by Juliana Bidadanure | Jun 24, 2017 | Opinion
On Wednesday, April 12th, Philippe Van Parijs, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network, Emeritus Professor at the University of Louvain and former Director of the Hoover Chair in Economics and Social Ethics, presented his latest book on Basic Income at Stanford University.
He offered a powerful defense of UBI as an instrument of freedom and argued that it can be economically sustained and politically achieved—especially if political communities consider starting with a small UBI. Basic income should be designed, he argues, to go alongside publically funded services, such as quality healthcare and education, and should be given to all fiscal residents of a country.
A video of the event can be found here.
“I’ve listened to criticisms and questions about basic income in five continents and seven languages,” Van Parijs told an audience of more than a hundred students, teachers and members of the broader community. He remains convinced that the policy has no fatal flaws.
Co-written with Yannick Vanderborght, and with the heroic title Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, the book is an absolute must read for basic income enthusiasts and critics, advanced and beginners alike. As the idea of UBI spreads faster than ever throughout the world, it can be hard to keep track of all the major developments in the academic and political worlds. Their book is a seamless solution to this problem.
Over eight insightful chapters, the authors offer the most comprehensive survey ever produced of the scholarship surrounding the recent and less recent revivals of the old idea. Van Parijs and Vanderborght trace back the roots of the policy proposal in the history of public assistance and social insurance, as well as in utopian thinking from Thomas Paine to Charles Fourier, and Martin Luther King. As a scholar, writing and teaching on basic income, I cherish the more than 100 pages of notes and references at the end, which prove to be inexhaustible sources of knowledge.
We learned from Philippe’s talk more about the long journey that led Philippe where he is now. From his first (disappointing) encounter with Rawls over breakfast to his (equally disappointing) encounter with Dworkin in a taxi. On those occasions, both political philosophers challenged the view that liberal egalitarian justice requires a universal cash payment. He recounted for us how he nonetheless ended up convinced that basic income was the instrument of freedom.
In the book, the authors argue that UBI enables a fairer distribution of the most important good of all – the real freedom to lead one’s life as wished, through work and outside work. They make the case that UBI is ethically justifiable by taking on the most pervasive objection of all – that unconditional cash would allow an unfair freeriding of some on others.
Vanderborgth and Van Parijs also offer answers to the many other questions and objections to UBI that come up again and again in political debates. For a start, how would people who believe that work is a moral duty and see the welfare state as a moral hazard ever agree to a system where we don’t even require recipients to demonstrate a willingness to work? And even if we could get them to agree, how could we afford it? And how could such system be sustained? Presumably, if people get money for doing nothing, they will stop working, which will in turn make it impossible to afford a generous UBI. Should we give it to migrants? Won’t it create a dangerous pull effect? And, what about the global poor anyway? Each time, they dissect the objections and scrutinize the questions with the rigor of philosophers, the wise perspective of historians, the rationality of economists and the pragmatic outlook of political advocates.
We also learned more from the talk about how UBI can help build a sane economy. Automation and globalization are important threats to employment and workers’ rights. Van Parijs argued that UBI could be a possible solution to support displaced workers – allowing them to retrain, and giving them access to the means to lead a decent life. He also shared his vision of a form of work-sharing that could help prevent two opposite problems – the fact that so many work too much and burnout, and the fact that so many are depressed for being out of work. A ‘sane economy’, then, is one that works for the many and does not make so many of us stressed and unhealthy.
I remain convinced that one of the most exciting promises of basic income is that it can help us see a way out of the current dominant regressive mindset on public assistance. Existing benefits systems often condone an obsession with screening out a supposedly undeserving underclass: the “welfare queens” and benefits scroungers. At worst, politicians take advantage of this paradigm to get elected, promising to screen out the free riders. At best, they address the problem in a shortsighted way, making benefits even more conditional to show that they are preventing scroungers from abusing the system. In doing so, they strengthen the myth that benefit claimants are indeed undeserving of assistance. Van Parijs and Vanderborgth’s book proposes to try out the opposite strategy to help rebuild the welfare state: doing away with conditionality to avoid benefits traps while also rejecting means testing, so that more workers also benefit from public assistance.
