This is how we make basic income a reality

United Nations World Poverty 2018

(United Nations Mission in Kossovo, 2012)

This article is brought to you thanks to the strategic cooperation of The European Sting with the World Economic Forum.

Author: Rutger Bregman, Correspondent, De Correspondent, Netherlands

Five years ago, when I first heard about it, the idea had been all but forgotten. Most people I talked to had never heard of it either.

Now, suddenly, it’s everywhere.

Finland conducted a major trial, Canada has just launched an even bigger experiment and a test in Kenya is the mother of them all.

What I’m referring to is, of course, basic income. This is an unconditional cash transfer that is enough to your cover basic needs. It is guaranteed to everyone, whether young or old, rich or poor, overworked or out of work.

From Scotland to India, and from Silicon Valley to Kenya, policymakers all over the world have become interested in basic income as an answer to poverty, unemployment and the bureaucratic behemoth of the modern welfare state.

The idea is also attracting growing popular support. In a public referendum, 68% of Europeans would vote in favour of basic income (up from 64% the previous year), revealed a large survey conducted in 28 European countries.

Faster than I could have dared to hope, the discussion has catapulted into a new phase.

In 2017, I published my book Utopia for Realists. Since then, I have seen the focus of the discussion shift, from utopian dreams to real first steps. We have reached the point where it is no longer enough to philosophise about what could be. The time has come to start putting together concrete plans.

I realise that is easier said than done. Firstly, we have to establish what we actually mean by basic income. Proponents differ widely on how much it should be, how we should fund it, and who should be eligible to receive it.

By now, I have talked to many people on the other side of the debate – the opponents of basic income. Their objections, I have discovered, consistently hinge on two fundamental concerns.

Their first concern is mainly practical. How would we pay for it? How can we afford to simply give everyone free cash? Wouldn’t that be astronomically expensive?

Their other main concern is ethical and centres on the ‘universality’. What do you mean Bill Gates and Richard Branson would get cash handouts too?

Don’t make it universal

Both of these objections, I believe, can be overcome with a simple solution.

Don’t give a basic income to everybody – yet.

By that, I mean we shouldn’t start out with a universal basic income for poor and rich alike. This would eliminate concerns over affordability, and Mr Gates and Mr Branson would know to keep their day jobs.

I know that there are many excellent arguments for a universal form of basic income. Since everyone would get it, it would remove the stigma that dogs recipients of assistance and ‘entitlements’.

However, in recent months, I have also become convinced that the practical concerns still loom too large. A universal basic income means not only that millions of people would receive unconditional cash payments, but also that millions of people would have to cough up thousands more in taxes to fund it. This will make basic income politically a harder sell.

Not only that, it would also inflate marginal tax rates, or the tax you pay over every additional pound you earn. I know that sounds technical, but bear with me, because it’s crucial. Imagine you decide to work one extra hour every day, and that you earn £10 an hour. Under a marginal tax rate of 40%, you would take home £6. In other words: working more pays off.

Introduction of a universal basic income would change that, significantly inflating not average, but marginal, tax rates, and leaving you with only £3-4 of the original £10. Understandably, a lot of people would probably think “forget it – it’s not worth the extra work”.

But make it a guarantee

The good news? There is an alternative.

Instead of a universal basic income, we could have a basic income guarantee. Or, as economists prefer to call it, a negative income tax.

Again, this sounds technical, but it’s really just basic maths. In the current system, everybody who works pays taxes. A negative income tax flips that around. If you work, but your wages still leave you below the poverty level, you don’t have to pay taxes. Instead, the taxman pays you.

Think of it as building a massive floor underneath the economy. Anyone who falls below the poverty line, employed or not, is lifted back to security, no conditions attached. Protection against poverty would be a right, not a privilege. Meanwhile, working would always pay off, because above the poverty line, basic income would be stepped down incrementally, instead of cut off.

Imagine what a massive leap this would be.

For example, in Great Britain, more than 14 million people, including four million children, would be freed from the prison of poverty. To be clear: 60% of those people work in paid jobs.

This is an idea that could rally voters across the board, with something to please both the left and the right:

For the left, a world without poverty.

For the right, no more nanny state.

For the left, livelihood security for all.

For the right, an economy that always rewards hard graft.

Here’s the kicker: in terms of costs, there is absolutely no difference between a basic income guarantee and a universal basic income. The net expense of both amounts to exactly the same.

When it comes to making the sell however, I think the latter has a big advantage. It is no coincidence that just such a scheme was once almost enacted in the US. In the 1970s, President Nixon got his basic income bill through the House of Representatives twice before it ultimately became stranded in the Senate. It was voted down by the Democrats, not because they hated the idea, but because they felt the basic income guarantee wasn’t high enough!

At this point, there will be readers who will object, arguing that handing out cash is an invitation to mass laziness. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Large-scale experiments have already been done in Canada and the US. The data show that people hardly work less. Rather, healthcare costs plummet and children’s school performance soars.

At what price?

The million dollar question, of course, is how much will it cost?

