by Sarath Davala | Dec 17, 2021 | News
“The Executive Committee of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) which is a global network of social scientists and others studying basic income models across the world, appreciates and salutes Mr. Lee Jae-myung for proposing in his manifesto in the context of the forthcoming Presidential elections in March-April 2022, a progressive and feasible basic income model for the Republic of Korea, one that would assist humanity in the march against global inequality and global warming.
A Basic Income successfully implemented in the Republic of Korea would provide her people with a secure layer of income, would enhance opportunities for education about Basic Income around the world, and would provide significant opportunities for research about the desirability, feasibility, and implementation of a Basic Income system.
It would improve the status and economic position of women and youth and establish the Republic of Korea as a resilient society able to deal well with future pandemics and other economic shocks. If implemented successfully, this model will stand as an example worthy of emulation across the world.”
(Korean Translation)
“전 세계적으로 기본소득 모델을 연구하는 사회과학자들 등으로 이루어진 기본소득지구네트워크 (BIEN) 집행위원회는 다가올 대통령 선거에서 이재명 후보가 대한민국에서 진보적이고 실현 가능한 기본소득 모델을 공약으로 제안한 것에 대해 환영하며 경의를 표한다. 이 제안은 전 지구적 불평등과 지구 온난화에 맞서는 노력에서 인류에게 도움이 될 것이다.
대한민국에서 기본소득이 성공적으로 실시된다면 대한민국 사람들은 소득의 한 층을 보장받게 될 것이며, 전 세계적으로는 기본소득에 관한 교육의 기회를 확대할 것이며, 기본소득제의 바람직함, 실현 가능성, 실행 등에 관해 중요한 연구의 기회를 가지게 될 것이다.
이 기본소득 모델은 여성과 청년의 지위 및 경제적 처지를 개선할 것이며, 대한민국이 장래의 팬데믹과 기타 경제적 충격을 감당할 수 있는 탄력 있는 사회가 되게 할 것이다. 이 기본소득 모델이 성공적으로 실행된다면 전 세계적으로 따라 할 만한 모범이 될 것이다”.
Sarath Davala
Chair, Basic Income Earth Network
December 16, 2021
by Lewis Small | Sep 17, 2021 | Featured, News
On 29th April 2021 the prestigious Oxford Union Society hosted a panel of students, activists, politicians and scholars to debate the motion ‘This House Would Introduce a Universal Basic Income’.
The debate began with the majority (68%) voting in favour of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) and the remaining 32% voting against it. After hearing a total of 8 panelists’ arguments for and against the motion, the majority shifted in the closing poll to a marginal victory for the opposition, with 54% voting against introducing a UBI and 46% voting for it.
The full debate can be watched on the Oxford Union’s YouTube channel here, with a programme of the speakers and summary of their key arguments provided below.
00:33 – Opening up the case for the proposition, Classical Archaeological and Ancient History student Ambika Sehgal drew on anecdotal evidence from victims of flaws in the DWP’s (Department for Work and Pensions) systems, experiences from the Covid-19 pandemic, and accounts of early forms of UBI in Ancient Greek societies to make three arguments for the motion:
- To lift people out of poverty and provide a basic standard of living to everybody “without fear or favour”.
- To increase the wealth of the entire population by giving everybody the freedom to upskill, reeducate, take on more prosperous jobs, or start their own business.
- To prevent the inevitable economic catastrophe that we are approaching as a result of the automation of skilled industries.
10:52 – Rebutting with the opening case for the opposition, Eliza Dean, first year Classics and French student and Member of the Union’s Secretaries Committee, denounced UBI as the solution to our current economic and political struggles, arguing instead for better funding of existing state welfare systems and a return to greater recognition of the value of labour in society.
20:58 – Professor Guy Standing, Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and founding member of BIEN, outlined the fundamental ethical – as opposed to instrumental – rationale for introducing a UBI, arguing that we have an ethical justification to introduce UBI to resolve the unequal distribution of wealth created by rentier capitalism.
Rounding off his argument for the proposition, Professor Standing drew on his extensive experience working on over 50 pilots to outline some of the key findings of research on UBI:
- It improves individual mental and physical health.
- It reduces people’s stress.
- It leads to better school attendance.
- It increases work and its productivity, leading people to be more innovative and altruistic in their work because people feel more able to act in such a way.
- It helps to reduce debt.
- It leads to a greater sense of social solidarity.
36:34 Marco Annunziata, former Chief Economist and Head of Business Innovation Strategy at General Electric, invoked suggestions for the necessary rise in taxes, the case to offer the same amount to the rich and poor, and the disincentives to work as evidence that a UBI is both unaffordable, unjust and riddled with unintended consequences.
