by Kate McFarland | Nov 23, 2016 | Research
Malcolm Torry, director of the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) and co-secretary of BIEN, has prepared a report on implementing a citizen’s income (i.e. a basic income for UK citizens) for the Institute for Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW).
Malcolm Torry (picture: Citizen’s Income Trust)
In a report written for ICAEW’s opinion column, its “Outside Insights“ series, Torry develops four different proposals to implement a basic income guarantee wherein weekly cash grants are disbursed in equal amounts to all adult UK citizens. (As mentioned below, however, two of the proposals recommend that the government move toward a universal basic income by first introducing equal and unconditional cash transfers within certain subpopulations.)
As is common in the UK, Torry refers to the policy as a “citizen’s income”, which he defines as “an unconditional, non-withdrawable income, paid automatically to every individual as a right of citizenship” — or, roughly, a universal basic income for citizens. (Here, I will use the terms ‘basic income’, ‘UBI’, and ‘citizen’s income’ interchangeably.)
On Torry’s proposals, the amount of the payouts would be the same for all citizens, regardless of earnings, although higher earners might be taxed more heavily. This is slight but notable difference from the form of basic income guarantee under consideration by the government of Ontario, for example, which is planning to test a model wherein the amount of the cash grants is tapered off with earnings (that is, a negative income tax).
The ICAEW report briefly addresses several common objections to basic income, and reviews the types of “feasibility” analyzed in detail in Torry’s book, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, published earlier in the year –including (to use his terms) financial, psychological, behavioral, administrative, political, and policy-process feasibility.
A Citizen’s Income: Four Schemes
Against this background, Torry investigates four specific models for implementing a basic income:
1. The first proposal is to introduce a universal basic income at a level at least as high as the UK’s current benefit cap, which would replace current means-tested social assistance. Torry notes that this scheme would be most feasible in a highly automated economy, in which a portion of the proceeds on machine production could be used to fund the citizen’s income, and wherein any potential work disincentive effects of the UBI would be benign to the economy. However, he does not believe that it is currently financially feasible, since financing it would require either massive increases in income tax rates or additional sources of revenue.
2. The second proposal is to introduce a smaller level of UBI (e.g. £60 per week for working age adults) without abolishing current means-tested benefits. Under this scheme, the government would take account of the amount of income received through the UBI when determining eligibility for additional social welfare benefits. Torry states that this scheme could be funded by a 3% increase in income taxes. However, he hypothesizes that it would be unpopular (psychologically infeasible) due to the redistribution of money from income earners to other working-age adults.
3. The third proposal is to phase in a UBI by gradually introducing it to successive age-cohorts of young adult. Torry recommends that the government begin with a universal child benefit £45 per week per child under the age of 16, and a citizen’s income of £60 per week for each person 16 years of age. The latter would then retain the citizen’s income in subsequent years, while those who turn 16 would begin to receive it.
Torry notes that, without additional pressure to implement a fully universal basic income, it could take 40 to 50 years for the entire population to receive the unconditional benefits. However, he believes that it is one of the most feasible options (on all dimensions of feasibility).
4. The fourth and final proposal, which Torry also considers to be relatively feasibility, is to phase in a UBI in the opposite age-wise direction: beginning by introducing the benefit to “pre-retired” adults (e.g. those over age 60) who voluntarily opt into the program.
The ICAEW has more than 147,000 members worldwide from the finance professions. The organization itself does not take an official stand on citizen’s income.
Read More:
The full report is available for download from the ICAEW website: Malcolm Torry, “How might we implement a citizen’s income?“
The CIT has also published a blog post summarizing the results of the report: Citizen’s Income Trust (November 16, 2016) “ICAEW report on implementing Citizen’s Income”
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Cover image: “Chartered Accountant’s Hall” CC BY-SA 2.0 R4vi
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 12, 2016 | News, Research
After many years writing scholarship on the citizen’s income (or basic income), Malcolm Torry was constantly asked about the feasibility of the policy. A new book by Torry, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, seeks to answer this question.
Below is an interview with Torry on he came to write the new book and some of the conclusions he made in his research.
What prompted you to write this book?
It was about two years ago that the Citizen’s Income debate started to become seriously mainstream. I had already published Money for Everyone: Why we need a Citizen’s Income (Policy Press, 2013), a general introduction to the subject. Although the book was designed to be accessible to the general reader, a number of people had said to me that something shorter and cheaper would be useful so I wrote 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income (Policy Press, 2015). Both of these books were designed to show that Citizen’s Income is a good idea. They might or might not have contributed to the increase in interest in Citizen’s Income among think tanks, political parties, and the press. (Both international developments and increasing concern about the future of the employment market were probably more significant causes.) I had frequently been asked questions about the feasibility of Citizen’s Income. At both BIEN and Social Policy Association conferences I had presented papers about feasibility that built on articles about political feasibility by Jurgen De Wispelaere and his colleagues; and then, following a presentation for Cambridge economists on different kinds of feasibility, Karl Widerquist, who was the other presenter at the seminar, asked me if I would turn my presentation into a book for the Palgrave Macmillan series that he edits. Some of us had already noticed that the Citizen’s Income debate was becoming at least as much about feasibility as it was about desirability, so I agreed to Karl’s proposal.
