Last week Thursday (Feb. 5, 2015) I had the privilege of attending the ‘Basic Income Symposium’ at the University of Manitoba. This event featured a variety of academic and professional speakers who presented on basic income. Jim Mulvale (Faculty of Social Work, UM) led the event. The keynote speaker was Jurgen De Wispelaere (IHSP, McGill University). The Speakers In total there were nine speakers who spoke on the following topics:
What is Guaranteed (or Basic) Income? Guaranteed (or basic) income is commonly understood as an amount of money granted unconditionally to all members of a group (e.g. residents of Dauphin, Manitobans, Canadians or humans) on an individual basis. Behind the idea of basic income is a vision for income security for everyone. This income would be provided collectively via the state to ensure everyone has the means to meet basic material needs. Two Models Of Guaranteed (Or Basic) Income There are an infinite number of variations of basic income, but most fall under one of two basic models:
The Negative Income Tax (NIT) model is administered through the tax system and consists of three basic elements: the benefit level, reduction rate, and break-even level. The benefit level is the maximum any individual can receive. The reduction rate is the amount by which the benefit is reduced for any additional income above the benefit level or a maximum allowable level. The break-even level is the minimum amount of income one must have in order to not receive any benefit. The NIT model is targeted as only those below the break-even level receive any benefit. This results in a basic income that appears to cost government less as few people receive the benefit. The NIT is seen by some to provide good work incentive as individuals are motivated by the potential of additional income that is not eliminated entirely so long as the reduction rate is not one dollar lost for every dollar gained. One disadvantage of the NIT is it seems to do little to address stigma as the poor alone receive the benefit. Another disadvantage is one must file taxes to receive any benefit, which might hinder its success in helping some of the most disadvantaged who do not file taxes or have great difficulty doing so. The key to a successful NIT basic income is the reduction rate, which must not be too high so as to minimize the incentive to work, creating a wall to improving one’s circumstances. The Universal Demogrant (UD) model consists of a regular unconditional payment to every individual within the system where basic income is implemented (e.g. city, province or country). The payment is non-taxable, but any additional income would be taxable. Those above a certain income would thus end up paying the benefit amount back through their taxes. This makes the program even out in the end, but appear more costly than the NIT model at the outset. As the benefit is universal it is seen as non-stigmatizing. The universality also helps to ensure social cohesion and minimize the likelihood benefit levels will be cut, as everyone would face a cut with no guarantee of lower tax accompanying any cut. This should provide greater income security for lower income recipients. An additional benefit of the UD model is its simplicity, which may result in lower administration costs in comparison to the NIT model. Philosophers Like To Destroy Things Jurgen set the tone for the symposium with his talk titled The Politics of Basic Income: Anything But ‘Disarmingly Simple’. In it he discussed many of the ways basic income could go wrong and highlighted barriers to implementing basic income. With his philosophy background I found it interesting when Jurgen shared his view that philosophers like to destroy things (a provocative way to say philosophers are good at pointing out what is wrong with an argument or idea). This resonated with me as it was often mentioned throughout my philosophy degree that it is much easier to poke holes in an argument than to build one. While criticizing an argument can seem self-defeating to some (especially when criticizing one’s own argument in the political sphere), doing so is essential to getting things right, fixing mistakes, scrapping the bad, gaining lasting support and ensuring success. I demonstrated this desire to poke holes when I questioned Sid Frankel’s plan to implement basic income in stages. Sid had a five-stage plan to slowly implement basic income to those populations likely to have the most voting support first (e.g. elderly, single mothers, etc.). My issue was that doing so might result in eroding voting support for populations meant to receive basic income at later stages. This would occur as individuals who gain the benefits vote against benefits for others. While this may occur I recognize it may not and believe further studies are warranted before deciding on such a multi-stage plan. The Devil Is In The Details. The devil is in the details. This phrase was used by Jurgen during his talk and echoed in many of the talks that followed. Whether basic income would be a success or not largely depends on the details. For example, setting the benefit level too high could bankrupt the state, while setting it too low could render it ineffective at solving the problems for which it was intended (e.g. lifting people out of poverty or increasing the bargaining power of workers). An incorrectly implemented basic income could lead to retention of the status quo at best or great harm at worst. Basic income is universal, but is