by Yannick Vanderborght | Jul 8, 2012 | News
Eric Mutch is running a fancy campaign for the next Mayor elections of Bristol (England), in an attempt of raising attention on the basic income.
“My name is Corrupt. Corrupt self serving lying thieving Bastard, and I’m a candidate in the Bristol Mayor elections.” This is how Eric Mutch introduces himself. And his leitmotiv his pretty simple as well: “If I am elected, I promise I will give every citizen of Bristol a basic income of 15,000 pounds, in a local currency. Vote for me and you’ll get the money!” he says in a video on his website, exhibiting bundles of notes to the camera.
For sure, when you come across Eric Mutch’s speech on the internet, you may think this is a farce. However, this 46 years old married father, café worker and dancing teacher, is only half-joking.
As one of the 10 biggest cities of UK, people of Bristol were given the opportunity to decide by referendum whether they should elect directly their mayor or keep it being chosen by other elected councilors. As a result of the polls, elections are set to be held on November 15th.
There are two reasons why Eric is running it: “Initially, I just wanted to make a statement about politicians”, Eric says. “I wanted to give people a means of protesting against the politicians, by giving my name as a choice for saying ‘no’ to the other candidates, if for instance, they think they are all corrupt self serving lying thieving bastards!”
But eventually he found a second motivation: “I though that this election would be a great opportunity to promote one single policy that I have been advocating for long: a basic income guarantee, funded in a local currency.”
How would it work? “I’m not a specialist”, Eric admits. But he has some ideas though. “I want to distribute it through a local currency so that the money simply doesn’t go away. It should remain in the local economy”, he explains.
Good news for him, a local currency already exists in Bristol. Since the beginning of the year, a local credit union has launched the “Bristol pound”. The project is even backed by the British financial authorities, which guarantee parity with the official pound. “That would make things easier to build it upon that project”, Eric Mutch reckons.
The other part of the funding would be done through the implementation of a local sales tax. “Because every single transaction would be taxed, you only need a small rate of taxation. As far as I read, something like 2 or 3 percent would do it. Possibly even less.” he argues.
More than rational arguments and scientific proves, his campaign aims at raising attention on the idea of the basic income.
“The whole point of my campaign is about the name”, Eric explains. “I will officially change my name so that people will notice it in the polling booth. Hopefully, some of them will vote for me by despair or anger against the politics – and get to know about the basic income on the way.”
“Of course, people might just think it’s a joke and won’t pay attention. That’s a double-edged sword. But without the name change, I would be no one.” he thinks.
“Whether they think it’s a bad idea or not, I would be happy anyway if the basic income becomes more known as an important issue”, Eric claims. Yet his campaign gave him several opportunities to discuss basic income with other parties.
What if he wins? “Yes! I would love to win!” he exclaims. “I have no illusions, though. The mayor has no official power to implement something like a basic income. Except maybe if he is elected on the exact purpose of doing it?”
To read more about Eric “Corrupt” Mutch’s campaign to go:
https://corruptbstard.wordpress.com/
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jun 3, 2012 | Opinion
Paul Spicker, How Social Security Works: An introduction to benefits in Britain, Policy Press, 2011, xii + 284 pp, hbk 1847428110, £65, pbk, 1847428103, £23.99
This well-organised book is what it says it is: an ‘introduction’ to the ‘design, management, operation and delivery of benefits’ (p.ix). Its careful structure enables Spicker to bring a sense of order to a system which he recognises to be ‘baffling’ (p.x), though he himself admits that ‘there is a limit to how clear it is possible to make things clear – the structure of benefits does not make sense’ (p.x). A further problem identified is the constant and rapid change from which the system suffers, and this reviewer can empathise with Spicker’s statement that his ‘head is cluttered with old rules and regulations dating back through the last thirty-five years’ (p.xi).
The first part of the book asks ‘What is social security?’ and suggests that ‘there is much more to social security than the relief of poverty’ (p.10). The second part details the development of the system from the Poor Law to the present day, and asks whether the new Universal Credit will in practice be a unified benefit. The third part discusses different categories of benefits (National Insurance, means-tested, non-contributory, discretionary, and universal), how claims are processed, and take-up levels. Part IV debates life’s contingencies (retirement, illness, disability, children, parenthood, lone parenthood, unemployment, and poverty); and the fifth covers such issues as cost, targeting, fraud, the meaning and measurement of poverty, and redistribution. A final chapter compares Britain’s system with those of other countries. A particularly interesting chapter is that on complexity in which Spicker concludes that complexity matters when it leads to the system ‘failing to respond to the changing conditions of people in complex circumstances … We cannot ask claimants to live simpler, more orderly lives’. Part of the answer is to address the issues of ‘conditionality, administrative rules and administrative procedures’ (p.145).
Chapter 12 on ‘Universal benefits’ starts with an argument as simple as the benefits themselves:
The general arguments for universality … include basic rights, simplicity and effectiveness. The central criticism of universal benefits is that they spread resources too widely: if benefits are going to everyone, then either they will be very costly, or they will have to be set at very low levels. This dilemma can be avoided. One option is that universal benefits can be reclaimed through the tax system – a process referred to as ‘clawback’. This has an effect similar to means testing, with two important differences: first, that everyone receives the benefit, and second, that the examination of means is also done for everyone. (p.117)
Then follow a history and discussion of Child Benefit, a description of New Zealand’s universal pension, and a discussion of the Coalition Government’s current consideration of a citizen’s pension for the UK. The chapter concludes with an intelligent and nuanced debate of a Citizen’s Income and with another encomium to Child Benefit:
What Child Benefit offers is a modest but secure element of a family’s general income, something that is fairly predictable and secure. It is the only element of income that seems to continue to function reliably in situations where people are moving in and out of work or where their income is unstable and unpredictable. That seems to me something which is valuable and important, and the principle could be more generally extended. (p.124).
In his concluding ‘Postscript: Social Security: a programme for reform’, Spicker’s first recommendation is: ‘extending the scope and value of less conditional benefits, like Child Benefit, which also helps to stabilise the income during transitions’ (p.274); and the first suggestion in a list of ideas for ‘reducing complexity, error and administrative confusion’ is ‘replacing some claims with automatic payments’ (p.274).
Spicker doesn’t put it like this, but it would be perfectly fair to describe his book as a sustained argument for a partial Citizen’s Income.
by Citizens' Income Trust | May 22, 2012 | Research
The Fabian Society has published The Coalition and Universalism: Cuts, targeting and the future of welfare, by Andrew Harrop. ‘Universal provision funded by proportionate or progressive taxation actually leads to a transfer from richer families to poorer ones. … on average the amount redistributed to the poor actually decreases as welfare states become more targeted. Any increase in redistribution from an increase in targeting is clearly outweighed by the smaller expenditure that is associated with the lower willingness to pay of targeted welfare states. This confirms the hypothesis that strategies of targeting result in welfare states that do less redistribution to the poorest than strategies of universalism’ (pp.2, 9).
www.fabians.org.uk/publications/publications-news/the-coalition-and-universalism
by Citizens' Income Trust | May 20, 2012 | News
The Citizen’s Income Trust, BIEN’s affiliate in the United Kingdom, has release its second issue of the year. The issue includes news, editorials, and reviews. It is online in html, PDF, and MS Word formats at:
https://www.citizensincome.org/resources/newsletter%20issue%202%202012.shtml
