by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 16, 2016 | Bios & background Info
Biography
Tyler Prochazka was born in Kansas. In high school, he got involved in competitive policy debate, which spiked his interest in government policy. In 2010, Western Kentucky University’s speech and debate team recruited him to compete on the team. Prochazka received degrees with honors in Economics, International Affairs and Asian Religions and Cultures. His honors’ thesis was a comparative analysis of Chinese and American youth political perceptions. While at WKU, he also learned Mandarin and studied abroad in China three times.
Prochazka has participated in research fellowships and internships at the American Enterprise Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis and Rand Paul’s (R-Kentucky) Bowling Green Senate office. Currently, Prochazka is completing a Master’s degree in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan through the Fulbright scholarship.
Advocacy
Prochazka’s interest in the basic income began while attending WKU, where he started reading about the libertarian case for a basic income in Reason magazine. In the summer of 2015, Prochazka started volunteering for the Basic Income Earth Network after watching a documentary featuring Guy Standing.
Since 2016, Prochazka has been the features editor for BI News. He has concentrated much of his research on the feasibility and implications of implementing a basic income in Asia Pacific countries. For his WKU economics thesis, Prochazka conducted an economic analysis of the minimum income guarantee in China (dibao) and the prospects of replacing the dibao with a universal basic income.
While studying in Taiwan, Prochazka is working with the Taiwanese basic income organization to plan events and promote the concept in the Asia Pacific. Prochazka also helps run the Facebook page Libertarians for Basic Income.
Capitalism and Basic Income
One of the appeals of basic income, Prochazka argues, is the positive economic impact it would have, especially as a replacement to the current welfare state. It would dramatically lower bureaucracy costs and lower effective tax rates for low-income individuals, allowing these individuals to work more if they choose.
A basic income has the potential to open the market place for everyone, making finding suitable jobs and starting businesses easier. Prochazka believes that if libertarians are serious about expanding and sustaining the free market, a basic income is a necessary step.
Media references
Article cited in Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party, CNN, 2016
Interviewed at New Taipei City Festival, Taiwan, 2016
Referenced in WKU sees record success in national scholarships, WBKO ABC News, 2016
Featured in WKU debaters visit Plano Elementary, BG Daily, 2013
Non-BIEN Publications
Would the Lee-Rubio Tax Plan Help Lower-Income Households?, National Center for Policy Analysis, 2015
The World in Transition: A Comparative Analysis of Youth Perceptions in China and America, WKU Honors Thesis, 2015
When you click Accept: concerns over new IT policy spark debate, WKU Herald, 2013
by Kate McFarland | Dec 11, 2016 | News
Since May 2016, the Institute for Policy Research (IPR) at the University of Bath has been conducting an ongoing project investigating the design, effects, and implementation of different universal basic income proposals for the UK.
The project, Examining the Case for a Basic Income, includes a series of lectures, workshops, and other events. Its most recent event was a public lecture by Citizen’s Income Trust Director Malcolm Torry on the state of the basic income debate.
The next event associated with the project, which will take place on Tuesday, December 13, is an academic-oriented workshop led by IPR Research Associate Luke Martinelli and Visiting Policy Fellow Jurgen De Wispelaere (also Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Tampere). The goal of Tuesday’s workshop, Basic Income and the European Welfare State, is to “situate the feasibility and institutional ‘fit’ of different basic income schemes within the literatures of the comparative welfare state and comparative social policy”.
Taking as a starting point that European welfare states face common and diverse challenges (in terms of labour market, demographic and social changes that lead to new profiles of poverty and insecurity, for example), the aim of the session will be to consider the ways in which these challenges present both opportunities and difficulties for basic income as a policy solution, how these vary from country to country, and how different ‘varieties’ of basic income arise when we consider the political and institutional feasibility of schemes in specific contexts.
In addition to a presentation by Martinelli and De Wispelaere, the event will feature a talk by BIEN Co-Chair Louise Haagh (University of York), entitled “Basic Income, Welfare States and Institutional Change: Insights from Europe”, and a roundtable discussion highlighting the different perspectives on welfare state from five different countries. Roundtable participants include Haagh, representing Denmark; Fran Bennet (University of Oxford), representing the UK; Loek Groot (University of Utrecht), representing the Netherlands; Pertti Koistinen (University of Tampere), representing Finland; Jose A. Noguera (Autonomous University of Barcelona), representing Spain.
Each session will include a period of open discussion with the audience, which is expected to consist of academics with research interests or expertise in comparative welfare states.
Details about the Basic Income and the European Welfare State workshop are available here: https://www.bath.ac.uk/ipr/events/news-0264.html.
The IPR’s Examining the Case for a Basic Income project is planning more events for the future, as well as a release of papers for public distribution in spring 2017.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Shawn Harquail
by Kate McFarland | Nov 29, 2016 | News
A basic income pilot in Scotland is appearing ever more likely in light of meetings in the council area of Fife and city of Glasgow held in late November.
