by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 19, 2015 | News
Interest in the Universal Basic Income (UBI) is sweeping across Europe, with British think tank RSA coming out in support of the UBI in a new report launched on December 17 at a public debate. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce, also known as RSA, is a prestigious institution founded in 1754 and granted Royal Charter in 1847.
Report authors Anthony Painter and Chris Thoung said the current approach to welfare “is no longer fit-for-purpose” and requires a new approach.
“The major concern is ultimately people: the lives we are able to lead, our ability to have a sense of security so we can pursue our ambition, and our ability to contribute to supporting one another, innovating, and developing the creative potential of society,” the report said.
“That is where Basic Income has the potential to be so much stronger than our current welfare state.”
The RSA endorsement follows another high-profile British think tank, the libertarian Adam Smith Institute. They published a report earlier this year also advocating for a basic income in the form of a negative income tax.
The RSA proposal for a British basic income
The RSA report suggests replacing the current welfare state with a UBI that would cost an additional 1 percent of UK’s GDP. RSA’s proposal is modeled after the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), an affiliate of BIEN, and derives most of its figures from this framework – read the CIT proposal here.
Under the RSA, citizens between 25 and 65 would receive an annual income of 3,692 British pounds, or £308 per month. People between 5 and 24 would get an annual payment of £2,925, or £244 per month. Citizens over 65 would receive an annual pension of £7,420, or £618 per month. Parents of children under 4 would receive an additional annual payment of £4,290 for their first child, or £358 per month. They would fetch £3,387 annually, or £282 per month, for additional children under 4.
It suggests potentially gradually rolling out the basic income to different demographics, such as those above age 55 and those below age 25. At the same time, a small basic income could be introduced while gradually reducing other benefits.
Regarding housing, the report notes that housing benefits should not be folded into a basic income because of the high cost of real estate in the UK. It proposes a Basic Rental Income. The idea is to utilize property taxes as a means to ensure universal housing income, but the report does not delve into the specifics. Nonetheless, this novel approach does deserve more discussion in UBI circles.
In offering these policy specifics, the RSA illustrates that a UBI is not simply a utopian ideal, as some of its critics claim. In fact, the report points out that far more radical changes to taxes and benefits have been implemented in the past.
Painter and Thoung note that a UBI would help society confront challenges created by rapidly improving technology and an aging population, a point that most other UBI proponents stress as well.
One of the attractions of the UBI, and why even conservatives and libertarians have been drawn to the policy, is its simplicity compared to the current system. Substituting current welfare policy with a UBI would eliminate its “perverse incentives, intrusion and complexity entirety.”
Since the UBI is universal there would be less fraud, they contend. And it would not undermine relationships and families because a UBI would not punish individuals for cohabitating as the current system does. This “strengthening of the family” aspect will likely win over more conservatives to the UBI cause over time.
More entrepreneurship and more time for family and community
From an economics perspective, the report argues that a UBI is the best system to incentivize work and avoid the welfare trap. In the current system, benefits quickly diminish as incomes rise, discouraging beneficiaries from taking up work. The report also claims that a UBI’s safety net allows individuals to pursue risks and creative endeavors. Instead of taking the first menial job available, a worker can spend more time searching for the work most suited to increasing their productivity.
This argument has been borne out by empirical studies on the UBI, such as the basic income trial in India that substantially increased entrepreneurship.
One of the criticisms of a UBI is that it lets some individuals take more time off from work. The key is whether their free-time activities are more valuable to society than their work hours. “Basic Income is a foundation for contribution. It incentivizes work but supports other forms of contribution too,” the report said. It suggests that the UBI would allow individuals to care for the elderly and other vulnerable individuals, which is especially important as society ages.
The actual work disincentive effect has been found to be small. The report briefly reviews evidence from experiments with a negative income tax carried out in the US and Canada between 1968 and 1980. The loss of labor hours for men was minimal. Women did lower their workload more substantially. They chose to spend more time with their family or newborns, activities of high social value. In Alaska under the Permanent Fund Dividend, a policy similar to a UBI, inequality fell in the 1990s and 2000s, while it increased in every other American state.
