76 billion dollars. That’s what it would cost to implement basic income in Canada according to a new report released by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
The report comes just days after Ontario began testing its own basic income pilot study in Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County, Lindsay and Thunder Bay. As part of the study, 4000 Ontarians will receive unconditional cash transfers of up to $2500 per month for the next three years. The new report estimates how much it would cost to roll out the program nationwide.
Importantly, the policy under consideration would not be an universal basic income, and would only be available to low-income individuals between the ages of 18 and 64. Roughly 1 in 5 Canadians (7.5 million people) would qualify for benefits. The plan would guarantee a minimum annual income of $16,989 for singles, and $24,027 for couples (those with a disability could receive an additional $500 per month).
The report also assumes that the guaranteed basic income (GBI) would replace $33 billion in federal spending already in place to help low-income people, thus bringing the net cost of implementing the program down significantly to $43 billion.
The report has drawn both praise and criticism from both sides of the debate. Opponents of the idea (including Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, who requested the PBO study) cite the high cost of the program, arguing that the plan would add an additional 13 percent to the current federal budget.
Supporters argue that the report actually underestimates the value of a minimum income by not taking into account potential savings in other areas of the economy. Elaine Power, a professor in public health at Queen’s University, notes that a basic income could save the government up to $28 billion in healthcare costs directly attributable to poverty. Andrew Coyne, a columnist at the National Post, also suggests that local governments would likely share the cost burden, which could knock an additional $20 billion off the federal price tag.
Currently, there are no plans to implement a nationwide guaranteed basic income in Canada. However, the report marks the first attempt by the federal government to estimate what such a program might cost. In order to further assess the viability of basic income in Canada, all eyes will surely be on the Ontario pilot study in the years to come.
“There will always be hope”. Picture credit: Alex Gi.
On the 11th and 12th of October 2018, the University of Freiburg, in Germany, holds an interdisciplinary Conference titled “Basic Income and the Euro-Dividend as Sociopolitical Pillars of the EU and its Member Countries”. It will be organized by the Department of Economic Policy and Constitutional Economic Theory and the aim is to gather relevant leading researchers and thinkers in Europe to discuss an EU wide approach of a basic income.
In Europe, the public debate about a universal basic income (UBI) is usually a national one. In recent years a European version of a UBI has attracted more and more attention – primarily pushed by the suggestion of Philippe Van Parijs titled a “Euro-Dividend”. This conference aims to shed some light at pros and cons of a EU wide UBI regulation and its relation to national approaches from an interdisciplinary perspective. Both UBI approaches shall be analyzed and discussed with respect to justice, economic and migration effects, legal aspects, creation of solidarity in the EU, and political viability. On the first day, the conference will address general issues about UBI, while the schedule of the second day contains EU-related concepts just like the Euro-Dividend.
Papers are invited from areas such as Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science, Law, and Economics and even Technical Sciences addressing one or more of the following topics:
o UBI and arguments of freedom, solidarity, social and gender justice
o Changing time allocation and shifting time sovereignty, voluntarism and creativity
o Legal aspects of UBI
o Experiments and microsimulations on UBI’s level and impact
o UBI in the digital age / Robots, AI, Labor, and the Welfare State
o The European Pillar of Social Rights, UBI, and Euro-Dividend: Creating European
Solidarity
o Financial feasibility of a UBI and financing concepts of a Euro-Dividend
o EU labor market effects and migration (on international level and within the EU)
More information at:
The “Basic Income and the Euro-Dividend as Sociopolitical Pillars of the EU and its Member Countries” Conference website
A new video has been released by Geoff Crocker, on a “radical concept of funding basic income by perpetual deficit”. This video is a result of a presentation done at the Asia Pacific UBI Conference, which was held of the latest 17th and 18th of March 2018.
