by Kate McFarland | Mar 28, 2017 | News
Financing Basic Income: Addressing the Cost Objection, edited by Richard Pereira (University of Birmingham, UK), is the latest addition to the Palgrave Macmillan series Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee.
Contributors include Pereira, Albert Jörimann (Basic Income Earth Network, Switzerland) and Gary Flomenhoft (University of Vermont, USA; University of Queensland, Australia).
Publisher’s summary
This Palgrave Pivot argues that basic income at a decent level is, in fact, affordable. The contributors approach the topic from the perspectives of three different countries—Canada, Switzerland, and Australia—to overcome objections that a universal program to keep all citizens above the poverty line would be too expensive to implement. They assess the complex array of revenue sources that can make universal basic income feasible, from the underestimated value of public program redundancies to new and so far unaccounted publicly owned assets.
Contents
1. Introduction by Richard Pereira
2. “Foundations for a Basic Income Guarantee: Affordability through Program Redundancies” by Richard Pereira
3. “Cost Feasibility of Basic Income in Europe: A Financing Case Study from Switzerland” by Albert Jörimann
4. “Building up BIG: Land Rent in Australia as a Significant Financing Source” by Gary Flomenhoft
5. Conclusion by Richard Pereira
Photo: CC BY 2.0 FuFu Wolf
by Kate McFarland | Mar 23, 2017 | Research
Three University of Manitoba economists, Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason, and Ryan Godwin, have jointly authored a new research paper about the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (“Mincome”), a trial of a guaranteed income that took place from 1974 to 1979.
The Mincome experiment consisted of randomized studies in Winnipeg and rural Manitoba, as well as a saturation study in the town of Dauphin, where all residents were eligible for participation in the study. Participants received an income supplement that was phased out as personal earnings increased, and several combinations of minimum income level and taxation rates were tested. The guaranteed income scheme tested, a negative income tax, is equivalent in its distributional effects to a basic income that is taxed back with personal income over a certain amount. Decades after Mincome ended, its outcomes were analyzed by economist Evelyn Forget. The results are now frequently mentioned as evidence of the effectiveness of basic income / negative income tax.
At present, the province of Ontario is preparing a new major trial of a guaranteed income (which, as in Mincome, is likely to be designed as a negative income tax). In a lengthy discussion paper about the new trial, project advisor Hugh Segal notes that the Dauphin saturation study, showed “population health improvements, the potential for government health savings, and no meaningful reduction in labour force participation.”
In their new article, Simpson, Mason, and Godwin re-examine Mincome, and consider how it might answer questions about contemporary experiments in Ontario and elsewhere.
Abstract
The recent announcements of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot and Finland’s cash grants to jobless persons reflect the growing interest in some form of guaranteed annual income (GAI). This idea has circulated for decades and has now been revived, no doubt prompted by concerns of increased inequality and employment disruptions. The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (Mincome), conducted some 40 years ago, was an ambitious social experiment designed to assess a range of behavioural responses to a negative income tax, a specific form of GAI. This article reviews that experiment, clarifying what exactly Mincome did and did not learn about how individuals and households reacted to the income guarantees. This article reviews the potential for Mincome to answer questions about modern-day income experiments and describes how researchers may access these valuable data.
Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason and Ryan Godwin (2017), “The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment: Lessons Learned 40 Years Later,” Canadian Public Policy.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Northern Lights in Manitoba, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AJ Batac
by Kate McFarland | Mar 22, 2017 | News
The government of Ontario has released an overview of the results of three months of public consultations on the design of the province’s impending “Basic Income Pilot”.
The provincial government of Ontario, Canada is currently designing a pilot study of a guaranteed minimum income (a “basic income” in its terminology [note]), which it plans to launch in the spring of 2017. On November 3, 2016, project advisor Hugh Segal released the paper “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario” to serve as the focus of discussions on the design of the pilot (see the summary in Basic Income News). Concurrent with the publication of the paper, Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for feedback from the public via public meetings, online surveys, and written submissions.
