by Jason Burke Murphy | Jul 25, 2019 | Opinion
By Jason Burke Murphy
![Chapo Trap House is known for bringing an irreverent, jokey style to US left discussion.](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1.jpg?resize=239%2C317&ssl=1)
Chapo Trap House is known for bringing an irreverent, jokey style to US left discussion.
Andrew Yang’s interview with Virgil Texas on the podcast Chapo Trap House helps to answer a lot of questions that keep coming up as his candidacy is debated. After a little while Virgil brings up concerns that one often encounters in debate around basic income.
Full disclosure: I interviewed Andrew Yang a year ago and plan to vote for him. Most of my political training and viewpoint is left-wing. I have fond feelings and understanding for many friends who plan to vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Yang avoids ideological language. He has embraced the slogan Scott Santens often uses of “Not right, not left, but forward.” That is not a slogan for me. I recognize that basic income is a policy that could be attached to any ideological program. I’ve written about that. I would call Yang’s Freedom Dividend a left policy proposal precisely because it re-allocates wealth from the rich to the poor. Yang is proving that basic income (and a diagnosis of “disintegration”) can get the attention of non-voters and even Trump voters.
My goal here is to do a little bit of translating and clarify a couple of points that I have seen raised on cable news and in left magazines. One hears these same points from political newcomers in online Yang discussion pages. Millions of people are thinking about a basic income for the first time. I am sticking to three points that Yang raises in this interview and that I have seen him make elsewhere.
(1) The Value Added Tax. I asked Andrew Yang about the VAT because I was not quite sure it was the best way to go. When you find out why he wants it, you can be better assured that he is ready to take on the one percent.
Yang’s reason for using the VAT to raise about a third of the Freedom Dividend is that it would capture a lot of the revenue that companies like Amazon and Google are making without having to pay tax. Even more important, Yang makes it clear that he will keep looking at ways to make sure these giants of the new economy pay their fair share. In the UK where VAT has been implemented for a long time, the VAT returns process has been claimed to be a confusing process (https://www.rosspartners.co.uk/vat-return-services-london/) However if VAT is implemented with strong easy to understand legislation, issues like these would be less of a problem and potentially bring more companies on board to the VAT system. Yang stressed in this interview that we should “Go where the money is.”
Chapo’s Virgil is not certain about the VAT for the same reason progressives often oppose sales taxes. Yang is clear that “in a vacuum” this would not be a progressive tax. With the dividend, it moves money from the wealthy to everyone else. Yang makes it clear that he also believes in funding the dividend through a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax as well. He would also like to see an increase in marginal taxation of income and wealth.
We should support various, multiple taxes in order to support everyday government and a basic income guarantee. There is less incentive for the wealthy to dodge a tax if there are different kinds in play. The VAT is featured in most of the social democracies that we on the left point to as evidence that good policies can improve social outcomes.
It should be clear now that Yang is NOT the “Silicon Valley candidate”. Everyone who is getting a free ride will end up paying into the dividend and into Medicare for All). That is the goal here. The VAT is a means to that end. A lot of workers in Silicon Valley might share his concern about automation but that is very different from calling him the candidate “of Silicon Valley”. You can bet that Yang is Peter Thiel’s worst nightmare. Yang cites the fact that so many tech companies are untaxed right now as a reason to bring something else into the party. If a VAT doesn’t work, he will try something else.
When it comes to taxing the wealthy, Yang goes further than any of his opponents. Moderates would just repeal previous past tax cuts. Without the dividend, other left candidates run the risk of backlash as people wonder if these new policies really include them.
(2) The size of the dividend. Will $1,000 a month do the work we want it to do? Virgil makes two very different points. First, he points out that there were many periods of his life when even one tenth of this amount per month would have been extremely helpful. Second, he gives cases in which this amount would not help much. Yang’s particular proposal does not give a share until one reaches 18 years old. (I would prefer they be included. I can tell you that, every day, I encounter strong opinions on both sides of this issue.)
Yang wants to point out that a single mother would get her dividend and know that the kid is getting the dividend in the future. He did not say that this was something that many voters can’t get their heads around. Millions of Americans think that low-income people have kids in order to get welfare. That simply never happens.
