by Kate McFarland | Jun 23, 2016 | News
The May 25th edition of Positive.News featured an “opposing viewpoints” style exchange on basic income. The debate was unusual, however, in that it pitted two enthusiastic proponents of the idea — Anthony Painter of the UK think tank RSA (Royal Society of Arts) and independent activist Scott Santens — against one another.
Santens and Painter present summaries of the variations of a universal basic income that they respectively favor, as well as their reasons for advocating these particular policies. Each then has the opportunity to respond to the other.
Although brief, the exchange illustrates that the basic income movement is not monolithic: a variety of policies, aimed at achieving a multitude of different goals, fall under the heading of “basic income”; moreover, even when advocates agree about the desired outcome, they may disagree about the best means to pursue it.
For instance, while Santens sees the ability to free people from work as prime benefit of basic income (“If we provide ourselves basic income, we’ll be free to pursue what we wish, and who are we to say which pursuits are valuable?”), Painter and the RSA propose a basic income that “does not free people from work but … gives them a fighting chance to improve their lives.” (Basic Income News has previously reported on the RSA’s proposal.)
Furthermore, while Santens focuses on ideal outcomes, Painter puts forth a more limited proposal that he considers “not perfect but a start” (a partial basic income of £3,692 annually).
On the latter point, Painter sees not disagreement but two necessary facets to the basic income movement: “If we are to see a wave of justice in this generation, which I believe is possible, then principle and pragmatism need to be in harmony.”
Santens, in reply, stresses that a basic income must be a livable income if individuals and society are to realize one of its “most transformative promise” — the “unprecedented ability of people to be able to say no to employers.”
Read the article here:
“Free money: would a basic income create a fairer society,” Positive.News, May 25, 2016.
by Josh Martin | Jun 15, 2016 | News
Hermann considers basic income from the perspective of justice and concludes that basic income is worth pursuing. She finds that basic income would be just due to its egalitarian nature of real equality, and it will ensure an income floor for everyone by decoupling work from income. Further, she believes that a basic income will lead to financial independence for all women, which can help push toward gender equality.
Julia Hermann, “Would an unconditional basic income be just?“, Justice Everywhere, 2 May 2016.
by Kate McFarland | Apr 21, 2016 | News
April began on a high note for the “Fight for $15” movement in the United States: California passed a law to increase the statewide minimum wage to $15 over the course of the next six years, and New York struck a deal for a $15 minimum in New York City and its suburbs. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the largest minimum wage increase in eight years went into effect on April 1.
However, at the same time as many were celebrating these breakthroughs, Berlin-based author Leonid Bershidsky published an article in which he argues that a minimum wage has some substantial drawbacks — especially when it comes to integrating immigrants into a society — and that a basic income is a much smarter choice for alleviating poverty.
In a country with a high minimum wage, according to Bershidsky, immigrants “are at a disadvantage because of poor language skills and educational backgrounds that are often incompatible with the host countries’ labor market requirements. No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available. Instead of working for social justice, high minimum wages create an extra barrier for the integration of the least socially secure people into society. Such barriers can result in ghettos, rioting and the recruitment of disenfranchised immigrant youths by terrorist groups.”
Bershidsky believes that a basic income, in contrast, is likely to allow immigrants to “integrate faster than they are doing now, because labor markets will be livelier and less forbidding.”
Read the full article here:
Leonid Bershidsky, 1 April 2016, “A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage,” Bloomberg View.
Image credit: The All-Nite Images, NY (via Wikimedia Commons)
by Guest Contributor | Mar 29, 2016 | Opinion
By Clive Lord
Almost everyone I know of who supports the Basic Income (BI) does so on the grounds of social justice. I agree of course, but for me less inequality is only the second most important of three reasons to support the Basic, or as we call it in Britain, the Citizen’s Income.
When I joined the embryonic PEOPLE, now the UK Green Party, in 1973, I listened as an enquirer to a spiel based on the threats to the global environment caused by indiscriminate economic growth, which had been exposed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report Limits to Growth in 1972. I agreed with every word, but I had a question:
“What is your social policy? You are proposing a deep recession. I agree it will be necessary, but every recession to date has caused widespread hardship. What will you do when desperate people start looting?”
The answer was: “If we have to, we shall shoot them in the street. Social breakdown is hardly the best way to alleviate poverty.”
It is all very well readers being as appalled as I was, because the basic premise was right. The speaker then challenged me:
“Do you have a better social policy in mind?”
I didn’t. I spent the journey home wrestling with my own question. Guess what I came up with. I discovered later that the Basic Income had already been invented several times, for different reasons, starting with Thomas Paine in 1798. But even now, 43 years later, limiting economic activity to the ability of the ecosphere to cope was not part of the “successful” Paris climate agreement in December 2015. It will fail without that. A Basic Income will allow a steady state economy to be acceptable to whole populations, and so become a policy option, but it will have to be world-wide.
