by Karl Widerquist | Jan 17, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in April 2007.
Republican Presidential Candidate Tommy Thompson has endorsed BIG—at least in a foreign country. On his campaign website, the former Wisconsin Governor calls himself “the reliable conservative in the 2008 presidential race.” The first reason he gives is, “Tommy Thompson is the father of welfare reform.” Thompson has a good claim to that title. Since 1996, welfare reform, also known as “workfare,” replaced conditional cash support for single mothers with work requirements, sometimes for less than minimum wage, without providing daycare. The plan was modeled on an earlier Wisconsin program initiated by then-governor Thompson. Workfare is usually motivated by the belief that poor people have a responsibility to take whatever jobs are offered, even if they have substantial childcare responsibilities.
Thompson is literally the last America one might expect to endorse BIG—a plan to provide unconditional cash benefits to every citizen. But Thompson has not only endorsed BIG, he has made it a major initiative in his campaign. He has discussed it in numerous interviews and speeches and at the Republican presidential debates. He hasn’t endorsed BIG for the United States but as part of his strategy to win the war in Iraq. The BIG element in Thompson’s Iraq strategy is that one-third of Iraqi government oil revenues will be reserved for a fund to provide every Iraqi with a small income guarantee modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). USBIG Newsletter readers will recall that the APF was the initiative of another Republican Governor, Jay Hammond. It provides a small but significant income guarantee to every Alaskan resident.
Of course, both the APF and any likely Iraq proposal fall short of the goals of most BIG supporters because they are not large enough to cover the recipient’s needs—a “partial BIG” rather than a “full BIG.” But Alaska experience has show that even a partial BIG can make a great difference to the needy and sets the right precedent.
Thompson’s plan is rather far from implementation, however. To introduce it, the U.S. would have to be continuing its involvement in Iraq two years from now, when a president Thompson would take office. At that point the U.S. will have been at war for nearly six years. Even then, Thompson could only recommend the plan to the Iraqi Parliament, which is formally recognized by the U.S. government as the sovereign government of an independent country. If the whole of Thompson’s plan is adopted, United States would likely remain at war in Iraq for four more years while we find out whether the military elements of his plan work.
Thompson has not discussed extending the Alaska-style plan closer to home, nor does he seem aware of the possible conflict between the goals of an APF-style BIG and his pedigree, Workfare.
What’s the big deal if a politician in one country supports BIG in another country where he may have little influence even if elected? It show that framed in the right context, BIG can have a great appeal even to work-ethic conservatives, and it demonstrates the growing appeal of the APF precedent. The APF is so obviously successful, so popular, and so cost-effective that it appeals even to the father of workfare. Much of the motivation for workfare has been popular American resentment against people who receive direct government payments. But there is little resentment in America for people who receive property income whether or not they work and whether or not they received their property through work. The APF makes some part of Alaska’s oil revenues into part of the personal property of every Alaskan. It’s theirs; they own it. It is quite natural to infer that if it is right for every Alaskan to own a share of their oil, then perhaps every Iraqi should own a share of their oil too. But once you have endorsed that principle it is quite natural to infer that every South African should own a share of their gold. Every Botswanan should own a share of their diamonds. Every Welshman should own a share of their coal. Every Bolivian should own a share of their tin. And the full inference is that everyone should own a share of all natural resources. If we put that principle into practice, single mothers would not need workfare at all.
-Karl Widerquist (Michael Lewis contributing), New Orleans, LA, April 2007
by Tyler Prochazka | Jan 17, 2018 | Opinion
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is gaining more traction in mainstream discourse, but the academic debate has been heating up for years. One scholar with a sympathetic but critical eye towards basic income still believes it is not the best priority for activists.
Philip Harvey, a professor of law at Rutgers, wrote that a job guarantee could eliminate poverty for a fraction of the cost of UBI — $1.5 trillion less.
Harvey argued in 2006 that the focus on UBI may be crowding out more realistic policies that could achieve the same ends.
“[Basic Income Guarantee] advocates who argue that a society should provide its members the largest sustainable BIG it can afford – whether or not that guarantee would be large enough to eliminate poverty – are on shaky moral ground if the opportunity cost of providing such a BIG would be the exhaustion of society’s redistributive capacity without eliminating poverty when other foregone social welfare strategies could have been funded at far less cost that would have succeeded in achieving that goal.”
When I interviewed Harvey this month, he said his views have largely stayed the same and he still sees a fundamental difference between the advocates of UBI and job guarantee.
“The most important driver of that difference is the inherent attractiveness of the UBI idea. It really is an idea that captures the imagination and admiration of all kinds of interested parties with different kinds of agendas. The job guarantee idea, on the other hand, attracts people who are more into the weeds of policy analysis.”.
There is a big debate about which type of cost calculation is most relevant for UBI, since wealthy individuals would have most or all of the basic income taxed back.
