by Faun Rice | Feb 19, 2018 | News
Image by MaxPixel: Trakai Castle Lithuania
On December 6, 2017, Swedbank published a report on the Baltic Sea Region entitled “Heart-warming growth is a poor excuse to postpone reforms.” The report includes a chapter on Universal Basic Income, wherein the bank models the current economic feasibility of UBI in the Baltics.
Swedbank is a bank based in Stolkholm, Sweden. Its research arm publishes annual economic assessments of Baltic Sea region countries, which include Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The December 2017 report and executive summary focus primarily on Swedbank’s four main markets: Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
The report highlights a time when global economic growth has helped Baltic Sea region countries reach cyclical economic peaks. However, it states that geopolitics, and populism in particular, remain risks to further growth.
Swedbank suggests that rising income inequality, combined with fears about unemployment driven by automation and globalization, contribute to populism and need to be combatted in order to ensure sustainable economic growth. The report proposes that populism can be circumvented by socioeconomic policy that ensures that growth is inclusive (i.e., where prosperity is distributed equitably across all of a country’s economic classes).
As such, Swedbank’s report argues that this period of prosperity in the Baltic Region has created an ideal context for reform and investment in long-term economic wellbeing. The report delivers an in-depth analysis of the economies of Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, commenting on GDP growth and the potential to create new socioeconomic policies. It also targets specific needs in each country, referencing indicators based partially on the UN’s sustainable development goals.
Sweden scores higher than the Baltics on most of Swedbank’s UN SDG-based indicators. However, the report comments on the need for all identified countries to take the opportunity to enact policy reform.
Swedbank addresses Universal Basic Income as one potential option for reform that will reduce income inequality and encourage sustainable growth. The report concludes that UBI is currently unaffordable for the Baltics, but that elements of a basic or guaranteed income, introduced carefully, could come with numerous social benefits.
Swedbank in Lithuania. Credit to: Delfi
UBI: Current feasibility for the Baltic Region
Swedbank identifies several arguments for UBI, including the idea that it will increase income security and thus reduce fears around unemployment and job loss, along with suggestion that UBI solves or mitigates problems with existing social security systems. The argument that UBI will minimize bureaucratic costs associated with social security systems is less relevant in the Baltics, where only 1.2 to 2.1% of total “social protection” expenditure is administrative.
The report provides a summary overview of some of the questions associated with UBI implementation, such as its impact on employment and the economy, or the concern that it would negatively impact assistance given to the disabled or elderly.
Using 2015 data on government spending on social protections in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Swedbank evaluates the feasibility of a budget-neutral UBI in these countries. The report tries two different models, one in which old-age pensions are retained by the elderly, and the other in which pensions are included in the money redirected towards UBI. For each of these two scenarios, the report presents two further options: one wherein all residents of a country receive UBI, and another wherein children up to the age of 16 receive only 50% of adult UBI payments. Swedbank does not make any changes to tax revenue in these examples.
The report finds that, given existing budgets, UBI monthly payments to individuals would only reach 48-55% of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for each Baltic country, less if old-age pensions were retained for the elderly. A UBI at the poverty line, distributed to all residents equally, would require doubling social security budgets in Latvia and Estonia, or an 82% increase in Lithuania, becoming 20-25% of each country’s GDP.
While Swedbank concludes that a UBI is currently unaffordable in the Baltics, the report comments that some components of a “basic income model” might simplify and improve existing social security programs. The authors suggest that governments could improve their systems’ accessibility by eliminating means testing and other conditions currently in place for those trying to get support. They also propose that a gradual decrease in benefits, rather than a sharp removal once a person becomes employed, might help incentivize recipients to stay in the labour market.
Another alternative discussed is a “partial” guaranteed income delivered only to particular cohorts of people. For example, Lithuania has an existing program that provides lump-sum cash benefits to every child born, with no conditions placed upon family income.
