by Andrew Sisk | Feb 27, 2017 | News
On the website Big Think, Natalie Shoemaker details an essay by Eva Cox of the University of Technology, Sydney. Shoemaker presents the essay, originally published by the Green Institute, as showing that basic income is a program that will enable acts of social and personal good.
Cox argues that current welfare systems scapegoat the poor as lazy and incompetent, and removing requirements to search for work or prove incapacity would enable more people to feel valued and return a sense of agency, reducing hopelessness and empowering positive action.
See the full article:
Natalie Shoemaker, “How Basic Income Could Unlock Humanity’s Altruism and Creativity” (February 1, 2017)
by Kate McFarland | Feb 26, 2017 | News
The city of Barcelona is preparing to test an income maintenance program in one of its poorest districts. While it has been called a ‘basic income’, the tested programs diverge in several ways from BIEN’s definition of the term.
Urban Innovative Actions (UIA), an initiative of the European Commission that supports projects investigating “innovative and creative solutions” in urban areas, has allocated €4.85 million (about $5.15 million) to fund a three-year pilot study of guaranteed minimum income (GMI) in Barcelona, Spain. The project is dubbed “B-Mincome” in reference to Mincome, a well-known study of GMI conducted in the late 1970s in Manitoba, Canada.
In the B-Mincome experiment, 1,000 randomly selected households in the Besos district — one of Barcelona’s most economically disadvantaged areas — will receive cash subsidies of an amount sufficient to ensure that their earnings exceed the poverty line. At the time of this writing, the City Council of Barcelona is still finalizing the design of the study. However, the city plans to test several types of GMI schemes, and it plans to investigate them in conjunction with improvements in public services.
According to Project Manager Fernando Barreiro, the objective of B-Mincome is to “test and analyse how effective forms of universal economic support, combined with access to services such as housing, education, work and community participation can reduce poverty.” Results from the pilot will be used in a comparative analysis of the cost and effectiveness of different anti-poverty policies, “with the ultimate goal of developing more efficient welfare services.”
While the B-Mincome pilot bears some similarity to a universal basic income (UBI), and has been called by this name, it should be noted that the program to be tested is neither universal nor individual. Moreover, some of the GMI schemes to be tested may not be unconditional.
First, the B-Mincome program will provide a cash supplement to boost low incomes rather than a uniform and universal cash grant (as was also the case in the Manitoba’s Mincome experiment). These supplements will guarantee that no participant in the study has a household income below poverty level. However, as typical of GMI schemes, the amount of the supplement will be reduced if a household’s income increases during the course of the experiment.
Moreover, the design of the study will promote the targeting of the most disadvantaged recipients. Researchers will employ a randomized block design to ensure the representation of various types of households that tend to suffer the most poverty (e.g. immigrants, single-parent families, the long-term unemployed, and unemployed youth).
Second, as already implied, the payments will be to households rather than individuals.
Finally, some of the variations to be examined are likely to impose conditions of the receipt of the benefit. Barreiro has related, for example, that the city is considering testing a GMI program that makes benefits conditional searching for a job, participating in a training program, or doing work for the community. Such a program would be analyzed for its efficiency and effectiveness against a GMI lacking these conditions.
To develop B-Mincome, the Barcelona City Council has partnered with four research organizations and institutions: the Young Foundation, the Institute of Governance and Public Policy (IGOP) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, and the Catalan Institution for Evaluation of Public Policies (IVALUA). The city is also consulting with contacts within the governments of Finland, the Canadian province of Ontario, and the Dutch municipality of Utrecht, which are currently running or about to run their own similar pilot studies.
Sources
The Young Foundation, “Young Foundation partners with Barcelona City Council to help deliver radical project in the fight against poverty” (press release), October 28, 2016.
“Linking the Urban Development Network and the Urban Innovative Actions in Barcelona,” Urban Innovative Actions, January 9, 2017.
“B-MINCOME – Combining guaranteed minimum income and active social policies in deprived urban areas,” Urban Innovative Actions.
Fernando Barreiro, personal communication.
