by Kate McFarland | Aug 16, 2016 | News
A new opinion poll by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute finds a majority of respondents in favor of guaranteed minimum income. However, a majority also believe that the policy is unaffordable and would not support an increase in taxes to fund it.
The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) conducted a poll of Canadians’ beliefs and attitudes about guaranteed annual income. The sample consisted of 1516 randomly-selected members of the Angus Reid Forum, a Canada-wide market research community. Individuals can sign up to join the Angus Reid Forum online, after which they are occasionally sent surveys on a wide array of topics.
The questionnaire asked respondents about guaranteed income, defined as follows:
Those who made less than the threshold through employment earnings would be paid the difference by the federal government, while those who made more than the threshold would receive no additional funding. This payment would typically replace most or all other forms of government assistance, such as welfare and employment insurance.
ARI asked respondents about their support for the policy at three different threshold levels (the sample was divided into thirds, each asked about a different value): $10,000, $20,000, and $30,000.
It was found that 57%, 65% and 67% of respondents supported the guaranteed minimum income at the three respective levels (that is, there was higher support for the more generous guaranteed incomes).
Survey respondents were also asked about their agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
- “A guaranteed income program would give Canadians greater economic freedom.” (66% agreed)
- “A guaranteed income program would be too expensive for Canada’s government to afford.” (59% agreed)
- “I would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to support some kind of guaranteed income.” (34% agreed)
- “Guaranteed income programs discourage people from working.” (63% agreed)
In addition to asking about guaranteed minimum income specifically, the poll inquired about some of the factors that have been cited to justify the need for such a policy. In particular, subjects were asked whether they believed that elimination of jobs due to new technologies is a serious concern (63% said they did) and whether they consider Canada’s current programs for low-income assistance to be effective (46% said that these programs were either “very” or “moderately” ineffective, compared to 36% judging them very or moderately effective).
It seems that, in general, members of Canada’s Angus Reid Forum support a guaranteed income, believe that it would enhance economic freedom, and are concerned about technological unemployment and inadequacies in the current Canadian welfare system. However, they show hesitation when it comes to paying for a guaranteed income: most doubt that Canada is currently able to afford it, and most are unwilling to pay more in taxes in order to provide more funds. To learn more about Canada’s taxation – look here.
The ARI has released comprehensive tables showing the breakdown of responses according to province, gender, age, education level, and household income.
It is worth mentioning that the “guaranteed income” described in the ARI questionnaire differs from a “basic income” as usually described. Notably, under a basic income, the same amount of payment is guaranteed to all, with no means test (although, most likely, higher levels of taxation would entail that individuals above a certain “threshold” would be net contributors rather than beneficiaries).
Plausibly, a different definition would affect survey results. The lack of means-testing has often been cited as a reason to predict that a basic income would not disincentivize work (in contrast to means-tested welfare programs). Thus, perhaps, people might be somewhat less inclined to think that a UBI would discourage work. On the other hand, opponents often emphasize the universality of basic income as a reason to believe that the policy would be prohibitively expensive; thus, UBI might seem (even) less affordable than a guaranteed income as described in this survey. Of course, until another poll is actually conducted, this all remains speculative.
Policies such as guaranteed minimum income and universal basic income are presently under serious discussion in Canada, with the provincial government of Ontario planning a pilot project.
REFERENCE
Shachi Kurl, “Basic Income? Basic unaffordable, say most Canadians”, Angus Reid Institute; August 11, 2016.
Andrew Russell, “Canadians support guaranteed income, but don’t want to pay for, think it will make us lazy: poll”, Global News; August 12, 2016.
Photo CC BY 2.0 Just a Prairie Boy.
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 9, 2016 | News
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn stated in a recent HuffPost interview that he is “instinctively looking at” a basic income, along with Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of Britain’s Labour Party, was recently asked about universal basic income (among other topics) in an interview with HuffPostUK. Corbyn replied that he and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell are “instinctively looking at” the policy.
Here is the remainder of his answer:
I am looking forward to discussing it with our colleagues from Norway because we have to think radically about how we bring about a more just and more equal society in Britain, how we develop policies that achieve that.
