radiofree.asia

Author: esoperations

  • New Brunswick poverty reduction plan stops short of universal income support

    By David Gordon Koch and Ryan Hillier

    See original post here.

    Emergency income support programs caused poverty rates to “plummet” in New Brunswick, but those gains vanished after the programs ended. 

    That’s one of the takeaways from New Brunswick’s newly released poverty reduction plan. 

    The Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation, recently launched the plan at a new conference in Campbellton. 

    It aims to cut poverty in half by 2030, and outlines a series of so-called priority actions. While some of the commitments seem vague, the report calls in particular for improvements to income support for people with disabilities, a change that advocates say is badly needed. 

    The poverty reduction plan comes at a time when the threat of widespread job losses looms large over the Canadian economy, thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods. The threat of a recession has prompted renewed calls for some kind of income support from labour and social justice groups.

    Data in the new report shows that poverty was on the decline for several years after peaking in 2015, when 119,000 people were living in poverty in New Brunswick. That figure dropped to 58,000 in 2020 and 51,000 in 2021, at the height of the pandemic, and then surged to 85,000 in 2022, the latest year with available data. The report draws a direct link between those trends and emergency programs introduced in response to COVID-19.

    “Initially, poverty numbers plummeted, reflective of pandemic related income supports from the federal and provincial government,” the report states. “As these supports were withdrawn, however, the poverty numbers began to climb again. In addition, inflation increased across the country, along with interest rates.” 

    The report also notes that initiatives such as improved child benefits and the national daycare program played a role in poverty reduction after 2015.

    At the news conference announcing the new poverty reduction plan, the NB Media Co-op asked if the idea of a guaranteed livable income or universal basic income had arisen during consultations.

    “We did hear about it a certain number of times,” said Stephane Leclair, CEO of Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation. “Our best answer to this is, how can we better connect people to the existing services?” 

    Connecting people with benefits that already exist is among 16 “priority actions” listed in the plan, one of several that seem focussed on individual behaviours, rather than structural problems. Other examples include a commitment to “work with community partners to improve financial literacy.” 

    Measures outlined in the plan also include the creation of a new “advisory committee on income security,” which will “study options for a cost-shared program for sick leave, explore options to better connect citizens to programs and benefits, and review existing program eligibility thresholds and make recommendations for required changes.”

    While the wording is often vague, the report also includes a commitment that could potentially improve material conditions for people with disabilities. “Recognize the unique challenges faced by individuals living with disabilities and implement changes that improve their access to income and resources.”

    Leclair noted at the media conference that the provincial Liberal government has committed to “look at the guaranteed basic income for people who are living with a handicap.” Minister of Social Development Cindy Miles has instructions in her mandate letter from Premier Susan Holt to “explore a plan for basic income for New Brunswickers living with disabilities.”

    Increased income support is badly needed for a group that faces twice the national poverty rate. Shelley Petit, chair of the NB Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, said that her group participated in roundtable consultations leading to the report last year. She expressed cautious optimism that the Holt government’s efforts will result in meaningful change. 

    “They did ask us for our opinions and they are now calling us a prime stakeholder in this endeavor, so they are listening a bit,” she said. “That’s a step in the right direction.”

    She noted that people struggling at the intersections of disability and poverty face higher costs of living, resulting in a vicious socio-economic cycle. “If you need a cab to go to a doctor’s office, you can do that for $10, $15,” she said. 

    “If a person in a wheelchair has to take a mobility transit service, that same trip could be $100. So what happens? You choose not to go. We eventually end up in the hospital at a very expensive cost.”

    She expressed support for a guaranteed basic income but said it should be universal. 

    “Something along the lines of a universal basic income will not only increase the money that goes into people’s pockets — whether it’s a person with a disability or low income earner — it adds money back into society because people spend money in the community, which then creates jobs.”

    On St. George Street in downtown Moncton, the NB Media Co-op asked people for their take on the issue. 

    One man called for a “reverse income tax, so when you make too little money, you get money back from the government. ” He also called income tax exemptions to be lifted to $24,000, and commented ambiguously that the government should “send a lot of freeloaders home.” (A reference to Canada’s corporate welfare recipients, perhaps? -Ed.) 

    Few were willing to speak on-camera and some were clearly uncomfortable with the presence of a video camera. Others railed against fentanyl users or made obscure comments about birth rates. Nearby, people queued up in the cold weather for food from a soup kitchen. 

    One man, who said he operates a local rooming house, said that simply giving people money “is not going to work” if they have severe mental illnesses or drug addictions, for example. He said the answer to poverty is “not so simple.” 

    Another man, who said he’s currently on EI, said it’s hard to find decent work and affordable housing, noting that he would “probably be homeless” if he didn’t currently have roommates. 

    Commenting on the housing crisis, he noted that some units at the Three Sisters – an upscale apartment tower complex on Foundry Street in downtown Moncton – are renting for upwards of $2,000 per month. “That’s totally too expensive,” he said. 

    He emphasized people’s common humanity, noting the phenomenon of trauma and broken homes leading to poverty and homelessness, while music played on his portable speaker (“Nothing Else Matters” by Metallica). 

    “We’re all human, right?” he said. “Some of us had hard times when we were younger… problems with family and stuff, and that’s what comes out in the long run.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Most Americans can’t afford life anymore — and they just don’t matter to the economy like they once did

    By Vanessa Wong and Jeffry Bartash

    See original post here.

    Life for Naomi Burns and her family of six is not easy. She and her boyfriend are raising four children in a small town about an hour from Portland, Ore., largely on his $65,000 annual salary as a traffic-control flagger. Burns mostly cares for their children, but in order to make ends meet, she also earns nearly $1,000 per month from her work on social media and delivering for DoorDash.

    “He brings home about $680 a week, and we need something like $1,000 a week just to break even and have grocery money and pay all of our bills,” Burns told MarketWatch, adding that the family does not qualify for public-assistance benefits. “My side hustles are actually what makes it so that we can survive.”

    Burns tries to stretch every dollar to maximize their quality of life on the family’s limited income. That means meticulous meal planning, monitoring food sales and using coupons and store points at the local Safeway to keep their grocery bill as low as possible — Burns said she recently got $152 worth of groceries for $20 using coupons and discounts. The family budgets $100 per week for groceries.

    On occasion, there’s money left over to go out to a fast-food restaurant for a treat. The four kids usually split three $5.99 meals at Taco Bell YUM or two $5 meals at McDonald’s MCD, for which Burns accumulates rewards points for future discounts.

    Burns said she has no money to spend on herself or to save for the future. She doesn’t wear makeup and has no skin-care routine, for instance, saying, “I just can’t afford it.” As prices have steadily climbed over the last three years, Burns said that no matter how intentional she is with the family’s money, “we go back and forth between barely making enough to be comfortable but not having anything extra, and not making enough.”

    For decades, the American consumer has powered not only the world’s biggest economy but the entire global economy. Increasingly, however, low- and even middle-income American consumers have felt the effects of inflation. They are making tough decisions about discretionary spending, like a restaurant meal or an impulse toy purchase, and face even harder choices when it comes to expenses like vacations or cars. As a result, low- and middle-income Americans now make up a smaller part of the overall U.S. economy than they have done in a very long time.

    The bottom 90% of earners — those who make less than $250,000 a year — are now responsible for 50.3% of all consumer spending in the country, data from Moody’s Analytics MCO show. Thirty years ago, they accounted for 64% of U.S. spending. As the rich make up an increasing share of the U.S. economy, bolstering overall consumer spending, middle- and low-income Americans cut their spending from fall 2023 to fall 2024, Moody’s found.

    As a result, some companies have put high earners at the center of their business plans. Carmakers, for instance, have been focusing on more profitable models, pushing up the average price of a new car to almost $50,000 and the average age of new-vehicle buyers to 52, according to data from Cox Automotive.

    Having high-income earners, who are less sensitive to prices, driving so much spending has helped keep inflation high, KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk told MarketWatch. In January, inflation came in at 2.6%, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, still above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Prices are up 13% over the last three years, based on the consumer-price index, and 23% in the last five years.

    While inflation has made life harder for low- and middle-income consumers, their financial picture could get even worse, with tariffs expected to cost the average household $1,200 a year, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The cracks really begin to show for low- and middle-income Americans “when you start losing jobs,” Swonk said, noting that mass layoffs in the federal government have already led to the loss of thousands of jobs and that the Trump administration is proposing cuts to programs that support low-income families.

    “That the well-to-do are doing so well financially and thus able and willing to spend strongly has forced the Fed to keep interest rates higher for longer to cool off inflation,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told MarketWatch. “The financial brunt of the higher rates has been borne by lower- and middle-income households, at least to date.”

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pointed to this reality Friday on CNBC. The ”top 10% of Americans are 40% to 50% of consumption. And that is an unstable equilibrium,” he said. “The bottom 50% of working Americans have gotten killed.”

    Katie Harley, a parent of two children in South Carolina, said that even with a household income of $140,000, her family is cutting back on spending in order to pay down about $20,000 in credit-card debt, as well as student loans and a car loan.

    As part of a low-spend year, a popular financial challenge to spend less money, Harley’s family now only eats out twice a week — Mondays at Chick-fil-A and Sundays at a Mexican restaurant — compared with four to five times a week previously. “I used to love Starbucks SBUX or a coffee shop,” she said, but she would spend about $8 on each visit. Harley brews her coffee at home now.

    She no longer makes impulse purchases at Target TGT, where she used to regularly buy clothes, toys and hair-care products that her family didn’t particularly need. Instead, she now goes to a local buy-and-sell store, where she trades in used clothes for store credit. Harley also canceled subscriptions for streaming services Paramount+ PARA, Hulu DIS and AppleTV AAPL.

    As a result, her family is spending thousands of dollars less per month than they did before, Harley said. Fortunately, despite these big changes to their budget, “I really don’t feel like we have gone without” so far, she said.

    While each individual observation about low- and middle-income Americans no longer spending like they did in the past — buying fewer burgers and pizzas, holding onto their cars longer, trading down to less expensive vacations — may seem innocuous, together they add up to an overall sense that spending by all but the wealthiest has dropped.

    “You are seeing this kind of hollowing out of the economy, in which middle- and lower-income Americans are not enjoying as much,” said Robert Frick, the top economist at Navy Federal Credit Union.

    A whopping 55% of those in the bottom third on the American income scale say they are doing worse than they were five years ago, a survey of consumer sentiment shows. Meanwhile, some 63% of families in the top third of incomes say they are better off.

    Frick noted that the inflation rate for necessities is about twice as high as overall inflation. This has forced middle- and lower-income families to devote a greater share of their income to necessities such as food, rent and transportation — often relying on credit cards for purchases. The pain got worse after temporary government pandemic benefits ran out. Meanwhile, upper-income families have prospered from more secure jobs, low mortgage rates, rising home values and surging retirement funds — giving rise to the term “401(k) millionaire.”

    “We’re generally seeing the weakest spending intentions among middle-income consumers overall,” Stephen Rogers, managing director at Deloitte Insights Consumer Industry Center, told MarketWatch. Their intentions to buy most discretionary goods — home furnishings, recreation, clothing, electronics, personal-care items and household goods — “are all significantly weaker compared to 2021,” according to Deloitte surveys this year.

    At the same time, late credit-card payments have climbed sharply over the past two years. The percentage of car-loan payments that are more than 90 days past due has risen to the highest level in at least eight years among Americans in the lowest income bracket, data from the New York Federal Reserve shows.

