by Guest Contributor | Sep 12, 2017 | Opinion
In 1970, conservative Republican US President Richard Nixon introduced a health bill into the American Congress. It passed but was defeated in the Senate. He did not realize it was a health bill, nor did many of his fellow politicians. It was called the Family Assistance Plan, a guaranteed income for families with children, not adequate to bring the income up to the poverty line, but substantially more than was previously on offer.
It required the breadwinner to accept work if available. Thus it was targeted, conditional, and inadequate by itself to eliminate poverty, but it was a huge change in thinking from a conservative leader in the United States. It came with this impressive rhetoric
“Initially this new system will cost more than welfare, but unlike welfare this is designed to correct the condition it deals with and thus lessen the long range burden and cost.”
The health-income gradient and the failure of ‘welfare’
We know that health and poverty are inextricably linked, that health outcomes follow the income gradient, and that the basis for this association in wealthy countries with good health systems is not simply access to care, but poverty and its own associations. Thus the Nixon proposal was a health bill.
The famous Whitehall study of British public servants who all had similar access to the National Health Service demonstrated a clear association of income with health outcomes. Those most in control of their own lives lived longer and suffered less.
Because of concern about wasting taxes on welfare and about the so called ‘welfare trap’, we have developed a highly targeted welfare system in Australia, with a strong emphasis on mutual responsibility. Our efforts to identify any welfare ‘fraud’, accidental or intentional, have become increasingly intense.
We continue to force people to chase jobs which do not exist or which they could not do. We hound them with letters generated by computers and then make it difficult for them to question any charges against them. We demean them. We dis-empower them even further than their poverty, unemployment, mental illness, or physical illness already does.
A BIG idea
An alternative is needed. The concept of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is not new. Thomas More wrote about it 400 years ago in his book Utopia. Variations of it have been advocated for centuries. Bismark’s social insurance in Germany has some elements of the concept. Nobel Laureate economist and free marketeer Milton Friedman advocated it in the form of a negative income tax (NIT).
Dr. Tim Woodruff
Four trials in the 1960-70s in the United States used Friedman’s model (p 107-109). If an individual’s tax return indicated a low or no income, a tax rebate was paid as a monthly deposit to a bank. The size of the rebate declined slowly as income was earned, ensuring earned income led to an increase in total income. The largest of these four trials involved 4,800 families, and the amount given varied from 50 to 100 percent of the poverty level. There were no work requirements.
The alternative model to NIT is a cash payment. This was trialed in Canada in 1974, where 60 percent of the Low Income Cutoff (poverty level) was paid. For every dollar earned the payment was reduced by fifty cents. Analysis of results showed that even though only one third of the population ever qualified over the 4 years of the trial, high school completion results increased and hospital admissions decreased during the trial compared to the control group.
An even more simple model is one in which the cash payment goes to every individual adult and is not means tested. This eliminates any negative perception of being needy, because everyone receives it. For those who do not need it, the money can easily be recouped by changes in taxation.
Counting costs, reaping benefits
The Basic Income Earth Network established in 1986, defines a basic income guarantee (BIG) as “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement”. This does not specify the level of the cash payment but the simplest and likely the most effective method would be to make the level at or slightly above the poverty line.
Concerns about the basic income guarantee relate both to the benefits and the costs. The Canadian trial mentioned above, demonstrated both health and education benefits. Analysis of the effect of increased household income in the Cherokee Indian community as a result of distribution of profits of a Cherokee owned casino showed less criminality and improved education down the track. None of this is surprising.
But does this mean people will not work as hard? The US trials referred to previously showed a decrease in hours worked particularly among women and young adults. Is that bad? It is not clear from the data what they did instead of working so much. Were women spending more time looking after their families? Were young adults looking more carefully at work options and training?
Men reduced their work hours by about six percent but it did not appear that they were permanently unemployed. Rather, it appears they were spending more time between jobs. The sky did not fall in. Most people who can earn a little more than a poverty level income will do just that.
Is it affordable?
A basic tax free income guarantee of $22,000 (the poverty line at 50% of the median income for a single person) for every adult Australian (18 million people) would cost $400 billion a year. But the idea is not to increase the net income of millionaires by $22,000. It keeps administration simple to give the basic income to everyone and recoup in taxes from the wealthy. So the real cost is much less.
Only about six million Australians currently receive income support. Another one million or so have some funding from the Federal Government. Being generous, for eight million to receive the BIG would cost $176 billion, almost completely offset by replacing the welfare budget of $150 billion. That could be abolished.