Interest in basic income has been growing in Scotland in 2016. In March, the country’s largest political party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), passed a motion supporting basic income. In May, interest in the idea was further stoked when Professor Guy Standing, co-founder of BIEN and Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, delivered the Angus Millar Lecture for the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Scotland. Standing’s lecture, which focused on the topic of a basic income for Scotland, was followed by a roundtable event involving civil servants of the Scottish government, local authorities, and members of think tanks and community groups.
These discussions eventuated in the scheduling of multiple BI-related events in November, timed to coincidence with Standing’s return to Scotland to give the Kilbrandon Lecture at the University of Strathclyde. These included two meetings on basic income pilots — one with the Fife Council, the other with the Glasgow City Council — in addition to the official launch of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (CBINS), BIEN’s Scottish affiliate.
Fife Council Meeting
On Friday, November 25, the Fife Council held a roundtable event in Dunfermline to discuss ideas for a pilot in the council area.
The event brought together councillors, civil servants, members of CBINS, and other individuals interested in basic income.
Standing attended the meeting and delivered an overview of pilots conducted in other parts of the world and their potential implications for Scotland. Following Standing’s presentation, participants discussed next steps toward implementing a pilot, and decided to convene a group to carry out an initial feasibility study in early 2017. Then, if the group determines that sufficient funding can be secured, it will move forward with a formal design process.
Jamie Cooke, head of RSA Scotland, also participated in the meeting. Commenting on the progress made in planning the pilot, he says, “This is a significant step forward for basic income in Scotland, giving a very realistic chance of a pilot taking place in Scotland within the next couple of years.”
The Fairer Fife Commission, an independent commission created by the Fife Council, initially recommended a basic income pilot in a report published in November 2015, where it was one of 40 policy recommendations for achieving a “fairer Fife” by 2030. Specifically, it encouraged the Fife Partnership, Fife’s community planning board, to select a town in the council area in which to run a pilot informed by global best practice (e.g., at the time the report was written, the pilot devised by the Dutch city of Utrecht). The pilot was included among the Commission’s anti-poverty proposals, which otherwise focused largely on promoting work and employment.
Glasgow City Council Meeting
Glasgow City Council building, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 小豪豪 Wu
Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, is also considering a basic income pilot.
On Thursday, November 24, the Glasgow City Council convened a meeting to discuss ideas for the city.
According to Cooke, discussions at this meeting demonstrated that the city has “a more developed and enthusiastic support for basic income” than advocates had previously realized, and the council agreed to continue to look into the idea.
Speaking at the launch of CBINS on Saturday, November 26, Glasgow Councillor Matt Kerr announced that the council had instructed its officers to begin researching and designing a local pilot study.
More Information
Fairer Fife Commission (November 2015) “Fairness Matters”
Report proposing a basic income pilot as one strategy to address poverty in Fife.
Kathleen Nutt (November 22, 2016) “Trial for a basic income for all may go ahead in Scotland,” The National.
Initial media announcement in advance of the Dunfermline meeting on a basic income pilot for Fife.
Thanks to Jamie Cooke at RSA Scotland for much of the information contained in this article.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
Cover Photo: Castle and walled garden in Pittenweem, Fife, CC BY 2.0 Glen Bowman.
by Kate McFarland | Nov 23, 2016 | Research
Malcolm Torry, director of the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) and co-secretary of BIEN, has prepared a report on implementing a citizen’s income (i.e. a basic income for UK citizens) for the Institute for Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW).
Malcolm Torry (picture: Citizen’s Income Trust)
In a report written for ICAEW’s opinion column, its “Outside Insights“ series, Torry develops four different proposals to implement a basic income guarantee wherein weekly cash grants are disbursed in equal amounts to all adult UK citizens. (As mentioned below, however, two of the proposals recommend that the government move toward a universal basic income by first introducing equal and unconditional cash transfers within certain subpopulations.)
As is common in the UK, Torry refers to the policy as a “citizen’s income”, which he defines as “an unconditional, non-withdrawable income, paid automatically to every individual as a right of citizenship” — or, roughly, a universal basic income for citizens. (Here, I will use the terms ‘basic income’, ‘UBI’, and ‘citizen’s income’ interchangeably.)
On Torry’s proposals, the amount of the payouts would be the same for all citizens, regardless of earnings, although higher earners might be taxed more heavily. This is slight but notable difference from the form of basic income guarantee under consideration by the government of Ontario, for example, which is planning to test a model wherein the amount of the cash grants is tapered off with earnings (that is, a negative income tax).