This is a very interesting line of discussion we are now seeing. I will summarize it:
- You need more than X a month to survive/do well.
- This plan offers less than X as a dividend.
Therefore, we should reject this plan.
The problem with this line of argument is that we are left without any dividend at all. If $1,000 a month is not enough, then zero is much worse. Very few people are arguing for zero basic income, but that is where we are now. Virgil Texas does not reach this conclusion. It is a very friendly interview. But we do run into this a lot. What should we do if we think this amount proposed is not enough?
Andrew Yang is very clear that his goal is a dividend that, combined with Medicare for All, would abolish poverty. This is why he is not talking about gutting current support systems. Everyone who gets support of any kind will have the option of keeping it or going with the Freedom Dividend. He reiterates that when he says “go where the money is”, he knows that low-income people aren’t who he’s talking about. He commits in this interview to tinkering to make sure that this dividend is sufficient, given the expenses that are out there, as well as any price changes in play due to the VAT or carbon tax.
People who say that an extra $1,000 a month is not enough to matter have not seen what low-income people are already doing with what they have. There are many, many communities that are politically invisible. Nothing will increase their ability to develop the stuff of good living-restaurants, shops, studios, dance schools, gyms, etc.-than a dividend. Yang also points out that many people do not get valued by our market at all who should be. Here he includes home-makers and those who care for the elderly in their family.
Some people are worried that this dividend will not matter because of the taxes in play. Sure, it would be bad to get a check and then lose it all to taxation. We only need to be aware of how much more commerce, pollution, and financial transactions are the property of the top ten percent and top one percent of US society. Again, Yang is committed to making sure that the dividend is enough to accomplish the goal of a secure share for all.
Once any amount is secured, we can call to raise it.
(3) Capitalism and “entrepreneurship”. Early in the interview, we hear that the word “entrepreneur” includes a lot more people for Yang than is typically the case. Starting a family or taking care of elderly relatives is included. He also includes creative work, citing the many studies showing that “creatives” improve quality of life and are an economic engine. This is all part of his quest to improve our measurements of economic progress. The Gross Domestic Product and the Stock Market keep improving, even while life expectancy is going down for the first time in the US since the Yellow Fever Epidemic.
![This meme is](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2.jpg?resize=342%2C240&ssl=1)
This meme is “not my style” but we are seeing conversations like this blossom once people get on board the idea of a dividend for all.
This can be a translation issue for the left. Yang’s “capitalism” and “entrepreneurship” just aren’t the sorts described in our business schools and on television. I tried to address some of these translation issue in an earlier piece for Basic Income News. My main goal there was to get us to think of caregivers and organizers alongside business start-ups. The word “capitalism” puts an image in my mind of someone taking a portion of everyone else’s wealth. I think of Wall Street. Andrew Yang is thinking about markets. To understand him when he says “human capitalism”, think about Main Street in a “nice town”. He wants a lot of that everywhere. This is one reason he wants to improve our measurements of economic well-being. If we can develop better ways of tracking well-being, then an increase in creative and political organizing power (as well as consumer, labour, and negotiating power) will appear in those new measurements. Interestingly, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren often point to images of Main Street. We shouldn’t let the right own this imagery. They offer nothing to promote actual markets.
The comments on Chapo Trap House’s twitter page include a lot of positive reaction but they can run pretty bad. There is a lot of projection. A lot of people just did not listen to the interview but commented nonetheless. The idea that Yang’s Freedom Dividend is a “neo-liberal trojan horse” should be rendered completely absurd for anyone who listened to this interview. Yet, I have seen this phrase used by credentialed opinion-makers. I do not link here because I want to leave room for them to change.