    Gaps are also showing up in savings, possibly reflecting worsening finances for most households, Morning Consult researchers said. High-income adults are covering emergency expenses without debt at higher rates than two years ago, while lower-income households say they feel more pessimistic about their ability to cover an emergency with cash.

    “Going forward, lower-income households may find it more difficult to continue to bear these [emergency] costs, especially at a time when re-heating inflation risks are mounting,” Morning Consult warned in a February report.

    On Wall Street, signals have started to emerge that the average American’s budget won’t stretch much further. Restaurant companies including Domino’s DPZ, McDonald’s MCD and Bloomin’ Brands BLMN have recently told investors that financial pressures on low- and middle- income customers are negatively impacting their businesses, forcing them to focus on value.

    In a speech last month, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Philip N. Jefferson said that while retail spending growth was similar across income groups before the pandemic, it has diverged over the last four years. “While, in aggregate, household balance sheets are indeed strong, low- and middle-income households, and those with lower credit scores, may be stretched,” he noted.

    The signs of this stress may not be immediately obvious in major economic data reports.

    “The people who show up the most in the data are the people doing the best,” said Diane Lim, a director in the U.S. Treasury Department, at a recent conference of the National Association of Business Economics.

    While the overall picture remains largely positive — GDP increased 2.8% in 2024 and unemployment remains at a low 4% — the benefits have not been distributed evenly across income groups. Now many Americans have even more reason to worry as a result of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. They are anxious about their jobs, their income and the further erosion of their buying power.

    That anxiety showed up in the closely watched Conference Board index of consumer confidence, which sank to an eight-month low in February. The tariffs, which went into effect in early March, now threaten further price increases on everything — from food and gas to housing and cars — as the financial pressures on American households mount.

    The uncertainty over Trump’s policies, like igniting a trade war and showing thousands of government workers the door, shows up not only in sentiment, but in people’s spending as well. When future stability is uncertain, “particularly for households that aren’t in as good a shape, we know from the research that they tend to trade down, and they try to hunker down,” said KPMG’s Swonk.

    Indeed, Wells Fargo found in a consumer survey that 80% of households earning less than $100,000 plan to cut back on their spending in 2025. Even 57% of high-income households, the survey found, are preparing for the worst and expect to spend less this year.

    Those who make less money are being the most intentional, but “Americans are all making real trade-offs,” Michael Liersch, head of advice and planning at Wells Fargo, told MarketWatch.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Can GiveDirectly Show the Value of Universal Basic Income?

    By Stephanie Beasley

    See original post here.

    In its nearly two decades of operation, GiveDirectly, the direct cash payment charity started by MIT and Harvard graduate students, has delivered more than $800 million to more than 1.6 million people, largely in sub-Saharan Africa.

    The effort to allow financially struggling people to use aid money as they see fit — rather than as directed by faraway grant makers — has seen success and failure, both in its work abroad and in its first seven years in the United States.

    Operating in the United States has been less logistically complex than providing cash grants in some the world’s poorest and most unstable places. Yet what works in Kenya does not necessarily work in Kansas — and GiveDirectly has become enmeshed in debates about universal basic income, the no-strings-attached cash payments intended to even the U.S. economic playing field. Its home turf story is one of learning through failure, collaboration, and identifying the communities where it can have the biggest impact.

    When GiveDirectly launched in 2009 to transfer cash through mobile phones to Kenyans and Ugandans living on less than $2 a day, it quickly became a darling of tech philanthropy. The fledgling nonprofit embodied the effective altruist movement — to identify and “rationally” (or technocratically) solve the world’s most pressing problems. GiveDirectly launched with a $2.4 million startup grant from Google and then received $25 million from Good Ventures, a private foundation operated by Dustin Moskovitz, Facebook’s co-founder, and his wife, Cari Tuna. Other major donors have included Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and Amazon co-founder MacKenzie Scott, who recently gave the organization a rare fifth grant of an undisclosed amount. She has given the nonprofit more than $125 million since 2020.

    Give Directly was not originally intended to work in rich countries like the United States. However in 2017, at the request of philanthropists Laura and John Arnold, the Houston-based couple interested in tackling persistent problems, the nonprofit agreed to adapt the lessons it had learned to respond to domestic disasters. That year, GiveDirectly collaborated with the Texas-based Arnold Ventures (then known as the Laura and John Arnold Foundation) to deliver nearly $10 million in cash assistance to families affected by Hurricane Harvey.

    Over the past seven years, the organization has provided more than $270 million in cash payments to over 220,000 Americans. It has found that cash transfers are a highly effective way to help people several weeks after a disaster. And it has continued to experiment with different groups of aid recipients, such as pregnant mothers and homeless families.

    “We’re a learning organization. We are committed to research, we’re committed to candor,” said Sarah Moran, a vice president at GiveDirectly. “We don’t want to be doing things that don’t work.”

    The U.S. Pivot

    GiveDirectly has learned in a typical way: through trial and error.

    During the pandemic, the nonprofit found its $1,000 payments to nearly 200,000 households barely made a dent in the lives of U.S. recipients. There was no measurable difference between the households that received the cash grants and those that did not, GiveDirectly declared in a blog post based on academic studies from the University of Michigan. One reason, according to the study, was that most cash grant recipients also received government assistance, which made it harder to discern the impact of the GiveDirectly money alone. The apparent lack of positive impact surprised Luke Shaefer, the principal investigator behind the assessment of Covid cash programs.

    “It was a really humbling experience for me because I thought it was going to be really straightforward,” he said.

    GiveDirectly has vowed to learn from its mistake. So far, that has meant targeting populations such as pregnant mothers, infants, and families experiencing homelessness for whom regular, modest cash impacts have proven to be life altering. Academic studies and government data have shown that low-income mothers who receive cash transfers during pregnancy were less likely to have low-birth-weight children, among other problems.

    GiveDirectly’s new approach is getting broad support, even from conservative politicians such as Michigan Republican Sen. John Damoose. Conservatives have historically opposed unconditional cash grants and guaranteed basic income programs over concerns that they might discourage people from working.

    But cash aid to people dealing with environmental disasters and pregnant mothers has been less politicized than programs targeting broader swaths of low-income people.

    Last year, GiveDirectly continued its emergency aid program to environmental disaster victims, delivering $1,000 emergency grants to thousands of families impacted by hurricanes in Florida and North Carolina. In recent weeks, GiveDirectly raised money for survivors of the Los Angeles wildfires, bringing in more than $2.1 million. It also is sending cash directly to L.A. families participating in SNAP, formerly the food stamp program, through an existing benefits app.

    GiveDirectly has also taken a tech approach to disaster aid that has included artificial intelligence. The nonprofit says AI has enabled it to identify the low-income and disaster-plagued areas that need the most aid six times faster, with families receiving payments within hours rather than weeks.

    Cash Transfers for Michigan Moms

    GiveDirectly likes academic scholarship. When it launched its next U.S. initiative, the nonprofit relied on research about the lifelong benefits of cash transfers for pregnant women and children from Shaefer, a public policy and social justice professor at the University of Michigan, and Mona Hanna, associate dean for public health at Michigan State University who was the pediatrician who exposed the Flint water crisis in 2015.

    In January 2024, GiveDirectly partnered with Shaefer and Hanna to administer Rx Kids, a public-private maternal and infant cash transfer program based in Flint in collaboration with the City of Flint, the State of Michigan, and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

    Over the past year, Rx Kids has provided more than 1,300 pregnant moms an initial $1,500 no-strings cash grant and $500 a month during their baby’s first year of life. Flint has a population of around 80,000 people and a median income of about $36,000. It is one of the poorest cities of the nation with an overall childhood poverty rate of approximately 50 percent. The most recent survey of the Rx Kids program shows the bulk of participating mothers make less than $10,000 a year.

    Rx Kids funders include the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Stryker Johnston Foundation. GiveDirectly, in its effort to raise money for Rx Kids Flint, has received $37 million in grants and philanthropic contributions for the project, which accounts for 85 percent of the total budget. GiveDirectly administers the program — including enrollment, sending payments, and following up with recipients — and supports related research. The remaining 15 percent of the total $44 million budget goes directly to Michigan State and the University of Michigan for research, advocacy, communications, and marketing.

    What’s different about Rx Kids is that it isn’t a pilot, Hanna said. It’s not working with a sample size of 100 or 200 people; it’s providing cash to a whole community.

    “There are many reasons why there is excitement about this now by lots of different folks,” Hanna said. “It’s low cost. It is so administratively efficient. There’s no income requirements. There’s no policing of folks’ spending. It’s unconditional.”

    Shaefer believes the outcomes of Rx Kids will be easier to track than the Covid relief program. Last month, Rx Kids expanded to Kalamazoo, Mich., a city of roughly 73,000 with a 27 percent poverty rate, and seeks to help the mothers of more than 800 babies there this year. Next on the list for expansion is Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula, a primarily rural, white population with a 15 percent poverty rate and median household income of about $56,000.

    Not a day goes by that the Rx Kids team doesn’t hear from other communities in red and blue states that want to create a similar program, Hanna said. In Michigan, RX Kids supporters include Senator Damoose, a self-proclaimed “pro-life person.”

    “We’ve been accused for years about being pro-birth, not pro-life. And I think that’s not without merit,” he told NPR. “We need to put our money where our mouth is and support these children and support mothers.”

    Basic income programs have rarely received that kind of bipartisan support. The right-leaning Heritage Foundation, for example, criticized a GiveDirectly-backed basic income pilot that provided $500 monthly cash payments to thousands of low-income families in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs in Cook County from 2022 to 2024, saying the payments could discourage people from working. Conservatives also have acted to block basic income programs in states like South Dakota and Texas amid concerns that the programs would make recipients permanently rely on assistance. Additionally, some philanthropists have been reluctant to support direct cash aid, primarily due to concerns about how recipients would spend the money.

    “People really believe that guaranteed income depresses work. It’s become controversial, especially in red states, because people are convinced that people get guaranteed income and they’re lying on their couch painting their nails and eating bonbons,” said Mary Bogle, a researcher at the Urban Institute who has studied the effects of cash-based social policies on low-income parents.

    The Alaska Permanent Fund, the longest-running universal basic income program in the country, has largely not suffered from such negative perceptions, Bogle said. Notably, that program provides unconditional cash payments to all Alaska residents rather than just to those considered low-income, which alleviates the stigmatization, she said.

    More Basic Income Pilots

    Bogle doubts that limiting guaranteed basic income programs to certain groups, as GiveDirectly is doing, will further the case for broad adoption of universal basic income programs in the United States.

    “I think any time you target to low-income people, people in this country are going to find a way to stigmatize it,” she said.

    Nonetheless, GiveDirectly continues to move forward with its selective approach for cash support in the United States and to collect new data to support its work. Last year, Illinois selected GiveDirectly to administer the third round of a pilot to help families experiencing homelessness. More than half of 628 families will receive a $9,500 lump sum, while the rest will be in a control group receiving a $500 payment.

    This is another population that “if we can do it right, the impact that we stand to have on someone’s life and on their families’ lives is immense,” said Laura Keen, GiveDirectly’s U.S. program director.

    Families participating in the pilot are living in shelters, which can strain their physical and mental well-being and well as their education outcomes, increasing the odds that they will be unhoused in the future, Keen said.

    “If we’re able to give the amount of money that actually exits people [from the shelter] and gets them into stable housing, the return on investment is really high,” she said.