Public consultations continued through January 31, 2017, and, in the end, 32,870 people responded to the public online survey, 1193 attended the public meetings, and at least 537 individuals and community groups submitted written feedback–according to a newly released summary of the results of the consultations.
The new report, “Basic Income Consultations: What We Heard” (March 2017), provides an overview of feedback received from the public, although no details have yet been provided as to how this feedback will inform or influence the design of the pilot.
One issue addressed in the consultations was which of the potential measurable outcomes were most important to Ontarians. Segal suggested ten in his discussion paper, and consultations revealed “general agreement” that, of these, four were “particularly important” to residents: health, housing, food, and work behavior.
The level of the minimum income was also a topic of discussion–with the widely announced amount of $1320 per month called into question by some. This $1320 per month amount, which Segal recommended in his discussion paper, was based on a calculation of 75% of the Low-Income Measure (LIM). Some participants in public hearings recommended instead that the minimum income be set at 100% of the LIM.
Participants also discussed the selection of sites for the pilot, with widespread agreement that a variety of locations should be chosen, representing urban, rural, and northern areas, but that the government should also strive to focus on areas of greatest need (i.e. highest poverty rates).
Read about other results here.
[note] As is common in Canada, the Ontario government uses the term ‘basic income’ more broadly than does BIEN. The report above, for example, describes a basic income as a “payment from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level” and lays out several methods of implementing such a policy: “giving the same amount of money to everyone” (i.e. the specific approach that organizations like BIEN refer to as a “basic income”, sometimes also called a “demogrant”), “topping up the incomes of people who earn less than a certain amount”, and “setting up a system where people who earn less than a certain amount get a payment from the government, instead of paying taxes” (i.e. a negative income tax).
Often, ‘basic income’ is used to refer specifically to schemes in which all members of a community receive an equal amount of money, paid to individuals, while a term like ‘guaranteed minimum income’ is applied to the broader category of “payment[s] from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level”. Thus, although the Ontario government has titled its project “Basic Income Pilot”, it might be more accurate to describe it as a “minimum income pilot” to avoid confusion with BIEN’s more specific use of ‘basic income’.
Segal himself strongly recommended that the pilot avoid testing a “demogrant” (“universal basic income”) in favor of a negative income tax. However, as the new report reveals, some participants in the consultations suggested the adoption of a demogrant model.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo (Ottawa, Ontario) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Stuart Williams
by BIEN | Feb 20, 2017 | News
(Image Credit to University of Toronto)
You are a family doctor, with unique insights into the Canadian health care system. Your new book, Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians, poses, as per the title, six big ideas to improve the Canadian health care system. What inspired you to write this book?
Each chapter in the book was named after a patient in my practice who I was inspired by and this is a book about their stories. I think that when people pick up a copy of Better Now, they will see themselves in the stories, or a friend or a family member. Many of us have had similar experiences in the doctor’s office, or we know of someone who has. As a family doctor, I see the challenges my patients face because of problems in the system. These problems often feel outside the control of both individual patients and providers. But as someone who studies health system issues, I know that a lot of those problems can be fixed, and importantly we can fix them in ways that build on the value of fairness that is so important to Canadians. I felt a book was a good way to give voice to these issues and to try to get people like my patients and your readers more engaged in pushing for improvements.
Big idea 1 is the return to relationships. What does this mean for Canadian health care?
We know that around 85% of Canadians have a family doctor, so that’s a great place to start. But having a good relationship with your doctor comes next. This relationship should be one where there is open communication, so that we as doctors have the chance to really understand what patients need when they come in to see us. In my book, I say that the notion of being seen by “someone who knows you” is central to primary care. The best place to integrate all your health needs is a place where, like the bar in Cheers, everybody knows your name. So, for example, if you come in to see me for a cold, I would help you with that, but while you were there, we might also sit and talk about other concerns you may be having, discuss your family history with a disease, talk about screening and what we need to better manage your health. This relationship can also help to guard against overtreatment or over-doctoring. For example, in my book, I talk about my patient Abida and how we’ve worked to reduce the number of medications she takes and the specialists she meets with over the years, to her benefit. We’ve also tried to limit the number of times she goes in to the emergency room by making sure that she sees me more often, vs. other healthcare providers who many not know about as much about her health history.
