by Andre Coelho | Mar 9, 2019 | News
Rutger Bregman at Davos (2019). Picture credit to: World Economic Forum
Rutger Bregman has been hitting the numbers the past few weeks. After a controversial participation at Davos, at the end of January, he went on for a controversial interview on Fox News that never got aired – but got “aired” on Twitter, and watched by more than eleven thousand people, and retwitted over sixty thousand times – and is, most probably, getting the spotlight out of a simple fact: he’s saying out loud what most people are thinking.
At Davos, on a shared panel, Bregman decided to touch the open wound, a particularly sensitive issue for all the millionaires and billionaires that fly over to this global elite event once every year: taxes. According to him, no private philanthropy can solve the real issue of tax avoidance, and that high taxes on the wealthy are an urgency in these troubled days (as well as terminating with tax havens). And he is not alone on this quest: most Americans support this general trend in tax policy – higher marginal tax rates, wealth taxes, inherence taxes and so on – and, if that’s the situation in the USA, then most possibly in the rest of the world that tendency is also real.
As an example, also cited by Bregman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been pushing for taxes on the wealthy as high as 70%. He adds that this is no coincidence, but a part of what he sees as an uprising on a “new generation waking up”. He believes this generation, in which he includes himself (a young 30 years-old Dutch historian), simply doesn’t believe anymore that inequality is some kind of fatality, and that (ordinary) people just have to deal with it. Bregman also voiced at Davos’s shared panel what he called “a moral equivalent of a war”, particularly when in reference to inequality (and also on environmental protection). Although imbued of a strong potency, it remains to be seen if warfare – real or a moral equivalent of it – has actually brought anything else to the world than heartbreak, death and destruction.
On Fox News, Bregman was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, a prominent Fox News anchor who, somehow, felt the need to affront him with harsh words. Apparently, the reason for that was Bregman’s boldness in saying that (about Carlson) “You are a millionaire, funded by billionaires, that’s what you are (…) and that’s why you’re not talking about certain things”. One of those things being, in particular, tax avoidance. Naturally, this word exchange didn’t come to any meaningful conclusion, but it may just be that Bregman went over to Fox News to speak for millions of people, who already suspect the collusion between big money and big media.
An edited eight-minute segment of the famous never aired interview can be watched over the link below (from Now This).
More information at:
Patrick King, “He took down the elite at Davos. Then he came for Fox News”, The New York Times, March 1st 2019
André Coelho, “United States: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: uncompromising, intelligent and courageously, she is driving progressive values in the US like we haven’t seen in a long time”, Basic Income News, January 23rd 2019
by Roland Duchatelet | Jun 12, 2017 | Opinion
The following is a step by step instruction for implementing a basic income in the United States.
Step 1: The government introduces a basic income of $40 per month for all citizens. 300 million of the 325 million inhabitants are US citizens.
The required funds are $40 x 12 x 300 million citizens = $144,000 million, $144 billion.
This is financed by a levy of 10 cents per kwh of electricity consumed by households, which is 1,440 billion kwh per year. So the levy amounts to 1,440 billion kwh x $ 0.1 = $144 billion.
Since all people who get the basic income consume electricity, in a way, they pay this basic income to themselves. However, big users of electricity will contribute more than those who consume less. Think about it. Electricity allows you to have a smartphone, a PC, a fridge, and even drive long distances with an electric car at a ridiculous cost. Yes, you will need to get surge protection (like that saltle.com/electrical-services-austin-tx/whole-home-surge-protection/ offer) to help keep those things safe, but the benefits outweigh the cost for most. Besides, the current price of electricity is much lower than its value.
Step 2: We increase the basic income with another $60 per month for everybody to reach $100 in total. The required funds are $60 x 12 x 300 million citizens = $216,000 million or $ 216 billion.
Financing
Most “productive” jobs are now done by machines which have replaced many of the workers in our factories. Stop dreaming of deriving social security contributions and income taxes from new jobs: 80 % of the GDP of the US are services, many of which have added value too low to contribute taxes. We should get taxes from the machines/robots which replaced the workers. However taxing robots would make them move to other countries where there are no taxes on robots. Therefore, we should not tax the robots themselves, but the products made by machines/robots, like cars, bikes, shoes, phones, PC’s, games, toys, furniture, carpets, fridges, and so on. That way, it doesn’t matter if the robots are in the US or China. Consumers will pay more for those products, but on the other hand they also will get an additional (basic) income to pay for such products. Those who spend more than others will contribute relatively more taxes. That is the beauty of taxes on consumption: you decide yourself how much taxes you pay, depending on how much you purchase. In the US, current sales of products which are typically and mainly produced by machines/robots are approximately $1440 billion. We introduce a “social” sales tax of 15% (on top of exiting sales taxes) on those products which will generate the required $216 billion.
