by Hilde Latour | Jul 17, 2017 | News
Investopedia published an article in May this year, “The Long, Weird History of Basic Income – And Why It’s Back”
In this article, written by David Floyd, the history of support of UBI is described from the period of hunter-gatherer societies and how the networks in those societies took care of people who could not provide themselves with a basic standard of living. The article then describes how agriculture and urbanization made an end to such networks and how problems were not handled well by the institutions that took the place of the original networks, referring to Charles Eastman who described this problem in 1915.
Thomas Paine was one of the famous people who noticed the creation of poverty, caused by cultivation, which did not exist before. He was the first to propose a UBI (Paine called it a “groundrent”) in the late 18th century, as a compensation for the dispossession of the majority of inhabitants of their natural inheritance. Cole first used the term Basic Income in 1953.
From Paine, via Henry George, Huey Long, G.D.H. Cole, Martin Luther King, Mc Govern and Nixon, the current boost of support for UBI in the 21st century is explained as a reaction to poverty and inequality, predominantly used as an argument by proponents on the left political spectrum, and inefficiency of the welfare state, used as an argument on the right wing.
In addition to the political perspective, a distinction between “reformers” and “futurists”, which cross-cuts left and right, is described in further depth.
The group of “reformers” is described as a group of basic income supporters who is mostly concerned with addressing problems in society as it is now, mostly caused by the broken welfare system, such as:
- “Employment traps” (where people are kept form leaving their job out of fear and bad employers are supported as a result of that)
- “Unemployment traps” (“earn a dollar from work, lose a dollar in benefits”)
- “Welfare cliffs” (where the effect tax on additional income even exceeds 100%)
- Stigma associated with public benefits
- Bureaucratic inefficiency
The group of “futurists” is described as supporters who see technological unemployment as a main threat in the future and offer basic income as a solution or who see a basic income as a cornerstone of an eventual utopia.
The two main criticisms of a universal basic income are its cost and the expectation that it would reduce or eliminate incentives to work.
This discussion is described with calculations of “The Economist” and views of Bill Gates, Karl Widerquist, Guy Standing, Philippe van Parijs and others. Brief attention is given to Alaska’s “Permanent Fund Dividend” and the outcome of experiments, such as Manitoba and India. Furthermore, the definition of ‘work’ is discussed, the effects of UBI on poverty and even the experiments in Finland, Oakland and Ontario get attention.
Floyd summarizes his article with a question: “Could doing away with poverty, sweeping away patronizing bureaucracy, neutralizing the threat of mass unemployment and increasing the value society places on worthwhile, but unprofitable, pursuits really be as simple as handing everyone cash?” He then uses Confusius’ quote to guide us towards the answer:
“The way out is through the door.”
Info and links
Full article at investopedia.com
Photo: Money! by Hans Splinter, CC-BY-SA 2.0
Special thanks to Dave Clegg for reviewing this article
by Benjamin Sadlek | Jul 16, 2017 | News
(Former Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor speaking at the American Enterprise Institute. Credit to: The Washington Post)
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, released a piece of research in late May, which was an attempt to analyze the effect of the implementation of a universal basic income (UBI) on the current American social welfare system.
The proposal has been released as a working paper, meaning in this case a preliminary research paper with incomplete considerations, but a base model nonetheless to move forward with and make improvements.
The Basic Proposal
The paper’s proposal is a budget-neutral form of a UBI, meaning instead of implementing a basic income in addition to the existing American social welfare system; most existing programs like Medicaid, Veteran’s Benefits, and Social Security for the elderly over 65 are repealed and replaced with a UBI. Using data from the Federal government’s budget outlays from 2014, the paper finds that the repeal of large programs in America would yield about $2.54 trillion dollars. In addition to this, the proposal repeals 23 different tax benefits like the Student Loan interest deduction and Earned Income Tax credit, bringing in more revenue and freeing up a grand total of about $3.21 trillion for a UBI.
With additional taxes coming in from the UBI itself, and increased tax liabilities on all income tax brackets, the proposal finances and prescribes a basic income of $13,788 for individuals over the age of 18 and $6,894, or half the income of adults, for individuals under the age of 18.
Using Federal government tax data, the paper analysis the net benefit gain or loss by tax bracket and age. Using the parameters described, the findings show that some of the most adversely affected by this system are in the lowest tax bracket ($0-$10,000). This is unsurprising, because many of the programs this proposal had repealed to finance the basic income are concentrated on this tax bracket.
Another group adversely affected by this proposal are individuals 65 and older, also because their benefits, such as Social Security, have been repealed and distributed among the rest of the population. When excluding age groups of 65 and older, however, nearly all tax brackets see a net benefit in this proposal, with the brackets seeing the greatest benefits being those in the middle.
