by Guest Contributor | Jan 3, 2018 | Opinion
The crux of opposition to taxless spending (that is, money spent by a government that has not been raised through taxation) is inflation caused by creating additional money.
In The Affordability of Basic Income, a paper written by Geoff Crocker, it states that a government can create additional money without increasing inflation as long as the money supply does not exceed the productive capacity of the economy: and recent quantitative easing in both the US and Europe has given empirical backing to that claim. However, increasing the money supply beyond that point will inevitably create additional inflation.
It would be unfortunate if we never tested the boundaries of our productive capacity. Capacity utilization in the United States averaged 80.32 percent from 1967 until 2017, according to Trading Economics
magazine. So far in 2017 the utilization is less than 78%. That means approximately 20% of the productive capacity in the US is an unused resource. Most nations in the world are in a similar utilization bracket, according to Trading Economics
magazine.
The GDP of the US in 2016 was $18.5 trillion dollars according to Trading Economics. 20% of that is $3.7 trillion dollars. This is the amount of taxless money that could be added to the economy in the US each year, without causing inflation, in theory. Adding too much too quickly could cause inflation though, because the logistics of using 100 percent capacity takes time to implement.
The key would be to start with a small annual amount, then increase it slowly, if inflation did not occur. If the economy received a slow steady influx of taxless money from the government, the slow steady increase in demand should lead first to a slow steady use of full production, and then to a slow steady increase of production capability, as industry invests in increased production to match increased demand. This would be a platform for continued growth and utilization of taxless government spending, without causing inflation.
The government could introduce taxless spending through any number of programs, and Basic Income could be one of them. It could also lead to lower spending on federal interest payments if it were used to balance the budget, instead of increasing the national debt to do so. Many other programs could benefit as well, such as healthcare, infrastructure repair, education, etc.
Government would still collect taxes, and would still be able to use them to encourage or discourage activities as deemed necessary.
It is also a technology that would require no expensive change to the infrastructure. All major technological advancements in the past that could affect the economy by 20 percent required major investments in time, resources, and investments. The steam engine, railroads, cars, cell phones, and the Internet all took 20 to 30 years, billions of dollars, and countless man-hours to implement. Taxless government spending requires only the change of policy. No new airports, factories or cell towers, just a change in policy.
Taxless spending could provide a form of basic income funding that could be utilized in many nations around the world, without creating a burden on taxpayers, if implemented properly. It would filter into the economy and every person on the planet could benefit from it, not just the well to do. We all deserve to benefit from such a simple solution to an age-old problem, poverty.
Michael Keith has been in the construction industry for 30 years, spent 15 in the Carpenters Union building offices, skyscrapers, and condominiums. Keith had a California Contractors license, and built many custom homes there. He presently remodels Braum’s Ice Cream Store and Restaurants in 5 different states in the US.
Reviewed by Malcolm Torry and Tyler Prochazka
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 27, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in March 2006.
Congressman Bob Filner (Democrat from San Diego, California) will introduce a bill in the U.S. Congress in late April 2006, entitled, “A Tax Cut For the Rest of Us.” The preamble of the bill reads, “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a basic income guarantee in the form of a refundable tax credit for taxpayers who do not itemize deductions.”
The Bill would transform the standard income tax deduction into a standard tax credit of $2000 per adult and $1000 per child. For the first time, it would give a “refundable tax credit” to everyone who filed an income tax return, even if the person had no private income. The current “Earned Income Tax Credit” provides a small refundable tax credit, but only to those who have some earned income. Anyone who earns zero is ineligible. The current “standard tax deduction” is “nonrefundable,” meaning that if people’s incomes are so low that their deductions are greater than their taxes, they pay no taxes, but receive no cash back either. The BIG bill would change that, allowing low-income Americans to receive up to $2000 in cash as a tax credit, and everyone else to receive the same amount off of the taxes they pay.