You could argue, what is the point to give a total of $100 per month basic income to all citizens, if, on average, they spend it in increased prices of electricity and some goods? The point is that people who buy a lot contribute much more than the ones with a low income. Thus, it comes down to a (more or less voluntary) redistribution of purchasing power.
Step 3: The government will pay an extra basic income of $100 per month for all citizens of working age, 18 to 70, paid by employers. This will cost $100 x 12 months x 185 million citizens in this age group = $222 billion.
We finance it by a levy of 10 cents ($ 0.1) per kwh on non-household electricity consumption. So essentially, the electricity consumed by enterprises or other entities which typically employ workers. This comes down to $ .1 x 2,380 billion kwh = $238 billion paid by the employers since they pay the levy of 10 cents per kwh of electricity consumed by them (including residential, industry and transportation).
At the same time, the employers compensate this extra tax by reducing the wages of their employees with the same amount. For a worker who previously was paid $1700 net per month, his new wage bill will read: basic income grant $100 paid via the government (thanks to an extra tax paid by enterprises) + $1,600 net salary = total income $1,700. So, the total net income of the workers remains the same, the total cost for employers remains the same too. Electricity gets more expensive, wage cost less expensive.
Step 4: We increase the basic income with $200 per month for all citizens of working age, 18 to 70, paid for by employers, while at the same time the employers can reduce the wage bill with the same amount (as in step 3).
The cost is $200 x 12 months x 185 million citizens in this age group = $444 billion.
This is financed by a levy of 3 cents per kwh on gas and coal sold to industry, transportation, commercial and residential. This does not apply to such fuels sold to generate electricity, otherwise electricity would be taxed twice. Given the energy consumption of fuel, gas and coal for these sectors, this generates $ .03 x 16,617 billion kwh = $498 billion. The margin between $498 billion and $444 billion will be necessary because consumption will decrease given the increase in cost. CO2 emissions will improve, by the way. For fuel, the additional tax amounts to +/- $1.05 per gallon. Think about it. With one gallon of gasoline you can drive 40 miles. Imagine you need to walk or ride a horse or use a bike in bad weather. The cost of fuel, including for air travel, is indeed ridiculously low.
Step 5: We increase the basic income with $1,000 per month for all citizens over age 70.
The required funds are $1000 x 12 months x 28 million people = $336,000 million, $ 336 billion.
This is financed by a decrease of military spending of the same amount over a period of 10 years, 30 billion per year, such that, in the end, for each military dollar spent we also give one dollar to the elderly.
Indeed, is it ethically acceptable to spend money on defence and not spend the same amount to support our elderly people? A fair deal is that for each dollar spent on military matters, another dollar should be distributed to them. Of course we cannot decrease military spending in one go. Therefore, this step counts as 10 sub-steps in which we decrease military spending by $36 billion per year over 10 years, moving the yearly military spending from $672 billion to $336 billion, which is still five times more than the current Russian military spending. Because military veterans will get basic income like other citizens, it will become a part of their compensation. The expense to the military budget would be reduced with the same amount.
Elderly people can be seen as being pushed aside in society as they age, so it is important that their care is constantly looked at to see that they are getting the best care for their age and their disabilities/illnesses, otherwise, they could be overlooked causing terrible outcomes. This type of care also comes with a lot of additional needs that have to be used by carers, for instance, the use of NDIS software solutions is important for keeping on top of billing, timesheets, etc. so that everything is regimented. This, as well as other elderly care services, is an important factor and must not be overlooked by those within this industry. This goes to show how important it is to have financial backing within these areas.
Step 6: We increase the basic income with $200 per month for the age groups 0 until 17 and $400 for over 64. This relates to 70 million citizens of under 18 and 46 million over 64.
The required funds are $200 x 12 months x 70 million + 400 x 12 months x 46 million = $389,000 million, $389 billion.