    GiveDirectly expects to have results from that pilot later this year. Ultimately, the organization is trying to push forward the tech-driven strategies that succeeded in Africa and South Asia and prove they work among the American poor.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Top 1 Percent Has Sapped $79T in Wealth From Bottom 90 Percent Since 1975

    By Sharon Zhang

    See original post here.

    A new analysis has found that nearly $80 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to the richest 1 percent over the past 50 years, as neoliberal policies have come to roost and billionaires are poised to use their vast power to worsen wealth inequality in the coming years.

    Five years ago, researchers for RAND found that roughly $47 trillion earned by the working class between 1975 and 2018 was instead given to the richest 1 percent, in 2018 dollars. This calculation was based on calculations of the growth of the bottom 90 percent in the decades after World War II, when income distribution held steady between groups.

    In a new analysis published last month by RAND extending the analysis to 2023, RAND found that that figure is now $79 trillion in 2023 dollars, with inflation accounting for roughly $10 trillion of the growth.

    In 2023 alone, $3.9 trillion was redistributed from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent — enough to give every worker a raise of $32,000 per year, per the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who highlighted the new analysis in a release this week.

    The massive growth in the wealth gap has been fueled by the steadily falling share of economic growth going to the working class since the 1970s, amid the rise of neoliberalism as ushered in in large part by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

    In 1975, RAND found in its most recent report, the bottom 90 percent of Americans received about a third of all taxable income in the U.S. That share dropped to 47 percent by 2019, with over half of income going instead to the top 10 percent.

    If rates of income growth had remained equitable from the rates prior to the 1970s, the median household income today would be double what it is now, the analysis found.

    “The massive income and wealth inequality in America today is not only morally unjust, it is profoundly damaging to our democracy,” Sanders said in a statement on Tuesday.

    Sanders’s statement comes as the Trump administration — including the richest man in the world, Elon Musk — seeks to even further widen the wealth gap with recently proposed tax policies and massive cuts to crucial anti-poverty programs like Social Security and Medicare.

    “Given this reality, we cannot provide another $1.1 trillion tax break to the top 1 percent by making massive cuts to healthcare, housing, education and nutrition assistance as President Trump and Republicans in Congress want to do,” Sanders said. “We must do the exact opposite.”

    Indeed, analyses show that Trump’s policies are set to widen the wealth gap even further. According to a recent analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, President Donald Trump’s tax proposals, like the extension of Republicans’ 2017 tax cuts and reducing the corporate tax rate, would provide $36,320 yearly in tax savings to the richest 1 percent, or people with incomes of over $914,900 a year. Meanwhile, the bottom 95 percent of Americans would see a tax increase.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A basic income can be a strong investment in mental health

    By Tracy Smith-Carrier & Elaine Power

    See original post here.

    Over half of Canadians feel “financially paralyzed” by the cost-of-living crisis, according to a recent poll. As life becomes more unaffordable for more people, we need governments to create policies that will improve public health and well-being.

    One such policy is a basic income guarantee: an unconditional cash transfer from government to ensure people can meet their basic needs and live with dignity.

    A basic income guarantee differs from the universal basic income (UBI) model often discussed. While a UBI is set at the same amount and made available to everyone, a basic income guarantee is targeted to those need it, through a benefit that rises as income declines.

    Our recently published research looks into one basic income program, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot that was launched in 2017 but abruptly ended the following year. We conducted a study to understand how Ontario’s pilot impacted the lives of those who participated in it.

    We interviewed 46 participants across four cities included in the pilot. We asked about their experiences before the pilot, during their participation in it and after its abrupt end.

    Ontario’s basic income pilot

    In 2017, the Ontario government, under then-premier Kathleen Wynne, launched the Ontario Basic Income Pilot to test the efficacy of an unconditional cash transfer. A total of 4,000 people were enrolled, and the pilot was slated to run in Hamilton, Lindsay, Brantford and Thunder Bay over a three-year period.

    Set at 75 per cent of the low-income measure (one of Statistics Canada’s three poverty lines), the pilot provided $1,415 monthly for single people and an additional $500 for people with disabilities (up to $1,915 monthly), with every dollar earned subject to a 50 per cent claw-back.

    Despite a campaign promise to complete the pilot, incoming premier Doug Ford abandoned it in 2018. Participants weren’t forewarned but learned of its cancellation like everyone else — on the news or through social media.

    The government claimed the pilot did not help people become “independent contributors to the economy.” The lack of evidence to justify this claim, along with other government statements, suggests the pilot’s premature cancellation was an ideological decision.

    Impact on participants’ mental health

    The pilot’s guiding principles, written by the late-Senator Hugh Segal, affirmed that “no individual will be made worse off during or after the pilot, as a result of participation in the pilot.” Our study, however, indicates that the mental health of many participants was demonstrably worsened in the pilot’s demise.

    With a three-year promise of stable income, participants told us of being able to plan better for their futures. Some pursued higher education, others found better paying and more stable jobs or started their own businesses. Some moved into better housing, leaving behind mold-infested or poorly maintained dwellings, only to plead with their landlords to break their new leases after the pilot was cancelled.

    We found that increased income security improved participants’ mental health, reduced their stress and allowed them to improve diets with healthier food options. Some spoke of no longer having to rely on food charity as they could go the grocery store like everyone else.

    Interviewees described what life is like in poverty: not being able to go out for a cup of coffee with friends or buy gifts for your children on their birthdays, not being able to entertain family over the holidays or go out and socialize.

    Some had not disclosed their financial situation to family or friends because their sense of shame was so profound. Yet, feeling unable to discuss their situation essentially cut them off from valuable sources of social support.

    Structural violence

    Ontario’s premature cancellation of the pilot was an act of structural violence — a policy decision that caused needless and avoidable harm and suffering. Anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes explains that structural violence refers to “the invisible social machinery of inequality that reproduces social relations of exclusion and marginalization.”

    Structural violence upholds the poverty, racism, sexism and other social inequities that lead to higher rates of illness, suffering and premature death. It is often invisible and can result from policy omissions, but the termination of the pilot was a public, deliberate decision.

    By throwing participants’ lives and carefully laid plans into chaos, and thrusting them back into poverty, our research shows the Ontario government’s policy decision caused significant harm.

    Our research is consistent with a larger body of evidence demonstrating that unconditional cash transfer programs, like basic income, can improve mental well-being. As young people are more vulnerable to the mental stress resulting from financial insecurity, these programs provide the necessary protection to mitigate the lifelong damaging impacts of childhood poverty.

    We also know that welfare systems are associated with poor health outcomes and increase recipients’ psychological distress. These haven’t been subject to the rigorous experimentation that a basic income has, yet they persist, despite the voluminous research documenting their harms.

    The cost of mental illness in Canada already amounts to over $50 billion annually (in direct health-care costs and lost productivity) but without intervention could increase to $291 billion by 2041.

    Research shows how poor mental health is a direct consequence of poverty. Money not only helps meet people’s material needs but also alleviates their worries. Reducing poverty translates into significant savings for the economy and the public purse. Canada could save $4 to $10 for every dollar spent on mental health supports.

    Eradicating poverty

    Poverty is not caused by personal failings. It is the social environment people live in that has the greatest impact on life trajectories.

    To eradicate poverty, we need policies that address the root of financial hardship. A basic income does just that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada recently released estimates that show a basic income, using parameters similar to the Ontario pilot’s, could cut poverty by up to 40 per cent. This is an affordable option with the potential for broad positive effects.

    We already have the Canada Child Benefit for families and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for older adults that provide forms of a basic income guarantee, although these benefits must be enlarged to be truly adequate. What we need now is a program that provides a robust income floor beneath which no one can fall.

    As citizens, we have few ways to hold leaders accountable for acts of structural violence, like cancelling the pilot. A class-action lawsuit lodged against the Ontario government for breach of contract is ongoing; it remains to be seen whether this will prove successful.

    Whatever their ideological leanings, politicians have a duty to advance policies that bolster public health and well-being. Improving mental health through a basic income is a wise investment, one that will prevent the needless suffering of generations to come.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Lawmakers look to expand California’s guaranteed income program

    By Megan Myscofski

    See original post here.

    California started a $35 million guaranteed income program in 2023, giving people monthly checks for 12 to 18 months with no requirements on how to spend them. Now, some lawmakers are looking to find permanent funding for it. 

    The pilot program is for former foster youth and pregnant people with lower incomes, and has reached almost 2,000 participants with help from seven nonprofits. 

    Robin Baker manages the guaranteed income program for pregnant people at one of those organizations — the McKinleyville Family Resource Center in Humboldt County. 

    “It’s been interesting to see now a year out when people would have been returning to work that folks are able to have the space to find a job that’s a better fit for them or to spend more time with their babies or to go back to school,” she said. 

    Baker added there’s also less bureaucracy than other social service programs, which means less stress for participants and fewer costs for administrators. 

    Last year, the state allocated another $5 million to expand the pilot to adults over 60 — a population that experiences higher poverty rates than other age groups. The Department of Social Services said it expects to open applications for that program this spring. 

    “I’m tired of calling this a pilot. We know it works,” Riverside Democratic Assembly member Corey Jackson said at an informational hearing on Wednesday. He asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance to look into potential ways the state could permanently fund the program. 

    “I do believe that guaranteed income is a part of a 21st century social safety net to fill in the gaps that other, more stringent programs aren’t able to meet,” he said. 

    Guaranteed income pilots have sprung up around the country — including in some California cities and counties such as Sacramento County. Research on them shows generally positive outcomes. For example, the University of Pennsylvania looked into a program funded by Los Angeles and found participants had better access to food and experienced less domestic violence than a control group. 

    “People have higher rates of employment. They are more likely to be housed. They are more likely to be thriving because of direct cash,” said Rachel Resnick. She oversees the direct cash program at the National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles, which also administers funds to pregnant people. 

    At the same time, conservative lawmakers and some taxpayer groups have opposed guaranteed income programs, calling it “redistribution.” That includes Susan Shelley, who represents the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

    “A guaranteed income program that’s funded by philanthropy from voluntary donations is fine,” she said. “But a guaranteed income program funded by taking money out of other people’s checks and redistributing it through the government is not fine.”

    Two Assembly Democrats — Alex Lee from Fremont and Nick Schultz of Burbank — authored Assembly Bill 661, which calls for the State Department of Social Services to study and make recommendations on how to expand the program.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Major Asia bank to cut 4,000 roles as AI replaces humans

    By Peter Hoskins

    See original post here.

    Singapore’s biggest bank, DBS, says it expects to cut about 4,000 roles over the next three years as artificial intelligence (AI) takes on more work currently done by humans.

    The move will affect temporary and contract staff, a bank spokesperson said, with the reduction in the workforce coming from “natural attrition” as projects are completed.

    Permanent staff are not affected by the cuts. The bank’s outgoing chief executive Piyush Gupta also said it expected to create around 1,000 new AI-related jobs.

    It makes DBS one of the first major banks to offer details on how AI will affect its operations.

    The company did not say how many jobs would be cut in Singapore.

    “Over the next three years, we envisage that AI could reduce the need to renew about 4,000 temporary/contract staff across our 19 markets working on specific projects,” the DBS spokesperson said.

    “As such, we expect the reduction in workforce will come from natural attrition as these temporary and contract roles are completed over the next few years.”

    DBS currently has between 8,000 and 9,000 temporary and contract workers. The bank employs a total of around 41,000 people.