![This sums it up. Creator unknown.](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/3.jpg?resize=420%2C272&ssl=1)
This sums it up. Creator unknown. “M4A” means “Medicare for All”
Once we win a basic income guarantee, I hope that more people engage in social critique and I hope that solidarity, class analysis and Marxist critiques of alienation and exploitation are important parts of this. The dividend will increase the number of people who can participate in that new debate. And that participation is already starting, as put by a contributor on Facebook:
“One of the great things about this is if you imagine a town, you imagine a community, everyone’s getting $1,000 a month, how many more co-ops are going to be in that town? How many more artists? How man creatives? How many people are volunteering at their local nonprofit? How many more people are going to be civically engaged? How many people are going to join their friend’s book club because they’re not worried about starving to death? You can produce so many immense benefits by spreading the economic buying power. And yes, it would result happily in more people ending up owners of different enterprises.”
The US left needs to embrace basic income. Interviews just like this one brings us closer to making that happen. Those who stick to other candidates can still make it clear that they support a basic income. They can also support Rashida Tlaib’s “Lift Plus Act” which would issue a $3,000 / year grant to all. This measure would reduce the number of people in poverty in the US by forty-five percent. Who can say “no” to that?
Jason Burke Murphy teaches Ethics and Philosophy at Elms College in Massachusetts, USA. He worked as Head Organizer for Arkansas ACORN. He served on the Organizing Committee for the Youth Section of Democratic Socialists of America. He also served on the National Committee for the Green Party USA. He now serves on the National Committee for the US Basic Income Guarantee Network.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 14, 2019 | News
Rashida Tlaib. Picture credit to: HuffPost.
On the 30th of May, 2019, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib hosted the 13th Congressional District Women and Families Roundtable with community members and advocates from across the Redford district (Michigan) (1). The roundtable took place at the Redford Community Center in Redford Township, and was attended by elements of local advocacy groups, teachers, union members and community members at large.
She stated that “This roundtable was the first of many that we will have to make sure we are staying rooted in what the community needs back here at home, not in Washington, D.C”, concluding that “The LIFT+ Act is just one part of ensuring that our families have the resources they need to thrive”.
The bill LIFT+ (Plus) Act announcement was made at this roundtable venue, with community members and advocates from across the district. According to Tlaib, the bill can put money in people’s pockets, through a refundable tax credit that can be paid monthly, to buy just about anything people struggle to purchase today. Community members broadly agreed that the issues most affecting them are income equality, livable wages, leave policies, comprehensive and affordable health care, and affordable childcare.
The bill itself (LIFT – Livable Incomes for Families Today), now introduced by Rashida Tlaib, is complementary to a previous text (S.4 bill) introduced by Senator Kamala Harris earlier this year (January 3rd), under the same name (LIFT). It intends to “provide relief for low and moderate-income households by introducing a new tax credit for working class individuals and families”. Under this policy, a tax credit of up to 3000 $/year (250 $/month) per adult is attributed, while families can get up to 6000 $/year (500 $/month). Eligibility is not dependent on being filed for paying taxes, so any adult can qualify if earning less than 50000 $/year (or less than 100000 $/year for constituted families). No conditions are put on how beneficiaries spend the money.
The scheme is designed as a NIT (Negative Income Tax), being dispensed on the basis of the preceding year’s tax record of the individual/family, phased out linearly when individual gross earnings fall into the 30000-50000 $/year amount. According to the authors and their teams, the LIFT+ Act would lift about 3 million children and 9 million families out of poverty, and effectively increase the earnings of about 123 million workers.
Note (1) – Redford is a town on the western border of Michigan’s largest city, Detroit, with around 48400 inhabitants
by Andre Coelho | Jun 12, 2019 | News, Research
According to a recent report (May 2019) by UCL Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), guaranteeing universal basic services (UBS), such as health care, education, child care, transportation and digital information, would be more beneficial to low income groups than universal basic income (UBI).
It is argued, in the referred report authored by Anna Coote, Pritika Kasliwal and Andrew Percy, that “extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals”. That assertion is linked to a yet to be published article by Coote and Yazici called “Universal Basic Income, A literature review”, while the present report does not “consider the case for UBI in any depth”. The discussion defending UBS, in the report, seems then to be unilateral. However, cost considerations between the two systems, for the United Kingdom reality, have been done in a previous report (from 2017). From these calculations, the authors have reached the conclusion (stated after the 2019 report’s release) that UBS would cost around 10% less than UBI to implement in the country.