More information at:
“Baltic Sea Report: Heart-warming growth is a poor excuse to postpone reforms,” Swedbank, December 6th 2017
“Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations
“Swedbank Macro Research: Baltic Archive,” Swedbank, February 2018
Vlada Stankūnienė and Aušra Maslauskaitė, “Family Policies: Lithuania (2015),” Population Europe Resource Finder & Archive, 2015
by Jurgen De Wispelaere | Feb 16, 2018 | News
ESPAnet is the leading comparative social policy conference in Europe. Jurgen De Wispelaere (Bath University) and Heikki Hiilamo (Helsinki University) are coordinating a stream on “The Political Economy of Basic Income: Opportunities, Constraints, Trajectories” for its upcoming conference on transformations of European welfare systems in Vilnius (Lithuania), on the 30th of August – 1st September 2018. The submission of papers ends on the 19th of March 2018.
The idea of granting each (adult) citizen an unconditional basic income, independent of means test or work requirement, has made major strides in recent policy debates across Europe. Several countries in Europe and North-America are experimenting with or planning basic income-inspired trials, while in other jurisdictions basic income is considered at the highest level of policy-making.
Mainstream policy actors embracing a proposal that until very recent was considered to be part of a radically utopian fringe raises a number of policy questions, which we expect the proposed abstracts to cover. What explains the current interest in the basic income proposal? Are we experiencing a genuine window of opportunity firmly embedding basic income into the policy process in mature welfare states, or are we instead witnessing a fad that is likely to fade when feasibility constraints are taken into account? What are the key policy determinants for understanding the feasibility and stability of basic income against the background of established institutions and policy configurations, as well as recent developments in European welfare states? Which social, economic and political factors affect the building of robust basic income constituencies and a stable political coalition across stakeholder groups and political actors? What challenges need to be overcome and which trajectories are most suited to pilot and/or institute a basic income? How must basic income models be adapted to accommodate political and institutional constraints? Does systematic variation in how different welfare regimes respond to political challenges explain the variation in basic income models under consideration?
This stream aims to advance the policy debate around basic income by critically examining these and related questions in the context of European welfare states. Our aim is to put the policy research into basic income on a firm theoretical and empirical footing, by selecting contributions that employ insights from recent welfare state and political economy research to examine aspects of basic income design and implementation. We are particularly interested in contributions that investigate novel aspects of and/or adopt novel methodologies in examining the political economy of basic income. We will also give priority to contributions that embrace a distinctively comparative focus to draw out the diversity of opportunities, constraints and trajectories in the basic income debate across European welfare states.
by Malcolm Torry | Feb 2, 2018 | Opinion
Discussion of alternatives to Citizen’s Basic Income are increasingly debated, so we are here publishing for the first time a paper prepared in 2015 for a consultation organised by some of the UK’s major charities on options for reforming the benefits system.
Introduction
This short article outlines three options for the reform of the UK’s tax and benefits system: Tax Credits, Negative Income Tax, and Citizen’s Basic Income.
The descriptions and discussions assume that both the tax unit and the benefit unit are the individual and not the household. The complexities related to household-based options would require additional description and discussion.
Tax Credits
( – real ones: not what the Government calls ‘tax credits’)
A credit is allocated to every individual. If someone is earning nothing, the full credit is paid. As earnings rise, the credit is withdrawn. At the point at which the credit is exhausted, Income Tax starts to be paid. (A Tax Credit that is withdrawn as unearned income rises is theoretically a possibility, but the administration would be even more complicated than for the version described here.)
In the diagram, the credit is worth £x per week. As earnings rise, the credit is withdrawn, so net income rises slower than earned income. At earnings of £y per week (the break-even point), the credit has all been withdrawn. Above this point, Income Tax is paid.
The diagram assumes that the rate at which the credit is withdrawn is the same as the tax rate. If the rates are different then the slope of line EF is different above and below earnings of £y per week.
Administration
The tax credit can be administered by the Government or by the employer. If the Government administers the Tax Credit, then the employer must provide regular and accurate earnings information to the Government, as with the current Universal Credit. If the employer administers the Tax Credit then, if someone moves between employers, their Tax Credit administration has to be transferred between employers. If they have a period of unemployment, then administration of the Tax Credit has to be handed to the Government and then on to the new employer. If someone has two employments, then the employers have to decide which of them will administer the Tax Credit. And if someone has occasional other earnings, then their employer needs to be informed so that the Tax Credit can be withdrawn accordingly.
