by Eduardo Abreu | Nov 5, 2017 | News
Ellen Brown. Credit to: Signs Of The Times
Writing for Common Dreams, Ellen Brown makes a case for how Universal Basic Income can be achieved without increasing Taxes or Inflation. At first glance, most will consider this not to be possible, but Ellen argues that through quantitative easing, in which money flows directly into the real economy instead of being put into banks, the opposite may turn out to be true. In line with her reasoning, the author quotes Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz:
“When the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.”
As a consequence of this economic growth, tax and fiscal revenues increase while demands for unemployment benefits and social programs to help the poor, which are paid by the government, go down. All this strengthens a country’s fiscal position. On the other hand, one might assert that getting “new money” into the economy, supply would grow too large and consumer prices shoot up irreversibly, leaving the central bank unable to retrieve its investment. At this point Ellen quotes Prof. Stiglitz again, who states that money issued by the government, through UBI, simply returns to it in fiscal revenues.
Ellen further elaborates this in the light of the “velocity of money”, the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, which in a good economy is around seven, which means that on each dollar, taxes will be paid seven times, as it changes hands. $1,00 traded seven times on a 26 percent tax results in $1,82 back to the government, more than it initially put out. Also, it is generally taught in economics class that, from the formula “MV = Py”, when velocity of money (V) and the quantity of goods sold (y) are constant, adding money (M) will drive prices up (P). What is not taught, as Prof. John Harvey, quoted by Ellen, pinpoints, is that V and y are not constant, meaning that demand and supply rise together, leaving prices unchanged.
Applying this logic, Ellen sets forth that new demand must precede new supply, that is, employers will add the workers needed to create more supply, once they know there is demand for their goods and services. This has implications for unemployment, for example, which is at 9,4 percent in the US as of January 2017, a condition which at the rise of many innovations may get worse.
Nevertheless, a concern with hyperinflation is thrown around in opposition to this form of injecting money into the economy, to which Ellen Brown quotes Prof. Michael Hudson, who states that most cases of hyperinflation in history stemmed from foreign debt services collapsing the exchange rate, not domestic spending, calling upon the example of post World War I Germany.
In short, UBI can create more demand and drive new productivity by paying a dividend for living in the 21st century, when automation frees us time to engage in more meaningful pursuits.
More information at:
Ellen Brown, “How to fund a Universal Basic Income without increasing taxes or inflation”, Common Dreams, 4th October 2017
by Patrick Hoare | Nov 4, 2017 | News, Research
In a paper released in October 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has analysed the feasibility and effects of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in various economies, looking at how it might help ease destructive levels of inequality present in many societies around the globe.
The ‘IMF Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality’ focused on how fiscal policy can help governments address high levels of income inequality (from here simply ‘inequality’) while minimizing potential trade-offs between efficiency and equity. As part of the second half of the discussion, the UBI was considered as a mechanism of fiscal redistribution currently being widely debated.
Underpinning the analysis of UBI were a number of premises. The first of these was the assumption that some inequality was inevitable within a market-based economic system. Even though data reveals a decline in the global levels of inequality over the last three decades, the increased inequality within certain economies has had adverse effects, not only in terms of social corrosion and political polarisation but also in terms of economic prosperity. As such, the inequality the report sought to address was the type that was specifically having a negative impact.
The second premise clarified that measures aiming to alleviate inequality should not come at the expense of achieving economic GDP growth. Supporting this, data was presented showing that between 1988 and 2008, across all types of economies, there had been an average growth of real income per capita across every income bracket, even if the increases had been greater for those earning more. It was also shown that an increase in overall growth between 1985 and 2015, in particular in East and South Asia and the Pacific Region, had coincided with huge reductions in relative poverty and absolute poverty, and, therefore, with increases in social welfare. With no clear trend between increased inequality and growth, and with various studies suggesting, contrarily, either that redistributive policies may slow growth or that redistributive policies may help growth (given that the marginal propensity to consume among the poor is higher), it was determined that, on balance, growth should not be unduly undermined.
The third condition stipulated that, given the limited fiscal space most economies operate within, simulations measuring the impact of a UBI should be performed under the assumption of budget neutrality. The vast drop in progressivity among the tax systems of the OECD member states, in particular the drop in the average top rate of personal income tax (PIT) from 62% to 35% between 1980 and 2015, does not seem to have been economically motivated, since during this period there was no evidence of: increased income tax elasticity; proportionally less income going to the top earners (the opposite was the case); increased support for the social welfare of the rich; decreased support for redistribution (the opposite was the case); or, a more progressive tax system being harmful to growth (there was some evidence to suggest the opposite could be the case). It was therefore accepted that this lower progressivity must be the consequence of political preference. As such, in order to control for various political perspectives, the funding for a UBI would have to come from a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes.
