by Malcolm Torry | Jul 23, 2020 | Opinion
There is a translation of this review in French
The article by Widerquist and Arndt can be read here; and a pdf can be downloaded here.
Widerquist and Arndt use microsimulation analysis to estimate that the net cost of a poverty-level Basic Income for the United Kingdom (£7,706 per annum for adults and £3,853 for children) is about £67 billion per year or 3.4% of GDP. The paper makes a useful contribution to the current debate about financially feasible Basic Income schemes for the UK.
The authors correctly recognise that their scheme is ‘not optimised for political feasibility’. This is true. British benefits policy is quite path dependent—that is, it tends to continue in its existing direction—mainly because of the extreme complexity of the tax and benefits systems. Change is normally incremental, and this will be particularly true during the next few decades because of the difficulties that the Government has experienced attempting to combine a handful of means-tested benefits into the new means-tested ‘Universal Credit’. Only a Basic Income that made a very small number of changes to the existing systems would be likely to be considered for implementation during the next few decades, whatever the political ideology of the Government. Widerquist’s and Arndt’s scheme makes multiple major changes all across the systems, and so would be unlikely to be considered for implementation.
There are particular aspects of the scheme that would make the scheme even less politically feasible. The authors are commendably honest about the political infeasibility of their suggested 50 per cent basic rate of Income Tax. Equally politically impossible would be the abolition of National Insurance Contributions and National Insurance benefits such as the Retirement Pension, even if that would be replaced by a new Basic Income for elderly people. National Insurance is a concept deeply embedded in the British psyche, and any government that tampered with it would suffer the consequences. It is not insignificant that when the new Single Tier State Pension, which is very close to a Citizen’s Pension, was implemented, a National Insurance Contribution record conditionality was retained. Under the circumstances, the only option is to retain the National Insurance system: although making it fairer, for instance by charging contributions at the same rate across the entire earnings range, rather than at a reduced rate for higher earners, might be politically feasible.
The authors propose a ‘hold harmless’ mechanism to ensure that low income households that would otherwise have suffered losses on the implementation of the proposed scheme would not in fact do so. The losses occur because the authors have decided to abolish all existing means-tested benefits except for Housing Benefit and various disability benefits. The problem is that they have not specified how the ‘hold harmless’ proposal would be administered. The only feasible way of achieving such a mechanism would be to reintroduce a means-tested benefit that would mirror the benefits that had been abolished. It might be objected that simply recording each household’s disposable income at the point at which the scheme was implemented would be sufficient: but that would only tell the administrators how much to pay on the day after implementation. If would not protect households from subsequent differences between the old system and the new once household circumstances started to change. Only a means-tested benefit could do that. The UK Government has found it difficult enough to combine a few existing means-tested benefits into a single new one. To abolish most existing benefits and then to implement a wholly new one with a particular aim, all at the same time as implementing Basic Incomes and changing the tax system, would be administratively and therefore politically impossible.
The paper contains a useful discussion of the difference between the gross cost and net cost of a Basic Income scheme, and quite rightly points out that rather too many commentators fail to understand the importance of the difference. The authors calculate that the net cost of their scheme would be £67bn per annum. This might be only 3.4 per cent of GDP, but it would still have to be found from somewhere. Suggestions are made at the end of the paper, one of which is that the whole £67bn should be paid by the top 30 per cent of earners. No government would want to alienate that group of voters to that extent, rendering the proposal politically feasibility. We are therefore left with sharing the burden across the earnings range, although not necessarily via an additional Income Tax. What the authors don’t seem to realise is that wherever the money was found it would impact household living standards. For instance, let us suppose that additional consumption taxes or a new carbon tax were to be employed to fill the gap. In either case prices would rise, household disposable incomes would be affected, and the statistics given in the paper for poverty levels and household gains and losses would no longer be correct. Only a Basic Income scheme that fully specifies the funding method, and that calculates the reductions in the Income Tax Personal Allowance, increases in Income Tax rate changes, and other changes, that would achieve a net cost of zero, can be sure that statistics on poverty levels, household gains and losses, etc., generated by microsimulation would be those that would be seen when the scheme was implemented. A scheme with a net cost above zero leaves us entirely in doubt as to the effects of the scheme. This means that in the case of the scheme researched for this paper none of the outcome statistics can be believed.
There are two ways of approaching the question of the financial feasibility of Basic Income schemes: 1. to research the effects of a particular scheme and then decide whether it would be feasible, or 2. to set feasibility criteria and then seek a scheme that would fit those criteria. The second of those approaches is the one that follows scientific method and is therefore the method that ought to recommend itself to social science researchers. The paper under review employs the first of the two methods. As far as the author of this review knows, only his own research follows the second method—a fact that never surprises him because the second method can take days of testing of alternative schemes before a scheme that fits the criteria can be found, and there is always the possibility that no scheme will be found that is anywhere near to being feasible. Widerquist and Arndt reference a 2019 paper that employs the second of the two methods. The most recent such research can be found here.