If every working age adult receives the same Tax Credit then neither their employer nor the Government needs to know any personal details. If people in different circumstances receive different levels of Tax Credit then their employer and the Government will need to know individuals’ circumstances in order to allocate the correct credit.
Our current income tax system is cumulative. An annual amount of income is not taxed. Each week, or each month, the employer has to calculate how much tax to deduct so that, by the end of the year, the correct amount of tax has been deducted. With Tax Credits, the tax system would be non-cumulative. Each week, or each month, the correct amount of the Credit would need to be paid in addition to earnings, or no Credit would be paid and earnings would be taxed. A non-cumulative system requires a single tax rate, so anyone paying higher rate tax would need to pay additional Income Tax at the end of the tax year.
Negative Income Tax
Income Tax deducts money from earnings above an earnings threshold, and a Negative Income Tax pays money to the employee below the threshold: so a Negative Income Tax scheme functions in the same way as a Tax Credit scheme. The only difference is in the specification. A Tax Credit scheme specifies the amount to be paid out when there are no earnings, along with a withdrawal rate as earnings rise. For a Negative Income Tax, the threshold is specified along with tax rates above and below the threshold. If the rates above and below the threshold are the same, then for earnings below the threshold, the same amount is paid out for earnings of £z below the threshold as would be collected in tax on earnings of £z above the threshold.
As the system is essentially the same as a Tax Credit scheme, the same diagram applies. Different rates above and below the threshold would result in the EF having different slopes above and below earnings of £y per week. Administrative considerations would be the same as for Tax Credits.
Citizen’s Basic Income
A Citizen’s Basic Income is an unconditional income paid to every individual by the Government, and it is not withdrawn as earnings rise. Tax is paid on all or most earned income.
In the diagram, a Citizen’s Basic Income of £x per week is paid to everyone. All earnings are taxed. The line EF shows the net income.
(The diagram assumes that a single tax rate is charged on all earnings.)
Administration
The Government pays a Citizen’s Basic Income to every individual, the amount depending only on the person’s age ( – larger amounts could be paid to older people as a Citizen’s Pension, and lower amounts to children and young people). Employers would continue to administer Income Tax via PAYE as they do now.
(A variant is a Participation Income. This would require fulfilment of a ‘participation condition’ before receiving it. The graph would be the same as for Citizen’s Basic Income, but only for those receiving it. The participation conditions would need to be specified and each individual’s fulfilment of them would have to be monitored. This would result in considerable administrative complexity, and would also mean that many of a Participation Income’s effects would be closer to those of means-tested benefits than to those of a Citizen’s Basic Income.)
Comparison
Negative Income Tax, Tax Credits, and Citizen’s Basic Income, all generate the same net income diagram, so all three schemes would reduce marginal deduction rates (the total rate of withdrawal of additional income), would incentivize employment, and would enable families to more easily to earn their way out of poverty.
The differences between the schemes are administrative.
(For more detailed discussion of all of these options see Malcolm Torry, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 214-230.)
by Andre Coelho | Feb 1, 2018 | News
The London School of Economics (LSE) will host a Basic Income day event on Tuesday, 20th of February 2018.
This event will join several experts to discuss political feasibility, funding mechanisms and costing of basic income, in the morning session. On the afternoon, a roundtable will take place, featuring representatives of several basic income pilot projects and experiments worldwide. Among these pilot projects, findings from the Namibia, India and Kenya cases will be discussed, as well as analysis from the US and Canadian experiments in the 1970s. Other initiatives, ongoing or in preparation, will also be referred, such as in the Netherlands and Scotland.
A wide range of academics, researchers, activists and officials (namely from the United Nations Development Programme) will be present, such as Hartley Dean, Anne Miller, Sarath Davala, Evelyn Forget, Olli Kangas and Michael Cooke, to name a few.
Information and registration can be accessed at the event’s webpage.
More information at:
Citizen’s Income Trust Newsletter, January 2018
by Faun Rice | Jan 26, 2018 | News
In a July 2017 televised Town Hall with KCET, Economic Security Project co-chairs Chris Hughes and Natalie Foster were asked about the principles of a Universal Basic Income. Public questions from Facebook were delivered by the moderator, the first common concern of which was: should we “give everybody a Basic Income,” even the lazy and wealthy?