The basic income per age category per month in total then becomes:
0 to 17: $300 (steps 1, 2 and 6)
18 to 64: $ 400 (steps 1, 2, 3 and 4)
65 to 70: $ 800 (steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6)
70 and older: $ 1500 (steps 1, 2, 5 and 6)
This step is financed by using most of the budgets for welfare since the basic income system gives a higher purchasing power to them. In 2016, welfare spending was $430 billion. Only an average of 25% of the funds went to cash assistance. The problem with the means tested welfare system is that the administration necessary to do the testing takes up a huge part of the budget. Wyoming currently gives the highest benefit to TANF families (a single parent with two children): $657 per month. Worst case, it compares with $300 x 2 +$ 400 = $1000 from the proposed basic income scheme above. The basic income system advantageously replaces the welfare system in any of the 79 existing systems. The food stamp system for example emerged in 1939, when the cost of food was still very high in household budgets, especially for poor households with many children. Food is now very cheap compared to then.
Step 7 When looking at further opportunities to fund basic income, we should look at inefficient parts of the US economy.
By far, the most inefficient part is health care. Not only because medical doctors have a nice income, generally speaking, but because the US health consumer not only pays for the health care itself,he pays also for the insurance people as well as lawyers and other legal people involved in disputes. No wonder the cost of health care per inhabitant in the US is twice as high in comparison to European countries. In France for example, there are no legal and insurance parasites draining the standard health care system, which is directly organised by the state. And even that system is not efficient, because there is a lot of overconsumption in France. The current cost of health care in the US is $3,300 billion including the $ 1,520 billion paid for by government.
Education is an outdated economic sector. The recent IT and internet revolution did not induce many institutions to review their business model. The “productivity” of the learning process would be less than 10% if measured by standards used in industry. Currently, until age 16, schools serve two purposes: education and babysitting. Lots of things in education should be re-engineered. If education were to be invented today, would we build schools? Would we have classes of pupils all the same age yet with different knowledge and skills? What about virtual classes, at least part-time? The cost of education funded by the US tax payer is $960 billion.
The US has the highest cost per student world-wide, after Luxembourg. Just recently, in an address in May 2017 at Harvard, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, said we should introduce basic income. He also said that the time has come to introduce lifelong personal education, which we can refer to as “coaching”. Now think about it. Health depends a lot on education, not the least our mental health. While health care should evolve from curative to preventive care, there is a huge synergy between education and the future of health care, to the extent that they should be regarded as one and the same venture. Therefore, the government should move the budgets for health care and education to private “care organisations” or “coaching organisations”, which should offer lifelong health care and education to their “members” while government pays the member fees. We can do that by using the current government budgets for health care ($1,520 billion), education ($960 billion) and pensions ($1,380 billion). Mind that the basic income for > 70 will be $1,500 which is higher than the current OASDI benefits) and therefore replaces OASDI to a very large extent. Possible residual differences in income need to be covered by the coaching organisation. The budget of $3,860 billion dollar amounts to $1,070 per citizen per month. When comparing with costs of education and health care in well managed countries, this looks like a good business opportunity for enterprises which want to become active in the social economy. Obviously, the cash obtained by these coaching companies from the government may differ depending on some characteristics of the members, like age. Citizens who want to change from a coaching service provider should face some penalty since continuity is important to provide a good service.
A possibility to launch such a system would be for the government to organise a tender offer followed by the granting of licences to big system companies willing to apply. There are several such companies well positioned to tap this new market. Think of IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, GE, Intel, Google or Facebook. They could design new health care/education products and bring those services to the market while using subcontractors, which they would manage. A special US problem has to be dealt with to make that possible. Legal proceedings and the “insurance” logic are not part of such a model. Those who want to keep the ability to sue teachers and nurses in court should continue to use the current private health care/education system.
Conclusion: Basic income can become the core of the social security system in the US. This is just an example of how it could be done. The guiding principles in this proposal are:
-Basic income is linked to citizenship combined with residency in these calculations. Other options imply other numbers.
– Money is not falling out of the sky. The sources of funds to finance each step are identified and realistic.
– Information sources for energy: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
– A step by step approach may lead to the recognition of the viability of a significant number of steps.
– A basic income is a “social dividend”. Just as the shareholders of enterprises get a dividend because they own shares, all citizens derive a right to get a social dividend because their parents and grandparents have put a society in place which is able to produce a large surplus of food and goods, such that we can pay a dividend from this surplus to all citizens.