Widerquist and Arndt are to be commended for contributing to the UK’s strong research tradition on the financial feasibility of Basic Income schemes. If further research were to take account of the hesitations discussed in this review, and were to employ the second of the two methods outlined in the previous paragraph, then their future research would make an even bigger contribution.
by John Mills | Jul 20, 2020 | Opinion
September 14, 2020, is the kickoff day for the 13th International Basic Income Week (IBIW). Our goal is to have a coordinated global effort and a big presence in many countries. As the banner indicates, this year’s motto will be ‘Freedom to Choose’.
2020 has presented us with major protests around the world seeking more social justice. Starting with Black Lives Matter, the protests went global with a message of enough is enough, governments have to more realistically reflect and serve society. Different countries had different touch-points, but all of the protests focused on social justice with equality being a primary focus. As we all know, equality encompasses vast swaths of societal endeavours but a lack of money is the biggest determinant in changing the focus and outlook for most of those endeavours.
The third week in September offers us an opportunity to put Basic Income front and centre to showcase the richness of the movement and message in all parts of the globe. We know that everyone as an individual and as members of larger groups want their voices heard and have ideas about how to advance their messages and their voice. International Basic Income Week offers a venue to everyone to have their say in conjunction with a world-wide contingent. Everyone can let the world know that they are part of a larger global voice advocating for a floor that each of us can stand on and reach out confidently to the future.
The #countonbasicincome tag has been used for several years to focus social media on the movement. We again encourage everyone to use that hashtag to showcase the activities they are planning and to let everyone know about them.
Plan your events for 2020! Click here.
Events can be added to the Basic Income Week Calendar so everyone knows about them.
Plan your #countonbasicincome photo on 18th September 2020,
Enjoy a socially distanced International Basic Income Beer #basicincomebeer on Friday 18th September 2020.
Organize an International Basic Income March #basicincomemarch on Saturday 19th September.
Write or generate some global COVID-19 basic income content to post on the IBIW website (e.g., collect stories from people around the world, perhaps via video, about how COVID-19 has changed the financial situation in each country, and if there are any basic income or basic income-like petitions and how they fared).
Most importantly, enjoy some time with people who are equally engaged and desiring a change so that everyone starts with a level playing field.
by Guest Contributor | Jul 18, 2020 | Opinion
Lena Lavinas
It is undeniable that the new wave of engouement for UBI (universal basic income) that has shaken the US, the EU, India and so many other parts of the globe in the wake of COVID-19 has also reached Brazil. Everywhere, the simple idea of guaranteeing a regular income, duty-free, underwritten by the State, appears to be the way forward to mitigate the still unmeasurable consequences of the appalling disruptions brought about by the pandemic. UBI would swiftly reduce income insecurity, preventing poverty; it could also significantly contribute to accelerate the economic recovery in the post-COVID-19 era by stimulating aggregate demand.
The idea of a UBI was galvanized when governments promptly decided to extend the amount, coverage, and length of different sorts of monetary transfers to confront the gravity of the multiple crises created by the COVID-19 outbreak. Unemployment benefits, job allowances, one-time pay-checks, welfare benefits, or even special forms of credit line have spread out to inject liquidity in the economy. All of a sudden, we have a new opportunity for making the case for UBI.
Brazil was no exception. The comprehensive national social security system created in 1988 that provides free, universal health care (among many other rights) had been made vulnerable by years of underfinancing. But the system continues to be the most effective and democratic institution when it comes to guaranteeing social rights and wellbeing in Brazil. When the COVID crisis hit, the federal government and Congress could have reinforced social assistance, public healthcare, unemployment insurance, and other job allowances — all constitutive dimensions of the Brazilian social protection system. Instead, they united to favor ad hoc measures that, though sounding generous, are inevitably temporary.
The ultraliberal government of President Jair Bolsonaro backed a bill that Congress approved unanimously early April to adopt an “emergency basic income” program that would last the entire state of emergency declared on March 20, 2020. In principle, this program should expire on December 31, 2020, along with the state of emergency. In Brazil, a state of emergency allows extraordinary spending, suppressing the 2016 cap imposed by a constitutional amendment that impeded any real increase in social spending until 2036 regardless of economic growth or rise in tax revenues.
It bears reminding that Brazil is the only country in the world to have passed a law on Basic Income in 2004, hours prior to the adoption of the Bolsa Familia Program. Yet the law remained a dead letter and largely unknown to most Brazilians. To date, it remains unclear why the Workers’ Party started its mandate presenting a bill on UBI, which was approved without encountering any opposition, too soon after paying no heed to it. Today, despite the existence of a UBI Law, activists, progressive parties, and members of Congress chose the easiest way out, bypassing the already existing institutional framework. They chose a transitory and short-term program over existing law. This narrowed sighted strategy further debilitates Brazil’s social security system, because it deepens defunding. It also fails to bring greater comprehension of what a UBI is in the public opinion, thereby further diminishing the chances to make it a true, permanent, and unconditional right.