Assessing the Real Value of Welfare Dollars
The second section of the paper attempts to add in the variable of welfare multiples to estimate the real cost and benefit to this proposal. Welfare multiples try to calculate the value of each dollar the government spends to the value by the welfare recipient for each government welfare program. The value of the welfare recipient comes from the idea that funds allocated by a government program are not always as valuable as cash (for example, if a family receives funds allocated for food by SNAP, but would rather use a portion of those funds for other purposes). A good government program would have a welfare multiple close to 1, while a bad government program would have a welfare multiple closer to 0.
Essentially, this section attempts to use welfare multiples to assess the gains in efficiency made in eliminating government waste by allowing people to spend the money how they see fit, or giving them a cash payment as they would have with a basic income.
The paper draws from current literature that estimates the welfare multiple of some government programs, but the authors admit to having to estimate others (see referenced literature for welfare multiples in working paper). They range from more wasteful programs like Medicaid (around .30, as used by this proposal) to less wasteful programs like Veteran’s Benefits (around .95, as used by this proposal). The literature on welfare multiples shows that there are various estimates on how effective these programs are, and therefore other authors may come up with slightly different welfare multiples. The ones employed by the authors in this proposal are an approximation based on different estimates.
When adding the welfare multiples into the equation, the net loss in benefits for the lowest tax bracket is reduced by about $4 thousand dollars per tax unit, though there is still a net loss in benefits. In addition, benefit losses to the tax brackets aged 65 and older are decreased, but by a lower margin than the lowest tax bracket as the welfare multiple is higher for these government programs. This means that the greatest increase in efficiency by implementing a UBI would be in the lowest tax bracket.
Review of the Findings
The important findings in this proposal from the American Enterprise Institute show that, if a UBI were to merely replace the existing social welfare system in the United States, by repealing existing welfare programs and tax benefits, there would be an overall redistributive impact from the old to the young, and from the poor to the middle class; though there would be a gain in efficiency overall.
Again, this is not a surprising finding as the goal of redistributive programs in America is to allocate taxpayer dollars mainly to the poor and the elderly. Some programs allocate funds too stringently, as the welfare multiples try to demonstrate, and sometimes it may be better for a welfare recipient to merely receive a cash payment. While in this proposal of a UBI the overall efficiency is increased, it does not compensate for the net loss in benefits to the poor and the elderly.
It is worth noting that the American Enterprise Institute espouses classical liberal values of entrepreneurship and free enterprise, as expressed on their website. One of their main interests in exploring a UBI, therefore, is to eliminate government waste, but this may also mean increasing the freedom of welfare recipients to make financial decisions that make sense to them.
One area the paper could do better in is to explain with detail how the repeal of tax provisions increased tax liabilities for different brackets and age groups. In their base model, to help finance the UBI, the paper repealed several tax provisions, which brought the average tax liability for the second tax bracket ($10,000-$20,000) to around $6,714, or on average 45% of their income. The average increase in tax liability for the tax bracket of $200 thousand to $1 million, on the other hand, is $28,425, or on average 4% of their income. The increase in tax liability that helps finance this proposal, therefore, is falling mainly on the lower tax brackets and individuals over 65.
In future research, proposals like this could examine the current tax code with more detail, and how it could be restructured to help finance a UBI. Because most of the new tax burden in this proposal seems to be falling on the lowest tax brackets and the elderly, there should be a conversation about who needs to be bearing the new tax burden, and how much that should be.
Notably, the paper admits that it does not take into account behavioral changes that would take place with the implementation of UBI. Proposals like this could potentially include insights from other basic income projects like the Mincome experiment in Canada, which revealed increases in high school graduation rates, and a drop of health care costs.
It is fair to be wary of the intentions of the AEI in releasing this working paper, but clearly a fair amount of effort was put into it, and it appears to be an honest inquiry into the subject. Finally, it is worth saying that the proposal is only a particular vision of a basic income, one that may not agree with many other visions, but research such as this may nonetheless come across some useful insights.
More information at:
https://www.aei.org/publication/a-budget-neutral-universal-basic-income/
by BIEN | Jul 15, 2017 | News
Credit to: AT Kearney.
Courtney McCaffrey and others from AT Kearney published an article on the debate around Universal Basic Income (UBI) in markets throughout the world. Politicians, in both Europe and North America, are winning on campaign trails with talk about returning control to the common people from the economic system in the globe.
But one of the big worker displacers is automation and new technologies. Oxford University reported 47% of US jobs will be taken over by automation in the next two decades. A UBI is being offered as an economic buffer for such workplace and technology transitions.
Such a UBI would be universal and unconditional in the application. Past UBI experiments such as Mincome in Canada, projects in Seattle and Denver (USA), and Namibia produced real, positive results empowering those politicians. McCaffrey and her collegues also mention recent major endorsements for UBI, for instance from such luminaries as Elon Musk, Tim O’Reilly, and Marc Andreessen.
Two books are recommended: 1) Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman, and 2) Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght. Other notable cases reported on were Finland, India, and Ontario.
The article discusses pros and cons of UBI, in a general sense. It was noted that citizens with a UBI will spend more time on family and school. The sources of funding for the UBI could be revenues from natural resources and/or more taxes. Some views of critics are following their own political lines, but the major concern revolves around people’s availability to work when they get a UBI covering their basic needs.
