by Karl Widerquist | Jan 20, 2014 | News
[Karl Widerquist]
A spokesperson for Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party called unconditional basic income (UBI) “dangerous brainstorming” in a recent press conference, according to Politics.HU. In response, the opposition Socialist party released a statement welcoming proposals of such as UBI. Although the Socialists stopped short of endorsing UBI, they indicated (quoting Politics.HU), “the government’s policies were ‘helping the rich, and increasing social gaps and poverty,’ in the light of which it was ‘no surprise’ that the ruling party rejected the idea.” Katalin Szili, head of the non-parliamentary Community for Social Justice party did endorse UBI.
The high level debate indicates the success of recent social activism for UBI in Europe. It has brought the issue into the political consciousness. The issue has gathered enough attention to inspire a survey by the Szazadveg Foundation. The survey found a large majority was skeptical about the idea.
For more on UBI in Hungary, see:
MTI, “Basic income for everyone ‘dangerous’ idea, says Fidesz spokesman”, Politics.HU, January 14, 2014
And
MTI, “Majority of Hungarians reject basic income guarantee”, Politics.HU, January 17, 2014
Politics.HU
by Karl Widerquist | Jan 20, 2014 | News
Summary: In this episode Rob talks about human rights, basic income security and an approach to poverty that makes a whole lot of sense. Rob has 20 years of experience in not-for-profit leadership, primarily in environmental conservation and sustainable development and more recently concerning poverty in Canada. He has been described as a mentor who is “light on my feet” with respect to his capacity to initiate and make decisions. Through his new consultancy, CauseWorth Mission Impact, he is applying his experience, knowledge, skills and contacts in support of organizations involved in social justice, social service, personal development, conservation and environmental protection.
David Peck, “Rob Rainer on human rights and income security [Interview],” Face2Face, August 30, 2013.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Jan 15, 2014 | Research
Aynur Bashirova – January 2013
Lars Christensen, in his article published in the Market Monitarist, presents Milton Friedman’s idea of “negative income tax” in light of the arguments about BI brought forward by his friend Matt Zwolinski. Friedman had monetarist and liberal society ideas and one of his suggestions that attracted the author was the suggestion of negative income tax. His friend Zwolinski believes that BI needs to be directly distributed to poor as money check without conditions because there is a higher chance that the marginalized groups of society had ancestors that suffered from social injustices and they need to be compensated for that. Throughout the article, Christensen argues that he agrees with the general idea of BI, as proposed by Friedman and Zwolinski, but at the same time, he does not believe in the change of the monetary system in order to redistribute the income and neither thinks that it is as easy to do as it is presented.
Lars Christensen. “There is a Pragmatic (but not a Libertarian) Case for a ‘Basic Income Guarantee’”. The Market Monetarist, 8 December 2013.
by Karl Widerquist | Jan 13, 2014 | News
Rob Rainer, on behalf of Basic Income Canada Network released the inaugural campaign plan for The BIG Push—an effort to move the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) into the political mainstream in Canada. See an earlier story that appeared on BI News on Nov. 17, 2013.
Rob Rainer
The plan was approved last Thursday evening by the Board of Directors of BICN. It identifies 46 tactics supporting the three external campaign goals and three internal goals, the latter concerning team building, communications and fundraising. Much of the campaign effort in 2014 will be aimed at the Canadian federal parliament, working towards the 2015 federal election when there is opportunity to make basic income a prominent feature of that contest. According to Rainer, “There is ample work to be done in raising public awareness and building public support for a BIG. Happily, there are encouraging signs of growing awareness and materializing support.”
“[O]vercoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.” -Nelson Mandela (1918-2013), from BICN
A modest budget of $300,000 for 2014 has been established in support of the plan. BICN expects that to reach this will require extensive fundraising, with expectation that much of the funding will materialize from individuals. They also aspire to raise funds from faith groups, unions and professional associations. According to BIEN, “Any leads for funding prospects and any support for helping us meet and surpass our revenue targets will be deeply appreciated.” Rainer writes, “If you have any questions about any aspect of the plan or would like further information, please contact me. Thank you for your keen interest in basic income: let’s make 2014 a breakthrough year for basic income security for all Canadians.”