In this short video, Geoff Crocker generally reviews the most typical arguments for and against basic income, focusing on the financing issues. Particularly, he conceives a thought experiment where all economic goods and services are produced by machines. The question then arises: how to distribute these among the population? Crocker’s conclusions, from this onset, are that basic income becomes “essential to maintain consumer demand”, and that “financial deficit is inevitable”. This, apparently, derives directly from the fact that modern economies operate at a permanent deficit and that “unearned income [is] necessary in high tech economies”.
Geoff Crocker’s ideas had already been mentioned on Basic Income News, in a paper he called “The economic necessity of basic income”.
The Italian branch of the Basic Income Network (BIN Italia) has written a plea about Guaranteed Minimum Income to the newly elected Parliament, still struggling to form a government.
Plea to the Italian Parliament (full text)
“May the Parliament listen to our society.
Guaranteed Minimum Income is something we can’t do without any longer.
Something that until a few years ago was confined to the scope of utopias and eccentricities of some activists, the guaranteed minimum income is now one of the main themes of the 2018 political and electoral debate. The material condition of millions of people, the economic difficulties of evergrowing population groups, the weight endured by generations of occasional workers and temporary employees, have drawn attention to the necessity for reform toward this direction.
Italy’s delay on this issue is now intolerable. It would seem reasonable to begin with prompts such as the 2017 european resolution that exhorted the member states to adopt a guaranteed minimum income policy, as defined in the 20 principles and rights of the European Social Pillar released on November 2017, in Göteborg, with the joint declaration by the European Union (EU) organs.
Among the 29 points of the European Social Pillar, is number 14: the right to an «adequate minimum income». The EU has been asking Italy for years to conform to supranational parameters on this matter, and so did recently the Council of Europe, denouncing the persisting lack of effective policies against social exclusion (in contravention of the European Social Charter article 30). Despite all this, the adoption of a guaranteed minimum income policy in our country seems far away.
Over the last years, propositions and calls have also come from large portions of society, campaigns and public initiatives. These have examined and integrated/absorbed the experiences of other european countries, the international debate and the experiments currently underway in many countries in the world.
From all these experiments, it’s clear that a guaranteed minimum income is much more than a benevolent bestowal. It’s an instrument to acknowledge and value personal histories, skills, abilities and aspirations, in the pursuit of a free and decent life.
We ask the Italian Parliament to take on the responsibility to begin, as soon as possible, a debate about the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income in Italy. At this point, and even more now, after the latest elections, this issue cannot be neglected. Millions have voted also to see this proposal put into practice.
We are aware that different approaches exist and that some of the political parties have already made their proposals official. But these differences can be overcome in a debate free of preconceived divergences, and a legislative process ought to be set in motion in this direction.
In order to have debate as wide and universal as possible, we believe it can be useful to begin with the draft law proposed by a citizens’ initiative. That proposition, written in 2013 and supported by a large coalition in civil society, was never examined by the Parliament. Also useful can be the 10 points of the Platform for a Guaranteed Minimum Income, drawn up by the Rete dei Numeri Pari.
These proposals can of course be improved, but we are certain that Italy can’t do without a Guaranteed Minimum Income any longer. Let’s begin with a Guaranteed Minimum Income as a first step toward a tangible universal welfare.”
The board of the Basic Income Network Italia – (BIN Italia)
World Bank building. Picture credit to Financial Express.
The World Bank has released a draft report, published on the 20th of April, titled “The changing nature of work”, in which basic income is suggested as policy to “be read through the lens of ‘progressive universalism’”. This progress to a universal system should depend, according to World Bank analysts, on “basic social insurance” and also on a reliance on “flexible labour markets”, in a relationship that would not do without, though, targeting social assistance schemes.
The reason for maintaining conditional social assistance is, in this context, to “prioritize those at the bottom of the [income] distribution”. This maybe contrary to the (universal) basic income principle, but World Bank analysts consider important to identify those “who are the most vulnerable, where they live, and how vulnerable they are”. To address rising inequality and profound changes in the nature of work in the next few decades, basic income-like schemes are seen in this report as having “pros and cons”, which “may address challenges in coverage and take-up programs”. The advantages referred relate to more coverage and reduced stigmatization, but at the same time warnings are made to new possible challenges in administrative ruling and financing.
