Viewpoint: An Unconditional Citizen’s Income

In these straitened times, the idea of a basic income, granted unconditionally to every citizen, from cradle to grave, feels utopian. How on earth could it be paid for, we wonder. Wouldn’t everyone just stop working? Where would we be then?

I first came across it, in the optimistic late 1960s, in a form that materialized in the so-called ‘fifth demand’ of the Women’s Liberation movement (formulated in 1971) that called for ‘financial and legal independence’ for all women. This had an enormous appeal: not only is it degrading for anyone to have to beg or manipulate someone else for their means of subsistence, and materially damaging to that person if the money is not forthcoming; it also destroys the character of human relationships if they are embedded in relations of dependency. Unequal power relations like those between a husband and a dependent wife, parents and dependent teenagers, able-bodied providers and their disabled dependents can lead to a festering mess of guilt, gratitude and unexpressed anger. The results can range from dishonesty and depression to emotional and physical abuse. In a money-based society, an independent source of income is a pre-condition for human dignity.

Before going any further, I should declare my personal position on this question. I have written intermittently about the idea of a basic minimum income since the 1990s, and would class myself as broadly in favour of the principle, though with some important reservations. In the 1990s I wrote a report on the subject for the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), but then backed away from it for a while, for reasons that I will spell out later (under ‘risks’). Since then I have come back to the idea and am now (albeit not as active as I should be, and with some reservations I will come on to) a trustee of CIT. But I am writing here in a personal capacity and my opinions do not necessarily reflect the CIT’s position.

Keeping Body and Soul Together

What I have written below is based on the assumption that a benefit would be paid unconditionally to all citizens, regardless of age, replacing most existing welfare benefits but also the personal tax allowance (at present, the first £10,000 of income for each person is disregarded for income tax, providing a ‘benefit’ of £2,000 per person in tax not paid). Whilst each person would receive the benefit, therefore, they would also pay tax on all income. The level of the benefit, the rate of tax, and the degree to which that tax is graduated would of course be political decisions and I am not going to make detailed proposals here. But my assumption is that the level of benefit would be enough to keep body and soul together and take care of basic needs but not more.

The Advantages

  • It would save the state a huge amount of money, currently spent on processing claims and policing benefit claimants and would eliminate the need for many of the present complex array of benefits (sickness benefit, pensions, maternity benefits etc.).
  • Because children would be eligible for it, as well as adults, it would be broadly redistributive toward households with children and thus help to alleviate the shockingly high levels of child poverty in this country.
  • Because there is no household unit of assessment it might well encourage people to live more collectively, sharing resources with friends and extended families, which would also have environmental benefits and take some pressure off the housing market.
  • It would enhance inter-generational solidarity.
  • It would make it possible for people to change their working hours flexibly and combine more than one job much more easily than at present.
  • Life would become much smoother and simpler for freelancers.
  • It would make it much easier to manage illnesses and disabilities and juggle caring responsibilities with work.
  • It would also make it much easier to move in and out of education.
  • The judgement about what is, or is not ‘work’ would no longer be made by a bureaucratic authority but by the individual. If you want to live on very little and devote your life to art, music, prayer, blogging, archaeology, chasing an elusive scientific concept, conserving rare plants or charitable work, that would be your choice. This is not just good for those individuals but spiritually enriching for society as a whole.
  • The labour market would become a little less one-sided. Employers might have to offer a bit more pay to entice people into unattractive jobs. Though, on the other hand, they might find people queuing up to fill the ones that offer high levels of personal satisfaction and reward.

The Risks

  • Giving everybody money plays along with the grain of an increasingly market-based economy. The risk is that individual purchases made in the market will drive out collectively-provided services. Recommodification might obliterate decommodification.
  • Globalization raises serious questions about what constitutes citizenship. It is perhaps no accident, at least in Europe, that the countries with the most generous welfare states also tend to have the most tightly-controlled borders (think of Denmark). Combining a basic citizen’s income policy with non-racist immigration policies presents some serious challenges.

Conclusion

Although, in my opinion, it would bring huge benefits, an unconditional citizen’s income is not a magic solution to all political, social and economic problems. I believe that it could be one ingredient in the development of a kind of welfare state that is deserving of the name. However it is only one ingredient among several. In particular, it would have to be combined with:

  • an increased minimum wage;
  • increased investment in universally available public services that are free to the user, including health, childcare, education and social care;
  • a recognition that the housing market is so distorted that continuing extra help will be required to house the poorest people in many parts of the country;
  • a reformed tax system.