Photo: “Homeless in Barcelona” CC BY-NC 2.0 Melvin Gaal
Note: A previous version of this article incorrectly listed IESE as one of the City of Barcelona’s partners in the pilot. It has been corrected to IVALUA. (Edited March 2, 2017.)
by Pierre Madden | Feb 24, 2017 | Opinion
Translated from a series of French fictional stories based on the basic income: https://revenudebase.quebec/histoires/ (in French)
Written by the Revenu de Base Quebec Team
Translated by Pierre Madden
Notice
These stories are fiction. Let’s face it, Basic Income is not yet a reality anywhere (with the exception of Alaska), only a promising proposal, tested successfully on a small scale. While any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental, the situations described do resemble what real people experience every day and illustrate how Basic Income can work in practice and what impact it can have on peoples’ lives.
1. Mady and her family
Her name is really Madelyn. Everyone calls her Mady. 57 years old and recently widowed, her husband’s long illness forced her to cut her work hours in half. She was on the edge of bankruptcy. Things are better now that she is back to full-time. Going through something like bankruptcy can be tough on a person, that is why there are steps in place to help them through this with assistance like a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Attorney Milwaukee firm or a firm within their area, that can stop foreclosures and repossessions of property. Luckily Mady didn’t get to this stage.
Her youngest, Samuel, born just before it was too late, is now 20 and still in school. He lives at home. If he hadn’t worked at least 15 hours per week since the age of 15, the phone, the scooter, the computer and the few name brand clothes he splurged on would have been out of reach. He took an extra year to finish junior college: taking all the required courses was not always possible. He is about to start college in another city. Mady doesn’t know how she is going to be able to help him pay for 4 years of university. Her other children, Helen and James,35 and 33, have their little families. They get by…
Actually, James is doing much better than Helen. Even if he and his wife don’t have permanent jobs, they manage to make enough at consulting for him and translation for her, to have a relatively comfortable life with their two kids. To get to that point, they had to survive 3 lean years around the time the children were born. They had no paid parental leave. The problem now is managing everything. Day care for one child, elementary school for the other, a bit of sports and music for all, and the constant search for contracts, a job in itself for freelance workers.
“Poor Helen!” laments Mady, “her boyfriend left her with three kids” and she calls him names we can’t print. She met him in her early thirties; they were in love; she felt it was time to have kids; now or never; he seemed to agree. Four eventful years and three children later she finds herself in an all too common misery: rare odd jobs, trading services with other “single parents” who can’t afford childcare, clothes from hand-me-downs or thrift shops, expensive rent, minimal groceries, finicky welfare agents and all the rest.
However, it is her parents that worry Mady the most. Her mother is 82 and her father 87. He is becoming senile; she is in good health. She is exhausted taking care of her husband. Mady can see that her mother won’t last long. After sixty years of marriage, she refuses to be separated from her man. Mady’s siblings live in other cities so sooner or later she will have to pick up the slack: if not with her father , then with her mother. She worries a lot about how she will manage.
Mady, her family and a basic income for all.
Let’s imagine what it would be like…
Although Helen would be no less alone with her children, she would benefit the most from a Basic Income. Her personal allocation, combined with those of her children, would not necessarily amount to more than what she receives now in aid. However these sums are without condition, without meetings with government agents, without reports, without intrusion into her private life.
Best of all, she could build on this revenue by earning more without penalty: she could really think of improving her situation by working more and more, progressively, while still taking the time to raise her kids. The future would hold promise for her and her family.
James and his wife would have had an easier time when the children were born. They could have worked a bit less and enjoyed a less crazy life. Then again, young and ambitious, they liked the hectic pace. For sure, with less uncertainty comes less stress.
Samuel would probably be a year ahead in his studies, his child’s Basic Income permitting him to not work or work much less, just to pay for a few indulgences or to help out his mother during his father’s illness. On turning 18, he gets the full adult Basic Income; at university in another city, with an apartment, food and schooling to pay, his finances would still be very tight.
Mady, for her part, would not have risked bankruptcy during her husband’s illness. She could even have stopped working to care for him. Also, she would have less apprehension at the thought of caring for her parents or of her children caring for her in the future.
2.Peter Martin Inc.