– The basic income replaces, to a very large extent, the current social security and other benefits. For those who have a job, and the companies employing significant numbers of workers, the net effect of the introduction of a basic income system should be, more or less, neutral. When employees get a basic income from the state which replaces a part of their salary, the cost to the employer will be lower with the same amount (at the moment of the transition). However, the employers will be faced with an increase in other costs due to new taxes which will be levied to pay for the basic income.
– The basic income is distributed electronically, for example via an automatically charged debit card. It could actually be a smart phone if properly protected. Government can organize a bid process for organisations willing to distribute the money one way or another. It is highly likely technology businesses or communication operators would apply to distribute the basic income. However, it could be banks as well, or big retailers. It is likely that the cost of the distribution of the basic income to the government would be around zero. It could even turn out to be a small revenue for the government, when interest rates move up again.
– After a while the basic income should be disconnected from a precise mechanism of funding.
– The basic income should evolve with the cost of living. It would make sense however, to use it as a tool to influence the economic cycle – increase the basic income to increase demand; wait to increase it if the economy gets overheated.
by Guest Contributor | Feb 16, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Derek Horstmeyer
Aside from the numerous societal benefits that Universal Basic Income (UBI) offers in the future as automation disrupts the nature of employment, we in the basic income movement should not forget the benefits it also offers in the immediate term.
Economists across the board, whether they focus on labor, corporate governance or environmental issues, love to see mechanisms and incentive systems designed so they are free of distortions. Our current national system in the US of assistance for the short-term unemployed and long-term unemployed is designed with incentive misalignment over different income levels. This is particularly evident on the lower end of the income distribution.
An individual who has just lost their job or an individual who continues to suffer long-term unemployment faces a daunting decision when posed with the prospect of taking on a new job. Many of these individuals may have been approached by executive search headhunters (PIXCELL – Chasseurs de Têtes Montreal Headhunters or a similar headhunter, for example) to take up a good position in a renowned company. On one hand, there are the wages associated with the new job and on the other there are is potential loss of federal and state assistance. CATO’s 1995 “The Welfare-Versus-Work Tradeoff,” estimates that a change in employment status from a part-time position (below the poverty line) to a full-time position at 18 dollars an hour might actually cost the individual a net of 5 to 10 thousand dollars a year due to a loss in state benefits.
These benefits that the individual may have to relinquish span numerous forms including cash assistance (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), food assistance (SNAP), medical insurance (Medicaid) and housing assistance. And, one criticism of the Affordable Care Act is individuals just above the income cutoff for Medicaid are doing far worse when you consider the mandatory penalty they must pay as compared to those who are receiving Medicaid. It also might be worth thinking about those that do get Medicaid aren’t actually receiving the support for free. For instance, read over this article touching on avoiding medicaid estate recovery, a part of Medicaid some people look past or don’t even know about. If someone that was receiving Medicaid passes away, Medicaid could then actually legally possess your house to cover the costs, leaving living family members a lot worse for wear. The idea of these benefits and aids always seems to have some downfalls, but there can also be ways to navigate around them.
While the magnitude of the loss in state benefits that one suffers as their wages increase is debated, one thing that all economists agree on is that poverty traps are real. As an individual moves up the income ladder, there is a class of income where they would better off monetarily if they turn down a job (or a pay increase) because they must forfeit state benefits.
If we desire to have incentive alignment in our economic system, where every marginal amount of time worked by an individual leads to a marginal increase in total income, the poverty trap created by the welfare system is a major problem. Of course, there are a few ways to fix this issue. One is to just reduce the number of benefits that people receive on the lower end of the income distribution. This does not sound appealing seeing as the number of vulnerable people in the US may continue to increase as the nature of employment changes over time. The second way to handle this issue is to extend the ‘phase-out’ ranges, so people don’t lose as many benefits as they earn more income. This is more appealing, but only puts a band-aid on the issue and still allows for income ranges where incentive misalignment persists.
The third and final option is UBI. The beauty of universal basic income, paired with a negative income tax, is that these decisions to forgo work or a raise because of a loss in state benefits, are non-existent. In a UBI system, incentives are always aligned for the individual to accept a raise or to work an additional hour because it will always put more money in their pocket.
As work becomes more automated, it is important to highlight the wonders that UBI may serve us in the future. However, one should also not forget what UBI affords us today in terms of a system of welfare and assistance that is free of incentive misalignment.