    Last year, Mr Gupta said DBS had been working on AI for over a decade.

    “We today deploy over 800 AI models across 350 use cases, and expect the measured economic impact of these to exceed S$1bn ($745m; £592m) in 2025,” he added.

    Mr Gupta is set to leave the firm at the end of March. Current deputy chief executive Tan Su Shan will replace him.

    The ongoing proliferation of AI technology has put its benefits and risks under the spotlight, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) saying in 2024 that it is set to affect nearly 40% of all jobs worldwide.

    The IMF’s managing director Kristalina Georgieva said that “in most scenarios, AI will likely worsen overall inequality”.

    The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, told the BBC last year that AI will not be a “mass destroyer of jobs” and human workers will learn to work with new technologies.

    Mr Bailey said that while there are risks with AI, “there is great potential with it”.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Two cities tried basic income for formerly incarcerated people

    By Allie Kelly

    See original post here.

    Six hundred dollars a month was the boost some formerly incarcerated people needed to rent apartments, cover unexpected expenses, and land steady jobs.

    Gainesville, Florida, and Durham, North Carolina, recently tried using cash aid to help alleviate financial instability among formerly incarcerated residents, a demographic that is especially vulnerable to homelessness and food insecurity. Guaranteed basic income — which offers participants no-strings-attached payments — has been piloted across America as an approach to poverty reduction.

    The cities aren’t the only places that have tried similar cash aid programs: the Center for Employment Opportunities gave cash to over 10,000 formerly incarcerated people across the US in 2020.

    In Gainesville, 115 participants received an initial $1,000 payment followed by $600 a month for 11 months, ending in spring 2023. In Durham, 109 participants received $600 a month for one year, ending in spring 2023.

    Both participant cohorts were compared to control groups of formerly incarcerated people who did not receive GBI, and the pilot results were published by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania in February. The results are based on interviews with participants and surveys that were completed before, during, and six months after the program.

    While some Gainesville and Durham participants struggled to maintain financial gains after their cash payments ended, most said the money allowed them to afford essentials and alleviated some stress, which helped their mental health. Rent, groceries, and household bills were commonly reported uses of the GBI payments.

    “Guaranteed income really is just a tool to ensure, in the Gainesville and Durham cases especially, that no one is too poor to be free,” said Sukhi Samra, executive director of the advocacy group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which partnered on the pilots. “We’re not trapping people in a culture of poverty and in a culture of scarcity and lack.”

    Cash helped formerly incarcerated people afford essentials

    Formerly incarcerated people face higher rates of financial insecurity and unemployment compared to the rest of the population. This can make it difficult to afford basic needs. Per data published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2022, the most recent year available, about a third of formerly incarcerated individuals aren’t hired in the four years after their release. Black people were also admitted to jail at more than four times the rate of white people as of 2022.

    Most states give incarcerated people a small amount of money — between $10 and $200 — when they leave a prison or jail. However, some states restrict access to safety nets for formally incarcerated people. For example, Florida prohibits people who have been convicted of drug trafficking from accessing safety nets like SNAP and TANF.

    Brianna Seid, a lawyer for the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told Business Insider that $10 or $200 might help buy a train or bus ticket home, but it isn’t near enough to pay court fees, lease an apartment, afford childcare, or establish reliable transportation — especially if people face limited access to safety nets.

    “There’s this idea that people get arrested or convicted, go to prison, and leave, and that’s just the end of the punishment,” Seid said. “I think for a lot of people, they don’t understand the ways that we excessively and perpetually punish people for having a criminal conviction, and it really touches every area of your life.”

    Cash is a potential way to ease work and income barriers, she said.

    In the Gainesville pilot, participants reported that guaranteed basic income helped them secure housing, have more hope, increase financial resiliency, and put food on the table. The share of participants who said they were “worried about having enough food” decreased from 59% at the start of the program to 49% six months after payments ended. The number of participants employed full-time also increased from 12% to 17% during that time.

    Durham participants reported using GBI money to buy hygiene products, afford food, and build savings. The percentage of participants “worried about having enough food” also decreased from 59% at the start of the program to 44% six months after payments ended. Over that same period, the share of participants who felt they had enough money to support themselves rose from 3.7% to 18.35%.

    Samra added that many participants in both Gainesville and Durham said that having extra cash helped them better adhere to probation requirements and prevent further arrests.

    Many participants struggled with housing costs after the programs ended

    Six months into receiving cash, 3% of Gainesville participants said they were experiencing homelessness. But six months after GBI ended, that figure had risen to 12%. In Durham, results showed that 29% of participants were severely housing-cost-burdened six months into the program, a number that rose to 41% six months after payments ended.

    At the same time, Samra said that guaranteed basic income isn’t meant to be a cure-all poverty solution. GBI pilots are temporary, and she said the financial challenges some participants faced after the program show that more support is needed.

    For Samra, there’s one major takeaway from the results: financial support is a step toward keeping people out of the prison system.

    “These results show that if you provide a little bit of cash support, you’re allowing folks the space and the ability to not only re-enter and breathe,” she said. “And prevent the sort of harm and activities that they wouldn’t be doing if it weren’t for a simple lack of cash.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Montana legislators propose Work Protection Act to ban local guaranteed income programs

    Converted from House Bill 604 meeting on February 20, 2025

    See original post here.

    The Montana Legislature convened on February 20, 2025, to introduce House Bill 604, a significant piece of legislation aimed at establishing statewide uniformity regarding guaranteed income programs. The bill, sponsored by a coalition of legislators, seeks to prohibit local governments from implementing their own guaranteed basic income initiatives, asserting that such programs undermine the value of work.

    House Bill 604, also referred to as the “Work Protection Act,” explicitly states that unless a political subdivision is expressly authorized by state law, it cannot adopt or enforce any ordinance or rule that facilitates payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. This provision aims to centralize control over income support initiatives at the state level, thereby preventing a patchwork of local policies that could lead to inconsistencies and confusion.

    Key provisions of the bill include the enforcement mechanism, which empowers the Montana Attorney General to issue cease and desist orders against any local government that attempts to implement a guaranteed income program in violation of the law. Should a political subdivision fail to comply, the Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relief in court.

    The introduction of House Bill 604 has sparked notable debate among lawmakers and constituents. Proponents argue that the bill is essential for maintaining a strong work ethic and preventing dependency on government assistance. They contend that a uniform approach to income support will ensure that resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.

    Conversely, opponents of the bill express concerns that it undermines local autonomy and disregards the unique economic challenges faced by different communities. Critics argue that local governments should have the flexibility to address poverty and economic inequality through tailored programs that meet the specific needs of their residents.

    The implications of House Bill 604 extend beyond legislative procedure; it touches on broader economic and social issues, including the ongoing discussions about poverty alleviation and the role of government in providing financial support to individuals. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, its potential impact on local governance and economic policy in Montana will be closely monitored.

    In conclusion, House Bill 604 represents a significant shift in how guaranteed income programs may be approached in Montana, emphasizing state control over local initiatives. As discussions continue, the outcomes of this bill could reshape the landscape of income support and local governance in the state.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The future of an independent Cymru and potential of a Universal Basic Income

    By Dave Beck

    See original post here.

    Some say Cymru can’t afford independence nor afford to adopt a Universal Basic Income. But neither is a unicorn dream and together they could end poverty

    When we think about ‘poverty’, we know what it looks like. Poverty reflects concerns such as insufficiency, hardship, privation, and deprivation. Take deprivation: to have been deprived of something, or have had something taken away from you. We know that to be in poverty reveals what it’s like to be deprived, living an inadequate life, unable to participate in activities that are normally everyday expectations of living in the UK in 2025. These are just abstract concepts for some – but are lived realities for too many.

    Austerity left its stubborn stains on levels of poverty in Cymru throughout the 2010s, averaging between 23-24%. New data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows this number has improved over the last two years, as poverty levels dropped slightly to 21%. However, this figure equates to roughly 700,000 people. Put another way, that’s approximately the entire population of North Wales. So this is still not nearly good enough.

    Lack of money

    Let’s look at poverty from a basic conceptual level: lack of enough income. As the pioneering work of Peter Townsend showed in the 1970s, in the UK – as with other ‘developed’ countries – poverty is better understood as being relative to the place and time you live in. With a social security system that provides both financial and non-financial support, we can say beyond reasonable doubt that poverty is a lack of enough money to be able to do what’s normal and expected in your society.

    So what if I told you that we actually know how to end poverty – we just lack the political will to do so? In this article, I’m expressing hope that a future independent Cymru will be led by a government that puts the needs of people first. That it will take radical action and become the first country in the world to end poverty.

    In simple terms: if poverty is a lack of money, then surely ensuring that people have enough money would see the end of poverty? Or it would certainly speed up the progress to a poverty-free Cymru. So why not just give people money?

    This is a concept I’ve been working on for several years. Others have too, and it’s a movement of progressive policy thinking that reflects our society, both post-Covid and what we’d like to see post-austerity. Progressive movements such as the four-day week, working from home, and unlimited paid time off, alongside a Universal Basic Income (UBI), have received much more attention since Covid. People have increased recognition of the desire to approach life in better ways.

    What a Basic Income could look like

    Imagine a Cymru where every citizen receives a guaranteed income. Enough money to live poverty-free every month, in your bank, with no questions asked or rules as to what you should do with it. This is no utopian fantasy. It’s been seriously considered by governments around the world for decades.

    Finland ran one of the most famous pilots, its government wanting to examine UBI and its role in helping unemployed people back into work. Many pilots have been run, in low-, medium-, and high-income countries and areas. These included Stockton (California), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Madhya Pradesh (India), and parts of Kenya. Alaska has had a functioning form of UBI since 1982 via its Permanent Fund Dividend, based on oil and mineral royalties.

    Wales hasn’t lacked ambition to pilot UBI – it’s been conducting a trial of Basic Income with care leavers in recent years. Over 500 young people exiting the care system are given (pre-tax) £1,600 per month over a 24-month pilot, with the overall goal of improving wellbeing.

    However, the Welsh Government has decided not to continue and will end the pilot in May 2025 due to cost concerns and budget constraints. The scheme hasn’t been fully evaluated so complete data isn’t available yet. But initial feedback is positive, suggesting it may have significantly improved the wellbeing of participants.

    Hefin Gwilym and I argue that Wales should extend this pilot, calling its premature ending a missed opportunity to show the world UBI’s revolutionary powers. It proves that a Cymru dependent on Westminster really has its hands tied. Devolving social security to Cymru could bring numerous benefits, but not enough. Devolved control would enable policies tailored to the specific needs of Welsh citizens. If we truly want to ensure Cymru becomes poverty-free, independence is the way forward.

    Independence and a Welsh UBI

    Cymru can afford to fund a UBI payment to every citizen. In other articles I’ve detailed both the short-term and long-term funding options for UBI. It’s here that independence breeds confidence in a UBI, as we could poverty-proof our population and stimulate our economy by increasing consumer spending. Short-term gains can be achieved through allied policies such as rent caps and repayment to Cymru for HS2, while over the longer term it needs to be seen as an investment in our people.

    Money could be directed from downstream savings to key areas of social policy. Savings from GIG Cymru (NHS Wales) would become available through elevated health and social care outcomes. The same would be true of the criminal justice system, as lower levels of poverty reduce crime, punishment, and probation. Losses currently incurred through lack of control over the Crown Estate could be converted to significant revenues an independent Cymru would have at its disposal.