 

Ursula Huws is Director of Analytica Social and Economic Research; Editor, Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation; Professor of Labour and Globalisation, University of Hertfordshire. She maintains a blog at ursulahuws.wordpress.com where this article first appeared, and where posts on Income Tax, Universal Credit, and other subjects related to the welfare state can be found

US Budget under BIG

Introduction.

This budget assumes public finance all levels combined, and no change in overall tax income, which is currently 4131 billion $.

Today, no more than 8% of the population is required to produce all agricultural products, industrial products and buildings required. That is why the state needs to distribute purchasing power to 100% of the population. Jobs in the service sector will be triggered by the purchasing power (the current doctrine is that we should create jobs to generate purchasing power, but that is an instable system).

This increased efficiency has created a societal system with can create welfare and therefore has a huge common, “social”, capital. Every citizen should get a dividend from that capital. We call it the social dividend or “Basic Income Grant”; an income which we don’t need to work for, just like rich people live from their heritage. All citizens get this social dividend. Some part in cash, some part in kind. The amount in cash depends on their age (see table in the budget).

The amount in kind is given in education vouchers, healthcare vouchers and “coaching” vouchers. Citizens choose their education, healthcare and coaching service provider who gets money from the “social dividend in kind” fund, provided by the state budget.

Both education and healthcare will see drastic changes in the coming years, due to the advent of the Internet. With the number of internet service providers like Spectrum (check out Spectrum internet pricing here), Xfinity, and similar others providing affordable internet plans, users can have access to information of any kind at their fingertips. The country will witness an unprecedented increase in education and healthcare – entrepreneurs.

Every citizen will have the right to be “coached”, which will help all citizens to address problems and opportunities in their lives. This coaching system will hugely reduce criminality and improve productivity.

Since working people will get a social dividend of 500 $ per month, somebody earning 1500 $ net now would have the same total income if he/she gets a net salary of 1000 $ net. In practice, the pay check will mention BIG: 500 $ and Work income: 1000 $ instead of 1500 $ work income now. That is why the in the budget figures, the cost for public servants, but also workers in education and healthcare seems low: a part of their salary is paid, so to speak, by the BIG.

BIG BIG
Age cash vouchers total number cash dividend coaching
$ pp pm $ pp pm $ pp pm million billion $ p year billion $ p y billion $
0-17 150 300 450 75 135.0 270.0
18-25 250 300 550 41 123.0 147.6
26-67 500 300 800 169 1014.0 608.4
67 + 1000 300 1300 35 420.0 126.0
320 1692.0 1152.0 2844.0 17.8% GDP

 

Other public expenses:

public service employees
Net $ per month $ cash total total employed billion $/y
extra salary social cash compen- million budget
dividend salary sation
national administration 2450 500 2950 3450 2.5 74
local admin 2150 500 2650 3150 5 129
Army 1650 500 2150 2650 0.6 12
police + 1750 500 2250 2300 3 63
Justice 1950 500 2450 2950 0.3 7
11.4 284.4 284.4
military excluding personnel 275
Interest payments 230
Public investments and current purchases 500
Total public expenditure except loan repayments 4133.4

 

Within the BIG, a value of 1152 billion $ is paid in kind, in the form of vouchers. These vouchers go to service providers who get cash for it from the government budget. The service providers use this money to pay the extra salary over the BIG to nearly 25 million people employed by those service providers in education, health care and coaching. The demand side of these services is completely subsidised. The offer side is market driven while the government needs to define the rules.

total total net employed billion $ p y
cash compensation million budget
education 2200 500 2700 3200 8 211
healthcare 2200 500 2700 3200 13 343
coaching 2200 500 2700 3200 3.7 98
24.7 652.08
products and services relating to healthcare, education and coaching 500
cost to be covered by BIG vouchers 1152.08

Unconditional Basic Income: Obstacles and Strategies

Have you ever thought of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for absolutely everyone? The 14th USBIG Congress held in conjunction with Canada BIG was just held in Manhattan, and a friend with frequent flyer miles got me there. Presenters from across the globe shared perspectives on how to equalize the obscene income gap and confront the unrelenting increase in job loss due to technology, robots, the chip.