The authors would prefer if everyone had access to the highest sustainable basic income, but they fear basic income will only work with a great deal of realism and pragmatism. The challenge is to strike the right balance between the ideal and the feasible – without compromising the vision and without wishful-thinking on what is achievable. For basic income to work, Van Parijs said at the end of his talk, the world needs visionaries, enraged activists, and opportunistic thinkers to work together. But don’t worry, he added, “I am sure that all three kinds can be found in this room”.
*** All Pictures are a courtesy of Christine Baker-Parrish
*** A longer review of the book by Juliana Bidadanure can be found on the Stanford Social innovation Review website here.
*** For more on the event, please read Sara Button’s review here.
by Guest Contributor | Jun 16, 2017 | Opinion
The rising power of Amazon and Alphabet represents the dawn of a new era. We have to shape a new culture that fits our connected future. Giving people a basic income for taking part in this mega project is the next step we should take.
In a matter of days, both Amazon’s and Alphabet’s stock prices have crossed the $1,000 dollar mark, hammering one nail after another in the coffin of traditional brick-and-mortar business. Malls are collapsing as drones take to the air. Tens of thousands of employees are being fired as automated supermarkets take shape.
Online shopping has become the norm and consumer culture as we know it is going into the history books. People are now using websites such as BuyerImpact.co.uk to help them buy what they need and compare items, it’s easier, faster, and can save them money. And it goes on. Whatever the needs might be, people can find what they are looking for online. They could be looking for new furniture pieces, or perhaps some coats and jackets that are high quality; everything can be found on the internet if they know where to look. Plus, there is the added convenience of not having to leave the house to get new things. Statistically, people can be seen shopping at a much larger capacity as compared to the last decade, due to the availability of gift cards and coupons to stores like Macy’s (sneak a peek at these guys for instance), making items more affordable than ever.
But it doesn’t end with shopping. The evolution of technology is like a fractal phenomenon – the pattern repeats itself in different shapes and colors. Autonomous cars are threatening drivers, artificial intelligence is spreading through the services sector, 3D printers are redefining manufacturing, and talking smartphones are becoming personal secretaries. I suppose a good thing to come out of it is drones, like the ones from https://www.drdrone.ca/pages/dji-mini-2 which can help reduce crime rates, and increases security, and for entertainment purposes is an excellent creation of technology.
The prospect of a jobless future is looming, and the concept of Universal Basic Income is making headlines left and right. But underneath the cold technological surface, a profound human question is brewing: What is going to be the role of the human being in the near future and where are we going as a society?
Human Evolution. The Bigger Picture.
So far we humans have been busy establishing our physical existence on this planet. We hunted mammoths, lived in caves and started fires for quite a while. Then we moved into houses with heating systems and industrialized our food production. Gradually, we are delegating the catering to our physical needs to devices and machines that do the job for us.
We are nearing a turning point in human evolution where a new realm is opening up for us. As we discover that we can largely automate the production of food, water, housing and clothing for all, our time, energy and focus can be invested in what matters most: Developing the essence of the human being within us alongside healing and nurturing humanity as a society.
The Advantage of Man Over the Robot?
Changes are happening faster than we realize since technological progress is accelerating. And if we once asked what is the advantage of man over the animal, soon we will be asking what is the advantage of man over the robot.
Answering this question will not be a matter of philosophy. It will be a pressing issue that determines no less the fate of the human race. The level of tech that will be at our disposal paints two possible futures: We could use sophisticated technology for countries to fight each other and destroy the planet, or we could build the means to provide for every basic human need, and create a reality of abundance for all.
If we wish to move towards the latter, then a lot has to change. And that change starts within us. We have to recognize that our egoistic drive to put our self-interests above all is in contrast with our interdependent future. We have to become aware that the world is a globally integrated system that requires us to move towards unity.
