by Guest Contributor | Apr 21, 2022 | Opinion
The idea of Basic Income is catching on around the world as it is getting more and more support, especially after cash payments many countries paid during the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine.
A Basic Income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without a means-test or work requirement. This is the first phrase you can see when you open BIEN’s website. So where should states get money for it? For example, from natural resources, as Alaska Permanent Fund does, and from taxes including a tax on robots, carbon tax, as well as a tax on cryptocurrencies, etc. The view that the state should supplement the income of the poor has a long history. For example, one way to increase the incomes of the poor proposed by Milton Friedman is a negative income tax. The idea is quite simple: richer people pay taxes and poorer ones get some percentage of this.
Ukrainians receive financial aid in the amount of 6500 hryvnias (just over US$200) under the program “ePidtrymka” for loss of part of wages (income), work (economic activity), which are temporarily stopped because of military actions during the current military struggle in Ukraine. It’s just a one-time payment with several strict conditions, including a territorial one. The deadline for submitting applications was March 31, 2022. So, what should other people do after April 1? Why shouldn’t children, women, single parents, young people, the disabled, and the unemployed be taken care of? Every Ukrainian needs to be paid because of the economic collapse and losses of income.
But is $200 enough to help someone who lost a family, home, or job? Is $200 enough to help anyone start life over in Europe or in an almost destroyed country? If this person is gravely ill? What about mental health, which was destroyed, of children, women, and youth? Every Ukrainian needs to be paid at least 500 Euros every month at best for the war’s duration until normal life is fully restored. I believe these brave people deserve more! Ukrainian people should be rewarded with UBI forever. This will be the greatest social experiment in history as well as a clear example for other countries and peoples.
Not only thousands of Ukrainians but also thousands of Russians are dying because of the actions of the Russian authorities. Let’s remember the dramatic events in Bucha, Ukraine, and in other cities. The Ukrainian government suspects soldiers from Khabarovsk, Buryatia, the Far East, and others of committing crimes. These are depressed regions with low incomes and high unemployment, despite their vast territories and natural resources. Residents have little choice: either to serve in the army and security services or to migrate to richer regions of the country. So, these hungry soldiers saw that people in Bucha were living their normal comfortable life. Maybe that’s why they were so cruel? Of course, it’s hard for me to reflect on why they acted like animals. But I strongly believe that they wouldn’t invade another country if they were receiving a basic income.
The situation is similar in other Russian regions like Tuva, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Altai, Jewish Autonomous Region. That doesn’t mean that in other regions the situation is better. Maybe just a little. Official statistics (according to the “new methodology”) indicate that there were more than 16 million people below the poverty line at the end of 2021 in Russia. According to the old methodology, there were more than 20 million people in need. Official Russian statistics are underestimated by two to three times, according to the experts. Anyway, what will happen to Russians after the war and devastating economic sanctions? Of course, I’m not making a comparison between “lost a job” and “lost a life”. However, in my opinion, very few people would participate in an unjust war if they had a basic income and a stable and prosperous life. Therefore, Russians also need a basic income. People would be critical of the propaganda if they have more opportunities.
Ukraine is a brave country that is fighting against Russia’s military intervention and is protecting the entire world from danger. Of course, the other countries support Ukraine. Ukrainians need to be paid basic income. I may repeat it forever. Basic Income has the potential to eliminate the need for war, and that’s why it is important to raise awareness of what Basic Income can do. Ukrainians need to live their calm normal life instead of hiding in their basements as they do right now. Millions of people were forced to flee Ukraine, many had to bury their children or parents in the yards. Nobody knows their feelings. I hope that nobody will ever do that again.
The war has affected the entire global community. Does the world forget the Chernobyl accident in 1986? Doesn’t the world read or hear about Russian soldiers in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant? Quoting a CNN report, “Although Chernobyl is not an active power plant, the sarcophagus above the reactor that exploded nearly 36 years ago needs to be maintained to avoid further radiation leaks. There is also a considerable amount of spent nuclear fuel that needs to be looked after”.