Today’s “emergency basic income program” provides a three time-payment – now extended to four months – of R$ 600.00, the equivalent of $120 USD per month. It is means-tested. Anyone over 18 years old (threshold waived for single mothers) living with a monthly per capita household income below half a minimum wage (R$ 552.00 / $110 USD) qualifies. The Minister of the Economy estimates that this benefit has reached 54 million people, encompassing the target-population previous recipients of Bolsa Familia, informal and precarious workers, and the unemployed who registered. Let’s not forget that Brazilian monthly median per capita household income, including labor income and all forms of social benefits, like pensions and welfare schemes, corresponds to R$ 862.00, equivalent to $172.00 USD. A monthly stipend of R$ 600.00 is therefore a very significant figure that amounts to 70 percent of the median per capita income and is three times higher than the Bolsa Familia cash transfer. It was the first time that Brazil set the bar so high with regard to compensatory benefits.
It is worth noting that indigenous and traditional black communities who were proportionally the most hardly hit by the pandemic have been denied the right to this temporary benefit, which is very telling about the challenges for universalizing rights in Brazil. The mortality rate among indigenous in the Legal Amazon is 150 percent higher than the national average. The deficiency of the specific care system for native peoples, the invasion of their lands by miners who can take the virus into their territories and communities, and continuous deforestation are pointed out as reasons that can explain such a high mortality rate and lethality. Faced with the threat posed by COVID-19 to indigenous communities, opposition parties passed a law in early July in Congress that provides for a set of 16 emergency measures to protect some 800,000 indigenous people. President Bolsonaro, however, immediately vetoed the most important ones, such as guaranteeing the supply of drinking water, food baskets, hygiene products and specific ICU beds for indigenous people infected with the virus, arguing that the Union could not afford mounting non-essential expenditures. Brazil remains a very unequal society and has not yet reckoned with its colonial structures of racialized discrimination.
The Brazilian Bureau of Census (IBGE) just published the first results regarding the impact of the Emergency Basic Income Program: 38.7 percent of all Brazilian households received the program, with the bottom 40 percent benefitting most. 45 percent of all Brazilians received the temporary emergency workers’ allowance and three-fourths of all monetary transfers benefitted the 50 percent at the bottom of the distribution scale. According to IPEA, this allowance has compensated 45 percent of outstanding earning losses due to the pandemic. It also increased by 2,000 times the average income of the poorest 10 percent. This is good news, especially because the recovery of the economic activity that has been noticed in early July significantly relies on the rebound of household consumption.
There is now strong evidence that providing monetary transfers at large scale and in substantial amounts that make a real difference in people’s lives is a powerful mechanism to boost economic activity, prevent destitution and humiliation, and help people cope with all sorts of hardships.
Did the crisis and the measures adopted increase the support for a true UBI? Are Brazilians really aware of the challenge and motivated to fight for it? In 2013, I carried out a national survey to assess how Brazilian society values social policies. There was a specific question on UBI. Back then, 51 percent disagreed, and one-third agreed with the idea of implementing a UBI. The current estimates are unknown since no survey asking the specific question has yet been re-conducted. But let us keep in mind that the current emergency workers’ allowance is no UBI.
The question is whether or not the evidence aforementioned would suffice to bolster the implementation of a true UBI in Brazil.
During the pandemic, doctors, health workers, and the many who support the universal public health care system (SUS) persevered in order to advance a temporary program, called ICU Beds for All. In Brazil, for every 5 ICU beds fully equipped in the private sector, we have only 1 in public hospitals. The problem is that only 25 percent of all Brazilians have subscribed to private health insurance, whereas 75 percent go public. Given that a significant and growing number of ICU beds were underutilized in the private sector, a campaign was launched to create a pool of ICU beds, coordinated by a public entity, to improve access and sort out the waiting list problem. But no agreement could be reached and today Brazil is second only to the United States, with 1,7 million confirmed cases, and 68,000 fatalities, both figures broadly underestimated given that testing is rather rare in Brazil. It is now obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic was insufficient to unite Brazilians, even when so many lives are lost.
This paradox raises two major concerns:
- Is UBI the most urgent need for Brazilians? Will it be possible to couple a universal basic income at a relatively significant amount at least to eradicate abject poverty with other universal social policies that are urgently needed such as public healthcare, good public education, social housing, adequate sanitation? Is this affordable?
- To what extent would endorsing UBI strengthen the social security system already threatened by austerity measures derived from the cap on public spending and by attempts of the Bolsonaro government to fully reshape it through tax reform and the merging of different social benefits restricting them to poverty relief programs?
————————————————————
In regards to the first question, what would be the cost of a UBI in Brazil? Of course, the cost depends on the design of the program. To get a rough idea of the cost of a very basic program, let us consider a stipend that would be equivalent to the monthly benefit of Bolsa Familia today, which is R$ 200 per month ($40 USD). This amount should be acceptable by all parties and civil organizations across the political spectrum. The difference lies in the fact that it would apply to individuals (UBI) rather than households (Bolsa Familia Program).
