by BIEN | Mar 20, 2018 | News
Credit to: Wikipedia.
The Democratic Party in California is supporting Universal Basic Income (UBI). It is now public that people like Elon Musk have supported the initiative, mainly justified through job losses due to automation.
However, this of course leads to questions about the source of the influence that is supporting a basic income in the California Democratic Party, which has adopted on the 25th of February its official 2018 Platform.
In the Californian Democratic Party scene, UBI is mainstream, apparently, since it now features in the Platform, but not in the US as a whole. Since politicians with a Democratic label have to read and support the party policies, one may conclude that the UBI concept has gained traction in the Californian state, at least.
A growing cohort of young political activist leaders have been adopting UBI in their political campaigns. One such examples is 27-year-old Michael Tubbs, the present mayor of Stockton, California. He has promoted and launched a pilot project in Stockton municipality (funded by the Economic Security Project).
Region 5 (a congressional district) Director for the California Democratic Party, Rocky Fernandez, said that he has been talking about UBI for several years. Bob Wieckowski has also played an important leadership role in having basic income become concrete and part of the platform. The UBI platform proposal went through and “was passed,” in the convention by “thousands of party delegates”.
UBI has now a main statement in the Economic Justice section of the California Democratic Party platform. However, the same platform reinforces traditional Democratic values, which focus on jobs to further economic mobility for all Americans. The Party platform justifies the UBI in order to eliminate poverty, while simultaneously supporting efforts to establish government guaranteed jobs, that will “help people climb the economic ladder.” This could be interpreted as being willing to secure basic economic conditions for all people, while not trusting that these people will work if they get to be economically secure.
More information at:
Shirin Chaffray, “Many in Silicon Valley support Universal Basic Income. Now the California Democratic Party does, too.“, Recode, March 8th 2018
Kate McFarland, “Elon Musk reaffirms UBI prediction at World Government Summit”, Basic Income News, February 17th 2017
Roger Phillips, “Stockton to pilot ‘basic income’ experiment”, Recordnet.com, October 18th 2017
by Sandro Gobetti | Mar 19, 2018 | News
The Network
Rete dei Numeri Pari organized the event called “I love dignity. Guaranteed minimum income. What it is and how to build an instrument against inequality, mafia and poverty” in the past 14th and 15th of February, 2018.
Among many speakers, Sandro Gobetti, Giuseppe Allegri and Giuseppe Bronzini, from
Basic Income Network Italia, shared their thoughts with the audience. Below can be watched a video of the speeches, recorded on February 14th and edited by Radio Radicale.
The video can be watched
here (in Italian).
by Tyler Prochazka | Mar 13, 2018 | News
The second annual Basic Income Asia Pacific conference will be held in Taipei, Taiwan on March 17 and 18. This year’s theme is “Asia Pacific’s Economic Future.”
Keynote speeches will be delivered by Enno Schmidt, the Swiss referendum leader, and Dr. Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the UNICEF basic income trials in India.
“The focus on Asia is necessary to understand how we are going to interpret the idea regionally – given Asia’s own specificities and peculiarities. This conference is going to open this much needed conversation. This event is yet another milestone achieved by the UBI Taiwan, one of the most dynamic national groups,” Davala said.
Leading thinkers in academia, government and NGOs from Taiwan, mainland China, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States will join the conference to discuss the challenges facing the Asia Pacific and potential solutions, such as basic income.
Dr. Hermann Aubie is a lecturer at Aston University in the United Kingdom. His research specializes on comparing basic income movements in East Asia and Europe.
“This conference offers a rare and precious opportunity in the Asia Pacific region to build upon the wave of renewed attention that Universal Basic Income gained in recent years to discuss actively how we can create a wider consensus and concrete initiatives that build upon existing basic income designs and pilot implementations across the world,” Aubie said.
The entire conference will be live-streamed on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook account, including both English and Chinese audio simultaneous translations.
Taiwan has recently lowered the threshold for referendums, which has opened the possibility for a UBI referendum in Taiwan. This will be a topic of particular focus for two of the presentations at the conference, including Schmidt who will present on how Taiwan can lead Asia with a UBI referendum.
