CYPRUS: “Guaranteed minimum income” is not a guaranteed minimum income

In July 2013, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades announced the implementation of a “guaranteed minimum income,” but the president’s language was self-contradictory. The program was supposed to be a “guaranteed minimum income,” assuring “a dignified living, irrespective of age, class or professional situation.” But he also said, “The single but absolutely necessary precondition is that they don’t refuse to accept offers for employment and to participate in the policies of continuous employment that are determined by the state.”

Anastasiades: reform of social policy -Cyprus Mail

Anastasiades: reform of social policy -Cyprus Mail

The name of the program and the first quote imply that the program would be a negative income tax—a form of basic income guarantee with some features in common with an unconditional basic income. However, the second quote demonstrates that it is neither a negative income tax nor an income guarantee of any kind. If recipients are held to a work requirement they are not guaranteed to have an income. Those who refuse employment or who are unable to take employment but unable to prove that inability cannot receive the income that is supposedly guarantee.

Whether the program (which will take effect in 2014) involves a practical step in the direction of a basic income guarantee at all is questionable. However, it does represent a rhetorical step toward a basic income guaranteed. It seems to show that politicians are finding it necessary to use the language of guaranteed incomes or of universality. This development might be an indication that universality is becoming more politically acceptable. Some politicians want to have it both ways to say that support is guaranteed for all but to restrict it for only those who fulfill conditions.

Several articles about the Cypriot program are online include two on Basic Income News:

Cyprus, Basic Income UK

Cyprus, Basic Income UK

Angela Mitropoulos, “Basic Income, Workfare & affirmations of productivity,” S0metim3s.com, August 16, 2013.

Stanislas Jourdan, “Cyprus to implement a ‘guaranteed minimum income,’” Basic Income UK, August 8, 2013.

Basic Income Initiative in Europe, “Cyprus’ Guaranteed Minimum Income plan and the basic income,” Basic Income Initiative in Europe, August 1, 2013.

BIEN, “CYPRUS: ‘President announces ‘Guaranteed Minimum Income’ program,” Basic Income News, August 5, 2013.

Malcolm Torry, “OPINION: Means-testing in Cyprus,” Basic Income News, November 4, 2013.

Allan Sheahen, Basic Income Guarantee: Your right to economic security

Allan Sheahen, Basic Income Guarantee: Your right to economic security, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, xv + 204 pp, 1 137 00570 0, pbk, £17.50, 1 137 34788 6, hbk, £62.50

Each adult who files an income tax return receives an annual ‘BIG’ [Basic Income Guarantee] or ‘refundable tax credit’ of $10,000 – just under the official 2010 poverty level of $11,139 for one person. The ‘refundable tax credit’ is available to everyone … All income other than this credit is taxed. If a person has no income at all, he or she keeps the full credit and pays no taxes. … If a person’s income is high, the amount to be paid in taxes will be larger than the credit received and … the person will pay out the difference in positive taxes. … the system is universal – everyone files a tax return, everyone gets a tax credit, and everyone with any income pays taxes. There is no means test, no work requirement, and no explicit eligibility criteria. No one receives a net transfer from the government unless the taxes on the person’s income from all sources are lower than the tax credit. (p.86)

Sheahen suggests on page 3 that different people use the term ‘Basic Income Guarantee’ in different ways, and indeed he offers different definitions on pages 3 and 86. I am assuming that the definition above from page 86 is the one that Sheahen wishes us to employ: and, if that is so, then in this revision of a book that he published in 1983 Sheahen has given us an accessible (in fact, quite chatty) book on Tax Credits: the genuine kind, and not the separately administered means-tested household benefits labelled ‘Tax Credits’ by the UK Government.

Sheahen sets the scene by offering a brief history of the recent US debate on poverty and the benefits system. He goes on to show that employment can no longer provide everyone with a subsistence income (because manufacturing and other processes are increasingly automated), and that inequality is becoming a serious problem; and he rightly suggests that a Basic Income Guarantee would contribute to the solution of these problems. Objections are tackled (such as ‘Is it moral for people to be given income that they haven’t earned …?’ (p.63) and whether people would continue to work: they would). Sheahen studies alternative approaches – such as the Government as the employer of last resort: an idea dismissed as impractical.

A Negative Income Tax (NIT) would be almost identical to Sheahen’s Basic Income Guarantee/ Tax Credit, so he studies NIT experiments undertaken in the USA between 1968 and 1979, and suggests that the fact that a NIT was associated with an increase in the divorce rate should not be regarded as a reason not to establish one. Sheahen studies the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, and he also studies discussions on benefits reform in a variety of countries and asks how the benefits reform debate might evolve in the US. Appendices explore affordability, describe the US’s current benefits provisions, and offer additional historical material.

