by Karl Widerquist | Jan 17, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in April 2007.
Republican Presidential Candidate Tommy Thompson has endorsed BIG—at least in a foreign country. On his campaign website, the former Wisconsin Governor calls himself “the reliable conservative in the 2008 presidential race.” The first reason he gives is, “Tommy Thompson is the father of welfare reform.” Thompson has a good claim to that title. Since 1996, welfare reform, also known as “workfare,” replaced conditional cash support for single mothers with work requirements, sometimes for less than minimum wage, without providing daycare. The plan was modeled on an earlier Wisconsin program initiated by then-governor Thompson. Workfare is usually motivated by the belief that poor people have a responsibility to take whatever jobs are offered, even if they have substantial childcare responsibilities.
Thompson is literally the last America one might expect to endorse BIG—a plan to provide unconditional cash benefits to every citizen. But Thompson has not only endorsed BIG, he has made it a major initiative in his campaign. He has discussed it in numerous interviews and speeches and at the Republican presidential debates. He hasn’t endorsed BIG for the United States but as part of his strategy to win the war in Iraq. The BIG element in Thompson’s Iraq strategy is that one-third of Iraqi government oil revenues will be reserved for a fund to provide every Iraqi with a small income guarantee modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). USBIG Newsletter readers will recall that the APF was the initiative of another Republican Governor, Jay Hammond. It provides a small but significant income guarantee to every Alaskan resident.
Of course, both the APF and any likely Iraq proposal fall short of the goals of most BIG supporters because they are not large enough to cover the recipient’s needs—a “partial BIG” rather than a “full BIG.” But Alaska experience has show that even a partial BIG can make a great difference to the needy and sets the right precedent.
Thompson’s plan is rather far from implementation, however. To introduce it, the U.S. would have to be continuing its involvement in Iraq two years from now, when a president Thompson would take office. At that point the U.S. will have been at war for nearly six years. Even then, Thompson could only recommend the plan to the Iraqi Parliament, which is formally recognized by the U.S. government as the sovereign government of an independent country. If the whole of Thompson’s plan is adopted, United States would likely remain at war in Iraq for four more years while we find out whether the military elements of his plan work.
Thompson has not discussed extending the Alaska-style plan closer to home, nor does he seem aware of the possible conflict between the goals of an APF-style BIG and his pedigree, Workfare.
What’s the big deal if a politician in one country supports BIG in another country where he may have little influence even if elected? It show that framed in the right context, BIG can have a great appeal even to work-ethic conservatives, and it demonstrates the growing appeal of the APF precedent. The APF is so obviously successful, so popular, and so cost-effective that it appeals even to the father of workfare. Much of the motivation for workfare has been popular American resentment against people who receive direct government payments. But there is little resentment in America for people who receive property income whether or not they work and whether or not they received their property through work. The APF makes some part of Alaska’s oil revenues into part of the personal property of every Alaskan. It’s theirs; they own it. It is quite natural to infer that if it is right for every Alaskan to own a share of their oil, then perhaps every Iraqi should own a share of their oil too. But once you have endorsed that principle it is quite natural to infer that every South African should own a share of their gold. Every Botswanan should own a share of their diamonds. Every Welshman should own a share of their coal. Every Bolivian should own a share of their tin. And the full inference is that everyone should own a share of all natural resources. If we put that principle into practice, single mothers would not need workfare at all.
-Karl Widerquist (Michael Lewis contributing), New Orleans, LA, April 2007
by Tyler Prochazka | Jan 17, 2018 | Opinion
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is gaining more traction in mainstream discourse, but the academic debate has been heating up for years. One scholar with a sympathetic but critical eye towards basic income still believes it is not the best priority for activists.
Philip Harvey, a professor of law at Rutgers, wrote that a job guarantee could eliminate poverty for a fraction of the cost of UBI — $1.5 trillion less.
Harvey argued in 2006 that the focus on UBI may be crowding out more realistic policies that could achieve the same ends.
“[Basic Income Guarantee] advocates who argue that a society should provide its members the largest sustainable BIG it can afford – whether or not that guarantee would be large enough to eliminate poverty – are on shaky moral ground if the opportunity cost of providing such a BIG would be the exhaustion of society’s redistributive capacity without eliminating poverty when other foregone social welfare strategies could have been funded at far less cost that would have succeeded in achieving that goal.”