Because what we are doing is heading in absolutely the wrong direction with a growing wealth inequality and an opportunity inequality for communities, as well as poorer families. It’s got to change and it will.
I can see the headline attraction to it. I don’t want to commit to it until I’ve had a chance to look at it very seriously and very carefully because this would be a major, major change in social policy and it’s something I would invite the whole party and the whole movement to have a serious discussion about.
What I want to do is develop policymaking through to 2020, where it’s very obvious what the general direction is we are going, on environmental policy, on housing policy, and health policy.
Corbyn was soon shown right about the “headline attraction” of basic income. Immediately following the interview, HuffPostUK editor Paul Waugh published an accompanying article with the headline “Jeremy Corbyn Looking At ‘Universal Basic Income'” And, on the next day, an article appeared in The Independent with the title “Universal Basic Income: Jeremy Corbyn considering backing radical reforms”.
John McDonnell has been a supporter of basic income prior to his appointment as Shadow Chancellor in September 2015. Earlier in this year, he encouraged the Labour Party to consider adopting UBI as official party policy on several occasions, most notably at events in February and June. To date, however, the Labour Party has not made basic income part of its platform.
Following Brexit, the Labour Party reached over 500,000 members, its highest number in decades.
More Information
Full interview with Jeremy Corbyn, which also touches upon housing policy and other issues:
Paul Waugh, “Jeremy Corbyn Interview: On Owen Smith, Trident, Brexit, The Housing Crisis And A ‘Universal Basic Income’“, HuffingtonPost UK; August 6, 2016.
Subsequent press concerning Corbyn’s remarks about UBI:
Paul Waugh, “Jeremy Corbyn Looking At ‘Universal Basic Income’; Says House Price Fall Could Help Tackle Housing Crisis“, HuffingtonPost UK; August 6, 2016.
Siobhan Fenton, “Universal Basic Income: Jeremy Corbyn considering backing radical reforms“, The Independent; August 7, 2016.
Background about the British Labour Party’s recent interest in UBI:
Kate McFarland, “UNITED KINGDOM: Labour Party to look into Basic Income”, Basic Income News; June 6, 2016.
Toru Yamamori, “United Kingdom: Labour Party considers universal basic income”, Basic Income News; February 21, 2016.
“Basic Fact Checking”
In his HuffPostUK articles, Paul Waugh states, “The universal basic income idea has been around since the 1970s but has recently become popular and Canada’s Ontario and Norway are both starting pilot schemes.” Two brief remarks:
1. Out of Scandinavian nations, Finland is much more advanced than Norway in planning a basic income experiment, with one set to begin in 2017. While Norway has held conferences to discuss the idea of a basic income, it has not announced any plans for a pilot study.
2. It’s true that the “universal basic income idea has been around since the 1970s” — but perhaps notable that the idea (and even the term ‘basic income’) has been around longer.
Jeremy Corbyn photo CC by ND 2.0 70023venus2009
Thanks, as always, to my supporters on Patreon
by Michael Lytton | Aug 2, 2016 | Opinion
An article on basic income appeared in The Hindu newspaper recently and is potentially significant because it was written by a Member of Parliament in the ruling BJP party. Does it reflect possible government policy? No one, including Varun Gandhi, is telling. Moreover, what he means by the “need to talk about basic income” is anyone’s guess.
The article is a bit of a mish-mash of history in North America, but also includes reference to the cash transfer pilots in India. Gandhi makes the usual mention of the 1970s Canadian experiment in Manitoba with a negative income tax, but I think interested readers should examine the more recent work of Evelyn L. Forget, the author of the oft-cited study “The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment.” (The 2008 draft version of this article has an extended discussion of the history of the idea in North America. However, the draft isn’t available on ResearchGate.)
At the University of Manitoba, Dr. Forget has a project that asks the question, “Is MINCOME useful in the development of a Basic Income pilot in Ontario and elsewhere?” She points out that the sociopolitical environment, research methods and policy context are all different now than they were in the 1970s and demanding a critical examination of the relevance of the old experiment.