    Because a Welsh UBI would be a revolution in social policy, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Beveridge Report, full independence would be required. To deliver a UBI effectively, Cymru would need the power to manage its own tax collection and redistribution affairs, allowing us to increase taxes for the individuals and businesses that can most afford it. The finer details of this have been explored by Emlyn Phillips, writing here on Welsh independence.

    This all leaves a gaping question – how practical would an independent Cymru with a UBI be, given the border we share with our neighbour? And how would it work for those who, like me, live in Cymru but work in England (or vice versa), with respect to collection of tax and National Insurance?

    Borders and benefits

    A UBI could be appealing to those living outside of Cymru. We would have to design new policies for a new government to reflect this. Minimum residency periods are one way to prevent welfare migration.

    Just as important would be the retention of people in Cymru. A recent study found that the country suffers from significant ‘brain drain’, with many of our graduates leaving either across the border to England or even further afield.

    Independence would give Cymru the chance to do things radically differently. It would offer an historic chance to end poverty and inequality through a true safety net in the form of a UBI. We could lead the way in the world, and we could afford it. This is no unicorn dream, and we can’t afford not to.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cash for moms experiment expands in Michigan, where lawmakers see promise

    By Nushrat Rahman

    See original post here.

    A cash-assistance program for expectant moms and babies, which first began in Flint more than a year ago, is growing its reach to hundreds more families across Michigan.

    Rx Kids, led by Flint pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna, began taking applications in Kalamazoo this week and will kick off in the eastern Upper Peninsula next month. So far, the Flint program has distributed more than $6 million to families — no strings attached. The program is among dozens across the country experimenting with providing direct cash payments to people with the greatest need. Bipartisan lawmakers from regions where the Rx Kids is slated to expand see promise in the program but say they remain alert, watching for how families benefit from getting cash in hand, to use as they see fit.

    The premise is simple but the goal is ambitious: give expectant moms cash during a financially rocky time to eliminate infant poverty and boost economic stability. The program gives families $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 a month up to a year of the infant’s life. Program participants in Flint reported spending the money on basics like baby supplies and food, and feeling more financially secure.

    “We are improving the family’s ability to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and care for their children. And Rx Kids is helping our families succeed at, really, the hardest job in the world, and that is being a parent,” Hanna said during a Friday press conference announcing the expansion of the program to the eastern Upper Peninsula.

    Cash for moms in Kalamazoo and the UP

    Rx Kids has so far raised about $100 million from public and private funders. Programs don’t launch in communities without at least two years of funding. Last year, Rx Kids received $20 million from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to expand beyond Flint, from the southwest side of the state to its northernmost regions.

    That’s important, said Republican state Sen. John Damoose, who represents part of the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula: “A lot of times people forget the rural poor.”

    “There’s a lot of need, certainly, in our big cities but there’s also a lot of support systems that often don’t exist in areas like ours and I can tell you, our people up here are suffering because of inflation, because of lack of services. They need some help,” Damoose, whose district includes parts of Mackinac and Chippewa counties, said last month.

    In Chippewa County — home to Michigan’s oldest city, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Soo Locks — roughly 29% of children under 5 years old live below poverty. It’s one of the counties in the eastern Upper Peninsula where Rx Kids is slated to expand. The other counties are Luce, Mackinac, Alger and Schoolcraft. High housing costs, a seasonal economy, a dearth of health care and miles between neighbors and services can make life in the Upper Peninsula challenging and unaffordable, Damoose said.

    The UP program is estimated to cover about 600 babies a year. Pregnant moms and babies born after March 1 will be eligible for $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 a month for the first six months of the child’s life. There are no income requirements. It’s a shorter time period compared with Flint because of how much funding the program was able to raise, Hanna said.

    “I’ve had people who came up to me and said, ‘wait a second, you’re a Republican and you’re supporting a cash giveaway to parents.’ Well, of course I am. This is a great idea,” Damoose said during Friday’s announcement.

    Damoose has told the Free Press that he sees it as an innovative way to get help to people without bureaucratic hurdles. He’s supportive of the program but will be watching for what the results bear out and how it runs.

    “If we can look back and realize … in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, we’ve helped out this number of mothers and children and young families, and it seems to be appropriate, then let’s grow it a little bit,” he said last month. “If we find that we’re just pouring money down a black hole, let’s pull it back or revise the program a little bit.”

    State Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said he likes the program because it supports families but thinks it should have income restrictions to “keep the costs in check” and ensure it runs for a long time. He also said support like this can encourage people to have more children and grow the state’s population. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has seen population loss back-to-back in the past two decades, according to research from the Michigan Technological University.

    “If a couple is considering whether or not to have children and the financial hardship is part of that calculation, this program can offset those concerns and give people hope that they can indeed afford to have more children and raise a family,” McBroom said.

    Over in the city of Kalamazoo, where nearly a third of kids under 5 years old live below poverty, applications for Rx Kids opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. Just like in Flint, Kalamazoo’s version of the program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first 12 months of the infant’s life. As of Friday, the Kalamazoo program received more than 200 applications.

    “There’s just so many people living on the margins and Kalamazoo is resource rich, but sometimes people don’t understand how to navigate all the different assistance programs,” said Democratic state Rep. Julie Rogers, whose district includes the city of Kalamazoo.

    Rogers pointed to a significant ALICE population in Kalamazoo. The United Way’s ALICE measure — which stands for asset limited, income constrained, employed — considers households earning above the federal poverty level but still struggling to afford the basics. In Kalamazoo County, 39% of households fell below the ALICE threshold.

    “We are trusting mothers, we are trusting families to decide what is best for them and their family and situation,” Rogers said. “So, instead of the government being prescriptive and telling people how to spend the money, we’re giving them the cash assistance with pretty much a blank slate of, they can choose and decide.”

    To measure success, bipartisan lawmakers are watching for a range of outcomes, from increased birth rates and school enrollment to improvements in child development and health.

    Rogers said she’s “cautiously optimistic” about the Rx Kids program as a pilot, and wants to see the data from participating communities. Damoose, Rogers and state Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, said they would consider more public dollars to go toward the program in the future.

    Not just ‘a government handout’

    Damoose said Rx Kids doesn’t necessarily fit into a “Republican orthodoxy,” since it involves government giving cash to people in need, but he supports the effort because he is “very pro-family.”

    “I can have a real role in helping to convince Republican lawmakers to at least understand the benefits and how it fits within our sort of preconceived notions, if you will. Because I’ve got to dispel the idea that this is just a flat out government handout,” Damoose said.

    McBroom said there’s support from his Republican colleagues to strengthen families, but questions remain on the long term sustainability.

    “Where we put our money shows some of our values as a society. It shows what things we need to incentivize. Sometimes we’re incentivizing particular behaviors and actions. In this case, I see us believing that we need as a society to increase children. We need to increase population. And so, I think it’s valuable for us to put our money towards that endeavor,” he said.

    Back in Flint where Rx Kids first began, more than 1,400 families have so far enrolled in the program. Cherry said starting in the city which he represents, Flint, was a good call because of its high concentration of poverty, but it shouldn’t stop there.

    “The goal is not for it to end at Flint,” he said. “The goal is: we want to make sure that we’re helping all these mothers and babies.”

    Hanna said programs in Wayne County and Oakland County communities will likely go live later this year.

    How to apply

    City of Kalamazoo: Applications opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. People can sign up while pregnant or until a baby is six months old. The Kalamazoo program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first year of the infant’s life.

    Eastern Upper Peninsula (Chippewa, Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce and Mackinac Counties): Expectant moms or babies born on or after March 1 are eligible. Applications will open March 3. Expectant moms can get $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 for the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

    Expectant mothers must live in the areas where the program is running. To learn more, go to rxkids.org/.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cash for moms experiment expands in Michigan, where lawmakers see promise

    By Nushrat Rahman

    See original post here.

    A cash-assistance program for expectant moms and babies, which first began in Flint more than a year ago, is growing its reach to hundreds more families across Michigan.

    Rx Kids, led by Flint pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna, began taking applications in Kalamazoo this week and will kick off in the eastern Upper Peninsula next month. So far, the Flint program has distributed more than $6 million to families — no strings attached. The program is among dozens across the country experimenting with providing direct cash payments to people with the greatest need. Bipartisan lawmakers from regions where the Rx Kids is slated to expand see promise in the program but say they remain alert, watching for how families benefit from getting cash in hand, to use as they see fit.

    The premise is simple but the goal is ambitious: give expectant moms cash during a financially rocky time to eliminate infant poverty and boost economic stability. The program gives families $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 a month up to a year of the infant’s life. Program participants in Flint reported spending the money on basics like baby supplies and food, and feeling more financially secure.

    “We are improving the family’s ability to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and care for their children. And Rx Kids is helping our families succeed at, really, the hardest job in the world, and that is being a parent,” Hanna said during a Friday press conference announcing the expansion of the program to the eastern Upper Peninsula.

    Cash for moms in Kalamazoo and the UP

    Rx Kids has so far raised about $100 million from public and private funders. Programs don’t launch in communities without at least two years of funding. Last year, Rx Kids received $20 million from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to expand beyond Flint, from the southwest side of the state to its northernmost regions.

    That’s important, said Republican state Sen. John Damoose, who represents part of the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula: “A lot of times people forget the rural poor.”

    “There’s a lot of need, certainly, in our big cities but there’s also a lot of support systems that often don’t exist in areas like ours and I can tell you, our people up here are suffering because of inflation, because of lack of services. They need some help,” Damoose, whose district includes parts of Mackinac and Chippewa counties, said last month.

    In Chippewa County — home to Michigan’s oldest city, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Soo Locks — roughly 29% of children under 5 years old live below poverty. It’s one of the counties in the eastern Upper Peninsula where Rx Kids is slated to expand. The other counties are Luce, Mackinac, Alger and Schoolcraft. High housing costs, a seasonal economy, a dearth of health care and miles between neighbors and services can make life in the Upper Peninsula challenging and unaffordable, Damoose said.

    The UP program is estimated to cover about 600 babies a year. Pregnant moms and babies born after March 1 will be eligible for $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 a month for the first six months of the child’s life. There are no income requirements. It’s a shorter time period compared with Flint because of how much funding the program was able to raise, Hanna said.

    “I’ve had people who came up to me and said, ‘wait a second, you’re a Republican and you’re supporting a cash giveaway to parents.’ Well, of course I am. This is a great idea,” Damoose said during Friday’s announcement.

    Damoose has told the Free Press that he sees it as an innovative way to get help to people without bureaucratic hurdles. He’s supportive of the program but will be watching for what the results bear out and how it runs.

    “If we can look back and realize … in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, we’ve helped out this number of mothers and children and young families, and it seems to be appropriate, then let’s grow it a little bit,” he said last month. “If we find that we’re just pouring money down a black hole, let’s pull it back or revise the program a little bit.”

    State Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said he likes the program because it supports families but thinks it should have income restrictions to “keep the costs in check” and ensure it runs for a long time. He also said support like this can encourage people to have more children and grow the state’s population. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has seen population loss back-to-back in the past two decades, according to research from the Michigan Technological University.

    “If a couple is considering whether or not to have children and the financial hardship is part of that calculation, this program can offset those concerns and give people hope that they can indeed afford to have more children and raise a family,” McBroom said.

