In the current turbulent times, there is a fierce debate emerging how cities should adjust to rapidly changing economic and technological trends. Smart City Education Inside invited two experts to discuss the prospect of cash transfers to enhance sustainability and provide equitable educational opportunities for students.
Smart City Online Education Inside is a joint project between the Digital Education Institute, III, and the Talent Circulation Alliance. Under the supervision of the Bureau of Industrial Development Taiwan, the project launched a series of panel and keynote speaking events for those interested in education technology, sustainable learning, and sustainable society.
On Tuesday (8/11), Mr. Ameya Pawar, who had served two terms on the Chicago City Council and was the first Asian and Indian American elected to major office in Illinois, shared his presentation “Dignity, Decency, and Agency: The Case for Universal Basic Income.” Income inequality, wealth inequality, and decades of policies favoring wealthy corporations and big banks over working people, drew him to the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI).
Pawar believes that every aspect of society is impacted by inattention to poverty, it is necessary to invest in mitigating it at both the national and local level.
“What leads us to believe that people will do something wrong or bad or do less if we help them a little bit?” Pawar asked. “To achieve sustainability, people need to have built-in resilience,” he said.
In response to the idea that giving cash may make people less willing to work, Pawar said that research has shown that is not the case. “Giving people money does not change the fact that people, as human beings, want to be productive; instead, it gives people more choices and breathing room in their lives,” he said.
On Thursday (8/13), we invited Mr. Sean Kline, who is the Systems Entrepreneur in Residence with RSA Future of Work Center, to share his presentation “Child Focused Development in the Digital Era.”
Kline believes, as services and technology become the dominant drivers of the economy, some segments of the population have been left behind. That’s why, a more modern and robust social safety net is needed to help transition and adapt to this rapid technological change is needed. While the government is putting tremendous conditions on how low-income families use public benefits, it is capable of giving people money in the form of large tax deductions. These unequal requirements demonstrate trust for one group and mistrust for the other. In fact, unconditional cash is administratively easier to deliver especially if it is provided universally.
With children being an important focus of Kline’s work, he suggests that lacking investment in children not only shapes their life’s trajectory, but shapes the trajectory of potential economic growth for society as a whole. Sharing examples of universal children’s saving accounts, baby bonds, and basic income and how they have benefited children, he believes that these are the primary methods to support children universally in the digital age.
Below is the a copyedited version of the speech I delivered at the Basic Income March, New York, October 26, 2019 in the Bronx, New York, October 26, 2019. Pierre Madden ranscribed and copyedited it, in Montreal, Quebec, September 2020. Then I copyedited it again, at St. Elizabeth’s, Napoleon Avenue, New Orleans, September 11-13, 2020
I march for UBI because it’s wrong to come between anybody and the resources they need to survive and that is exactly what we do in just about every country in the world today. Poverty doesn’t just happen. People don’t get themselves into poverty. Poverty is a lack of access to resources. The world is full of resources. The only reason you can lack access to the resources you need to survive is because somebody else controls them whether it’s an owner, whether it’s a politburo or whether it’s a bureaucracy. It doesn’t matter who controls them. If it’s not you and they say you can’t use them unless you do what we say, you are not free.
A video of the actual speech, October 26, 2019
Freedom is independence. Freedom is the power to say no to anybody who wants to give you orders. But we’ve set up the world so it seems so natural that some people should just own the earth. And the rest of us, the 90%, the 99%, we all have to go to them to get our job or we have no resources to keep us alive. And we call that “work.” We act like there’s no other kind. As if the only thing work could possibly mean is going and taking orders from somebody who has more privileges than you do. Working for yourself has become impossible. It’s been impossible since we kicked the peasants off the land and enclosed the commons. Working for yourself has been impossible since we killed the buffalo. Working for yourself has been impossible since we abducted the slaves. And the freed slaves knew this at the end of the Civil War. That’s why they asked for 40 acres and a mule. Unfortunately, their masters knew it too: that’s why they didn’t get it.
Marching from Harlem to the South Bronx October 26, 2019
There’s nothing wrong with a job. Jobs don’t make you unfree. What makes you unfree is when instead of saying I want you to work for me so I am going to pay you enough that you’ll want to work for me, they say I’m going to take everything starve you into submission. A small group of owners took all the resources. They didn’t invent these resources. These resources were here before all of us. And this group of people, this tiny little privileged group of people are going to take all the resources and they are not going to share with anybody until the people who have nothing provide services for the people who already own everything. That’s why when you control resources, you don’t get just the resources; you get to control other people.
The obligation should go in the other direction. Instead of the poor being obliged to work for the rich, the rich should be obliged to work for the poor. The only thing you could possibly do to justify owning resources, to own more resources than other people do, to have more access to resources, to have more control over resources, to use and use up more resources than other people do, is to provide some sort of service for them.
