by Josh Martin | Dec 20, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Utilizing the momentum against payday loan lenders generated by HBO’s John Oliver, Santens takes the opportunity to highlight the basic income’s impact on indebtedness. Using results from the basic income pilot projects in India and Namibia, Santens shows how effective the unconditional transfer is at combating indebtedness. There are a lot of quick payday loans you can apply for if you are looking for some extra money or quick cash during a financial emergency. If you’re looking to apply for a loan or just see what rates you could be looking at, start looking into payday loans and see how they could bide you over until payday.
However, for those with a low income this can be a slippery slope that leads to what seems to be inescapable debt. Someone who has a steady income can easily pay back a payday loan within a month or 2 of them getting it. They simply use the extra money to pay for whatever it was needed for and then have no issue paying it back within the necessary time.
However, it isn’t this easy for those with the lower or unstable incomes. If they take out a payday loan then they may not have the money they need to pay the loan company back which leads to late-payment fees or higher rates; pushing them even further into debt. Luckily, they can look for a payday loan consolidation service for them to help get them out of the poisonous cycle.
Scott Santens, “Payday Loan Lenders Are Unstoppable. . . Or Are They?”, Medium, 16 August 2014.
by Liam Upton | Dec 15, 2014 | News
The momentum behind Basic Income has been gaining ground for some time now, with more and more media attention including articles in publications such as The Economist and the Washington Post and a community on reddit that just passed 20,000 subscribers and is still growing. That’s not to mention the huge amount of signatures collected for the European Citizen’s Initiative and the successful campaign for a Basic Income referendum in Switzerland.
But in the last few months, the momentum among political parties and leaders, which will be the focus of this article, has also picked up. The Green Party worldwide has of course had Basic Income on its policy agenda for quite some time, but in February of this year, the general conference of the Liberal Party in Canada approved two motions in favour of Basic Income, one in favour of a federal pilot programme and one in favour of implementation. Though good news, the leader of the LPC, Justin Trudeau, has yet to mention the policy and the party have not campaigned on the issue in by-elections which took place this year. They are however leading in current opinion polls, but not by enough to achieve a majority government.
Robert Ghiz of the Prince Edward Island Liberal Party
This is after the premier of Prince Edward Island province, Robert Ghiz of the Liberal party, called for a pilot programme for a Guaranteed Minimum Income, a form of Negative Income Tax and the leader of provincial opposition party, the NDP called for the similar Basic Income Guarantee. The Liberal Party and NDP came first and second respectively in a recent opinion poll in the province.
Meanwhile in Québec province, the minister for Employment and Social Solidarity in the recently elected Liberal provincial government, François Blais is a supporter of Basic Income, calling it the ‘way of the future’, though his government does not have any plans to introduce the policy.
Moving on from Canada, in Spain as a reaction to dissatisfaction with regular politics, a new party called Podemos was formed this year, considered by many to represent the ‘Indignados’ mass protest movement which sprang up in 2011. This party has called for Basic Income as one of its platforms. An opinion poll in September placed Podemos as the most popular party in Spain for the first time. With elections due in less than a year, there is a real possibility they will be elected as the largest party. Unfortunately, the party left Basic Income out of it’s first economic document published recently, though there is still the chance that they will once again pick up the Basic Income idea before the general election.
But that is not the end of political moves towards Basic Income. In the Netherlands, at their party conference, opposition party D66, approved a policy to conduct a Basic Income pilot programme if elected into office. In response to the increased discussion about Basic Income, the Prime Minister from the VVD party came out opposing the policy. D66 is currently the second or third most popular party in the Netherlands according to the most recent opinion polls, with an election due no later than 2017.
The D66 conference where a proposal for a Basic Income pilot project was adopted
In Finland, during a debate in parliament led by the Centre Party and Left Alliance, the Centre Party leader also called for Basic Income pilots. The Left Alliance and Green League parties in Finland already had Basic Income as part of their platforms. In the debate, a number of MPs expressed support for Basic Income pilots, including the current Prime Minister, Alexander Stubb. The Centre Party is currently the most popular party in opinion polls, with an election due next year.
