by Kate McFarland | Sep 27, 2016 | News
The Canadian Initiative for Basic Income has created an online petition asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of the Canadian Parliament to “implement a basic income program for eligible Canadians in a timely manner”. As of Monday, September 26, the petition has gathered nearly 22,000 signatures.
The petition was developed last spring by a group of participants in the Leadership and Community Engagement training of North York Community House (NYCH). To conclude the training, participants were asked to select one important practicum issue and to develop an action plan to generate change within the community. As one member ofCanadian Initiative for Basic Income described in a blog of the NYCH, the idea originated in a class exercise that required attendees to use one of several tools to determine the priority of issues. The group selected a two-by-two matrix that measured importance against urgency:
Out of all, we deemed basic income to be the one with both the highest urgency and most importance. This was due to our belief that our existing income security system in place has become ineffective when it comes to helping people afford life’s basic necessities – food, housing, and other general expenses (“NYCH Participants Lead Basic Income Petition”; September 12, 2016)
Although originally designed just to fulfill a class exercise, the petition gained over 15,000 signatures in the first week alone–with signatories coming from across the nation. In light of the petition’s success, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income decided to continue the project, developing a more detailed proposal to submit to the government of Canada (which the group eventually hopes to have translated into French).
The full text of the letter (sans footnotes) reads as follows:
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Members of Parliament,
As Canadians in poverty, we are calling for strengthening the income security system with the adoption of a Basic Income policy. Our petition for Basic Income has generated over 20,000 signatures from across Canada.
The sharp surge in basic living expenses, added to a large wealth and income gap, precarious work, stagnant wages, and diminishing social services is forcing Canadians to live with ever poorer access to basic necessities and the mental and physical deprivation that accompany this way of life. Currently, over 4.9 million Canadians are living in poverty. A report by Statistics Canada lists Canada as having one of the highest percentages of low-paid workers among industrialized nations.
Existing federal and provincial income security programs have not achieved their intended goals, as evidenced by their failure to provide vulnerable recipients with the ability to afford basic living needs such as adequate housing and food. These needs are basic human rights, as set out in The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Canada on May 19, 1976. Yes, that was four decades ago and we refer to; Part 3, Article 11.
We believe that a basic income policy in tandem with the existing income security system will be the most effective way of providing Canadians living with poverty the ability to afford basic living expenses. There is a rich history behind Canada’s existing income security system, and though some reform may be necessary for a basic income policy to be adopted, dismantling the existing welfare system would be dangerous and may leave those that already live in poverty in a similar or worse state.
A basic income program will cost Canada just over 1% of its GDP. This level of spending is within Canada’s means. We strongly believe that Canadians can afford this relatively modest expenditure, given the scope of the proposed policy and the significant benefits it will provide. Basic income will pay for itself in numerous ways; by decreasing healthcare costs, reducing social problems, boosting the economy, and providing low income Canadians with secure and productive job opportunities.
Basic income experiments are already being carried out in various European countries – but such experiments are not unique to Europe. The Croll Report, published under the Trudeau government in the 1970s put basic income policy in a favorable light, and the corresponding pilot program implemented in Dauphine, Manitoba yielded successful results. We are calling on your government to reintroduce Basic Income and move forward with its adoption. A basic income policy will not just mean upholding Canada’s human rights values and obligations, it will reduce poverty and create a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable society that will benefit every Canadian.
Sincerely,
Canadian Initiative for Basic Income
Feroza Mohammed is the lead coordinator for planning and organizing the group’s activities to move the petition forward. She comments on the inspiration and values behind this work:
We do believe that the existing income security system in place has become ineffective, by way of providing assistance that is unsustainable. People are struggling to meet their basic daily living expenses for food, housing, accessible services, transit, and good jobs, as recommended by residents through local community consultations, across the City of Toronto. I believe that a Basic Income is necessary to improve the living standards for the most vulnerable population within our society. Currently there are about twenty percent, or approximately five million people in Canada living in poverty. To quote from comments on the petition, “Poverty should not exist in Canada”. This resonates with my belief, and I hope the government will act to implement a strong Basic Income policy that will improve lives for all Canadians. A basic income will provide people with the ability to afford life’s basic necessities.