Now, this is where it gets really interesting. In a ground-breaking study, three US economists calculated what a negative income tax (a.k.a. basic income guarantee) would cost their country. After crunching the numbers, it was revealed that – surprise! – it would be amazingly cheap.

A negative income tax system that totally eliminated poverty would cost, at most, $336 billion, the researchers found. That is, a measly 1% of US GDP. To put this into perspective, the costs of child poverty alone, and its effects such as higher healthcare expenditure, more crime and worse performance at school, were pegged at $500 billion.

Yes, you read that right. It is cheaper to eradicate poverty than to sustain it.

A basic income guarantee is brilliantly affordable. So affordable, that implementing it would be less expensive than not implementing it.

Basic security

Finally, I believe there is something else that has to change. We need a new term.

I have been struck time and again by the unjustified associations attached to the term ‘basic income’. Whereas the word ‘income’ is something we associate with a conditional payment that has to be ‘earned’, what we are talking about here is the right to livelihood security.

Therefore, I would like to propose that we call this variant simply what it is: basic security. A trampoline that you can always fall back on, whatever else happens.

One thing is certain: the time for philosophising is past.

Every milestone of civilization begins with a crackpot idea once dismissed as unreasonable and unrealistic. But there comes a time when Utopian dreams become ripe enough to turn them into real-world policy. For basic income, that time is now.

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Featured Stings

Diana in Vietnam

Did young people just kill television?

Why exchange programs are essential for the medical students of the 21st century

Qualcomm to be the next target of EU antitrust regulators? China might be the answer

The gender gap of medicine in 2018

Movius @ MWC14: Discussing novel Communications Applications over a “CAFÉ”

Why impoverishment and social exclusion grow in the EU; the affluent north also suffers

The West cannot ignore Russia; dazed Germany sitting on the fence

The energy industry is changing. Are governments switched on?

Draghi cuts the Gordian knot of the Banking Union

Building cybersecurity capacity through benchmarking: the Global Cybersecurity Index

Brexit: The Conservative Party drives the UK and Europe to a perilous road

To end deforestation, we must protect community land rights

Consumers suffer three defeats

EU and Amazon cut deal to end antitrust investigation over e-books deals

American negotiators can’t pay for their trip to Brussels, EU-US trade agreement freezes

Professional practices of primary health care for Brazilian health and gender inequality

EU security and defence industry prepares positions for ‘producers’ and ‘customers’

EU Commission retracts on the Chinese solar panel case

UN humanitarian coordinator condemns Central African Republic hospital attack as ‘inhuman and unworthy’

The Ukrainian crisis to destabilize Europe and the world for a long time

AIESEC @ European Business Summit 2014: European Youth, Change Now Patiently

Eurozone: Retail sales betray economic frailty

Theresa May in search of a magic plan to invoke Article 50 and start Brexit negotiations now

My Mothers

EU continues targeting on Chinese steel imports instead of the revival of its own economy

Is Eurozone heading for disinflation?

Around 2.5 billion more people will be living in cities by 2050, projects new UN report

Counting unemployment in the EU: The real rate comes to anything between 16.1% and 20.6%

Is there a way out of the next financial crisis? Can more printed money or austerity save us all?

The key takeaways of G7 Summit in Canada

Does the West play the Syrian game in Egypt?

“Will TTIP solve the massive EU-US unemployment? Absolutely not!” A revealing Sting Exclusive with Tim Bennett from the Transatlantic Business Council

Is a full course lunch, a new Commissioner and 2 million anti-TTIP citizens what you would call a “Fresh Start”?

€5 billion of EU energy efficiency project money spent on “comfort”

Eurozone economy desperately needs internally driven growth

Commission facilitates the activities of ‘merchants of labour’

The banks first to benefit from the new euro trillion ECB plans to print

What fighting malaria can teach us about linking purpose and business

Google and Apple suddenly realise that doing business in EU is tough?

Vendor Pulse – 2000

The European Parliament fails to really restrict the rating agencies

A Sting Exclusive: EU Commission’s Vice President Šefčovič accentuates the importance of innovation to EU’s Energy Union

New skills needed for medical students in Industry 4.0

Trump’s pounding of Iran less harsh than expected, leaves arrangement open

FIAT Chrysler: from Geneva Motor show to the World, and back

Central Africa Republic: Violence drives thousands of refugees into neighbouring DR Congo, says UN agency

Will Cameron succeed in keeping UK inside the EU and reverse the present economic downturn?

Greece: The new government of Alexis Tsipras shows its colors

Politics still matter in the US but not in Europe

Yellen and Draghi tell Trump and markets not to expedite the next crisis

GSMA announces new keynote speakers for 2018 Mobile World Congress

Ecofin: ‘The Friday battle’ for the banking union

Commission caps charges on card and Internet payments and enforces competition

China and UK relations post Brexit as EU addresses Chinese takeovers

Eurostat overturns Commission’s assessment of the economy

China’s New Normal and Its Relevance to the EU

Trump systematically upsets global order and trade: Where does this end?

Eurozone and Britain heading in different directions

Is the ECB enforcing the will of the big Eurozone member states on the small? Can the euro area live with that?

More Stings?

Speak your Mind Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s