And in New Zealand, the recently elected leader of the Labour party and new leader of the opposition, Andrew Little has come out in favour of a Universal Basic Income, saying in a radio interview that he would like this to be a focus of policy for the party. Little has a difficult task ahead of him however, Labour in New Zealand have lost the previous four elections, losing vote share on each occasion.
The policies discussed by nearly all of these parties and politicians is Universal Basic Income. While a Negative Income Tax was almost passed in the USA by the Nixon administration, there has never been such a level of support for its sister policy Universal Basic Income, with parties who support either pilot programmes or implementation ahead in the polls in three different countries with the furthest election being just over 2 years away. For the first time in decades, a Basic Income which would end poverty and guarantee true freedom and dignity for all has made real progress in the political arena.
For more information, see:
Liberal Party of Canada, “97. Basic Income Supplement: Testing a Dignified Approach to Income Security for Working-age Canadians“, Liberal Party of Canada, February 23 2014
Liberal Party of Canada, “100. Priority Resolution: Creating a Basic Annual Income to be Designed and Implemented for a Fair Economy“, Liberal Party of Canada, February 23 2014
CBC News, “Guaranteed livable income plan possible, Ghiz confirms”, CBC News, April 04, 2014
NDP Prince Edward Island, “Basic Income Guarantee should go to Committee, NDP Prince Edward Island, May 06 2014
Yannick Vanderborght, “QUEBEC, CANADA: Minister of Employment for the provincial government reiterates his support for basic income”, Basic Income News, July 17 2014
Language: Spanish
Podemos, “Documento Final del Programa Colectivo [Final Document of the Collective Program]”, Podemos, May 27 2014
Language: Dutch
Jelmer Luimstra, “D66 pleit voor nieuw onderzoek naar een basisinkomen [D66 calls for new research into Basic Income]”, de Volksrant, November 4 2014
Johanna Perkiö, “Finland: the opposition leader proposes basic income pilots“, Basic Income News, October 9 2014
Radio New Zealand, “What policy changes will Andrew Little usher in?”, Radio New Zealand, November 19 2014
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 8, 2014 | Research
PUBLISHER’S SUMMARY: Would it be possible to provide people with a basic income as a right? The idea has a long history. This book draws on two pilot schemes conducted in the Indian State of Madhya Pradesh, in which thousands of men, women and children were provided with an unconditional monthly cash payment.
Book Cover
In a context in which the Indian government at national and state levels spends a vast amount on subsidies and selective schemes that are chronically expensive, inefficient, inequitable and subject to extensive corruption, there is scope for switching at least some of the spending to a modest basic income. This book explores what would be likely to happen if this were done.
The book draws on a series of evaluation surveys conducted over the course of the eighteen months in which the main pilot was in operation, supplemented with detailed case studies of individuals and families. It looks at the impact on health and nutrition, on schooling, on economic activity, women’s agency and the welfare of those with disabilities.
Above all, the book considers whether or not a basic income could be transformative, in not only improving individual and family welfare but in promoting economic growth and development, as well as having an emancipatory effect for people long mired in conditions of poverty and economic insecurity.
Sarath Davala, Renana Jhabvala, Soumya Kapoor Mehta, and Guy Standing. Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India. New Delhi: Bloomsbury Publishing India, December 2014.
by Liam Upton | Nov 30, 2014 | News
Podemos, the Spanish party which stormed into first place in recent opinion polls and who previously declared support for a Universal Basic Income, have left the propsal out of a recent document outlining their economic plans.
The leader of Podemos Pablo Iglesias presents his economic proposal -Demotix
The party, which only launched earlier this year, gained prominence with a number of radical proposals including reducing the retirement age to 60 and nationalising all utility companies. Their economic document, released Thursday, was seen as a test for the party, whether or not it could formulate a coherent set of policies. Despite the radical tone of initial party statements, some of the more radical policies were left off the document, including Basic Income.
This is a blow to the Basic Income movement, with Podemos previously looking set to become the first party supporting Basic Income to win an election in Europe, an election which is due in Spain before the end of 2015. However, it doesn’t mean the party has stopped supporting the proposal, merely that it has not been placed on this document, which is not a full manifesto. They mentioned at the press conference to launch the document that they wanted it based on ‘realistic proposals’. The party also wants to ensure that the document is available to all members and allows access to the public to read. They have stated that they will try to use ‘Filecenter to scan my docs‘ or similar services to ensure that it is open to public access, as accessibility to the public is important.