Young and prosperous industrialist, Peter Martin’s success does not go unnoticed: big house with three garages, an equally imposing cottage by a prestigious lake, a sleek and fast number to get him from his homes to the factory. Family finances certainly benefit from his wife’s medical specialist income. And their two kids can dream of studying anywhere on the planet, a planet they know well, having traveled all over, both with their parents and alone.
Peter is past forty and greying: he had to work hard to get to where he is; he had to go through a bankruptcy and several other very difficult periods. Even if in the past few years his company is in constant growth, he never gets a moment’s rest: competition is fierce and worldwide. He has to constantly win new markets in an increasingly complex environment and continue to offer high-quality innovative products to distinguish himself from everybody else.
And if only that was the end of it! Creating products, exploring markets, that’s what he does best; that’s why he built his business. He started with a few employees and worked directly with them on the shop floor. Now that there are several hundred more, it’s a different game. Recruitment and employee turnover have become factors as critical as competition and innovation. That is why implementing effective performance appraisals of employees is important to make sure they are working to their highest level, and management is doing what they are required to meet employee’s needs. To support these appraisals, employers can also look at adding in a management strategy such as real-time feedback that can help with tracking the employee’s work that they have been completing throughout the year, so when the appraisal comes they can have all the information needed at that moment.
Easy, the life of a rich industrialist? Only on the surface. Exhilarating for sure, though; Peter Martin would not think of trading places with anyone.
Peter Martin Inc., 20 years later
At the age when a salaried worker has retired, Peter Martin is still going strong and has just gone through most eventful period in his professional life: the implementation of Basic Income.
When this “thing” began to appear in the public debate, he was dead set against it
like most of his business colleagues: he thought it was raving lunacy. However, as general support for this social measure grew, at home in Quebec, in Canada and globally, he had to take it seriously.
The fundamental discussions he had had with his employees to establish joint management of his factories and profit sharing had shown him how far such measures could contribute to improving the working climate and even the product quality, not a negligible bonus. Discussions with his employees about Basic Income, heated at first, finally convinced him to take the project seriously.
From an opponent he became a supporter unlike most of his entrepreneur colleagues. When the policy was finally adopted, he couldn’t help feeling a bit nervous…
Guess what? No cataclysm occurred; no massive resignation of his personnel, his main fear. Of course a few left: most of them, temporarily, to look after a sick family member or to complete a personal project. Crazy demands for raises did not materialize. In fact, filling entry level jobs became easier and turnover in highly specialized employees dropped. Workers’ motivation improved and productivity went up. An unexpected consequence was the sharp drop in sick days, because lower stress levels employees felt in their lives and in their work.
3. Gwen and Max’s story
Small family that wants to devote more time and money to their kids, Gwen and Max were married in 2003. Tom was born in 2005, Marie in 2008, Tom is a little boy in perfect health. Unfortunately, his sister was born with a hearing deficit that delayed speech and reading development. Thanks to the help from the local hospital and from her teachers, Marie is improving every day.
Max was a union worker in the automotive industry. He was laid off in 2008 after the economic crisis and now works part-time operator mechanic, and while he worked there he may or may not have been using an auto repair invoice template for the work he does in the side but unfortunately doesn’t now due to a sharp drop in pay. If he could pay for the training, he would upgrade his skills to get a commercial job.
Gwen tops up the family revenue by working part-time in local businesses. Her hours change constantly, which on top of low pay, prevents her from being with her children as much as she would like. The parents are concerned that they won’t be able to provide their kids with the best chances of success such as the school aid programs and other opportunities available to their classmates.
If Gwen, Max, Tom and Marie could benefit from a Basic Income, their situation would improve considerably. Marie could take dance classes after school to help with her integration and get support to improve her reading. Tom could afford hockey equipment and join the school team. Thanks to a secure source of funds each month, Max could undertake the training needed to reorient his career. Gwen could spend more time with her children by not having to work while they are at home. This small additional revenue would greatly improve their family life and the future prospects of both parents and children.