Reza Hajivandi, the lead policy research and analyst behind the petition, adds:
We believe that the time for the reform of income security is overdue. Current programs are not providing people with the basic resources to survive, let alone live in dignity. In this light, a Basic Income policy could be the right step to take. A BI would not only provide people with resources to live a dignified life, but it can also reduce the discriminatory surveillance mechanisms and other conditions that are prohibiting recipients from achieving their aspirations and goals in life. A BI would also act to create and extend solidarity amongst people. However, with all the positive impact of BI, we need to be very careful about how or what we dismantle from the existing system. This system is the culmination of many years of thinking and history, and without first having a thorough understanding and discussion of its history and design, notions of wiping out certain components or wiping the whole slate clean can be counterproductive and unhelpful to the basic income and larger social justice movement.
Created on the Change.org platform, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income petition is not an official e-petition of the Canadian government. Thus, the petition is not en route to be presented in the House of Commons, and the government has no formal requirement to take any action in response. However, as Change.org points out in describing its function, “When hundreds or even thousands of people raise their voices about an issue they care about, the message is very hard to ignore.”
Read–and sign–the petition here.
Thanks to Feroza Mohammed and Reza Hajivandi for contributions to this article.
Photograph: Canadian Initiative for Basic Income.
Thanks, as always, to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 26, 2016 | News
The Trades Union Congress, a federation of trade unions that represents nearly six million workers in the UK, has passed a motion endorsing basic income.
As previously announced in Basic Income News, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted on a motion to endorse universal basic income at its 148th annual congress held from September 11 through 14.
The TUC is a federation of trade unions in the UK, currently representing 51 unions and a total of more than 5.8 million workers [1].
The full text of the successful motion on UBI is as follows:
Universal Basic Income
Congress notes the growing popularity of the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ with a variety of models being discussed here and around the world. Congress recognises the need for a rebuilding of a modern social security system for men and women as part of tackling poverty and inequality.
Congress believes that the TUC should argue for a progressive system that incorporates the basis of a Universal Basic Income system paid individually and that is complementary to comprehensive public services and childcare provision.
Congress believes that such a system would be easier to administer and easier for people to navigate than the current system which has been made increasingly punitive and has effectively been used to stigmatise benefit claimants. The operation of sanctions pushes people into destitution for trivial reasons.
Congress recognises that until the housing crisis is resolved there would also be a need for supplementary benefits to support people on low incomes with high housing costs and that there will always be a need for supplementary benefits for disabled people.
The transition from our current system to any new system that incorporates these principles should always leave people with lower incomes better off.
Congress believes that our social security system must work in tandem with our agenda for strong trade unions and employment rights and secure, decently and properly paid work.
The motion was introduced to the TUC by Unite, the UK’s largest individual union, which passed a motion endorsing basic income on July 11.
Becca Kirkpatrick — a UNISON and Unite member whose Regional Sector Committee was responsible for moving the successful motion at Unite’s policy conference — had this to say about the TUC decision:
This important decision is only the beginning of a big conversation to be had across the unions, about our preferred level of UBI, how it should be funded, and what additional policies must go alongside it to ensure that it is progressive. But most importantly, no great social change has ever been won by working people passing a motion in a conference room. We must organise and build a powerful movement in order to see the kind of Basic Income — and the kind of future — that we want [2].
To stay up-to-date with future news and announcements, follow Basic Income UK Trade Unionists on Twitter and join their discussions on Facebook.
[1] According to the TUC’s website (accessed September 15, 2016).
[2] Personal communication.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 xpgomes12.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Roland Duchatelet | Sep 19, 2016 | Opinion
Social security emerged in Western Europe with voluntary solidarity contributions within labour unions in the late 19th century developing into a mandatory insurance contribution organised by the state in 1950. A mandatory insurance payable to the state is a tax, in this case a tax on labour. Because the employer pays all if it, it does not matter if legislation categorises it as employee’s contribution or employer’s contribution.
In addition, the 20th century saw the birth of a new type of tax: the income tax, designed to capture the total income of wealthy people. However, after 1950 the income tax started to hit the rising incomes of the working class. It became the second component of the tax on labour. Zero in 1930, insignificant in 1950, the total tax on labour is now by far the most important tax income for Western European states. It varies between 50 to 200 percent of the net labour income of the workers, making the cost of labour on average twice as high compared to what the worker gets.