“With the introduction of Direct Democracy this year in Taiwan, the UBI Taiwan proponents have the same chance and political tool to turn UBI into a nationwide discussion and to push it to a people’s vote like the Swiss have done,” Schmidt said.
The conference coincides with increased discussion of basic income in the Asia Pacific, with the UN Development Program holding roundtable discussions on basic income in Beijing, China last October and December, as well as Korea discussing designs for a a pilot program.
“With the second annual UBI Asia Pacific regional conference approaching, we have expanded into two days, allowing us to share our ideas of how to improve society through implementation of Universal Basic Income,” said Ping Xu, co-founder of UBI Taiwan and UBI Asia Pacific.
The conference will examine the economic and social challenges facing the Asia Pacifc region, and will assess what a basic income policy can do to address these issues, such as inequality, automation, globalization, demographics, and environmental issues.
Last year’s conference attracted 100 participants and thousands of online viewers. The conference helped bring attention to basic income in Taiwan, with the formation of a UBI summer fellowship program and discussions with the Taichung Social Affairs Bureau about a potential pilot program.
The event is organized by National Chengchi University’s (NCCU) College of Social Sciences, and NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies. It will be held at NCCU on March 17 and NTU on March 18. The event’s volunteers and coordinating team are part of UBI Taiwan.
“At this juncture of history where poverty and inequality are rising rapidly, I think we urgently need a “new universalism” of the kind UBI promises. There’s a long road and a lot of work ahead of us to make it a reality, but as more and more people place their hope in UBI’s emancipatory potential to protect their livelihood, human rights and dignity, we just can’t afford to disappoint such expectations,” Aubie said.
Writing Assistance from: James Grant
by Patrick Hoare | Mar 5, 2018 | News, Research
Credit to: Flickr
In a new paper, published by the Institute of Labour Economics (IZA) in December 2017, James Browne of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Herwig Immervoll, of both the IZA and the OECD, have discussed what the social and economic consequences might be when replacing some existing social benefits with a comprehensive basic income. The study contributes to the expanding literature (building on the work of Atkinson 1995) that uses the microsimulation technique, a method that builds a computer program based on economic inputs (such as costs, income, expenditure and savings) in order to see what the effect of one variable output (such as poverty or inequality) would be if an input was changed. It was most recently developed by EUROMOD (the only multi-country EU-wide tax-benefit model currently available), and was used in Malcolm Torry’s paper, published in May 2017 by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, which analyzed similar scenarios and outcomes to Browne and Immervoll’s. This article will compare the two papers in an attempt to better understand the growing work in this area.
The Browne-Immervoll paper focused on four countries across Europe that have different population and labour-market structures, as well as very different tax and transfer policies: Finland, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. It looked at a situation where a universal basic income (UBI) would directly replace other working-age cash-payment benefits, including unemployment benefits, social assistance and other generalised minimum-income schemes, in-work benefits, early retirement pensions (i.e. pensions paid to those below retirement age whatever their official label), student maintenance grants and family benefits. In order to ensure that hardship was not ‘built into’ the policy changes, disability allowances and housing benefits would be retained, as well as the funding of other public services, such as the provision of healthcare and education. In line with BIEN’s definition of the UBI, payments would be, in all other ways, universal, paid to the individual, provided at regular intervals in cash, and be unconditional. The funding for the reform would have to take place under budget-neutrality, which would be achieved by taxing the basic income provided and by removing any tax-free allowance from the fiscal model. The marginal rates of tax, thereafter, would remain in accordance to the rates in place prior.
Torry’s paper, dealing specifically with the UK economy, also deemed it permissible to remove tax-free allowances and to tax all earned income in order to contribute toward the funding of the reform whilst maintaining budget-neutrality. Being guided by Hirsch’s recommendations (2015) based on political feasibility, however, Torry allowed for increased Income Tax rates of up to 3 percentage points across the board to help with this funding. Additionally, and significantly, his model maintained – where necessary – the means-tested benefits entirely removed in the Browne-Immervoll version, such that if the introduction of the UBI (which he, alongside others, label a ‘Citizen’s Basic Income’) wouldn’t be sufficient in improving the economic situation of an individual, then the means-tested benefits in place prior to the reform would be available as a form of supplementary benefit.