4. Jane’s story: raising your child alone
Jane is 40, her daughter Emily is 12. It’s just the two of them. Emily’s father left them when she was 4. Jane wants to make sure that her daughter does not follow in her footsteps. Jane works as a waitress in a local restaurant and has trouble making ends meet. Paying the bills while still putting healthy food on the table for Emily is a challenge. Jane finds welfare humiliating so she has not applied for government aid even if she is eligible. She would like to earn more but has neither the training nor the opportunities to increase her revenues.
With a Basic Income, added to her waitress salary, Jane would be better able to take care of her daughter, spend more time with her when necessary, provide balanced meals, let her study, do sports. Jane just needs more freedom in her choices, without having to answer to the government.
With a Basic Income, Jane’s economic situation would have no impact on Emily’s schooling. Her daughter would have the same chance of professional success as children born in more privileged environments.
5. The story of Gabe, entrepreneur
Gabe has always dreamed of being his own boss. Although, at the moment, he works for a big company and earns a comfortable living, what he really wants is to start his own business. When he was in college, Gabe invented a more efficient cement pouring system which could save up to 25% of the time needed to lay foundation in large construction sites. Unfortunately, because he had to pay back his student loans, Gabe was unable to launch his business and instead took a job in a civil engineering firm.
In 2012, because of rising rent, he bought a little condo. He was about to make a move when he realized that his monthly payments made it unrealistic to leave a stable job and go for it. In case things did not work out, he would lose his condo and have to go crawling back to his old employer.
A Basic Income would give Gabe the financial security he needs to create his business. Indeed, the monthly amount would be sufficient to cover his student and condo payments and have enough to eat. A bank loan would become possible in order to launch his company. He would then have the credibility to approach his current employer to enlist his support for the project. Gabe figures it would take a year of hard work to demonstrate the potential of his new technology and start generating revenues.
Basic Income is the launching pad he needs to become his own boss.
6. Arnold Choi’s story
Arnold arrived in Canada in 2013 with only a work permit in hand. Now he is a permanent resident and well on the way to becoming a Canadian citizen.
As an engineer from China, he came to Montreal to earn money to send back to his family back in Beijing. Arnold fell in love with Canada. He is well integrated in the community, goes to church every Sunday and volunteers at a food bank.
He works as an engineer in a buildings and public works company and has been able to put aside enough money to think of bringing his wife Suzanne and their children to Canada.
Unfortunately, his father became very ill in 2014. Arnold had to return to Beijing, to look after him and accompany him in his final days. Medical and funeral expenses were substantial and now Arnold can no longer afford to bring his family to Canada.
With a Basic Income, Arnold could have brought his family to Canada and supported them in their new life. Arnold can appreciate to what extent the Canadian population is the fruit of immigration. Arnold being a member of the community, it is only fair that he should bring his family. A Basic Income would give him enough security to reunite his family and perhaps make new citizens for Canada.
by Kate McFarland | Feb 21, 2017 | News
VIDEO: “Basic income – real social security”
Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (CBINS), BIEN’s Scottish affiliate, was launched in Glasgow in November 2016. It held its second public event in Kelty, Fife, on January 28, 2017.
Videos of all presentations and Q&A sessions are available online.
Background
Public officials in Fife are currently working to establish a pilot study of basic income in the region, which is likely to be designed as a saturation study in a town (in which all residents of the chosen site are eligible to receive the basic income for the duration of the pilot). In November 2015, the Fairer Fife Commission (an independent commission created by the Fife Council) released a report that called for a basic income pilot as one of 40 recommendations to achieve a “fairer Fife”. Specifically, the commission encouraged the community planning board, the Fife Partnership, to select a town in Fife in which to run a pilot informed by “leading practice around the world” (with the planned study in Utrecht cited as an example of global leading practice at the time). In November 2016, the Fife Council voted to convene a group to carry out an initial feasibility study in early 2017.
The potential Fife pilot is still being designed. When asked about its details at the Kelty event, Paul Vaughn, Head of Community and Corporate Development at the Fife Council, relayed that the Council wishes to select a town of 2,000 to 5,000 people for the study, and that the pilot would run for at least two years. Otherwise, the details of the study’s design (including the amount of the basic income) are still “up for grabs”.