Al Sheahen has been working tirelessly with Filner and his staff for nearly two years to get this bill introduced. The Bill is based on a proposal written by Al Sheahen and Karl Widerquist presented at the 2005 USBIG Congress. The bill lacks a Republican co-sponsor, which makes its prospects dim in the current Republican-controlled session, but Sheahen sees the bill as a long-term objective, around which to organize support and which might have a much better chance after congressional elections in November. A copy of “The Tax-Cut-For-The-Rest-Of-Us Act of 2006” is on the USBIG website at https://www.usbig.net. For information on how to help support the bill contact Al Sheahen at alsheahen@prodigy.net
.
-Karl Widerquist, Oxford, UK, March 31, 2006
by Guest Contributor | Dec 27, 2017 | Opinion
We know that basic income has risen dramatically in the public consciousness and also up the political agenda in the last two to three years. How has this been achieved? The academic literature offers theoretical explanations but no empirical evidence from any of the existing pilot projects. Therefore, I carried out research in four of the locations undertaking pilot studies, Finland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Ontario, to understand how basic income was legitimised as a policy, what problems they hope to address, and how the interpretation and implementation of basic income varies between them.
Through interviews with policymakers, experts and advocates involved in these pilots and in the promotion of basic income in these countries, I discovered a great deal of similarity in the factors which have allowed basic income onto policy agendas. Some have occurred by accident, some through long-term advocacy and political lobbying, and some through economic change. Importantly, these factors occurred at similar points in time, enabling them to interact and strengthen each other.
In all four of the pilot locations interviewees described how long-term support and advocacy for basic income has allowed public and political opinion about the idea to develop over time. Alongside this, long-standing problems such as unemployment and poverty have proved extremely difficult to address, and dissatisfaction with existing policies has grown. Interviewees explained how anxieties about the changing nature of work and the inability of social security systems to properly adapt to this new world have led increasing numbers of people to look to basic income as a radical alternative. Existing systems are seen as delivering poor outcomes, stigmatising those in poverty and being overly complex and bureaucratic. The assessment of basic income as a holistic and intersectional policy, capable of delivering multiple outcomes, was cited by several interviewees as reinforcing the desire to implement a pilot. Each pilot study aims for a range of positive impacts, both economic and social, pragmatic and ethical.
Interviewees in all four of the pilot locations reported high levels of public debate and engagement with the idea of basic income, and this appears to have been crucial in legitimising it as an idea . Public interest reached a critical mass, which, coupled with other factors, prompted political action. These pilot studies have not been developed solely by civil servants in a bureaucratic bubble but have been strongly influenced by campaigners, basic income advocates and experts from think tanks and academia. Evidence from the interviews shows that formal and informal coalitions and collaborations between these different groups has helped to shore up support and consolidate basic income as a legitimate policy.
Interviews in all of the pilot areas noted a context of growing interest in evidence-based social policy, and each pilot is framed as an experiment, not necessarily the precursor to a full roll-out of basic income. In Finland for example, both advocates and opponents of basic income supported setting up the pilot in order to evaluate if basic income can live up to its promises. The emphasis on experimentation was an important factor in enabling the Finnish pilot to take place but also meant that it does not necessarily signal deep political or social change.
It should be noted at this point that none of the pilot studies that are running (Finland, Netherlands, Ontario) are experimenting with a ‘full’ basic income: a universal, non means-tested payment with no obligations or conditions attached, paid regardless of other income.
Each study retains some element of conditionality, targeting or an earnings cap, above which the basic income payment is reduced. A clean break with existing policies and paradigms of social security has not been achieved or indeed attempted for the most part. Interviewees discussed political, bureaucratic, and experimental pressures that led to compromises in the scope and ambition of their pilots. These compromises appear to have been critical in allowing the pilots to take place, as they resulted in proposals that were deemed to be politically and experimentally acceptable. At a detailed level, each of the pilots look very different in how they were designed, whom they target, and how they operate; local influences proved powerful in translating the core concepts of basic income into operational models.
These compromises could be considered as a de-radicalisation of basic income, and have resulted in a curious situation in which pilots are not testing a ‘full’ basic income but have retained the basic income ‘brand’. This appears to be a presentational issue; many interviewees described a desire amongst politicians to demonstrate innovation, leadership and radical thinking, and basic income was seen as a way to do this. Retaining the basic income ‘brand’ even though the experiments deviate in important ways from the core ethical and economic values of basic income confers a positive light on those involved and attracts international attention.