From her ResearchGate site you can download an April 2016 presentation prepared for a symposium on UBI pilot design for the Ontario government. You might also access the following valuable documents: “Cash Transfers, Basic Income and Community Building,” and “The Experiment that Could End Welfare.”
Mr. Gandhi’s piece extols the virtues of a basic income but overstates his case in a number of areas—village sanitation, access to drinking water, growth of rural employment and the national economy, and the pursuit of happiness. He even makes the startling declaration that with respect to automation and the threat to work “the basic income stands out as a panacea”. With such statements you might wonder if he’s being serious, or aware that he could inadvertently be discrediting the idea with extravagant claims.
India presents complex development challenges and it’s not clear that a basic income is the best or only approach. For example, Joseph Stiglitz, who generally supports the idea of a basic income, argues that targeting the needy is a necessary trade-off when public budgets are tight. And, I wonder, when aren’t they tight?
India is home to more than one-third of the world’s stunted children. If current trends continue, by 2030 India will have the world’s highest global burden of under-five year old deaths (17 percent). It has more poor people in absolute numbers in eight states than the 26 poorest sub Saharan countries combined. The main reason for extreme poverty in rural areas lies in the still largely agrarian economy and its very low productivity due to small landholdings and underemployed farming labor. Droughts have also taken their toll. People resort to informal agricultural work because there is no alternative, or landowners need to supplement their incomes and join the landless in seeking wage labor. It is estimated that 5.5 percent of a country’s GDP will be required to provide education for all by 2030, yet in 2012, India invested 3.9 percent. Corruption is endemic.
With such a constellation of issues, interventions can quickly get complicated, producing tensions between targeted transfer approaches and universal approaches. Nutrition is one example. Pakistan is modifying its unconditional cash transfer program (the Benazir Income Support Program) so that it can better respond to—read target— the nutritional needs of women and children.
India currently addresses the underlying determinants of nutrition—food security, rural livelihoods, and sanitation—with a smorgasbord of programs that include the Public Distribution System, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and the Swachh Bharat Mission. These centrally sponsored programs are then delivered by state governments, where there are risks of corruption or of states simply not prioritizing nutrition.
Others argue that without targeting for health, households will not get around to malnutrition or education. At the same time, studies confirm that health deficiencies lead to cognitive deficits and experts recommend that health and cognition be addressed in tandem to potentially reinforce each other.
But out-of-pocket health expenditures, especially for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) can impoverish Indian households. A recent systematic review of the global impact of NCDs on household income (Jaspers et al., 2015) found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients in India spent 30 percent of their annual family income on direct CVD health care.
Finally, providing equal amounts of finance on a per pupil basis is not necessarily a formula for equitable education funding. For children who enter an education system with disadvantages associated with poverty, gender, disability or ethnicity, more resources may be needed to achieve opportunities equivalent to those enjoyed by more privileged children.
As they say in India about so many things, what to do?
More information at:
Jaspers, Loes, Veronica Colpani, Layal Chaker, Sven J. van der Lee, Taulant Muka, David Imo, Shanthi Mendis, et al. 2015. “The Global Impact of Non-Communicable Diseases on Households and Impoverishment: A Systematic Review.” European Journal of Epidemiology 30 (3): 163–88
Feroze Varun Gandhi, “Why we need to talk about a basic income”. The Hindu, June 30th 2016
by Andre Coelho | Aug 1, 2016 | Opinion
The following is a critical response to Brookings’ “Money for nothing: Why a universal basic income is a step too far,” by Isabel Sawhill.
Isabel Sawhill wrote a short essay about basic income, arguing that it may be a step too far. To me, what has been “too far” is precisely this present day Kafkaesque system of oppression, where poverty runs rampant (even in the so-called “rich” countries), levels of inequality are breaking records, all while societal and environmental stress reach all-time highs. Nonetheless, the article deserves a response because Sawhill manages to aggregate the most common criticisms/preconceptions regarding basic income: that we cannot afford it, that the wealthiest should not be “helped” and that without obligation people do not meaningfully contribute to society (a nuance on the trendy “people will just be lazy” argument).
So let us deconstruct each of these arguments.
“(…) logic is inescapable: either we have to spend additional trillions providing income grants to all Americans or we have to limit assistance to those who need it most.”