48:53 Drawing on simulations run by the RSA (Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) Anthony Painter, Chief Research & Impact Officer, made the economic case for UBI, citing its ability to make up for inadequacies in existing social support systems by offering a hardwired economic platform for all in society.
59:50 Regarding UBI a ‘recurring revenant’ throughout his career, Professor Hilmar Schneider, Director of the Institute of Labour Economics in Bonn, cited the experience of the German pension system and his own research conducting funding and behavioral responses simulation models to argue against the motion. Pointing to the fact that most UBI pilots rely on external funding sources, Professor Schneider argued that the strongest argument against a UBI lies in its unaffordability, as it would ultimately result in more people losing money than gaining money.
01:10:34 William Greve, first year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student and Sponsorship Officer at the Oxford Union,consolidated the arguments made by the panelists to round off the underlying economic and liberal arguments for a UBI:
- That is the most effective way to counter the wealth inequality and unjust returns to capital observed in the modern economy that leave labour so unjustly rewarded.
- That it is reasonable to demand that all individuals in a society be entitled to a share of the total wealth of society a basic level of economic security.
- That it would fundamentally change our relationship with employment for the better.
Drawing on Professor Schneider’s earlier remarks on the case against higher income taxes (owing to the fact that the majority of wealth that exists in the modern economy is not received as an income in the traditional sense), William also argued that a wealth tax, not an income tax, is the most just and feasible way to fund UBI.
01:21:30 Rt Hon Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and Former Coordinator for the Labour Party, rounded off the case for the opposition by arguing that those advocating for UBI should remain cautious when their political opponents also support the scheme for radically different outcomes. Noting the many cross-spectrum and cross-ideological arguments for and against the motion, he also pointed to the more ‘mundane and practical’ issues with introducing UBI, such as financial feasibility, its efficacy compared to its alternatives, and what accompanying policies are required to ensure desired outcomes.
Concluding the case against UBI, Rt Hon Cruddas hammered home his argument for the dignity of labour and questioned the role that UBI would play in creating decent work. All but entirely dismissing concerns around automation and the future availability of work, he argued that we should instead be organizing for collective rights, strong unions, income guarantees and above all, dignified labour. He argued that there is a strong case against UBI if you consider that the nature of work thesis is flawed, and that the debate around the future of work is an inherently political one. UBI, he suggested, could transform citizens into ‘passengers of capitalism’, robbing them of meaning and dignity, and leaving them more isolated, vulnerable, angry and humiliated, and society itself less fraternal and solidaristic.
by Sarah Delahaye | Apr 6, 2021 | News
More and more people feel that universal basic income (UBI) could change our society for the better. But how can we make that happen? In Germany, Berlin-based association ‘Expedition Basic Income’ (Expedition Grundeinkommen) recently launched a large country-wide campaign to start a UBI experiment with 10,000 participants – financed by the state and academically companied. So far, more than 50,000 people have registered on the campaign website.
The initiative ‘Bring Basic Income To The State’ was launched by Expedition Basic Income (Expedition Grundeinkommen) at the end of February with a question to all German citizens, spread via the association’s website, mailings, partners within the German UBI community, social media, and the press:
Do you want your city or municipality to participate in a nation-wide UBI experiment?
Every German citizen can answer this question by registering on the association’s website. Wherever at least 1% of the population express their interest, the Expedition Basic Income is going to start local referenda to enable the cities and municipalities to participate. The totality of all ‘test cities’ can be thought of as a globally unique research laboratory on basic income.
Valuable insights on UBI via a scientific approach
According to the plans, 10,000 people in Germany are supposed to receive a monthly basic income of about 1,200 euros for three years, starting in 2023. For this experiment, the association is working with renowned research partners in Germany, including the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) and the Freiburg Institute for Basic Income Studies (FRIBIS), to analyse the effect, acceptance and feasibility of different variants of unconditional basic income, whereby also exploring empirical findings on UBI financing.
With the scientific findings and insights from the study, it will be much easier in the future to discuss the impacts of universal basic income on people and the community: Ideally, the question will no longer be if a basic income can be financed at all, but how this could be possible.
People power is the campaign’s key
The Expedition Basic Income was founded in 2019 by UBI advocates Joy Ponader and Laura Brämswig. Their mission is to initiate Germany’s first publicly financed UBI experiment together with all the people who are enthusiastic about or interested in basic income. The country-wide campaign is not their first endeavour; previously, Expedition Basic Income has launched similar initiatives in several federal states, including the country’s capital Berlin, where more than 30,000 people signed for a regional experiment in autumn 2020.