Given the conservative (or non-existent) fiscal expansion allowed across the modelling, which in both cases is argued as being necessary for realistic simulation, the rate of the net BI payments to be provided was significantly below the poverty line in all cases. In the Browne-Immervoll model, the UBI, for adults, would be at just 21% of poverty line level (defined as 50% of median household income) in Italy (€158), at 32% in the UK (£230), at 49% in Finland (€527), and at 50% in France (€456). The tapering of income at this level (or lower for 16 to 18 year olds) had the inevitable result of an increased rate of poverty in each scenario. This effect was especially pronounced in the UK, rising from 10% to 15%, due to the fact that the UK’s pre-UBI system relied heavily on means-testing and would have, in situations of such low income levels, provided additional benefits no longer available in the new model. Though Torry’s calculated UBI for the UK was only marginally higher for both adults (£264 per month) and young adults (£216 per month), the poverty rate under the conditions of his scheme followed the opposite trend and dropped substantially, falling from 14.84% to 11.8%. This difference – the effect of which is relatively even greater given the fact that Torry, in line with De Agostini, 2017, defined the poverty line as 60% of median household income – can largely be explained by the fact that Torry retained the very same means-tested benefits that Browne and Immervoll removed.
The analysis of potential gains and losses to income groups also reflected the difference in the methodologies used by the papers. The unwillingness in the Browne-Immervoll simulation to increase any current marginal rates of tax in order to collect revenue led to the expected result that those on lower incomes, overall, experienced larger relative losses. The very poorest – with little or no income – experienced gains, due to the universal and unconditional features of the new scheme, but the regressive nature of the flat uniform payments was not sufficiently offset by any progressive mechanisms, and thus the model delivered an overall regressive outcome. In contrast, Torry’s desire to avoid regressivity, and his willingness, therefore, to raise all the marginal tax rates, resulted in the top two highest earning deciles experiencing loses in disposable income of up to 5%, the third highest maintaining their level of disposable income, and the fourth decile down experiencing gains.
In order to understand the effect on work incentives of introducing a UBI, both papers focused on whether the reform would increase the effective tax rates on additional income, thus disincentivizing earning extra at the margins. Though this metric fell, on average, in both simulations – thus showing that there would be an increased (or, at least, not decreased) incentive to work – in the Browne-Immervoll model this was the consequence of removing the benefits associated with low-employment or unemployment, whereas in the Torry model this trend occurred in spite of keeping such benefits in place. As such, Torry’s simulation saw people getting wealthier – thus potentially moving up tax-brackets – but still managed to create a system where the financial rewards to work remained, or were even increased.
In conclusion, Browne and Immervoll determined that introducing a UBI in place of most other means-tested benefits would be costly and lead to negative social outcomes. Torry concluded, by contrast, that a UBI of similar level could be financially and politically feasible and would lead to many positive social outcomes. Given, however, that universal and uniform payments in an unequal society will, by definition, always increase regressivity if not offset by sufficiently progressive funding, the data gathered and logical conclusions derived are completely consistent with the papers’ respective methodologies. This comparative analysis shows that by adjusting a model’s predicated constraints, one can collect quantitative evidence to support different desired conclusions. On this basis, a UBI’s potential introduction does not seem to be determined by its feasibility (implementation, political likelihood, or positive economic outcome) but rather, by whether there can be consensus on what its purpose should be. That is, is UBI a mechanism for equalising wealth or a mechanism to simply provide everyone with something, no matter how small or large that payment may be?
More information at:
James Browne and Herwig Immervoll, ‘Mechanics of Replacing Benefit Systems with a Basic Income: Comparative Results from a Microsimulation Approach’, Institute of Labour Economics IZA, December 2017
A Atkinson, ‘Public Economics in Action: The Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal’, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995
‘Why use EUROMOD?’, Euromod.ac.uk
Donald Hirsch, ‘Could ‘citizen’s income’ work?’, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2nd March 2015
Paola De Agostini, ‘EUROMOD Country Report: United Kingdom (UK)’, Euromod, February 2017
by Tyler Prochazka | Feb 21, 2018 | Opinion
As income inequality continues to soar in the US and around the world, progressives are in a heated debate as to what the most effective policy may be to address growing precariousness.