In 2007/2008, Wall Street criminals were bailed out to the tune of trillions, while news reports began to predict no uptake in the economy till 2017. Who wasn’t aghast? Who determined such a forecast and weren’t there going to be new policies to get people back to work? Seems not. As much as we hear of declining unemployment, we know that such figures discount and dismiss the long-term unemployed. The ‘service industry’ promised us by Bill Clinton has resulted in millions of underpaid workers. The right has taken out the unions.

Last year, the Democrats in our own Minnesota legislature did not find it fit to vote sick leave a worker’s right, and came up with a minimum wage of, voila: $9.50 an hour. That’s compensation of about $20,000 a year, thousands less after deductions and next to nothing if you have to pay for day care. I made $20,000 a year in the mid 70’s as a teacher in Philadelphia. That’s approximately what I make 40 years later as a substitute teacher in ISD 709, but now with absolutely no bennies.

No wonder a Basic Income makes unprecedented political progress, and around the world. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland dramatized the scenario, showing a bar graph with the thinnest of lines representing the wealth of the bottom 20%, and bars and bars of wealth so high they couldn’t even fit onto the graph for the top quintile. Marshall Brain of North Carolina State and author of the 60 million hit website “How Things Work” envisioned a visit by extraterrestrial creatures who take note of: 10,000 nuclear missiles, massive poverty for billions, environmental destruction, gigatons of carbon in the air, extinction, burgeoning prisons, religious strife, war, disease, millions of dying children, mass surveillance, nations, racism/sexism/homophobia. Their conjecture: ‘humans appear to be insane. Hundreds own everything while billions starve.’ Brain isn’t sure that our species can agree on anything, so that in a few decades humans will be forced to totally yield to silicon intelligence. He sees BIG as a route out of this and to a rational existence.

Frances Fox Piven of CUNY: “welfare as we know it regulates the poor and is bent to keep people at the low rungs of society. And the US has been losing its low level programs.” (In Minnesota, ‘welfare’ stipends have not risen for 27 years, and if you’re a low-income worker, you’re denied a living wage and benefits.) “Human needs for caring for old and young cannot be met. Many work multiple jobs…we must have a political strategy and ally with groups who rally for improvements in unemployment insurance and social security. We must leave behind the old left ideas of full employment (wage slavery) and economic growth—global warming won’t permit either.”

Speaker Willie Baptist (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) talked about building a new poor people’s campaign because conditions in Watts are now found in all communities. Marion Kramer and Sylvia Orduno from Detroit Welfare Rights Organization explained the hell Michigan residents are experiencing. Automation took the good paying jobs with benefits, and now Marion’s son can’t even collect unemployment when he’s laid off from what part time jobs are available. Detroit’s water plan, developed in the 90’s and based on income, was never implemented. So that the water supply for 30,000 people was recently shut off. And when water is shut off, the MI government can take your children. What Kramer called ‘the beginning of fascism in Michigan’ includes the Mackinac Plan to sell off public assets, charter schools replacing public schools, the assault on public employees, and taxation of pensions. Orduno said potentially a quarter million people risk losing their houses because unaffordable water bills are being billed to their taxes. She expressed a bond with the people of Northern Minnesota over water issues, ours due to impending sulfide mining.

Alaska was continually brought up as an example of BIG, with residents receiving yearly checks from oil revenues. Eduardo Suplicy, a former member of the Brazilian Senate, had pushed for and obtained passage of a bill that would ferret out implementation of a guaranteed income. The first stage was initiated as a stipend to the poor for enrolling their children in school. Suplicy urged us to sign a letter to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to resurrect the aging bill and get it off the back burner.

Recent articles on a Basic Income Guarantee have appeared in the pages of The Economist and the Washington Post and there’s a community on Reddit that is closing in on 25,000 subscribers. That’s not to mention the huge number of signatures collected for the European Citizen’s Initiative and the successful campaign for a Basic Income referendum in Switzerland.

In just the last few months, the momentum among political parties and leaders has also picked up. The Green Party worldwide has of course had Basic Income on its policy agenda for quite some time, but recently the general conference of the Liberal Party in Canada approved two motions towards a Basic Income, one in favor of a federal pilot program and one in favor of implementation. This is after the premier of the Canadian Province of Prince Edward Island, Robert Ghiz of the Liberal party, called for a pilot program for a Guaranteed Minimum Income in the form of a Negative Income Tax, and the leader of the provincial opposition party, the NDP, called for a similar Basic Income Guarantee.