The history of its creation explains why social security is linked to labour participation. The political class assimilates “job creation” to welfare: the more people work, and the longer they do, the more taxes are paid and the better for the state budget. This thinking induced many countries to increase the age of retirement. Obliging older people to work longer when there is a five-fold increase of unemployed young people waiting for a job, is absurd. It is an example of wrong collective thinking by people indoctrinated by the “Labour Church”, because they assume “full employment” is still possible.
In the cultural sector, the high tax on labour is a problem. We can watch fantastic artists for free on television. High taxes on labour increase the wage cost of artists. Most local performances cannot compete unless they get subsidies, which is now current practice in most Western European countries. Would it not be more straightforward to have no taxes and no subsidies in the cultural sector?
Education and healthcare are heavily subsidised in many countries to cover the cost of their employees including the tax on their labour and other expenses. Their net finances would be the same if taxes on labour would be set to zero and subsidies lowered with the same amount.
Same for services completely paid by our tax money like police, justice, the military, federal and local administration: the labour tax cost included into the payroll expenditure of the state is paid and collected by the state, the same wallet. Setting their labour tax to zero would not affect their net finances.
In Western Europe, 40 to 50 percent of employment is publicly funded which means the corresponding labour tax has no effect on net state receipts.
For a state, the real proceeds of labour tax come from the non-subsidised private sector. Hence, the proceeds are much lower than what policymakers are tempted to believe while looking at public accounts which provide gross rather than netted labour tax income figures.
Meanwhile, the high tax on labour effectively increases the cost of services for those who want their shoes, a washing machine or a bike to be repaired. Mind that the “Labour Church” does not allow citizens to trade services. Services should be acquired from service companies because allowing citizen’s to work for each other by exchanging services would be unfair competition to the firms selling such services.
These firms charge a labour cost at least twice as high as what their workers get, because of the tax on labour. This higher price obviously reduces the demand for repair services and many people try to paint their house themselves, maintain their garden themselves and their kids drive bikes without proper lights or brakes. The tax on labour reduces exchange of services, hence it reduces the creation of wealth in the proximity economy.
In Western Europe, the labour Church created this barrier to social inclusion by segregating contractual labour from voluntary and informal work. Helping each other in an informal way, like our grandparents did, is not permitted anymore: the labour tax collectors are chasing offenders. However, poor people can get help from subsidised workers if they successfully find and convince the right state personnel that they are really poor. Clearly, the economic religion put in place by the “Labour Church” does not empower the population to help each other.
Would it not be more effective to convert the directive, complex, fraud-prone and costly social security allowance system into its basic income equivalent and allow the social economy to thrive again by allowing people to work for each other in an informal way, like our ancestors did until 50 years ago?
by Kate McFarland | Sep 17, 2016 | News
Reinvent has produced a video series called the “This Future of Sharing”. Several guests in the series — including Andy Stern, Robin Chase, and Natalie Foster — speak about the benefits of a universal basic income in light of the flourishing of the “sharing economy” in the United States.
In the US, one of the striking economic changes over the past decade has been the rise of the so-called “sharing economy” — also known as (or closely related to what’s known as) the ‘collaborative economy’, ‘on-demand economy’, ‘access economy’, ‘peer economy’, and many other terms — exemplified by such services as Uber and AirBnb.
The YouTube channel Reinvent has recently produced a series called the “This Future of Sharing“, consisting of extensive one-on-one video interviews with a variety of noted individuals who have thought in-depth about the implications of the sharing economy.
According to the description of the video series:
This Future of Sharing project sets out to answer the key question: How can we make the sharing economy work better for everyone? We’re going to spend 2016 in conversation with thought leaders who deeply understand the sharing economy and its potential, as well as the people who run and understand cities, including those wary of any excesses and rough edges.
While it also encompasses many other topics, the series includes several interviews that directly engage with the idea of universal basic income, including the following three.
• Andrew Stern, “A Proposal for Universal Basic Income from the Former President of SEIU” (published July 20, 2016):
Andrew Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and author of Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream, believes a universal basic income is the best way for the United States to deal with massive changes in our economy—changes that will only be exacerbated by increasing automation.