Meeting in Kelty
At CBINS’s Kelty meeting (titled “Basic income – real social security”), participants addressed broad issues concerning the motivation to pursue a basic income in Fife, the promises and potential pitfalls of pilot studies, and political support for a basic income in Fife and Scotland.
After introductory remarks by CBINS’s Willie Sullivan and Maddy Halliday, guest speaker Karl Widerquist (BIEN co-chair and associate professor of philosophy at University of Georgetown-Qatar) presented a justification of basic income as compensation for individuals’ deprivation of access to natural resources due the institution of private property. Widerquist argued no person should be forced to work for others out of necessity, and that a basic income would provide an incentive for employers to provide better wages.
After Widerquist spoke on the general question of “why basic income”, Vaughn turned to the question of “why Fife”. Vaughn provided an overview of the challenges currently faced by the council area, especially with respect to poverty and deprivation, noting that Fife tends to be representative of Scotland as a whole on measures such as health, employment, community safety, and other indicators used by government and community planners. Further, Vaughn presented the work of the Fairer Fife Commission that instigated the investigation into the pilot. Although the commission report made dozens of recommendations, the suggestion of a basic income pilot has generated the most interest among local authorities, according to Vaughn. However, as Vaughn described, a great deal remains to be completed, from awareness raising to gaining political and financial support to working out the implementation details and other preparatory work.
During the afternoon CBINS’s Annie Miller chaired a session in which Mike Danson (CBINS trustee and Professor of Enterprise Policy at Heriot-Watt University) and Widerquist offered two different perspectives on basic income experiments. Danson encouraged the audience to begin thinking through the myriad challenges related to implementing a basic income and even a pilot study thereof — raising many examples himself. Should students receive the benefit? Who counts as a “citizen” for the purpose of the basic income? Will the databases used to track recipients miss some of the most vulnerable (e.g. the homeless)? Given that a pilot would ideally be conducted at the national level (since the central government exerts control over taxation and other welfare benefits), how can local and regional pilots be useful?
Widerquist then spoke about limitations and potential dangers of pilot studies. For example, any pilot study, even a saturation study, cannot discern all impacts of a basic income on the labor market, given that the labor market is national (even global). Moreover, he cautioned that those who conduct pilot studies have a tendency to focus on whatever outcomes are easiest to record and measure (the “streetlight effect”), such as effects on work hours, rather than thinking broadly about the possible effects of a basic income. And he warned that policymakers are others are likely to try to spin results of any study to their advantage; for example, policymakers are likely to portray any decrease in work hours as a bad outcome.
Finally, public officials representing positions across the political spectrum briefly presented their views on the idea of a basic income for Scotland. Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP) Alex Rowley (Labour) enjoined Scotland to be ambitious and bold in tackling poverty. Fife Councillor Dave Dempsey (Conservative), a former student of mathematics, described basic income as an “elegant” solution, and revealed that the Fife Conservatives support the idea (although he could not speak for Scottish Conservatives in general). Maggie Chapman, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, emphasized the ability of basic income to transform the nature of society and the economy. Chapman noted that, as well as ameliorating many problems with the welfare system, a basic income would support work that is currently unpaid or underpaid, such as care work. Another Fife Councillor, Lesley Lewis (Labour), addressed some of the issues and challenges in winning public support. Finally, Member of Parliament (MP) Ronnie Cowan (Scottish National Party), a long-standing supporter of basic income, also spoke about the uphill battle faced by proponents of the idea — especially given that money is highly valued in society as a mark of success. Cowan encouraged everyone to write a personal letter to their MPs and MSPs in support of basic income, stressing that letters do influence policymakers.
More information on the event
Gerry Mulvenna, “Basic income – real social security,” The Independence Live Blog, January 30, 2017.
“Flashback to Kelty: Maddy’s opening address at our Pilot event,” Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland blog, February 6, 2017.
Liam Turbett, “The Scottish Town Planning to Give Everyone Free Money,” Vice, February 1, 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Fife’s Roome Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Tom Parnell
by Andre Coelho | Feb 18, 2017 | News
(From left to right: Louise Haagh, Annie Miller, Becca Kirkpatrick, Ben Southwood)
As reported recently, a formal hearing called by the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament was carried out on the 12th of January 2017, in Birmingham, for a session dedicated to basic income. This hearing was recorded on video, and can be watched here.