These miserable soldiers were ordered to dig trenches in that area, which is particularly radioactive. This zone right now is under the control of Ukrainian soldiers, but Russian soldiers may come back. This may be a bigger ecological problem than CO2 emissions for the whole world. What about the threat of Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons? Why do people worry about CO2 while so many people keep dying right now: young, old, children, men, and women? What could happen to the world after nuclear weapons are used?
Ukraine is a strong country. We are proud as well as terribly sorry about all the events that happen there. Crying and praying for it to end soon, to stop people’s unfair death. This is the whole world’s inexcusable mistake. We could have avoided so many deaths if a Basic Income had been introduced to the world. UBI will reduce humanity’s aggression and destroy the economic, political, and psychological causes of war.
Instability in the world is increasing. Food, gasoline, gas, and service prices are increasing all over the world, including in Africa and Asia. I know that heating prices are high right now in Europe. Soon it will be summer, but later fall and winter will come. The whole planet suffers from Russian military action in the center of Europe and is terrified at the thought of a world nuclear war. We should think about basic income today. No, that’s not right. We should have thought about it yesterday before these disasters. The 99% shouldn’t suffer from the decisions of the 1%. People need to be more independent from the government.
Article by: Irina Soloveva, Jr.
by Guest Contributor | Apr 9, 2022 | Opinion
Which country in the world arguably needs a Basic Income most?
Singapore, because she has the highest reserves per capita in the world, is in the top five for per capita income in the world, the fifth most expensive city in the world (The Economist) – and yet Singapore has no minimum wage, the greatest inequality amongst developed countries (Gini coefficient before government transfers), the biggest wage gap between the top and bottom percentiles, the lowest social welfare spending among developed countries, most expensive public housing in the world (price to income ratio), highest national pension contribution rates in the world (typically up to 37 percent of income), one of the most expensive electricity, water, public transport, public universities’ tuition fees, etc, in the world.
In addition to the above, Singapore has a unique fiscal policy (from a cash flow perspective) of limited spending on the nation’s pension scheme, public housing, and healthcare. However, the annual inflows exceed the outflows in each of these three areas, currently and historically.
Some recent statistics (April 2022) demonstrate that 10 percent of households cannot pay their water bills (media reports), and 10 percent of households do not have enough money to eat nutritionally (2019 pre-Covid-19, SMU-Lien Foundation Hunger Report 2019), etc.
So, perhaps in the final analysis – without Basic Income – many Singaporeans may have to continue to struggle to make ends meet. At the same time, Singapore has one of the highest per-capita suicide rates in the world, in spite of it being a criminal offense to attempt to try to kill oneself!
Singapore’s Reserves are estimated to be $1.97 trillion. If this is the case, perhaps it is time Singapore considers a basic income and shares this wealth with the people.
Written by: Leong Sze Hian
by Guest Contributor | Apr 9, 2022 | Opinion
14.5 million living in poverty
in the world’s fifth largest economy
until a global pandemic forced our chancellor
to spend £69 billion on a word
none of us had ever heard of.
Furlough showed universal basic income to be
a fundable possibility, at £67 billion net cost
paid for through reduced corporate tax breaks
and subsidies. Just 3.4 percent of GDP
to make absolute poverty extinct.
When the first unconditional money
hit mum’s bank account she cried
with eyes that could now see a future.
But trusting it took time. You’re not supposed to eat
normally just after a fast or you’ll be sick.
So we let relief drip into our days.
First in seconds, dancing round the kitchen
feeding shopping into starved cupboards
now bulging till their doors wouldn’t shut.
Then in minutes, a river that brought mum
home two full days a week. She began
helping me with my homework.
Grades went up. A well fed mind imagined
going to university, freed from the urgent need
to leave school early and start earning.
Knocks on the door brought not fear
but friends. Neighbours came to chat,
share ideas, our street hadn’t felt this alive
in years! Revitalised by breathing in
something other than stress and anxiety.
Minds to the right: tick
for smaller, simpler government; tick
for healthcare appointments reduced
8% by better physical and mental health; tick
for greater purchasing power from the ground up.
