by Andre Coelho | Mar 15, 2017 | Opinion
A debate has arisen about the definition of basic income and the facts that support the movement. To contribute my input to the debate, I feel the need to respond, line by line, to Francine Mestrum’s latest article published on Social Europe.
It starts right at the top, with Mestrum equating basic income, professed in the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Newsletter articles, with guaranteed minimum income. To justify this approach, she mentions the fact that no basic income has ever been implemented, and that the pilots concerned transferred cash only to poor people. Although her view is understandable, she fails to see that these pilots intended to test the outcome of a basic income implementation (which effectively transfers income from the relatively richer to the relatively poorer). It’s not that in a future basic income implementation rich people will not get it (as opposed to the Negative Income Tax approach); universality implies they also get it, but then all of the basic income and more is taken away, through taxation. That’s redistribution functioning.
We already see that in our current welfare states, but in twisted, unfair and inefficient ways. The conditionalities associated with present-day social security are creating poverty traps all around, so the unconditionality associated with basic income is intended to eliminate them. However, and as a matter of fact, her reference to the Canadian basic income experiment at Dauphin is misplaced, since Dauphin was actually an experimental saturation site, which means that everyone in the town was eligible for the cash. The income monitoring and distribution simulated the taxation effect (only positive transfers for the relatively poor).
Then, Mestrum goes on to say that current basic income experimental plans in the Netherlands, Finland and Scotland “can threaten social protection mechanisms”. Well, we in the basic income movement have already heard enough about the possibility of basic income being highjacked by right-wing neo-liberals threatening to dismantle social protection mechanisms (and much more) with the introduction of a basic income. I can hear them say, between the lines: “Here’s free money to everyone! Now get out of our faces and let us dismantle everything in existence publicly owned or managed.” Of course there’s a risk. I’m not denying it. However, any person who is aware will not be fooled by such intentions. I, among many other basic income defenders (most of them, actually), support a basic income which is complementary to the welfare state, not a substitution for it. Louise Haagh makes a very good case for this defense, as expressed here.
Then the questions. According to Francine, the only serious questions worth answering on basic income are whether income distribution schemes, like in Alaska, should be limited to resource-rich regions, and whether there shouldn’t be a global fund (linked to resources from all regions) to cover global needs. These are important questions, no doubt. But hardly the only serious ones. How about, “Should not all people enjoy a minimum amount of freedom in their lives, instead of being pressured and exploited all the time?”, or “Should not countries and their governments make efforts to reduce structural inequalities, which are seen as the source for countless social problems?”, or even “Should not countries introduce a way to guarantee basic financial security for all, as a way to effectively deal with the changing nature of work, precariousness and automation?”. My view is that Francine Mestrum nurtures a very narrow view on what is and what is not meant to be a basic income.
As for semantics, notably the “basic income” vs “minimum income” discussion in France, I do have not much to say. However, if we limit ourselves to a pure language discussion, note that “basic income” can mean anything from the most abject dictatorial sanctions-based system (as in present-day United Kingdom) of social assistance, to the most progressive, avant-garde unconditional system of cash transfers. Once each one of us explains what he/she understands these terms to be, there should be no confusion left.
Next, Mestrum identifies BIEN as a source of the problem, to be held responsible for these disputes in language (which she inelegantly calls “communicating on alternative facts”). This is unfair. More precisely, it is unfair because it stems from a misunderstanding of the mission of BI News. BIEN’s Newsletter is a collection of articles from Basic Income News for a given month. These articles convey information about what is happening around the world concerning basic income, and an article about the alleged confusion between “basic income” and “minimum income” would actually be a good candidate for Basic Income News. Articles can report news from someone defending basic income, or somebody else critiquing it (as Francine Mestrum does). Events and other publications on the Internet are also frequently highlighted byBasic Income News. What is posted on Basic Income News does not necessarily convey BIEN’s views on basic income. Instead, for that end, a short, general definition is available on BIEN’s website. There can be absolutely no mistake here.