About the author: Derek Horstmeyer is a professor at George Mason University School of Business, specializing in corporate finance. His research, which has garnered several awards, focuses on boards, governance and hedge fund activism. He has presented at conferences across the country as well as internationally, and is consistently rated a top professor by his undergraduate, MBA and EMBA students who have honored him with teaching awards.
Derek has a BS in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Chicago, an MS in Financial Mathematics from Stanford University and a PhD in Finance from the USC Marshall School of Business.
by Guest Contributor | Feb 11, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Katarzyna Gajewska
The argument that the system of peer production on a wide scale requires securing stable income for peers from the state is promoted, among others, by Michel Bauwens. In this article, I will argue that the reverse is also true. In order to be sustained, unconditional basic income (UBI) needs to be accompanied by changes in the realm of general interest services. This applies particularly to the domain of services of general interest that participate in the subsistence. Money transfer needs to be accompanied by de-commodification of subsistence measures.
Although UBI certainly would contribute to bettering the situation of the poor, it does not challenge the capitalist power relations. The domain of work and production is only one of the opportunities for the capitalist class to exploit inequalities and accumulate wealth. Other sources of wealth extraction are property rights, real estates, rent, access to natural resources, urban infrastructure, land grabbing. Elsewhere, I elaborate how, despite introducing a UBI, capitalist class domination would continue in the domain of subsistence1 and housing 2 if other elements of the system were preserved.
Technological unemployment due to robotization of production is indicated as one of the reasons for a UBI. Robotization would cause centralization of power in the hands of machine owners and technological elites. Since labor used to exercise influence on their wages through the threat of withdrawing from production, under the condition of technological unemployment it would lose its leverage.3 Therefore, adjusting the basic income to the level that enables a decent living would be increasingly difficult. On the other hand, the capital owning the means of production in the domain of services of general interest such as water, food, electricity, health or housing can demand higher prices once having dominant position, and there may even be additional costs for things like commercial water treatment products for businesses after the initial price is paid. Therefore, neoliberal pressure for privatization of subsistence-related services and goods is particularly dangerous. As a result of privatization, citizens can increasingly less meaningfully participate in the governance of general interest services, being left with the relatively passive roles of voter and client.4 The UBI movement needs to take this into account in formulating proposals for UBI reform, namely advocating for more democratic control over the means of subsistence.
Subsistence services in citizens’ hands: some inspirations
Representative democracy alone does not seem to prevent that services of general interest are privatized. Specific citizen mobilization around this issue is required. Three types of strategies can be pursued to bring more control over essential services: re-municipalization, overtake by citizen cooperatives, and commoning. I will give more space to the latter one because the two former have been described in other publications.
Remunicipalization
There are different models that incorporate the democratic dimension in the provision of services of general interest. For example, in water supply services privatization turned out to be dissatisfying for the customers both in terms of quality and prices. The book “HERE TO STAY: WATER REMUNICIPALISATION AS A GLOBAL TREND”5 analyzes examples of how this trend has been reverted by re-municipalization initiatives. It illustrates how significantly the quality can improve and prices lowered with the involvement of public authorities.
However, involving citizens in the process of decision making does not guarantee their influence on the final output. Incumbents’ initiatives in the realm of political participation do not seem to alleviate the democratic deficit. Participatory elements within the new public management and neo-Weberian state models can be motivated by the instrumental aim of overcoming resistance.6 Participatory and deliberative procedures can be used as ‘public relations’ tools by political elites to give citizens the illusion of engagement,7 so-called ‘participatory window-dressing.’8
Cooperatives
Citizens can organize to buy the infrastructure related to subsistence needs. In a small German town, Schoenau,9activists bought out electricity infrastructure to convert it into a cooperative of which citizens can buy shares. As an act of protest against the nuclear power, they turned to solar energy. Similar attempts have been undertaken by activists in Berlin to prevent the renewal of a contract with a multinational company of Swedish origin. Certainly, in the case of services that are sold on the market, there is a danger of degeneration of cooperative ideals due to the market pressure, which is quite common among worker and consumer cooperatives. Still it may be a better option in comparison to an accumulation of power in capitalist enterprises.