Another key issue is who qualifies for basic income and whether it would be extended to migrants. RSA’s proposal states that EU nationals should have first “contributed to the system for a number of years” before receiving the basic income. International migrants would be subject to current rules to access benefits. Individuals serving custodial sentences would have benefits restored once their sentence was concluded.
In recent years, the welfare system has lost public support as people demand more rules and conditions for the poor to receive assistance. However, benefit sanctions are becoming increasingly “inhumane,” the authors said. In order to detect tax credit abuse, the system has become overly intrusive into citizens’ lives and activities.
The RSA makes a few recommendations for how the UBI will be applied to the youth, including requiring young adults between 18 and 25 year old to declare how they would use the income. They would sign contracts “with their local community” and not the government, and there should be “no state monitoring” of the contracts, the authors noted. Additionally, those over 18 would have to register to vote in order to receive the UBI.
In suggesting tying the basic income to the community, rather than the government, the RSA report shows precisely the unique potential of the UBI to move away from the impersonal welfare state and toward a more relationship-oriented society. These arguments parallel that of free-market economist Charles Murray in defense of his own UBI scheme.
This report is a serious and comprehensive look at how a UBI could realistically be implemented in the UK. It provides a persuasive look into the economic, societal and moral underpinnings of the basic income. As the debate over the UBI continues to simmer across Europe, the UK will be hard-pressed to ignore this pragmatic approach for a radical overhaul of its welfare system.
Anthony Painter & Chris Thoung, “Creative citizen, creative state: the principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income,” RSA, December 16, 2015.
Anthony Painter, “In support of a universal basic income – introducing the RSA basic income model,” RSA, December 16, 2015.
Citizen’s Income Trust, “Citizen’s Income: a brief introduction,” 2013.
Andrew Walker, “Think tank floats ‘basic income’ idea for all citizens,” BBC News, December 16, 2015.
Tyler Prochazka, “Would a universal basic income be the ‘death’ of civil society?” Basic Income News, November 21, 2015.
Maz Ali, “Money. For free. It’s been tested in Canada and India. Now one Dutch city wants to give it a whirl,” Upworthy, September 4, 2015.
by Vito Laterza | Dec 15, 2015 | News
New Orleans-based writer and basic income advocate Scott Santens has become the first person to successfully crowdfund a perpetual monthly basic income. Starting his campaign on October 13, 2014 on the crowdfunding platform Patreon, Santens achieved his goal of $1,000 per month fourteen months later on December 11 with the help of 143 funders ranging from venture capitalists and Facebook engineers to women’s rights advocates and artists who all believe everyone needs a basic income.
Basic income is quickly gaining prominence in think tanks and policy circles worldwide due to growing concerns brought on by advancing technologies like self-driving vehicles and artificial intelligence, and also growing inequality. It is the idea that everyone should receive, individually and without conditions, an income floor sufficient to cover the most basic needs of life like food and shelter. All income earned through the labor market would then be earned on top of one’s basic income as additional income, and many existing government programs would no longer be required as a direct result. This idea is not new, having at one time been advocated by both Milton Friedman and Martin Luther King Jr., but today’s advocates from both the right and left think its day may have come.
“Basic Income has been taking off with incredible speed in the last few years,” says BIEN co-chair and author Karl Widerquist of SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University. “Activist movements for basic income are growing, and it’s already getting serious attention from governments in Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other places. The success of Scott’s campaign for the first crowdfunded basic income in the United States is both a reflection of the growth in the basic income movement and a catalyst for further growth as Scott’s life now demonstrates how basic income can work.”
Such a real-life demonstration is possible through Patreon. As a Kickstarter-like crowdfunding platform, but for creators instead of products, Patreon supports ongoing campaigns for content creators like musicians, artists, 
bloggers, vloggers, podcasters, and photographers that are funded by fans of their work with small pledges of monthly support.
“Patreon is supporting the emerging creative class. We see a future where creators like Scott can earn a living doing what they are passionate about,” says Graham Hunter, Patreon Director of Marketing. “A recent grad from Art or Music school right now doesn’t necessarily feel confident that the value that they provide will be valued by the world; Patreon is changing that.”