The citizens in Germany’s cities and municipalities are the campaign’s front and centre: In addition to the online call, local teams of volunteers will be formed in the cities and municipalities to autonomously organize the referenda. In co-creative participation processes, German citizens will also be involved in the experiment’s design. This approach is unparalleled: So far, most experiments have been initiated by the government or private institutions. The campaign of Expedition Basic Income is the first to initiate a publicly financed experiment using referenda.
If you know any people in Germany who could be interested in the campaign, please share this article – or the link to our website: https://expedition-grundeinkommen.de/!
Watch their video campaigns here to learn more:
by Pierre Madden | Mar 1, 2021 | Featured, News, Opinion
Editor’s note: The use of the term ‘basic income’ or ‘universal income’ here does not correspond to BIEN’s definition of basic income, since the payments each month will fluctuate with income. ‘Socle citoyen’ corresponds more closely to a Negative Income Tax, adjusted on a monthly basis.
Interview with Marc de Basquiat, originally appeared on Atlantico.fr
On November 26 2020, the National Assembly voted on the resolution tabled by the group Agir Ensemble launching a public debate on the creation of a universal income called “Socle citoyen.” Why do you welcome this vote?
Marc de Basquiat: This vote is historic for three reasons. First of all, it was very broad, bringing together the votes of deputies belonging to five political groups close to the centre of the political spectrum: LREM, Agir Ensemble, MoDem, Libertés et Territoires, Socialists and related parties. Credit for this result goes to Valérie Petit, a northern representative, who launched and led an informal working group on the Socle citoyen project based on the platform we published in the Observateur on May 4 with the support of 80 co-signatories, including 50 parliamentarians. In-depth work was carried out, with a series of remote (because of Covid) meetings. The 48 deputies who tabled the resolution voted on November 26th really know the stakes and the key principles of the technical solution that we propose to study.
The second reason to applaud is the strong support of the La République En Marche deputies. Seventy of them voted in favour of the Agir Ensemble group’s resolution. At a time when many people have doubts about representative democracy, we can salute here the joint search for consensual solutions for our country by representatives from diverse groups, including the governing party. Let us recall that at its creation in 1988 the Revenu Minimum d’Insertion in 1988 received the deputies almost unanimous support. Yes, a reform as ambitious as the one proposed by this resolution aims to achieve consensus from all parties of the National Assembly. This is the process that Brigitte Bourguignon, Minister Delegate for Autonomy, supported with her speech.
The third reason to celebrate this advance is the fiscal nature of the Socle citoyen proposal that it is to be studied. Let us quote from the enacted text:
“The Socle citoyen is unprecedented in that it combines tax reform and improvements in social benefits. First of all, we propose to establish the universality of income tax: every French person, from the first euro of income, is taxed proportionally. This very fact constitutes being a part of and being responsible to the national community. It links one to the collective destiny and at the same time ensures assistance and solidarity.
With the mechanism of the Socle citoyen, the universal income becomes an individual tax credit, negative or positive. Thanks to tax withholding at the source, calculation and payment are now possible in almost real time. This is one of the great social benefits of this major tax reform: it makes it possible to calculate and automatically pay out the Socle citoyen, based on the universal tax, at the same time the reform achieves universality.
The fact that universal income is approached from a tax perspective revolutionizes the question of its economic feasibility. It is not a question of creating an nth social benefit that is painfully financed, but, first of all, of ensuring that all citizens are involved, in their own way, in the financing of public services. The same “right for all” is possible because, beforehand, we ensure the same “fiscal duty for all.”
Is this a sign that something is changing, at the parliamentary level and elsewhere, with regard to universal basic income?
Despite the trauma of the 2017 presidential campaign and the failure of Benoît Hamon’s project for a Universal Existence Income, many—of all political stripes, I can attest to that—grasped the importance of a transfer mechanism that would automatically guarantee a minimum of resources to everyone, regardless of the vagaries of life. But until recently, we hesitated to talk about it for fear of being suspected of providing a caution for the Hamonist party, Generation-S.
I believe that with the Covid-19 crisis, we all understand that the issues we are facing go far beyond political posturing and partisan arrangements. I am happy that the only Hamonist deputy in the Assembly, Régis Juanico, has lent his voice to the resolution drafted by Liberal deputy Valérie Petit. It is by working together that our elected officials will be able to re-inspire politics!