Let us then imagine that when the law was approved in 2004 the Brazilian government decided to implement the program starting with children under 5. Given that it would be impossible to grant a stipend to all Brazilians, the idea is that we would launch a UBI by targeting the children to prevent intergenerational poverty. The new benefit will accompany the beneficiaries throughout their lifetime as an unconditional right. Focusing on children sounds appropriate because the pension system in Brazil provides a satisfactory income security to the elderly: 85 percent of all seniors over 65 receive a public pension, either contributory or non-contributory, whose monthly amount (floor) corresponds to no less than a minimum wage.
By providing a UBI of R$ 200.00 to children under 5 in 2004, today’s number of potential recipients under 20 years old totals 60,7 million people (IBGE, PNAD 2004 & PNADc 2020). This would cost R$ 323 billion, or 10 times the annual spending with the Bolsa Familia Program (R$ 32 billion or, 4.4 percent of GDP in 2019). The good news is that 57 percent of all stipends would go the bottom 40 percent of the distribution. The current Emergency Workers’ Allowance Program amounts to R$ 150 Billion, consequently less than half of the proposed UBI, reaching an almost equal number of recipients.
To grant $40 USD a month to 60 million people in 2019 is three times higher than the federal spending, with the public healthcare system (only R$ 117 billion or 1.64 percent of GDP). Such a program would also surpass by 11 percent of all benefits conveyed by the federal government (including higher education, housing, sanitation, labor, and agrarian initiatives), which accounts for R$ 289 billion (Lavinas 2020).
In 2019, outstanding federal social spending amounted to R$ 1.73 trillion. Paying a basic income of R$ 200.00, therefore at the level of the current anti-poverty Bolsa Familia program, would compromise 27.5 percent of all social spending. That same year federal social spending in kind corresponded to only 4.12 percent.
Monetary transfers remain the bulk of social spending, accounting for 68 percent. Should Brazil continue to expand cash transfers, to the detriment of providing running water, sanitation, housing, equal standards in education and healthcare? The most recent data from IBGE (2018) show that 31.1 million Brazilians (16 percent of the population) have no access to tap-water, whereas 72.4 million (37 percent of the population) lack proper sanitation. Not to mention decades of deep housing shortage affecting millions of poor and low-income families who end up living in slums, which makes them less immune to all sorts of diseases in times of pandemics.
The second question relates to the future of the Brazilian social protection system, which was underfinanced for quite a long time, and now risks being completely dismantled. The Minister of the Economy, an old member of the Chicago Boys who worked for the Pinochet Regime, intends to overhaul social security. He initiated a pension reform in 2019, making it harder for informal workers to get a full pension at retirement.
Now, that same ultraliberal minister proposes the creation of a “Brazil Income Program”, resulting from the merging of a large number of benefits, both contributory and non-contributory. Workers’ rights like job allowances, unemployment benefits, and other benefits alike will all be suppressed and replaced by an anti-poverty program to reach 57 million people, granting a monthly stipend of R$ 232 per month, 15 percent above the average payment of Bolsa Familia. They expect to spend R$ 52 billion per year with this new program, which is less than one percent of the 2019 Brazilian GDP. This means that the coverage against risks and poverty will be shortened and people’s autonomy and wellbeing consequently corroded.
In addition, the government intends to provide a voucher to pay for private daycare for two million children up to three years old, which will increase prices and fees and discriminate based on income. Lessons from Chile are well-known to envision that in Brazil things could be different. A voucher of R$ 250,00 corresponds to 10 percent of what middle-class families pay for private childcare in cities like Rio and São Paulo. The best daycare centers, however, charge double or triple. According to the government, churches could be interested in providing this service, an idea that breaks with the logic of secularism in the provision of public education.
Both concerns point to the ineluctable call for a joint perspective associating basic income and universal public provision to democratize access and opportunities by fully de-commodifying wellbeing. Otherwise, under financialized capitalism, a guaranteed income will just serve as collateral propelling citizenry to take out loans and go indebted in order to meet their financial obligations.
Early July, that same Congress that approved the Emergency Workers’ Allowance Program voted for the full privatization of water supply and sanitation, maybe having in mind that enlarging access to cash to those most affected by the pandemic would also make it easier to expand further a business model grounded in denying basic human rights and ensuring huge profits for pension and mutual funds that today drive investments in infrastructure in developing and emerging countries. After the longest and most severe recession Brazil has faced over a century since 2015 and given the growth projections ahead (-9.1 percent for 2020, according to the IMF), fiscal resources will dry up while competing and clashing issues will fill up antagonisms, stirring tensions. All the care may not be enough in designing social policies if the goal is eventually to forge a truly egalitarian society in the country.
The major differential of a UBI is to de-commodify labor. It is thus equally crucial to de-commodify the social reproduction of labor, by ensuring that education, daycare, healthcare, training, and other basic needs will also be fully de-commodified. Otherwise, UBI will perform as a powerful pro-market mechanism, upholding income-related and highly segmented private provision, mostly through the financial sector, and fueling rather than overcoming discrimination and inequality.
by Gery Petrova | Jul 14, 2020 | News, Opinion
1. Namibia – country background
A South West African state with a troublesome colonial history, Namibia has a population of around 2,5 million people and is one of the least populated countries in Africa due to its extremely dry climate. The country is rich in natural resources like – diamonds (annual value of mined diamonds around 1 billion US dollars)1 , uranium (4th largest producer in the world), gold, zinc, copper 2. Other important industries are fishing, agriculture and tourism.
