Three communities across Ontario have been selected for the Province’s guaranteed minimum income pilot. Ontario will be rolling out a three-year study in late spring and fall 2017. Premier Kathleen Wynne made the announcement with details of the project in Hamilton on April 24th.
The stated goal of the pilot on the official website of the Ontario Government is to ”test whether a basic income can better support vulnerable workers, improve health and education outcomes for people on low incomes, and help ensure that everyone shares in Ontario’s economic growth.”
The mayors of each community – Lindsay, Thunder Bay, and Brantford/Hamilton/Brant County, expressed hopeful to positive reactions at the announcement that their cities had been chosen to pilot in the project.
Kawartha Lakes Mayor Andy Letham, which is home to the community of Lindsay, describes precarious work as a cause for concern in his community and admits that the status quo of society isn’t functioning well. “The cost of poverty on people’s mental health is real,” said Letham. “So how to we break these cycles?” Lindsay will host 2,000 of the total 4,000 participants.
Thunder Bay Mayor Keith Hobbs, a 34-year veteran of the local police force, described his experience with some members of the community: “I saw the same people all the time, like a revolving door.” Hobbs expressed excitement at the possibility of this project positively impacting the lives of those he had consistently interacted with. Workers and citizens of Thunder Bay have had to reinvent themselves as the region transitioned from industries like pulp and paper to health research institutes, law, and genomics.
Pulp and Paper Mills in Thunder Bay, Ontario
Brantford Mayor Chris Friel expressed excitement to take part in a project that will reduce poverty and improve health and educational outcomes. Ron Eddy, the Mayor of Brant Country, stated that he looks forward to observing the results of the project. “The only way you’ll know the outcome is to try it out. So, let’s see what happens,” Mayor Eddy said.
Details on the Pilot
The basic income pilot will randomly select 4,000 individuals between ages 18 to 64 that meet certain criteria, and provide them with a minimum income despite their employment status. The plan will target populations who are in precarious work positions, those already on social assistance, and the homeless. The program will, however, target mostly the “working poor” according to Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services Helena Jaczek. Those receiving a minimum income will be compared to a control group, which will not receive payments. The project will look for outcomes using metrics like food security, health and health care usage, education and training, and labor market participation among others.
Recipients of the guaranteed minimum income will receive:
$16,989 per year for a single person (75 percent of the Canadian poverty line), less 50 percent of the recipient’s earnings from work;
$24,027 for a couple, less 50 percent of their earnings from work;
An additional $6,000 for those with disabilities.
In addition to this, recipients will continue to receive other provincial and child benefit payments.
With this version of a guaranteed minimum income, a person earning $12,000 a year would still receive a basic income of $10,989 (subtract $6,000, or half their earnings, from the base amount of $16,989) and therefore receive a total of $22,989. A recipient’s net income will still increase, with the minimum income still active, as earnings from work increase up until around a wage of $34,000, where the payments would disappear. The total cost of the project is expected at $50 million per year.
Hugh Segal, a former senator who was consulted for the project, noted in Manitoba’s “Mincome” experiment in the 1970’s that the community saw improvements in health with no drop in employment, and that the potential exists for the government to save money if it replaced the traditional social assistance programs like Ontario Works with a basic income. The Provincial government is also in the early stages of planning a fourth basic income pilot for the First Nations community.
Joe Huston, the CFO of GiveDirectly, speaks with the UBI Podcast about the largest basic income trial in history.
The trial is in its earliest stage and will expand later, giving entire communities a basic income in Kenya.
A 12-year basic income will be provided to 40 villages, 80 villages will receive basic income for 2 years. A lump-sum payment will be given to 80 villages. There will be 100 villages that will act as control groups.
One interesting takeaway is that Huston said they are already seeing some “spillover benefits.”
“I expect there will be spillover benefits. We kicked off in one pilot village, and already the surrounding villages have mentioned people are buying more services and goods,” Huston said.
When discussing pilot programs, the environmental impact of basic income is often overlooked. Huston said that GiveDirectly does not take a position on this, but he said developed countries should take the lead on the environment.