• Robin Chase, “Speeding the Pace of Evolution to Avoid Revolution” (published June 9, 2016):
Zipcar Co-Founder Robin Chase believes the status quo is broken, and that sharing economy platforms—which she refers to as “peers inc”—are part of the solution. Chase chose this terminology because of the mutual importance of what she sees as two halves of the equation: the platform and the peers.
Chase brings up UBI around 35 minutes into the interview, stating that it’s part of the solution, but cautioning that it should not be considered as a stand-alone policy. (She adds that we would still need universal health care and universal child care.)
Beginning at around 37 minutes, Chase describes her reasons to support UBI in some detail: in brief, a guaranteed basic income would provide one with the ability to refuse bad jobs, pursue one’s passions (including passions that are not readily monetized), and perform multiple jobs if one wishes, exploring new interests and engaging multiple facets of one’s personality.
• Natalie Foster, “Creating New Norms for the Way We Work Today” (published July 27, 2016):
Co-Founder of Peers.org Natalie Foster is a strong proponent of creating a new social safety net outside the bounds of traditional employment. Even if we wanted to bring back the unionized jobs that built the American middle class, Foster says, we can’t. “Work is shifting away from protected jobs, and towards service and retail sectors.”
Foster mentions UBI near the very end of the interview, after being asked about automation. She describes the policy as the “ultimate” portable benefit (portability having been a major theme of the preceding conversation).
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Zipcar lot photo CC BY 2.0 Timothy Vollmer
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Florie Barnhoorn | Sep 15, 2016 | Opinion
Last August 21, the Dutch woke to find an interesting article in their morning paper, written by Mrs. Annemarie van Gaal. In her weekly Monday column she suggested abolishing the AOW and all other income schemes for individuals above 60 years of age, with their unworkable obligations, bureaucratic regulations, and fees and punishments. Instead, AOW recipients would receive an unconditional basic income of €1100 to €1200 a month. This would greatly decrease the seriousness in which they need to take these 9 considerations to make before you retire into account, decreasing worries and stress for the elderly.
For many people, the article came as a surprise, because it was published in the daily journal, De Telegraaf (The Telegraph), which is legendary for its right-wing liberal and right-wing populist bias. And a recent poll among right-wing voters revealed that the majority do not approve of the idea of a basic income.
The Dutch abbreviation ‘AOW’ means ‘Algemene Ouderdomswet‘ – the 1956 law installed a state pension for the elderly, above the age of 65. From 2016 onwards, the retirement age is expected to increase quickly: to the age of 66 in 2018, and to 67 in 2021. And as of 2022, entering the AOW scheme will be linked to the average life expectancy. This brings to attention another point, and that’s life insurance. People heading towards retirement should be considering setting up a life insurance policy with help from companies like az money, and they should be doing this well before they are claiming a pension. With the uncertain health effects of a prolonged working life, seniors unfortunately need to start thinking about what will happen to their families when they die.
The plan for the increase of the pension age was agreed upon by the current coalition of VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) and PvdA (Labour Party) in order to cut government spending. These austerity measures are expected to save the Treasury €3.6 billion by 2024. De Telegraaf was a vocal supporter of the increase in the retirement age.
Mrs. van Galen is a well-known TV personality and businesswoman. In her television program, she teaches benefit claimants how to get a job. She demonstrates how much money the candidate will earn from accepting certain kinds of work, sends him to intensive job application training, and gives him a full makeover: a new haircut, new clothes, and if necessary, new teeth. Dress for success!
Her suggested basic income plan is very appealing because it would affect two major social problems in Dutch society.
The first problem concerns the growing group of people over 60 who have lost their jobs, often in the crisis of 2008-2009, and during the austerity measures that followed.
As Mrs. van Gaal puts it:
The unemployed above 60 are not to be envied. Unemployment among this group has never been so high. Their whole life they worked hard. Now they have lost their work and as a consequence have to deal with sharply declining living standards, whereas their chances to find a new full-time job is nearly zero, so the years to come will be full of uncertainty before they get the state pension (AOW), and what at that time will be left of their saved pensions?
