by Kate McFarland | Jan 13, 2017 | News
In a recent interview and article, economist James K. Boyce defends a universal basic income of $200 per month, funded in part by taxes or fees on carbon emissions and financial transactions.
Boyce, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and program director at the Political Economy Research Institute, recently co-wrote a article on the topic with entrepreneur Peter Barnes, who authored the 2014 book With Liberty and Dividends for All. The article was originally published as “$200 Dollars a Month for Everyone? Universal Income from Universal Assets” on Triple Crisis, a blog devoted to finance, development, and the environment. It has also been republished on Medium as “How To Pay For Universal Income”.
Boyce and Barnes argue that a modest basic income could be funded from “universal basic assets” — wealth that is rightfully owned by all members of society, such as that which is derived from appropriation of the commons (e.g. extracting minerals or timber from the land or releasing pollutants into the atmosphere). They argue that universal basic assets also include a portion of wealth generated from society’s financial and legal infrastructure.
On their view, a portfolio of such commonly held assets could (and should) be used to fund a citizen’s dividend of $200 per month to all Americans, distributed automatically via wire transfers to individuals’ bank accounts.
Boyce provides further explanation of the proposal in an interview with Kim Brown of the Real News Network (see video below).
In the interview, while elaborating upon the idea of universal basic assets, Boyce compares and contrasts his proposal with Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which provides all Alaskan residents with an annual basic income ($1022 in 2016) from the revenues on a permanent fund created from royalties on the sale of the state’s oil. Boyce notes that whereas Alaska’s PFD incentivizes drilling for more oil, a carbon tax and dividend would dis-incentivize carbon emissions, thereby promoting more sustainable energy production.
Boyce further articulates his ethical justification for a citizen’s dividend in response to a question concerning whether it is fair to give money to those who don’t work for it: “All we’re talking about is returning to people the money that comes from uses of assets we all own or should own in common. So, it’s not about handing out free money. It’s about not letting people use those assets for free. That’s the real handout.”
A transcript of the interview is available on the site of the Real News Network (“Universal Basic Income: A Solution to Inequality, Economic Instability, and Climate Change,” November 21, 2016.)
Cover Photo: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Pembina Institute
by Kate McFarland | Aug 27, 2016 | News
On Tuesday, August 23, the California State Senate voted to approve a resolution calling on the United States Congress and President to enact a national carbon tax-and-dividend.
The proposed tax would apply to fossil fuels, and be applied based on the amount of carbon dioxide that the fuel emits when burned. While it specifies no exact tax rate, the resolution suggests that the tax start low and increase steadily through the year 2050. The intent of the policy is to encourage a shift away from carbon-based fuels, with the ultimate goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The dividend is not the focus of the resolution; it is merely stated that “all tax revenue should be returned to middle- and low-income Americans to protect them from the impact of rising prices due to the tax.” The resolution further mentions that, according to a study by Regional Economic Models, a family of four would receive an average of $288 per month after 10 years.
The Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), a California-based group that has been advocating strongly for a carbon fee-and-dividend, applauded the resolution — with 35 volunteers traveling to the state capital to voice their support.
In the United States, the carbon tax-and-dividend has been gaining currency as a possible way to introduce a basic income. For basic income advocates, of course, the interest is in the dividend: a universal and unconditional cash payment distributed monthly to individuals or households. Camila Thorndike of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network spoke about the connection between basic income and carbon tax-and-dividend policies on a recent edition of The Basic Income Podcast. The policy is one under consideration by the newly-formed National Campaign for Basic Income, whose founding member Steve May recently wrote an editorial in favor a carbon tax and dividend in Vermont.
For an analysis of one such proposal, see Michael Howard’s article in Basic Income News: “Size of a Citizens’ Dividend from Carbon Fees, Implications for Growth” (September 14, 2015).
The full text of the California Senate resolution is available here.
Reviewed by Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 John Watson
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 17, 2014 | Research
SUMMARY: “Giving taxpayers $250 per month, reducing carbon emissions and boosting the economy. This is what the future could hold if the United States imposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuel production.”
Mike Ludwig, “Report: A Carbon Tax That Would Create Jobs, Cut Emissions and Put Money in Your Pocket.” Truthout, 12 June 2014.