To that end, our social values and the purpose of human culture, our personal aspirations and what we actually do with our time, must all be focused on nurturing our human connections. By doing this, we will unlock a new source of prosperity and fulfillment, and set society on the right track.
Creating a New Connected Culture
Multiple fields of social and biological science have been saying this for decades – we are all wired for human connection. It doesn’t matter where we come from or what values we currently hold, as human beings, we find happiness and fulfillment when we feel connected to our fellow man. And that’s also when we become the best version of ourselves: Productive, creative, healthy, and resilient.
However, creating this new connected culture means a lot of work. The outbursts of human egoism need to be continuously balanced with the uplifting of pro-social values. As human beings we instinctively gravitate to our egoistic drives, but at the same time we’re social creatures that will go out of our way for social recognition. So instead of fighting for self-hoarding and self-maximization, in a connected culture, the social climate will drive us to compete for social contribution.
To achieve that, many people will need to undergo training and later work as educators and community organizers to create and maintain a positive social climate.
Back to the Present: The UBI Dilemma
The voices calling for governments to counter technological unemployment by providing a Universal Basic Income are mostly seeing the economic side of the equation. On the social side of it, it’s not as clear to UBI proponents that the new source of human fulfillment and progress is no other than positive human connection.
If we wish to prevent chaotic developments and move pleasantly towards the inevitably connected future of our societies, I recommend that a basic income will not come by itself. Rather, it will be coupled with socio-educational training. Instead of having people living on welfare while they struggle to compete with ever-advancing robots, they should be receiving a salary for the new jobs of the future: The social and educational roles required to shape a positively connected human culture.
In my view, this is what most people will be doing if we consciously get on the right track as a society. Our intelligence, ingenuity, and creativity can all be utilized to raise the quality of human connections. This is not a pipe dream, but rather the only realistic and pragmatic endeavor we can undertake to avert a dystopian future and make the right turn at the crossroads we are in.
If we work together, we might just have an advantage over the robots.
Michael Laitman is a Professor of Ontology, a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah, an MSc in Medical Bio-Cybernetics, and was the prime disciple of Kabbalist, Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag (the RABASH). He has written over 40 books, which have been translated into dozens of languages.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 14, 2017 | Opinion
What’s the deal with this basic income issue? Why is it so difficult to push it forward? The reason, it seems, is deeply rooted within the human psyche. As Will Hutton put it, “humans believe that reward should follow proportionate effort”. This is the question, is it not? Hutton argues that we humans are hardwired for this relationship between work and gain, and that’s final. There’s no overriding it. No pain, no gain, like they say. Let’s debate this.
If I go camping with some friends, I’ll be pleased if everyone helps around with cooking, cleaning, setting up the tents, chopping up some branches for the fire and so on. And I’ll object to anyone just sitting around while everyone else is busy setting up camp. That is because the work involved can only be made by people, by the campers themselves, for their own benefit. It’s a team, and it’s only fair that all players team up to set a camp they will all benefit from.
Now let’s assume these were a high-tech team of campers, who had brought automatic setting tents, a battery driven portable cooker, a cleaning robot, and a complete set of canned food. How much labour would there be to distribute among the campers? Maybe just putting the tents in their places (these would setup automatically from there), turn on the cooker and open a few cans. That could be done easily and quickly by one person, maybe two at most. What about the others? Well, maybe it’s best if they just sit around and sing a few songs, dinner will be ready shortly. Doesn’t sound wrong to me.
The role of technology gets rather obvious in this simple example. Humans are not hardwired to relate work and gain. Humans are just wary of working more than they should if others are not helping out. But if machines are doing that, it ceases to be unfair. Besides, if machines are helping and there’s no sense in having six people pressing tent buttons and opening up food cans, I don’t mind doing that today and tomorrow someone else will do it. And then I’ll sit comfortably playing my guitar, without the slightest shadow of a guilt.