Sheahen’s scheme is similar to that proposed by the Conservative Government in the UK during the early 1970s. The difference is that the UK proposal assumed that employers would administer the Tax Credits alongside Income Tax, whereas Sheahen’s scheme would be administered by the US Government, which for everyone with a tax liability lower than the Tax Credit would pay the difference into their bank account. These two administrative options suffer from different difficulties. If an employer is to administer the Tax Credit then the employer needs to know details of the employee’s income and tax liability relating to sources other than the employer’s payroll; and they need to know how such other incomes and tax liabilities change from month to month. If the Government is to pay the monthly difference between the Tax Credit and the total tax liability accurately each month, then it needs to know how all of that citizen’s incomes from different sources are changing from month to month. Whichever option is chosen, the administrative demands are considerable, as they would be for the similar Negative Income Tax.

Terminological clarity might have been helpful. The BIG scheme proposed is a Tax Credit scheme, and it might have been helpful to call it that (in the same way as Negative Income Tax is correctly described). The BIG described is not a Basic Income (or a Citizen’s Income), which will be confusing for people coming to this book thinking that ‘Basic Income Guarantee’ means ‘Basic Income’: it doesn’t. A Basic Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship. Sheahen’s BIG is withdrawn as income rises, it is completely withdrawn at the break even point where tax liability equals the BIG, and it is not paid above that point. It is not a Basic Income, but it would have effects similar to one.

As long as readers approach this book with an understanding of these terminological issues, they will find it a useful contribution to the debate on the reform of tax and benefits systems.

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, “What would Milton Friedman think of shutdown debate?”

[Craig Axford]

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach (Crain News Service photo)

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach (Crain News Service photo)

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and food stamp program, recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are programs that serve as tentative steps toward conservative economist Milton Friedman’s vision of a negative income tax (a form of basic income guarantee). In this article the author argues today’s conservatives are increasingly turning their back on these programs, however, and the recent government shutdown reflects this change in attitude.

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, “What would Milton Friedman think of shutdown debate?TireBusiness.com, October 15, 2013:

Guinevere Liberty Nell, "Basic Income and the Free Market: Austrian Economics and the Potential for Efficient Redistribution"

Basic Income and the Free Market

Basic Income and the Free Market

This book is collection of essays by economists and political scientists, each with an interest in arguments of the Austrian school of economics. The book, Basic Income and the Free Market, outlines Austrian arguments for and against the BIG. According to the publisher, it includes critiques of Austrian theory from market-socialist and post-Keynesian perspectives that lead to defense of the BIG; critiques of BIG that consider Austrian and other heterodox theory; comparisons of the policy to proposals by others, such as Milton Friedman’s negative income tax; pragmatic arguments for the policy; and proposals which discuss complex systems theory (which is embraced by ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinkers alike) and its relationship to Hayek’s spontaneous order.

The collection opens a dialog between Austrian and other heterodox economists as well as between ‘classical liberal,’ libertarian, and left-leaning or socialist political scientists and policymakers. The authors discuss whether the BIG could offer an alternative to both laissez-faire and existing welfare systems in developed countries, which are often criticized by both advocates and critics of laissez-faire, opening a constructive dialog in policy discussion. Included in this discussion is a systematic critique of pure laissez-faire interpretations of Austrian theory, and the analysis of the addition of a BIG to pure laissez-faire in the place of existing interventionist systems. Proposals making this case form the first section, followed by rebuttals and proposals against the policy, and rejoinders.

Guinevere Liberty Nell, Basic Income and the Free Market: Austrian Economics and the Potential for Efficient Redistribution, Palgrave Macmillan, August 2013

Martin, Melissa, International Perspectives on Guaranteed Annual Income Programs

ABSRACT: Addressing the issue of poverty in Canada is an important challenge to policymakers. Establishing an income floor below which no citizen falls is a critical public policy goal for the Canadian welfare state. In responding to this policy issue, recent debate has revolved around a guaranteed annual income (GAI), defined as a basic income paid by the government to all citizens on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. The purpose of this paper is to analyze past and present GAI programs to inform the public policy debate on the implementation of a GAI in Canada. Among the factors under consideration are the program’s efficiency in targeting payments, as well as its effect on family structure and labour force participation. On an implementation level, the paper also explores the potential for introducing a GAI through a negative income tax. It is also important to note, however, that relatively few GAI programs exist currently, and those that do, often are not sufficient alone in providing income maintenance to citizens.
Martin, Melissa, “International Perspectives on Guaranteed Annual Income Programs,” Queen’s Policy Review, Volume 2, No. 1 (Winter 2011), pp. 49-61