by Guest Contributor | Oct 17, 2016 | Opinion
By Jennifer Lawson
Per capita payments, or ‘per caps’, as they are known in Indian Country, function as a kind of basic income for tribal nations that have them. In this piece, I want to examine the distinct difference between the thinking about such a basic income in Indian Country and the United States in general.
The other day, I was talking to a small group of non-native Americans about basic income. One of them said to me, “Basic income seems like something like that would take a long time to gain ground.”
In the United States in general, the thinking about basic income is not as far along as it is in Indian Country, where per caps have been a staple for many tribes for several years.
One of the first questions, for tribes that gained discretionary income in the last decade, has been, “What do we do with this money?”
Many tribal nations have tribally owned businesses and, unlike the general thinking in the United States, no one worries that this may be a form of communism or socialism. It is simply, for many tribal nations, in keeping with their tribal values to have a collectively owned business.
The revenue from such businesses, as well as the revenue from natural resources and other ways tribes gain money, provide the discretionary income that tribal nations work with.
The answer to the question, “What do we do with this money?” is answered differently by different tribal nations. Some provide services to their citizens, such as childcare, early childhood education, hospitals, and so forth. Others provide per caps to their members.
I do not want anyone to come away thinking that tribal nations are flushed with cash or that Native people are, in general, rich from per caps. Rather, I want to look at the differences between the tribal way of thinking and the United States’ way of thinking
From the tribal point of view, when you have a collectively owned business, it makes sense that one option would be to divide the revenue up and disperse it among citizens of the tribe. In general, what to do with the money is voted upon and the decision about what to do with the money is decided that way.
For non-native people, we do not have collectively owned businesses to decide how to divide the revenue. A large portion of people in the United States would rebuke such a business as socialism or communism.
However, we do have other ways of gaining access to a basic income without having collectively owned businesses. Some have suggested taxing pollution, for example.
For tribal nations, some of the arguments that are familiar to people in basic income have been espoused, both for and against. One worry, for example, is that people will not attend college because the thinking What’s the use? is in effect. That is, if you don’t need to attend college for future employment, why go? This thinking saddens many tribal people, who have a pre-colonial history of being interested in education, contrary to stereotypes.
But the biggest issue for tribes, which has become a real problem, is that of disenrollment. Disenrollment is, in effect, making people ineligible to be tribal citizens. While many tribal nations are growing as of late, some tribal nations with per caps have closed and/or tightened up their citizenship requirements to make per caps go further, and to allow each individual to have as much money from per caps as possible. If a tribal nation is doing pretty well economically, it does even better when the tribe is small.
With the large population of the United States, as well as our open citizenship requirements, where people may become citizens after completing various acts and learning about our government and founding documents, what we can afford to give our citizens depends on how we collect that money.
Because the issue of having collectively owned businesses seems to be less compatible with the values of the United States than of tribal nations, we of the United States have to be creative in how we decide to fund a basic income.
No matter the problems that tribal nations have experienced due to per caps, what is clear is that tribes that have the ability, and vote accordingly, can provide a basic income for their citizens. This should make us wonder why the United States, which has more wealth, opportunity, and so forth, cannot.
Looking over the state of per caps in Indian Country has made me, at least, realize that it can be done, and that we should do it. After all, if we had a basic income, I might be able to be in Standing Rock right now, standing with my Native brothers and sisters against the Dakota Access Pipeline—or engaging in other activist or cultural activities.
There is much that Indian Country can teach us. The issue of basic income is one we should look into further.
by Toru Yamamori | Oct 11, 2016 | News
As previously reported, the 2016 BIEN Congress was held in Seoul, South Korea from July 7-9. The General Assembly (GA) was held on the last day of the congress, at which several important decisions were made, including the following:
1) BIEN now a legally chartered institution
At the 2014 congress, the GA mandated the Executive Committee (EC) of BIEN to make BIEN a legal entity. To this end, the EC established a task force headed by Louise Haagh. After considering various options, the EC decided to apply in Belgium for recognition as an international non-profit association (AISBL), and the application was approved.
It was necessary to change BIEN’s statutes to comply with the requirements of AISBL organizations. The needed changes were made and approved by the GA. The AISBL charter (BIEN’s newly revised statutes) can be viewed at this link [pdf].
2) Clarification of definition of ‘basic income’
The GA passed two motions related to the definition of the term ‘basic income’.
The first was a refinement of the official definition used by BIEN.
Previously, the definition of basic income on BIEN’s website and in its charter had described a “basic income” as “an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”. At the 2016 congress, the GA approved the following change to the description: “[a basic income is] a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.”
Moreover, the GA approved the following elaboration of the above description:
That is, Basic Income has the five following characteristics:
- Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
- Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
- Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.
- Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
- Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
This amendment, then, adds two additional characteristics (periodic and in cash) to the three that had been in BIEN’s official definition of basic income since the network’s founding in 1986. Some participants in the GA meeting viewed the amendment as a clarification of the definition rather than a change to it, because it merely makes explicit two characteristics that have long been assumed by most of BIEN’s membership.