The New York Basic Income March, October 16, 2019
That’s why we need to tax the owners of property. All property is made out of resources. Every single piece of property, even on the internet. You need a place to stand when you make the internet. You need energy to make that internet work. All property is made out of resources.
They’ll tell you they’ve paid for those resources. No, they paid the last guy who owned them. They didn’t pay all of us who don’t own any resources. If you want to take a part of the earth that was here before you, you’ve got to pay back, provide a service for those who own nothing. That’s why you have to pay a tax on resources and the distribution of the revenue from that tax has to be unconditional.
But they’ll say, that’s something for nothing. No, that’s exactly backwards. The system we have now is something for nothing, where people who own the Earth don’t pay anything to those of us who therefore must do without. That’s something for nothing.
The South Bronx, October 26, 2019
We pretend we’re free because we have a choice of which one of these property owners we can work for. A choice of masters is not freedom. Freedom is independence. Freedom is the power to say no to anyone who would want to be your master. When you establish that, everybody gets some of the value of the resources of this earth, enough to live in dignity, enough to survive, enough that you don’t have to work unless somebody makes it worth your while. Oh, but they will say: All those lazy workers won’t work if you do that.
Notice how it’s always lazy workers and never cheap employers. No, that’s never said. So what we’re really doing when we say this, is we’re taking sides in a dispute. When somebody offers a job and somebody else doesn’t want it, that’s a dispute about wages and working conditions. Everyone has their price, right? So, if there’s a good price, people will take it: Good wages, good working conditions. Someone will take that job. But if we say whatever the wage is, if you don’t take that job you’re a lazy worker. Never a cheap employer. It’s like we’re looking at a dispute and pretending it’s not even a dispute. We’re pretending that only this side counts. We’re taking sides in a dispute, and we’re siding with the most privileged person. We’re morally judging the weakest, the least powerful person, the most vulnerable person, and leaving the privileged people beyond reproach, as if they’re not even a party to a dispute.
A video documentary of the Basic Income March, Harlem to the South Bronx, Ching Juhl, October 26, 2019
That’s the way the system works today.
And that’s based on a ridiculous assumption that the privileged people of the world, whether they’re in government or whether they’re private resource owners, they get to judge everybody else. They get to judge the weak and the vulnerable. They say: you deserve to live; you don’t. You go be homeless, you go eat out of dumpsters or do whatever else you have to do to keep yourself alive. That is the ridiculous assumption that there is anyone who doesn’t deserve the basic resources that they need to survive. And they decide who’s deserving on the self-serving assumption that privileged people have the right to judge whether unprivileged people deserve to survive. Those assumptions are self-serving to begin with. And look how self-servingly they use that power! In practice, the number one thing that we ask of the poor is, “if you’re truly needy, are you willing to work for the rich?”
Are you willing to work for people who own property? That’s what you’ve got to do to prove that you’re worthy. That’s so self-serving on the part of the privileged. And for almost all of us, it’s self-defeating, because most of us don’t have enough property to work for ourselves. The vast majority of us have to work for someone who owns enough property to hire us. By creating the situation where the more privileged to get to block the less privileged from the resources they need to survive, we’ve created a situation where just about everybody has to work either directly or indirectly for the wealthiest of us.
Marching from Harlem to the Bronx, October 26, 2020
And that creates this terrible work incentive problem. When they talk about incentives, they only talk about the incentives for those lazy workers to work. What about the incentive for those cheap employers to pay good wages? That incentive problem doesn’t just affect the people at the low end. 41 years ago, real per capita income was half of what it is now. That means we could all be working half as much and consuming the same or we could be working the same and consuming twice as much as we did 41 years ago. But most people are working just as much as their parents were 41 years ago and consuming little if any more than their parents did 41 years ago. We’ve had all this economic growth all this automation in the past 41 years and the benefits have all gone to the top 1%. Basic Income is not just for those other people at the low end, it’s for everybody who has no other choice but to work for a living.
We have owed each other a Basic Income since we enclosed the common lands, since we abducted the slaves, since we killed the buffalo not because some long-dead person stole something from some other long-dead person but because they created a system that privileges some, impoverishes others, and corrupts us all. We all owe each other a Basic Income now. That’s why I’m marching today and thank you for joining me. –Karl Widerquist, the Bronx, New York, October 26, 2019, final edits St. Elizabeth’s, Napoleon Avenue, New Orleans, September 13, 2020
A video interview of Karl Widerquist, by Ching Juhl, June 22, 2020
>
All the images and videos above are by Ching Juhl of Juhl Media.
>
>
Pierre Madden, transcribed this text, did some of the copyedting.