Another issue is that it may be so that some humans “believe that reward should follow proportionate effort”, but certainly not all of them. There are people that, living off rents – from land, houses, shares in corporations or financial assets – do not feel shame, or guilt, or any sense of responsibility towards society. And are humans nonetheless. Humans are not hardwired this or that way. We are a product of our environment and particular circumstances.
Still another aspect of this discussion is heritage. Is it not true that everyone, and I really mean every living human being on the planet, is born into a huge lineage of natural and social evolution? A new born human being doesn’t have to reinvent electricity in order to have a lighting bulb in the living room. Doesn’t have to rediscover the written language in order to communicate. Doesn’t have to make concrete from scratch to make a house. Human societies make this already existing wealth more or less accessible to individuals, but it’s undeniable that this wealth, natural or social, exists. And it’s just there for the sharing, grown and perfected over millions of years of evolution.
The fact that we have failed in that sharing for a long time, as a global society, it’s an entirely different matter. The truth is just that each if us is born into a bounty of global richness, without having contributed to it. That’s not debatable, it’s just a fact.
So how many arguments are there against basic income? It seems to me that, at bottom, only one really. Because once you accept that all humans are entitled, as their human right, to access the wealth of the natural world and the work of countless human generations before you, you’re already defending basic income on moral grounds. There’s no way, no matter how you look at it, that a person can do a “proportionate effort” to ever compensate for that he or she receives just for being alive. So let’s just get passed this annoying and fundamentally flawed argument.
After that one can ask oneself: Basic income is great, but how are we going to finance it? To be clear, a financial issue cannot be used as a fundamental argument against basic income. Financing is about distribution of power. Money is an agreement, and people can agree otherwise. Financing is, therefore, a challenge which comes from living together in society.
Different people have different perspectives and feelings over things, but if they agree among each other that the distribution of the natural and social wealth should be made to all, as a human right of existence, then the money will appear. Some will say as by a “miracle”. A miracle within an obsolete mindset, a natural consequence from an evolved, more inclusive and expanded view of the world.
Once you have accepted basic income on moral grounds and found a way to finance it – which is the same as bringing enough people to support its implementation – you might still ask: but what if this idea is hijacked by the far-right liberals, who just want to kill the commons, bury the welfare state and privatize everything? That amounts to asking: what if some dictator takes power and turns an imperfect democracy into a perfect dictatorship? For which I reply: we must be active and aware.
Democracy is not a system set in stone and we must always be defending it and contributing to it. Anything can be turned into a weapon by a wicked mind. Or basic income can be turned into a privatization-of-everything tool for a radical right-wing agenda. That risk is always there. It boils down to us, every conscious individual supporting basic income and knowing how to finance it, standing for democracy at all times.
Basic income can only help all people if it is democratically supported and implemented.
More information at:
Will Hutton, “Utopia for realists: and how we can get there by Rutger Bregman – review”, The Guardian, 13th March 2017
by Kate McFarland | Jun 13, 2017 | News
The second Nordic UBI Conference will take place at the Nordic House in Reykjavik, Iceland, from August 31 through September 1, on the theme of “how the Basic Income ideology fits in with the Nordic Welfare Model.”
The first day of the conference will focus on the Nordic model. Speakers include BIEN Chair Louise Haagh (University of York), MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir of the Icelandic Pirate Party, Albert Svan of BIEN Iceland, Øyvind Steensen of BIEN Norway, Stefán Ólafsson and Salvör Gissurardóttir of University of Iceland, and Peter Abrahamson of University of Copenhagen.
The second day will be dedicated to the topic of basic income experiments and results, featuring speakers Markus Kanerva of the Finnish think-tank Tänk, Jurgen de Wispelaere (University of Bath), and BIEN Vice-Chair Karl Widerquist (Georgetown University – Qatar).
A full program is available here.
Attendance is limited to 100 registrants (register here). The conference will also be video-recorded and streamed online.
The conference was organized by BIEN Iceland, one of BIEN’s newest affiliate organizations, which was launched December 10, 2016.