3) Resolution on the type of basic income to be supported
In addition to the above clarification, the GA passed the following resolution:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support a Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people.
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates.
Prior to the decisions about the description of UBI and the type BIEN supports, there was a workshop and dedicated group work during the congress. The overview of discussions, concerns and reasons will be published here at Basic Income News shortly.
4) Portugal 2017 and Finland 2018: BIEN moves from biennial to annual Congresses
Since its founding in 1986, BIEN has held its Congresses once every two years. However, given the current momentum of the UBI movement–in conjunction with recent competing wishes to host the Congress (there were three candidates for the 16th Congress, and two candidates this time)–the EC proposed that BIEN commit to having yearly congresses . The two affiliates applying to host the next Congress, Portugal and Finland, agreed to put forward proposals for one Congress in 2017 and another in 2018, respectively.
Some people at the GA were skeptical about yearly Congresses, and others noted that BIEN does not need to change its statutes to have yearly Congress; it just needs to approve Congress proposals. On that basis, although the motion to commit to yearly Congresses was defeated, the proposal by Portugal and Finland to host Congress next year and the year after were approved.
The 17th BIEN Congress will be held in Lisbon, Portugal September 25-27, 2017, and the 18th BIEN Congress will be held in Finland 2018. The call for participation for 17th congress in Lisbon has already been released. The exact dates and the details of 18th Congress in Finland haven’t been decided yet. The dates will be published in Basic Income News when they are decided.
5) New affiliates: India, NZ, Quebec, Scotland, Taiwan, and China
At the GA, 6 new national or regional affiliates were approved. They are: India Network for Basic Income (India), Basic Income New Zealand Incorporated (New Zealand), Revenue de base Quebec (Quebec), Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (Scotland), Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan (Taiwan), BIEN China (China).
6) Clarification and a plan for actualization of the vision of BIEN
BIEN’s co-chairs have drafted a clear vision for the organization, which they published prior to the congress. The vision was shared and discussed at a special workshop during the congress. In order to actualize this vision, it was proposed to increase the size of the EC from 9 to 11 members. The GA approved this proposal.
Names, roles, and affiliations of the new EC members can be found on the About BIEN page.
The detailed minutes of the GA can be found here [pdf]. The GA is open to all life members of BIEN, and is held at each congress.
BIEN invites everyone to join the next congress.
[Reviewed by Kate McFarland and Karl Widerquist]
by Kate McFarland | Oct 9, 2016 | News
At a press conference on Wednesday, October 5, Alaska state senator Mike Dunleavy (Republican) announced plans to introduce legislation to restore the 2016 Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) amount to $2052, the full amount calculated by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Earlier in the year, Governor Bill Walker vetoed over half of the state legislature’s appropriation of funds to the PFD, resulting in an amount of $1022 per Alaska resident.
Alaskan residents have joined in protest of the cuts in the PFD. More than 15,000 individuals have joined the Facebook group “Alaskans Against Gov. Walker’s PFD Theft”, which organized a protest at an Anchorage budget forum held on Saturday, October 1.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit by Democratic state senator Bill Wielechowski — which charges that Walker’s veto was illegal — is awaiting resolution. In response to a request for an expedited review, arguments have been set for November 17 in Anchorage.
As a universal and unconditional cash transfer, paid annually to all residents of Alaska, the PFD is frequently cited as an example of a “real world” universal basic income. It continues to be presented as a model for UBI policies by groups ranging from the Movement for Black Lives in the United States to the Goenchi Mati Movement in the Indian state of Goa.
References and further information:
Nathaniel Herz (October 6, 2016) “Alaska lawmaker stokes Permanent Fund fight with push to add $1,000 to dividends” Alaska Dispatch News.
Paula Dobbyn (October 5, 2016) “State senator prepares bill to restore full amount of 2016 Permanent Fund dividend” KTUU.
Travis Khachatoorian (September 30, 2016) “With reduced PFDs on the way, protests expected at budget forum” KTUU.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Juneau Morning, CC BY-NC 2.0 Dale Musselman
by Kate McFarland | Oct 7, 2016 | News
The 10th annual World Forum for a Responsible Economy will be held in France from October 10 through 14. Events will be held in a different city on each consecutive day, beginning in Lille and ending in Paris. Overall, the conference features approximately 100 speakers, and is expected to draw over 5000 attendees.
The theme of this year’s World Forum for a Responsible Economy is “Envisioning the economy of the future”. In keeping with this theme, one session–held on Monday, October 10 in Lille–will focus on basic income:
The ideal of offering all people with a job that provides them with an income satisfying their basic needs is becoming a mere dream. Additionally, people are increasingly given redundant and shedding jobs. Offering people an unconditional basic income, so that they do not have to worry about mere survival, can unleash untapped potential and new opportunities. But it also comes at a cost. In this session, a number of pioneers who are involved in basic income experiments will share their experiences, fears and hopes for the future.