For more information:
See the BIG Push Campaign website: https://www.thebigpush.net/
Or the Campaign Plan and Budget (in PDF for): https://www.thebigpush.net/uploads/2/2/6/8/22682672/the_big_push_campaign_plan.pdf
Or contact: Rob Rainer, Director, The BIG Push Campaign at: rob.causeworth@gmail.com
The BIG Push Campaign of the Basic Income Network Canada
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 3, 2014 | Opinion
Malcolm Torry, Money for Everyone: Why we need a Citizen’s Income, Policy Press, 2013, xiv + 300 pp, 1 44731 125 6, pbk, £24.99, 1 44731 124 9, hbk, £70
From the book:
The structure of the book
Following some notes on terminology and on graphical representation, chapter 1 sets the scene by asking the reader to imagine themselves trying to solve the financial crisis, to imagine some representative people trying to cope with our tax and benefits system, and to imagine themselves creating a tax and benefits system in a country without one. The second chapter offers a historical sketch, because it is helpful to know where we have been before we set off into the future; and chapter 3 discusses existing schemes similar to a Citizen’s Income and also some Citizen’s Income pilot projects. Chapter 4 discusses the changing labour market and the changing family in order to locate our discussion of benefits reform in its context, and asks whether people would be more or less likely to seek paid employment if they were in receipt of a Citizen’s Income; and chapter 5 establishes a set of criteria for a successful benefits system and judges both the current system and a Citizen’s Income against those criteria. Chapter 6 discusses poverty and inequality and asks whether a Citizen’s Income would tackle them; chapter 7 explores the notion of citizenship in order to decide who should receive a Citizen’s Income; chapter 8 asks whether it would be ethical to pay a Citizen’s Income; and chapter 9 explores a variety of political ideologies’ possible responses to a Citizen’s Income in order to discuss whether a Citizen’s Income is ever likely to happen. Chapter 10 asks whether we can afford a Citizen’s Income and discusses funding mechanisms; chapter 11 discusses a variety of other reform options, and some issues not tackled in the rest of the book; and a brief chapter 12 offers a summary argument for a Citizen’s Income. (p.viii)
A review by Professor Bill Jordan
This is a very important contribution to current debates about tax-benefits systems. In his carefully-argued and comprehensive examination of the case for and against Citizen’s Income, Malcolm Torry presents an updated and extended review of the state of play in the UK and worldwide. Even as some developing countries are experimenting with versions of the idea, ours seems as far from doing so as ever, despite its obvious advantages.
We are living through the most recent of a series of missed opportunities for the principle of state payments to all citizens to be accepted. Whereas the others (such as the introduction of contributory National Insurance benefits and National Assistance after the Second World War, and of Family Income Supplements for low earners in 1973) were innovations in income maintenance systems, the present one combines financial and fiscal crisis with the consolidation of means-testing and coercion through ‘Universal Credits’. As Torry points out at the start of the book, ‘money for everyone’ could have been an alternative approach to both the bail-out of the banks and the Duncan Smith reforms
The early chapters of the book set out the processes through which our present mix of universal, contributory and selective benefits was established, how universality as a principle was accepted in the case of Child Benefits, and how a CI scheme might be implemented (for specific groups first, or at a low initial level). There follow four chapters on criteria for a benefits system, demonstrating that CI scores well for coherence and simplicity, adaptability to changing family patterns, supplying incentives, efficiency and dignity, and appropriateness for a flexible labour market.
He analyses with care the issues of work motivation and the responsibilities of citizens raised by the proposal, acknowledging that prejudice and timidity have influenced political responses to the idea, even in the face of strong evidence. For instance, despite the finding from a CI experiment in a district of Namibia that people engaged more in work and education, the government still expressed fears that a wider introduction of the scheme would make people lazy. Yet even in the face of these barriers, CI has continued to gain wider attention.
Above all, these chapters show how what was originally seen as an outrageous idea, espoused by a handful of outsiders, has gradually come to be accepted by a wide range of philosophers, sociologists, political theorists and members of the social policy community. With impressive scholarship, Torry assembles the arguments and research findings by which scoffers and nay-sayers have been converted (or have converted themselves) over the past 40 years.
Finally, he demonstrates that all the major political traditions support goals that would be served by CI – individual enterprise for the New Right, equality and solidarity for Socialists, inclusion for One Nation Conservatives, personal freedom for Liberals, efficiency with justice for Social Democrats, and modernisation for advocates of the Third Way. It could also be introduced in affordable ways. So why is it still marginal to politics in the UK, USA and almost all of Europe?
Although Torry does not say so, the answer seems to be that – with capital in the ascendant over organised labour, and globalisation extending its strategic options – it is the disciplinary role of the state that all political regimes seek to uphold. Instead of improving incentives for work, enterprise and savings, they scrutinise and sanction those with low earning power; instead of enabling family formation, they police parenting; and instead of promoting equality, they divide and rule.
Malcolm Torry’s book shows that the introduction of a CI could be rational, ethical and efficient, if combined with other measures to promote sustainability and the common good. It could also be afforded under several different taxation regimes. Unfortunately, none of this makes it likely to happen, so long as power over societies is exercised for the benefit of the few.
Professor Bill Jordan, Plymouth University
