by Jenna van Draanen | Feb 19, 2016 | News
Rana Bokhari, leader of the Liberal party in the Canadian province of Manitoba, has come out publicly to say that the party will conduct two basic income pilot projects if they are elected in April 2016.
Their proposed projects bear some similarities to the “Mincome” experiment undertaken in Dauphin and Winnipeg (Manitoba) in the 1970’s. The Mincome experiment, however, was cut short when a new government was elected in 1979, and a final report was never issued. Moreover, the Manitoba liberals believe that those results that were recorded from the Dauphin experiment are now dated, and new data are needed to make accurate policy decisions.
Source: Winnipeg Free Press File Photo of Manitoba Liberal Leader Rana Bokhari
Bokhari has stated that introducing a guaranteed income has potential to be cost-effective and beneficial. Although she acknowledges that the plan has complications, she believes that its potential payoffs make it well worth trying. As she says, “If we want to reduce poverty, if we want to take care of those who are most vulnerable in our society, we need to start taking a much more aggressive approach.”
Indeed, Bokhari believes that the basic income pilots would give Manitoba the opportunity to position itself at the vanguard of an important global movement, stating “Manitoba can and should lead the country and the world in this area.”
For more on this topic, see:
Larry Kusch, “Liberals would launch two projects to study guaranteed minimum income,” Winnipeg Free Press. January 15, 2016
No Author, “Manitoba Liberals to Pilot Minimum Income Project if Elected,” CBC News. January 15, 2016
by Guest Contributor | Feb 17, 2016 | News
The Globe and Mail, Canada’s main centrist newspaper, reported on Friday 5 February 2016 that a federal government minister “is interested in the idea of a guaranteed [minimum] income.” Mr. Jean-Yves Duclos, the new Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, said, “I’m personally pleased that people are interested in the idea.” Mr. Duclos has a mandate to develop a federal poverty-reduction strategy.
Mr. Duclos is part of the Liberal Party of Canada, which won a parliamentary majority in the October 2015 federal election. The Liberal Party’s progressive electoral platform enabled the party to replace the Conservative party on the left and win many seats previously held by the New Democratic Party (Canada’s social democratic party) on the left. Key election promises included deficit spending to stimulate economic growth, the legalization of marijuana, electoral reform, a concerted effort to tackle climate change and a comprehensive national poverty-reduction strategy. Their strong parliamentary majority has given the party a clear mandate to pursue this progressive agenda in earnest.
However, although efforts to reduce poverty feature prominently in the official Liberal platform, a guaranteed minimum income did not. It is therefore unlikely to form part of Mr. Duclos’ national poverty-reduction strategy during the government’s current four-year term. Nevertheless, The Globe and Mail suggests that Mr. Duclos’ comments could lead to the idea’s inclusion in a future Liberal Party election manifesto. His comments would also seem to have substantial support among Liberal Party members with the 2014 Liberal Party Convention producing two major policy resolutions on a basic income.
Furthermore, the introduction of a federal guaranteed minimum income might not be such a difficult sell with Canada’s provincial governments, all of which would have to participate in such an initiative. It was announced in January 2016 that Mr. François Blais, Québec’s new Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity, will work towards introducing a provincial guaranteed minimum income. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party of Manitoba has pledged to introduce two guaranteed minimum income pilot projects if the party wins the provincial elections in April 2016.
Written by: Jon West
For more details on this story see:
Bill Curry, “Guaranteed income has merit as a national policy, minister says,” The Globe and Mail. February 5, 2016.
Credit picture CC UNU-WIDER
by Guest Contributor | Feb 15, 2016 | Opinion
Funding basic income through taxation is costly. At the same time, low consumer demand is a major worry. The European Central Bank could kill two birds with one stone by giving money directly to citizens.
Guest post by Teemu Muhonen, originally posted on taloussanomat.fi
Translation by Petri Flander
Finnish social welfare agency KELA’s basic income experiment has got plenty of attention in Finland and elsewhere. This is not surprising: in recent years various proposals for a basic income have been submitted by a growing number of scientists, politicians and non-governmental organizations in several countries.
According to a study by the Municipal Development Foundation, 51 percent of the Finnish population supports basic income. Last year, even greater support was found on surveys in France and the Spanish region of Catalonia.
The popularity of unconditional basic income can be explained by the fact that it can be argued from various standpoints: the left is attracted to the idea of eliminating poverty and making citizens freer; the right wants to simply welfare benefits, and encourage people to get out of benefits and take up whatever work is available.