Andrew Percy, co-author of the report (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and Citizen Sponsor at IGP, has said that “universal access to basic public services must be the foundation of 21st century welfare that delivers real social security, allows people to make meaningful choices about their work, and can be delivered in an affordable and practical way”, which doesn’t seem to pitch UBS against UBI. Others, like Will Stronge (Autonomy think tank) and Mathew Lawrence (Common Wealth think tank), explicitly consider UBI and UBS to be complementary in an evolving model for society.
![Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Anna_Coote.jpg?resize=420%2C420&ssl=1)
Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal
Anna Coote and co-author Edanur Yazici have also recently (April 2019) published another report (signing for the New Economic Foundation), entiled “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective”, which clearly rejects UBI in favour of a UBS. That study has been published by the global trade union federation Public Services International (PSI), financially supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. This particular report was analysed by UBI activist Scott Santens, who has written that it is “a prime example of a disinformation campaign designed to manipulate public opinion against the idea of universal basic income”, and a “shameless propaganda” move.
The publication of the 2019 report on universal basic services, by the IPG, has also spurred a reaction in Guy Standing, a lifelong researcher, economist, author and activist for UBI. According to him, in an article published in Open Democracy, “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”. He adds, concluding, that these systems “address different needs and stem from different rationales. But having cash enhances freedom of choice, is potentially more empowering and can be more transformative. I plead with those advocating ‘Universal Basic Services’ to stop juxtaposing the idea of more and better public services with giving people basic income security.”
More information at:
Laurie MacFariane, “Universal services more effective than a Universal Basic Income, argues new report”, OpenDemocracy, May 16th 2019
Scott Santens, “‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says New Prime Example of Fake News”, Medium, May 31st 2019
Guy Standing, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income”, Open Democracy, June 6th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 5, 2019 | News, Research
The reading of results from basic income type of experiments is, apparently, dependent on who is reading them. The Ontario present government officials did not think, for instance, that there were particular advantages or benefits from pursuing with the Ontario basic income experiment. The particulars of the Ontario (basic income) pilot cancellation have been extensively reported on (some examples below), so much so that a new report was published with some evidence of the benefits experienced by more than 400 participants, according to their responses. This may be another case of dissonance between government power and common citizens: what is felt by the latter as beneficial is discarded as ineffective and wasteful by the former. Why, then, was this basic income pilot program cancelled is a legitimate question one might ask, if the participants themselves felt it as a success.
For example, the baseline survey reported that at the start of the pilot 81% of participants were suffering from moderate to severe psychological stress); At the end over 70% had reported their mental state to have improved in several categories. This is attributed to having fewer financial worries such as debt. In addition, participants were apparently better able to buy edibles online canada and other treatments for their conditions, whereas before they may have refrained due to budget concerns. Due to the legalization of medical marijuana in several countries, such as the United States and Canada, many scientists are looking into the effects of CBD and cannabis. In terms of the physiological benefits of Cannabis, compounds like CBD seem to have anti-inflammatory properties, helping to relieve chronic muscle and joint pain. Nevertheless, when ingested, these effects might be amplified, so these relief properties could be felt in even greater strength with THC edibles that you can purchase from get kush or other such cannabis retailers online. There is growing evidence that CBD is an effective monotherapy or complementary therapy for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Cannabis (rather a chemical in the Cannabis sativa plant known as cannabidiol) may be helpful in reducing anxiety, the most common mental health issue. The information provided here is not intended as medical advice and it is highly recommended that one consults a health expert before consuming CBD products. This is merely intended as an overview various types of CBD commodities (such as CBD Oil UK) of that may be of assistance to people suffering from anxiety or stress.
Overall, the participant experience compiled in this report partly mirror that of Finland’s basic income-type experience first results: more agency, anxiety relief, more social connection and financial security. The majority started eating better, and were able to make plans for the future…which evaporated as soon as the pilot was cancelled by Doug Ford’s government. In numbers, answers returned the following results (from Basic Income Canada Network):
- 88% of respondents reported less stress and anxiety and 73% had less depression.
