by Toru Yamamori | Mar 31, 2022 | Events, News
Topic: ‘Uniformity’ as a Characteristic of Basic Income: 1pm GMT (2pm London), 26th Tuesday April 2022
As it stands, BIEN’s definition of BI permits discrimination on the basis of gender, race and creed. The addition of a new characteristic ‘uniform’ could lead to large household economies of scale. ‘Uniform (except by age)’ could legitimize the exclusion of some age groups from a BI program. Annie Miller, co-founder of BIEN and co-chair of CBID, will give a short presentation, and open discussion will follow.
The forum will be held via zoom. All are welcome. For the link to zoom, please send email to: cbidbien@gmail.com
The “Clarification of the Basic Income’s Definition” (CBID) working group is an official working group of BIEN established by the BIEN General Assembly 2019 held in Hyderabad, India. The 1st and 2nd open forums were held during BIEN Congress 2021 in Glasgow and the 3rd open forum was held in October 2021
by Peter Knight | Mar 29, 2022 | Events, News
This virtual event on 22 March 2022, organized by Income Movement, provided an opportunity to hear from legislators, experts, and thought leaders on the current state of the basic income movement in the United States.
Guest speakers discussed national, state, and local-level efforts, giving a bird’s-eye view of the movement and laying the foundation for Income Movement’s work fighting for direct cash in 2022.
Guest speakers include:
- Representative Rashida Tlaib: U.S. Representative for Michigan’s 13th Congressional District
- Representative Brad Witt: State Representative for Oregon’s House District 31
- Jhumpa Bhattacharya: VP of Programs and Strategy, Insight Center
- Kevin Adler: Founder and CEO, Miracle Messages
- Harish Patel: Director, Economic Security for Illinois
You can view the recording of the event, moderated by Income Movement’s founder, Stacey Rutland, by clicking here.
You can also view the individual segments below:
by Peter Knight | Mar 6, 2022 | Events, News
BIEN’s 2022 Congress will be held in Brisbane, Australia, from Monday 26th to Wednesday 28th September 2022. This will be a hybrid face to face and online event. The main face-to-face event will take place in Brisbane.BIEN 2022 hybrid.
Call for papers: Abstracts (250—300 words) are now due by Friday 1 April 2022; please click here for more information.
by Gabriela Cabana | Feb 14, 2022 | News
During January the Fundamental Rights commission of the Constitutional Convention of Chile proposed two different articles to guarantee a basic income. Following an increasing support and visibility of this proposal, the Chilean Basic Income Network collaborated with 11 members of the convention and proposed a basic income as a way of fulfilling the right to a vital minimum (mínimo vital) through a basic income. The articles proposed to be incorporated in the new constitution are:
“Article XXX (to be defined): Of the right to a vital minimum and to the universal basic income.
The State recognizes the human right to a vital minimum.
The State must provide each inhabitant of the Republic with a monetary transfer that is periodic, individual, unconditional and non-seizable.
To ensure this minimum, a sufficient amount of resources must be allocated within the Budget Law for the preservation of social services and benefits.
The law that regulates the organisation and implementation of the basic income will guarantee that, in the case of people in contexts of dependency, the administration of their income is in charge, totally or partially, of their caregivers.
Transitory Article XXX (to be defined): The government will submit a bill for the implementation of the right to a vital minimum and universal basic income within the first two years counted from the entry in force of this constitution”
The second set of articles to guarantee a basic income refers to a right to a guaranteed basic income and it has the following description:
“Permanent article.- Every person permanently residing in Chile will have the right to receive a basic income in money, which guarantees the basic necessities of existence. This income will be monthly, unconditional, individual, unattachable and independent of any other income. The law will determine its amount and provide the way for its transfer to be automatic, without any request or justification. The loss of basic income may not be applied as a sanction.
Transitory article.- The basic income will replace any subsidy with similar purposes and will be implemented in accordance with the progressiveness established by law. The President of the Republic, during the first year of his mandate, must account to the National Congress for the measures that he will adopt for the progression of the effectiveness of this right”.