Another thing has to be perfectly clear. As a BIEN member, and Basic Income News editor-in-chief, my role is not to speak for the minds of other people, even when they are confusing “basic income” with “minimum income”. Basic Income News is expected to be an impartial news service, aiming nonetheless to disseminate information about basic income. Interested readers will take their time to digest all this information, to think and to draw their own conclusions. Here I resort to a line I normally use in these situations: no one convinces no one, only the individual becomes self-convinced. Now, for that, of course, one must be in possession of enough information. And that’s where we, at Basic Income News, step in.
Understandably, Francine Mestrum has a deep rooted fear that basic income implementation will lead to the collapse of the welfare state and, with it, all the hard won social conquests, such as public education and public health and, of course, democracy. We are all too weary of the effects of the rentier capitalist economy thriving these days, chief among them the erosion of democracy. But Francine’s fears are not against basic income. These are against, as she herself puts it, “those who do not believe in society”. And that’s why all true defenders of a social basic income, the one that promotes solidarity, complements the welfare state and recognises the commons, must do exactly that: promote solidarity, defend the welfare state (while improving it) and help expand the commons.
Otherwise, I must agree with Francine: our society will inevitably decay into a dystopia of unbelievable proportions, destruction of the environment and exploitation of the people.
More information at:
Francine Mestrum, “The alternative facts of the basic income movement”, Social Europe, 16th February 2017
by Andre Coelho | Jan 8, 2016 | Opinion
What does the future look like? No one knows and it is folly to argue one does. But we can think, we can even try to make predictions, depending on how much risk we are willing to take. To say, as Jeremy Rifkin suggests, that the future will look like a collaborative commons, based upon zero marginal cost, internet-linked nodal, laterally scalable shared green energized economy is all very well, and I definitely resonate with it, but is it inevitable? How zero cost is it? The price of generating an extra energy unit from a photovoltaic panel may be close to zero, but what about the panel itself? Who pays for it?
Proponents will say that photovoltaic panels are cheaper than they have ever been, huge economies of scale were possible in the last few years and any person these days can purchase photovoltaic panels. But is this true? Panels are cheaper than they were some years ago, no doubt, but a person first needs to eat, have a shelter, access some basic form of transportation and energy for cooking, lighting and such. Only after all that is guaranteed, can someone consider the photovoltaic panels, the electric car, or the 3D printer. The “future”, it seems, will not come until poverty is eliminated. Because poor people – 24.4 % of all European population was at risk of poverty in 2014, or 122 million people – cannot participate in this futuristic vision of the world unless their basic needs are met.
You doubt it? Then think about it. In most places, if you run out of money to pay for electricity, it is unlikely that your neighbors will help out by supplying you with some electricity, and even less likely that you will be given a photovoltaic system to produce your own energy. Where I live, at least, if I stop paying the electricity bill, they will cut me off, without a doubt. No matter how generous, how educated, how creative, how tolerant I might have been in life, the power company is completely indifferent: you do not pay, you will have to go without power. Period.
Things might be different in the future – and they certainly will. But at this moment the amount of money one has is less related to levels of education, generosity, creativity or tolerance, and more to status, power, social networks, dominance and violence. Attributing monetary value to people is a trap. The instant you say “this person is worth 1000 euros”, you automatically create an underclass of unworthy people. Those people might even be subject to discrimination and violence you object to, from deprivation and poverty to constant surveillance. So definitions or layers of worthiness cannot solve a core problem in present-day human species: our difficulty to share. To trust.
This is why I defend basic income. It represents a bold and clear statement: human dignity is not and must not be subject to discussions about worthiness or value. These attempts to quantify human beings are bound to fail, since our “value”, if we must speak of it, is incalculable. You cannot calculate it, so there is no use in trying. Basic income is also a crucial tool for participation. You cannot truly participate and contribute to a better society – let’s say by investing in a photovoltaic system – if you do not have the money to meet your basic needs.