Having reached his goal, Scott plans to continue his advocacy for universal basic income and has also promised to give any and all future pledges of support to others on Patreon who have pledged to do the same. This is what he calls “The BIG Patreon Creator Pledge” to assist others on Patreon in attaining their own basic incomes. “Creators want to create. Creators don’t need to be paid to create. However, creators also need to eat. Creators need to have homes. Creators can’t create so long as they aren’t free to create,” wrote Santens earlier this year on his blog in an open thank you letter to Patreon. “People need to be free to create and until universal basic income exists, Patreon can make that possible.”
Scott’s track record as writer and basic income advocate is impressive. His pieces about universal basic income have appeared on The Huffington Post, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), The Daily Dot, and Quartz. He has presented at the first World Summit on Technological Unemployment and participated as a panelist at the Brookings Institute. As an organizer, he helped plan the first Basic Income Create-A-Thon. He is an advisor to the Universal Income Project, a founding committee member of the nonprofit D.C.-based organization Basic Income Action, a coordinating committee member of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, and founder of the BIG Patreon Creator Pledge.
You can follow Scott’s writings on his personal blog and also on The Huffington Post. On social media, you can find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit where he moderates the/r/BasicIncome community.
by Vito Laterza | Dec 10, 2015 | News
At the end of November, a coalition of eurozone campaigners, civil society organizations and economists launched the campaign Quantitative Easing for People, calling for the European Central Bank (ECB) to radically change its approach to the current Quantitative Easing (QE) program. At the time of writing, 75 economists have endorsed the campaign.
The initiative brings together groups including Social Justice Ireland, Collectif Roosevelt (France), World Future Council (Germany), FairFin (Belgium), European Alternatives, and Basic Income Europe. The campaign is also supported by organizations from Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria, and the Netherlands; see the full list here.
QE is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy. It usually consists of buying government bonds or other securities in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. QE began in the eurozone earlier this year, and the ECB is currently creating 60 billion Euros each month. Matthias Kroll from the World Future Council said: “So far the ECB’s QE program has proven to be ineffective in raising inflation back to its 2% target.”
“Flooding financial markets inflates share and bond prices, which makes the rich richer, but does little to help households and business. In fact, QE is helping fuel a new financial bubble, laying the foundation for another financial crisis. The eurozone needs a more direct and efficient stimulus.”
European stock markets plunged on December 3, when Draghi announced that the current QE program would be extended by six months to March 2017. This is a sign that even large corporations and financial markets do not believe in Draghi’s QE and expect more.
The aim of the QE for People campaign is to push the ECB to spend the money differently, by focusing on public investment, key social services or redistributive mechanisms like a citizens’ dividend – the last idea resonating well with basic income activists.
The proposal was first put forward in a letter signed by 19 economists and published in the Financial Times in March this year:
Rather than being injected into the financial markets, the new money created by eurozone central banks could be used to finance government spending (such as investing in much needed infrastructure projects); alternatively each eurozone citizen could be given €175 per month, for 19 months, which they could use to pay down existing debts or spend as they please.
Cash transfers under QE for People and basic income have common features. Both are directed to all citizens, with no strings attached. The time dimension differs though, as QE measures are by definition temporary, while basic income is a permanent scheme.
The 75 experts who support the campaign include several pioneers of the idea, such as Professor Steve Keen, Professor David Graeber and fund manager Eric Lonergan, as well as other influential economists and financial analysts like Ann Pettifor and Frances Coppola. These experts signed a statement of support that lays out the reasons behind the campaign:
1. Conventional QE does not work
Since it started in March, the eurozone QE program has not helped to rescue the eurozone economies from stagnation.
2. Conventional QE is risky and harmful
Flooding financial markets inflates share and bond prices, which makes the rich richer but does little to help ordinary people and businesses. In fact, QE is helping fuel a new financial bubble, laying the foundation for another financial crisis.
3. A more direct approach is needed
Countries in the eurozone need to stimulate their economies without increasing public and private debt, without increasing inequality, and without creating bubbles.
4. QE for People is possible
Instead of flooding financial markets, money created through QE should be spent into the real economy, on essential public investment such as green infrastructure, affordable housing and/or distributed as a citizens’ dividend to all residents.