    Over in the city of Kalamazoo, where nearly a third of kids under 5 years old live below poverty, applications for Rx Kids opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. Just like in Flint, Kalamazoo’s version of the program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first 12 months of the infant’s life. As of Friday, the Kalamazoo program received more than 200 applications.

    “There’s just so many people living on the margins and Kalamazoo is resource rich, but sometimes people don’t understand how to navigate all the different assistance programs,” said Democratic state Rep. Julie Rogers, whose district includes the city of Kalamazoo.

    Rogers pointed to a significant ALICE population in Kalamazoo. The United Way’s ALICE measure — which stands for asset limited, income constrained, employed — considers households earning above the federal poverty level but still struggling to afford the basics. In Kalamazoo County, 39% of households fell below the ALICE threshold.

    “We are trusting mothers, we are trusting families to decide what is best for them and their family and situation,” Rogers said. “So, instead of the government being prescriptive and telling people how to spend the money, we’re giving them the cash assistance with pretty much a blank slate of, they can choose and decide.”

    To measure success, bipartisan lawmakers are watching for a range of outcomes, from increased birth rates and school enrollment to improvements in child development and health.

    Rogers said she’s “cautiously optimistic” about the Rx Kids program as a pilot, and wants to see the data from participating communities. Damoose, Rogers and state Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, said they would consider more public dollars to go toward the program in the future.

    Not just ‘a government handout’

    Damoose said Rx Kids doesn’t necessarily fit into a “Republican orthodoxy,” since it involves government giving cash to people in need, but he supports the effort because he is “very pro-family.”

    “I can have a real role in helping to convince Republican lawmakers to at least understand the benefits and how it fits within our sort of preconceived notions, if you will. Because I’ve got to dispel the idea that this is just a flat out government handout,” Damoose said.

    McBroom said there’s support from his Republican colleagues to strengthen families, but questions remain on the long term sustainability.

    “Where we put our money shows some of our values as a society. It shows what things we need to incentivize. Sometimes we’re incentivizing particular behaviors and actions. In this case, I see us believing that we need as a society to increase children. We need to increase population. And so, I think it’s valuable for us to put our money towards that endeavor,” he said.

    Back in Flint where Rx Kids first began, more than 1,400 families have so far enrolled in the program. Cherry said starting in the city which he represents, Flint, was a good call because of its high concentration of poverty, but it shouldn’t stop there.

    “The goal is not for it to end at Flint,” he said. “The goal is: we want to make sure that we’re helping all these mothers and babies.”

    Hanna said programs in Wayne County and Oakland County communities will likely go live later this year.

    How to apply

    City of Kalamazoo: Applications opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. People can sign up while pregnant or until a baby is six months old. The Kalamazoo program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first year of the infant’s life.

    Eastern Upper Peninsula (Chippewa, Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce and Mackinac Counties): Expectant moms or babies born on or after March 1 are eligible. Applications will open March 3. Expectant moms can get $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 for the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

    Expectant mothers must live in the areas where the program is running. To learn more, go to rxkids.org/.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cash for moms experiment expands in Michigan, where lawmakers see promise

    By Nushrat Rahman

    See original post here.

    A cash-assistance program for expectant moms and babies, which first began in Flint more than a year ago, is growing its reach to hundreds more families across Michigan.

    Rx Kids, led by Flint pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna, began taking applications in Kalamazoo this week and will kick off in the eastern Upper Peninsula next month. So far, the Flint program has distributed more than $6 million to families — no strings attached. The program is among dozens across the country experimenting with providing direct cash payments to people with the greatest need. Bipartisan lawmakers from regions where the Rx Kids is slated to expand see promise in the program but say they remain alert, watching for how families benefit from getting cash in hand, to use as they see fit.

    The premise is simple but the goal is ambitious: give expectant moms cash during a financially rocky time to eliminate infant poverty and boost economic stability. The program gives families $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 a month up to a year of the infant’s life. Program participants in Flint reported spending the money on basics like baby supplies and food, and feeling more financially secure.

    “We are improving the family’s ability to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and care for their children. And Rx Kids is helping our families succeed at, really, the hardest job in the world, and that is being a parent,” Hanna said during a Friday press conference announcing the expansion of the program to the eastern Upper Peninsula.

    Cash for moms in Kalamazoo and the UP

    Rx Kids has so far raised about $100 million from public and private funders. Programs don’t launch in communities without at least two years of funding. Last year, Rx Kids received $20 million from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to expand beyond Flint, from the southwest side of the state to its northernmost regions.

    That’s important, said Republican state Sen. John Damoose, who represents part of the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula: “A lot of times people forget the rural poor.”

    “There’s a lot of need, certainly, in our big cities but there’s also a lot of support systems that often don’t exist in areas like ours and I can tell you, our people up here are suffering because of inflation, because of lack of services. They need some help,” Damoose, whose district includes parts of Mackinac and Chippewa counties, said last month.

    In Chippewa County — home to Michigan’s oldest city, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Soo Locks — roughly 29% of children under 5 years old live below poverty. It’s one of the counties in the eastern Upper Peninsula where Rx Kids is slated to expand. The other counties are Luce, Mackinac, Alger and Schoolcraft. High housing costs, a seasonal economy, a dearth of health care and miles between neighbors and services can make life in the Upper Peninsula challenging and unaffordable, Damoose said.

    The UP program is estimated to cover about 600 babies a year. Pregnant moms and babies born after March 1 will be eligible for $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 a month for the first six months of the child’s life. There are no income requirements. It’s a shorter time period compared with Flint because of how much funding the program was able to raise, Hanna said.

    “I’ve had people who came up to me and said, ‘wait a second, you’re a Republican and you’re supporting a cash giveaway to parents.’ Well, of course I am. This is a great idea,” Damoose said during Friday’s announcement.

    Damoose has told the Free Press that he sees it as an innovative way to get help to people without bureaucratic hurdles. He’s supportive of the program but will be watching for what the results bear out and how it runs.

    “If we can look back and realize … in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, we’ve helped out this number of mothers and children and young families, and it seems to be appropriate, then let’s grow it a little bit,” he said last month. “If we find that we’re just pouring money down a black hole, let’s pull it back or revise the program a little bit.”

    State Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said he likes the program because it supports families but thinks it should have income restrictions to “keep the costs in check” and ensure it runs for a long time. He also said support like this can encourage people to have more children and grow the state’s population. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has seen population loss back-to-back in the past two decades, according to research from the Michigan Technological University.

    “If a couple is considering whether or not to have children and the financial hardship is part of that calculation, this program can offset those concerns and give people hope that they can indeed afford to have more children and raise a family,” McBroom said.

    Over in the city of Kalamazoo, where nearly a third of kids under 5 years old live below poverty, applications for Rx Kids opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. Just like in Flint, Kalamazoo’s version of the program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first 12 months of the infant’s life. As of Friday, the Kalamazoo program received more than 200 applications.

    “There’s just so many people living on the margins and Kalamazoo is resource rich, but sometimes people don’t understand how to navigate all the different assistance programs,” said Democratic state Rep. Julie Rogers, whose district includes the city of Kalamazoo.

    Rogers pointed to a significant ALICE population in Kalamazoo. The United Way’s ALICE measure — which stands for asset limited, income constrained, employed — considers households earning above the federal poverty level but still struggling to afford the basics. In Kalamazoo County, 39% of households fell below the ALICE threshold.

    “We are trusting mothers, we are trusting families to decide what is best for them and their family and situation,” Rogers said. “So, instead of the government being prescriptive and telling people how to spend the money, we’re giving them the cash assistance with pretty much a blank slate of, they can choose and decide.”

    To measure success, bipartisan lawmakers are watching for a range of outcomes, from increased birth rates and school enrollment to improvements in child development and health.

    Rogers said she’s “cautiously optimistic” about the Rx Kids program as a pilot, and wants to see the data from participating communities. Damoose, Rogers and state Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, said they would consider more public dollars to go toward the program in the future.

    Not just ‘a government handout’

    Damoose said Rx Kids doesn’t necessarily fit into a “Republican orthodoxy,” since it involves government giving cash to people in need, but he supports the effort because he is “very pro-family.”

    “I can have a real role in helping to convince Republican lawmakers to at least understand the benefits and how it fits within our sort of preconceived notions, if you will. Because I’ve got to dispel the idea that this is just a flat out government handout,” Damoose said.

    McBroom said there’s support from his Republican colleagues to strengthen families, but questions remain on the long term sustainability.

    “Where we put our money shows some of our values as a society. It shows what things we need to incentivize. Sometimes we’re incentivizing particular behaviors and actions. In this case, I see us believing that we need as a society to increase children. We need to increase population. And so, I think it’s valuable for us to put our money towards that endeavor,” he said.

    Back in Flint where Rx Kids first began, more than 1,400 families have so far enrolled in the program. Cherry said starting in the city which he represents, Flint, was a good call because of its high concentration of poverty, but it shouldn’t stop there.

    “The goal is not for it to end at Flint,” he said. “The goal is: we want to make sure that we’re helping all these mothers and babies.”

    Hanna said programs in Wayne County and Oakland County communities will likely go live later this year.

    How to apply

    City of Kalamazoo: Applications opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. People can sign up while pregnant or until a baby is six months old. The Kalamazoo program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first year of the infant’s life.

    Eastern Upper Peninsula (Chippewa, Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce and Mackinac Counties): Expectant moms or babies born on or after March 1 are eligible. Applications will open March 3. Expectant moms can get $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 for the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

    Expectant mothers must live in the areas where the program is running. To learn more, go to rxkids.org/.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cash for moms experiment expands in Michigan, where lawmakers see promise

    By Nushrat Rahman

    See original post here.

    A cash-assistance program for expectant moms and babies, which first began in Flint more than a year ago, is growing its reach to hundreds more families across Michigan.

    Rx Kids, led by Flint pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna, began taking applications in Kalamazoo this week and will kick off in the eastern Upper Peninsula next month. So far, the Flint program has distributed more than $6 million to families — no strings attached. The program is among dozens across the country experimenting with providing direct cash payments to people with the greatest need. Bipartisan lawmakers from regions where the Rx Kids is slated to expand see promise in the program but say they remain alert, watching for how families benefit from getting cash in hand, to use as they see fit.

    The premise is simple but the goal is ambitious: give expectant moms cash during a financially rocky time to eliminate infant poverty and boost economic stability. The program gives families $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 a month up to a year of the infant’s life. Program participants in Flint reported spending the money on basics like baby supplies and food, and feeling more financially secure.

    “We are improving the family’s ability to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and care for their children. And Rx Kids is helping our families succeed at, really, the hardest job in the world, and that is being a parent,” Hanna said during a Friday press conference announcing the expansion of the program to the eastern Upper Peninsula.

    Cash for moms in Kalamazoo and the UP

    Rx Kids has so far raised about $100 million from public and private funders. Programs don’t launch in communities without at least two years of funding. Last year, Rx Kids received $20 million from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to expand beyond Flint, from the southwest side of the state to its northernmost regions.

    That’s important, said Republican state Sen. John Damoose, who represents part of the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula: “A lot of times people forget the rural poor.”

    “There’s a lot of need, certainly, in our big cities but there’s also a lot of support systems that often don’t exist in areas like ours and I can tell you, our people up here are suffering because of inflation, because of lack of services. They need some help,” Damoose, whose district includes parts of Mackinac and Chippewa counties, said last month.