Removing the tax free threshold of $18,200 for the 12 million earning more than that would generate $41 billion. But anyone on a low income would still have a total income of more than $22,000.
Tweaking the tax rates on higher incomes would effectively remove the BIG from higher income earners. Provision for children would add to the cost. Reducing BIG for dual income households to a level which would reflect economies of scale, in the same way as pensions do currently, would reduce the cost.
Most Australians would not lose a cent. All Australians would be guaranteed a basic income, whether sacked, disabled, unable to find work, or simply unemployable. The NDIS and Medicare would continue unchanged. This is all possible. Even the Productivity Commission thinks it’s worth investigating (p69):
“While Australia’s tax and transfer system will continue to play a role in redistributing income, in the longer term, governments may need to evaluate the merits of more radical policies, including policies such as a universal basic income.”
A bold move for health
If Australia introduced BIG we would have a system that almost eliminates poverty, thus appealing to those deeply concerned about the plight of the disadvantaged. We would also have a system which gives such people the genuine capacity to make their own decisions about what they do with their lives, which should appeal to those committed to individual responsibility.
Implementing this idea would do away with the current cruel, dis-empowering, wasteful welfare system. It would improve health outcomes. It could improve productivity. It would improve the life prospects of the 13% of Australians who currently live in poverty, the 17.4 percent of kids who are being raised in poverty, and the 40 percent of children in single parent families who live in poverty.
This is a health issue. Medical groups of all types should think about how we might use our knowledge and concern about health to bring this issue to the minds and actions of our politicians.
About the author:
Dr. Tim Woodruff is president of the Doctors Reform Society, an organisation of doctors and medical students promoting measures to improve health for all, in a socially just and equitable way. On twitter @drsreform
Edited by Tyler Prochazka
by Kate McFarland | Sep 9, 2017 | Research
Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, authors of the new book Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy (Harvard University Press), have contributed a chapter to the book The Good Life Beyond Growth: New Perspectives, a collection of essays published as part of Routledge’s series Studies in Ecological Economics.
Their contribution, titled “Basic income and the freedom to lead a good life,” is based on the first chapter of Basic Income, in which the authors detail the distinguishing characteristics of a basic income (e.g. universality, lack of means test, lack of work obligation, payment to individuals rather than households), providing motivation for each of these features.
Van Parijs and Vanderborght introduce basic income as a way to address poverty and unemployment without reliance on sustained economic growth. Summarizing their position near the end of the chapter, they state:
Involuntary unemployment is a major challenge. But activation and growth, routinely offered as self-evident remedies, are both unrealistic and undesirable. An unconditional basic income offers a way of addressing this challenge without relying on an insane rush for keeping pace with labor saving technical change through the sustained growth of production and consumption.
They contend that a basic income would “mak[e] it easier for people to choose to perform less paid work at any given point in their lives” and “subsidiz[e] paid work with low immediate productivity”. Further, they claim, such lifestyle choices would result in lower material consumption in developed nations. In this way, the “freedom to lead a good life” supported by basic income would promote sustainability goals.
The collection The Good Life Beyond Growth originated with a conference by the same name, which was held in May 2015 at the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany, and convened by the university’s Research Group on Post-Growth Societies. At this conference, which presented interdisciplinary perspectives on questions of “what a good human life is about, what its subjective and objective conditions are, and how it may be reframed for a post-growth society,” Van Parijs presented “Good Life and the Welfare State” with another founding member of BIEN, Claus Offe.
Van Parijs and Vanderborght’s contribution is the only chapter in The Good Life Beyond Growth to deal specifically or at length with the idea of basic income. Another contributor, the social theorist and political economist Andrew Sayer, mentions the idea, but expresses doubt that it is the best means to achieve societal well-being without growth.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY 2.0 Giuseppe Milo
by Kate McFarland | Sep 2, 2017 | News
The Autumn 2017 issue of the left-wing political magazine Australian Options includes a special “viewpoints” section dedicated to basic income.
The issue can be read in full here.
The section on basic income consists of three short articles:
- “Basic income: An idea whose time has come?” by Troy Henderson (PhD Candidate in Political Economy at the University of Sydney)
- “Basic income: Political economic considerations” by Frank Stilwell (Professor Emeritus in Political Economy at the University of Sydney)
- “Basic income or job guarantee: What is to be done?” by Neale Towart (Unions New South Wales).
Henderson provides an overview of the idea of basic income, and then addresses four concerns facing its implementation in Australia: cost, cultural opposition to giving “handouts” to the poor and unemployed, lack of agreement between left-wing and right-wing proponents of basic income programs, and lack of mass social support.