This logic is not inescapable. In fact, it is wrong. Financing a basic income does not just amount to thinking of an amount for the grant (say $1000 per month), multiplying it by the country’s population (319 million people) and then paying the bill (in this case, $319 billion per month, or $3.828 trillion per year). That is very bad math. A more sensible tax policy will transfer a part of the taxes collected from the relatively wealthier to those relatively poorer. Actually, the former will be net-payers of basic income, and the latter will be net-receivers of basic income. Depending on the taxation levels at a certain moment in time, this redistribution of income can even be done without any supplementary cost.
Another fallacy is this idea that a basic income could “limit assistance to those who need it most”. How would that even be possible, if the basic income is enough for basic human needs, and is universal and unconditional? Would it not then provide the assistance to those in need?1 It will, but only in a much better way than in the present system: it would do it without policing, without stigmatizing, without controlling and with much less bureaucracy. In fact, part of the money necessary to finance basic income will come from savings in conditional social assistance grants that have become obsolete, mainly because beneficiaries no longer meet their requirements (mostly means-tests). Furthermore, there are too many targeted social safety net policies in the US, which nevertheless fail to effectively eradicate poverty. In an analysis by Karl Widerquist, around 7 percent of workers live in poverty, as do 22 percent of children. The idea is that basic income can circumvent all of these conditional assistance programs, providing universal unconditional support, and reducing social assistance complexity, bureaucracy and cost.
“One option is to provide unconditional payments along the lines of a UBI, but to phase it out as income rises”
As long as one looks at basic income as an income redistribution scheme, this is just stating the obvious. As income rises, and taxes paid also rise, then on a net basis people will of course be paying for basic income, not receiving.
“Liberals fear that such unconditional assistance would be unpopular and would be an easy target for elimination in the face of budget pressures.”
Fear has never been a wise consultant, but, philosophy aside, there is no evidence that basic income would be unpopular in the US, even considering the precocious opposition from leading political figures. Plus, in the face of budgetary pressures, I do not see why basic income would be any more likely to be subject to cuts or to be targeted for elimination compared to other social security policies. Actually, as a wider policy than targeted programs, and one that would make some of these targeted programs obsolete, basic income would likely be more difficult to eliminate since more would be at stake (in comparison to just losing a tax benefit or food stamps eligibility).
“(…) poor and jobless are lacking more than just cash. They may be addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffer from mental health issues, have criminal records, or have difficulty functioning in a complex society. Money may be needed but money by itself does not cure such ills.”
Now let’s think a bit about this. What can bring on addiction or addictive behaviours? What can cause mental health issues? What can lead to criminal behaviour?
Firstly, we would like to encourage anyone reading this who is suffering from an addiction to reach out to someone and get assistance in whatever way you can. This could mean asking for help at a homeless shelter, going to recoverydelivered.com in Florida, or just reaching out to your family. Addiction is crippling and the fact it’s being used to counter an argument is despicable. Addictions may come into a person’s life for a multitude of reasons: past traumas, family issues, health problems, professional pressure…and poverty. Poverty has been extensively shown (ex.: A primer on Social Problems, Effects of Poverty) to be a generator of many social problems, including malnutrition, health issues, and distress. So it is obvious that poverty bears a feedback relation to trauma, family unrest, health and professional pressure, although it is not the only cause of social ills — rich people also share some of society’s problems.
Addiction specialists, like Katarzyna Gajewska, are also not convinced that basic income can have an exacerbating effect on addictive behaviour, due to its multifaceted nature. It is just not the monetary facet that is affected, but there is also a need for emotional healing from addiction that is needed for the ones facing this problem. Meanwhile, no basic income trial test to date has found significant increases in the use of addictive substances due to unconditional cash transfers (Scott Santens, 2016). As for mental health issues, in fact, the Canadian “Mincome” experiment has found a correlation between basic income and reduced hospitalizations due to mental illness, as described in the relatively recent report by Evelyn Forget. And as for crime, hard data from the basic income pilot study in Namibia has shown a 42 percent decrease in the crime rate attributable to the distribution of an unconditional basic income for nine months.
