by Guest Contributor | Jun 15, 2018 | Opinion
Written by: Thomas Klemm
Some indigenous nations within the United States may have answers to many of the biggest questions of basic income, due to their experience with basic income-like programs. Nations have been doing this in the form of what is commonly known as “per capita” payments. While per capita payments pre-date casino gaming, the majority of per capita payment programs came after passing The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which was passed in 1988. Traditionally, casinos have been a massive source of income and revenue for the Indian community. However, the online casino market has slowly resulted in revenue dropping substantially. The simple reason for this is Casinos not on gamstop have proven to be very popular.
These per capita payments commonly come from the allocation of casino revenue. Anyone who has installed the mega888 download will be well aware of how lucrative the casino market is at the moment. If you haven’t downloaded it, or at least something similar, you are potentially missing out on some big winnings. Just remember to check a review first, before you decide on an online casino or casino app. You don’t want to deposit any money into it unless you can be sure it is a good site to use. The market in general is booming, be it with the in-person locations with the glitz and glamor, or with the online sites that allow for fast withdrawal of those shiny winnings. Moreover, it should be stated that other business ventures are used to fund these payments as well. How successful these ventures are is often dependent on how close to a large population the nation is. Being that most indigenous people were forcibly moved to some of the most isolated and rural parts of this country, it makes successful gaming a near impossibility for most tribal nations. Due to this, the size and frequency of per capita payments vary greatly among nations, with some being negligible, some being partial basic incomes, and some being full basic incomes. Some stipends are given bi-weekly, monthly, bi-annually and annually. Attitudes vary greatly as well, with each indigenous person having their own personal experience with this topic. Stereotypes about all Native Americans being casino-rich and or getting “government checks” are still pervasive and harmful. It is important to note that though some growth has occurred, Native Americans were the poorest racial demographic before IGRA and are still today the poorest.
I am certainly not the first person to make the connection that these stipends are a form of basic income. The Eastern Band of Cherokee per capita program has been researched extensively, yielding incredible results. While there is an academic angle to take in terms of researching per capita programs, more importantly, a dialogue needs to be started between the UBI community and indigenous nations. This means reaching out to indigenous nations’ leaders and citizens. Indigenous researchers should be at the front of these efforts. If one is interested in this topic and cannot think of any indigenous researchers to consult or lead these efforts, it is necessary for a closer examination of why that is the case.
While there are some indigenous people I know who think these have been positive and successful programs, there are some who feel differently. There are vastly more indigenous people I have not met with their own unique and valid perspective on this subject. While some may be open as the Eastern Band of Cherokee to this type of research, some may not be interested. It is a nation’s sovereign right to keep information about their per capita system private and any refusal to participate in research efforts by outside entities should be respected.
Nations that implement these programs are not labs, and their citizens are not research subjects. These nations are examples of a different way of doing things. The citizens are leading experts in UBI by way of experience. Community leaders know what these programs have done to their communities for better or worse. The discussion of implementing a basic income is incomplete without the indigenous voice and experience as a central component to the conversation.
About the author: Thomas Klemm is a citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. He currently lives in Ann Arbor MI, where he is a BSW candidate at Eastern Michigan University and works at Dawn Farm Inc. as a Recovery Support Specialist. Thomas has hopes of continuing his education at the graduate level.
URL’s in order of appearance:
https://mvskokemedia.com/what-are-per-capita-payments/
https://www.nigc.gov/general-counsel/indian-gaming-regulatory-act
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/has-tribal-gaming-been-a-boon-for-American-Indians.php
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/tribal-per-capitas-and-self-termination-pWhjlw0iU0SYhqUcK4dw3Q/
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/the-myth-of-indian-casino-riches-3H8eP-wHX0Wz0H4WnQjwjA/
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.29.3.185
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/
https://indigenouseducationtools.org/assets/primaryimages/IET05_ThePromiseofIndigenousResearchIssue5_10.1.15.pdf
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-So-Few-American-Indians/146715
by Guest Contributor | Oct 17, 2016 | Opinion
By Jennifer Lawson
Per capita payments, or ‘per caps’, as they are known in Indian Country, function as a kind of basic income for tribal nations that have them. In this piece, I want to examine the distinct difference between the thinking about such a basic income in Indian Country and the United States in general.
The other day, I was talking to a small group of non-native Americans about basic income. One of them said to me, “Basic income seems like something like that would take a long time to gain ground.”
In the United States in general, the thinking about basic income is not as far along as it is in Indian Country, where per caps have been a staple for many tribes for several years.
One of the first questions, for tribes that gained discretionary income in the last decade, has been, “What do we do with this money?”
Many tribal nations have tribally owned businesses and, unlike the general thinking in the United States, no one worries that this may be a form of communism or socialism. It is simply, for many tribal nations, in keeping with their tribal values to have a collectively owned business.
The revenue from such businesses, as well as the revenue from natural resources and other ways tribes gain money, provide the discretionary income that tribal nations work with.
The answer to the question, “What do we do with this money?” is answered differently by different tribal nations. Some provide services to their citizens, such as childcare, early childhood education, hospitals, and so forth. Others provide per caps to their members.
I do not want anyone to come away thinking that tribal nations are flushed with cash or that Native people are, in general, rich from per caps. Rather, I want to look at the differences between the tribal way of thinking and the United States’ way of thinking
From the tribal point of view, when you have a collectively owned business, it makes sense that one option would be to divide the revenue up and disperse it among citizens of the tribe. In general, what to do with the money is voted upon and the decision about what to do with the money is decided that way.
For non-native people, we do not have collectively owned businesses to decide how to divide the revenue. A large portion of people in the United States would rebuke such a business as socialism or communism.
However, we do have other ways of gaining access to a basic income without having collectively owned businesses. Some have suggested taxing pollution, for example.
For tribal nations, some of the arguments that are familiar to people in basic income have been espoused, both for and against. One worry, for example, is that people will not attend college because the thinking What’s the use? is in effect. That is, if you don’t need to attend college for future employment, why go? This thinking saddens many tribal people, who have a pre-colonial history of being interested in education, contrary to stereotypes.
But the biggest issue for tribes, which has become a real problem, is that of disenrollment. Disenrollment is, in effect, making people ineligible to be tribal citizens. While many tribal nations are growing as of late, some tribal nations with per caps have closed and/or tightened up their citizenship requirements to make per caps go further, and to allow each individual to have as much money from per caps as possible. If a tribal nation is doing pretty well economically, it does even better when the tribe is small.
With the large population of the United States, as well as our open citizenship requirements, where people may become citizens after completing various acts and learning about our government and founding documents, what we can afford to give our citizens depends on how we collect that money.
Because the issue of having collectively owned businesses seems to be less compatible with the values of the United States than of tribal nations, we of the United States have to be creative in how we decide to fund a basic income.
No matter the problems that tribal nations have experienced due to per caps, what is clear is that tribes that have the ability, and vote accordingly, can provide a basic income for their citizens. This should make us wonder why the United States, which has more wealth, opportunity, and so forth, cannot.
Looking over the state of per caps in Indian Country has made me, at least, realize that it can be done, and that we should do it. After all, if we had a basic income, I might be able to be in Standing Rock right now, standing with my Native brothers and sisters against the Dakota Access Pipeline—or engaging in other activist or cultural activities.
There is much that Indian Country can teach us. The issue of basic income is one we should look into further.