Kristine Osbakken, Duluth, MN
krissosbakken@gmail.com

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Debt: The First 5,000 Years, by David Graeber (New York: Melville House, 2011). Review by Brent Ranalli

Most histories of money are histories of coins, tokens. But coins come and go with empires. Money has much deeper roots in the forms of obligation that bind together even the simplest societies. It takes an anthropologist to write a truly universal economic history, and that is what David Graeber has accomplished with Debt: The First 5,000 Years. With its wide scope, Debt offers valuable perspective on contemporary issues. The problem of economic insecurity that makes Basic Income so urgent today is not a unique feature of modernity or capitalism (though modern technological advances make possible for the first time a universal Basic Income as a solution), but has been with us since the development of money per se-that is, financial credit, or debt-at the dawn of civilization. The number of people that get into debt today because of money issues and not being able to earn enough to live, is astounding. Luckily there is help out there, such as advice from Debt Consolidation USA, reading books like Debt, etc. to help people get back on their feet if they have had to take a financial blow. They may advise you on the best strategies to removing yourself from such a stressful situation with tools that are available to you, such as life settlements. If you are over the age of 65 you can sell your life insurance policy for a little extra cash and subsequently pay off any debts you may have. There are other ideas too, this is to name but one. The important thing is for people, who have got too far into debt that they find themselves in a situation where debt collectors are at their door, is to ensure that they are aware of the debt collection state laws so that nothing bad happens during the process so that it is all above board.

The book is divided into two parts. The first is analytical, and the second is synthetic. Graeber begins by demolishing conventional myths of economic history, starting with the notion that before money and markets were invented, barter was the normal mode of exchange. In fact, as anthropologists have tried to explain to economists for over a century, barter is almost unheard of in traditional societies. Within communities, food, clothing, tools, and other everyday items might simply be distributed freely from one person to another in accordance with a strong sharing ethos, or distributed from a communally managed stock, or exchanged in a tit-for-tat fashion (so-called “gift economies”), or exchanged as debits and credits in a “virtual” currency that never actually changes hands. Many so-called “primitive currencies,” high-status items like cattle or hand-woven cloth, change hands primarily for purposes of rearranging human relationships (e.g., sealing a marriage contract or compensating the family of a murdered individual). Barter, when it does occur in traditional societies, tends to crop up on the margins of economic life, when people trade with strangers and potential or actual enemies. The modern triumph of money and markets can be seen to represent, in a way, the remaking of society as a collection of strangers or potential enemies a la Hobbes.

Similarly, Graeber turns on its head the conventional notion that the state and the market stand in opposition. In the grand scheme of history, markets (where strangers meet to buy and sell) have been handmaidens of the state, especially the war-making state that needs to provision armies. Only in rare circumstances (e.g, medieval Islam) have markets been sustainable without being substantially propped up by the state for enforcement of contracts, etc.

Meetings of strangers (at the interstices of traditional societies, and in the ancient and modern marketplace) always hold the potential for violence, and one of the themes of the book is the actual violence and constant threat of violence that went into making the seemingly polite modern bourgeois economic order: from the degradation and dispossession of women, whose exchange holds together traditional patriarchal societies, to debt-peonage and debt-slavery, to the war-making that created a demand for markets that could satisfy the appetites of soldiers carrying state-minted coins and war booty, to the extraordinarily harsh laws of early modern England (for example) that criminalized traditional credit-based modes of exchange.

Credit systems preceded the use of coined money in the ancient civilizations of Eurasia. But regardless of whether money is tangible or virtual, the normal, predictable course of events in every society that employs money is for money to be lent (often at interest–an ancient Mesopotamian innovation), and for some or most debtors to become trapped in debt. And the normal endgame of debt in the ancient world was for the debtor’s family members, and in extremis the debtor himself, to be reduced to slavery. In both the ancient and modern worlds, Graeber chillingly demonstrates, enslavement (and other forms of compulsion–peonage, indentured servitude, wage slavery) and trade in slaves has been intimately bound up with debt. Time and again, debt has been the siphon that sucks victims into the system of exploitation, and also the motor that drives the exploiters–both the grand masters (monarchs, conquistadors) and the petty functionaries–to take the desperate step of destroying others’ lives.

