence over their employers.

”We have the evidence to show that even when you just give a basic livelihood, you can give an emancipatory potential for us to choose what our passions are, rather than to be forced by economic factors to go do things that we hate,” Prochazka said.

The proposal has been under preparation since this summer when UBI Taiwan began its fellowship research program with students selected from across Taiwan. During their research, the team collaborated with economists who study basic income from various countries, as well as Taiwanese professors to guide their work.

At the beginning of the press conference, UBI Taiwan played a video featuring their supporters from around the world. Among those who showed their support included Andy Stern, Barack Obama’s former economic adviser, Peter Knight, a former World Bank economist, and Enno Schmidt, the leader of the Switzerland basic income referendum.

“A country that is brave enough to face the issues and challenges of our time and to rethink its values, I think that country deserves the leading role in this innovative issue of a Universal Basic Income,” Schmidt said in his video address to the conference.

One of the fiercest criticisms of UBI is that it will increase laziness. Schmidt thinks the opposite is true.

“We are lazy today, just living in the given economic structures. UBI is a measure against this wasting of time, destruction of social relationships and environment,” Schmidt said. “It’s a measure that brings life and work closer together and will lead you to do more, work better, because it can be your work.”

Stern has been an influential advocate of basic income in the United States. He was previously the President of the Service Employees International Union, and has written a book on UBI called “Raising the Floor.” Stern has been providing advice to UBI Taiwan since this summer.

“It’s an amazing effort and it’s just beginning, but it has the potential to change the future of work and more importantly the economic security of everyone on Taiwan,” Stern said in his video for the conference.

Guy Standing, a professor at the University of London and a co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network, advised the UBI Taiwan research team over the summer as they were preparing the proposal.

Standing’s message to Taiwan is that UBI is feasible.

“It’s feasible. It’s affordable. We’ve done pilots in India where we gave very modest amounts for thousands of people and we’ve seen that it improves nutrition, health, reduces mental stress,” Standing said in his video address for UBI Taiwan.

Ping Xu, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder and coordinator, will travel to California this week to attend a cash-transfer conference and discuss her group’s research. She said she is proud of the work they accomplished on the national proposal.

“In this group of young researchers, you can see hope for the future of Taiwan,” Xu said.

Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the Indian basic income experiment, has worked closely with UBI Taiwan over the past year. Davala said he is hopeful that the proposal will spark a conversation about basic income in Taiwan.

“The proposal is done after rigorous analysis of the existing welfare system. It can become a model for the countries in the region,” Davala said.

The conference took place on a rainy day, but the venue was nearly full of audience members, including some political party representatives and government officials.

“Even in the pouring rain, having so many people show up to the press conference was really encouraging to us,“ said Jaiyou Wei, a research associate for UBI Taiwan. ”But this press conference is only the beginning of our plans to spread UBI in Taiwan.”