Basic income scholars such as Karl Widerquist argue it is more accurate to calculate UBI’s “net cost” which subtracts the portion of the basic income that is taxed back, as individuals are essentially paying back the benefit.
Harvey argues that, from a political standpoint, people will not view UBI in such a way: “The problem with Karl’s argument is that he that he thinks that people will think the way he does, when there’s no evidence to support that given the way they think about other analogous government benefits.”
Harvey notes that, since the gross cost of UBI proposals is typically a high percentage of a country’s overall GDP, there are tradeoffs that must be considered when pushing for basic income.
“On a practical level, that’s the biggest problem that UBI advocates face is that they don’t have a good answer to why it’s worth spending that much money on this kind of benefit as opposed to spending that much money or a far lesser amount of money on other benefits that would serve the same purpose.”
Many basic income proponents have argued that the job guarantee would have much higher administrative costs than the basic income, and thus say it is a less attractive proposal.
Interestingly, Harvey argues the high administrative costs actually serve the purpose of the guarantee because the administration of the program also creates new jobs: “The goal of the job guarantee is to provide jobs and as long as the jobs you provide are helping to achieve your goal, it doesn’t matter whether if they’re administrative jobs or non-administrative jobs, they still count.”
The plan he proposes is for the government to offer grants to nonprofits and government agencies to create jobs that fulfill their mission to help the community. For example, installing rooftop solar panels and advocacy work.
“Why not give not-for-profit organizations the opportunity to compete head-on with government agencies to see who can do the most good with the resources made available to them through the program?”
Allowing for this competition would avoid the criticism that the government cannot create productive work.
“You can design a job guarantee program to avoid the relative incapacity or possible incapacity of governments to create meaningful jobs.”
Harvey has designed the ‘Jobs for All’ congressional bill with former Congressman John Conyers, who recently resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.
When pushing for basic income, Harvey believes the opportunity cost, both in the time spent advocating UBI and then financing it, may be too great.
“Unless you can argue that you are prepared to provide a UBI that is really adequate to eliminate poverty, you’ve no business advocating a program that would leave people in poverty because it was inadequate.”
Author’s editorial note: I plan to write a follow-up article to discuss and analyze some of the points made by Dr. Harvey.
by Aleksander Masternak | Jan 10, 2018 | Opinion
One of the most common objections to Universal Basic Income (UBI) states that the policy will disincentive individuals from working. There is an apparent fear that a UBI will bring widespread idleness. While we should be optimistic that basic income (or Negative Income Tax) experiments, which have recorded relatively low reductions in labour effort while decreasing poverty and increasing well-being, the devil’s in the details (and caveats) [1]. Instead, let’s take a step back and reflect on whether we should be working the long hours we still do and whether a hardline approach [2] to incentivising employment is necessary and effective.
Historical increases in productivity since the start of the 20th century developed predictions that citizens will not need to work as much as they had in the past. In the 1930s, Bertrand Russell remarked at the great productive capacities of the British economy during WW1 and detested the continued obsession with work for its own sake[3]. Nowadays, the need for basic products and services is adequately met and producing more does not mean working more. We need not be working the long hours we are required to for our societies to continue to grow. As economic historian Robert Skidelsky put it, “with our post-machine standard of living, we can afford to shed some of the Puritan guilt that has, for centuries, kept our noses to the grindstone” [4]. As such we should not worry about UBI earners enjoying more leisure time.
Increased leisure time allows individuals to pursue several goods in life, be it developing skills, learning something new, caring for the elderly or children, or just watching their favourite show. Shortening working days has been shown to increase productivity, promote well-being, reduce sick leave, and allow for a better work-life balance [5]. What should one do in their leisure time is up to them to decide. Long hours of work, however, seem to exhaust the worker as to prevent him from enjoying leisure time actively. Picture an “average Joe”, slumped in his armchair, watching a game of football with a beer in his hand. Admittedly, when a UBI is first introduced, the belief of many may be akin to that of “average Joe”. Long working days and passive evenings is what we’re used to after all.
Bertrand Russell thought, “…the wise use of leisure […] is a product of civilisation and education. A man who has worked long hours all his life will become bored if he is suddenly idle. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things.” [6]
If there are many slackers, we shouldn’t worry about them. With no requirement to work they should be able to pursue ends they would have attempted to do anyway. This may still be work, albeit in a different form, or training for a job for which you were previously thought unqualified. Many people may have waited for these activities or efforts until they had earned enough income. UBI reduces concerns of financial stability. We are not used to a society where individuals do not have (serious) personal financial concerns. It may take a generation or two for us to get used to it and be able to make wise use of our leisure time. A lot of people choose to spend their leisure time being productive, while others are happy to sit and play PC games all day long. In the meanwhile, many will be bored with the extra time they have on their hands and that might be a good thing.