Commoning
The precariat, in the face of unresponsive state institutions, prefers the self-organized provision of services in order to become autonomous of these institutions.10 Heynen11 argues that the realm of social rights and the welfare state has diminished in recent decades in the US, so social movements have invented other forms of pursuing their struggles. Instead of trusting that delegation to the state will ensure the provision of public services and redistribution, activists create services themselves. For instance, Food Not Bombs produces and redistributes food. Furthermore, representatives of the recent generation of social movements believe that creating alternatives rather than reforming the system is a better way to bring about change, which reflects the mistrust of and awareness of the danger of cooptation by elitist politics and institutions.12 Activists focus on the ‘here and now’, practicing alternative forms of production and organization parallel to the state-based and market-based ones as everyday ‘revolutions.’13 For example, the domain of food-producing resources, although now mostly privatized, can be organized in a different way. In ancient times and still nowadays there are various communal arrangements in some parts of the world.14
In articles on People’s Potato, I describe a worker cooperative that coordinates the preparation of partly dumpster-dived food with the help of volunteers. Financed by fee levies, the meals are distributed for free. This type of the organization of food provision can be defined as peer production, which means a voluntary, spontaneous, and inclusive work contribution to produce a good or service in common that serves a broader community. Peers produce use value that is accessible even to those that have not contributed to its production. Initiatives such as Food Not Bombs or Incredible Edible follow similar philosophy. In the article on technological unemployment and work, I describe further initiatives of self-organized services: retirees time bank in Germany and subsistence cooperative in Catalonia.15 One could expect to optimize the costs and use of resources by restructuring production into commons. Las Indias’ Manifesto demonstrates potential gains that can be achieved by escaping the capitalist organization of production. Kibbutz movement managed to increase productivity and reduce the use of water in agriculture.16
Basic Income movement for other causes
“All we can ask of politics is to create the spaces in which the alternative social practices can develop.”17
Joining other movements in demanding the democratization of services, UBI movement could focus on a twofold struggle: mobilization against the privatization of services and for the re-appropriation of spaces for citizen participation and self-organization.
Elinor Ostrom argued in favor of creating institutional arrangements ‘for cooperative housing and neighborhood governance (…) to facilitate co-productive efforts for monitoring and exercising control over public spaces.’18Kooiman presents a model of ‘societal governance,’ a mix of self-governance, co-governance, and hierarchical governance.19
Bovaird predicts that the governance system may evolve into ‘self-organizing policy and service delivery systems – ‘governance without government.”20 The progressive theories of public administration have a vision of public administration that is ‘collaborative, facilitative, or transformational social role in support of citizen emancipation and self-governance.’ This type of re-conceptualization of the role of public administration has a longer tradition in the feminist movement and in the 2000s several authors have postulated this direction of change.21 In an academic article, I propose a change to the tax system. Taxpayers could allocate certain part of the due taxes to the organizations of their choice. In this way, the organizations can plan their yearly budget and produce as much as the collected sum allows.22 Also laws facilitating the access to unused spaces would make it easier for the self-organizing groups to start commons projects.
The example of People’s Potato, which struggles against corporate monopoly in food provision at Concordia University in Montreal, illustrates that the mobilization although it requires true determination, can begin now, case by case. I summarized the relations between People’s Potato, commercial food providers, and the university administration in another article:
“People’s Potato discovered that part of kitchen space previously used by Sodexho/Marriot was vacant, while the major part was overtaken by Chartwells. They started to use this space for their cooking. For another two years, People’s Potato struggled with the administration to get official use of the space. It is equipped with all necessary industrial kitchen facilities. The university charges the Potato for some repairs, like painting or heavy maintenance, but they pay all of their other utilities, such as garbage removal, electricity and hot water. The status of the collective within the university structure is ambiguous and there is always a fear of losing support from other organizations and the kitchen space as no official contract has been signed. “23
Instead of waiting for a more serious debate on UBI among political elites where activists could present a more encompassing reform, the change can arise from single initiatives. Späth and Rohracher point to the power of local experiments, which can mobilize actors. Niches, spaces protected from economic pressures can develop into full-fledged models for change. The local level change is possible in ‘off the radar’ spaces for interests of dominant economic actors. In this way, it is easier to overcome the problem of nested interests preventing change. Furthermore, institutional voids can enable introducing new practices.24
About the author: Katarzyna Gajewska is an independent writer. She has a PhD in Political Science and has published on alternative economy and innovating the work organization since 2013. You can find her non-academic writing on such platforms as Occupy.com, P2P Foundation Blog, Basic Income UK, Bronislaw Magazine and LeftEast. For updates on her publications, you can check her Facebook page or send her an e-mail: k.gajewska_comm@zoho.com. If you would like to support her independent writing, please make a donation to the PayPal account at the same address!