Following the establishment of such conditions, the central examination of the UBI was based around simulations of implementation within eight economies: Brazil, Egypt, France, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, the UK and the US. The choice of countries controlled for heterogeneity in geographical area, developmental stage (emerging market and advanced economies), and the generosity and progressivity of the countries’ current noncontributory transfers. The analysis of a UBI was then judged on whether it could increase coverage (the number of beneficiaries) and progressivity (those most in need benefiting proportionally more) of current redistributive programs, without impeding growth.
In almost all cases coverage increased, given the universality of UBI, however improvements in progressivity very much depended on the financing method and the existing level of progressivity within a particular economy. Where UBI was seen as a replacement for current benefit systems, countries with low progressivity but high coverage, such as South Africa, saw larger swathes of their lower earners suffer at the expense of a smaller percentage of beneficiaries within the same income category. In this circumstance, where consumption inequality is higher as a consequence of income inequality, progressivity as well as coverage could be improved if a UBI was financed by increased indirect taxation (consumption tax) rather than through cuts to the current system. In economies where both coverage and progressivity are already relatively high, such as the UK and France, replacing the current system with a UBI would be regressive. Similarly, even in a country where progressivity is high but coverage low, such as Brazil, the introduction of a UBI as a replacement would likely trade one off against the other, ultimately negatively affecting lower income households. In the situation where PIT among the top-earners is increased as a way of financing a UBI (altering the economic behaviour of these payers), the model calibrated to the US economy (moderate coverage and progressivity) found that, although efficiency, in terms of output forgone, was lower than against a system with indirect taxes, the PIT increase yielded greater overall welfare, especially where aversion to inequality was high. The final scenario, where simulations focused on comparing a UBI funded either directly, indirectly or through cuts, against the expansion of a benefit – the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the US – at the same fiscal cost, found that, due to the targeted nature of the EITC subsidy, welfare improvements were higher than would experienced under the implementation of a UBI.
In summary, The Fiscal Monitor concluded that a perfectly implemented means-tested system would always be superior to a UBI, since it would ensure the necessary coverage and provide the greatest level of progressivity within the bounds, constraints and conditions assumed. Therefore, in countries where there is a ‘good’ transfer program, the finance necessary to fund a UBI would be better used on improving the current system. That said, in reality, given the existence of imperfections in such systems, a UBI could be a powerful means of combating poverty and extreme poverty, especially in countries where both progressivity and coverage is poor. It was also noted that a UBI could be implemented for other reasons, such as in combatting job market disruptions associated with technological progress.
More information at:
IMF Publications, ‘IMF Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality, October 2017’, International Monetary Fund website, October 2017
by Patrick Hoare | Nov 1, 2017 | News
David Simon. Credit to: Flickr
Whilst talking about his new HBO show ‘The Deuce’, David Simon, creator of the award winning series ‘The Wire’, has advocated for a “guaranteed income” to be introduced in the US.
During an interview with David Remnick on The New Yorker Radio Hour on the 29th of September, when asked about the nature of his politics given the content of his journalism and shows, Simon said that he was a “lefty” on “around 85% of the issues” citing a “guaranteed income” as an example of a policy he supported. He explained that, as far as he could see, “we’ve reached the death of work”, and “where we’re going as a society” in terms of “automation” means that we should be guaranteeing people some sort of income. Whilst it was not clear from the interview whether Simon was referring to a Universal Basic Income (UBI) or some form of Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), he explained that direct cash transfers to the financially poor were economically viable since the “20 or 30 or 40 thousand dollars” people would receive would go “right back into the economy”. He also pointed out that former US president Richard Nixon initially supported a form of GMI in the 1970s, alluding to the fact that even those who weren’t traditionally seen as being in favour of governmental welfare based solutions to economic growth could be amenable to related mechanisms.
Simon’s thoughts are somewhat of a continuation of the ideas he expressed in a talk at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney in 2013. In a critical analysis of the prevailing iteration and implementation of capitalism, he lamented the idea that ‘profit’ was the metric through which we judged the health of both an economy and a society. Although he was unwavering in his support of capitalism as an economic model through which growth and progress occurs, he said that the use of it as a framework to assess the moral justness of people’s experience was mistaken and has led to ‘greed’ being considered as good. In order that we fulfill the notion of what he considers society to be – “that everybody feels as if, if the society succeeds, I succeed, I don’t get left behind” – he believes that “labour doesn’t get to win all its arguments, [and] capital doesn’t get to [either]”, but rather that “it’s in the tension, it’s in the actual fight between the two, that capitalism actually becomes functional”. In this regard, his advocacy of some sort of guaranteed payment policy chimes with other social commentators such as Peter Barnes, author of ‘With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough’, who see basic income as a social dividend rightfully distributed to everyone as a way of representing the fact that the majority of wealth is created together by society.