The story of civilization is in large part the story of how different societies have coped with the perennial debt trap that afflicts all societies that employ money. Mesopotamian kings offered periodic amnesties, erasing personal debts and freeing slaves to return to their families. The ancient Israelites adopted the practice and formalized it in the custom of Jubilees. Some groups prohibited the charging of interest, or set conventional bounds (that interest should not exceed five percent, or that the total interest charged should not exceed the value of the principal). The ancient Greeks and Romans met their debt and slavery crises by programs of imperial expansion that generated viable new economic opportunities for younger sons and filled the public coffers with booty and tribute–money that could be directed to the poorer classes of citizens to prevent them from falling into the debt trap, via direct payment (like the stipends Greek democracies paid their citizens for jury service, a sort of BI for the demos) or subsidies (like the Roman breads and circuses). Through custom or law, some societies took the more radical steps of abandoning or outlawing slavery and/or establishing bankruptcy protections for debtors.

Graeber detects a general pattern in the (Eurasian) history of monetary practices and debt-coping strategies, and the second half of the book is devoted to explicating that pattern–essentially, retelling the traditional story of civilization through the lens of money, debt, and slavery. The earliest Mesopotamian civilizations were pioneers of the use of money (credit money), and early victims of the debt trap, which their leaders periodically reset with general amnesties. Desperate debtors not infrequently took matters into their own hands as well, and fled with family and flocks to the outlying hills to join the fearsome “habiru” (a word that meant outlaw, fugitive, mercenary). Periodic waves of these groups descended to prey on and take control of civilized urban Mesopotamia, as their presumed counterparts the Hebrews to their West descended in strength upon Egyptian Canaan.

The “axial age” is a recognized watershed in Eurasian history. There was simultaneously in China, India, and the Mediterranean world a flowering of empire and cultural creativity. Graeber convincingly links these political and cultural developments to the (still mysteriously simultaneous and independent) invention of coined money. With the invention of coin and the establishment of markets, ancient states could raise, feed, and field massive armies, and engage in wars of conquest on scales previously unknown. The use of coin facilitated anonymous economic transactions, and deepened and widened the debt trap (except for the lucky subsidized few in the successful imperial powers like Athens and Rome, at least while those empires continued to expand). Expansive war also meant taking large numbers of captives, and these too became slaves. Slavery became an enormous and intrusive social institution, part of the fabric of everyday life.

As coined money entered public consciousness, intimating that everything could be weighed and measured, materialist philosophies arose in all the great ancient civilizations. And idealistic and humanistic philosophies and religious movements arose in defiant protest, these latter being the great philosophies and religions for which we remember the axial age–Greek philosophy against the sophists, Indian Buddhism against Vedic ritualism, Chinese Confucianism against legalism.

Graeber traces the contours of a gradual and staggered transition from the axial age to the “middle ages.” The general story is that the axial empires run out of steam and collapse, coin is replaced by credit (often still denominated in old imperial currencies), pre-market forms of traditional exchange (trust-based, community-based) re-emerge into prominence, social and/or state safeguards are developed to minimize or eliminate the debt trap, and the institution of slavery is abandoned. The story varies from region to region though, providing some interesting contrasts and highlighting the ingenious variety of different societies’ solutions to common problems. In China, for example, the axial imperial system never collapsed–it merely adapted, and used state power in various ways to marginalize the merchant class and protect the poor–or be overthrown by a new regime pledged to do a better job. In India, the state more or less shriveled away, and rural society governed itself via custom and caste–again, the money-managing merchant class being put in its place among the lower orders. In Islam, a thorough and unprecedented separation was achieved between church and state. Merchants took a leading role in religion, and collectively abandoned the practice of usury on religious grounds. As the merchant class was effectively governed by a religious code of honor, no intervention by the state was necessary to enforce contracts. Rather than meddling in economics or religion, then, the state in the Islamic world devoted itself to continued imperial conquest–and continued to capture and employ slaves, paradoxically arming them and employing them as soldiers for further conquest (a practice that religious leaders condoned, since captured enemies–unlike debtors–could legitimately be regarded as having forfeited life and liberty, and using foreign slaves as soldiers eliminated the messy business of Muslims bearing arms against Muslims). In Europe, markets, money and state shriveled nearly away and traditional modes of exchange blossomed. The Church (at least at first) took a hard line against usury; popular sentiment militated against the institution of slavery.