References:
1Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest. Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.
2Gajewska, Katarzyna (May 2014) : UBI and Housing Problem, https://basicincome.org.uk/2014/05/housing-power-land/
3Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest. Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.
4 Elinor Ostrom, “A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance,” National Civic Review (Summer 1993): 226-233.
5HERE TO STAY: WATER REMUNICIPALISATION AS A GLOBAL TREND :https://www.tni.org/files/download/heretostay-en.pdf
6 William N. Dunn and David Y. Miller, “A Critique of the New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian State: Advancing a Critical Theory of Administrative Reform,” Public Organization Review 7 (December 2007) 345-358, 355.
7 Léon Blondiaux, “L’idée de démocratie participative: enjeux, impensés et questions récurrentes,” In M.-H. Bacqué et al. (eds), Gestion de proximité et démocratie participative. (Paris: La découverte, 2005). Léon Blondiaux and Yves Sintomer, “L’impératif délibératif,” Politix 15.57 (2002): 17–35.
8 Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, “Countervailing Power in Empowered Participatory Governance,” in Deepening Democracy (London/New York: Verso, 2003), 265.
9Elektrizitätswerke Schönau Netze, https://www.ews-schoenau.de/
10 Christophe Trombert, “Expertise professionnelle et contre-expertise militante dans l’accès aux droits sociaux: tension à front renversé autour du général et du singulier,” SociologieS, Théories et recherches, 25 June 2013. URL : https://sociologies.revues.org/4360
11 Nik Heynen, “Cooking Up Non-violent Civil-disobedient Direct Action for the Hungry: ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the Resurgence of Radical Democracy in the US,” Urban Studies 47(6 2010): 1225–1240.
12 cf. Day, “From Hegemony to Affinity.”
13 Marco Silvestro and Pascal Lebrun, “La révolution à l’échelle humaine, une radicalité actuelle concrète,” Argument 12 (Spring-Summer 2010).
14Vivero, Jose Luis (2015) : Transition Towards a Food Commons Regime: Re-Commoning Food to Crowd-Feed the World, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2548928
15Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest, Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.https://jetpress.org/v24/gajewski.htm
16Las Indias’ Communard Manifesto, https://lasindias.com/the-communard-manifesto-html
17Gorz, A. (1999): Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-based Society. Cambridge: Polity, p. 79.
18Ostrom, Elinor (1993): A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance, National Civic Review Summer, 226-233, 232.
19Kooiman, J. (2000): Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-political Governance. In Jon Pierre (ed.) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, (pp. 138–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20Bovaird, Tony (2005): Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217–228, p. 226.
21Stout, Margaret (2010): Back to the Future: Toward a Political Economy of Love and Abundance, Administration & Society 42(1): 3–37.
22Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Peer production and prosummerism as a model for the future organization of general interest services provision in developed countries: examples of food services collectives. World Future Review 6(1): 29-39.
23Gajewska, Katarzyna (30 June 2014): There is such a thing as a free lunch: Montreal Students Commoning and Peering food services. P2P Foundation Blog, https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-a-free-lunch-montreal-students-commoning-and-peering-food-services/2014/06/30
24P. Späth, H. Rohracher (2012): Local demonstrations for global transitions – Dynamics across governance levels fostering regime change. In: European Planning Studies 20(3), pp. 461-479.
by Roland Duchatelet | Jan 18, 2017 | Opinion
Finding the money to pay for our social security is becoming more difficult, because paid work is being replaced by robots — the financial foundation of the social security system is crumbling. This is true whether we talk about financing basic income or any other social security system. Increasingly, automation is replacing “productive” jobs. There is still room to create jobs in basic services. However, such jobs do not create enough “added value” to “contribute” to the financing of our social security system. We are happy that these new jobs provide an income to those families. But it is too far stretched to believe that prices for such “proximity” services, helping each other, can be inflated by social security contributions.
Because the distribution of purchasing power is essential to fuel our economic system, time has come to search for other sources of funding, other than “social security contributions” from labour.
