by Roberta Stewart | Jul 16, 2017 | News
Chris Bowen. Credit to Britta Campion
Shadow Treasurer of the Australian Labor Party, Chris Bowen who is the Opposition Minister for Government expenditure and revenue raising, delivered a speech to the progressive think tank PerCapita in Sydney on June 9th, expressing his resistance to the concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), despite the support within the Labor Party for such a policy. Bowen describes the UBI as a “terrible idea” and claims that the model would undermine the Labor Party principle of ensuring dignity through work in Australia. Bowen then makes another common argument against a UBI, that it delivers unnecessary payments to the wealthy. Following this line of thought, Bowen expresses support for means tested benefits where citizens can access welfare on a conditional basis, claiming that this would be a more cost-effective measure for alleviating poverty. This claim, however, is made without establishing his grounds for comparison.
Bowen has also said that UBI could lead to a “savage cut” in people’s current benefits, namely pensions or disability allowances, and also that unsustainable tax rises would be necessary. These are reminders of two other common arguments against basic income: that UBI will demolish social security and that it cannot be financed (due to an unsustainable tax system).
Meanwhile, the Australian Green Party support the consideration of a UBI in conjunction with a four-day work week. This proposal is consistent with the idea that a UBI is best implemented as part of a broader policy package that aims to address concerns such as inequality and the impact of technological change on working conditions.
More information at:
Katharine Murphy, “Chris Bowen attacks universal basic income as ‘payments to millionaires’”, The Guardian, 8th June 2017
by Andre Coelho | Jul 13, 2017 | Research
Malcolm Torry. Credit to: The Back Road Café
In a partnership between the Citizen’s Income Trust and the London School of Economics, Malcolm Torry, Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust and General Manager of BIEN, authors and presents a new study on the implementation of a basic income in the UK.
This study, referred to as a working paper, details two potential implementation models for a basic income, and looks into their consequences with respect to several social and economic indicators, including “poverty and inequality indices, tax rate rises required for revenue neutrality, household disposable income gains and losses, household’s abilities to escape from means-testing, and marginal deduction rates.”
The implementation models examined were, first, a basic income to all UK citizens, funded by the existing tax and benefits system, which would maintain the means test but introduce new thresholds and, second, a program that would be phased in by increasing the UK’s Child Benefit and allowing all new sixteen-year-olds to keep that benefit for life.
According to Malcom’s analysis, both models are feasible and beneficial in terms of the above indicators. Notably, estimated losses would be insignificant to households in the lowest quintile, and still relatively insignificant when considering all households. Additionally, in both cases, income tax rates would not need to be raised more than 3% in order to finance the basic income scheme roll-out.
More information at:
Malcolm Torry, “A variety of indicators evaluated for two implementation methods for a Citizen’s Basic Income”, Euromod Working Paper Series, May 2017
by Kate McFarland | Jul 10, 2017 | News
The Economy Security Project (ESP), a two-year fund launched in December 2016 to support investigation of basic income in the United States, has published the results of a new survey of Alaskans’ attitudes towards the state’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
The Permanent Fund Dividend
In 1976, the Alaska State Constitution created a permanent fund in which the state must invest at least 25% of its oil revenues, enabling wealth generated from the sale of a nonrenewable resource to continue to benefit future generations of Alaskans. The PFD, created in 1982, distributes a portion of the fund’s earnings as a dividend paid annually to all Alaskans.
Disbursed in equal amount to all adults and children who have lived in the state for more than a year (and intend to remain indefinitely), the PFD is widely regarded as one of the nearest “real world” examples of a basic income. Although its amount is variable, and too small to guarantee even a poverty-level existence, the PFD is universal, unconditional, and paid in cash at regular intervals, entailing that it does indeed satisfy BIEN’s definition of a basic income.