The next step in this process is the discussion of these initial proposals in the wider assembly. To be approved, an article must gather ⅔ of votes from the 155 convention representatives.
by Karl Widerquist | Nov 4, 2021 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
Two polls conducted in 2021 both found that a substantial majority of Americans now support Universal Basic Income (UBI) or some form of Guaranteed Income. One survey, conducted by Data for Progress, found that 55% of Americans support UBI while 39% oppose it. Another survey, by Skynova, found 67% of Americans support UBI while 20% oppose it.
Compare these findings to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports back in 2011. Rasmussen found that only 11% of Americans supported a Basic Income and 82% opposed it.
If we take these polls at face-value, they indicate support for UBI has increased by 6 times, and opposition to it has declined by 3/4ths. If so, the ratio has risen from 8-to-1 against to 3-to-1 in favor.
But of course, no one takes polls at face-value. The headline phrase, “polls indicate” (which I used in the headline), is a bit of an exaggeration, because it assumes a very simplistic, face-value reading of the two most extreme polls. Not even pollsters take poll results at face-value. Polling is a highly imperfect attempt to find out what people think. A good deal of the misunderstanding about polls comes not from the pollsters trying to get people to believe their findings, but from readers wanting to believe polls are more reliable than they are.
Given recent changes in the political dialogue in the United States and the world, it is unsurprising that U.S. support for UBI has increased, but to go from more than 8-to-1 opposed to as much as 3-to-1 is probably an exaggeration.
Some of the difference between polls can be attributed to differences in how the questions are worded.
The 2011 Rasmussen Report poll asked, “Another proposal has been made for the federal government to provide every single American with a basic income grant. The idea would be to provide enough money for everyone to enjoy a modest living regardless of whether or not they choose to work. Do you favor or oppose having the federal government provide every single American with a basic income grant?”
The 2021 Data for Progress poll asked “A guaranteed income is a policy that would provide monthly payments of around $500-$1,000 to individuals, regardless of their employment status and with no strings attached. Would you support or oppose implementing a guaranteed income in the U.S.?”
The 2021 Skynova poll report does not include the exact wording of the question. Their report simply reads, “Respondent Support of Universal Basic Income.”
The Rasmussen survey was worded more negatively than the Data for Progress survey. It didn’t mention a specific amount, and implied it would be rather high. The Data for Progress survey mentioned a specific—and rather modest—amount. Although all three polls seem to focus on a genuine UBI (rather than some other form of guaranteed income), they use three different names for it, “Basic Income Grant,” “Guaranteed Income,” and “Universal Basic Income.” How this wording might affect the results is hard to guess.
Other reasons poll results differ include the methods they use to contact a representative sample of people and the biases of the people conducting the survey alsot. Right-of-center pollsters tend to find results a little closer to what right-of-center people want to be true, and left-of-center pollsters tend to find results a little closer to what left-of-center people want to be true. Rasmussen tends to be right-leaning. Data for Progress and Skynova are more left leading.
Yet, it’s hard to imagine that the differences between the various pollsters’ techniques could account for the stark change from 2011 to 2021. Even though they are highly imperfect, it is likely that the difference between 2011 and 2021 reflects a major shift in U.S. public opinion. In 2011, UBI and other forms of Guaranteed Income had been absent from mainstream political discussion for 30 years. Today, UBI is increasingly a part of mainstream discussion as people with very different perspectives have come together in support of the idea.
The more modest of the two 2021 surveys (Data for Progress) still found substantial majority support for UBI: 55-39. Even if this finding is correct, it does not mean that UBI is on the verge of introduction. Majority opinion fluctuates widely, and the U.S. system has many barriers to enacting the majority’s will. The laws are more closely correlated to opinions of the donor class than to the opinion of voters. Although many mayors across the country have endorsed UBI, only a few members of Congress have gone on record for it so far. UBI still faces an uphill struggle.
Yet, UBI is on the table. People are taking the idea seriously. Support is growing. There is no telling how far that will go.
-Karl Widerquist, first draft Dallas Airport October 2021, final draft Anis Café, Doha, Qatar, October 26, 2021
Further info:
My blog post about the 2021 survey:
The Rasmussen Report survey from 2011:
The two surveys from this year:
