by Cordelia Holst | Nov 6, 2017 | News
On Thursday, October 19th, activists, social justice advocates, economists, futurists, venture capitalists, writers, community organizers and politicians gathered at the Old Mint in San Francisco – a symbolically poetic building – to talk about Cash. Organized by the Economic Security Project, the goal of the conference was to “reimagine what an economy built on the well-being of everyone could look like.”
Cara Rose DeFabio and Sandhya Anantharaman were the MC’s for the day, introducing each segment, panel or presentation, showcasing a range of thoughts around how cash transfers can shape society. See the full schedule here.
The conference embraced a range of reasons why giving cash through a Universal Basic Income is an appealing concept. Most segments were in a panel format with experts in their field, moderated by one of their own. This allowed participants to see the differences in thinking across the movement as well as its broad appeal, regardless of what brought these thinkers into to the movement. The first panel was a discussion on automation’s effect on the work force, and how UBI could provide economic security during retraining, between jobs, or to supplement part time work. Another panel, with representatives from three different venture funds, discussed how a UBI might encourage entrepreneurship, while a third panel talked through historical and current systemic racist and sexist policies and practices, and how a combination of a UBI plus a wealth tax to help fund it could course correct extreme inequality.
A general acceptance for the benefit of cash transfers seemed to be the most basic common denominator. The audience was educated on the results of past cash transfer and basic income experiments, as well as updates on current experiments. You can view a high level video of some of the outcomes of these experiments here.
Mayor Tubbs of Stockton talked about his plans for a UBI in his city. Elizabeth Rhodes also gave an update on the Oakland Y-Combinator project. Then Joe Huston, CFO of Give Directly spoke to the effectiveness of cash transfers and positive outcomes in their work in Kenya and Uganda. He announced that Give Directly is now involved in its first US based project, where they are giving debit cards with $1500 directly to victims of Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area. He noted the work that still must be done changing perceptions around what people will do when they are given cash unconditionally, joking that employers don’t say, “I would like to give this employee their bonus, but I’m worried they might drink it away,” yet this is somehow common thinking that needs to be changed based on research results.
Aisha Nyandoro, CEO of Springboard to Opportunity spoke about where the current Welfare system in the US fails. She illustrated the challenges that families living in poverty in Mississippi have piecing together welfare benefits from the government – housing voucher, electricity voucher, and food stamps. The system creates poverty traps and the benefits don’t cover many of the real needs these families have, but cash would. Cash would also limit interaction with the system and remove the feeling of being judged, as well as the stigmas around welfare.
Damareo Cooper, Director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative shared his personal story also highlighting how the current welfare system and prison system fails children and young people, making a convincing case for switching to cash. Almaz Zelleke, professor of Political Science at NYU Shanghai, went further, explaining why a UBI must be paid as cash and not a negative income tax.
Throughout the day, however, there seemed to be a lack of consensus on aspects surrounding universality and unconditionality of a cash transfer policy. The range of standpoints could be seen clearly in a panel with Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee and Alaska State Senator Bill Wielechowski, as well as Joseph Sanberg, the founder of Golden State Opportunity Foundation. Bill educated the audience on the Alaska permanent fund. On the aspect of Universality and Unconditionality he said, “Universality is critical. If the policy was needs-based it would diminish it. The fund is framed as each resident’s ownership of shared resources. This is something that Alaskans share together.”
On the other side of the issue, Joseph Sanberg said, “The social contract is work and you will be able to have economic security.” He tied work requirements to the right to economic security and his efforts have been focused on California Earned Income Tax Credits.
Chris Lee from Hawaii seemed to be working out his state’s position on the issue, noting that for their Earned Income Tax Credits they have expanded the definition of work, looking at where people are spending their hours – for example, caregiving. He did note that his task force is looking at a universal benefit across all economic classes.
Aisha Nyandoro cited the work she does as evidence that work requirements are difficult and policy makers are out of touch on the issue. She invited any policy makers that wanted to get in touch to call her. Anne Price, President of Insight Center for Community Economic Development, explained how racism and sexism shaped current welfare policy around judging who is deserving and who is undeserving. She noted that it is degrading to be on the receiving end of morality, and shared her vision for dignity for all: universal benefits – working or not.
How to pay for it was touched on by some, with ideas ranging from a wealth tax to combat inequality, to a shared patrimony dividends, like Alaska, or some combination of these revenues.
Other highlights of the day included a session by Jane McGonigal from the Institute for the future, and A Frank Conversation about Money with Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook and Co-Chair of the hosting Economic Security Project. Jane coached the audience on how to create empathy for our future selves and envision a future with Universal Basic Income. Anna Sale from “Death, Sex, and Money” interviewed Chris Hughes about his thoughts and feelings around his own fortune and why he supports Universal Basic Income.
The organizing team is clearly very competent and professional, as the entire conference ran very smoothly from check in, AV, lunch, and seating. All details were thought out and executed well. Participants had many opportunities to make connections and discuss the themes.
All in all, this was a very important gathering for the movement.
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 30, 2017 | News
In a sign of the major progress Universal Basic Income (UBI) has made in Asia, the United Nations Development Program in Beijing hosted a roundtable discussion on basic income last week. Professors from China’s most influential universities spoke at the roundtable about the potential for a basic income pilot program in China.
Patrick Haverman is the UNDP Deputy Country Director for China. Haverman said he wants to work with academia and government to determine if basic income experiments in different areas of China are feasible.
“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’, careful consideration of a wide variety of responses will be essential,” Haverman said during his opening remarks. ”It is very important that we can foster collaborative discussions around potential options to address poverty and inequality into the future, and the role of UBI should not be overlooked.”
The roundtable also discussed the benefits and likely challenges of implementing a Universal Basic Income in China. A large topic was how UBI could improve on the dibao system, which is China’s means-tested unconditional cash transfer program. Dibao currently has issues with targeting the subsidies toward people in poverty, which many participants at the roundtable noted UBI’s universality could potentially alleviate.
Shi Li, a professor at Beijing Normal University, said Chinese people in poverty receive the dibao because of poor targeting. In his research, Li and other researchers found that nearly 88 percent of poor residents in China do not receive dibao stipends. Remarkably, administrative costs of means-testing were three times more than the actual transferred amount.
The large size and economic disparities across the mainland mean it may be difficult to implement a national UBI that is not adjusted based on residence, others noted.
The event was co-hosted by the International Labour Organization, which presented on the potential disruption of automation on employment during the roundtable. Haverman said an advantage in China is that smartphone penetration is high and many businesses now accept digital payments. This means it may be most efficient to send basic incomes to digital wallets.
“Almost everyone has a phone, so if we find a pilot zone I think we should take a look at it,” Haverman said.
Furui Cheng an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law’s Business School, said the China Basic Income/Social Dividend Research Network is working with UNDP to plan the next steps for a pilot program in China.
Cheng said they are looking to work with local governments and raise money from technology companies.
“Basic income is the probable alternative for the future global social security system, which is facing unprecedent challenges now,” Cheng said.
“We shall learn the experiences of global existing basic income experiments as much as possible, and we welcome any suggestions from any supporters,” she said.
Zhiyuan Cui, a professor at Tsinghua University, has written how China could emulate the Alaska Permanent Fund to implement UBI. Cui explained that Jay Hammond, the Alaskan governor who created the Permanent Fund, said he often felt “closer to Beijing than Washington DC.”
Yang Tuan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said the size of China means it would be a good place “to come up with many types of experiments” for basic income.Tuan, who supported the implementation of dibao when she was working for China’s social security system, said the economic dynamics of China have changed since dibao started.
“(In the past) I have been against western mechanisms of social security,” she said. “But today I think the context of China is different.”
According to Haverman, the UNDP is planning to release up to three more working papers, addressing topics such as financing UBI in China, as well as its effect on work hours.
To see UNDP China’s press release, go here.
To see the original UNDP China working paper, go here.
To inquire about the UNDP project contact Cheng Furui: cfr1978@163.com
by USBIG | Oct 28, 2017 | News
According to this article from OpenDemocracy, the drive toward a basic income isn’t new. It’s a 100-year-old movement that has gotten stronger each time inequality has returned to the public discussion.
Originally published as: Karl Widerquist, “Basic Income’s Third Wave,” OpenDemocracy, October 18, 2017
Republished by Basic Income News as: Karl Widerquist, “Basic Income’s Third Wave,” Basic Income News, October 27, 2017
by Karl Widerquist | Oct 27, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay is reprinted from OpenDemocracy, 18 October 2017
Support for unconditional basic income (UBI) has grown so rapidly over the past few years that some might think the idea appeared out of nowhere. In fact, activists have been floating the plan — and other forms of a basic income guarantee (BIG) — for over a century. It experienced a small wave of support between 1910 and 1940, followed by a down period in the 40s and 50s. A second and larger wave of support happened in the 60s and 70s, followed by another down period in most countries until the early 2000s. Today’s discussion began to take off around 2010 and has increased every year since. It is UBI’s third, and by far its largest, wave of support yet.
Pessimists might think that this wave will inevitably subside, just as prior movements did. History, however, doesn’t always stick to patterns. In a 2016 interview with Wired, Barack Obama predicted that “we’ll be having [the UBI debate] over the next 10 or 20 years”. He may be right.
The history of the UBI movement shows that today’s political context points to an increase in support. More and more activists – from more and more diverse political formations – are calling for UBI. They can now cite evidence from a number of empirical studies, conducted over years in a variety of locations, to demonstrate the programme’s benefits.
Rising inequality and an economic system that seems designed against ordinary people has radicalised voters in recent years. Nationalist-populist movements are trying to redirect this frustration against immigrants and people of colour, but the left can take advantage of this moment to build support for UBI and create a truly universal welfare state.
The first wave
UBI dates back more than two hundred years, but enough people were discussing it in the early twentieth century to constitute a wave – or at least a ripple – of support. The idea was still new enough that most advocates had little knowledge of each other and all tended to give their versions of the programme a different name.
Some supporters of Henry George’s land tax suggested that proceeds be distributed in cash. Bertrand Russell and Virginia Woolf both praised the idea in their writings without naming it. In 1918, Dennis and E. Mabel Milner started the short-lived ‘State Bonus League’, and, in 1920, Dennis Milner published what was likely the first full-length book on UBI, Higher Production by a Bonus on National Output. James Meade and G. D. H. Cole – who coined the phrase “basic income” – wrote favourably about it in the 1930s.
Major C. H. Douglas called it a national dividend and included it in his ‘social credit’ programme. In 1934, the Louisiana senator Huey Long debuted his ‘share the wealth’ programme: he seems to have come up with the idea on his own, as there’s no evidence he was influenced by the ideas spreading around the United Kingdom in those years. The plan might have served as the basis for his presidential run had Long not been assassinated in 1935.
These early UBI advocates managed little direct influence on legislation. In 1935, the Social Credit Party of Canada took power in Alberta, but did not move to implement Douglas’ proposed dividend. After World War II, most welfare states adopted a conditional model, which provides assistance only to those who fit into some category of need, such as old age, disability, unemployment, single-parenthood, absence of market income, and so on. Truly universal programmes are few, far-between, and small. Discussion of a full UBI programme largely fell out of mainstream political discussion for more than two decades.
The second wave
The second wave took off in the early-to-mid 1960s. At that time, at least three groups in the United States and Canada began promoting the idea. Welfare rights activists mobilised people frustrated by inadequate and often demeaning conditional programmes. Futurists saw UBI as a way to protect workers from disruptions to the labour market caused by the computer revolution. Finally, many prominent economists – some leftists and some from the burgeoning libertarian movement – agreed that a basic income guarantee represented a more effective approach to poverty than the conditional and means-tested programmes of the New Deal era. BIG would simplify and streamline the welfare system while also making it more comprehensive.
The mainstream media first noticed UBI around the time Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “war on poverty”. Politicians and policy wonks began taking up the idea, and the Canadian government released several favourable reports on the “guaranteed annual income” in the 1970s.
For a short time, many saw some kind of guaranteed income as an inevitable next step in social policy: a compromise everyone could live with. Leftists viewed it as the culmination of the welfare system that would fill in the remaining cracks. Centrists and conservatives saw it as a way to make the social safety net more cost-effective.
In 1971, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill introducing a watered-down version of the ‘negative income tax’ (NIT), yet another variant of the idea. It missed becoming law by only ten votes in the Senate. The next year, presidential nominees from both major parties endorsed some form of BIG: Richard Nixon supported NIT, and George McGovern UBI. Interestingly, the fact that both nominees’ held essentially the same position made BIG less of an issue in the campaign than it might otherwise have been.
Nixon’s NIT never got another vote. It died partly because it had no groundswell of support outside of the welfare rights movement. None of its proponents made a serious push to sell the proposal to the public at large. Even BIG supporters viewed Nixon’s version with scepticism, seeing it as a top-down, centralised initiative. Letting it die cost the politicians who backed it very little, so they allowed the idea to fade from public discourse.
While neither the United States nor Canada introduced full UBI programmes, the second wave of UBI support had some major successes. Both countries conducted five implementation trials, and the United States created or expanded several more limited programmes, like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Alaska Dividend. These policies not only helped a lot of people, but their relative success provided convincing evidence to push social programmes toward universality.
Politicians like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher dramatically changed the conversation around the welfare state in the early 1980s. They successfully vilified recipients as frauds. As a result, many people stopped talking about how to expand or improve the welfare system and started talking about how to cut it. The left largely went on the defensive in response, and stopped criticising the conditional model.
In 1980 the United States and Canada cancelled the last of their implementation trials, Canada stopped analysing the data it had spent years and millions of dollars collecting, and for the next 30 years mainstream American politics engaged in virtually no discussion of any form of BIG. Fortunately, as I discuss below, the results of those trials eventually re-emerged as important proof of the idea’s potential.
Between the waves
While discussion waned in North America, it slowly grew in other parts of the world. In 1977, a small Dutch party started a trend when it endorsed UBI in parliament. The next year, Niels I. Meyer’s book Rebellion from the Center launched a substantial wave of support in Denmark. The proposal gained traction in other countries as well, including post-apartheid South Africa. For the most part, however, discussion of UBI programmes took place outside the political mainstream, where its slight upward trend attracted little notice.
Academic attention began to grow in this period, especially among European scholars. The Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs reinvented UBI in 1982 with no prior knowledge of the previous waves. He eventually connected with other supporters – including Guy Standing, Claus Offe, Annie Miller, Hermione Parker, and Robert van der Veen – and together they established the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) and convened the first BIEN Congress on 4-6 September 1986. From this point on, UBI, rather than NIT, dominated the political discussion of BIG.
The academic debate grew substantially between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s, especially in the fields of politics, philosophy, and sociology. In 1984, supporters launched the first national UBI network in the United Kingdom; by the time BIEN changed its name to the Basic Income Earth Network 20 years later, activists had organized at least two dozen national groups.
Yet UBI stayed mostly outside the political mainstream, making the movement feel more like a discussion group than a political action network. Even the activist contingent concentrated more on discussion than action, believing that they had to increase public awareness before they could implement their proposals. This feeling actually distracted supporters from how much their movement had grown.
The third wave takes off
The third wave of basic income activism hit the mainstream in 2015 or 2016, but volunteers at Basic Income News had been noticing substantial increases in media attention since at least 2011. And in some places, the crossover began even earlier than that.
In 2006, at the BIEN Congress in South Africa, Zephania Kameeta, then the Lutheran Archbishop of Namibia, slammed his fist on the podium and announced, “Words, words, words!” UBI conferences had seen many passionate calls for action, but they were almost always accompanied by appeals for someone else to take action. This time, the speaker already had an action plan under way: the Namibian BIG Coalition was raising funds to finance a two-year implementation trial.
This project coincided with a smaller one in Brazil, and a much larger one followed in India in 2010. These tests attracted substantial media attention and helped inspire the privately and publicly funded experiments now under discussion or underway in Finland, Scotland, Canada, the United States, and Kenya.
At about the same time that Kameeta spoke in Cape Town, a national UBI wave was beginning to swell in Germany. Prominent people from across the political spectrum –Katja Kipping, Götz W. Werner, Susanne Wiest, and Dieter Althaus – all began to push different basic income proposals in a very public way.
Unlike most previous waves of support, this one inspired broad activism, which has only grown. In 2008, UBI networks in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria jointly organised the first International Basic Income Week, which has subsequently grown to become a worldwide event with actions taking place as far away as Australia and South America.
The financial meltdown and subsequent Great Recession sparked a new climate of activism. Public attention turned to poverty, unemployment, and inequality, and UBI supporters suddenly had a much better environment for activism.
Two citizens’ initiatives got under way in Switzerland and in the European Union in the early 2010s. In the former, Daniel Häni and Enno Scmidt successfully collected enough signatures to trigger a national vote. The EU movement eventually recruited organisers in all member states. Although neither ultimately won, they built an infrastructure to support activism across Europe and brought a tremendous amount of attention to the issue, which in turn sparked additional activism and attracted more support.
One of the contemporary movement’s most important features is that support now comes from many different places and from people who do not necessarily work together, follow similar strategies, or adhere to the same ideology. Indeed, today’s activists are motivated by a number of different issues and sources.
Mirroring the 1960s futurism discourse, many advocates point to automation and precariousness as reasons to enact the programme. High unemployment, the gig economy, and the pace of automation threaten large segments of the labour force. Whether or not the need for human labour is decreasing, the labour market has become extremely unstable. Labour leaders, activists, academics, and tech entrepreneurs have all proposed UBI in response, making this issue one of the prime drivers of recent interest in UBI.
For the first time, environmentalism has played a major role in this activism. Two of the most popular proposals for combating climate change are the tax-and-dividend and cap-and-dividend strategies, both of which involve setting a price on carbon emissions and distributing the revenue to all citizens. Other environmental groups, such as “Degrowth” and Canada’s “Leap Manifesto,” see UBI as a way to counteract excessive consumption and the depletion of resources.
Two additional proposals, called ‘quantitative easing for the people’ and ‘helicopter money’, are pushing central banks to stop giving money away to private banks and start giving it directly to every citizen. They believe their proposal would constitute a more equitable and effective economic stimulus programme. Although they do not use the term, distributing money directly to the people is essentially a temporary UBI.
Some private groups are trying to bypass central banks entirely by creating non-government digital currencies, and some of these groups have announced their intentions to provide their users with a UBI in the new currency.
At the same time, new evidence has convinced people of UBI’s radical potential. Evelyn Forget, of the University of Manitoba, received grant funding to analyse the data from Canada’s NIT experiment. She released her findings in 2011, just as new implementation trials and citizens’ initiatives were getting off the ground. They received a great deal of press attention and helped spark new interest in the programme in Canada and beyond. This increased media attention has built the movement even further. Seemingly every major news outlet has published something about UBI. And, in a sure sign of the movement’s newfound strength, opponents have started attacking it.
A couple of years ago, it remained unclear whether the third wave would match the size and reach of the second. Now the answer is obvious: grassroots support and international media attention are larger than ever, and the third wave represents the first truly global basic income movement. According to Philippe Van Parijs, “the big difference between the first two waves and the third one is that the third one quickly became international”. The first two did not extend beyond the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, but the third wave already involves major campaigns on all six inhabited continents.
How far can the third wave go?
The left should recognise that past UBI movements entered mainstream conversation when people worried about inequality and unemployment, and then subsided when public attention turned to other issues or when other ways of addressing poverty became dominant. The second American wave ended in the United States not in the prosperous economy of the mid-1980s but in the troubling times of the late 1970s, when right-wing politicians convinced large numbers of people that redistributive programmes had become overly generous.
The biggest danger to the third wave appears to be growing nationalism. If politicians can convince voters to blame immigrants for growing inequality, they can effectively distract people from mobilising around better social policies.
Despite these dangers, basic-income activists should feel encouraged: each wave has been larger than the last. With every resurgence, UBI has had a more developed proposal than the time before, and activists have been better prepared to address people’s concerns about poverty, inequality, and unemployment. The fact that academics had continued to study and activists had continued to promote UBI during its unfashionable years gave it recognition as a viable alternative when inequality once again became a dominant policy discussion.
Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the conditional welfare model has been growing for over a century. This system is based on the idea that everyone who can work should and only those who really cannot work should receive help. All others are undeserving.
Conditionality has not made the welfare state more generous or less vulnerable to attack. Many who work still live in poverty, as do many who receive benefits. Opponents have successfully chipped away at welfare for more than 40 years, largely by vilifying any group that meets the conditions for need.
The conditional system also hurts workers. By making welfare requirements so stringent, we have made all employees more dependent on their employers. Dependent workers have less power, making it harder to demand good wages and decent working conditions. It is no coincidence that middle-class income has stagnated over the same period that the welfare system has declined. Despite enormous productivity gains, most workers now work more hours for less pay.
Conditional welfare systems are built on paternalistic assumptions that force people to prove their right to survival. UBI might not always gain steam as fast as it has in the last few years, but those shortcomings won’t disappear, and they provide a good reason for people to look seriously at UBI.
-Karl Widerquist, writing in Doha, New Orleans, and Morehead City in 2016 and 2017
Occupy Oakland “We are the 99%” protests in 2011.
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 26, 2017 | News
UBI Taiwan held a press conference to describe their proposal to give every Taiwanese citizen a basic income each month. Skeptics and supporters were given details of how Taiwan could feasibly implement such a policy.
Taiwan’s extremely low tax rates coupled with a highly developed economy make Taiwan a feasible candidate to establish an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI), the group said.
UBI Taiwan was established in 2016 to bring attention to this policy in Taiwan, where it has not yet been a major topic of national discussion.
On the heels of the press conference, UBI Taiwan has scheduled meetings with political party representatives in Taiwan.
The national proposal briefing cover
UBI Taiwan’s basic income proposal does not include a means-test or work requirement, which means, essentially, every Taiwanese citizen would receive a stipend. Under this proposal, adults would receive 10,000 NTD per month ($330 USD) and children 5,000 NTD per month ($165 USD).
The group argued such a policy could help to alleviate income inequality, which has been growing steadily in Taiwan. It may also address some of the financial anxieties related to having children, which has created a demographic crisis on the island.
According to the white paper briefing, UBI would lower the rate of low-income families in Taiwan by 66 percent – from 25 percent currently to 8.5 percent after basic income.
The proposed amount is two-thirds of Taipei’s poverty line, which is the highest in Taiwan.
The press conference was held on October 20 at National Taiwan University’s conference venue. They outlined several methods to realize such a policy in Taiwan, focusing on either immediate or gradual implementation.
An immediate implementation would have a “gross cost” of 15 percent of Taiwan’s GDP, the group said. Ray Song, the research director for this national proposal, said the “gross cost” is misleading because it does not account for how much individuals would pay back their basic income in taxes.
Oscar Han, UBI Taiwan’s lead welfare researcher, discusses the benefits of UBI. The press conference had immense interest and was unable to provide tickets to the large number of Taiwanese who applied to attend.
The “net cost,” which calculates how much the government is actually sending out as a basic income and not receiving back in taxes, is 3.2 percent of Taiwan’s GDP, according to the research team’s calculation.
The group argued one step Taiwan should immediately take to pay for UBI is implementing a carbon tax.
A carbon tax in Taiwan would follow South Korea, which has recently implemented a carbon trading scheme, and Japan, which heavily taxes fossil fuels and is beginning a “climate change mitigation tax.”
Taiwan currently has no carbon tax, but rather subsidizes fossil fuels by 20 billion NTD a year.
A tax on carbon of around 900 NTD per ton that increases 60 NTD per year would generate 1.7 trillion NTD in revenue over ten years, according to the proposal’s white paper.
The Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research also found a carbon tax in Taiwan could generate 239 billion NTD in revenue a year by 2021.
During the question and answer session, Tyler Prochazka, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder and fellowship director, said adding a UBI on top of Taiwan’s existing social welfare system would put Taiwan closer to average welfare spending in developed countries.
The UBI Taiwan research team leadership answers questions during the press conference. Left to right: Jiakuan Su, Tyler Prochazka, Ping Xu, Ray Song, Oscar Han
“It is noteworthy that 70 percent of Taiwanese would benefit from this policy,” said Oscar Han, UBI Taiwan’s lead researcher for social welfare.
Wealthier families would still receive the basic income, but they would likely pay more in taxes than they receive from UBI, Prochazka noted.
There are several overlapping the social welfare policies in Taiwan that could be substituted by basic income, according to Song.
During the question and answer session, one audience member was concerned that eliminating other social welfare could leave some people worse off.
Prochazka explained that UBI Taiwan is not advocating eliminating any particular social welfare program, but that some would naturally fade away because a basic income would raise many individuals above the qualifying standard to receive the aid.
Considering the political difficulties with immediate implementation of UBI, the other option outlined was to model Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which has been providing a partial basic income to Alaskan residents for decades based on oil revenues and other investments, and gradually phase-in a basic income starting with young Taiwanese.
The Taiwan Permanent Fund (TPF) would collect revenue from taxes, such as a pollution tax, and invest the revenue back into the economy in order to pay out the dividends as a basic income.
The TPF proposed by UBI Taiwan would require an increase in taxes of 5.2 percent of GDP, but it would require several years to phase-in as the fund grows from its investments.
There were audience members who said they thought the phase-in for the Taiwan Permanent Fund would take too long. Song said that their calculations for the phase-in were based on conservative adjustments to taxes.
“This is the most conservative version (of our Permanent Fund plan),” Song said. “If the public is willing to increase taxes more quickly, this would allow us to achieve faster implementation of a full UBI.”
One audience member was skeptical that a basic income would improve labor relations, and she thought business owners would lower their wages in response.
Jiakuan Su, the lead taxation researcher, said that a basic income could give an employee more influence over their employers.
”We have the evidence to show that even when you just give a basic livelihood, you can give an emancipatory potential for us to choose what our passions are, rather than to be forced by economic factors to go do things that we hate,” Prochazka said.
The proposal has been under preparation since this summer when UBI Taiwan began its fellowship research program with students selected from across Taiwan. During their research, the team collaborated with economists who study basic income from various countries, as well as Taiwanese professors to guide their work.
At the beginning of the press conference, UBI Taiwan played a video featuring their supporters from around the world. Among those who showed their support included Andy Stern, Barack Obama’s former economic adviser, Peter Knight, a former World Bank economist, and Enno Schmidt, the leader of the Switzerland basic income referendum.
“A country that is brave enough to face the issues and challenges of our time and to rethink its values, I think that country deserves the leading role in this innovative issue of a Universal Basic Income,” Schmidt said in his video address to the conference.
One of the fiercest criticisms of UBI is that it will increase laziness. Schmidt thinks the opposite is true.
“We are lazy today, just living in the given economic structures. UBI is a measure against this wasting of time, destruction of social relationships and environment,” Schmidt said. “It’s a measure that brings life and work closer together and will lead you to do more, work better, because it can be your work.”
Stern has been an influential advocate of basic income in the United States. He was previously the President of the Service Employees International Union, and has written a book on UBI called “Raising the Floor.” Stern has been providing advice to UBI Taiwan since this summer.
“It’s an amazing effort and it’s just beginning, but it has the potential to change the future of work and more importantly the economic security of everyone on Taiwan,” Stern said in his video for the conference.
Guy Standing, a professor at the University of London and a co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network, advised the UBI Taiwan research team over the summer as they were preparing the proposal.
Standing’s message to Taiwan is that UBI is feasible.
“It’s feasible. It’s affordable. We’ve done pilots in India where we gave very modest amounts for thousands of people and we’ve seen that it improves nutrition, health, reduces mental stress,” Standing said in his video address for UBI Taiwan.
Ping Xu, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder and coordinator, will travel to California this week to attend a cash-transfer conference and discuss her group’s research. She said she is proud of the work they accomplished on the national proposal.
“In this group of young researchers, you can see hope for the future of Taiwan,” Xu said.
Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the Indian basic income experiment, has worked closely with UBI Taiwan over the past year. Davala said he is hopeful that the proposal will spark a conversation about basic income in Taiwan.
“The proposal is done after rigorous analysis of the existing welfare system. It can become a model for the countries in the region,” Davala said.
The conference took place on a rainy day, but the venue was nearly full of audience members, including some political party representatives and government officials.
“Even in the pouring rain, having so many people show up to the press conference was really encouraging to us,“ said Jaiyou Wei, a research associate for UBI Taiwan. ”But this press conference is only the beginning of our plans to spread UBI in Taiwan.”