There are problems with basic income models that still need attention. The most common of which was brought up last week In an interview on the Finnish public broadcaster Yle, history professor Juha Siltala brought up one of the most common objections: “We should really consider a basic income that you can really live on. But who pays it then?”
When KELA hinted that they might pay up to 800 euros per month, unconditional and tax-free, to participants in their basic income pilot, Canadian professor James Milligan dismissed the idea as “typical fiscal nonsense.” According to Milligan, if the amount was given to the whole population, it would require doubling the Finnish tax rate.
But what if a universal basic income is funded by other means, in addition to taxation?
The ECB to the rescue
In recent years, the European Central Bank (ECB) has tried to support the eurozone’s lagging inflation through “quantitative easing” (QE), a measure used by other central banks as well. The ECB has been buying securities from institutional investors such as banks, using large amounts of fresh money.
So far, national economies have not responded as hoped: despite the increase in the value of securities, consumer prices have stagnated.
Last year the leader of the British Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn promoted the idea of “People’s QE” in which the Bank of England would channel money directly to citizens, not banks.
The proposal received wide support, and many people believe the ECB should follow suit. Even former IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard praised the idea.
The expression that Corbyn used is misleading, however, because in his proposal the money is not channeled directly to the public, but to government, which then uses it to stimulate the economy through infrastructure projects and other measures.
Another model was suggested by a group of 19 economists, who signed a letter published in the Financial Times (FT) in March last year. They proposed that the money should be given directly to citizens of the eurozone countries. The idea was to use ECB money to give 175 euros per month to each citizen for 19 months.
Economist Milton Friedman once called this kind of payments “helicopter money”: it is as if the money is just thrown at people from the sky, with no strings attached. Effectively, what the FT letter proposed was a eurozone-wide unconditional basic income paid by the ECB.
One problem with helicopter money is inflation
If the ECB funds infrastructure investment and fiscal policy, it strengthens the position of states substantially. The impact of a pan-European basic income would be the opposite. It would transfer a substantial part of social security funding from states to the ECB. In addition, allocation of money would be determined by citizens, not governments.
The FT letter did not call for a permanent and comprehensive basic income. After all, 175 euros per month is a significant sum in the poorest countries of Europe, but not much at all in countries like Finland.
There are other problems. If the ECB pays a higher basic income, rising demand could lead to massive inflation, unless production of goods increased at the same pace as demand. ECB’s quantitative easing has inflated equity prices for a long time, but sharp increases in the prices of real goods are generally considered more harmful to the economy.
In addition, direct monetary payments to states and citizens would be incompatible with the EU treaties and further limit ECB’s independence.
Despite these problems, a pan-European basic income would have a distinct advantage when compared to a national basic income. A national basic income in countries that attract most migrants would make them an even more popular destination. A pan-European payment would equalize the differences between countries.
Two birds with one stone?
One model discussed by basic income activists would entail that the ECB pays the same amount to all European citizens. The countries with higher living expenses would top up their citizens’ basic income from their national treasury, or from the common EU budget.
Such an arrangement may sound utopian, as it would require a major revision of existing national social security frameworks, and probably a reform of the entire financial system.
But the reality is that the challenges faced by the current welfare arrangements and the economic system are reaching a crisis point. Many jobs have been shredded, and, as technology advances, returns from labor and tax revenues no longer increase as labor productivity rises.
Still, we need money to sustain consumer demand and fund social security. A pan-European basic income financed by the ECB could solve both problems. There is no doubt that we will see more of such discussions in the public sphere in the near future.
===
Photo Credit CC European Central Bank
by Albert Joerimann | Feb 14, 2016 | News
Daniel Häni. Credit to: The Establishment.
Within the past two months, the well-known German magazine Der Spiegel has published two comprehensive articles about Basic Income.
The December 25th edition of Der Spiegel contains an article that discusses models of Basic Income and the current popular initiative in Switzerland, as well as some calculations on the cost of introducing it in Germany, Finland and Switzerland.
The author, Florian Diekmann, distinguishes between two basic formats: a “humanistic” approach that lets people make a free choice on the base of a real income guarantee, and a “neoliberal“ model that would get rid of a large part of the traditional social security payments as well as the social bureaucracy. The Swiss proposal is presented as an example of the “humanistic” model, and the Finnish pilot in its current design as the “neoliberal” model. For Germany, following the Swiss model would result in a Basic Income of €1,500 per month/person and following the Finnish model €664 per month/person. (Currently, most German supporters of the Basic Income talk about a BI of approximately €1,000 per month/person.) All in all, Basic Income would cost Germany €1.2 trillion per year under the Swiss model, €530 billion under the Finnish model and about €800 billion for the level proposed by the German BI supporters. In comparison, the current annual amount of social expenditures in Germany is about €850 billion.