Unfortunately for the majority of the Namibian people the benefits from an abundant national wealth are not equally distributed. Namibia ranks as one of the most unequal places on the planet where 50% of the population live on less than 5.50 USD per day 3 and in 2017 27% 4 were living below the poverty line. A place where people have not enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.
On top of poverty, hunger and the impact of climate change contributing to suffering, there are some additional challenges:
- Unemployment rate 2018 – 33.4% where female joblessness is prevalent 5
- HIV/AIDS epidemic – number one cause of death 6
- Gender inequality and violence against women and children 8
- Child forced labour and child trafficking 7
Children are trafficked within Namibia for forced labor in agriculture, cattle herding, domestic work, and commercial sexual exploitation. San children are particularly vulnerable to forced labor on farms or in homes. 7
The list goes on.
2. The Universal Basic Income Pilot Project in Namibia 9
In the context of the socio-economic situation described above The Basic Income Grant Coalition comprised of citizens’ organisations (the Council of Churches, the National Union of Namibian Workers, the National NGO Forum, the Namibian Network of AIDS Service Organisations, the Legal Assistance Centre, and The Labour, Resource and Research Institute) funded and ran a pilot project the purpose of which was to trial and study the application of Universal Basic Income in Namibia.
From January 2008 to December 2009 every resident of Otjivero – Omitara (about 1,000 people) received a monthly allowance of (N$80 = USD 4.5 ) which was paid regularly until March 2012.
The research had the following results:
- social cohesion – the community established an 18-member committee to advise members on how to spend their allowance wisely
- it attracted migrants who could benefit from the favourable environment. More sharing meant that the value of the monthly allowance dropped from N$89 (USD 5) per month in January 2008 to N$67 (USD 4) in November 2008
- poverty dropped by 39% among residents who were sharing with migrants and 60% in cases where the allowance was spent only by the resident
- income-generating activities like brick-making, baking of bread and dress-making jumped 15% and a local market was created as people had a bigger purchasing power
- by November 2008 child malnutrition decreased 32%
- people with HIV could afford better food and medication
- school drop-out rate fell to almost 0%
- healthcare became more accessible to residents as they could afford it
- crime fell by 42%
- the basic income grant empowered women and made them more secure as they did not have to engage in transactional sex services
In conclusion, the pilot project had a dramatic overall positive effect on the selected community. The Basic Income Grant Coalition calculated that the cost for nationwide implementation of unconditional universal basic income for all would be N$ 1.2 – 1.6 billion (USD 71 – 95 million) per year, equivalent to 2.2 – 3% of Namibia’s GDP (2019 – 12.37 USD Billion) 10
In short, UBI in Namibia was and is feasible. The missing component then and now remains the lack of political will to apply the project on a national level.
3. Government response regarding the pandemic crisis in Namibia
Following from the brief summary of state of affairs in Namibia and an example of a possible solution to the human suffering caused by institutional inadequacy and economic logic that produces inequality, I will now list the measures that the Namibian government has taken to tackle the health/economic crisis triggered by COVID-19.
1. Emergency Income Grant 11 – one off payment of N$750 (USD 45) for people experiencing financial difficulties caused by COVID. The government allowance should cover 749 000 people in need and will cost the government N$562 million (USD 34 million).
Some concern regarding the stimulus: 12
- the sum is insufficient to sustain an ongoing lockdown and future economic inactivity
- the grant is conditional – employed persons and people who already receive social benefits do not qualify being supported by this policy
- to obtain the one off payment citizens must own a mobile phone and an ID number
The EIG is a self-nomination process. Therefore applicants are required to have, or make use of an active cell phone number, and a valid Namibian ID number.
Applicants must SMS their name and ‘EIG’ to 141222 to start the registration process, or dial *141*222#. After the approval of the application by the ministry, applicants will receive a token from the bank they have selected in the application process. 12
- there is a considerable distrust among the population about potential problems with the distribution system and application process
- the policy is not universal, it does not cover every single Namibian which means it fails to act as an emergency safety net for all
2. Tax-related measures:13
- repayment of overdue VAT to companies, N$3 billion (these are funds the government already owes to VAT paying enterprises)
- payment of overdue invoices for goods and services provided to the government – N$800 million
- Tax-back loan scheme for tax registered and tax paying (PAYE) employees and self-employed affected by the pandemic.
- Extended deadline for filing taxes. Mandatory payment date remains the same.
These measures are very far from a policy supporting the business community given the implications of the crisis.
3. Employment-related measures 14
3.1. Subsidy for employers in the construction, tourism and aviation sectors. Workers will receive 17% of their wage for 3 months.
3.2. Employers who are benefiting from measures should not be firing any of their workers or reducing their salaries with more than 50%
3.3. The programme will benefit 7,900 employers employing 65,420 employees. The budget amounts to N$150 million (USD 8 million) which is approximately 25% of the total wage bill.