Minds to the left: tick
for greater community engagement; tick
for people secure enough to believe in a future; tick
for human ingenuity previously capped
by the poverty trap freed to help create
a society no longer chained to poor
wages for sourcing, making, selling poor
quality goods that return to poor
countries forced to burn, bury, breathe poor
quality air. Instead, the choice to say no
from a new sense of security, dignity, universality
we can do better.
Harula Ladd
by Guest Contributor | Mar 15, 2022 | Opinion
Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes care of sustenance needs, and SESED (Figure 1), can complement UBI to achieve poverty alleviation. This will be through a small business enterprise, whose success is facilitated by SESED given the peace of mind that UBI provides.
Figure 1 – A Systemic Ecosystem for Socio-Economic Development (SESED)
The SESED is a network of interconnected interdependent small businesses operated by people who are being helped to uplift themselves from poverty. These ventures are initially funded by microloans availed from sponsors, through Fintech companies.
The success of the business is ensured by a strategy of “benefits for all” modus operandi. Thus, the vested interests of all stakeholders are procured upfront.
The access to credit and the success of the enterprise evolves into income generation, from which aspirations, such as education for children, good health by proper nourishment and peace of mind, etc., are shaped.
These aspirations create buying power, now that the funds for these are available.
Though these ventures are small, the overall increased aggregate demand will create a whirlpool in the sluggish economy of the present, and result in a broader, vibrant, and sustainable one.
A key feature for the success of the venture is the “System”. This essentially facilitates the end-to-end process, and whose main responsibilities are:
- Borrower Education – Financial Literacy, Business Acumen, Skills Development, Psychological Interventions, etc.
- Enable access to credit via an efficient income distribution system; e.g., an interface with the Fintech company, manual distribution of funds.
- Manage the Supply and Demand value chain – e.g., suppliers must also be consumers, and vice-versa, of the products of the enterprises as appropriate. This could be along the lines of the Japanese innovation of “Keiretsu”.
- Foster a vested interest from the sponsor in the success of the enterprise for a win-win relationship.
- Tailor local solutions – i.e., targeted business development and bottom-up innovation; e.g., the product could be made available in a cheaper one-time use package, as well the regular one.
- Mitigate the risk of loan default.
- Deal with the idiosyncrasies of the society – e.g., in most 3rd world countries bribes are a norm, and extortions can be present as well.
The late Professor C. K. Prahalad, together with Professor Stuart L. Hart urged corporations to note “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”, and espoused “Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”.
It is thus that, not only is the primary outcome of poverty alleviation of UBI with SESED paramount, but they fall through benefits of 1) increased revenue for corporations due to the increased aggregate demand, and 2) the interest on the loans plus “fractional dividends” in the form of profits sharing for the sponsors, that stand out as unique, different and pragmatic in this model.
Thus, UBI with SESED will then be an “Auspicium Melioris Aevi” – an Augury of a Better Age.
M.Pandurangan
linkedin.com/in/mpandurangan
7 Mar 2022
References:
- Standing, Guy – “Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen”
- Ruskin, John – “Unto This Last”
- More, Thomas – “Utopia”
- Schumacher, E.F. – “Small is Beautiful”
- Prahalad, C. K. – “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”
by Guest Contributor | Mar 15, 2022 | Opinion
On March 9, South Korea took to the polls for the 2022 Presidential Election. Former governor of Gyeonggi province, Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Democratic Party lost by a narrow margin of less than 0.7% to Yoon Suk-yeol from the People Power Party. This election outcome will likely stunt the development of basic income in the country.
As Guy Standing has written previously, this election in Korea is a vital one as Lee Jae-myung is a proponent of basic income. Prior to his candidacy, Lee served as mayor of Seongnam and subsequently governor of Gyeonggi, the province surrounding the capital city of Seoul. Among other initiatives, he famously launched the Gyeonggi Youth Basic Income (YBI) in 2019, providing valuable insights into how this idea might work in a highly developed country as well as an Asian economy. It is not so often that we see a major presidential candidate championing basic income at a national level (Andrew Yang dropped out of the race in 2020). Lee vowed to gradually implement a universal scheme in Korea, focusing on the youth and expanding to cover the entire population.