Diekmann also compares the proposed amounts of a Basic Income to the level of all incomes in Germany for the year 2011. For the Swiss model, the BI corresponds to nearly two thirds of all private incomes; for the Finnish model, in contrast, it is barely 30%.
On January 28th, Der Spiegel published an in-depth interview with Daniel Häni and Philip Kovce, the authors of the book Was fehlt, wenn alles da ist? (What’s missing if everything is there?). (See the book review on this webpage as of November 15th, 2015)
Philip Kovce
In the interview, Häni and Kovce emphasise that one of the core motivations for a Basic Income is the social transformation from alienated work into intrinsically motivated, freely chosen activities. They believe that, if provided a guaranteed, unconditional Basic Income, most people would continue to be active and work to create value, albeit on a radically different fundament. To achieve such a change, Häni and Kovce acknowledge that a long process will be necessary, but they stress that this process is one which has been initiated already, due to recent changes in working conditions and the evolution of the economy in the second, third and now the fourth industrial revolutions. Nobody can seriously expect the return to full employment under the conditions and in the form we experienced in the 1970s.
More information at:
Language: German
Zeit Online, “Digital revolution: The boss of Deutsche Telekom is in favour of a Basic Income [Digitale Revolution: Telekom-Chef Höttges für bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen]“, December 29th 2015
Giovanni di Lorenzo, “The difference between humans and computers will be lifted soon [Der Unterschied zwischen Mensch und Computer wird in Kürze aufgehoben sein]“, January 14th 2016
Carsten Knop, “A Basic Income is helpful for everybody [Ein Grundeinkommen hilft allen]“, Frankfurter Allgemeine, January 21st 2016
by Dawn Howard | Feb 12, 2016 | Opinion
Founded in 2014 by futurist and philosopher Zoltan Istvan, the Transhumanist Party is an American non-profit political organization, which advocates the use of non-discriminatory implementations of science and technology to solve a majority of the world’s problems. Despite being in its early stages, the Transhumanist party has been incredibly inspirational for millions of people who are seeking modern, progressive solutions to the challenges we face as a species.
The current leader of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, is running for US president in 2016. At the heart of Zoltan’s platform is a focus on the use of science and technology in the pursuit of immortality. He also promotes free education for all, an end to US military actions abroad, and the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
Zoltan’s campaign platform can found here.
Zoltan was kind enough to answer a few questions for Basic Income News, specifically regarding his support for a UBI.
Dawn Howard: You have made UBI part of your 2016 presidential election platform. Can you tell us who you are thinking about appointing as your chief economics advisor? Does he or she have experience designing or implementing UBI pilots?
Zoltan Istvan: A UBI Plan is a huge part of my campaign. As someone who contemplates technology all day long, I am sure that robots are going to take many if not nearly all jobs in the next 10 to 35 years. So we need a way to transition society to being able to happily live in an age where there are no jobs. UBI is the perfect vehicle.
While I have advisors helping me sort out the basics of implementing a basic income, I can’t reveal who might fill the role of implementing that program. But we would draw on experts that have already had some experience in their own nations of doing so.
DH: Several countries including Canada, India and most recently Finland have already tested or are in the process of testing basic income for a small portion of their population. How do you feel about this type of research, and do you think it could work in the US?
ZI: One of the best things to happen to the world in the last few years is having smaller populated nations test out a UBI. It gives the larger nations the evidence they need to confidently implement their own plans one day, and it offers a road map to follow.
DH: Many in the UBI community speak of a “transition” in terms of the timeline between passing legislation and full implementation. In as little or as much detail as you wish, can you tell us what you think this transition would look like?
ZI: I think the transition would probably take five to six years to fulfill from the point legislation passed to everyone having a basic income. While I support a quick transition, we also must be careful not to disturb our national economy too much as this historic process takes place. It would be better to do it slowly, but correctly, rather than force it and lead to a recession, or worse. Capitalism is changing due to technology, and may not even survive 30 years into the future. We must be able to change with it and help the needs of every single citizen out there. But we must also not be hasty.
For more information about Zoltan’s presidential campaign, visit his web site here.
Photo: Zoltan Istvan, leader of the Transhumanist Party and US presidential candidate. Credit: Business Insider.