Speakers include Sarath Davala (sociologist and founder of the BIEN affiliate India Network for Basic Income), Michael Bohmeyer (entrepreneur and founder of the non-profit Mein Grundeinkommen), and Olli Kangas (researcher at Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, which is currently planning the country’s basic income experiment).
Dean Rossouw of the Ethics Institute of South Africa will moderate the discussion.
For more information, see the website of the World Forum for a Responsible Economy and, specifically, its description of the session “Basic Income Grant: liberating or limiting human potential?“
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Image from Place Mitterand, Lille, France CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 todaysart
by Guest Contributor | Sep 21, 2016 | Opinion
Evidence indicates that Universal Basic Income (UBI) policies would benefit our society’s least fortunate, decreasing poverty and improving the prospects for long-term income mobility. However, one UBI critic has asserted that a basic income replacing current forms of welfare would make it harder for immigrants to become naturalized citizens of the United States because of political pressures. An excerpt from an interview journalist Megan McArdle gave to PBS News Hour:
A lot of immigrants are low-wage workers. They’re not skilled, a lot of them. They don’t have as much education as most Americans and so they never do get up to the point where they would ever pay enough in taxes to make back that check. Even if you just limited it to their children, the political support for importing people whose children will then be entitled to the same $15,000 a year as your children — I don’t think that would ever be politically viable.
So if you want to have a guaranteed minimum income, you need to shut down, pretty much effectively, shut down immigration, or at least immigration from lower skilled countries…
There are three reasons why McArdle’s conclusion, that UBI would complicate the immigration debate and necessitate an end to immigration, is very incorrect. First, naturalized immigrants are already the recipients of welfare transfers in the status quo; distributing this aid through a UBI will lower administrative costs, be less controlling, and help those in poverty more than existing welfare policies do. Second, the UBI’s political effects on immigration are largely unpredictable, but the reform could be sold to the public in a bipartisan fashion. It is not hard to imagine that UBI would have broad appeal if constituents knew it offered a simplified benefit structure, created clear incentives for legal immigration, and eliminated some of the perverse incentives embedded in current welfare policies.
Welfare policies already exist – and naturalized immigrants already participate in these programs at relatively high rates because immigrants are more likely to be low-income than the average American citizen. This is worth repeating for emphasis: naturalized are already eligible to receive social security benefits, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, TANF benefits, and benefits from other transfer programs. This fact alone means that UBI, as a phased-in alternative to current welfare policies, would not increase the amount of money transferred to naturalized immigrants.
While it is feasible that welfare transfers to new citizens could be viewed as unpopular, the balanced approach of a UBI could help mitigate these concerns while leaving everyone better off. Policymakers who answer to constituents with negative views on immigration could effectively communicate that a UBI would reduce the total cost of welfare by reducing administrative costs. Policymakers who answer to constituents with positive views on immigration could argue aid would be given to those in need in a better way, a way that empowers new immigrants to make their own choices rather than choices dictated by the government.
Depending on implementation, a UBI policy may slightly increase or decrease aid to the families of illegal immigrants. Although immigrants illegally residing in the U.S. are generally ineligible to receive welfare, illegal immigrants are permitted to apply to receive food stamps on their children’s behalf. A UBI equal to the value of the food stamps the family would have otherwise received should be the preferred policy. Various states already have their own forms of supplementary assistance for illegal immigrants in addition to food stamps: these states could bridge any perceived gaps by offering the same assistance they do now.
Lawful, non-citizen residents, such as students, exchange visitors and foreign workers, are eligible for certain welfare transfers depending on their circumstances. Current laws also require waiting periods and point systems for noncitizens to become eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) transfers. These rules could be maintained to alleviate concerns that noncitizens would take advantage of the UBI: as it stands now, non-citizens receive substantially less welfare transfers than their citizen counterparts. Essentially, a UBI would end up looking very similar to the SSI – the general idea would be to have fewer onerous requirements on how welfare dollars are spent.
The political implications of UBI implementation are nearly impossible to predict, especially in the context of immigration. For example, even though illegal immigration has been falling over the last decade, voter concern is relatively high. Additional demographic changes will likely change the political realities surrounding immigration reform and welfare policies.
It is also unlikely that a UBI would drastically change the rate of naturalization or where non-citizens choose to call home. After all, research shows that welfare spending does not have large effect on immigrants’ decisions on where to live (the biggest factor appears to be economic opportunity). It also appears that citizenship fees are a bigger factor in determining whether immigrants will pursue naturalization than welfare is.
It is clear that UBI would not lead to the cataclysmic outcomes McArdle expects: we would have already seen those consequences with current welfare policies. A UBI would just improve the existing system.
About the author:
James Davis is an undergraduate at Columbia University studying Economics and History.