As the world’s 10th largest economy, a nationwide programme implemented in Korea could lead to tremendous progress in the discourse on basic income. With an advanced economic structure, high automation rate, and rising youth unemployment, Korea has the conditions of a postindustrial society in which a strong case for basic income could be built. Instead, such a prospect was overshadowed by more salient topics such as economic inequality, inter-Korea relations, and China’s influence. Gender equality and anti-feminism were at the forefront of the political debate, with Yoon pledging to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
Dubbed the “unlikeable election” due to the prevalence of smearing campaigns, the presidential race was a very close one with neither candidate receiving majority support. Yoon garnered 48.56% of the votes nationwide, ahead of Lee’s 47.83%. A provincial breakdown of the election results reveals a highly divided country with democrat votes concentrated in the southwestern part of the country and conservatives in the east. Lee’s approval ratings in his own province seem to be falling – he barely received half of the votes in Gyeonggi this time, where he served as governor from 2018 to 2021. Now that Lee has resigned his governor seat and lost the presidential race, the cause for basic income in Korea will be affected to a certain extent.
This election outcome may not spell the end to basic income in Korea, however – outgoing president Moon Jae-in lost to Park Geun-hye in 2012, only to be elected as her successor five years later; moreover, a young Basic Income Party is seeking to bring this issue into the mainstream. The party fielded their own presidential candidate this year as well, critiquing Lee’s roadmap. Korea may not be the first country in the world to implement universal basic income just yet, but political tides could change and there is still room for this movement to grow.
On March 9 South Korea took to the polls for the 2022 Presidential Election. Former governor of Gyeonggi province, Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Democratic Party lost by a narrow margin of less than 0.7% to Yoon Suk-yeol from the People Power Party. This election outcome will likely stunt the development of basic income in the country.
As Guy Standing has written previously, this election in Korea is a vital one as Lee Jae-myung is a proponent of basic income. Prior to his candidacy, Lee served as mayor of Seongnam and subsequently governor of Gyeonggi, the province surrounding the capital city of Seoul. Among other initiatives, he famously launched the Gyeonggi Youth Basic Income (YBI) in 2019, which provides valuable insights into how this idea might work in a highly developed country as well as Asian economy. It is not so often that we see a major presidential candidate championing basic income at a national level (Andrew Yang dropped out of the race in 2020): Lee vowed to gradually implement a universal scheme in Korea, focusing on the youth and expanding to cover the entire population.
As the world’s 10th largest economy, a nationwide programme implemented in Korea could lead to tremendous progress in the discourse on basic income. With an advanced economic structure, high automation rate, and rising youth unemployment, Korea has the conditions of a postindustrial society in which a strong case for basic income could be built. Instead, such a prospect was overshadowed by more salient topics such as economic inequality, inter-Korea relations, and China’s influence. Gender equality and anti-feminism were at the forefront of the political debate, with Yoon pledging to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
Dubbed the “unlikeable election” due to the prevalence of smearing campaigns, the presidential race was a very close one with neither candidate receiving majority support. Yoon garnered 48.56% of the votes nationwide, ahead of Lee’s 47.83%. A provincial breakdown of the election results reveals a highly divided country, with democrat votes concentrated in the southwestern part of the country and conservatives in the east. Lee’s approval ratings in his own province seem to be falling as well – he barely received half of the votes in Gyeonggi, where he served as governor from 2018 to 2021. Now that Lee has resigned his governor seat and lost the presidential race, the cause for basic income in Korea will be affected to a certain extent.
This election outcome may not spell the end to basic income in Korea, however – outgoing president Moon Jae-in lost to Park Geun-hye in 2012, only to be elected as her successor five years later. Moreover, a young Basic Income Party is seeking to bring this issue into the mainstream, fielding its own presidential candidate in the election this year as well. Korea may not be the first country in the world to implement universal basic income just yet, but political tides could change and there is still room for this movement to grow.