More than two dozen major American corporations, including the five oil giants, are preparing to pay climate-related taxes such as The Motiva refinery, pictured here, co-owned by Shell in Port Arthur, Texas, April 2, 2013. (Photo: Michael Stravato / The New York Times via Truthout)
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 17, 2014 | News
[Karl Widerquist]
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor (under the Clinton Administration), is already on record as saying that some form of basic income guarantee is “almost inevitable” in response to the changes in the labor market brought about by changing technology. He has now release a statement endorsing BIG as a part of a strategy to address climate change. Without using the term BIG, or any of its common synonyms, Reich argues that we should tax carbon and redistribute the revenue equally to every citizen—that is in the form of a universal basic income. He made the statement on June 10th, 2014 on his Facebook page. We reproduce the entire statement below:
Robert Reich via Wikipedia
“The single best way to reduce climate change is to put a price on carbon. The big fossil fuel companies say this will hurt the economy, but they said the same when we put a price on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide – the pollutants causing acid rain — in the 1970s. We did it anyway, all but eliminating acid rain, and the economy did fine. As to carbon, we’d start with a low price – say $10 for every ton put into the air – with the price gradually rising over time. This would give energy companies an incentive to save money by reducing carbon pollution – and also spend and invest more in non-carbon energies like solar, wind and hydro power. Our electricity bills might rise, but there’s an easy fix: The money polluters pay would go into a big fund that’s then divided up and sent to every American. So even if your electricity bill goes up $10 a month, you get back at least $10 if not more. Are you with me?”
For info see: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/809307552415176?fref=nf
by Yannick Vanderborght | Apr 28, 2014 | Opinion
No doubt most Basic Income News readers are aware of an interesting intersection where the arguments for basic income overlap with the arguments on how to best control global warming.
In his book, “Storms of my Grandchildren,” climate scientist James Hansen proposes a global carbon tax with the proceeds to be distributed to everyone (he calls it fee-and-dividend).
In other words, Hansen sees a worldwide basic income as a major component in solving one of our most important environmental challenges.
How to get there is the question.
In his book, Hansen proposes that the different national governments each implement a fee-and-dividend system. The fossil fuel fees collected by each country would be distributed as carbon dividends to the residents within their own borders.
Although it might have some effect on a few nations in the short-term, such an approach is unlikely to achieve the desired long-term results.
Nations with limited fossil fuel production but large populations would only have small dividends to distribute, and so little incentive to participate.
Those nations with large fossil fuel industries and small populations would find the temptation to produce and sell untaxed product on the black market attractive.
A better approach might be to bypass the national governments and go directly to the people of the world.
I have posted a petition on Care2 calling for a global carbon tax that takes that approach.
The petition is addressed to the secretary-general of the United Nations and calls for a worldwide referendum on the question.
Such a worldwide vote would be difficult to achieve but far from impossible. Don’t forget that the U.N. organized and ran an election in Kampuchea when much of that nation was still controlled by the Khmer Rouge.
Here in British Columbia, we have a carbon tax of $30 per tonne.
According to Wikipedia, the burning of fossil fuels produces about 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in the world each year.
A carbon tax of $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide would therefore raise about $900 billion per year.
Assuming there are about 5 billion adult human beings on the planet, the carbon tax proposed in my petition would provide each of them with a basic income of roughly $180 per year – effectively doubling the incomes of hundreds of millions.
No doubt most Basic Income News readers can point out many advantages of such a global carbon dividend. However, I would like to identify two that seem to me, as a layperson, most important.
The first would be simplicity. It would be relatively easy to identify those who are eligible to receive the benefit (age 18 and over), which would lessen the possibilities for corruption.
The second is that it would not be charity. The lives and livelihoods of every human being are being put in danger by global warming. The proposed carbon dividend would therefore be in partial compensation for that risk.
Such a global fee-and-dividend system would not solve all the world’s problems – but it would be a step in the right direction. It would help us to get a handle on global warming and global inequality – two of our biggest problems.
It would also open the door for reform and democratization of the United Nations (“No taxation without representation”).
The petition seeks to get 100 million names. This is modeled on the Swiss precedent, where 100,000 signatures on a petition are enough to get an important initiative taken to referendum. The world’s population (7 billion and rising) is about 1,000 times larger than that of Switzerland (8 million).
I don’t really expect the Care2 petition to achieve that number. I do hope, however, that some international organization will pick up the idea and run with it.
You can view the petition (and hopefully sign it) at: www.thepetitionsite.com/286/384/042/petition-for-a-referendum-on-a-global-carbon-tax