3.4. Grants for workers affected by COVID-19. These are conditional application based stimulus that has the potential to help 56,000 to 117,000 applicants.
3.5. Government and business owners will be allowed to negotiate a temporary 20% drop in salaries.
How these measures can be interpreted:
- insufficient funding of affected workers
- conditions and administrative obstacles for receiving help
- potential to undermine workers income for a long period of time
- the policy does not cover all workers in Namibia
4. The Economic stimulus measures which will be administered by banks consist in: 15
4.1. Tax-back loan scheme for businesses and individuals
4.2. Agricultural and non-agricultural and small business loan programmes
Here the government enables the banks to make businesses dependent on loans which creates more instability by increasing debt in society. Hardly an adequate solution for the needs of business owners, workers and their families.
5. Water subsidy equal to N$10 million. This will enable water points to be kept open without people needing to use water cards.
Probably the bare minimum a state can do to prevent riots and social breakdown.
There is a general concern about administration and distribution of emergency funds based on past and present experiences. In a report called COVID-19 Emergency Procurement 16 by Frederico Links the author outlines issues with transparency on spending by government institutions which raises doubts about how much of the already unsatisfactory help will reach people at the bottom of the income chain.
Another report Analysis – Namibia’s National Budget 2020/21 17 comments on potential problems with the financial stability of Namibia and its economic future which has direct implications on the wellbeing of the Namibian people.
In conclusion, based on the information above:
- Emergency spending to alleviate poverty and tackle social and economic inequalities was and is needed regardless of COVID-19.
- The ongoing crisis requires working solutions based on unconditional, regular distribution of wealth for all Namibian people in order to sustain their individual sovereignty, dignity and human rights permanently.
- The measures announced by the government are inadequate, insufficient and cruel as they don’t meet the needs of the population.
- Basic Unconditional Income, proven by the BIG pilot project, is feasible and has the potential to create social cohesion, improve the local economy and bring back trust in existing institutions and political leadership.
- To achieve the above the citizens of Namibia have the opportunity to unite and stand behind a clear demand for the implementation of Basic Unconditional Income for all.
- All people have the right to determine their present and future. An unconditional basic income is what will enable them to fulfil their fundamental human rights.
Sources:
1 https://www.kimberleyprocess.com/en/namibia-0
2 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/09/namibia-mining-guide.pdf
3 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NAM/namibia/poverty-rate
4 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NAM/namibia/hunger-statistics
5 https://tradingeconomics.com/namibia/unemployment-rate
6 https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/namibia/pdf/namibia_factsheet.pdf
7 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/namibia
8 https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en/countries/africa/namibia
9 https://tradingeconomics.com/namibia/gdp
10 http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html
10 https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/basic-income-grant-big-namibia/
10 http://www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_Assessment_report_08b.pdf
11 https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33635
12 https://theworldnews.net/za-news/namibia-concerns-over-emergency-income-grant
13 https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/namibia-tax-developments-in-response-to-covid-19.html
14 https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/namibia-government-and-institution-measures-in-response-to-covid.html
15 https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/namibia-government-and-institution-measures-in-response-to-covid.html,
15 https://www2.deloitte.com/na/en/pages/tax/articles/COVID-19-Clarifications-on-the-SSC-economic-stimulus-package-announce-Tax-Alert.html
16 https://ippr.org.na/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PTN-10-web-1.pdf
17 https://ippr.org.na/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IPPR_2020_BudgetAnalysis.pdf
Here are some links to resources that might help one understand and relate better to statistical data:
- Living on one dollar a day – Documentary
- The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind – Film based on a true story
- Namibia: Waiting out a deadly drought – UNICEF video
- “Anatomy of a bribe – A deep dive into an underworld of corruption. – Documentary
by Sophie Van der Does | Jul 10, 2020 | News, Opinion
Like almost every European country, Belgium is facing declining trends of confirmed coronavirus cases. Its government is now looking for a balance between maintaining physical and mental health and restarting the economy. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Sophie Wilmes emphasized that even though the statistics are looking good, citizens must also remain careful, practice social distancing and – when possible – work from home. Belgium’s economic response included a series of tax reliefs relating to corporate income tax and individual income tax. In addition to that, social security authorities have implemented measures to reduce job losses. Those measures include extended deadlines for social security contributions and a guarantee of 70% continued salary. Those who are self-employed, and due to the corona virus are obliged to stop their work, can apply for a ‘replacement’ income. In addition, for regular workers, social security authorities are offering a supplementary sum to the employer, in addition to the continued salary, provided that the sum total (continued salary + supplement) will not be more than the regular salary. Businesses can benefit in various other ways from government support, such as extension of payment terms, loans, and other financial compensations, depending on the size and kind of business (start-up, small business, or big companies, amongst others).
Opinion
Now that it seems that, at least in Europe, the first wave of the corona virus is coming to an end, we can have a moment of reflection. Despite government support for individuals as well as companies, a lot of people still fall outside government support systems. As a result, a large group of people is suddenly without a job and thus without a stable income, and for those who were already on the margins, the impact of the crisis is even greater. To put it simply, the economic consequences of the crisis show how many workers cannot survive after one month without income. Not to mention those on welfare benefits for whom it has not been worth looking for a job for years.