The report underlines the need to relax strict work regulations, stating that “stronger social protection systems can go hand in hand with more flexible labour markets”. A particular concern for labour costs to firms is expressed, especially when compared to technology. The World Bank’s view is that labour costs should generally go down (including unemployment benefits and minimum wages), associated with a “reformed social assistance and insurance systems”.
On the other hand, basic income – in the report often stated as “guaranteed minimum” – “may also ameliorate possible work disincentives”. That is clearly connected with the usually known as “poverty traps”, where people choose to remain eligible for social assistance, rather than risk going into formal employment and end up with less money (due to taxation). It is also linked to reduced administrative costs. Moreover, the report recognizes the importance of maintaining typical welfare services, like public health and education, and be careful in scrapping existing benefits, as some are not as prone to be immediately replaced by a basic income.
From a definition standpoint, World Bank analysts defend that basic income “is a process that serves the poor first, it recognizes that wider coverage is desirable (…) and allows countries to claw back benefits from the rich.” However, in their view, the progressive system envisioned should be a three-legged stool, as mentioned above: basic income, to cover “against catastrophic losses”, mandated social insurance, to “achieve an adequate level of savings”, and market-based voluntary savings, to complement the previous two.
Historically, the report recognizes, conditional benefits have gone a long way in achieving social security in many regions, both high and low income. That, combined with generally low uptake rates (60% in high-income countries and 20% of the poorest households in low-income countries), shows that there is room for improvement, although it remains unclear how conditional and unconditional social assistance should play out together, given this context, in the near future. Also, for financial reasons, the report advises low income countries to increase coverage (estimates put the elimination of poverty on a double-digit spending percentage relative to GDP, for those countries) of existing programs and enhance delivery platforms, instead of opting right now for a basic income. As far as financing is concerned, a particular emphasis is put on taxing “superstar corporations”, limiting their ability to escape taxation through loop-holes and tax havens, plus levelling the tax grounds between them (e.g.: Google, Facebook and others, which are usually less burdened with taxes than most other companies) and other companies. Eliminating energy subsidies, introducing or expanding carbon taxes and imposing inheritance or estate taxes are also possible routes for funding the “new social contract”, as envisioned by World Bank analysts.
The Finnish basic income (BI) experiment proceeds as planned. According to Kela, the Finnish social security agency, results will only start being analysed at the beginning of 2019, and their publication at the end of that year, or early 2020.
As already known, the purpose of the experiment is to evaluate participants behaviour in terms of employment, particularly employment rates. An intention exists, in spite of that, to evaluate “the wellbeing of the participants and their experiences when communicating and conducting business with the authorities”. To this end, questionnaires and interviews are being contemplated, but only when the experiment is over. Here, Kela officials are more cautious, stating that “timing the data collection requires detailed planning and an evaluation of the factors to be measured as well as an assessment of the potential impact of the various stages of the experiment, such as its conclusion, on the measurements”.
Finland has no plans to further the experiment after 2018, although is already experimenting with participatory social security, beginning this year. In fact, according to Miska Simanainen, a Kela researcher, “right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income”, referring to an ‘activation model’ which the government is pushing through. That model is designed to partially cut benefits to people receiving assistance from Kela, if they don’t succeed in working (in a formal job) for at least 18 hours in three months.
It seems that these changes are contrary to what the initial proposition was, within Kela’s framework, which involved the expansion of the experiment (in early 2018) to include also workers, allowing for capturing information on life options, such as entering training or education. That, according to Olli Kangas, Kela’s director of Community Relations, would mean “have been given additional time and more money to achieve reliable results”.
On a comparative basis with other basic income like experiments around the world, for instance in Ontario and in Barcelona, the goal of these experiments stands out as a fundamental difference: while in Canada and Spain the (basic income) trials are aimed at testing whether people’s life conditions are improved, for instance in health, education and economic security, in Finland the goal is only to check whether people get into formal employment or not.