Big idea 2 is a nation with a drug problem. What is our drug problem in Canada? What is the remedy or the solution for it?
Drugs have always been an issue, whether legal or illegal. For example, lots of families have seen their loved ones experience horrible side effects because of prescription drugs that have been through rigorous trials. You can visit website to find out more about how they seek compensation for this. Anway, a bigger issue with drugs is that some people just can’t afford them. We know that one in five Canadian households report that someone in that household is not taking their medicine out of concerns about costs. We need a public drug plan that covers all Canadians and does not have high co-payments so that patients can afford to take their life-saving medications. A strong national pharmacare program would solve our access problems and save Canadians billions of dollars. If done right, a pharmacare program could also help to reduce overmedication and inappropriate prescribing – problems that affect too many Canadians, especially seniors. Canadians believe in the principle that access to health care should be based on need, not ability to pay. That principle needs to be extended beyond doctors and hospitals to include universal access to a publicly-funded formulary of essential medicines.
Big idea 5 is a basic income for basic health. That is important to BIEN. It is, specifically, a basic income guarantee. What is the specific definition of a basic income guarantee in big idea 5? How would this impact the Canadian health care system?
A basic income guarantee means that if your income falls below a certain level, you would be topped up to a level sufficient to meet your basic needs. It’s a departure from our current social assistance program in two ways:
- A basic income would ensure that everyone in Canada has income above the “poverty line.”
- It would work through the tax system and be easier to administer with the only eligibility requirement being a person’s income. Who you live with or whether you were searching for work or attending a training program wouldn’t be factored into whether you are eligible to receive support.
Medicine isn’t the only thing that makes us healthy. If you can’t afford good food, your rent or safe housing, it’s harder to be healthy, so we need a basic income for basic health. By ensuring that everyone has access to a basic income, we can improve health and decrease costs in the health care system by reducing or eliminating poverty. For example, in Manitoba in the 1970s, a small income top-up for people in poverty reduced hospitalizations by 8.5%. If we could find a drug as effective as that, we would put it in the water supply!
About the Author
Danielle Martin is a family physician in Toronto and Vice President, Medical Affairs and Health System Solutions at Women’s College Hospital. Her book, Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians, was released by Penguin Random House in January 2017. For more information on her current book tour watch here and follow @docdanielle on Twitter.
by Kate McFarland | Feb 15, 2017 | News
In January, Apolitical published an exclusive interview with two leaders behind the planning of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee program in Ontario, Canada: Helena Jaczek, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services, and project advisor Hugh Segal.
Earlier this month, the interview was republished in the official blog of the World Economic Forum, the Switzerland-based organization responsible for the prestigious annual Davos meeting (which this year held a panel discussion and debate on “basic income: dream or delusion”).
In the interview, Jaczek and Segal explain the reasons for their interest in and optimism about basic income. Jaczek sees the program as a means to provide economic security to allow individuals to contribute to society. Segal supports basic income as a way to avoid the “poverty trap” that occurs when poor individuals lose benefits after taking a job, as well as a way to empower the poor to make decisions on their own behalf.
The Government of Ontario has recently completed public consultation hearings on an initial proposal for the pilot study, and will release its final plan in Spring 2017. As proposed, the pilot will consist of both a randomized control study in a large metropolitan area (in which randomly selected individuals receive the basic income guarantee) and several saturation studies (in which all members of a small city receive the basic income guarantee). If Segal’s initial recommendations are followed, subjects will be eligible to receive an unconditional cash transfer of up to 1,320 CAD (about 1,000 USD) per month, gradually tapered off with additional earnings, which would replace existing unemployment programs in the province.
Read more:
“Exclusive: Inside Canada’s new basic income project,” Apolitical, January 4, 2017.
“Canada’s basic income experiment – will it work?” World Economic Forum blog, February 2, 2017.
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) CC BY 2.0 Brian Burke