    In Chippewa County — home to Michigan’s oldest city, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Soo Locks — roughly 29% of children under 5 years old live below poverty. It’s one of the counties in the eastern Upper Peninsula where Rx Kids is slated to expand. The other counties are Luce, Mackinac, Alger and Schoolcraft. High housing costs, a seasonal economy, a dearth of health care and miles between neighbors and services can make life in the Upper Peninsula challenging and unaffordable, Damoose said.

    The UP program is estimated to cover about 600 babies a year. Pregnant moms and babies born after March 1 will be eligible for $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 a month for the first six months of the child’s life. There are no income requirements. It’s a shorter time period compared with Flint because of how much funding the program was able to raise, Hanna said.

    “I’ve had people who came up to me and said, ‘wait a second, you’re a Republican and you’re supporting a cash giveaway to parents.’ Well, of course I am. This is a great idea,” Damoose said during Friday’s announcement.

    Damoose has told the Free Press that he sees it as an innovative way to get help to people without bureaucratic hurdles. He’s supportive of the program but will be watching for what the results bear out and how it runs.

    “If we can look back and realize … in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, we’ve helped out this number of mothers and children and young families, and it seems to be appropriate, then let’s grow it a little bit,” he said last month. “If we find that we’re just pouring money down a black hole, let’s pull it back or revise the program a little bit.”

    State Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said he likes the program because it supports families but thinks it should have income restrictions to “keep the costs in check” and ensure it runs for a long time. He also said support like this can encourage people to have more children and grow the state’s population. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has seen population loss back-to-back in the past two decades, according to research from the Michigan Technological University.

    “If a couple is considering whether or not to have children and the financial hardship is part of that calculation, this program can offset those concerns and give people hope that they can indeed afford to have more children and raise a family,” McBroom said.

    Over in the city of Kalamazoo, where nearly a third of kids under 5 years old live below poverty, applications for Rx Kids opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. Just like in Flint, Kalamazoo’s version of the program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first 12 months of the infant’s life. As of Friday, the Kalamazoo program received more than 200 applications.

    “There’s just so many people living on the margins and Kalamazoo is resource rich, but sometimes people don’t understand how to navigate all the different assistance programs,” said Democratic state Rep. Julie Rogers, whose district includes the city of Kalamazoo.

    Rogers pointed to a significant ALICE population in Kalamazoo. The United Way’s ALICE measure — which stands for asset limited, income constrained, employed — considers households earning above the federal poverty level but still struggling to afford the basics. In Kalamazoo County, 39% of households fell below the ALICE threshold.

    “We are trusting mothers, we are trusting families to decide what is best for them and their family and situation,” Rogers said. “So, instead of the government being prescriptive and telling people how to spend the money, we’re giving them the cash assistance with pretty much a blank slate of, they can choose and decide.”

    To measure success, bipartisan lawmakers are watching for a range of outcomes, from increased birth rates and school enrollment to improvements in child development and health.

    Rogers said she’s “cautiously optimistic” about the Rx Kids program as a pilot, and wants to see the data from participating communities. Damoose, Rogers and state Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, said they would consider more public dollars to go toward the program in the future.

    Not just ‘a government handout’

    Damoose said Rx Kids doesn’t necessarily fit into a “Republican orthodoxy,” since it involves government giving cash to people in need, but he supports the effort because he is “very pro-family.”

    “I can have a real role in helping to convince Republican lawmakers to at least understand the benefits and how it fits within our sort of preconceived notions, if you will. Because I’ve got to dispel the idea that this is just a flat out government handout,” Damoose said.

    McBroom said there’s support from his Republican colleagues to strengthen families, but questions remain on the long term sustainability.

    “Where we put our money shows some of our values as a society. It shows what things we need to incentivize. Sometimes we’re incentivizing particular behaviors and actions. In this case, I see us believing that we need as a society to increase children. We need to increase population. And so, I think it’s valuable for us to put our money towards that endeavor,” he said.

    Back in Flint where Rx Kids first began, more than 1,400 families have so far enrolled in the program. Cherry said starting in the city which he represents, Flint, was a good call because of its high concentration of poverty, but it shouldn’t stop there.

    “The goal is not for it to end at Flint,” he said. “The goal is: we want to make sure that we’re helping all these mothers and babies.”

    Hanna said programs in Wayne County and Oakland County communities will likely go live later this year.

    How to apply

    City of Kalamazoo: Applications opened Feb. 12 for expectant moms and babies born on or after Feb. 1. People can sign up while pregnant or until a baby is six months old. The Kalamazoo program will offer $1,500 mid-pregnancy and then $500 the first year of the infant’s life.

    Eastern Upper Peninsula (Chippewa, Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce and Mackinac Counties): Expectant moms or babies born on or after March 1 are eligible. Applications will open March 3. Expectant moms can get $1,500 mid-pregnancy and $500 for the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

    Expectant mothers must live in the areas where the program is running. To learn more, go to rxkids.org/.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Guaranteeing basic income in Canada could cut poverty by 40% and cost only $3.6 billion: PBO

    By Craig Lord, The Canadian Press

    See original post here.

    The government’s fiscal watchdog says a guaranteed basic income program at the federal level could cut poverty rates in Canada by up to 40 per cent.

    In a new report published Wednesday, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said that a Canadian family in the lowest earning group could expect to receive an average of $6,100 in annual disposable income through such a program.

    Higher earners could see their income levels drop because of changes in the tax system to implement the basic income support.

    The report says that while the cost of sending out cheques to qualifying Canadians could reach $107 billion in 2025, the vast majority of that would be offset by cuts or changes to tax credits aimed at low-income Canadians.

    It also would see the basic personal amount lowered, which is the amount of income individuals can claim free of tax.

    The PBO said the net cost to the federal government would be between $3.6 billion and $5 billion, depending on the exact model used.

    The PBO analysis says the number of hours worked by guaranteed income recipients could drop slightly — up to 1.4 per cent.

    Giroux told The Canadian Press that the analysis did not look at knock-on impacts from lowering the poverty rate, such as a possible reduction in pressure on health care or social services.

    “When you get in the realm of people’s behaviour and exactly what they do when they’re provided with additional money, there are positives, but there may be a negative impact that we haven’t thought about. So it’s very difficult to determine the second-order effects,” he said.

    The PBO’s analysis is based on Ontario’s 2017 basic income pilot project, which uses as its foundation the “nuclear family” — any unit consisting of an individual and a possible spouse or common-law partner, plus their children under 18 years old.

    Giroux said this definition has flaws, since one dwelling can house multiple nuclear families if older generations or adult children are living there. That can lead to “strange situations” where otherwise wealthy families end up receiving a cheque for basic income, he said.

    Wednesday’s report also includes an analysis of what basic income would look like based on an “economic family” — a unit that encompasses all relations by blood, marriage or adoption living in the same dwelling.

    Under that definition, the cost of administering the program would be cut by more than half to $53 billion in 2025, before taking into account any changes to the tax system or to social supports.

    The impact on poverty rates also would be greater, with a 40 per cent reduction for the economic family definition, compared to 34 per cent under the nuclear family model.

    That’s down from the estimate in a 2021 study, which forecast a 49 per cent drop in poverty rates.

    Wednesday’s report said that reduced impact is due to the wages of lower-earning Canadians not keeping pace with the surging cost of living.

    Under the economic family definition, Manitoba would see the highest reduction in poverty rates — 53 per cent in 2025 — followed by Quebec at just over 50 per cent. British Columbia would see the smallest decrease at 26.2 per cent.

    A basic income pilot for older adults on income assistance launched last year in Newfoundland and Labrador has seen only 110 people enrolled — less than a third of those eligible.

    Advocates for guaranteed income programs say the punishing nature of traditional welfare programs is likely a barrier, as it often leaves clients reluctant to make changes because they’re afraid of losing benefits.

    The federal NDP pushed for a guaranteed livable basic income with a private member’s bill that failed to pass through the House of Commons last fall. A similar bill was still in limbo in the Senate when Parliament was prorogued in January.

    Liberal party leadership candidate Karina Gould pledged last week that she would begin the process of establishing a basic personal income within a year if she wins the top job.

    Gould spokesperson Emily Jackson said in an email to The Canadian Press that the candidate would focus on simplifying existing supports, reducing bureaucracy and reforming employment insurance.

    “The PBO report makes it clear that a universal basic income could significantly reduce poverty, but getting it right means ensuring it works within Canada’s broader social safety net,” Jackson said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Elon Musk weighs $5k ‘dividends’ for Americans with DOGE savings he has yet to prove

    By Mary Papenfuss

    See original post here.

    Musk is already hinting at sharing Doge savings while nation is still massively in debt with Republicans planning a huge tax cut.

    Tech billionaire Elon Musk is considering paying $5,000 in “dividends” in the form of tax refunds to American households, using DOGE savings he has yet to prove exist.

    The plan, which Musk responded to in a post on X Tuesday, was quickly mocked by critics on social media as way “premature.”

    One called the shaky offer an attempt to make the public “complicit in destroying our own government and country.”

    It’s unclear if Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency will ever have any “dividends” or if it will ultimately make any real inroads in the federal government’s costs, given its crippling $36 trillion debt, and the massive $4.5 trillion tax cut Republicans are now considering.

    The entire annual budget for United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Musk shuttered through DOGE, was a fraction of the possible future annual tax cut alone.

    Musk claimed Monday that DOGE has already saved $55 billion, but could only demonstrate about a third of those savings, and those included agencies closed during the Biden administration, The Daily Beast noted.

    The idea for a public DOGE dividend was floated in a post on X by James Fishback, CEO of investment firm Azoria, and reportedly an outside adviser to DOGE.

    He suggested in a message shared with Musk that a “tax refund check” worth about $5,000 could be sent to America’s “tax paying” households after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. It would be covered with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE, which Musk has boasted will amount to $2 trillion. (Though he later admitted that figure will be difficult to attain.)

    Musk responded to Fishback’s plan in a post on X Tuesday that he would “check with the president about it.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Kansas City doesn’t have enough jobs available for all the federal workers getting laid off

    By Steve Kraske, Elizabeth Ruiz, Zach Wilson

    See original post here.

    Federal workers in Kansas City whose jobs were eliminated under the Trump administration’s massive budget cuts will have a hard time finding comparable work in the area. Instability in the city’s workforce could lead to a recession.

    Thousands of federal employees and government contracts have been terminated as the White House and Trump aide Elon Musk move to reduce the size of the federal workforce and cut wasteful spending.

    That reportedly includes at least 1,000 employees at the Internal Revenue Service offices in Kansas City.

    Unemployment is already low. University of Kansas labor economist Dr. Donna Ginther said jobs for people with bachelor’s degrees have decreased “by more than 50%,” making it more difficult for those out of work to get back into a high paying career.

    The sudden layoffs could create instability in the labor market—which is an indicator for recession.

    “As unemployment increases, we could face an economic downturn,” Ginther told KCUR’s Up To Date.

    Ginther said she’s concerned.

    “Government is a large part of our economy, and now we’re slashing and burning a big contributor to economic growth without really fully understanding the consequences,” Ginther said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • N.L. launched a basic income program for older adults. So far, just 110 have enrolled

    By Sarah Smellie

    See original post here.

    ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – Only 110 people have enrolled so far in Newfoundland and Labrador’s basic income program for some older adults, a figure advocates say underscores the complexity of traditional social assistance programs that often leave users afraid of losing benefits.

    That figure represents less than one-third of the approximately 350 people who qualify for the program, officially launched in May, said the province’s Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

    Josh Smee, chief executive of the non-profit Food First N.L., said he wasn’t surprised enrollment seemed low.