“My personal view is for these environmental goals you’d want to solve through other means, international treaties or the developed world stepping up, verses trying to slow down development of very very poor areas,” he said.
As the research begins to come out about basic income, Huston said he hopes it can inform the debate about how to best form the social safety net.
“I think evidence from the UBI study showing those who are just poor but receive money and put that toward investment that have big life-changing effects, I think that could change how social protection is done in those countries,” Huston said.
Previously, even after cash-transfer pilots end, Huston said that they continue to see positive effects.
“GiveDirectly’s first study measured effects up to a year after payments stopped…and you still saw pretty strong effects on earnings, assets, food security, reduction in stress levels,” Huston said.
Stress was measured through looking at cortisol levels, which saw significant declines after cash-transfers were administered, Huston said.
Once the 12-year study ends, Huston said he expects they will continue to follow up with these villages to see if there are permanent effects of basic income on these areas.
“We have the potential to end extreme poverty globally, many countries have the potential to end whatever they consider their national poverty line. And that potential…is extraordinarily exciting. It is a huge opportunity for our generation,” Huston said.
“Then the question is, ‘why wouldn’t we test this?'”
The cost of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often greatly exaggerated, because people are tempted to think the cost of UBI is the size of the grant multiplied by the size of the population. You can call that the “gross cost” of UBI, but it’s a gross overestimate of the real cost of UBI. It fact, it’s not a cost in any meaningful sense, because UBI is a “tax rebate” or “a refundable tax credit.” That is, UBI is a negative tax. People seldom call UBI a negative tax because that would invite confusion with a similar policy formally named “The Negative Income Tax.”
But in the more important generic sense, UBI is–and must be understood as–a negative tax. When you pay the government, that’s a tax. When the government pays you (without you having sold something to the government), that’s a negative tax. It doesn’t cost you anything for the government to give and take a dollar from you at the same time. If you want to know someone’s total tax burden, you need to subtract the negative taxes they receive from the positive taxes they pay.
Far more than any other policy, UBI involves the government taking money in taxes and giving it back to the very same people as a UBI.
A calculation of real redistributive cost of UBI requires subtracting all of that taking-and-giving-back to focus on the net increase in taxes on contributors (or net cuts in other spending) that will be necessary to support the net benefit to net recipients. The redistributive burden is the only real budgetary cost of UBI.
UBI’s net cost issue requires a careful explanation because the issue is almost unique to UBI, extremely important, and sometimes difficult to grasp. The issue occurs because UBI is both universal and in cash. Because it is universal, everyone receives it, even net taxpayers. Because it is in cash, people receive the same thing that they pay. Because it is both universal and in cash, people receive the same thing at the same time that they pay for it.
Most transfer payments go to people who are not at the time also paying taxes to support it. For example, almost no one both pays for and receives Unemployment Insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, disability insurance, Medicaid, and so at the same time. The vast majority of people pay for Social Security at one time and receive it at another time. The net issue so important to UBI is negligible or nonexistent for all these policies.
About half of U.S. transfer payments are healthcare related and many of these do involve the same people both paying for and receiving benefits at the same time, but they pay in cash and receive back in something very different: health care. We need to know the cost of converting the cash into that healthcare. So the gross cost of healthcare spending is relevant, although we might be interested in its net redistributive effect as well.
UBI is fundamentally different from all of these policies because for the vast majority of people it works like a tax rebate. You pay taxes in cash and receive back cash at the same time. Suppose you buy something for $100, but you instantaneously receive back a rebate of $50. You do not have to budget for that $100. You have to budget for $50. That $50 is the only real cost to you of this policy. If we want to know the budgetary cost of UBI, we have to net out the enormous extent to which it functions as a rebate. Unlike healthcare spending, the gross cost has no budgetary effects at all. There is a limit to how much healthcare the government can provide you even if you are paying all the taxes for it. You only have so much purchasing power. Only so much of it can be converted into healthcare. But there is no limit to how much cash the government can give you as long as it taxes it right back. The government could give every single American $10 billion in cash without increasing prices—as long as it taxes back that $10 billion as soon as it pays it out. We need to get rid of any attention to this meaningless gross cost and focus on the one cost of UBI that matters: its net cost.