From the Work and Pensions Committee, the members present (formally named as witnesses) were Steve McCabe (Chair), Mhari Black, Ms Karen Buck, James Cartlidge, Frank Field and Craig Mackinlay. On the witness bench, supporters and critics of basic income were aligned: Louise Haagh (Reader in Politics from the University of York and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network), Annie Miller (Chair of the Citizen’s Income Trust), Becca Kirkpatrick (Chair of the UNISON West Midlands Community Branch), Ben Southwood (Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute) and Andrew Harrop (General Secretary of the Fabian Society) on the supporting side, along with Declan Gaffney (independent political consultant) and Peter Alcock (Emeritus Professor of Social Polity and Administration at the University of Birmingham) on the critical side.
The purpose of the hearing was one of collecting evidence from experts, specifically on the issue of basic income, on which Chairman Steve McCabe noted there seemed to be a “newfound interest”. He then went on to ask whether the witnesses were for or against the idea of basic income, and why, beginning with Louise Haagh.
Louise is firmly in favor of basic income, which she sees as a very important – crucial even – policy that welfare states need to implement, in order to relieve what she regards as a tendency towards more punitive strategies in present day social security schemes. Basic income can help a lot in providing “a more humane form of social security at the bottom of the welfare state”.
Louise Haagh
Seated next to Louise, Annie Miller starts by undersigning all her previous statements. In addition, she points to some definitional information about basic income, such as individuality, universality and non-conditionality except that of age. Miller also clarifies that basic income is only intended to cover basic needs, not luxurious lifestyles. That implies, given regional cost variations and various personal circumstances, that for instance housing and disability benefits would still need to be kept in place, at least in the United Kingdom (UK). She closes this initial statement by saying that basic income schemes will vary depending on the policy maker’s objectives.
Becca Kirkpatrick also began with her support for basic income, including the UNISON West Midlands labor union in that support. She cites ongoing discussions about basic income within the union she represents, which include a right to a dignified existence, as unconditional cash transfer, or as more widely conceived strategies to eradicate or alleviate poverty. Becca frames the question more generally not on a matter of technical or economic feasibility, but as an issue of political will, on “what the public of this country would like to see and believe they are entitled to”.
Following this, Ben Southwood went on to say that, although he supports basic income, he stands somewhere slightly different in relation to the issue. He defends basic income as a simplification of the welfare state, where he sees great opportunity for reducing or eliminating disincentives to work. Cutting most social benefits and replacing them with the basic income would, in his view, allow people currently on benefits a greater degree of freedom.
Annie Miller
On his part, Peter Alcock, while recognizing basic income’s appeal as a progressive idea for society, feels that it is “too good to be true”. Afraid of the co-option of basic income by neo-liberals – as an excuse for slashing away the welfare state – he looks upon it with as a “distraction from other more pressing issues”. He was followed, and supported by, Declan Gaffney. He was also weary that basic income supporters so often defend BI with promises of unconditionality even when, when practically considered, a basic income would still need to be attached to conditions. However, he does give the idea credit as “a thought experiment”.
Finally, Andrew Harrop said he was “sitting on the fence” with basic income. He thinks basic income should be seen more from a tax reform prism, rather than a change to social security. Harrop ultimately envisions a kind of hybrid system that combines universal unconditional cash transfers with means tested benefits for those “who have earned entitlement”.
Ms Karen Buck then raised the question of work and basic income: in an increasingly unstable labor market, with lower and less certain incomes accruing from work – how serious should these tendencies be regarded, and how might basic income address them? Declan Gaffney, in reply, doubted that, given the previous economic instability, we were witnessing permanent job loss due to technological change. In this he adhered to the views of others like Alan Manning. This was followed by a short discussion between Ms Karen Buck and Becca Kirkpatrick, over if the problem was the existence of conditions within the system, or the absence of the system. According to Becca, the system does not exist, not in a way as to “prioritize guaranteeing for everyone”, and went on to state the premises and broad results of UNISON internal debate on the issue of basic income. That survey, she says, has exceeded expectations as to the level of support for the idea, in general terms.