The PFD reached a peak amount of $2,072 per resident in 2015, but fell to $1,022 in 2016 after Governor Bill Walker used a line-item veto to cut the funds allocated to the PFD by the Alaska Legislature by more than half–a controversial decision that provoked a lawsuit from State Senator Bill Wielechowski, seeking to restore the full amount of the 2016 PFD approved by the legislature. Without Walker’s veto, the amount of 2016 PFD would have been $2,052.
At the time of this writing, Wielechowski’s lawsuit is being considered by the Supreme Court of Alaska, having been dismissed by a Superior Court judge in November of last year. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on June 20, but its final decision is likely to take months.
Meanwhile, Governor Walker recently signed the state budget for 2017, without exercising any line item vetoes this year. According to KTOO News, the budget includes $760 million for the PFD, which will amount to about $1,100 per Alaskan.
Popular Opinion Survey
Earlier in the year, ESP commissioned a telephone survey 1,004 Alaskan voters, carried out by the market research firm Harstad Strategic Research. According to ESP, the new survey is the “most comprehensive review of public attitudes about the PFD since 1984.”
Respondents answered a variety of questions concerning their attitudes toward the Permanent Fund and Dividend. Asked how much of a difference the PFD has made in their lives “over the past five years or so,” 40% replied that the dividends have made a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of difference, with 28% replying that the dividends have made “only some” or “just a little” difference, and only 8% saying that the dividends have made no difference. Women were more likely than men to say that the PFD has made “great deal” or “quite a bit” of difference (47% versus 33%), and 70% of those who described their economic circumstances as “barely surviving” stated that the PFD had this degree of impact.
While 87% of respondents agreed with the statement, “How people spent their Permanent Fund checks should not determine whether or not the dividend program continues,” respondents meanwhile do not believe that Alaskans use their annual PFD checks frivolously: 85% of agreed that “Many people spend a large part of their Permanent Fund dividends on basic needs,” and 79% agreed that “The Permanent Fund dividend checks are an important source of income for people in my community.” A comparatively small number, though a sizeable minority (43%), agreed with the statement “Many people have wasted a large part of their Permanent Fund checks on such things as liquor or drugs.” Asked about their own spending behavior, 27% replied that they save all or most of the payments, while 30% say that they use the PFD to pay off credit cards or other debt.
Respondents also view the universality of the PFD favorably: 72% support the fact that “everyone who is basically a full-time resident of Alaska” receives the PFD, and 84% agree that “As owners of the Alaska Permanent Fund, Alaska residents are entitled to an equal share of the earnings of the Fund.” Interestingly, though, only 50% favor the distribution of the PFD to “millionaires and multi-millionaires living in Alaska,” suggesting that framing effects may influence respondents’ expressed attitudes towards universality.
The survey also suggests that–in an apparently pronounced change of opinion since the 1984 survey–a majority of Alaskans would prefer the institution of a state income tax over the termination of the PFD if it became necessary for the state to adopt one of these measures to raise money for government services. The preference for keeping the PFD was strongest among those with annual household incomes under $50,000 (72%) and those who described their situation as “barely surviving” (82%). Even those respondents with household incomes over $100,000 tended to prefer preserving the PFD to avoiding income taxes (58%).
Many other related questions were also included in the survey. For more details and graphical displays, see the links in “more information” below.
More Information
Economic Security Project, “Alaska PFD Phone Survey: Executive Summary,” June 22, 2017. Official Executive Summary of the survey’s findings, prepared by Harstad Strategic Research.
Supplemental materials from Harstad Strategic Research:
Taylor Jo Isenberg, “What a New Survey from Alaska Can Teach Us about Public Support for Basic Income,” Medium, June 28, 2017. Blog post summarizing of survey results, with background about the PFD.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 U.S. Pacific Command
by Kate McFarland | Jul 9, 2017 | News
Ipsos, a Paris-based market research and consulting firm, has published the results of a multinational opinion survey on basic income, surveying 9500 people in 12 countries.