Around 1450, the pendulum swung the other way again. There was a new era of imperial conquest, of war-oriented cash economies, of mining and minting, and of slavery, centered in Europe. As sophisticated credit instruments imported from Islam were married to a metals-based cash economy, yawning new debt traps opened up, ensnaring people of all station, from kings and magnates to common soldiers and traders, while tearing apart other societies on multiple continents. There was at the same time a new cultural Renaissance in Europe, with a surge of materialism and an attendant backlash of more humane philosophies and religious movements.

Graeber perceives, or anticipates, a shift in our own day back in the other direction, away from imperial war, cash, and markets, back in the direction of stability, community, safeguards against the debt trap, and new and traditional forms of trust-based credit. He is light on predictions, and contents himself with arguing that our contemporary global financial system is in a likely terminal crisis (which, for the sake of convenience at least, he dates from Nixon’s 1971 decision to make the dollar a free-floating currency).

The book is an extraordinary feat of synthesis, and most of it is convincing and well-argued. I take issue with only a small handful of points. The weakest point, it seems to me, is Graeber’s conviction that capitalism is necessarily doomed. He makes a strong case that capitalism is by no means the end of history, that it is morally flawed, and that the financial sector in particular is careening out of control in a manner that could destabilize the whole. But his confident and repeated assertion that capitalism with free wage labor is impossible, that under capitalism the world’s population could never, even in principle, achieve middle class living standards, appears to be special pleading. In world history, the institution of the market had its origins in war and violence, but today (as Graeber himself acknowledges) it has left those roots behind and become tame and bourgeois. Capitalism too is historically rooted in brutal exploitation. But could not capitalism too eventually become as tame, hasn’t it already made extraordinary progress in that direction since the days of Dickens and Marx? If every last Chinese peasant finds a job with a dental and retirement plan, it would seem to signify not the demise of capitalism, only that consumers will pay incrementally more for Chinese products. Graeber’s pronouncements about the imminent demise of capitalism are particularly ironic, coming as they do practically in the same breath as his observations that for centuries economists and industrialists have been expecting the system to collapse and it has not done so.

Graeber has essentially acknowledged in post-publication interviews that the collapse of the ~1945-1975 “deal” that gave U.S. and European workers a modest share of the economic pie was not a matter of structural limits: rather, it was a matter of what concessions those at the top of the pyramid were willing to make. Those at the top might have made other choices, and one might argue that they were foolish not to continue investing in expanding the pool of middle-class consumers. They still might make better choices, or their hand might be forced, without anything that resembles an end to the current economic order. Establishment of a Basic Income Guarantee is one scenario that would facilitate transition to the less exploitive economy Graeber envisions while leaving the current system of finance and production intact.

Graeber’s analysis of debt and slavery helps us to make sense of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. Politically and morally we moderns find slavery abhorrent, and as a global society we have succeeded in legally abolishing it. But the logic of debt continues to push many participants in today’s economy close to the edge of slavery and sometimes over the edge; the legal and moral and political consensus starts to buckle. Globally we see a flourishing traffic in poverty-induced sex slavery and illicit organ harvesting. In the U.S., we see the political class weakening bankruptcy protections while consumer debt and student debt soar to crisis levels. And the poorest and most vulnerable in the U.S. are liable to be sucked into a burgeoning prison industrial complex whose work programs constitute de facto slavery. We do appear, as Graeber suggests, to be living in a period of transition; it remains to be seen whether the moral and legal sanctions against slavery will hold up under stress, and whether the debt burden that contributes to the stress can be moderated or eliminated in a timely fashion by policies like Basic Income.

Credit photo: CC Steve Rhodes

Greece budget proposal 2015

Introduction.

This budget does not take into account the debt problem. The author thinks that the only realistic way out of the crisis is to give a debt moratorium of 5 years and discuss that topic 3 years from now.

The depth of the Greek crisis is an opportunity to depart from the classical views regarding the organisation of a state, dating back to the 1950’s, to implement a system taking into account the two recent and biggest revolutions in mankind:

  1. the human brain aid (computers, pda ..) replacing in part the brain power of humans, like motors did replace the muscles of Man and horses 200 years ago.
  2. The word wide free and fast communication network.