Stilwell briefly articulates five political economic reasons in favor of basic income: sharing the nation’s abundant wealth, quelling anxiety about the future of work and technological unemployment, reducing inequality, simplifying the social safety net, and increasing individual freedom. He weighs these advantages against two main concerns: “could the nation afford to pay a BI?” and “would a BI have a big cost in terms of national output because people might decide not to work?” Stilwell offers tentative support for basic income, but only if combined with a strengthening of public health services, education, housing, transportation, and utilities.
Towart argues in favor of a job guarantee as a way to harness the potential of automation to free people from unfulfilling toil while ensuring well-paid employment in “work that we need done to create a fairer, sustainable society.” He raises concerns that a basic income would act as a subsidy for low wages and fail to empower workers to the extent of a well-designed job guarantee.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Lake Clifton, Western Australia) CC BY NC-ND 2.0 inefekt69
by Kate McFarland | Aug 31, 2017 | News
Nature Needs More, a wildlife conservation group based in Australia, is currently investigating the potential of basic income to help curb illegal hunting.
Founded in 2013 under the name Breaking The Brand, the group’s first advocacy and educational campaigns focused on curbing the demand for the products of illegal hunting, such as rhinoceros horns. As its work progressed, however, Breaking The Brand realized that its demand reduction campaigns could not be sufficient to stop illegal wildlife trade; successful wildlife conservation “needs more”.
Now called Nature Needs More, the organization is exploring new strategies, including a basic income pilot project designed to measure its effects on hunting and wildlife conservation.
Elephants in Namibia, CC BY-NC 2.0 Frans Vandewalle
Nature Needs More is inspired in part by the Basic Income Grant Pilot Project conducted in 2008 in the Namibian town of Otjivero. Prior to the introduction of the basic income grant, the local police station commander told researchers that poaching was the most common criminal activity, stating, “Poverty and unemployment are the reasons for these criminal activities. Otjivero is a tiny place and there is no source of income there. Most people hunt or poach just for survival.” In 2007, 20 instances of illegal hunting and trespassing were recorded between January 15 and October 31. In 2008, however, after the introduction of the basic income pilot, the count fell to only one instance during the same time period.
As Nature Needs More notes on its website, current basic income experiments–such as the 12-year randomized control trial that the non-profit GiveDirectly is due to launch in rural Kenya in September–are not linked to conservation outcomes.
Thus, the organization is considering the possibility of launching its own basic income experiment within the next two years.
Describing its hypothesis, Nature Needs More states, “Financial security would not only mean less poaching for food [and] less illegal harvesting … but would [also] mean wildlife trafficking syndicates would have less leverage to recruit poachers from the impoverished communities neighbouring key conservation areas.”
The organization is also exploring whether a basic income might help conservation areas convert to ecotourism as a revenue source.
Reviewed by Caroline Pearce
Rhino photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Martin Heigan
by Kate McFarland | Aug 29, 2017 | Research
Ville-Veikko Pulkka, a public policy researcher and doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki, has published his paper “A free lunch with robots – can a basic income stabilise the digital economy?” in European Review of Labour and Research.
Pulkka was previously employed as part of the research team at Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, responsible for the design and preparation of the nation’s two-year experiment replacing conditional unemployment benefits with an unconditional basic income.
The Finnish experiment has been the topic of most of his previous published work and presentations related to basic income (including presentations at conferences in Switzerland, Poland, Finland, and Ireland).
Pulkka’s research at the University of Helsinki, including his doctoral dissertation, centers on the implications of the digital economy for labor and public policy.
“A free lunch with robots,” his latest publication on basic income, moves away from focus on the Finnish experiment to explore the latter topic in more general terms:
The discussion on the possible implications of the digital economy for labour continues unabated. An essential dimension of the discussion is the widely shared view that a basic income could guarantee sufficient purchasing power for unemployed, underemployed and precarious workers should technological unemployment and labour market insecurity increase. A budget-neutral basic income has serious limitations as an economic stabilisation grant, but if financing proposals are revised, these limitations can be tackled. Even though guaranteeing sufficient purchasing power for unemployed, underemployed and precarious workers does not necessarily require an unconditional universal benefit, it seems clear that traditional activation based on strict means-testing and obligations will not be a strategy flexible enough to guarantee sufficient consumer demand in fluctuating labour markets. An economically sustainable solution might be to reduce means-testing gradually and to study carefully the effects.
The full article is available behind a paywall here.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Helen Taylor