When look at their specifics, each pilot in the study is different, influenced by myriad local factors. However, each pilot demonstrates striking similarities in the clustering of a number of factors that have allowed basic income onto the political agenda. Broad agreement on the importance of tackling poverty and unemployment, and the steady rise in public interest in basic income coupled with a desire for evidence-based policy and the hope that basic income could tackle multiple problems. As a small-scale, qualitative study, these findings cannot be considered a ‘how-to’ guide for other places hoping to develop their own pilot project but may prove useful in understanding how a radical idea such as basic income can find a place in mainstream policy.
Anna Dent is a consultant working in employment and skills policy and implementation for the public and non-profit sectors. She has particular interests in low-income workers, the changing nature of work, and welfare benefits. She holds an (Master of Science) in Public Policy from the University of Bristol, and is a fellow of the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce).
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 24, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This audio is of talk I gave on why we need a Universal Basic Income. I gave the talk for the “Sydney Ideas” series in August of 2017
, and I’m particularly happy with it. It summarizes the reasons I think are most important, and I think I did a relatively good job of delivering it. It discusses how Basic Income removes the judgment and paternalism that pervade the world’s existing social welfare systems, and why doing so is so important not only for people at the bottom but also for the average worker. It also briefly addresses how to craft a realistic Basic Income proposal, how much it costs, options for paying for it, and evidence about what it can do.
Following the lecture the audio file includes a question and answer session where I’m joined by Dr Elizabeth Hill, Chair of Department of Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney, and Professor Gabrielle Meagher, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University.
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 20, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in December 2005.
On November 6, at a conference on greater economic integration in the Americas in Brasilia, just after his 22 minutes conference in Brasilia, President Bush extended his hands Senator Suplicy, who asked:
Senator SUPLICY
: “With respect to the integration of the Americas we should have the purpose of not only to have the free movement of capital, goods, and services, without any barriers but also and mainly of what is most important, that is, of human beings from Alaska to the Patagonia. More than that we should also have what you already have in Alaska with much success, a citizen’s basic income to all residents in that State.”
President Bush: “Well, in Alaska they have lots of oil.”
SUPLICY: “But we may have a basic income from all the forms of wealth that are created. I would like to suggest that in order to create the conditions for real peace based on justice in Iraq that we should stimulate the Iraqis to follow the example of Alaska that pays every year a basic income to all residents living in that State in the form of dividends that result from the Alaska Permanent Fund.”
BUSH: “We are working on that! We are working on that! Thank you.”
Suplicy also spoke about Brazil’s basic income at the Parliamentary Network Conference of the World Bank in Helsinki, Finland on October 21-23. About 180 members of the parliaments of about 100 countries of the world participated in the Conference. Senator Suplicy individually lobbied several members of parliaments on Basic Income. Suplicy presented the same lecture at the Austrian and Belgium Basic Income Network, in Vienna, October 9, and to the Training Department of the European Commission, on October 10.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 18, 2017 | Opinion
This article is based on a research project conducted by a French student, Lucas Delattre, during the summer of 2016, and updated in October 2017
Introduction
A Citizen’s Basic Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship.
In 2016, at a discussion on Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a world without work
(Verso, 2015) at the New Economics Foundation, Ed Miliband was asked what needed to happen to move us towards the implementation of a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme. ‘A pilot project’ was the answer. Others have made the same suggestion.
Existing pilot projects
Many of the projects that have been claimed as Citizen’s Basic Income pilots do not satisfy the criteria of being universal, unconditional and based on the individual. Those that do pay unconditional incomes to individuals cannot be absolutely universal, since they necessarily exclude those outside the sample. This is also an ethical issue that cannot be avoided. And the short duration of most projects enables some short-term effects to be detected, but not long-run or life-time effects. (A project in Kenya is giving 23 US$ per month to 40 villages for 12 years, which is much longer than the two years for which most experiments run.)
Some projects call for volunteers, and so are unlikely to be representative. Mandatory involvement of a representative sample is to be preferred; and even better is a saturation sample, covering a defined geographical area, which can enable effects to be picked up at a local level. Projects that compare the experience of pilot groups that receive an unconditional income to the experience of control groups that do not are preferable to experiments that do not employ control groups.
In 2008 and 2009 a privately-financed pilot project was held in the small rural settlement of Otjivero-Omitara in Namibia. 100 Namibian dollars (£7) was paid each month to every member of the population for a period of two years, and significant results were achieved in relation to health, education, crime reduction, economic activity, and poverty reduction. There was no control group with which to compare these results.
Between 2011 and 2013, similar projects in India paid 300 rupees (£3) per month to every member of several pilot villages, and in India the impressive results obtained in the pilot project villages could be compared with those in the control villages.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund (APF) is a sovereign wealth fund based on Alaska’s oil revenues, and invested in the international stock market. It gives an annual dividend payment to every Alaskan citizen, who has been resident for at least a year in Alaska. The APF has usually been able to provide a dividend of between $1,000 and $2,000 each year. Obviously, it is annual and variable, and is not sufficient to take on the role of social security: but it has had beneficial effects on the population of Alaska.
A micro-level pilot project in Germany provides Citizen’s Basic Incomes to selected individuals for one year. In Finland, a random sample of 2,000 people aged 25-58, who were unemployed at the end of 2016, are receiving €560 per month Income for two years in place of existing benefits, and the sample subjects can keep their payments after they have found employment. However, while being based on the individual and unconditional, this does not fulfil the Citizen’s Basic Income criteria of being universal. A similar approach is being considered by some Dutch municipalities. The current experiment in Ontario, Canada, is a Guaranteed Minimum Income project where a means-tested household-based benefit targeted on subjects aged 18-64 is being tested.
The Negative Income Tax experiments in the USA and Canada during the 1970s were based on the household, and so did not fulfil the criteria as a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot projects.
None of this is to suggest that the projects that have been undertaken are not of value. They are. Valuable lessons have been learnt in Namibia, India, Alaska, and the various states in Canada and the USA where Negative Income Tax experiments have taken place; and additional useful lessons will be learnt in Berlin, in the Netherlands, and in Finland. But we still await a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project. It is arguable that the Indian and Namibian experiments were as near to genuine pilot projects as possible because they were of sufficient duration to enable trends in behavioural change to be evaluated and trajectories predicted.
The UK
Might it be possible to run a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project in the UK? A genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project? Multiple problems present themselves:
- the project would have to be for a sufficiently long period for a sufficient number of assessments of behavioural change to be made to enable trajectories to be plotted and reliable estimates made of the likely behavioural changes that would accompany a permanent Citizen’s Basic Income scheme;
- any Citizen’s Basic Income viable in the short to medium term in the UK (and in any developed country) would have to be funded wholly or in part by changing income tax and social insurance contribution levels and thresholds. So a genuine pilot project would require government departments to make those adjustments just for the individuals involved in the project, and to recycle the savings into pilot project participants’ Citizen’s Basic Incomes – a somewhat unlikely proposition;
- the project would need to involve a cross-section of the population if it were to stand some chance of modelling a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income; and
- because any revenue neutral or almost revenue neutral scheme would impose losses on some households (- preferably on households in the higher income deciles), some participants in the pilot project would lose disposable income at the point of implementation.
A feasible Citizen’s Basic Income experiment
What would be feasible would be to provide a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income to a small community on top of existing benefits provisions and without altering National Insurance contributions or Income Tax payments. This would avoid government departments having to change current tax and benefits provisions: but it would require additional funding and it would not mirror the tax and benefits changes that would be required to fund a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income. This is why I have called it an ‘experiment’ rather than a ‘pilot project’. Important lessons could be learnt: but nobody would be able to regard the experiment’s results as evidence for how a Citizen’s Basic Income would work in practice.
A further feasible option would be to give a Citizen’s Basic Income to all sixteen to eighteen year olds and not give them an Income Tax Personal Allowance. This approach would create minimal problems for the tax and benefits authorities and for employers, and it would result in almost no losses at the point of implementation. The important question would be whether to promise permanence – in which case it would be a genuine pilot project; or whether to limit the experiment to a stated number of years – in which case it would be an experiment. (Microsimulation research on such a pilot project/experiment can be found in a recent working paper. )