Basic Income has been gaining ground politically in the last year, despite this setback there are still a number of parties supporting Basic Income or pilot programmes which have considerable support in other parts of the world, including Canada, Finalnd and New Zealand.
The leader of Podemos Pablo Iglesias presents his economic proposal -Demotix
For more information, see:
Language: Spanish: Vicenç Navarro, Juan Torres “Un Proyecto Económico para La Gente [An Economic Project for the People]“, Podemos, 27 November 2014
Matthew Bennet, “A Look At The New Podemos Economic Document“, The Spain Report, 28 November 2014
Hugo Ortuño, “The leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias presents his economic proposal“, Demotix, 27 November 2014
by Citizens' Income Trust | Sep 15, 2014 | News
Conference report: 63 people attended the conference, held by invitation of the British Library at its conference centre.
Anne Miller, Chair of the trustees, welcomed everyone to the conference, offered a brief history of the recent Citizen’s Income debate in the UK, and explained that an important aim of the conference was to help the Citizen’s Income Trust’s trustees to develop a strategy for the next few years. Jude England, Head of Research Engagement at the British Library, then introduced the British Library and its many research and educational facilities. Malcolm Torry, Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust, explained a few terminological matters: that a Citizen’s Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship; that different rates can be paid for people of different ages; that a Basic Income is the same thing as a Citizen’s Income (as is a Universal Benefit or a Social Dividend); and that in the UK the words ‘minimum’ and ‘guarantee’ are tainted by association with means-testing and so should be avoided. Child Benefit would be a Citizen’s Income for children if it were paid at the same rate for every child. Debate ensued on the definition of a Citizen’s Income, and on the meaning of citizenship.
Guy Standing, Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, spoke on ‘Citizen’s Income: an income floor for the Precariat, and the means of global development’. He explained that we are in the midst of a painful transition. More flexible labour markets are leading to the breakdown of social insurance methods for sustaining income and to a resultant increase in means-testing, which in turn leads to categorising people as deserving and undeserving poor. Means-testing reduces incentives to seek employment so coercion, sanctions and ‘workfare’ are the result. The precarity trap (the fact that it is irrational to take short-term low-paid employment if that means frequent benefits applications) might now be as significant as the poverty trap. Professor Standing described some of the results of the recent Citizen’s Income pilot projects in Namibia and India, and offered four justifications for a Citizen’s Income:
- Justice: our wealth is due to the efforts of our forebears, so we all deserve a social dividend.
- Rawlsian: a policy is only justifiable if it improves the position of the poorest member of society. A Citizen’s Income can pass this test
- A policy must pass the paternalism test: that is, no policy is just if it imposes tests on some groups that are not imposed on others. A Citizen’s Income passes this test, too.
- The ‘rights not charity’ principle. Due process was an important provision in the Magna Carta. Means-tested benefits allow discretion to State officials, thus bypassing due process.
John McDonnell MP introduced Tony Benn’s theory of political change: that new policies are thought ‘bad’ and then ‘mad’ before everyone claims to have thought of the idea. Thomas Kuhn’s research on scientific change suggested that current theory becomes problematic, new possibilities emerge, and suddenly a paradigm shift occurs. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit and other changes are revealing the problematic nature of the current benefits system, but there is a vacuum in terms of new ideas. A Citizen’s Income brings together debates about citizenship and poverty, and provides the necessary new paradigm: but obtaining agreement on the implementation of a Citizen’s Income won’t be easy. For the Labour Party, Ed Miliband will only move when it is safe to do so (as he has, for instance, over energy bills). When he does move, then he gathers support. We therefore need to make a Citizen’s Income safe for politicians. We need to lead so that the leaders can follow. The Labour Party is bereft of policies designed to tackle poverty and precarity, so the Trust needs to work with think tanks to provide the required package, and it needs:
- A seriousness of intent
- A professional approach
- Confidence
- Excitement and enthusiasm
Natalie Bennett (Leader of the Green Party) suggested that the outcome of a successful campaign would be that she would be able to say ‘Basic Income’ on Newsnight and everybody would know what she meant. People do ‘get it’ when the idea is explained to them, because the welfare safety net has fallen apart and they want to be able to feed their children without going to food banks. Public education is essential. Biological evolution is punctuated evolution: that is, alternating periods of stability and change. A Citizen’s Income constitutes the next major change because it would change everything, and in particular would provide both economic security and ecological sustainability. The Trust’s task is to educate people about a Citizen’s Income and its effects.