My recent article reflected a left-leaning criticism from Philip Harvey of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as unaffordable from a political standpoint, and counterproductive in advancing politically feasible solutions such as a job guarantee.
There has been much research done on the subject of basic income’s cost. Karl Widerquist has become a prominent voice on this subject, arguing that the net cost is the true cost that should be considered.
In reaction to my interview with Harvey, Widerquist said the arguments about UBI’s cost were misleading, and in reality UBI is far more inexpensive than simplistic calculations let on.
“If the government gives a dollar and takes a dollar from the same people at the same time, it doesn’t cost anyone anything. According to my analysis, UBI can eliminate poverty by putting $539 billion in the pockets of low-income people after they’d paid their taxes and received their UBI. The only meaningful cost of that UBI is higher-income people have to make do with $539 billion less in their pockets after they’ve paid their taxes and received their UBI,” Widerquist said.
In “Financing Basic Income: Addressing the Cost Objection,” a book edited by Richard Pereira, also argues that the actual cost of basic income is largely overstated. Pereira told me that basic income can create a surplus to lower taxation burdens elsewhere.
“The demogrant is similar, with a seemingly much larger cost upfront. I say ‘seemingly’ because as some major studies that I reference explain, the demogrant can be “calibrated” to achieve the same result/cost as the NIT,” Pereira said.
The book persuasively addresses the critics that say UBI is too expensive. Other savings noted by Pereira’s book, such as those from reduced crime and improved health due to UBI, are important in the calculation of basic income’s net surplus. However, these topics deserve a separate consideration.
One area basic income advocates need to emphasize more is this clawback of basic income. As basic income pushes up an individual’s income, it subjects a person to paying back a portion of their UBI under the current income tax system, as Pereira’s book notes. Moreover, many individuals relieved from poverty due to UBI will no longer qualify for other welfare benefits.
As such, the actual long-term tax rates needed in a world with UBI is probably substantially lower than what the gross cost would suggest, because the government will start receiving a portion of everyone’s basic income back to use for the following year’s UBI.
A benefit of the Negative Income Tax (NIT) is that the gross cost and net cost are the same, because they immediately clawback the NIT credit in one’s taxes. This tax is politically superior to UBI’s indirect clawback through other taxes. However, a monthly UBI paid upfront to all in the same amount is still desirable to NIT because it ensures that everyone receives the funds, especially in the event an individual experiences a financial emergency and does not have the time or ability to apply for assistance.
Basic income advocates can learn from the payback scheme in the Affordable Care Act and combine the UBI proposal with a phase-out in the Negative Income Tax (NIT).
A helpful analogue is the ACA’s clawback of insurance subsidies. An individual can receive healthcare subsidies based on the previous year’s income tax, but pay back some or all of the subsidy through their income tax if they make more the following year. This lowers the amount that the government has to tax for the following year to pay for new subsidies.
The basic income could be paid upfront in the same amount to each individual on a monthly basis. However, the clawback from high-income earners should be more explicit, with a NIT type phase-out based on annual income taxes for high earners.
Perhaps 50 cents could be paid back on each dollar earned above $50,000. The rest of the clawback (and net funding for low-income basic incomes) can occur in indirect ways, such as through carbon taxes or financial transaction taxes.
Having high-income earners pay back their UBI through the income tax means that other taxes will not have to be raised as significantly. It may be helpful in the political realm to with this built in clawback because it is easier to understand.
At the end of the day, a UBI is likely the most effective way to end global precariousness. It’s time to get down to the specifics of how we make a UBI above the poverty line politically possible.
“There is no benefit to working people to being under the constant threat of poverty, homelessness, and destitution, if they have refuse or find themselves unable to take orders given to them by more privileged people. We need to build an economy based on positive incentives, not threats. A generous UBI can do that. A job guarantee cannot,” Widerquist said.