On the other hand, I am disappointed that no Les Républicains representatives dared to break with a conservative voting directive. The speech of LR deputy Stéphane Viry started well, but its conclusion is saddening:
“The group Les Républicains salutes the willingness of the National Assembly, the most essential forum for public debate, to address this major issue, since it touches on the fight against poverty, for work, and social cohesion. These are all foundations on which to build a social project, national cohesion, dynamism for our country. As part of our efforts, we must constantly, all together, open up new horizons. (…) You are right to put this debate on the table, and our group is very much in favour of a frank reflection on work, on activity for all, on social protection, on the fight against poverty. However, as it stands, as formulated, we will not follow your proposal.”
In 2016, the Senate had carried out a mission of information on basic income, in which all the political movements, from the right to the communists, took part, leading to the formulation of a consensual report that illuminated the way forward. Let us hope that the 11 deputies who voted against the resolution on November 26 will discover, moving forward, that the Socle citoyen has no other ambition than to strengthen cohesion, economic dynamism and fraternity in our country.
What are the liberal arguments to defend the proposal of a universal basic income and what form does it take in this framework?
What seems to me to be common to all liberals—whether one feels on the right or on the left for that matter—is the importance one places on individual choice. A Socle citoyen can be formulated as follows: everyone pools the same share of their income (around 30%) and benefits from the same individual transfer (around 500 euros per month). With this single rule, which is easy to implement using the mechanism of withholding tax, everyone is in the same boat and knows exactly how the income tax they pay or the assistance they receive will evolve according to the events in their lives: change of job or loss of work, marriage or divorce, etc. the impact is always easy to calculate.
Such a proposal is not really a revolution. In fact, for tax households that are subject to the 30% marginal rate, my proposal is just a reformulation of the current tax calculation, with an identical result. For 2020 income, taxpayers in this bracket pay a tax whose monthly calculation is 30% of the taxable income of the previous month, minus €498.52 per tax share (let’s say €500 for a single person and €1,000 for a couple). This would not change much.
The Socle citoyen amounts to applying the tax calculation formula for wealthy taxpayers to everyone! A single person without income who currently lives with an RSA of €497.01 plus a housing allowance would receive €500 and still receive the same housing allowance. No change in his or her case. On the other hand, all other cases of poor and low-income households would be winners, to what extent, depending on what they have today.
You have been defending universal basic income for several years, as president of the Association pour l’Instauration d’un Revenu d’Existence (AIRE) and as a Free Generation expert. Do you think that the coronavirus crisis can bring about a change in opinion?
In March, with the crisis, millions of people discovered unemployment. In restaurants, transport, household services, construction, shops… All these jobs where you work hard, where you get up early. The State has multiplied measures, first by taking over from employers to pay more than half of the wages! We can see that a hazard can bring the bravest of workers to their knees, making them dependent on the community to ensure their subsistence.
This invites everyone to question the solidity of their inclusion in society. Am I in this position only because I deserve it? Do I owe nothing to anyone? How could the country have endured a “laissez-faire” logic, where everyone was left to fend for themselves in order to make a living despite the fear of catching a virus—whose danger was not really understood at the time?
Today, everyone knows they are vulnerable. Everyone has also experienced their own docility! During the first confinement, we were happy to cheer from the windows, it gave us a recreation and a semblance of social interaction. But deep down, we really understood that we are vulnerable and that we have a vital need of others. This is why the ” Socle citoyen ” project speaks to everyone: we contribute as citizens—through taxes—to ensuring a vital base for everyone. In these circumstances, no one is spreading foolish rhetoric about handouts?
Is the Socle citoyen universel an effective response to the economic crisis that is looming with the coronavirus?
No one knows how the crisis will evolve. In the second quarter of 2020, China is the only G20 country whose GDP has grown. Germany posted -12%, France -18%, India -24%. The second wave caused us to fall back, less sharply, but global economic balances will take time to readjust. Public debt is exploding. Even if it is relatively painless in the short term, no one can predict what interest rates will be in 10 years. Our accumulated debts may weigh very heavily, preventing governments from playing their role as buffers against social shocks. At that time, we will be happy to have established a Socle citoyen, the universal distribution of part of the income among all, so that no one will be in total destitution.
We can also venture the hypothesis that our country will regain the growth necessary to adapt and face the planetary challenges. Here again, the egalitarian sharing of a portion of the fruits of growth will be a tremendous driving force for national unity, a multiplier of energies.
Translation from the original French: Pierre Madden
Reprinted with the kind permission of Atlantico.fr
More information on the Socle citoyen can be found here