the politics? While basic income may be universal the politics are almost certainly not. One of the difficulties in implementing basic income is the beneficiaries of basic income may not be key voting constituents. Even though basic income may improve society overall some individuals and groups may be against it if they do not see the immediate benefit for themselves or see it likely to result in less for them. One way one could acquire support from those populations least likely to directly benefit from basic income is by leveraging social media and communities. This could be done by using the currency of social status to shame those against or praise those for basic income. Another way could be by applying basic income to everyone with the UD model and hashing out how to fund the program after the go ahead has already been given. When deciding on the details of a basic income plan and how to implement it one should keep in mind the politics. Whether something is a good idea in general is different from whether something is a good idea politically. Is the time right for basic income? Guaranteed (or basic) income may be a great idea, but the time might not be best to acquire the political will necessary to see it through. However, I think this could change in the coming years as the following groups increasingly see the benefit (especially as some are traditional voting populations):
The above groups make up a large and often increasing part of the overall population and seem positioned to benefit from a basic income. Baby boomers could benefit in many ways. A basic income could help top up insufficient retirement savings, support those who lost their jobs and are poorly positioned (e.g. unable to move or lack skills) to acquire a new job, and assist those with adult children at home by providing both with the means to provide for themselves. The elderly could benefit from a basic income by ensuring they have sufficient means to provide for their needs and protecting them from loss of income due to inflation. Basic income could benefit the increasing number of contract and part-time workers in our society who often do not qualify for EI benefits. It could do this by providing them with the means to provide for their basic needs while giving them greater bargaining power with employers. Students could benefit from basic income by minimizing the burden of worrying about both living expenses and tuition. Basic income could also minimize the debt burden of students, which would enable them to more rapidly become an economic contributor to society. Basic income could help alleviate the impact of job loss for workers who lost (or will lose) their jobs as a result of automation. Even if one is a member of one of the above groups, but is unlikely to benefit from basic income at this time, one could still value basic income for the benefit it provides as an insurance policy against bad times. My point by mentioning the above populations is that aside from the communal good to be gained by basic income it seems like many could personally benefit from basic income. In addition, it seems like many of those who could personally benefit are from key voting groups (e.g. elderly and baby boomers). So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult to convince people not only of the benefit, but to support the implementation of the means (i.e. basic income) to gain said benefit? Concluding Reflections The reasons might be many. As a result of this fact I think it is important to take a historical perspective. Jurgen reminded attendees of this during the closing reflections portion of the symposium. Healthcare started decades before it reached its current incarnation and now universal healthcare is a core aspect of Canadian identity. So lets think long term about basic income and use today to hash out the details. If you want to learn more about basic income I recommend you check out It’s Time For A Universal Basic Income In Manitoba: A program with the potential to reduce poverty and make government more efficient by Spencer Fernando. While not up at the time of this posting the Manitoba Institute for Policy Research (MIPR) has stated they will be uploading video of this symposium to the MIPR umanitoba channel on YouTube. I highly recommend you check it out. Human Potential It is not my goal to convince you to support guaranteed income, but merely to provide some food for thought. I encourage you to do your own research (on basic income as well as other related topics (e.g. economics and politics) since many are intertwined) and participate in discussions within your local communities as well as online. Whether or not you support the idea of a guaranteed income, please keep the following question top of mind: Are we currently doing the best we can do to improve human lives and maximize human potential? A Voice Overall the symposium was informative and appeared to meet the needs of many for more knowledge about the idea of basic income. However, I feel the opportunity to ask questions, make comments and participate in the discussion with ample opportunity to converse with fellow community members and speakers met an even greater need; the need to feel like one has a voice. All too often have I observed apathy among my fellow community members, but at this symposium I observed interest, compassion and hope. Together we can make a difference.
0 Comments
|
Christopher DesrochersModern Day Renaissance Man Categories
All
Archives
April 2024
|