by Albert Joerimann | Oct 3, 2015 | News
Robin Jessen, Davud Rostam-Afschar und Viktor Steiner, 15. Sept. 2015
This article presents a proposal for how basic income could work in Germany. An Unconditional Basic Income of 800 € per month and adult person (corresponding to the actual, conditional social transfer payments, above all the Hartz IV payments) could be financed by a flat tax of 68.9%. This flat tax would replace the actual progressive tax system and the contributions to the current social security system that makes up about 20% of gross income. A micro-simulation shows that people with low incomes would have increased work incentives compared to the current Hartz-IV-system.
Another simulation was established to evaluate the effects of UBI on the average working time of different types and incomes of households. The simulation resulted in a reduction of the hours worked by 5% on average, whereas the poorest households would increase their hours worked by 1.4%. Women would reduce their working time on average markedly stronger than men.
A third simulation calculates the redistributive effects of an UBI. The top five deciles of all households would loose from 0.2% of their equivalent household disposable income in the 6th decile up to 21% in the 10th decile, whereas the lower deciles would profit from 34.1% in the first up to 4.9% in the fifth decile. The main beneficiaries of this proposal would be single parents with several children, whereas single persons without children would lose some 2000 € per year on average. All in all, the redistributive effects of this scheme would be material.
Thus, two important arguments against the UBI are disproved: a) it can be financed without massive distortions of the public finances, and b) the incentives to assume a salaried work would be strengthened for people with small incomes who are considered to be the most prone of perils like passivity and idleness.
The article and the underlying study of the same authors was written as a reaction to two recent critical papers against the UBI (Habermacher und Kirchgässner, 2013, and Flassbeck et al., 2013). The authors present their proposal as revenue-neutral, which leaves some questions, above all concerning the actual progressive income tax rates of 14% up to 45% in Germany. Replacing this progressive tax (and the actual 20% of social security contributions) by a flat tax of 68.9% would, at first sight, mean a significant increase of the tax burden not for the lowest, but for the lower and middle incomes. Still, the results of the simulations have to be taken into account in future discussions about the effects of the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income.
Language: German
Robin Jessen, Davud Rostam-Afschar, Viktor Steiner, “Welche Effekte hätte ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen für Deutschland?” [What effects would a Basic Income have for Germany?]. Ökonomenstimme, September 15th, 2015.
Jessen, R., D. Rostam-Afschar und V. Steiner. “Getting the Poor to Work: Three Welfare Increasing Reforms for a Busy Germany,”. Freie Universität Berlin, School of Business & Economics,Discussion Papers 2015/22, No date, 2015.
Straubhaar, T., Werner, G., Eichhorn, W., Friedrich, L., Habermacher, F., Kirchgässner, G., Flassbeck, H., Quaas, G. and Thieme, S.: “Das Bedingungslose Grundeinkommen: ein tragfähiges Konzept?”, Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer, Band 93(9),September 19,2013.
by Toru Yamamori | Sep 21, 2015 | News
Feminist Philosophy Workshop, which will be held on 9th October, at the University of Hamburg, invites Anca Gheaus to speak on ‘Feminism and Basic Income’.
Gheaus works at the university of Sheffield. Her past publication on feminism and basic income can be accessed here.
This is an academic workshop and registration is required. The contact for registration is Amanda Cawston (amanda.causton@cantab.net).
The workshop will take place in the Philosophy Faculty (Room 1072, 10th floor of Von-Melle-Park 6, 20146 Hamburg). The detail can be found here.
by BIEN | Sep 11, 2015 | News
In a public square in Berlin, Ralph Boes can be found sitting at a table. Anyone who would like to can speak to Boes, who will then explain his protest of the current German welfare system. Boes demands a “livable income”, a guaranteed minimum income that can provide enough for everyone to meet their needs. Germany’s welfare sanctions mean that if an individual refuses a job, regardless of the circumstances, they lose their welfare benefits. Boes believes that this policy of sanctions fundamentally sacrifices the dignity of the individual. Boes has been on strike since July 1, and plans to continue his strike to educate people about the basic income.
For more information on Boes and his ideas, visit Boes website, or the Tumblr page dedicated to his efforts.
by Toru Yamamori | Aug 18, 2015 | Research
Sascha Liebermann (2015) Aus dem Geist der Demokratie: Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen [In the Spirit of Democracy: Unconditional Basic Income],
Publisher: Humanities Online, Frankfurt, Germany 2015
This book addresses a wide audience of people interested in basic income and tries to shed light on the “revolving effect” a UBI would have on all aspects of our lives. The chapters are based on blog posts which the author has published in the last seven years on www.freiheitstattvollbeschaeftigung.de. These posts have been completely revised, updated and adapted to the book format. The chapters deal with democracy, socialization, early childhood, education (from crèche via kindergarten to school and university), family, demography, economics, automatization, social work, welfare state as well as other topics.
by Joerg Drescher | Apr 9, 2015 | News
Tony Atkinson is a well known scientist on inequality and a student of James Meade. Atkinson is Senior Research Fellow at the Nuffield College of the Oxford University and Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics. In an interview with the German newspaper “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” he pleads for a minimum heritage for all citizens at the age of 18 years.
In this interview he was asked about inequality in Germany. He said inequality has consequences for economic success. Even Christine Lagarde, the director of the IMF, worries about inequality which decreases economic growth. However, inequality is for Atkinson also a question of justice. He rhetorically asks whether we really want to live in a country in which some people can travel to space, while others have to eat at meal centres even if they have work.
He is not against good payments and argues that inequality does not mean to dissolve all differences. Rather he means equal opportunities, which are not given in unequal societies.
In his opinion many European countries implemented successful measures after World War II to reduce inequality, but in the last years these programs were reduced. He gives the example that the social state built up a very effective transfer system which helped poor people, but meanwhile social benefits were reduced in many countries.
Asked if Thomas Piketty is right to increase taxes for super rich people to distribute the money, Atkinson answers that Piketty is very interested in super rich people, but less in helping the poor. For Atkinson super rich people are not only a source for taxation; rather he sees in them a risk because at least in the Anglo-American sphere they have increasingly disproportionate political influence. This is bad for democracy. However, poverty as well as marginalisation of poor people is the worst consequence of inequality. In his opinion a further political question of our time is the inequality between generations and genders.
The interviewer asks if he really thinks those modern problems can be solved by measures of yesterday in the sense of more taxes for more social benefits. On the one hand, he says, he supports a progressive tax system; on the other hand, he suggests we unchain the pension system from work and think about new forms of unemployment insurance.
The conversation changes and Atkinson is asked about work and the problem that technological progress assists inequality and robots destroy certain jobs and no taxes can stop this development. He answers that the debate should be on the issue of what we want to be automated. For instance, it might be better to have robots in industry, but do we really want waiters replaced by drones? You cannot talk with drones about the weather (for some people the most important reason to use this service). Not everything a robot can do it should do.
The next question is about what would happen if there is no unemployment, because jobs are paid unequally. Atkinson counters that in future it is important to pay attention to how much people earn before they pay taxes. It is a matter of distributing wages and income from investments. Here he suggests a “minimum heritage” for all citizens at the age of 18 years. In this case they would have this security which heirs have. A possibility to fund this is to increase inheritance taxes. However, he agrees that this would not be easy in a global economy, but it could work if financial information were exchanged. A civilized society needs high taxes. People have to provide information which is needed for taxation.
Link to the original interview by Lena Schipper, 6th April 2015 (in German):
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/armut-und-reichtum/interview-mit-tony-atkinson-ueber-armut-ungleichheit-und-mindesterbe-13511563.html