At that point, James Cartlidge joins the conversation, asking what he thinks is “the most important question”: how generous will this basic income be? Ben Southwood then introduces the issue of basic income versus the negative income tax issue. After clarification of the differences between these two systems of cash transfer, Annie Miller points out that the “housing benefit is not a problem of the basic income, it is a problem of the housing policy”. However, James, and to a certain extent, Peter Alcock state their opposition to basic income on a more fundamental basis: that people will not work if given a sufficiently generous basic income. James Cartlidge is also not convinced (about basic income), as some models, according to him, result in greater poverty with basic income.
Mhairi Black then raises the question of effects on the labor market, which she fears will be one without pay raises, if basic income is implemented. Louise doesn’t agree, arguing that people, with increased bargaining power, will only do difficult, unpleasant tasks if paid more to do them. On the other hand, going back to the quantitative value of basic income, Annie Miller reminds that 60% of the median equivalized household income is a good benchmark for quantifying the basic income in any given region, and elucidates about ways to finance it within the UK tax context. She goes on to state that this should actually be inscribed into a national constitution, if only the UK had one. On that point, Andrew Harrop states his preference for a hybrid tiered system, with both conditional and unconditional elements in it, plus some contributory part (for pensions and/or unemployment benefits).
Becca Kirkpatrick then introduced the issue of working conditions – on a general basis but also based on her own experience – which she thinks need to be addressed urgently, and strongly believes basic income is the way to do it. Louise then weights in by underlining that a basic income does not need to be a substitute for work regulations, nor to contributory benefit regimes. The two can go along in the same direction, one of reducing conditionality, complexity and punitive actions.
Craig Mackinlay from the Work and Pensions Committee was himself generally against the idea of a basic income, especially on the grounds that it will discourage work, plus it could increase poverty. Declan Gaffney, although also an opponent, recalls a study for the USA in which a 55% tax rate is applied to fund a basic income. Ben Southwood, on work changes due to basic income, sees a mixed effect which might somewhat reduce working hours – especially for single women with children – but at the same time increase income for extra hours worked. At this point, Louise introduces the calculations done by Malcom Torry, of the Citizen’s Income Trust, to fund a basic income in the UK, which predicts a 60£ a week for everybody, financed by progressive tax rates of 23% for incomes up to 42000£ per year, 43% up to 150000£ per year and 48% above that.
Peter Alcock
As final remarks, Andrew Harrop re-stated his vision of a hybrid social security scheme incorporating conditional and unconditional parcels. Declan declared himself reluctant to accept conditionality in the social security system, as well as some backstop sanctions regime. However, because he thinks basic income will discourage people from working, he favors a more traditional employment framework, with “permanent contracts, with proper in-work benefits with entitlements to holiday pay, sick pay and so on”. Peter Alcock firmly set his case against basic income, as something unachievable or that “isn’t worth pursuing”. Ben also concluded in support of basic income, although from a different point of view from other supporters. According to him, there is no principle distinction between a basic income and a negative income tax.
Becca Kirkpatrick went back to fundamental philosophical grounds justifying basic income, by saying that it “could have an interestingly powerful, new cohesive effect on society that we are yet to really experience”. She also rested her case with a unifying message that, effectively, the human species needs badly to unite, helped by such a policy as basic income, to address all other challenges it is facing in the world today. Annie Miller wrapped up her position by clarifying that, under a basic income scheme, higher earners are net payers of basic income, not receivers. She also added the important aspect of gender inequality, so much in favor of men presently, and that would be made more fair and realistic with basic income, paid individually. She still had time to summarize the current system, which she claimed is “just a regressive system”, and went on to point out that “we have freedom of choice for rich people but not for poor people”. Finally, Louise Haagh presented her closing statement underlying that, although with different views on the subject, the whole witness panel seems to show consensus that the benefits system needs changing. And that change will inevitably go towards basic income, if it is to become less punitive and more humane.
To view the full recording:
House of Commons Committees Youtube Channel, “Session on Citizen’s Income”, Work and Pensions Committee, live streamlined on the 12th January 2017