The virus has changed the way we think about fundamental economic questions and gives the Basic Income debate a new dimension. A basic income is an unconditional periodic cash payment to all on an individual basis. It disconnects the relation between labour and income that today, in Belgium as well as elsewhere, is still the leading principle. Of course, there is a difference between the short term economic measures required by the coronavirus crisis, and long-term social and economic legislation: but maybe the crisis can pave the way to a revision of the current restrictive social welfare system.
Sources
Bruegel datasets
Worldometer
KPMG
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 28, 2020 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This Review was originally published in the Review of Political Economy, December 6, 2009. It’s reproduced here as originally published.
In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, by Charles Murray, Washington, DC, AEI Press, 2006, 230 pp., $20.00 hardcover ISBN 0-8447-4223-6
Charles Murray is not known as a friend of the poor. His 1984 book, Losing Ground argued that the government should ‘zero-out’ all programs designed to help the poor. His 1994 book, The Bell Curve (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) used questionable methodology purporting to show that people are poor because they are less intelligent than average and that blacks are disproportionately poor because they are genetically less intelligent than whites. If racism is the belief that your race is mentally or physically superior to others, The Bell Curve is a racist book. Yet, his new book, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, Murray puts forth a plan to provide more healthcare, more retirement security and more actual income to the poor with no supervision or conditions attached.
For those familiar with universal basic income, Murray’s proposal sounds very familiar. Murray calls it ‘the Plan,’ saying, ‘I have not been able to contrive a better name,’ but it is essentially a version of the program known as ‘basic income,’ which
has been widely discussed by political philosophers in the last twenty years. Basic income is a regular government-ensured grant provided to every citizen on an individual basis without a means test or work requirement. People with middle or higher incomes pay more in taxes than they receive in the grant, but everyone receives the grant in cash every month. A great deal of literature has appeared on basic income in the last twenty-five years. Basic income is similar to, but not quite the same as, the negative income tax, which was widely discussed in the United States in the 1960s and ‘70s. The major difference between the two is that the negative income tax is given only to net recipients and phased out for people who earn above a certain amount, so that no one both receives a grant and pays income taxes. Both programs are ‘guaranteed incomes’ in the sense that they are designed to ensure that everyone has a small but reliable income, and both programs eliminate ‘the poverty trap’ in which some people find that they can attain a higher income by not working than by working.
Murray cites some of the literature on the negative income tax, but he appears completely unaware of the basic income literature, giving the impression that he reinvented the idea independently. When he discusses people who might drop out of the labor market, his example of what they might do is surf. This example is well-known in the basic income literature from an exchange between John Rawls and Philippe Van Parijs, neither of whom is cited by Murray. Is it a coincidence or is he merely neglecting to connect himself with that movement?
The Plan is most similar to a little-known basic income proposal by Leonard Greene, and elaborated by Irwin Garfinkel, although this connection is probably coincidental. Both Murray and Greene propose canceling everything the US government is currently doing to support individual incomes and use all of that money to finance a basic income for every citizen. The Plan is not quite a universal basic income. Only people age 21 and over are eligible, but it is a basic income in the sense that it has no means test and it is given to everyone who reaches the age of eligibility regardless of income.
Murray promoted the book and the Plan with several lectures in 2006. When questioned whether a guaranteed income is an affront to the work ethic, he responded, ‘You’re a conservative. I’m a libertarian.’ But make no mistake, Murray is profoundly conservative. His books have blamed the welfare state for everything that a conservative might find wrong with modern society, from welfare dependency though unwed motherhood to a decline in ‘man’s’ ability to craft a meaningful life. Many of the benefits he expects from the Plan align with conservative goals. He believes it will lead more people to attend church, more people to support private charities, and more of the poor to adopt the superior values of middle- and upper-class people.
Many people were shocked that a man who wrote a book arguing to zero-out the welfare state would put forward a plan for a basic income and universal health care. But it should not be completely surprising. Murray was sympathetic to the negative income tax in his contribution to Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments; and in What it Means to Be a Libertarian, he wrote that some form of income guarantee was the next best thing to the complete elimination of redistribution.
There is in fact a long history of free-market conservatives who have seen an income guarantee as a streamlined, conservative alternative to the complex, conditional welfare system. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman promoted the negative income tax on those grounds, and it seems to have been part of the motivation behind Richard Nixon’s watered-down negative income tax proposal in 1970. Most recently, Governor Sarah Palin pushed through a bill for a one-time increase in Alaska’s regular basic income (the Alaska Permanent Fund) from $2000 to $3200 per person per year. The free market appeal of an income guarantee is twofold. From the point of view of taxpayers, conditional welfare programs waste a large percentage of their budgets in overhead cost that could be saved under an income guarantee. From the point of view of the recipients, the rules and constant oversight of a conditional welfare system can be humiliating and oppressive.