On 25 September, the collection of statements of support for the European Citizens’ Initiative will begin, with the ultimate aim of establishingUnconditional Basic Incomes throughout the European Union, in all 27 member states.
In particular, the initiative calls on the European Commission to submit to the appropriate institutions its proposal for the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income while remaining within the competences conferred to the EU by the Treaties.
The signatories only support the launch of the introduction process, but do not prescribe to the Commission exactly how the implementation of the UBI should take place.
If a citizens’ initiative receives at least one million statements of support during one year and the number of supporters in seven or more EU countries exceeds the national quota, the European Commission must start work on implementing the initiative’s proposal. The Commission may then recommend that the Council of the EU formulate an UBI-related draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union and report its findings to the European Council. On the basis of the conclusion of the European Council, the Council of the EU may adopt a recommendation setting out those broad guidelines.
With about 7% of the world population involved, this ECI is considered to be the largest UBI-campaign ever in the world. It will be held in 27 EU member states, with 24 different official languages (plus, with more than 60 indigenous languages), addressing a total population of around 450 million.
This is the second ECI about UBI. The first one was held in 2013-2014, when it got more than 285 000 signatures. The official objective was not achieved then, but six countries – Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands and Estonia reached their signature quotas, and one, Hungary, came close to reaching theirs. For the new ECI, the activists consider much more success than 1 million signatures due to the raise of awareness about UBI and the enlargement of the network of UBI advocates.
The “Start Unconditional Basic Incomes (UBI) throughout the EU” is one of the first European Citizens’ Initiatives to use a new system for collecting statements of support. Among other things, support can now be expressed using electronic means of identification, such as a national ID card.
The introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income, as said in the Initiative, ensures every person’s material existence and opportunity to participate in society as part of its economic policy, and reduces regional disparities in order to strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU.
The general principles of Unconditional Basic Income, which are unconditionality, universality, individuality and sufficiency for dignity, are set out in the Annex to the document, as well as the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other treaties that the introduction of an UBI will implement. The rest, such as making the best choices out of the many possible funding methods or the division of competences between the EU and the Member States in the details of the UBI, will remain the subject of further disputes, in particular during the proceedings in EU institutions.
As defined in the Annex, an Unconditional Basic Income as a human right and a benefit does not depend on any precondition, be it an obligation to perform paid work, to show a willingness to work, to be involved in community service or to act in a gender-sensitive manner.
Universality means that the basic income is paid to everyone, regardless of a person’s resources, age, origin, social status or any other indicator. A basic income is individual if it is paid in any case only to individuals, regardless of their marital status, and not to families or other institutions as a whole.
An amount in excess of the relative poverty line, corresponding to at least 60% of the average net income of the country’s population, is generally considered to be sufficient for an UBI. However, the authors of the initiative emphasize that as median income is lower (having lower purchasing power) in countries with a lower standard of living, other criteria should also be taken into account, such as the cost of a basket of goods and services.
Originally published by Open Democracy. 14 August 2020, under the title, “Basic income could virtually eliminate poverty in the United Kingdom at a cost of £67 billion per year”
Universal Basic Income (UBI) – a policy that would provide a regular, cash income to every citizen without means test or work requirement – is surprisingly inexpensive. The United Kingdom could introduce a full UBI (one large enough to live on) for just £67 billion per year or 3.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to a study Georg Arendt and I recently completed.
Attention to UBI in the United Kingdom has increased substantially as the Scottish Parliament discusses experimenting with it and as policymakers discuss it as a temporary measure to boost the economy during the Covid-19 outbreak. While a pilot project can examine some of the effects of UBI, this kind of study is necessary to determine how much it is likely to cost.
The cost of UBI is often exaggerated because many authors focus on its ‘gross cost’: the size of the UBI times the population. The gross cost of UBI is not a cost in any meaningful sense, because it ignores the great extent to which the new taxes people pay to support UBI are cancelled out by new money they receive in UBI. The real cost of UBI is the ‘net cost’ – the amount people receive or pay after subtracting the amount they pay themselves. The net cost of a full UBI for the UK is only about one-third its gross cost.
Our study is based on data from the 2014/15 UK Family Resource Survey. It uses microsimulation analysis from the European Union’s EUROMOD Tax-Benefit Model to subtract out the amount people pay themselves and determine the cost of a roughly poverty-level UBI of £7,706 per adult and £3,853 per child.
Key findings of the study include:
The cost of a full UBI for the United Kingdom is £67 billion per year or about 3.4% of GDP.
This figure is the net cost – the real cost – of a UBI scheme of £7,706 for adults and £3,853 for children. This assumes a 50% income tax rate for net beneficiaries integrated into the UK tax-and-benefit system in a way that ensures the majority of UK citizens benefit from the transition and no one in the bottom 20% of the distribution of income is financially harmed by the loss of programmes replaced by the UBI. Although net beneficiaries’ tax rate increases, they receive more in UBI than they pay in additional taxes.