When I interviewed Harvey this month, he said his views have largely stayed the same and he still sees a fundamental difference between the advocates of UBI and job guarantee.
“The most important driver of that difference is the inherent attractiveness of the UBI idea. It really is an idea that captures the imagination and admiration of all kinds of interested parties with different kinds of agendas. The job guarantee idea, on the other hand, attracts people who are more into the weeds of policy analysis.”.
There is a big debate about which type of cost calculation is most relevant for UBI, since wealthy individuals would have most or all of the basic income taxed back.
Basic income scholars such as Karl Widerquist argue it is more accurate to calculate UBI’s “net cost” which subtracts the portion of the basic income that is taxed back, as individuals are essentially paying back the benefit.
Harvey argues that, from a political standpoint, people will not view UBI in such a way: “The problem with Karl’s argument is that he that he thinks that people will think the way he does, when there’s no evidence to support that given the way they think about other analogous government benefits.”
Harvey notes that, since the gross cost of UBI proposals is typically a high percentage of a country’s overall GDP, there are tradeoffs that must be considered when pushing for basic income.
“On a practical level, that’s the biggest problem that UBI advocates face is that they don’t have a good answer to why it’s worth spending that much money on this kind of benefit as opposed to spending that much money or a far lesser amount of money on other benefits that would serve the same purpose.”
Many basic income proponents have argued that the job guarantee would have much higher administrative costs than the basic income, and thus say it is a less attractive proposal.
Interestingly, Harvey argues the high administrative costs actually serve the purpose of the guarantee because the administration of the program also creates new jobs: “The goal of the job guarantee is to provide jobs and as long as the jobs you provide are helping to achieve your goal, it doesn’t matter whether if they’re administrative jobs or non-administrative jobs, they still count.”
The plan he proposes is for the government to offer grants to nonprofits and government agencies to create jobs that fulfill their mission to help the community. For example, installing rooftop solar panels and advocacy work.
“Why not give not-for-profit organizations the opportunity to compete head-on with government agencies to see who can do the most good with the resources made available to them through the program?”
Allowing for this competition would avoid the criticism that the government cannot create productive work.
“You can design a job guarantee program to avoid the relative incapacity or possible incapacity of governments to create meaningful jobs.”
Harvey has designed the ‘Jobs for All’ congressional bill with former Congressman John Conyers, who recently resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.
When pushing for basic income, Harvey believes the opportunity cost, both in the time spent advocating UBI and then financing it, may be too great.
“Unless you can argue that you are prepared to provide a UBI that is really adequate to eliminate poverty, you’ve no business advocating a program that would leave people in poverty because it was inadequate.”
Author’s editorial note: I plan to write a follow-up article to discuss and analyze some of the points made by Dr. Harvey.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 12, 2018 | News
Image credit to Nathaniel Houghton, on Medium.
The Guardian has published a podcast of a debate on Citizen’s Basic Income (start to listen at 16:00 minutes):
Could a universal basic income be a solution to precarious work, automation and a happy, healthier society? It has enthusiasts from Silicon Valley to the Labour party, but would it actually work?
We hear from Marjukka Turunen, from the Finnish welfare agency Kela in Helsinki, which is trialling a basic income scheme.
On the expert panel: Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, the Observer’s Sonia Sodha and the chair of Compass, Neal Lawson.
by Toru Yamamori | Jan 1, 2018 | News
Sonia Sodha (Twitter account image)
Sonia Sodha, lead writer at the Observer, urges the British Left not to support UBI. According to her latest opinion piece for the Guardian, UBI will not cure any social disease that UBI advocates claim will be alleviated, and rather, it is currently a fatal distraction from other battles on which the British Left should focus.
Sodha charted the rationales for UBI in the following three categories: tech utopians’s prophecy of a decrease of jobs, Ken Loachian welfare critics’ blame against inhumanely complex welfare system, and.labour market dystopians’ poverty backstop against insecurity.