Iceland has been considered a “hot spot” for basic income, largely due to the sympathy for the idea from the nation’s prominent Pirate Party (which was invited to form the national government in early December 2016, though ultimately unsuccessful).
The first Nordic UBI Conference, organized by BIEN Denmark in collaboration with the Danish political party The Alternative, took place in Copenhagen from September 22 to 23, 2016; see the review articles in Basic Income News here and here.
Photo: Nordic House, CC BY-NC 2.0 Tyrone Warner
by Roland Duchatelet | Jun 12, 2017 | Opinion
The following is a step by step instruction for implementing a basic income in the United States.
Step 1: The government introduces a basic income of $40 per month for all citizens. 300 million of the 325 million inhabitants are US citizens.
The required funds are $40 x 12 x 300 million citizens = $144,000 million, $144 billion.
This is financed by a levy of 10 cents per kwh of electricity consumed by households, which is 1,440 billion kwh per year. So the levy amounts to 1,440 billion kwh x $ 0.1 = $144 billion.
Since all people who get the basic income consume electricity, in a way, they pay this basic income to themselves. However, big users of electricity will contribute more than those who consume less. Think about it. Electricity allows you to have a smartphone, a PC, a fridge, and even drive long distances with an electric car at a ridiculous cost. Yes, you will need to get surge protection (like that saltle.com/electrical-services-austin-tx/whole-home-surge-protection/ offer) to help keep those things safe, but the benefits outweigh the cost for most. Besides, the current price of electricity is much lower than its value.
Step 2: We increase the basic income with another $60 per month for everybody to reach $100 in total. The required funds are $60 x 12 x 300 million citizens = $216,000 million or $ 216 billion.
Financing
Most “productive” jobs are now done by machines which have replaced many of the workers in our factories. Stop dreaming of deriving social security contributions and income taxes from new jobs: 80 % of the GDP of the US are services, many of which have added value too low to contribute taxes. We should get taxes from the machines/robots which replaced the workers. However taxing robots would make them move to other countries where there are no taxes on robots. Therefore, we should not tax the robots themselves, but the products made by machines/robots, like cars, bikes, shoes, phones, PC’s, games, toys, furniture, carpets, fridges, and so on. That way, it doesn’t matter if the robots are in the US or China. Consumers will pay more for those products, but on the other hand they also will get an additional (basic) income to pay for such products. Those who spend more than others will contribute relatively more taxes. That is the beauty of taxes on consumption: you decide yourself how much taxes you pay, depending on how much you purchase. In the US, current sales of products which are typically and mainly produced by machines/robots are approximately $1440 billion. We introduce a “social” sales tax of 15% (on top of exiting sales taxes) on those products which will generate the required $216 billion.
You could argue, what is the point to give a total of $100 per month basic income to all citizens, if, on average, they spend it in increased prices of electricity and some goods? The point is that people who buy a lot contribute much more than the ones with a low income. Thus, it comes down to a (more or less voluntary) redistribution of purchasing power.
Step 3: The government will pay an extra basic income of $100 per month for all citizens of working age, 18 to 70, paid by employers. This will cost $100 x 12 months x 185 million citizens in this age group = $222 billion.
We finance it by a levy of 10 cents ($ 0.1) per kwh on non-household electricity consumption. So essentially, the electricity consumed by enterprises or other entities which typically employ workers. This comes down to $ .1 x 2,380 billion kwh = $238 billion paid by the employers since they pay the levy of 10 cents per kwh of electricity consumed by them (including residential, industry and transportation).
At the same time, the employers compensate this extra tax by reducing the wages of their employees with the same amount. For a worker who previously was paid $1700 net per month, his new wage bill will read: basic income grant $100 paid via the government (thanks to an extra tax paid by enterprises) + $1,600 net salary = total income $1,700. So, the total net income of the workers remains the same, the total cost for employers remains the same too. Electricity gets more expensive, wage cost less expensive.
Step 4: We increase the basic income with $200 per month for all citizens of working age, 18 to 70, paid for by employers, while at the same time the employers can reduce the wage bill with the same amount (as in step 3).