Here are some of the many examples of people mistreating the gross cost of UBI as if it were a real cost:
Derek Anderson, “The Real Cost of Universal Basic Income,” Medium, Dec 28, 2016. This one is especially misleading because it looks at the “cost” of redistributing existing entitlements, most targeted at low-income people, and redirecting it into a universal benefit, most of which will not go to low-income people. Doing that combines the replacement of targeted programs both with a very small UBI and with a large tax cut for people with high incomes, as if there were no way other to introduce UBI.
A google search will produce more articles making this error than I can count.
I recently made some simple estimates of the real cost of UBI in an paper entitled, “the Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations.” It’s currently under peer-review at an academic journal and available in un-reviewed form on my website. I found that a UBI large enough to eliminate poverty costs on $539 billion per year–less than 16% of its often-mentioned but not-very-meaningful gross cost ($3.415 trillion), less than 25% of the cost of current U.S. entitlement spending, less than 15% of overall federal spending, and about 2.95% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
-Cru Coffee House, Beaufort, North Carolina, May 23, 2017
There is an idea out there. It is of the transformational variety. It exists in various forms and goes by many names: universal basic income, basic income guarantee, negative income tax, citizen dividend. All of these monikers highlight important aspects of this concept. “Universal” because it applies to everyone with no conditional requirements. “Basic” and “guarantee” to emphasize that, rather than subsidizing luxury or ease, it’s about guaranteeing the right to simply live in dignity and security. “Negative income tax” to illustrate that tax structures can be understood and utilized not only as a way to extract money from the people, but also as a means of fair predistribution to those being underserved by our system. “Citizen” to encourage taking ownership of one’s community and obligations. “Dividend” to emphasize that it is not a form of charity, but a return on an investment, the rightful entitlement every one of us has to our proper share of this country’s resources and opportunities.
“A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.”
-Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)
This idea, if you haven’t heard of it before, is the simple premise that the government (composed of the people) would deliver a regular, guaranteed, and unconditional amount of income to every person in a society. Some argue that only citizens should receive it, some say legal residents, some suggest only adults, and some insist that every breathing human within the borders deserves the payment. There are valid arguments for all of these viewpoints, and I hope that soon enough we will have the good fortune of debating at great length these strategies on the national scale, because it will mean that the very premise has been accepted into our hearts and consciences as both essential and moral moving forward.
For that to happen, the idea must first inspire the support of the people as a whole, and because the United States is a nation of pride and marketing savvy, nothing sells here without a good, cohesive pitch. As a first order of business, we should settle on a name for our American version of this policy, and I have a suggestion:
The American Dividend
“American” because the only requirement is that you, in fact, are a part of this great country, and we will recognize that with your “Dividend,” your carried interest in the investment you and your family have made and continue to make in this country by merit of your participation in it.
On to the details. Perhaps alarm bells are ringing and red flags are waving for you right now. “That sounds like socialism,” you might point out. I freely admit that it is a socialistic policy, and I argue that an appropriate amount of socialism is essential in a successful and just society – even a capitalist one. We seem, in America, to cling to the naive idea that we can or should only have one or the other, socialism or capitalism. That idea has run its course; we must have both. Neither of these simple, broad ideologies is robust enough to run our complex economy alone, because our economy is not only one of markets, but also of human beings. Markets run by the laws of supply and demand, and are greatly motivated and spurred on by capitalism, the great incentivizer. A purely socialized, redistributive society in which all citizens received the same reward regardless of their contributions could squash the immense growth, motivation, and innovation that capitalism fosters. Human beings, though, survive and thrive by the natural laws of inalienable rights, defined and set out by and for ourselves as entitlements to which we are guaranteed by dint of nothing other than our humanity. Socialistic regulations are required to make sure we adhere to these natural laws. Healthcare, for example, must eventually be socialized and untethered from the need for financial means, because no supply and demand curve can fairly measure the value of health. The demand is infinite, because a sick or dying individual will agree to pay any amount for even a chance at survival. This is where capitalism fails. It eventually localizes far too much power in the hands of the few, the owners of property and corporations, and we find ourselves in a situation closer to extortion than free markets.
My argument even leaves aside our very significant problem with automation. As we continually and irretrievably lose massive chunks of our labor market to machines, these pressures toward economic inequality will exponentially intensify. Properly addressed, however, these same technologies could provide abundance to society rather than greater scarcity and insecurity.
The answer to the question of growing complexity in human and economic markets is not to throw away our hard-won structure as a total failure, but rather to keep tweaking the capitalism/socialism balance to calibrate it to the changing needs of the times. In determining what should be socialized, we can tie it all back into life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Written deep within our American values, these freedoms are the inheritance of all people regardless of circumstance, be it race, culture, gender, age, or financial means. Life requires, at the very least, food, shelter, and health. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness require the ability to choose one’s path without fear of harm or retribution from any authority, and without fear of starvation. Our system has never fully guaranteed these things, and so we have not yet managed to fulfill our constitutional mission statement. The American Dividend can be used to ensure those rights. It can guarantee all people the ability to feed and house themselves as well as the power to say NO to any path in life that doesn’t serve their interests, be it a line of employment or an unhealthy relationship.
If we understand that we have always lived in a blended society of both socialism and capitalism, we can let go of our distrust of these words, our reflexive labeling of them as inherently evil or good, and instead see them simply as tools in the constant balancing act of governance.
Let’s address the two main sticking points the American Dividend will encounter: 1) the fear/resentment of subsidizing laziness by paying hard-earned money for others to sit around and do nothing, and 2) the very prudent concern that it might be simply infeasible to fund a program of such broad scope – essentially the fear that we can’t afford to guarantee these rights to all.
Paying for Sloth?
As to subsidizing laziness, this fear is created and nourished by a skewed perspective in the American capitalist culture that money is the driving motivator for work. We place the dollar on a pedestal far above all others, but money does not deserve this worship. The adage that money is the root of all evil is myopic. Insecurity is the root of evil, and money, or more accurately the lack thereof, is merely our means of expressing and comprehending insecurity. Whereas money is nothing but a tool, poverty is a force. It is the lack of freedom. Because we have been inculcated our entire lives with the idea that money represents value and merit, we have fallen into a misunderstanding of our fellow human beings. We have descended into the weary and preoccupied mind’s fallacy of “othering.” This is to say we have allowed ourselves to perceive the other members of our society as opponents, statistics, enemies, leeches, and threats to our own security. When we are in constant competition mode, we forget the other players for the sake of the game.
When we take the time to truly examine and understand our neighbors, compatriots, brothers, and sisters, however, we see that they are merely reflections of ourselves. We all have hopes and dreams; we all want to be special; we all want to contribute. The current system, which clumsily attempts to reward valuable effort but often disincentivizes hard work and ethics, leads people to despair and apparent laziness, sapping their motivation. In its current form, welfare assistance disappears the moment someone gets a job and increases their income, creating welfare traps. Additionally, other societally valuable endeavors like child-rearing, home healthcare, the arts, furthering education, and entrepreneurialism aren’t deemed worthy of any kind of salary in this economy. They can only be done on faith, at a loss, and at risk of harm to oneself. Throughout human history, a great majority of the movers and shakers of the arts, sciences, and business have had the luxury of pursuing their passions without earning an income from an employer because theyither came from means or they gained access to a benefactor. Wouldn’t it be something new and remarkable if those rich in inspiration and motivation but lacking an inheritance or extreme risk tolerance weren’t forced to spend years of their lives struggling to survive, seeking funding, essentially asking permission from corporations and the owner class in order to pursue the realization of their visions? With guaranteed security and the freedom to choose one’s work and define one’s value, people will contribute their best selves, and we can slowly change our national ethic from one of taking and hoarding to one of contribution. Productivity increases, health improves, and crime decreases in a society that chooses not to allow poverty, thereby permitting its members to be more effective versions of themselves. “Survival job” should not be a term, and a gun to the head is not nearly as effective a motivator in the long term as the ability to pursue meaning in life.
But the Cost!