Individuals work for reasons far exceeding the need to earn subsistence. Unfortunately, despite years of technological development and raised standards of living, individuals are still thought only capable of being motivated to work through the deprivation of their physiological needs. Empirical evidence suggests people care about their work for more than just earning a wage [7]. When the labour market does not offer a sufficient supply of meaningful work that a labourer can take on, earning subsistence seems to take precedence. Systematically denying individuals meaningful work, however, could be detrimental to the individual’s capacity of devising and pursuing their conception of the good life.
It is difficult to conceive of alternative ways to sustain oneself and pursue a good life. It is arguably easier to find meaning in the responsibilities placed upon you by virtue of employment rather than to find yourself bored, seeking meaning, deciding upon a pursuit, and motivating oneself to do it. A new field of psychological research, developed by Ryan and Deci, called Self-Determination Theory (SDT) should raise optimism.
SDT posits “human nature […] is deeply designed to be active and social and which, when afforded a good enough (i.e. basic-need-supportive) environment, will move toward thriving, wellness, and integrity” [8]. Humans achieve optimal functioning when managing their physiological needs, their psychological needs are often achieved as well. These needs include autonomy – when one’s behaviours are inline with one’s authentic interests, competence – feeling mastery in significant life contexts, and relatedness – when you feel cared for or significant in front of others. “People’s curiosity, creativity, productivity, and compassion are most robustly expressed” in social contexts in which their psychological needs have been taken into account.
If the current generation is afforded a UBI many who reduce their time at work will become bored. A well-implemented UBI policy guarantees one’s physiological needs are met and frees individuals to fulfill their psychological needs. When these same individuals recognise their boredom they will seek to alleviate it. Initially, this may take the form of passive entertainment (and some may stay here) while others will try and fulfil their psychological requirements through meaningful activities (congruent with their psychological needs). Those that never make an effort to improve themselves likely already have this inclination under the current social system, and this should be rare anyway. Figuring out one’s intrinsic interests is difficult and takes serious reflective deliberation. While instinct leads us to the fulfilment of psychological needs, we may not have these clearly defined ourselves or be properly aware of them. As such, in order to ease the existential burden of the first generation of basic income earners the public should be educated about their psychological needs and ways to pursue them.
About the author:
Aleksander Masternak is a freelance writer and web developer based in Berlin.
He holds an MSc in Political Theory from the University of Amsterdam and an MA in History and Economics from the University of Glasgow. In the past, he worked as an archival research assistant to the Great War Project in Glasgow, a TEDx conference event organiser, an English language teacher, a marketing manager for a start-up, and Centre Manager of a language school.
[1] Widerquist, Karl. (2017, November 28). The Basic Income Guarantee Experiments of the 1970s: A Quick Summary of Results. BIEN.
Weller, Chris. (2017, May 10). Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Is Already Lowering Stress Levels – and It’s Only 4 Months Old.
Widerquist, Karl. (2017, November 21). Basic Income Experiments-The Devil’s in the Caveats. BIEN.
[2] stick-approach: when one is incentivised to act through the threat of punishment and coercion rather than through the promise of reward (carrot-approach).
[3] Russell, Bertrand. (1932). In Praise of Idleness.
[4] Skidelsky, Robert. (2013). Rise of the Robots: What Will the Future of Work Look Like? The Guardian.
[5] Bernmar, Daniel. (2017, January 06). Ignore the Headlines: A Six-hour Working Day Is the Way Forward. The Guardian.
[6] Russell (1932).
[7] Gheaus, A., &; Herzog, L. (2016). The Goods of Work (Other Than Money!).
[8] Ryan, R. M., &; Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
by Karl Widerquist | Jan 3, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in September 2006.
I was struck by a report in the Associated Press reported on October 12th that a 63-year-old Ohio man intentionally had himself convicted of bank robbery. Timothy J. Bowers sought a three-year prison sentence to bridge the gap until he becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits. Bowers had lost his job making deliveries for a drug wholesaler more than three years ago and had been unable to find anything but minimum wage labor, which he could not live on. So, finally, he went to a bank, handed the clerk an envelope and demanded that she put cash it in. He then walked straight to the bank’s security guard, confessed, handed him the envelope filled with only $80 in cash, and calmly waited for the police.
The court-ordered psychological evaluation pronounced him sane and competent to stand trial. Judge Angela White gave Bowers the three-year sentence he asked for. According to the AP, “Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.” Arguing against tough sentencing is an ironic position for American prosecutors well known for locking away petty criminals.
This is an isolated incident. It is hardly a repeat of the Irish Potato famine when there were stories of large numbers of people getting themselves arrested to avoid starvation. But still, I think it says something about the low-wage labor market in the United States today. U.S. prisons are not easy, pleasant, or kind places to be under any circumstances. America is not in a famine; by some measures, it is the richest country in the world. What does it say about the jobs we offer the underprivileged when a sane person can choose prison over labor market?
-Karl Widerquist, New Orleans, LA, September 2006
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