It will be dismissed as “unaffordable” – this would only be true if the economy has collapsed beyond the ability to provide basic necessities for all, but if linked to ecological realities it will entail drastic redistribution. This brings us to the more common justification for a BI of reducing inequality, but if all the Basic Income does is allow the poor to spend money confiscated from the rich, the Paris agreement is doomed.
However, I am continually perplexed by the widespread failure to grasp the malevolence of means testing – taking benefits away as soon as the claimant has any other income.
The next few paragraphs refer to the UK but will apply anywhere means tested benefits are used. For the person losing a means tested benefit, the effect is identical to a massive marginal tax. The clearest demonstration of this can be found in an unexpected source: the 2009 report Dynamic Benefits: towards welfare that works, released by the Centre for Social Justice. The Centre was set up by Iain Duncan Smith, who has been Work and Pensions secretary in the UK Coalition, now Conservative government since 2010 – and has recently resigned in protest against announced cuts to disability benefits. Dynamic Benefits was the foundation for the government’s welfare ‘reform’ policies. Its key recommendation was the Universal Credit (UC), whereby on finding employment a claimant would retain 45% of their former benefits. The former Work and Pensions secretary reduced this to 35% on taking office. This means that the former claimant is faced with a tax rate equivalent of 65%. Bankers on the highest tax rate lose 45% of their income.
In Dynamic Benefits, there are several graphs showing benefit withdrawal rates as though they were taxes. In fact, the first part of the report, outlining the problem, is an excellent statement of the case for a Basic income. The UC is an emaciated BI which attempts to remove the work disincentive of means testing, but still penalises beneficiaries disproportionately vis-à-vis high-income earners.
While Iain Duncan Smith’s stated reason for resigning was cuts to disability benefits, I believe the real reason is the imminent scrapping of the UC. In four years since being announced, the UC has only reached 5% of the 4.5 million who should be eligible. The Department of Work and Pensions is claiming that the UC will be fully rolled out by May 2021. The track record of slippage to date makes that improbable. That the initiator of benefit sanctions, the bedroom tax, and Work Capability Assessments presents himself as the defender of the weak and vulnerable is sickening, but Dynamic Benefits remains a useful document for basic income debates.
But my third reason is much more fundamental. A Basic income can begin a shift to a totally new culture. Instead of haves vs have nots, or bosses vs workers , the new fault line will be those who want to preserve natural systems versus those who believe there will always be a technological answer. This will enable a low growth economy to protect the ecosphere.
Milton Friedman, an archetypal neo-liberal, was in favour of the Basic income. Market forces are a basic pillar of neo-liberalism, but instead of the current system whereby the strong can exploit the weak, persuasion will replace work compulsion. The would-be employee will have equal bargaining power with the boss. Needless to say, Employee Benefits such as healthcare cover will also need to be negotiable. Experiences in India and Namibia show that far from encouraging idleness, a BI facilitates entrepreneurship. But it will also allow people generally to heed eco-constraints, notably climate change, where competitive capitalism does not.
Anyone curious to know more, my Book, Citizens’ Income and Green Economics (2011) is available from the Green Economic Institute. My blog www.clivelord.wordpress.com which is more up to date, but 
inevitably less coherent, discusses the Tragedy of the Commons, population, the Greek crisis, migration and fracking.
We may yet save “Paris” (and the planet), and feed everyone. There is even something in it for the capitalists.
Clive Lord is a founding member of the British Green Party, a major contributor to the party’s first “Manifesto for a Sustainable Society” and a basic income advocate.
by Jonny West | Mar 21, 2016 | News
On 30 January 2016, BasisInkomen, the Dutch association for a basic income, hosted the International Congress on Basic Income Experiments in Maastricht, Netherlands, to celebrate its 25th anniversary. This was an opportunity for those interested in the idea of a basic income to come together to reflect on recent developments – particularly in the Netherlands, Finland and France – and look towards the future. Keynote speakers included Julia Backhaus, Sjir Hoeijmakers, Stanislas Jourdan, Markus Kanerva, Otto Lehto, Philippe van Parijs, Bono Pel, Guy Standing and Nicole Teke. This article is a summary of the key points from the congress.