This UBI scheme adds only 39% to the cost of the UK’s existing benefits system (not including the spending on the National Health Service), and an 8.7% increase in the UK’s total government spending (£67/£771 billion).
This UBI scheme is a net financial benefit to most households in the lower 70% of the UK income distribution, making it an effective wage subsidy (or tax cut) for millions of workers and their families.
The average benefit over the existing system for each net-beneficiary family is £4,056.
Under this scheme, the percent of UK families with incomes below the current official poverty line would drop from 16% to 4% and poverty among children and the elderly would all but disappear.
The net cost of this UBI scheme – the gross cost minus the amount people pay to themselves (£155 billion), and ignoring the costs and benefits of integrating the UBI into the existing tax and benefit system – is about one-third (35.4%) of its often-mentioned but not very meaningful gross cost (£438 billion).
Also subtracting the cost of existing programmes that can be replaced by UBI without financially harming anyone in the bottom 20% of the income distribution makes the net cost only about 15% of the programme’s gross cost.
This UBI system eliminates absolute poverty (e.g. as it is measured in the United States) from the UK.
According to a 2015 piece in the Guardian, the UK currently spends over £93 billion per year on corporate subsidies and tax breaks. If so, the UK could entirely fund a UBI by eliminating corporate subsidies and tax loopholes. No increase in individual taxes would be necessary, and the government would still have £26 billion available for corporate subsidies.
Countries with similar per capita income and similar tax-and-benefit systems should expect the cost of UBI to be a similar percentage of their GDP.
Those remaining in poverty under the scheme would be much closer to the poverty line than they are now and would have enough to get by in combination with other government payments and services. Therefore, we conclude that a UBI of this size would eliminate absolute poverty in the United Kingdom, a powerful result for less money than Parliament currently spends on corporate subsidies and tax breaks.
I was recently asked four questions about Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, and I think the answers provide a pretty good overview of what people who are interested in UBI need to know about the fund.
1. When was the Alaska policy passed?
The enabling legislation was introduced gradually from 1976 to the early 80s and was altered before it could be it could be introduced because of a court challenge. So, it’s best to focus on when the first dividend was distributed. That was 1982.
2. How many benefits does it provide people?
See this table. Note that it is for every man, woman, and child, so each family receives several times this amount. It usually varies between $1,000 and $2,000 per year. It would be much larger if it hadn’t been for the Governor’s and the legislature’s cuts a few years ago.
3. What was the history behind the policy?
Oil money really began to flow in 1976, just as Governor Jay Hammond took office. He used the power of his office from 1976 to 1982 to make deals with the legislature to create first the fund and then the dividend. The fund idea was popular, but the dividend wasn’t until it was introduced. Hammond had a few allies in the legislature, but it was very much his single-minded pursuit of the dividend that made it happen. He did it because he knew oil revenue would be temporary and he wanted to make sure every Alaskan benefited from it. Mexico, for example, has exported a lot of oil, but it’s hard to say whether the poorest people have benefit from it. All Alaskans–including homeless people–have benefited from Alaska’s oil exports, via the fund.
But the fund and therefore the dividend are about 1/8 to 1/4 the size Hammond wanted. So, the dividend could be 8 times what it has been in the table, and it could be even larger without the recent cuts. Imagine that—$4,000 to perhaps $12,000 year for every man, woman, and child.
Almost as soon as it was introduced it became the most popular government policy in Alaska, and was considered untouchable until about 4 years ago when Alaska’s oil revenue began to collapse, and politicians who had failed to plan for that day began raiding the fund to avoid reintroducing the state income tax or raising other taxes. Had they kept the income tax, and saved all or most of their oil money–as Hammond wanted–the state wouldn’t face a fiscal crisis as oil revenue declines, and they’d feel less temped to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
4. Has it proved to be effective?
Yes, if an impoverished family of four receives $8,000, that’s not enough to live on for a year, but it’s enough to make an enormous difference. In the first 20 or 30 year of the program, Alaska was one of the most economically equal states and the growing PDF was probably one of the reasons. It’s helped Alaska maintain a much lower poverty rate and poverty gap than it would otherwise have. -Karl Widerquist, on my front porch in New Orleans, Louisianan, 20 August 20, 2020
For more information about the fund see these two articles:
Karl Widerquist, 2012. “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Basic Income in Practice,” Democratic Imperatives: Innovations in Rights, Participation, and Economic Citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy, Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile Word, American Political Science Association (ed.). Washington, DC: The American Political Science Association (April), p. 64