Tony Fitzpatrick (Reader, University of Nottingham) entitled his paper ‘Schemes and Dreams’. The welfare state established after the Second World War was the closest that we’ve ever got to achieving both security and freedom. We must now ask how we should achieve that combination today. Dr. Fitzpatrick discussed four moral contexts: productivism, distributivism, the deliberative, and the regenerative. A post-productivist settlement is needed if we are to conserve the world’s resources. A Citizen’s Income could contribute to that happening, and it could conform to all four moral contexts.
After discussion, and then lunch, three working groups met and then presented their findings at a plenary session:
Brief reports from the working groups
- Funding options: If the level of the Citizen’s Income is too low then it might not be politically inspiring. A variety of funding methods were discussed, but because policymakers are cautious, in the short term it might be important to concentrate attention on the Citizen’s Income itself rather than on possible funding mechanisms: so initially a Citizen’s Income would need to be funded by reducing existing tax allowances and benefits, with other mechanisms being considered later.
- Political feasibility: We need to avoid current vocabulary in order to avoid stale current debates; we need to offer a clear message of hope through visual representations; we need both a core message and variants to appeal to different audiences; we need a group of sponsors to raise the debate’s profile; and we need to relate to MPs, MEPs, NGOs, and other groups, so that they can promote the idea. A Citizen’s Income is the route to emancipation and freedom, and to the exercise of a variety of rights, and rights language could be useful. A Citizen’s Income enables people to care for others, so care language could also be helpful. Pilot projects will be important.
- The research required: Qualitative research is needed to test the acceptability of different ways of expressing a Citizen’s Income. The level at which a Citizen’s Income would be paid would also affect the idea’s acceptability. We need to show that people would wish to work in order to demolish the myth that there would be numerous free-riders. We need to show that a Citizen’s Income would act as an economic stabiliser in the context of a gap between wages and productivity; and we need to show how a Citizen’s Income would impact on health and other outcomes.
Panel discussion
Natalie Bennett (Leader of the Green Party) asked the Citizen’s Income Trust to provide both a wide variety of material and a clear and simple message; Kat Wall (New Economics Foundation) asked the Trust to be clear how work and social participation would be affected by a Citizen’s Income; and Neal Lawson (Compass) said that the time is right for a Citizen’s Income so we need to grasp the opportunity. A moral argument is required, and not just the figures. We need the courage to be utopian. Whilst a Citizen’s Income isn’t about everything, it is about security. Such central connections need to be clearly represented in new ways. Bert Schouwenburg (of the GMB Trade Union) discussed the fact that no trade union has a position on Citizen’s Income, and that that needs to change. Trades unions are wage brokers, and it needs to be made clear that a Citizen’s Income would complement that activity. Chris Goulden (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) explained that researchers are meant to be sceptical. A Citizen’s Income is dignified and simple and it avoids stigma, but such questions as who gains and who loses are important. ‘Something for something’ remains a significant public attitude, and lifecourse redistribution is acceptable, but not redistribution across income groups. A Citizen’s Income campaign needs to take account of such attitudes.
Further discussion followed; and then Professor Hartley Dean (London School of Economics), who had chaired the panel discussion, summed up the conference:
Citizen’s Income is a technology, or policy mechanism, which can serve a variety of ends. We must ensure that it serves social justice. We need to say how it would work, and the detail matters. Citizen’s Income is also a philosophical proposition. It is elegant, and it challenges prevailing understandings, for instance, of work, of human livelihood, of relationships of care, and of rights. ‘Unconditional’ is a stumbling block when applied to people of working age: but ‘working age’ is socially constructed. Work is diverse, and not just what happens within a wage relationship. A Citizen’s Income would support a variety of forms of work. Social insurance is risk-sharing, and a Citizen’s Income would also constitute risk-sharing. It deals with risk now in ways that social insurance did sixty years ago.
A global Citizen’s Income is a distant prospect, but borders are breaking down and citizenship is changing. We need to keep alive a big vision.