An obvious tax-free way to help fund social security is to reduce the cost of public administration and public services through productivity gains. Another tax-free way is to use the profits of state owned companies to fund social security. Many countries own companies, in full or in part, such as in transportation, mobility, housing, banks, car manufacturing, electricity, water distribution, telecommunication etc. Some of those companies do well, others do not. In most countries, the sum of the profits (and losses) derived from those state-owned companies is low in comparison to the cost of the social security system. Sovereign wealth funds are a special category of state owned companies. Their goal is to generate profit out of the collective savings by the country to cover future social security expenses, like retirement benefits, but also to conduct economic stimuli programs in periods of economic decline.
This induces a discussion regarding to which part of the social security should be funded by savings and which part should come from “redistribution” (sometimes referred to as “repartition”). There are both public and private schemes to fund retirement benefits out of savings. However, in most countries repartition funds the biggest part of the retirement budget. In most countries, the non-retirement social security benefits like child allowances, unemployment, illness, and health care are almost entirely funded by redistribution. It is largely recommended that no matter what state your country’s economy is in, you should always save money yourself for your retirement too. It is possible that you might become incapacitated and unable to decide how this money is handled due to old age, therefore electing someone to have power of attorney on your behalf is also a crucial part of planning for your future. You can learn more about power of attorney here.
Very little academic work has been done on the ideal mix of social security funding between savings or repartition. Imagine a social security system which would be completely funded by (public and private) savings. That would be a huge challenge for any economic system because the percentage of required savings in the real economy would be extremely high. Moreover, there would be huge asset inflation leading to high volatility in stock markets and perceived personal wealth, this in turn yielding high instability in spending in the real economy. The short answer therefore is that the part of savings in our social security system should be relatively low.
Some defend the idea of money creation to fund basic income. The problem with this proposal is that it supposes an expanding economy while the population in most European countries are starting to shrink.
What would happen if we dig a hole into the ground and we discover tonnes of gold, gold available in massive quantities, just like water? What would be its value? Except for a few industrial applications, gold is useless. The reason it is used in jewels is based on its scarcity rather than its beauty.
However, we found something more useful while digging: oil. It can be used to make plastics and all sorts of other useful materials. Moreover, it can be used to produce heat or electricity. In oil or gas-rich countries the oil industry is massively contributing to the state income: social security is funded, at least in part but often completely, by this “black gold.”
Astonishingly, so far, the benefits of the black gold bonanza were only moderately used in countries which do not have these natural resources. They could have levied far higher import or consumption taxes on oil products than they actually did.
Higher taxes on energy consumption is an obvious way to finance social security in 2017, rather than demanding low income workers to share a big part of their small income to fund their health care and future retirement. Such a tax would surely reduce energy consumption and lower CO2 emissions. What is wrong with that? Either way when it comes to finances and especially retirement in our day in age now, more people are in fear of their own instability, if you’re one of these people you should be looking at ways to increase your retirement pot.
Maybe there are other “good” taxes? In Macau, the gambling tax, which is mainly contributed by visitors, finances a yearly basic income for all inhabitants as well as a fair share of the health care system. While in Sweden, their gambling tax seems to be in order to regulate their gambling market, preventing it from spiraling. You can read more here – https://battrenyheter.se/artikel/spelskatten-taljer-guld-at-svensk-ekonomi/. Different countries require gamblers to file their winnings in different ways, so it’s important for people to check their country’s regulations on gambling income. For anyone who is interested in bringing in some gambling income, it might be worth looking for an online livemobile66 slot game. That will give users the option to play for money, allowing them to start bringing in some gambling money.
Any other taxes?
Taxes should fulfill 3 requirements:
- They should be significant enough such that the cost of enforcing and collecting them is small compared to the revenues.
- They should be socially desirable. For example, a tax on exchanging services with each other is undesirable. A tax on cigarettes is a very good tax, a tax on alcoholic beverages as well, just like a tax on electricity or oil products.
- They should be difficult to avoid or defraud.
Why not a smart tax on robots? For example, a tax on products made by robots, while it doesn’t matter if those products are made in the country or elsewhere. However, even if a smart phone would cost twice the current price, we still would buy it, just like we would buy our PC or fridge at twice the price. The easy way to implement such a tax in practice is to increase the value added tax or the sales tax on such products. The goal is to replace the “social security contributions” on low wage labour, because tax on low paid jobs is a bad tax. The problem is that the political world is not aware of that yet.
The replacement of high added value jobs by robots undermines the current mechanism of redistribution of wealth, such that some political voices emerge which are pleading to reduce social security benefits. We need to find a better way to fund our social security. This is essential to win the battle for basic income.