Murray’s earlier books give the impression he believes that the poor are unproductive, genetically unintelligent people with bad values who have babies just to get welfare checks. One might therefore wonder why he cares about freeing the poor from oppressive government supervision. The answer is that while Murray seems to believe capitalism is a near-perfect meritocracy and that the poor are genetically inferior, he honestly believes that the poor should be free and that humiliating supervision by government bureaucrats cannot make the lives of the poor better. This kind of thinking led Murray to reinvent basic income.
This book—typical of Murray’s research—seems designed to give laypersons the impression of broad knowledge while having little concern with giving that impression to people who know the field. It is a thin volume with lots of numbers and footnotes but without a deep understanding of the research he cites. His discussion of the negative income tax is a case in point. He is aware that Milton Friedman supported the idea and that experiments were conducted on it, but he misstates what a negative income tax is and what the experimental results were. He gives the impression that a negative income tax has a 100% take-back rate, meaning that for each dollar earned privately recipients lose one dollar of their grant. If so, recipients who make money in the private labor market are no better off financially unless they get a job that pays more than the entire grant (pp. 8–9; 74). Almost no one who supports the negative income tax supports this draconian variant. Friedman supported the negative income tax largely because it could be designed to eliminate the work-incentive problems of conditional welfare programs, and none of the experiments tested a 100% take-back rate. Murray also implies that the experiments found evidence that large number of recipients dropped out the labor market. In fact, none of the experiments found evidence that anyone dropped out of the labor market. The relative decline in hours for the experimental group was 2–9% among primary wage earners and up to 20% for mothers of young children, but none of this relative decline represented anyone ‘dropping out’ of the labor market. It was instead attributable to people who happened to become unemployed taking longer to find their next job. Perhaps most importantly, the relative decline of work hours was not always an absolute decline. The largest predictor of whether recipients worked was not whether they were in the experimental or control group but the health of the economy. The people who conducted the experiments concluded that the work disincentive effects were small and did not put the viability of the program at risk.
Murray has not been careful with the facts, but is his plan a good one? Is the Plan a good workable idea that people who actually have sympathy for the poor could support? The answer is mixed. It is small; $10,000 per year minus $3,000 for mandatory private health insurance minus $2,000 for possibly mandatory retirement savings with no additional provision for children’s healthcare. That is, $5,000 per year ($416.67 per month) if retirement savings is mandatory and $7,000 per year ($583.33 per month) if it is not mandatory—for each adult whether she lives alone or with children. A single parent will be able to sue for child support out of the grant to the noncustodial parent, and so might have access to something in the neighborhood of $833.33 per month for herself and her children. But even an adult with no dependents is well below the official poverty line of $9,359 if she tries to live on $5,000 a year. (Following Murray, I’m using 2002 figures.)
Murray’s typically conservative response is that they can double-up with friends and relatives and they can all go out and get jobs at minimum wage. He calculates that when you add $583.33 to the income from a minimum wage job it would get most people—even single mothers with one dependent—out of poverty. He neglects to mention that this strategy involves mortgaging their retirement savings so that they will be more than $4,000 below the poverty line in retirement if they do this every year. He also neglects to mention that he is an opponent of the minimum wage. Since the whole idea of getting rid of the minimum wage is to enable employers to pay their workers less, we can assume that all of his calculations about how well off the recipients will be after they get these jobs are overestimates. He also neglects the very possibility that unemployment might exist, that the market may not be able to absorb the millions of new entrants to the labor market he hopes to see, and that most single mothers cannot work full time or in many cases even part time.
Consider a single mother with three dependent children at ages that make it difficult if not impossible for the parent to work outside the home. Her poverty threshold is $18,307. If she’s on her own and retirement contributions are mandatory, her income ($5000) is less than a third of the poverty threshold. If she can effectively sue the father for his entire grant (an optimistic assumption), she can increase her income to $10,000. If she and the father both mortgage their retirement savings, she can get up to $14,000. That is probably enough to keep her family off the street, but it is still more than $4000 below the meager US poverty line. Murray suggests combining incomes is as a solution. If she cohabitates with another mother in exactly the same situation, their combined income is $28,000—still $1,600 below the poverty threshold for a two parent family with six children of $29,601.
The grant is too small to give a dignified life to the poor without at least the addition of a child grant, but is it better than the current system? I have to admit that on this point, I am inclined to agree with Murray. As horrible as it sounds, in most states, TANF recipients work for less than they would get unconditionally under the Plan. Many people who aren’t eligible for TANF, SSI, or Unemployment Insurance get far less or nothing at all. Even the small grant of $416.67 a month can help many people get by if it is unconditional and tax free. The Plan would save many people from the utter destitution and homelessness that they experience in the United States today. On top of that, a retirement fund of $2000 a year put into a protected savings system would make for a better retirement than many Social Security recipients experience today, and $3,000 per capita could buy basic universal health coverage, solving one of the most important problems in American society today. If the Plan were put in place now, maybe we could eventually get the benefit increased to a decent level. Therefore, despite all of its faults, the Plan would be an improvement for many people living at or near the margins in the United States.