This is why major societal challenges like climate change cannot be solved without addressing poverty. Because while there is poverty, people will simply not “do the right thing” when they cannot afford it. If the costs of living in a more sustainable way are higher than what they can afford, there is little choice but to eat whatever they can, drive the most affordable (and most polluting) vehicles. They buy the cheapest appliances which often break down, and if they can’t get a repair company similar to https:www.adamsapplianceco.com to fix it, the appliance then joins many others just like it in a landfill. All these mentioned are still among the major polluters we are trying to eliminate. But until poverty is tackled they will persevere to pollute our world.
by Dejan Tachevski | Jan 5, 2016 | News
Credits to Sandrine Landrix
From Eric Kirschbaum, writing in the Los Angeles Times (27th December 2015) comes news of a privately operated project held in Germany, financed by crowdfunding, that has rejuvenated Basic Income discussions. This small-scale experiment is called “Mein Grundeinkommen” (My Basic Income). Up to now 26 people have been paid a $1,100 per month stipend, with no strings attached.
Recipients are chosen randomly through a lottery, which is streamed live online. They are selected from a pool of more than 66,000 applicants, with draws being held whenever enough donations are collected. 31,449 people have made donations thus far.
The experiment is supplying valuable information about how people behave when they have some level of financial security, and has caught the attention of German politicians such as Katja Kipping, co-leader of the hard left party Die Linke, and long-time advocate for a universal basic income. Die Linke, according to Kirschbaum, “discussed the issue intensively at its last congress in Bielefeld, although many party members were sceptical”.
Erik Kirschbaum, “If you were handed $1,100 a month, would you amount to anything?” , Los Angeles Times, 27 December, 2015
by Vito Laterza | Dec 26, 2015 | News
On December 11, anti-poverty activist and scholar Jason Burke Murphy appeared on the popular David Pakman Show to discuss basic income and how to implement it in the United States. Murphy is assistant professor at Elms College. He serves on the National Committee of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network and the BIEN Executive Committee.
The conversation touched on the reasons for introducing a universal basic income, and the practicalities of implementing it.
Murphy traced the beginnings of his basic income activism back to his experience of working with low-income communities in Arkansas in the 1990s:
All the neighbourhoods where I was knocking doors, almost nobody had a plan that would do anything significant in that neighbourhood. The city wanted to raise taxes to build the sports arena. The federal government has weapons purchases. And every time a job program was announced, the jobs were not a significant improvement, or they just were not coming to the areas we were working in. So this seemed the only thing that would actually get to the people I was working with.
Jason Murphy, BIEN Executive Committee.
Murphy’s anti-poverty perspective shapes his views on how to implement a basic income. He noted that the bureaucracy faced by those wishing to access current welfare benefits like food stamps is extremely complex. This means that many people who are entitled to these benefits do not actually receive them. Basic income would overcome these problems, and would also eliminate the poverty trap; as it is an unconditional payment, people would not have to worry about losing their benefits when they find employment.
Murphy stressed that implementing a basic income does not necessarily entail the immediate and total phasing out of other benefits:
We could keep things like food stamps or some disability services, there is nothing barring us from doing that. But we ought to have something that unconditionally belongs to everybody.
According to him, basic income should not be part of a race to the bottom:
It needs to be progressively funded from progressive taxation. Why? We have a serious problem with inequality and I see nothing that directly approaches that like a progressively funded basic income dividend.
Murphy also stressed the need for ecological taxes as another source of financing for basic income, as this would ensure that wealth would be redistributed in an environmentally sustainable way.
Watch the full video below.
A short commentary by Hungary Matters on an endorsement by the leader of the Hungarian Socialist Party József Tóbiás for basic income. The original story is published on Hungary’s non-partisan international political daily website (https://www.politics.hu). As the authors note, Tóbiás said:
“There is need for a radical paradigm shift in the economy that could bring about a more socially just, more humane world. This, however, would require more reforms than just the introduction of the basic income, he [tobias] said.”
See the original story here:
Hungary Matters, “Socialist leader: basic income is a means for better society” www.politics.hu, May 19, 2016