- 58% improved their housing situation;
- 34% found the basic income supported employment by affording transportation to work, child care or ability to start or expand a business;
- 32% of respondents were able to go back to school or upgrade skills (note that a majority of employed participants in the government baseline survey – recipients and control group – said they were in dead-end jobs);
- 74% were able to make healthy food choices and 28% stopped using food banks;
- 46% were able to pay off debt;
- 52% were able to see friends and family more often, 55% were physically more able to do activities, and 45% reported fewer health problems;
- Many respondents talked about working hard their whole lives, often at multiple jobs, but never really having a life, until basic income made that possible.
More information at:
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment“, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Sara Bizarro, “Ontario, Canada: Reactions to Ontario Basic Income Pilot Cancelation“, Basic Income News, September 18th 2018
Daniel Fabbri, “Four Ontario Mayors asking the Federal Government to take over the Basic Income Pilot“, Basic Income News, September 30th 2018
André Coelho, “Canada: Ontario’s basic income experiment ended, but the ground is fertile for more pilots“, Basic Income News, December 22nd 2018
Sheila Rogehr and Joli Scheidler-Benns, “Signposts to Success: report of a BICN Survey of Ontario Basic Income Recipients“, Basic Income Canada Network, February 2019
André Coelho, “When a few drops of rain allow flowers to blossom: Finland’s basic income experiment generates its preliminary results“, Basic Income News, February 16th 2019
by Tyler Prochazka | Jun 4, 2019 | Opinion
The wave of basic income experiments in the last two years was a positive development in giving Universal Basic Income (UBI) some level of attention and political legitimacy in Western countries.
It is time to recognize the experimental wave is coming to an end.
Basic income activists in the next wave of UBI political discussions should push for policy changes in the direction of basic income. There are ongoing and completed trials testing cash transfers in countries with different stages of economic development. It makes more sense to build a foundation for policy changes as these results trickle out over the next few years rather than pushing for yet another experiment.
In Canada, the push for experiments backfired because a Conservative government canceled it before any results could be collected. I supported Ontario’s experiment and there was value in the research.
However, Ontario’s cancellation demonstrated that as activists move forward, we must recognize that experiments do not create a political constituency. In Alaska, the partial basic income policy has broad and significant support because everyone has benefited from it. Building a constituency that can be expanded and deepened is where activist energy should be placed in the next stage.
UNICEF funded experiments in India helped make basic income a real political discussion there, and now basic income inspired policies are being proposed by both of the main parties and a minimum income is set to be implemented in the state of Sikkim.
Experiments in developing countries and regions where basic income is still not well known may still be politically necessary. In Western countries, though, activist energy on more experiments rather than policy action seems ill-placed since UBI has already entered mainstream discussion in the West.
Experiments have already shown us cash transfers make people happier, healthier, and free them to pursue what they are interested in. The myths about basic income have been consistently undermined, particularly the idea that it would decrease work in any meaningful way. More experiments will keep telling us that giving people cash is generally good in most of the ways we measure positive outcomes.
How many times do we need an experiment to tell us cash transfers do not make people “lazy”?
Those who will not be convinced by the existing and upcoming experimental results will not be convinced by yet another experiment. The reaction to Finland’s experiment is evidence that unpersuadable opponents will latch onto even neutral effects on employment to prove basic income is a “failure.”
To truly put UBI to the test in America and Europe, actual policies that incorporate significant elements of basic income should be pushed. Cory Booker’s baby bonds is a start. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit that incorporates students and caregivers would instantly help millions. Political campaigns such as Andrew Yang’s are also important to bring the debate to a mainstream audience.
That is not to say pilot programs with the intent of expansion are not helpful. These provide valuable information to governments on how to implement basic income. Pilot programs with the primary intent of yet more research on “laziness” are the issue.
However, as the experimental wave of basic income begins to sunset, activists must look toward the next wave, which should focus on concrete policy steps that realize the spirit of basic income.
For these reasons, I see more experiments as an inefficient use of activist energy in the West. Worse, pushing experiments focused on gathering more data trades off with more useful discussions of how to bring elements of UBI to reality in the near-term.