The ICAEW report briefly addresses several common objections to basic income, and reviews the types of “feasibility” analyzed in detail in Torry’s book, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, published earlier in the year –including (to use his terms) financial, psychological, behavioral, administrative, political, and policy-process feasibility.
A Citizen’s Income: Four Schemes
Against this background, Torry investigates four specific models for implementing a basic income:
1. The first proposal is to introduce a universal basic income at a level at least as high as the UK’s current benefit cap, which would replace current means-tested social assistance. Torry notes that this scheme would be most feasible in a highly automated economy, in which a portion of the proceeds on machine production could be used to fund the citizen’s income, and wherein any potential work disincentive effects of the UBI would be benign to the economy. However, he does not believe that it is currently financially feasible, since financing it would require either massive increases in income tax rates or additional sources of revenue.
2. The second proposal is to introduce a smaller level of UBI (e.g. £60 per week for working age adults) without abolishing current means-tested benefits. Under this scheme, the government would take account of the amount of income received through the UBI when determining eligibility for additional social welfare benefits. Torry states that this scheme could be funded by a 3% increase in income taxes. However, he hypothesizes that it would be unpopular (psychologically infeasible) due to the redistribution of money from income earners to other working-age adults.
3. The third proposal is to phase in a UBI by gradually introducing it to successive age-cohorts of young adult. Torry recommends that the government begin with a universal child benefit £45 per week per child under the age of 16, and a citizen’s income of £60 per week for each person 16 years of age. The latter would then retain the citizen’s income in subsequent years, while those who turn 16 would begin to receive it.
Torry notes that, without additional pressure to implement a fully universal basic income, it could take 40 to 50 years for the entire population to receive the unconditional benefits. However, he believes that it is one of the most feasible options (on all dimensions of feasibility).
4. The fourth and final proposal, which Torry also considers to be relatively feasibility, is to phase in a UBI in the opposite age-wise direction: beginning by introducing the benefit to “pre-retired” adults (e.g. those over age 60) who voluntarily opt into the program.
The ICAEW has more than 147,000 members worldwide from the finance professions. The organization itself does not take an official stand on citizen’s income.
Read More:
The full report is available for download from the ICAEW website: Malcolm Torry, “How might we implement a citizen’s income?“
The CIT has also published a blog post summarizing the results of the report: Citizen’s Income Trust (November 16, 2016) “ICAEW report on implementing Citizen’s Income”
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Cover image: “Chartered Accountant’s Hall” CC BY-SA 2.0 R4vi
by Kate McFarland | Nov 22, 2016 | News
Former MEP Christian Engström has written a “concrete proposal” for a basic income guarantee in Sweden. Originally published online only in Swedish, Engström’s paper is now available in English.
Christian Engström, a former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for the Swedish Pirate Party, has prepared a detailed proposal for an unconditional guaranteed income of 900 EUR (8333 SEK) per month, tax-free, for every Swedish resident between the ages of 19 and 65.
The basic income would replace Sweden’s current social assistance programs, student aid, and unemployment benefits, but no other government-funded programs. Disability and sickness benefits, child benefits, and the state pension would remain in place.
Engström’s basic income guarantee is designed as a negative income tax rather than as a universal grant, with the amount of the grant tapering off as the recipient earns income. Specifically, Engström proposes a 33% income tax with a reduction of the basic income grant by the same amount. (For example, someone who makes 300 EUR would pay 100 EUR in income taxes, and see their basic income lowered by 100 EUR, but would still net 100 EUR.)
Engström proposes no increase in income taxes, and points out that 33% is Sweden’s current normal marginal tax rate for low- and middle-income earners.
The basic income grant would be financed in part through money saved on the social assistance programs to be replaced. The rest of the funds, according to Engström’s proposal, would come from eliminating certain industry-specific discounts on value-added tax (VAT), such as those enjoyed in the food and restaurant industry.
In presenting his specific plan, Engström is motivated by concerns about political feasibility. He states that, ultimately, he would prefer a higher level for the guaranteed minimum income–and that his “concrete” proposal might be seen as an initial step toward bigger and more refined variants of the basic income:
“I hope that in time we will see a basic income of maybe 1,100€ or more in Sweden. But it is not strictly necessary to start at such a high level. It is enough that the basic income is livable, and not lower than today’s social assistance benefits. Then we can introduce the new system, which is the big and complicated step. Once we have done that, and can see in practice how it works and what it costs, we can continue improving the basic income through the ordinary political process.”
To date, basic income has received little mainstream political support in Sweden — unlike neighboring Finland, where an experiment on the effects of an unconditional basic income will begin next year.
Read the details of Engström’s proposal in the full report, available here:
Christian Engström “Basic Income: A concrete and financed proposal for basic income in Sweden“.
Video of Engström presenting his proposal at Finland’s International Basic Income Seminar in Turku, August 2016.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Stockholm photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Stina Stockholm