The cost is $200 x 12 months x 185 million citizens in this age group = $444 billion.
This is financed by a levy of 3 cents per kwh on gas and coal sold to industry, transportation, commercial and residential. This does not apply to such fuels sold to generate electricity, otherwise electricity would be taxed twice. Given the energy consumption of fuel, gas and coal for these sectors, this generates $ .03 x 16,617 billion kwh = $498 billion. The margin between $498 billion and $444 billion will be necessary because consumption will decrease given the increase in cost. CO2 emissions will improve, by the way. For fuel, the additional tax amounts to +/- $1.05 per gallon. Think about it. With one gallon of gasoline you can drive 40 miles. Imagine you need to walk or ride a horse or use a bike in bad weather. The cost of fuel, including for air travel, is indeed ridiculously low.
Step 5: We increase the basic income with $1,000 per month for all citizens over age 70.
The required funds are $1000 x 12 months x 28 million people = $336,000 million, $ 336 billion.
This is financed by a decrease of military spending of the same amount over a period of 10 years, 30 billion per year, such that, in the end, for each military dollar spent we also give one dollar to the elderly.
Indeed, is it ethically acceptable to spend money on defence and not spend the same amount to support our elderly people? A fair deal is that for each dollar spent on military matters, another dollar should be distributed to them. Of course we cannot decrease military spending in one go. Therefore, this step counts as 10 sub-steps in which we decrease military spending by $36 billion per year over 10 years, moving the yearly military spending from $672 billion to $336 billion, which is still five times more than the current Russian military spending. Because military veterans will get basic income like other citizens, it will become a part of their compensation. The expense to the military budget would be reduced with the same amount.
Elderly people can be seen as being pushed aside in society as they age, so it is important that their care is constantly looked at to see that they are getting the best care for their age and their disabilities/illnesses, otherwise, they could be overlooked causing terrible outcomes. This type of care also comes with a lot of additional needs that have to be used by carers, for instance, the use of NDIS software solutions is important for keeping on top of billing, timesheets, etc. so that everything is regimented. This, as well as other elderly care services, is an important factor and must not be overlooked by those within this industry. This goes to show how important it is to have financial backing within these areas.
Step 6: We increase the basic income with $200 per month for the age groups 0 until 17 and $400 for over 64. This relates to 70 million citizens of under 18 and 46 million over 64.
The required funds are $200 x 12 months x 70 million + 400 x 12 months x 46 million = $389,000 million, $389 billion.
The basic income per age category per month in total then becomes:
0 to 17: $300 (steps 1, 2 and 6)
18 to 64: $ 400 (steps 1, 2, 3 and 4)
65 to 70: $ 800 (steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6)
70 and older: $ 1500 (steps 1, 2, 5 and 6)
This step is financed by using most of the budgets for welfare since the basic income system gives a higher purchasing power to them. In 2016, welfare spending was $430 billion. Only an average of 25% of the funds went to cash assistance. The problem with the means tested welfare system is that the administration necessary to do the testing takes up a huge part of the budget. Wyoming currently gives the highest benefit to TANF families (a single parent with two children): $657 per month. Worst case, it compares with $300 x 2 +$ 400 = $1000 from the proposed basic income scheme above. The basic income system advantageously replaces the welfare system in any of the 79 existing systems. The food stamp system for example emerged in 1939, when the cost of food was still very high in household budgets, especially for poor households with many children. Food is now very cheap compared to then.
Step 7 When looking at further opportunities to fund basic income, we should look at inefficient parts of the US economy.
By far, the most inefficient part is health care. Not only because medical doctors have a nice income, generally speaking, but because the US health consumer not only pays for the health care itself,he pays also for the insurance people as well as lawyers and other legal people involved in disputes. No wonder the cost of health care per inhabitant in the US is twice as high in comparison to European countries. In France for example, there are no legal and insurance parasites draining the standard health care system, which is directly organised by the state. And even that system is not efficient, because there is a lot of overconsumption in France. The current cost of health care in the US is $3,300 billion including the $ 1,520 billion paid for by government.