Sodha dismisses the tech utopian’s argument by insisting it falls ‘lump of labour fallacy’. According to Sodha, ‘[f]ar from robots stealing jobs, the reality is that many firms are underinvesting in technology, suppressing productivity’ in Britain, and ‘technology will radically reshape the world of work without reducing its sum total’. She also dismisses the argument of what she calls ‘Ken Loachian-welfare critics’ (though Loach himself has never argued what Sodha labels under his name) and states:
“We could fix the caring issue simply by increasing the generosity of the stingy state benefits paid to those who care full-time for older people or adults with disabilities. If we were so inclined, we could get rid of punitive benefit sanctions and replace them with a welfare-to-work system that puts much more emphasis on training and support for people to find the job that is right for them, not the first that comes along.”
Finally, Sodha opposes the labour market dystopians, by accusing them of not fighting for labour rights but for ‘a dribble of cash’. Similar points to Sonia Sodha’s were made by Bo Rothstein in a recent Social Europe article, ‘UBI: A bad idea for the welfare state’ A response followed, ‘Universal Basic Income: Definitions and details’. The same detailed response would apply here.
Behind her accusations, there is a recent move for UBI inside the Labour party. See the articles below for more on Labour Party activity regarding UBI support:
Toru Yamamori, “UNITED KINGDOM: Jeremy Corbyn, candidate for Labour Party leader, recruits Basic Income advocate to draft economic plan”, Basic Income News, August 8th 2015
Toru Yamamori, “United Kingdom: Labour Party considers universal basic income”, Basic Income News, February 21st 2016
Kate MacFarland, “UK: Labour Leader to Investigate Universal Basic Income“, Basic Income News, September 15th 2016
Genevieve Shanahan, “UK: Labour Party sets up working group to investigate UBI”, Basic Income News, February 10th 2017
More information at:
Sonia Sodha, ‘UBI is no panacea for us – and Labour shouldn’t back it’, The Guardian, 18th December 2017.
by Malcolm Torry | Dec 28, 2017 | Research
Satelite picture over Europe. Credit to: TechCrunch.
A new working paper from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex reports on research using the EUROMOD microsimulation programme to simulate the labour market effects of several different tax and benefits reforms in countries in different parts of Europe.
The reform options tested are as follows:
- An unconditional Basic Income – correctly defined
- A general Negative Income Tax – that makes a payment if earnings fall below a threshold (the payment being proportional to the amount that wages fall below the threshold), and deducts tax above the threshold
- What the researchers call a ‘conditional basic income’ – which is a means-tested benefit that is withdrawn at a rate of 100% as earnings rise, thus constituting a guaranteed minimum income
- In-work benefits – means-tested in-work benefits without a relationship with the income tax threshold.
All of the reforms assume a flat income tax.
The research finds that the General Negative Income Tax usually promises the most efficient employment market: although in the context of the UK there is almost nothing to choose between a General Negative Income Tax and an Unconditional Basic Income. The research did not take into account the administrative complexities of a Negative Income Tax. If it had been possible to simulate the effects of administrative complexities on labour market decisions then they might have found that in the UK an Unconditional Basic Income would have turned out to be the most efficient option.
The working paper is entitled The case for NIT+FT in Europe: An empirical optimal taxation exercise, and is by Nizamul Islama and Ugo Colombinob.
Click here to read the working paper; or here to download the paper as a pdf.
Abstract
We present an exercise in empirical optimal taxation for European countries from three areas: Southern, Central and Northern Europe. For each country, we estimate a microeconometric model of labour supply for both couples and singles. A procedure that simulates the households’ choices under given tax-transfer rules is then embedded in a constrained optimization program in order to identify optimal rules under the public budget constraint. The optimality criterion is the class of Kolm’s social welfare function. The tax-transfer rules considered as candidates are members of a class that includes as special cases various versions of the Negative Income Tax: Conditional Basic Income, Unconditional Basic Income, In-Work Benefits and General Negative Income Tax, combined with a Flat Tax above the exemption level. The analysis shows that the General Negative Income Tax strictly dominates the other rules, including the current ones. In most cases the Unconditional Basic Income policy is better than the Conditional Basic Income policy. Conditional Basic Income policy may lead to a significant reduction in labour supply and poverty-trap effects. In-Work-Benefit policy in most cases is strictly dominated by the General Negative Income Tax and Unconditional Basic Income.