Finally, the article summarizes views agains UBI on the political Right and Left. On the Right, the main argument is cost. On the political Left, detractors view UBI as “regressive” because it could dismantle current welfare systems, and that it may not capture different living costs in different areas.
More information at:
McCaffrey, C.R., Toland, T. & Peterson, E.R., “The Best Things in Life Are Free?“, AT Kearney, March 2017
by Kate McFarland | Jul 11, 2017 | News
The end of June saw the proliferation of rumors that a basic income experiment would be launched in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. While such rumors were inaccurate, a political coalition in the state has called to further research basic income.
The June 25th edition of the newspaper Flensburger Tageblatt, the daily newspaper of the city of Flensburg in Schleswig-Holstein, heralded the purported plans of the state government to introduce an experiment of basic income. The paper quoted Robert Habeck, Green Party leader and future minister of environment, as saying that “we want to test a basic income from the government side and propose Schleswig-Holstein as a model region.” It further claimed that a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Free Democratic Party (FDP), and Green Party backed the demand for a test of a basic income.
The article fueled rumors, widely disseminated through basic income social media channels, that Schleswig-Holstein is preparing to launch a basic income experiment.
This announcement, however, was premature. Despite Habeck’s support, a basic income experiment Schleswig-Holstein remains at best a remote future possibility. In fact, the coalition agreement signed in between the CDU, FDP, and Greens does not call for an experiment or pilot study of basic income. Instead, calls only for the establishment of a “laboratory for the future” (“Zukunftslabor”) to research and assess new forms of social protection, a basic income being one.
Arguably, the coalition agreement’s proposed “laboratory for the future” does signal progress toward the investigation of a basic income in Schleswig-Holstein. However, the reality is far more modest than originally rumored.
No German UBI Experiments So Far..
Shortly prior to the first rumors of a basic income pilot in Schleswig-Holstein, the State Legislature of Hawai’i passed a bill that created a working group to study a universal basic income among other possible policies to provide the state’s residents with economic security. This generated a spate of media attention for basic income — but, as usual, not all reports were entirely accurate. Some news reports on the legislation, identified Germany (in addition to Finland and, soon, Canada) as a country that is already “testing” a basic income.
The claim may have originated in an article published in Business Insider and Futurism, which cites an article about the startup Mein Grundeinkommen as its source. This is misleading: Mein Grundeinkommen is a private effort, not a governmental one, and it merely awards year-long “basic incomes” of €1000 per month to individuals chosen by lottery. The startup’s work benefits randomly selected individuals while increasing awareness of basic income — and, in these aims, the project been highly successful. Mein Grundeinkommen has distributed year-long “basic incomes” to 94 individuals (and counting), and each drawing continues to generate media publicity. However, although anecdotes from individuals are sometimes presented as evidence regarding the effects of a basic income, the project should not be confused for an experiment.
Currently, no basic income experiment is being conducted in Germany — and, so far, no developments in Schleswig-Holstein have changed this fact.
More information on the alleged Schleswig-Holstein pilot:
Lea Hampel, “Jamaika-Koalition flirtet mit dem Grundeinkommen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, June 27, 2017 (in German).
“North German state weighs up introducing unconditional basic income,” The Local, June 27, 2017.
Ronald Heinrich, “Grundeinkommen in Schleswig-Holstein? – Reality Check,” Huffpost, June 30, 2017 (in German).
Photo (Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein) CC BY-SA 2.0 Rüdiger Stehn
by Pedro Alves | Jul 6, 2017 | News
Picture: credit to Radar.
In the Netherlands, the program Radar started a petition to persuade the government to give a basic income for people over 55 years old as an experiment. While a pilot is required to go through with it, only 3% of people nowadays get a full-time job at this age range.
The experiment could consist of 2000 people in the treatment group and 2000 people in the control group. In more than 100 comments and reactions to this petition, no one was against the initiative. The overall comments actually reflected the amount to pay, as state the following examples:
“I’m single and then 1000 euros is not enough if the surcharges are gone” (single mother)
“I totally agree (…) The basic income. 1000 or even 1500 € is insufficient at the current level of all fixed charges.”
“Scandalous to those who have served for more than 35 years with a boss and after almost 1000 job applications do not get started. He does voluntary work of sometimes more than 40 hours a week. We will be milked out…. If this continues, many people do not see the meaning of their life again and then wonder how they are. Government, shame on you!!”.
“I agree … I have signed because it’s a start, but 1000 € (…) absolutely not feasible to get around and certainly not when all surcharges disappear (…) When determining amounts, we must remain realistic. The witch hunt for compulsory job application must also be on the slope and quickly as well”.
The documentary video can me watched at the following link (in Dutch).
More information at:
[in Dutch]
Radar, “Petitie basisinkomen 55-plussers al ruim 50.000 keer ondertekend [Basic Income petition for people over 55 years old was signed more than 50000 times]”, Radar, June 2nd 2017