Somehow Isabel resists the idea of a basic income on the grounds that it stems from a flawed assumption that money alone can cure society. But, looking at this evidence from the “cause” perspective, lack of money – that is poverty – is indeed at least partially causing these problems of addiction, mental illness and crime. And so money, although not a cure in itself, is bound to substantially reduce these social illnesses.
“A humane and wealthy society should provide the disadvantaged with adequate services and support. But there is nothing wrong with making assistance conditional on individuals fulfilling some obligation whether it is work, training, getting treatment, or living in a supportive but supervised environment.”
There is, actually, something wrong about a conditional social programs. Social Security in the US is very complex, particularly due to means-tested criteria. Plus, there is evidence that social security programs can lead to stigmatization (to which political and media discourse also contributes in an important way). Moreover, the worry that people will just stop working without a work obligation is unfounded – all basic income experiments to date have shown little to no work reduction on average. That’s despite the fact that most research tells us that people work too much (particularly in the US), and that is a bad thing generally. So a cut in average worked hours would actually be welcomed. And this is not even discussing the type of work performed (useful or not, meaningful or not, benefiting society or not). Every workplace should have health and safety precautions in place to prevent staff from overworking at all. In fact, this extends to so many health and safety measures such as fire exit signs and hazard precautions in general (look these up here for example). Although these are the obvious forms of health and safety in the workplace, sometimes people forget that overworking along with stress and mental health can also be a contributing factor to the ill health of employees within a business. Some do try to relax and find pleasure by watching adult videos (check these porn site reviews, for example) and other similar recreational activities. However, overworking still tends to be a cause for concern.
“In the end, the biggest problem with a universal basic income may not be its costs or its distributive implications, but the flawed assumption that money cures all ills.”
Indeed. Money is not everything. But too many people suffer the consequences of not having enough of it on a daily basis (around 24 million in the USA alone), which is totally unnecessary and utterly avoidable. And while not having enough money makes people stressed and desperate to find more of it just to meet their basic needs, they are not enjoying the non-monetary parts of life: quality time with family and friends, leisure, acquiring meaningful knowledge, participating in public/cultural life, volunteering and so on.
More information at:
Isabel Sawhill, 2016. “Money for nothing: why a basic income is a step too far“, Brookings, June 15th 2016
Steven E. Barkan, 2012. “A primer on social problems“, Creative Commons 3.0 licence, November 29th 2012
Tyler Prochazka, 2016. “Beyond temptation: scholar discusses addiction and basic income“, January 28th 2016
Claudia and Dirk Haarmann, 2015. “Relief through cash – impact assessment of the emergency cash grant in Namibia“, July 2015
Notes:
1 – That’s not to say that special needs would not be attended to, like disabilities or disease supplements. For those special needs, basic income just needs to be topped up with an extra amount which can satisfy them.
by Florie Barnhoorn | Jul 30, 2016 | News
Highlights from the first half of 2016
The early days of 2016 brought a pleasant surprise for the Vereniging Basisinkomen (VBi; Association for a Basic Income), the Dutch branch of BIEN, which celebrated its 25 year anniversary in January. The political leader of the small Cultural Liberal Party, Norbert Klein, initiated a memorandum for the Members of The Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber) of Parliament. “The labour market is changed fundamentally. The introduction of new, innovative concepts like a basic income are urgently needed to prevent large scale social inequality, social unrest and to provide income protection,” he argued in his memo called Zeker Flexibel (Security and Flexibility). This was the first time since the 2000s that the highest political levels were challenged to discuss basic income.
However, the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Asscher (of the Partij van de Arbeid or Labour Party) said that although he recognizes the importance of a social and political debate on the future shape of social systems, I’m sure having some great lobbying tips would help in these efforts. He prefers to continue with the existing policy, because he cannot guarantee that areas such as healthcare and social participation would be secured after the introduction of a basic income.
According to Guy Standing at the opening of the 16th World Congress of BIEN, held in Seoul 7-9 July 2016, the best way to attract the attention of politicians is to highlight the growth of the precariat and the growth of related social unrest. The unconditional basic income (UBI) is the most practical, feasible and positively inspiring response to those problems for years to come.