Between April 21 and May 5, 2017, Ipsos collected online survey data from a total of approximately 9500 individuals, drawn from 12 countries. The firm polled about 1000 individuals in each of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and about 500 in each of Belgium, Mexico, Poland, Serbia, and Sweden. (Note that, at a 95% confidence level, the margin of error is about 3.1% for a sample of 1000 and 4.4% for a sample of 500.)
Survey participants were selected among adults aged 18 to 64 in the US and Canada, and adults aged 16 to 64 in other countries. Ipsos notes that the samples in Mexico and Serbia should not be considered representative of the countries’ populations since, in these countries, respondents to online surveys are disproportionately urban, affluent, and well-educated. For the other 10 countries, the results were weighted to reflect the demographics of each respective country’s adult population, according to its most recent census data.
The survey queried respondents on whether they agreed or disagreed (or neither) with the following statements:
- “The government should pay all residents in [country] a basic income in the form of free and unconditional money in addition to any income received from elsewhere.”
- “Basic income will help to alleviate poverty in [country].”
- “Basic income will allow people to spend more time with their families.”
- “Basic income will allow people to be more involved in their local communities.”
- “Basic income will make people reliant on the state for income.”
- “Basic income will discourage people from being in or seeking paid employment.”
- “Basic income will increase taxation to unaffordable levels.”
Based on responses for the first question, basic income enjoys its highest support among adults in Poland (60% agree, 24% disagree), Germany (52% agree, 22% disagree), Mexico (52% agree, 23% disagree), and Italy (50% agree, 26% disagree). Meanwhile, the basic income proposal saw its lowest support in France (29% agree, 46% disagree), Spain (31% agree, 45% disagree), the UK (33% agree, 38% disagree), and the US (38% agree, 38% disagree).
Respondents in Poland, Germany, the US, and Canada were the most optimistic about the ability of basic income to alleviate domestic poverty and allow people to spend more time with families and local communities. Those in France were the most pessimistic about all three outcomes. In general, respondents were more accepting of basic income’s ability to ameliorate poverty or increase family time than its ability to promote community involvement.
American and French respondents demonstrated the greatest rates of concern that a basic income would make people financially dependent on the state, discourage labor market participation, and increase taxation to unaffordable levels. In all countries but Germany, a majority of respondents expressed agreement with the first concern. And, in all but Sweden, a majority expressed agreement with the second.
For the full breakdown of responses by country, with percentages, see Ipsos’ “Public Perspectives” report (note that this particular report is framed for a Canadian audience).
Ipsos’ survey is one of the largest multinational opinion surveys on basic income since Dalia Research’s EU-wide survey conducted in March 2017. In general, the Ipsos data suggest lower support for basic income among Europeans than do those of Dalia Research (although a full analysis and comparison is well beyond the scope of the present article).
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 frolleinbombus
by Hilde Latour | Jul 7, 2017 | News
In May this year, Bryan Caplan debated with Karl Widerquist about Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Welfare at PublicSquare.net.
Widerquist is associate professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service at Qatar and vice-chair of Basic Income Earth Network (co-chair at the time of the debate). He sees UBI as a means to completely eliminate poverty and as a compensation for the government’s actions to turn resources into property, which creates groups of people that don’t have access to resources they need to survive. Widerquist predicts UBI will also have an increasing effect on lower level wages, as the payment for work will need to be high enough for a non-starving person to accept the job. In the current system, employers don’t have the incentive to provide good wages, according to Widerquist.
Caplan is professor of economics at George Mason University. He thinks the idea that everyone should be supported by the government is ridiculous. Whatever charity is given should only be for to the people who need it, and UBI is therefore not a good idea, according to Caplan. Furthermore, it will discourage people from working and is not fair to people that are paying their taxes, he states.
Info and links
Photos: Karl Widerquist by BICN/RCRG Basic Income Canada Network, 2014 and Bryan Caplan speaking empathically by Eric Hanneken, 2015, CC-BY-SA 2.0
Special thanks to Dawn Howard for reviewing this article