5. QE for People is urgently needed
Given the challenges facing the eurozone, we urge economists, civil society organizations, and people from across the eurozone to join us in calling on the ECB to implement QE for People as soon as possible.
The campaign will focus on raising awareness of the failures of the current QE program, building political momentum around alternative monetary policies and fostering further research. “Having more than 70 economists endorsing the idea is a huge milestone, but this is only the beginning. Our goal is to create a much bigger coalition with citizens, academics and civil society organizations,” said Stan Jourdan, campaign coordinator.
If you want to know more about the campaign, visit the campaign website.
You can join the movement QE for People by signing up here.
Economists can endorse the campaign here.
See also: Stanislas Jourdan, “Europe: 19 economists call on the ECB to make ‘QE for the people’ in a letter to the Financial Times,” Basic Income News, March 27, 2015.
by Vito Laterza | Dec 5, 2015 | News
The 16th Basic Income Earth Network Congress will take place in Seoul, South Korea, from July 7-9, 2016. The overarching theme is “Social and Ecological Transformation and the Basic Income”. Activists, politicians and academics from across the world will gather to discuss the current realities and possible futures of basic income, in the context of ongoing global economic and ecological crises.
The Congress will be hosted by Sogang University and will coincide with Korean Basic Income Week, from July 4-10, when concerts, film screenings, performances and campaigns will take place across the country.
Eight keynote speakers have been confirmed at the time of writing: Louise Haagh (York University, England), Toru Yamamori (Doshisha University, Japan), Jan Otto Andersson (Åbo Akademi University, Finland), Sarath Davala (India), Zephania Kameeta (Minister of Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare, Namibia), Zhiyuan Cui (Tsinghua University, China), Gonzalo Hernández Licona (CONEVAL, Mexico) and Evelyn L. Forget (University of Manitoba, Canada). Click here for more information on the speakers.
A call for papers and proposals has been issued by the conference organizers. Interested people can make submissions until January 31, 2016. You can read the full call for papers and proposals here, including instructions on how to submit. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:
- Economic models after neoliberalism, and the position and role of basic income in them;
- The role of basic income in the expansion of democracy in the political arena and in society as a whole;
- The role of basic income in the transition to an ecological society and related cultural issues;
- The role of basic income in moving away from a work-based society and contributing to the de-commodification of the labor force;
- The precariat and basic income;
- The role of basic income in enhancing gender equality;
- Basic income as a tool to tackle youth unemployment;
- Evaluation and prospects of various pilot projects;
- Post-human prospects and basic income.
For all other details, visit the Congress’ website, which is also available in Korean.
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 29, 2015 | News
“Tom Woods by Gage Skidmore 3” by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Woods_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg#/media/File:Tom_Woods_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg
Libertarians are known for their general skepticism toward government programs. However, some libertarians have still flirted with the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as an alternative to the current welfare state. Tom Woods, a noted advocate of libertarianism, recently debated BIG advocate Matt Zwolinski on his podcast.
Zwolinski argued that a BIG can be defended from the standpoint of pragmatic politics from the standpoint of justice. He suggested a plan in the vein of that recommended by libertarian economist Charles Murray: an annual $10,000 cash payment to every American adult.
Woods challenged Zwolinski on the basis that a BIG would violate an individual’s right to the fruits of their labor.
Zwolinski responded that many libertarians hold “idealized” accounts of how individuals accumulated property in the past, ignoring the injustices created as property was and is distributed. A BIG could alleviate some of the inequality caused by these injustices, Zwolinski argued.
Taking on a Georgist position, Zwolinski said that property cannot be fully owned. Ignoring the unjust way property came about and failing to rectify it through a policy like a BIG is a “rationalization of privilege,” he said.
For the full YouTube video of the podcast, click here.
One of the criticisms of a UBI is that it lets some individuals take more time off from work. The key is whether their free-time activities are more valuable to society than their work hours. “Basic Income is a foundation for contribution. It incentivizes work but supports other forms of contribution too,” the report said. It suggests that the UBI would allow individuals to care for the elderly and other vulnerable individuals, which is especially important as society ages.