A recent poll by Dalia Research found that 68% of people across all 28 EU member states said they would definitely or probably vote for a universal basic income proposal.
In recent years, the VBi too witnessed an increasing interest in the idea of a basic income, not only among the general public but also in the media. The association increased from a handful of older members in 1991 to a robust movement with more than 500 subscribers both young and elderly. This growing awareness has compelled the VBi to think about new strategies to spread the message: the implementation of an UBI in The Netherlands.
One of these strategies is the establishment of so-called ‘Basisteams’ (Basic teams), local groups who have the important task to inform people and to raise enthusiasm among the population for the advantages of a basic income. Full knowledge of the concept of a UBI is a prerequisite that must lead to political decision-making and acceptance.
Nowadays there are about ten active groups and eight more groups in the pipeline. The groups differ considerably in size and scope. Some are large and put their focus on the organisation of meetings and debates; others are smaller, more regionally oriented. Mostly they start with making a page on Facebook. They come together in the local pub or community centre, hand out pamphlets and deliberate about how to change old systems into something entirely new. The vice-president of the VBi coordinates the ‘Basic teams’.
A crucial achievement of the local groups is that they have convinced municipalities to start experiments with a basic income in their communities.
Utrecht Sunset CC Tambako The Jaguar (flickr)
The pilot in Utrecht among welfare beneficiaries, conceived mainly with the intention to get rid of the sanctions and the obligation to apply for jobs under the current welfare scheme, is set for January 2017. Another four experiments — in Wageningen, Tilburg, Groningen and Nijmegen — will follow as soon as the Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment, Jetta Klijnsma (Labour Party), has finalized the administrative decree for allowing experiments in the context of the welfare system.
More experiments will follow as long as basic teams continue to push the local authorities to start pilots with a basic income. Often, these groups are helped by the Dutch Green party, not only on a local level, but also on the national level. In November 2015, the Green Party succeeded in clearing the way for experiments by filing a motion to parliament. It was supported by all political parties, except those of the right-wing liberals of Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the populist Freedom Party of Geert Wilders.
The VBi has also called upon its active members to reach out to co-fighters within their political parties and labour unions and to start discussions during meetings and congresses. As a result, some political parties have positively responded to the idea of a basic income as a social agenda for the sake of the general welfare and against precarious conditions and growing inequality.
After the Green Party and the Democrats 66, the majority (61%) of the Partij van de Arbeid (Labour Party) recently voted for a large experiment with a basic income. The leadership is not yet convinced, but members are very committed to the idea of a basic income and they want the issue to play a major role in the forthcoming campaign for the national elections of March 2017. “A basic income as part of the modern welfare state becomes more and more the ultimate goal for people. A society that includes everyone and where everybody contributes according to their capacities and needs: paid work, volunteering, education, the establishment of a company, et cetera,” says VBi’s most active member in political lobbying.
Many voters of the far left (Socialist Party) endorse the idea of a basic income. However, the leadership has firmly rejected it. Hence the party decided not to adopt it.
Last June, the youth organisation of Democrats 66 passed a policy framework “Moedig Voorwaarts” (Courageous Forward) that states that every adult will receive €600 – €1200 per month and each child €300. The proposal guarantees that nobody will live in poverty. The creation of a basic income is to also be combined with tax reforms.
Last spring a National Poll was held about the following question:
Everyone receives a basic income from the government, regardless of other income and without the obligation to work. The system of taxes and benefits will be adjusted accordingly. Do you find this a good idea?
The results were encouraging: 40% of those surveyed said they are in favour of a basic income as described in the poll, 45% said they are against it and 15% didn’t know.
Most members of right-wing parties declared themselves to be against the idea: 73% of right wing liberals and 61% of the Christian Democrats. Supporters and opponents were roughly in balance among the supporters of Democrats 66: 44% and 45% respectively. Most voters of three left-wing parties were in favour: 60% of the Green party, 54% of the Socialist Party, and 53% of the Labour Party. Interestingly, voters of the populist right-wing Party of Freedom of Geert Wilders were divided: 37% were in favour of the idea, 46% were against it and 17% did not know.