Today, only 8% of the population is needed to produce everything: food, industrial products and buildings. The model of the fifties is “job-centric”. The model presented here is the model of 2015: it is based on distribution of purchasing power. Jobs will follow the purchasing power (the current doctrine is that we should create jobs to generate purchasing power), for those who are still thinking in terms of jobs.

Greece, like many other countries, has a long history leading to 2015, the age were machines largely replace man to produce goods. Any citizen has the right to benefit from the heritage of his country, which is now capable to produce all goods we need with just 8% of the population.

We have created a huge social capital. Every citizen should get a dividend from that capital. We call it the social dividend or “basic income”, an income where we don’t need to work for, just like rich people live from their heritage. All citizens get this social dividend. Some part in cash, some part in kind. The amount in cash depends on their age (see table in the budget).

The amount in kind is given in education checks, healthcare checks and “coaching” checks. Citizens choose their education, healthcare and coaching service provider who gets money from this “social dividend in kind” fund within the state budget.

Both education and healthcare will see drastic changes the coming years, due to aforementioned massive global revolutions. The country will witness an unprecedented increase in education and healthcare – entrepreneurs.

Those services may even attract customers from abroad.

Every citizen will have the right to be “coached”, which will help all citizens to address problems and opportunities in their lives. This coaching system will hugely reduce criminality and improve productivity.

Since working people will get a social dividend of 350 € per month, somebody earning 1100 € net now would have the same total income if he/she gets a net salary of 750 €. The basic income system makes labour less expensive for the employer, the employer being public or private.

That is why the in the budget figures, the cost for public servants, but also for education and healthcare looks so low: a part of their salary is paid, so to speak, by the social dividend.

social security social dividend : basic income
age cash cheques total number cash dividend coaching
€ pp pm € pp pm € pp pm billion €/year billion €/y billion €/y
0-17 75 50 125 2270000 2.0 1.4
18-25 250 50 300 1180000 3.5 0.7
26-60 350 50 400 5130000 21.5 3.1
61-67 400 50 450 1020000 4.9 0.6
68 + 500 50 550 1400000 8.4 0.8
11000000 40.4 6.6 47.0
sum
public service employees (remuneration on top of social dividend)
net € pp pm billion €/y
salary soc divid. total budget
national 1050 350 1400 100000 1.260
local 800 350 1150 100000 0.960
army 1050 350 1400 1000 0.013
police + 900 350 1250 100000 1.080
justice 1050 350 1400 10000 0.126 3.4
311000
Public investments and current purchases 16
Total public expenditure except loan repayments 66.5

 

Obviously, some assumptions have been made regarding numbers of people kept in public service and the reorganisation of public services relating to security (police, army, ..) which could be looked at in a different way. Education, healthcare and coaching are paid by the government through the social dividend in kind. The demand side remains “public” and fully subsidised. The “offer”–side becomes, to some extent, market driven. The cost is only 6.6 billion because a significant part of the cost of these salaries is paid through the basic income grant to the people working in those branches.

 

subsidised by social security cheques
education 800 500 1300 240000 2.304
healthcare 800 500 1300 240000 2.304
coaching 800 500 1300 200000 1.920 6.5

On the public income side, VAT is increased to 30% and collected better to move it from 14 to 24 billion €. Other consumption tax is increased from 10.7 to 15 billion € mainly by increasing prices for fuel and a new consumer tax on electricity of 10 eurocent per kwh should bring 4 billion €. Social security contributions are abolished. Payroll tax will be levied only above a net income -including basic income- of 1150 € per month . It is expected that the majority of the employees will not pay payroll taxes anymore. However, anything earned above that threshold will be taxed at 50%. We expect this tax to generate 14.4 billion €. Corporate income tax is replaced by corporate eco-tax. This is a tax on energy consumption mainly, but not exclusively. Taxes on property should generate more and a tax on financial transactions should bring another 1.5 billion €

TAXES PLAN NOW
Consumption billion €/y
   VAT 23 14
   Other 15 10.7
   tax on electricity 4
Labor
   sociial security levy 0 22
   personal income 14.4 13.5
Corporate/Wealth
   Corporate income 0 2.2
   Corporate ecotax 4
   Property 5 3.7
   Financial transaction taxes 1.5
Total 66.9 66.1