Guy Standing opened the congress by reflecting on the journey that the basic income idea has made over the previous 30 years: from the impossible to the ridiculous to the absurd and now perhaps even to the cusp of the inevitable. Two key themes ran through Guy Standing’s presentation: the necessity for further experimentation in order to gain political legitimation and, moreover, the importance of designing these experiments based on normative principles of social justice, such as wealth redistribution and social emancipation. If political legitimation can be won, based on principles of social justice, then a basic income will provide a pathway toward a dignified life for individuals within a good society — a society in which the collective wealth of the community is shared equally within and across generations, and in which each individual makes a moral commitment to actively participate in society. The idea of a basic income represents a rejection of the opportunistic politics of today in favour of a positive vision for tomorrow’s good society.
Guy Standing
After Guy Standing’s expansive introductory speech, discussion turned to the details of social experiments currently being planned in the Netherlands, Finland and France. In each case, recent developments demonstrate broad support for some type of basic income across the political spectrum.
In the Netherlands, nineteen municipalities are currently developing some form of social security experiment, which will remove the condition that beneficiaries must participate in workfare schemes, and tackle the poverty trap that beneficiaries experience when transitioning between the social security system and work. While many of these municipalities initially proposed introducing a basic income as part of the experiment, current legislative restrictions have limited this number to three. Four municipalities have lobbied the Dutch Ministry for Social Security and Employment to revise these legal restrictions, though the government has yet to respond. Despite this legal scuffle, the proposed Dutch experiments reveal widespread support for a basic income experiment across the political spectrum, with each major political party represented among the nineteen municipalities.
In Finland, the government has proposed a number of social experiments, including a basic income experiment. The government’s aim is to better align social policy with societal demands, as well as to reduce disincentives to work and decrease the role of bureaucratic processes in social security. A research consortium led by Kela, a government agency responsible for social security payments, is responsible for designing and implementing the basic income experiment. A first hearing for the basic income experiment was held on 5 December 2015, while a preliminary report will be released on 30 March 2016 and a final hearing will be held on 15 November 2016. A budget of €20 million has been allocated to the basic income experiment, which is expected to begin in 2017 and last two years. Different variations of a basic income are currently being considered, including a ‘full’ basic income, a ‘partial’ basic income, a negative income tax and a participation income. The models propose a basic income of between €400 and €1,200 per participant per month, with many models retaining supplementary allowances. One major challenge is the constitutional requirement to treat all citizens equally. To meet this requirement, participation in the experiment will be voluntary. A basic income experiment enjoys broad public support across voters of all major political parties in Finland, and recent public opinion polling indicates that more than 50% of the public supports the idea.
Nicole Teke (Credit to: MFRB)
In France, parliamentary support for a basic income has been increasing. Current proponents include Jean Desessard MP (Green Party), Frédéric Lefebvre MP (Les Républicains), and Gaetan Gorce MP and Delphine Batho MP (Parti Socialiste). Furthermore, the Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs Emmanuel Macron expressed support for the idea of a basic income and a government agency on digital affairs recommended introducing a basic income experiment. In addition, the Sirugue Commission, a parliamentary working group led by Christophe Sirugue MP (Parti Socialiste), is under increasing pressure to examine the case for a basic income experiment as part of its comprehensive review into the existing social security system. Meanwhile, the regional coalition government in Aquitaine is developing its own proposal for a basic income experiment. However, social security policy is a departmental rather than regional competency, and the regional governmental tier is currently being restructured with welfare allowances likely to become a central government competency, which might pose difficulties for regional experimentation.
All such experiments, however, will be limited in what they are able to prove. In his presentation, Philippe van Parijs challenged the audience to reflect on three such limitations. First, an individual is likely to make different labour market decisions depending on whether the basic income is temporary or permanent, which will distort the effect on labour supply. Second, participants receiving a basic income within an experiment will only account for a small fraction of the total labour force rather than the whole labour force, which will distort the effect on labour demand. Third, voluntary participation in the experiments will likely attract net beneficiaries rather than net contributors, which will distort the effect on financing. Philippe van Parijs then articulated the social justice case for a basic income: a basic income is an intergenerational redistribution of the currently unfair and uneven allocation of the efforts of previous generations as well as accessible natural resources. Furthermore, a basic income is a gift, which deserves a counter gift. If this counter gift were a commitment to actively participate in society, it could nurture a renewed ethics of responsibility. This is a strong case for a basic income, which exceeds the scope of the experiments planned in the Netherlands, Finland, France and elsewhere.
In all, the congress was one of optimism buoyed by a sense that the basic income movement is on the cusp of something momentous. The various developments in the Netherlands, Finland and France were also a reminder that if we truly want change, we can find a form for that change that fits our unique circumstances. We are not restricted by whether our political systems are centralised or decentralised, majoritarian or multi-party, left or right, a republic or a constitutional monarchy – we our restricted only by our imaginations and our tenacity.
More information at:
Basisinkomen.org, “Interviews and Lectures about #basicincome from Maastricht 2016”