In the Netherlands, people are beginning to recognize that a basic income, as an unconditional floor under the existing welfare state, could be very beneficial for us all by opening up new ways to end inequality, provide stability and freedom to choose. This is especially true for welfare claimants. In recent months, the labour union FNV (Dutch Federation of Trade Unions) organised two rounds of policy debates about basic income with more than 1000 welfare claimants, who are members of an affiliate union. Most of them were in favour of introducing a basic income, because it guarantees financial security, more freedom and less stress. Further, these beneficiaries call upon the FNV Congress 2017 to adopt a proposition stating that the implementation of a basic income will be an explicit trade union objective.
The appetite for such initiatives is also fuelled out of frustration with workfare programmes that turned out to be “hugely expensive and humiliating for those involved”, says Rutger Bregman, the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income.
Rutger Bregman CC Bond van Nederlandse Architecten (flickr)
Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents nearly 2 million American workers, puts it like this in a conversation with Bourree Lam about his book Raising the Floor: “What I’m hoping for is that unions can look up from the defensive crouch they’re in, look into the future, and understand that so many of the things they’re doing now that are enormously important could be very insufficient. And that they’ll begin to think of universal basic income …”
In Christian circles one also hears people making a strong case for basic income. On the website of the Christian union for employees, employers and the self-employed (CGMV), a staff member reacts to the biblical directive that “He who does not work, shall not eat”. In an article with the title “Is everyone entitled to a basic income?”, referring to the many volunteers in organisations that have replaced paid workers, he asks: How then should we interpret another biblical text that says that “a labourer deserves his wages”? How can these volunteers get money to buy food? And how can we defend this attitude towards people who have tried to get a job so hard, but who did not succeed in finding one and who have to deal with rules that cripple their capabilities and creativity?
And there are more projects going on in the Netherlands that draw attention to basic income. A group of citizens has launched a big digital campaign to collect at least 40.000 signatures for the introduction of an unconditional basic income for every adult in 2018. The Parliament is legally obliged to discuss and vote on a topic, once it has been undersigned by more than 40.000 Dutch individuals. Right now (11-07-2016) the counter stands at 51.780 signatures. On to the 100.000! The more signatures, the stronger our voice! See https://basisinkomen2018.nl/.
In April an anchor woman of RTL-Z, an affiliate of the RTL Group (an European entertainment network) in the Netherlands, started the “Basic Income Bullshit Bingo Pot“: every time someone uses the words ‘basic income’ in a wrong way — that is, other than in the sense of an individual, universal, unconditional basic income that is high enough for a dignified life — he or she has to pay a Euro. The pot for the Euro donations can be found here: https://basisinkomen.eu/donatie-aan-vereniging-basisinkomen/.
In May, ‘Haagse Anne‘ (a young woman, artist and living in The Hague) received the second crowd funded basic income for a year. No strings attached! Liesbeth van Tongeren, Member of Parliament for the Green Party, handed her a symbolic plaque. The second publicly financed basic income is an initiative of MIES (Maatschappij voor Innovatie van Economie en Samenleving, a.k.a. Community for the Innovation of Economy and Society).
Another project of MIES, ‘OnsBasisinkomen’ (OurBasicIncome), can be found on this page. Readers are asked to tell what they would do if they were to receive a basic income tomorrow. So far, over 1800 Dutch people have told their story, of which 600 responses have been scientifically analysed. Two provisional findings emerged from the survey: people are not lazy and social participation is a multifaceted concept.
I cannot wait until the next report for this big news: Just a few days ago, the Financiële Dagblad (Financial Journal) announced that four municipalities will get the freedom to experiment with fewer regulations under the existing social welfare schemes. Some of the benefit claimants will be temporarily relieved of the duty to apply for jobs or to follow a reintegration program. Others may earn a bit without having their payment reduced from their benefits. The Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment, Jetta Klijnsma, has now agreed because the scientific assessment framework – a partnership between the four major cities and four collaborating universities – is now ready. If after the summer recess the Council of Ministers and the First and Second Chamber quickly agree, the cities of Utrecht, Tilburg, Groningen and Wageningen can start with the experiments in January 2017.
Authors: Florie Barnhoorn, Adriaan Planken
