Japanese enterpreneur Yusaku Maezawa, enfatuated by the idea of a basic income, is giving out, unconditionally, 9 million US$ to 1000 randomly selected people from his Twitter followers group. This initiative was launched on January 1st 2020, on his Twitter page.
Maezawa is hoping this “social experiment” will have an effect on his recipients happiness, as other (basic income related) experiments have already shown (ex.: Finland, India, Canada). The payment of 9000 US$ is to be done to each of these 1000 recipients, with no strings attached, who will be monitored through regular surveys to check on how this money impacts their lives.
Senior economist Toshihiro Nagahama, from the Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, has said that “basic means a regular minimum amount offering a sense of security, [but] what Maezawa is offering is totally different”, referring still that the automation fears that have spurred interest in basic income have still not materialized in Japan. Maezawa, howecer, is hoping his initiative will kick-start more debate over the basic income policy in Japan.
A new survey focused on basic income has been published by College Pulse (December 2019). 2000 college students were asked several questions, among which, for instance, if they supported the implementation of a basic income in the United States, such as that proposed by Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang, and what they would use the money for, if they did receive this unconditional stipend.
Overall, the survey showed that a clear 66% of Democrat-leaning students favored basic income, although also two-thirds of these are not confident this policy to ever become a reality in the United States (overall, 83% of students felt this way). Expectedly, only 18% of Republican-inclined students backed the idea. Support for basic income is also different depending on the subject’s race: while 47% of whites supported basic income, a much higher 62% group of non-whites were in favor of it.
The reasons to oppose basic income also varied, among respondents. A 34% majority (of those opposing) agreed that basic income should not be implemented because money should be earned (the laziness argument), while 30% argued the policy would be too expensive (the cost argument), and finally 8% concluded that this would lead people to misspend the money (the (lack of) trust argument). This is overall, but finer results show that Democrats are much more likely to refuse basic income on the grounds of excessive cost, whereas Republicans are over 50% inclined to oppose the policy convinced people would stop working if they received a basic income.
Although a significant majority of Democrat-leaning students (84%) considers that a Presidential Candidate who clearly defends a basic income implementation in the United States, either doesn’t change their vote tendency or increases the chances of them voting for such a Candidate, only 8% think the policy should be a priority over this next political cycle. These students prioritize, the results show, universal health care and stricter environmental laws.
The Basic Income Earth Network’s latest Congress has taken place at Hyderabad, India, on the 22-26th August 2019. Now, the videos of all the plenary sessions are online and available for viewing.
US Senators Michael Bennet (left) and Mitt Romney (right)
On Sunday, the 15th of December 2019, Republican Senator Mitt Romney and Democrat Senator Michael Bennet presented a plan to establish an unconditional child benefit cash transfer in the United States.
Under this plan, all parents get an unconditional benefit of US$ 1500 per year per child under 6 years pf age, plus US$ 1000 per year for every child aged 6 up to 17. There is still an additional US$ 1000 per year per child, dependent on income.
There is already a Child Tax Credit inscribed into the United States tax code, but it is strictly conditional to employment and is means-tested. Within Romney and Bennet’s new plan, considerable part of the benefit would be independent of the employment status, effectively helping the poorest parents.
This program would be funded through a reform in the federal tax code, within which inherited property would be fully taxed. If you inherit a property and intend to sell it, you need to obtain a valuation at the date of the deceased’s passing. For this, you will need to contact Erikas Grig Chartered Surveyors or a similar team who offer the same services. The reform in the tax code would replace the highly regressive nature of the present rules, which exempt wealthy property owners from paying taxes on the full amount of what their property is valued. This way, the new unconditional child benefit cash transfer would effectively transfer money from the very wealthy to poor and working-class American families.
Republican politicians have been, typically and historically, against any measures which expand cash programs for the poor. This initiative by Mitt Romney may lead, however, other Republicans to endorse such programs. Right-wing arguments against such welfare expansions have been mostly related to misspending – as in risks of spending the benefits on cigarettes and alcohol, for instance – or for allegedly discouraging employment, but there is already a solid body of evidence that these risks/fears are unfounded, and that plenty of benefits are to be gained from their implementation, especially in health and economic related realms.
The full title is “Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices”, and it’s the most recent publishing of the World Bank on the specific issue of basic income, by the hands of editors Ugo Gentilini, Margaret Grosh, Jamele Rigolini and Ruslan Yemtsov. From the original World Bank webpage it can be read:
Specifically, the book examines how UBI differs from or complements other social assistance programs in terms of objectives, coverage, incidence, adequacy, incentives, effects on poverty and inequality, financing, political economy, and implementation. It also reviews past and current country experiences, surveys the full range of existing policy proposals, provides original results from micro–tax benefit simulations, and sets out a range of considerations around the analytics and practice of UBI.
Contributors to the book include (but are not limited to) Francesca Bastagli (Head of the Equity and Social Policy Programme and Principal Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute), Jurgen De Wispelaere (Policy Fellow with the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath), Ugo Gentilini (Global Lead for Social Assistance with the Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice at the World Bank) and Tina George (Senior Public Sector Specialist at the World Bank).
The book is available as a free download, accessible the World Bank’s webpage dedicated to it.
“Universal Basic Income and Universal Basic Services: the case for radical change” is the title of the podcast hosted by Robin Archer, Director of the Ralph Miliband Programme, a prestigious lecture series on the spirit of free social inquiry at the London School of Economics.
What are the arguments for Universal Basic Income and for Universal Basic Services? How do they relate to each other and what might the difficulties be?