Truston Yu is a BIEN life member and former resident of Seoul, specializing in Southeast Asian studies including Korea-Southeast Asia relations. Their commentaries have been featured by numerous outlets including the Diplomat, the Jakarta Post and the Straits Times.
by Guy Standing | Jan 18, 2022 | Featured, Opinion
There are rare moments when a combination of threatening circumstances leads to a wonderful transformation that only a short time before would have been unimaginable. This year may be such a moment. The Republic of Korea could set an example to the world that would bring happiness to millions of Koreans, and to many more around the world.
The risks if politicians are too cautious are enormous. Before COVID-19, the global economy was already heading towards a crisis. For over three decades, more and more of the income and wealth were going to the owners of property, financial, physical, and “intellectual”. The commons, belonging to everybody, were being converted into the source of profits and rents. A new class, the precariat, was growing everywhere, suffering from multiple forms of insecurity, drifting deeper into debt. It was incredibly high debt – private, corporate, and public – that made the global economy uniquely fragile.
Meanwhile, the public across the world were realizing the threat posed by global warming and destruction of the environment. Nothing was being done. If that continues, life for our children and grandchildren will be impaired. And it is clear that mistreatment of nature has helped make this an era of pandemics. The COVID-19 outbreak is the sixth pandemic this century.
In these circumstances, policies that merely try to go back to the old normal will not work. We need a bold transformative vision, one of courage, one designed to give people basic economic and social security, one designed to make the economy work for society and every citizen, not just for the bankers and plutocracy, and one designed to revive the commons and our natural environment.
Jae-Myung Lee is campaigning for the Presidency in the March 2022 presidential election with an exciting and feasible strategy, based on a promise of a basic income for every Korean man and woman, paid equally, as a right, without conditions. It is affordable. What is important at this stage is not to set some ideal amount, but to be on the road towards living in a society in which everybody has enough on which to survive, even if they experience personal setbacks.
What makes the proposal for a basic income so profound is that Jae-Myung Lee has come from a humble background, knowing poverty and insecurity from his childhood. He understands two fundamentals. First, the income of every Korean is due to the efforts of all those Koreans who lived beforehand, and it is based on the commons, nature and resources that make up the country, which belong to all Koreans. Those who have gained from taking the commons, most of all, the land, owe it to all Koreans to share some of the gains. A modest Land Value Tax, or levy, is justifiable and fair, and should help fund the basic income.
He also understands that pollution and global warming must be combated by a carbon tax or eco-taxes. The rich cause more pollution than the poor, the poor experience the bad effects more than the rich, including bad health from exposure to poisonous air. So, the solution must include carbon taxes to discourage global warming and polluting activities. But by themselves such taxes would hit the poor harder, because the tax would amount to more of their income.
The only sensible solution is to guarantee that the revenue from eco-taxes will be recycled through a Commons Capital Fund to help pay for the basic income, as Carbon Dividends. The poor will gain, while society will be on the road to fighting global warming and ecological decay. A basic income will also encourage more care work and ecological work, rather than resource-depleting labor. It will stimulate the desirable form of economic growth.
The second fundamental Jae-Myung Lee and his advisers have understood is that basic security is essential for rational decision-making and mental health. There cannot be individual or societal resilience against pandemics or economic crises unless there is basic security, so that people can behave rationally rather than in desperation. Experiments have shown that a basic income improves mental health and the ability to make better decisions, for oneself, one’s family, and one’s community.
In the Korean edition of my book Plunder of the Commons, I paid respect to the ancient Korean ethos of hongik ingan, which helped found Korea in 2,333 BC. It expresses a historically-grounded wisdom that Koreans should be re-teaching the world in an era of self-centered individualism and consumption-driven “success”. It conveys the sense of not just sharing in benefits of production but sharing in the preservation and reproduction of a sense of community, our sense of participation and our relationships in and with nature. A basic income would pay respect to that ethos. Jae-Myung Lee should be commended for having pioneered it in Gyeonggi Province, and would set the country on a new progressive road if elected President on March 9.
——
A Korean translation of this article was published by Pressian – a political news website headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