More information at:
David Remnick, ‘David Simon on the Rise of Pornography’, New York Public Radio, 29th September 2017
‘About Basic Income’, Basic Income Earth Network
Peter Barnes, ‘With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough’, Amazon Books, 30th August 2014
by Kate McFarland | Oct 24, 2017 | News
Writing for iMoney, journalist Emmanuel Surendra provides a historical overview (with pictures and videos) of Malaysia’s cash transfer program Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M).
Launched in 2012, BR1M provides cash grants–or “handouts” as Surendra calls them–to low-income households and individuals. The payments are awarded to Malaysians irrespective of employment, job-seeking activities, disability, or any other conditions apart from low income.
As Surendra explains, the initial payout was a cash payment of RM 500 (about US$120 at present exchange rates) to households with a total income below RM 3,000 (US$713) per month. The program was initially intended to be a one-off grant. However, it was retained and expanded over the following years.
In 2017, BR1M provided payments in the following amounts:
- RM 1,200 (US$285) to households with a monthly income below RM 3,000 (paid in three equal installments);
- RM 900 (US$214) to households with a monthly income between RM 3,000 and RM 4,000 (paid in three equal installments);
- RM 450 (US$107) to single adults over 21 years of age with a monthly income below RM 2,000 (in a single–no pun intended–payment).
BR1M most likely a “basic income” on no definition (but still relevant)
Because it is means-tested and targeted to the poor, the BR1M would not count as a “basic income” on most definitions of the term (including that of BIEN and most of its affiliates). However, in providing unconditional cash benefits to those whose incomes fall below a certain threshold, it is similar to a negative income tax (a point noted and discussed by taxation specialist Kang Beng Hoe in his May 2013 article “Is BR1M a negative income tax?”).
Furthermore, because its amount is too low to meet basic living expenses, the BR1M would fail to qualify on many definitions of the term. (Some uses of the term ‘basic income’, such as the use most prevalent in Canada, encompass the negative income tax and income top-up programs as subtypes. These uses, however, tend to assume that the income guarantee provides a livable income. Of course, there are many definitions on which the BR1M falls short based on both criteria.)
Nevertheless, as an unconditional in-cash payment, the BR1M is likely to interest many casual and professional researchers of basic income, and Surendra’s recent article provides a quick and accessible means to catch up on the program’s history.
Read More: Emmanuel Surendra, “A Historical Timeline Of BR1M In Malaysia”, iMoney.my, October 11, 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: “Malaysia” CC BY-SA 2.0 M M
by Marleen Boschen | Oct 21, 2017 | News
Daejeon, South Korea. Started in October 2016 a group of young people from Daejeon in South Korea initiated the ‘Tio Su-Ki project’, which was presented by the Basic Income Korea Network (BIKN) at this year’s Universal Basic Income (UBI) summit in Lisbon. The pilot was realized through donations by over 200 participants, out of which 3 winners were selected in a lottery-style competition. The winners received 500,000 won (around 370 €) per month for six months – and all three reported better quality of life and stronger focus on their life goals and interests. One of the winners explained the experience: ‘People who eat bananas think differently from those who never do and know more than those without experiencing bananas. I think that the basic income experiment gave me a lot of money, so I can imagine another life.’
Inspired by the presentation of “My Basic Income” at Seoul’s 2016 UBI summit, Tio Su-Ki aimed at raising awareness for the societal impacts of UBI in a country, which still has the second longest average working hours in the OECD. It responded specifically to a situation that sees many young South Koreans with huge student loans, precarious part-time jobs and a general climate of weak labor unions and a tumultuous political situation. As the organizers of the pilot observed, many South Koreans still perceive the idea of UBI to be a direct contradiction with national labor ethics and perceptions, which are focused around ‘honest work’ as the legitimacy for wages. The project is part of a wider movement in South Korea, which is gathering support for multiple pilot studies with varying designs in other cities including Seoul, Seongnam and the Hankyoreh 21 project.
The project title encapsulates the ambition to give spare time to fast-paced, city lives. Participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire on Kakaotalk, a Korean social network, after which three winners were selected randomly, all of them in their twenties and early thirties. Promotion for the project included a Basic Income monopoly game and events.The gamified design of the pilot was a major contributing factor for building curiosity and interest in the project.
More information at:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen, “Seoul National University Economy professor Lee Keun says South Korea needs BI”, Basic Income News, January 21st, 2017
Karl Widerquist, “SOUTH KOREA: Basic Income Coalition created with aim to support candidates in elections”, Basic Income News, May 27th, 2010