Foster took the question and responded with a “yes,” commenting that a universal policy “had more political resiliency” (programs with universal access would attract more support), and that shifting economic situations for the American middle class suggested that support for everyone was logical. She clarified that a Basic Income, whatever the size, is intended to be delivered to everyone with “no strings attached.”
Hughes followed up during a second question on the affordability of Basic Income. He commented that a program could be made more affordable by starting small and scaling up, by, for example, beginning with small monthly payments of $200 to American adults (not quite universal, but not means tested), between the ages of 18 and 64, placing the brunt of the tax burden for this measure on wealthy Americans or in a carbon tax. Hughes also compared Basic Income’s feasibility to existing social security programs.
More recently, Hughes’ new book, Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn (February 2018), will propose a guaranteed income of $500 per month for working adults whose households earn less than $50,000 annually, with the same provided for students and unpaid caregivers.
Hughes’ book is promoted by but independent of the Economic Security Project, “a network committed to advancing the debate on unconditional cash and basic income in the United States.” Their purview includes, but is not limited to, a Universal Basic Income (UBI), as defined by BIEN: “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.”
Chris Hughes. Credit to: SpeakerHub
The version of guaranteed income that Hughes promotes is very different from that espoused by others at ESP, such as senior fellow Andy Stern, whose 2016 book Raising The Floor makes a case for UBI, because a test based on household income and employment is not the same as giving every individual an unconditional Basic Income. Ongoing coverage of guaranteed income experiments has shown that many governments and organizations follow the same trend as Hughes, pursuing studies that offer cash payments that are means-tested, based on employment status, or revoked when income or employment status exceed minimum limits. Several Dutch experiments encountered obstacles to implementing a UBI pilot not just in public opinion but also in federal compliance issues. UBI proponents may face pressure to give money only to the worthy, and to define that worthiness socioeconomically.
The idea that a guaranteed income is best directed at the poor (and more specifically the working poor) is reiterated in Hughes’ press release email for Fair Shot:
As I write in the book, I’m the first to recognize how lucky I got early in life, but I’ve come to believe this luck doesn’t come from nowhere. We’ve created an economy that creates a small set of fortunate one percenters while making it harder and harder for poor and middle-class people to make ends meet. But we also have a proven tool to beat back against economic injustice—recurring cash payments, directly to the people who need them most. A guaranteed income for working people would provide financial security to all Americans and lift 20 million people out of poverty overnight. It would cost less than half of what we spend on defense a year.
The question raised by the KCET Facebook commentators about ESP’s proposal to give money to “everyone” reflects the same ongoing public concerns that some have about welfare and social programs. It asks for beneficiaries to prove that they are worthy in order to receive public money, and it raises the suspicion that recipients will be lazy or will not attempt to re-enter the workforce. Hughes’ new message in Fair Shot attempts to counteract this by arguing that the beneficiaries are worthy: they are employed, hard working, and “need it most.” He thus reassures the reader that the recipients are deserving.
In contrast, the answer given by Foster in the July 2017 town hall promoted a “no strings attached” UBI. The Economic Security project and associated individuals encourage research and debate around Basic Income and guaranteed incomes; the parameters of upcoming affiliated projects like the Stockton Demonstration (yet to be fully released at this time) suggest an interest both in UBI and in guaranteed income systems.
More information at:
KCET Facebook feed, ‘Town Hall Los Angeles: Q&A with Chris Hughes and Natalie Foster’, KCET Broadcast and Media Production Company, 26th July 2017
Chris Hughes , ‘Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn’, FairShotBook.com (‘Amazon Review: Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn’, Amazon.com)
‘Kirkus Review’, KirkusReviews.com, 24th December 2017
Kate McFarland, ‘NEW BOOK: Raising the Floor by Andy Stern’, Basic Income News, 11th June 2016
Andy Stern, ‘Moving towards a universal basic income’, The World Bank.org Jobs and Development Blog, 4th December 2016
Kate McFarland, ‘Overview of Current Basic Income Related Experiments (October 2017)’, Basic Income News, 19th October 2017