Now comes paying for it all. Let’s do some simple, back-of-the-napkin, ballpark math for the numerically inclined. To immediately raise every American above the poverty line, we could provide a dividend of $12,000 per year to every adult and $4,000 per year to every child. That’s a bit under $3.25 trillion, which is certainly a huge number, but it’s not a direct expense. Think of it this way: the US GDP is approximately $18 trillion. If a simple across-the-board tax increase was levied on every American to raise that full amount for the dividend, a flat tax plopped down on top of our progressive system, that would mean about an extra 18% in taxes we’d each pay. That may sound like a lot, but since every taxpayer would also be receiving an extra $12,000 in income, then everyone making under $66,000 would come out ahead to some degree. At the $66K breakeven point, an individual would be paying $12K in extra taxes to receive the $12K in dividends. You can plug $66K into this US income percentile calculator and see that this represents over 75% of all Americans who would receive more money under this policy than they would give in taxes to pay for it, thereby directly profiting at the same time as we strive to completely abolish extreme forms of poverty and homelessness. That in itself should make the American Dividend a no-brainer.
However, a uniform tax levy like this is far from the only source of funding at our disposal. We could fund a large part of the American Dividend in many other ways. Taxes on the use of resources can chip in quite a bit. Taxes on carbon, pollution, minerals, timber, land value, and other natural resources acknowledge that we all own the land in equal share and would simply require companies profiting from and often damaging our commonly-owned property to repay the costs we bear by permitting them to do so. This would also discourage abuse of resources and incentivize more ecologically sustainable innovation. Very small taxes on financial trades would both reduce harmful speculation currently performed on a massive scale by large institutions with black box algorithms – encouraging long-term investment in its place – and it would acknowledge that we all own the financial system in this country and deserve a return from its continued function. Cutting tax exemptions that benefit the wealthy almost exclusively — scrapping the social security tax cap, raising unearned income tax rates to at least the level that earned income bears, cutting the home mortgage deduction, and a host of other such measures — would fund a significant part of the dividend. These measures are long overdue in any case and would represent a strong step forward against the economic injustice in our current system. Finally, raising the income tax rates on those in the very top brackets would acknowledge the fact that these earners have attained their position not only through intelligence and merit, but also through the good fortune of living within a system that allows for a few to leverage their positions to reap enormous returns — a system of laws, infrastructure, and opportunity that has been built over the course of generations, a system that each of us owns in part and deserves a share of. Factor in these methods, and we could pay for much of the dividend. As an example, if we paid for a third of the dividend this way (an entirely feasible amount according to the economists with whom I’ve spoken), it would bring the necessary tax increase down to around 12% and the break-even point to everyone making under $100K. Plug that into the calculator and see for yourself that more than 88% of the country would directly and immediately profit from the American Dividend under this scenario. Someone out of a job or unable to work would receive the full $12,000. Someone making $50K would come out $6,000 ahead. Someone breaking even at $100K will know that they are part of a stable system that will protect them should their fortunes turn for the worse. So, while it will end extreme poverty as we know it, the American Dividend is clearly not just for the extremely poor. It is for all Americans.
What’s more, we haven’t even factored in the savings yet. When people are secure, healthcare costs fall, crime drops, and entire welfare programs can eventually be phased out. This pushes the break-even point even further upward. This is not yet even accounting for the benefits reaped from fueling innovation and entrepreneurialism. Also, unlike the failed policies of trickle-down economics under which much of the money this country makes lands in wealthy bank accounts and simply sits there, money given to the lower classes is generally spent immediately on necessities and better quality of life, equating to a massive boost in the overall economy as businesses gain new customers across the board. It would be presumptuous to predict the actual magnitude of these windfalls, but I would bet you the American Dividend, in very short order, would begin to pay for much of itself.
Bear in mind this is not a panacea, and we mustn’t perceive or promote it that way. The American Dividend will not immediately usher in a new Utopian Age, and there will still be some that need help, but it has the power to effectively end catastrophic poverty and homelessness. It will grant all Americans a real shot at the American Dream. It will mean a simpler governmental system, a change of social and cultural ethics, and a betterment of individual quality of life across the board. And we have the means to do it. All we need is the political will of the people to stand up and demand it.