What was the most surprising and/or interesting element you discovered while researching for this book?
A combination of related elements: that the policy process (the process by which an idea finds its way to implementation through a variety of interconnected institutions) is extremely diverse; that understandings of it are equally diverse; and that ideas can sometimes achieve implementation without passing through what we might call a normal policy process: that is, that policy accidents can occur. The book therefore contains chapters on political feasibility and on policy process feasibility, as well as a final chapter, ‘From feasibility to implementation’, in which policy accidents are discussed.
Which aspect will be most challenging to overcome in achieving a citizen’s income: political or psychological barriers? Why?
It became clearer to me as I researched and wrote the book that political feasibility relies heavily on psychological feasibility. Only if a significant proportion of a population are convinced of the case for a policy change, and significant proportions of particular groups within populations (journalists, academics, policy-makers, etc.) are convinced of the case, is there any chance of political feasibility. Psychological feasibility therefore precedes political feasibility – except when political accidents occur, and even then potential psychological feasibility is required. Psychological feasibility will not be easy to achieve because in the UK we have been means-testing benefits for four hundred years, and it takes a significant paradigm shift to recognise that in the presence of a progressive income tax an unconditional payment can do the same job as means-tested benefits and can do it a lot more efficiently and without all of the side-effects of means-testing. Given the further popular ‘deserving/undeserving’ mindset, building psychological feasibility for a Citizen’s Income for everyone is going to be difficult. However, building psychological feasibility for such ‘deserving’ groups as elderly people, the pre-retired, children, and young people, would not be so hard: so a feasible implementation method might be to implement Citizen’s Income one age group at a time, beginning with those thought most deserving. This would eventually build the psychological feasibility required for a Citizen’s Income for working age adults.
Is a citizen’s income feasible just using current revenue? If so, would this be the most desirable way to implement basic income?
A Citizen’s Income certainly is feasible just using current revenue if income tax allowances (‘standard deduction’ in the USA; ‘Personal Allowance’ in the UK) are adjusted appropriately, and Income Tax rates and other aspects of a tax and benefits system are adjusted appropriately. We have shown that in the UK a Citizen’s Income of £60 per week for working age adults (less for children and young adults; more for elderly people) would require no additional public expenditure if Income Tax Personal Allowances were reduced to zero, Income Tax rates were raised by just 3%, and National Insurance Contributions (social insurance contributions) and means-tested benefits were adjusted appropriately.
Whether this would be the most desirable way to implement a Citizen’s Income scheme is of course debatable: but it would probably be the most feasible way to begin implementation.
What would the most significant effect of the citizen’s income be on households?
What would be the most significant effect must be a matter of personal opinion, because different households have different priorities: but among significant effects would be greater freedom to choose an employment pattern that worked for all of the members of the household; lower marginal deduction rates for all or many households, meaning that an increase in earned income would translate into a higher additional net income than under current means-tested benefits systems; and freedom from bureaucratic intrusion into the household’s relationships and circumstances.
What is the empirical evidence that universal programs are superior to means tested ones?
To decide whether one system is superior to another requires a list of criteria for a good benefits system, and then different systems need to be evaluated against those criteria. The book Money for Everyone contains a full discussion of the criteria for a good benefits system, discusses the ways in which the criteria are met or not met by different systems, and concludes that a universalist system meets the criteria more thoroughly than a means-tested one. The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income does not ask directly about the desirability of Citizen’s Income, but rather seeks evidence for Citizen’s Income’s ability to pass a variety of feasibility tests (although of course feasibility is required for desirability, and desirability for feasibility). Evidence is drawn from natural and constructed experiments, microsimulation results, and other empirical research.
What is the most desirable aspect of a citizen’s income? What is the main reason you support basic income?
Again, what is the most desirable aspect of Citizen’s Income will be a matter of opinion. Since we all have different preferences, the question then comes down to the second question asked: What is the main reason that I support Citizen’s Income? There is no main reason; there are lots of reasons: unconditionality; universality; lower marginal deduction rates; greater individual freedom; greater equality; decreased poverty; enhanced social cohesion; administrative simplicity; the absence of stigma, error, fraud, and bureaucratic interference in the lives of individuals and households.
What brought you to the citizen’s income movement?
From 1976 to 1978 I worked in the Department of Health and Social Security’s Supplementary Benefit office in Brixton in South London, administering means-tested benefits. We all knew how bad the system was, both for claimants and for the staff. The benefit that we and the claimants loved was universal Child Benefit, for its simplicity, its reliability, and the way that it reduced poverty, increased equality, and created social cohesion. Why shouldn’t the same principles and the same results be transferred to benefits for working age adults?
I was ordained, and served my first post in the Church of England’s ministry at the Elephant and Castle: the parish in South London in which the headquarters of the DHSS was located. I got to know people in the offices, and was invited to the department’s summer school. There I found the idea of a Basic or Citizen’s Income being seriously discussed. I was invited to join a group of individuals from a variety of backgrounds interested in the idea – the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen’s Income Trust – and have participated in its work ever since.
The motive has always been the same: to research the desirability and feasibility of an unconditional income for every individual as a right of citizenship. My new book concludes that Citizen’s Income’s implementation is feasible.