Despite their dire prospects, the UWV (Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body) requires that the unemployed over 60 continues to apply for jobs, whether they can or not. The meager allowances of those who don’t (or can’t) are cut down or withdrawn. In other countries such as America, it can become a lot worse, elderly citizens with no allowances or health care end up forgotten about, without insurance these elderly are very prone to medical emergencies, requiring the aging population to think about insurance early on in their lives. When it comes to dental insurance for seniors, PPOs are the most common insurance plan. They offer a network of preselected dentists that they can choose from. Only if they were to visit one of those dentists will they save money. Otherwise, the elderly population has minimal options when it comes to oral healthcare. Is this how it is looking for the Dutch?
But for businesses to take on an older applicant, the ten different allowances and arrangements assigned to them creates a process so complicated that it’s frequently necessary to hire a third party simply to manage the process. Creating this kind of bureaucracy in the workplace does no one any good, and is certainly no way to encourage employment.
In recent years, the Dutch government has pumped hundreds of millions of euros into job training, networking events, and other arrangements for the older and unemployed. And the effectiveness of these measures is yet unknown, says the Court of Audit, and is hardly expected to dramatically increase employment prospects anytime soon.
The second issue with AOW, is that it’s almost an unconditional income – the state pension is dependant on your living situation. If you are going to live with another person, whether it is a partner, a family member who provides care, or a lodger, you are financially punished, whereas if you choose assisted living you may receive more. And if you have little or no saved pension, pension benefits as supplements are means-tested, so to earn some extra money is nearly impossible. The healthy and elderly will not move in with their children, for example, to babysit the grandchildren, because their income will only be reduced. Strange, indeed, because it would save the government a great amount spent on medical expenses and childcare allowances.
Mrs. van Gaal:
Ultimately, a basic income is the best route for the future, so let’s introduce it on a limited scale, namely into the group aged 60 years and above, regardless of [if] they work or not, irrespective of their living conditions. [And] if you live with another 60 plus [you would] have twice that amount. Look after your grandchildren, start volunteering, help your neighbors, go traveling or take up a small job for a few hours per week. I’m sure we will [have] a much better society. All seniors will take part in society without restrictions and rules, without being cut and without compromising. How nice.
The reaction to Mrs. van Gaal’s column was overwhelming. Within a few hours she was invited onto several talk shows, and many websites took notice of the column and hundreds of comments appeared online. One site recommended appointing her as the first female Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
However, in stark contrast, some politicians reacted bleakly to the proposal. After all, they had worked hard (and were well paid) to develop and defend the new retirement pension scheme and all other relevant legislation. Coalition partners, VVD and PvdA, consider the plan too radical, too expensive and ‘the wrong solution’ to this particular problem. The VVD even said it ‘abhors’ the idea of a basic income. One of their MP’s pointed out that society should not exclude the elderly, and that according to him, that’s what a basic income does. “Then we say to the elderly: you are no longer needed and that is not true. Their knowledge and experience are highly valued in the workplace.”
Norbert Klein, the leader of the Vrijzinnige Partij (Cultural Liberal Party), a party with one seat [in the Tweede Kamer], is pleased with the ideas of Van Gaal – but the plans do not go far enough for him. He has written a memorandum that calls for an unconditional basic income for every Dutch citizen from the age of 18 onwards. On September 19th this memorandum will be discussed with members for the Committee for Social Affairs and Employment of the Second Chamber of Parliament and the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Asscher of the PvdA.
Several organizations as well are not very sympathetic to the idea of an unconditional basic income for the 60 plus. “Mrs. van Gaal acts as an elephant in a China shop,” said a spokeswoman for the Unie-KBO, the union for the elderly, “but we are pleased with all the attention [these urgent matters are receiving].” Nibud, the National Institute for Family Finance Information, considers €1100 or €1200 too low to cover all household costs.
But a huge amount of readers reacted positively and enthusiastically. “An idea which is very close to my heart”, commented someone. “Abolish the bureaucracy for 60 plus,” another responded, “finally, someone who really understands the problems of older unemployed”. Readers, too, hinted at a political career for the Telegraaf columnist. “This is a plan which a sane man cannot ignore. Better and more pleasant than the plans that are figured out by the pundits in The Hague. The government may try to increase job opportunity for this group, but now it is clear that this policy fails.”
Annemarie van Gaal:
Dutch people want a simpler society. No more complicated rules, no hassle with endless discounts or correct taxes. We want it to be simpler, easier to understand and implement for everyone. The introduction of an unconditional basic income is inevitable over time. Utopia? No, it just requires some guts of our government.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