Give it to Me Straight
So tell me, if this idea of an American Dividend can: 1) end homelessness and catastrophic poverty, 2) establish and reinforce basic human rights and security across the nation, 3) improve healthcare outcomes and reduce costs, 4) reduce crime, 5) encourage entrepreneurialism, 6) act as an economic stimulus, AND 7) result in an immediate net income gain for the vast majority of the population… tell me how can this idea not sell? How can it not sweep the nation? Tell me it’s not an issue of marketing savvy.
And tell me, now that you’ve seen my arguments about the wider economic implications, what would you do with your Dividend? Take a little time and play out the thought experiment. Now imagine what your brother, mother, sister, father, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, boss, coworker, employee, or passing acquaintance would do with it? What would each be able to contribute? What would your community look like? What would America look like?
Though Socialist candidate Benoît Hamon did not make it to the second round of the French presidential election, he has attracted attention through his proposal for a version of universal basic income (UBI).
An article by the French Economic Observatory (OFCE) explores the way Hamon’s UBI proposal might be implemented into an existing French system that already has redistributive programs such as the RSA (Revenu de Solidarité Active), which provides a level of income for households without a source of it. Hamon’s proposal for basic income may effectively supplant these programs, but it does not describe how a basic income will interact with them. Nonetheless, with certain conditions applied, the plan should give benefits to 11.6 million people, or 17.5% of the French population. The amount paid will adjust to various conditions such as marital status and dependency on parents.
The version of the plan as described by the OFCE describes a basic income of 600 euros per month, starting for those with no income, and then gradually tapering the payments off to incomes 1.9 times the French minimum wage, which is 9.76 euros per hour as of 2017. The base system will taper off payments by using a formula, which subtracts 27.4% of the total income of a taxable household from the monthly payment of 600 euros. Because the payments are adjusted and distributed in a single step, this system more resembles a negative income tax than a universal basic income, where a UBI system would pay an equal amount to everyone first and then take taxes out. This system is not automatically individualized for everyone either, as married couples can choose to file their taxes jointly or individually depending on their financial situation. The implementation of this proposal will also matter greatly, specifically as it is overlaid onto the existing French system or proposed in addition to it.
Using a micro-simulation model (see OFCE article for details), the authors provide estimates of the net benefits to tax households composed of one adult, using the latest available data (2015).
They use a model which assumes that the UBI will overlay the existing French system, and therefore subtracts benefits already provided by the state. This model also excludes individuals aged 18-24, who still report under their parents’ tax household.
Given the model’s parameters, households within the first decile of living standards would see a rise of 38%, or 257 euros/month, to their income. The second decile would increase 13%, or 137 euros/month, and so forth until it expires for those making about 2,800 euros/month, or 1.9 times the French minimum wage. As a result, the poverty rate, as defined by the share of French households who live on about 1,000 euros per month, is projected to drop 4.9% down to 8.5%. The Gini coefficient would also drop by 0.04 points to 0.26, and would put France from an average level to one of the least unequal nations in the European Union.
Average monthly gains by consumption unit and livings standards decile
Much still depends on the implementation of the program. As it stands, the OFCE model projects total expenditures of 30 billion euros; close to Hamon’s projection. However, if young adults ages 18-24 who still report under their parents’ tax household are given a basic income, expenditures would rise to 49 billion. These features suggest that certain groups will be given new incentives within this system, such as individuals within the age range of 18-25 and married couples who can choose to file jointly or individually.
To finance this UBI program, the authors make clear that hikes in tax rates for the highest incomes would be necessary. Personal work income taxes alone bring 74 billion euros annually, but France’s state expenditures are already quite large. New tax bases, like France’s ISF wealth tax which draws revenue from assets like real estate, may be needed to help finance this proposal.
Most transfer payments go to people who are not at the time also paying taxes to support it. For example, almost no one both pays for and receives Unemployment Insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, disability insurance, Medicaid, and so at the same time. The vast majority of people pay for Social Security at one time and receive it at another time. The net issue so important to UBI is negligible or nonexistent for all these policies.