Education is an outdated economic sector. The recent IT and internet revolution did not induce many institutions to review their business model. The “productivity” of the learning process would be less than 10% if measured by standards used in industry. Currently, until age 16, schools serve two purposes: education and babysitting. Lots of things in education should be re-engineered. If education were to be invented today, would we build schools? Would we have classes of pupils all the same age yet with different knowledge and skills? What about virtual classes, at least part-time? The cost of education funded by the US tax payer is $960 billion.
The US has the highest cost per student world-wide, after Luxembourg. Just recently, in an address in May 2017 at Harvard, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, said we should introduce basic income. He also said that the time has come to introduce lifelong personal education, which we can refer to as “coaching”. Now think about it. Health depends a lot on education, not the least our mental health. While health care should evolve from curative to preventive care, there is a huge synergy between education and the future of health care, to the extent that they should be regarded as one and the same venture. Therefore, the government should move the budgets for health care and education to private “care organisations” or “coaching organisations”, which should offer lifelong health care and education to their “members” while government pays the member fees. We can do that by using the current government budgets for health care ($1,520 billion), education ($960 billion) and pensions ($1,380 billion). Mind that the basic income for > 70 will be $1,500 which is higher than the current OASDI benefits) and therefore replaces OASDI to a very large extent. Possible residual differences in income need to be covered by the coaching organisation. The budget of $3,860 billion dollar amounts to $1,070 per citizen per month. When comparing with costs of education and health care in well managed countries, this looks like a good business opportunity for enterprises which want to become active in the social economy. Obviously, the cash obtained by these coaching companies from the government may differ depending on some characteristics of the members, like age. Citizens who want to change from a coaching service provider should face some penalty since continuity is important to provide a good service.
A possibility to launch such a system would be for the government to organise a tender offer followed by the granting of licences to big system companies willing to apply. There are several such companies well positioned to tap this new market. Think of IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, GE, Intel, Google or Facebook. They could design new health care/education products and bring those services to the market while using subcontractors, which they would manage. A special US problem has to be dealt with to make that possible. Legal proceedings and the “insurance” logic are not part of such a model. Those who want to keep the ability to sue teachers and nurses in court should continue to use the current private health care/education system.
Conclusion: Basic income can become the core of the social security system in the US. This is just an example of how it could be done. The guiding principles in this proposal are:
-Basic income is linked to citizenship combined with residency in these calculations. Other options imply other numbers.
– Money is not falling out of the sky. The sources of funds to finance each step are identified and realistic.
– Information sources for energy: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
– A step by step approach may lead to the recognition of the viability of a significant number of steps.
– A basic income is a “social dividend”. Just as the shareholders of enterprises get a dividend because they own shares, all citizens derive a right to get a social dividend because their parents and grandparents have put a society in place which is able to produce a large surplus of food and goods, such that we can pay a dividend from this surplus to all citizens.
– The basic income replaces, to a very large extent, the current social security and other benefits. For those who have a job, and the companies employing significant numbers of workers, the net effect of the introduction of a basic income system should be, more or less, neutral. When employees get a basic income from the state which replaces a part of their salary, the cost to the employer will be lower with the same amount (at the moment of the transition). However, the employers will be faced with an increase in other costs due to new taxes which will be levied to pay for the basic income.
– The basic income is distributed electronically, for example via an automatically charged debit card. It could actually be a smart phone if properly protected. Government can organize a bid process for organisations willing to distribute the money one way or another. It is highly likely technology businesses or communication operators would apply to distribute the basic income. However, it could be banks as well, or big retailers. It is likely that the cost of the distribution of the basic income to the government would be around zero. It could even turn out to be a small revenue for the government, when interest rates move up again.
– After a while the basic income should be disconnected from a precise mechanism of funding.
– The basic income should evolve with the cost of living. It would make sense however, to use it as a tool to influence the economic cycle – increase the basic income to increase demand; wait to increase it if the economy gets overheated.