    “The system itself is so complicated,” he said in a recent interview. “I would imagine that the conversation about a big shift in how your benefits come through could be intimidating.”

    The basic income pilot program was announced in 2023, as part of the provincial government’s poverty reduction strategy. It’s aimed at adults aged 60-64 who collect income assistance and support programs offered by the health authority. Those who qualify and enrol will see their incomes increased to the level they would receive when they turn 65 and begin qualifying for seniors benefits from the federal government.

    The difference in income could be significant. For example, a single adult living alone on provincial income support collects a basic amount of $561 each month. They can also qualify for other benefits, including up to $299 in rent coverage. Under the basic income program, they’d receive $1,937 a month. But with more money coming in, they could receive less help paying for services such as home support from the provincial health authority, the program guidelines say. People may worry they’d be worse off if they wind up having to pay more for those services, said Jim Dinn, leader of the provincial NDP. Some may also fear landlords will realize they have more money and hike their rents, he said in an interview.

    A successful basic income program needs a strong social safety net behind it, said Dinn, who has long pushed for a provincial guaranteed income plan. 

    “I’m still calling for a basic income plan,” he said. “But we still need deeply affordable housing.”

    He could only speculate about why uptake for the program seems to be lagging. The Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development did not give specific reasons when asked.

    Officials are contacting those who qualify and providing them with information about the benefits they currently receive and how they would change if they take part in the pilot, said an emailed statement from spokesperson Kathryn Summers.

    “This approach allows people to engage in a detailed discussion with income support staff about the pilot and ask questions related to their particular circumstances so they can make an informed decision to participate,” she said. All those who qualify have been contacted, and enrolment is ongoing, she added.

    Dan Meades agreed that people may worry they’ll end up with fewer benefits. The provincial coordinator with the Transition House Association of Newfoundland and Labrador said he hopes the province is tracking such problems and adjusting the program with an aim to ultimately scale it up.

    Smee said people on income support are often weary of the program’s complex and voluminous rules, many of which are set up to claw back benefits if a person earns money or changes their living arrangements. They may be afraid to agree to receive more money in a new program, he said.

    He said he also wondered if the basic income pilot could be expanded to other groups, if just 350 people might qualify now.

    “It does feel like a number larger than a few hundred is still feasible,” he said in a recent interview

    The province is working to make its income support programs less complicated, and changes have already been made, Summers said. For example, people under 30 now receive the same amounts as other adults, and recipients who have boarders living with them do not have any of their benefits clawed back.

    The government is also launching a disability benefit that will top up the federal government’s program, beginning in July. Those who qualify will receive up to $400 a month, officials have said. More than 5,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador are expected to be eligible, Summers said.

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 17, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Gould promises to open ‘path’ to a basic income in Canada

    By The Canadian Press

    See original post here.

    OTTAWA — Liberal MP Karina Gould says she would work toward establishing a basic personal income if she wins the party’s leadership race next month.

    Gould is in Fredericton this morning visiting the city’s food bank, where she will speak about the policy.

    The Liberal grassroots have backed at least four resolutions for basic income programs at policy conventions including by a vote of 77 per cent at a virtual convention held in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    However, it has never appeared in a campaign platform.

    In a policy document provided by a campaign official to The Canadian Press, Gould says within one year of being elected she would begin the process of establishing a basic income.

    She would also establish a system within one year to modernize social safety programs like employment insurance to make them easier to access and faster to deliver.

    Basic income programs provide a set amount of money to individuals but can either be universal, where every citizen receives the money no matter their other sources of income, or scaled based on existing income to cover gaps for those at the lower end of the spectrum.

    The idea of a basic personal income in Canada gained traction after the pandemic when the government provided an emergency income benefit to millions of Canadians who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 restrictions.

    NDP MP Leah Gazan introduced a private member’s bill in 2021 to create a national framework for a universal basic income but the bill never made it beyond first reading.

    A similar bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kim Pate was in the midst of being studied by a committee when Parliament was prorogued last month.

    In 2021, the parliamentary budget officer published an analysis suggesting it would cost $85 billion to provide $17,000 to low-income Canadian families and would cut poverty rates in half.

    There are about three and a half weeks left before the Liberals elect their new leader on March 9.

    Gould, the MP for Burlington who stepped down as Liberal House leader to join the race last month, is one of five candidates in the running.

    She is joined by former central banker Mark Carney, former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, and former MPs Frank Baylis and Ruby Dhalla.

    A Leger poll published this week showed Carney with a wide lead with the support of 68 per cent of Liberal supporters, followed by Freeland with 14 per cent and Gould at three per cent.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Daniel Hemel’s new course at NYU Law gives student practical insights into using guaranteed basic income to tackle poverty

    By NYU Law

    See original post here.

    Could a no-strings-attached cash transfer program—which provides financially struggling adults with a guaranteed basic income for a period of time—actually help to fight poverty? In recent years, the concept of distributing unconditional cash to low-income households has garnered praise from politicians and tech titans, and more than 100 cities and counties nationwide have instituted variations of a basic income program during the past five years. Some advocates, most famously former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, have called for a more extensive version of this practice in the form of a universal basic income (UBI), a taxpayer-funded program that would provide cash transfers to all adults for longer durations regardless of employment status.

    The notion of a basic income has long been of interest to Professor of Law Daniel Hemel, whose scholarship has examined issues of wealth redistribution in a wide range of areas, including tax policy, pharmaceutical pricing, and motor vehicle regulation. In 2020, he and University of San Diego School of Law Professor Miranda Perry Fleischer co-authored “The Architecture of a Basic Income” in the University of Chicago Law Review. The article traces the origins of the concept of a basic income and explores the mechanics of putting a basic income into practice. In Spring 2025, Hemel is co-teaching a new course, Basic Income Lab Seminar, with Adjunct Professor of Law Sarah Blanton, in which students will work on implementing a cash transfer program of their own.

    In this Q&A, Hemel assesses the current state of basic income programs, considers what critics get right and wrong about UBI, and shares what he hopes that his upcoming course will accomplish.

    What sparked your interest in guaranteed basic income?

    I’ve been interested in basic income since high school. I read Milton Friedman when my dad, who was quite economically conservative, recommended one of his books [Capitalism and Freedom] to me. I read it and disagreed with most of it. Friedman is a libertarian economist. I am not myself a libertarian. But Friedman had the idea of a negative income tax, which is approximately the same thing as a basic income. I was intrigued by this aspect of his thinking. And then I read more and more about [basic income] and gained a deeper understanding of its roots dating back to 18th century political philosophy and its history in the United States, including support from Martin Luther King. And as a tax professor today, I spend a lot of time teaching students about the subject of redistribution. So I’ve been interested in it for a while.

    Has your view of UBI changed over the years?

    The first thing I ever wrote on basic income was a book review for The New Rambler. The title was “Bringing The Basic Income Back to Earth.” And my argument was that supporters of a UBI were making outlandishly optimistic claims about what a UBI could do, and this was potentially setting UBI up for failure. I don’t think that view has changed in the last eight years.

    The results from basic income trials that have come out over the course of the last few months are somewhat hard to reconcile. There was a national experiment funded by [OpenAI CEO] Sam Altman that didn’t find huge positive outcomes from providing a basic income. And there was also an experiment in Chelsea, Massachusetts that found really positive health outcomes, including a huge drop in emergency room admissions among families receiving a basic income. I think that underscores the need for more research, because we don’t really understand why these different programs are showing different results. One potential hypothesis is that the Chelsea program was focused on a much lower income population than the Sam Altman experiment.

    One of the takeaways of the University of Chicago Law Review piece that I wrote with Miranda Fleischer is that with any large-scale basic income program, the devil’s really in the details. There can be iterations of a UBI that I would think of as really great. And there are also iterations of it that I would think of as terrible for the interests of the very people who it attempts to help. And that really depends upon issues such as which programs get replaced in order to finance the universal basic income. How are kids counted in calculating the UBI? The answers and the details can define whether a program is hugely beneficial or harmful.

    In calling for a UBI, or the need to expand basic income programs, advocates have raised the prospect of massive AI-fueled job losses in the future. What’s your view?

    It’s worth noting that when libertarians talk about a basic income, and when progressives talk about a basic income, they’re not necessarily talking about the same thing. For libertarians, a basic income is framed as a replacement for the welfare state. For progressives, a basic income is often framed as an addition to the welfare state. So what might superficially seem like a consensus can sometimes mask what’s really a deep division.

    Now I do think that it’s true that one reason why people are talking about basic income today is because of AI. Since my first writings on a UBI, I’ve said that the argument that we need a basic income because the robots are coming to take our jobs strikes me as unpersuasive. The emphasis on AI and robotics is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s helpful to get people to focus on the centuries-old idea of basic income. Thomas Paine talked about basic income. Thomas Moore talked about basic income. Martin Luther King talked about basic income. On the other hand, the other edge of the sword that focuses on robots and AI as a motivation for a UBI is complicating the case that proponents of cash transfers on liberal grounds want to make, [which] could be a very simple argument about what is fair.

    This spring you will be teaching a seminar in which students will work on implementing a basic income program. Tell us more.

    We’re testing the efficacy of cash transfers over a limited time. The students are going to need to build from the ground up the infrastructure to do that. I taught a version of this class as a visiting professor at Yale in Spring 2024. There the students found a nonprofit that manages the homeless shelter waitlist in New Haven, and they decided to focus on families that are on the waitlist.

    My co-teacher for the Spring 2025 semester class is Sarah Blanton ’07. She runs an organization called 4-CT, which is Connecticut-based. It specializes in designing and implementing cash transfer programs. The structure of the seminar is there’s a pot of money that will be allocated to the students from 4-CT to distribute to recipients. They have to decide who gets it and what the criteria will be, based on data they will collect. My guess is that students will settle upon something like 25 recipients. Whether it’s something like six months, the students will have to decide for themselves how long the payments last for.

    Our goal is to have this be in close proximity to NYU Law. And so it will likely be families on the Lower East Side or in Chinatown. And I’ll suggest to students that they partner with a local nonprofit that provides services to families that meet the criteria that they establish. So it won’t be the students just starting from scratch and finding families on the street, but working with a partner in the community.

    I think from a pedagogical perspective, having students construct a small-scale basic income program will pay huge educational dividends, in addition to benefitting the families who become beneficiaries of that program. In my classes, we spend a lot of time talking about tax. We spend less time talking about transfers. I thought it would integrate well into a tax curriculum to compel students to make distributional decisions.

    You have written that basic income “enhances individual autonomy, freedom and dignity.” Can you elaborate on this theme?

    One of the programs that [4-CT] runs provides $500 a month over 12 months to individuals who have been recently released from prison in Connecticut. I’ve talked to a bunch of beneficiaries of this program. And they describe a feeling of dignity arising from the trust that the program places in them after being told everything they need to do over the course of their day. One of the terrible things that poverty does to people is that it takes away their freedom of choice. Even when they’re receiving services in the form of food stamps, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters, they’re not getting to decide how to allocate resources. The government or social service agencies decide for them. And so, implicit in the idea of a basic income is the premise that you, the recipient, can determine your own path.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Inside the plan to give free cash to homeless people in Manchester: ‘It’s time to try something new’

    By Liam Geraghty

    See original post here.

    Academics and campaigners have claimed a new basic income pilot in Greater Manchester could “end absolute poverty” in the city region, starting with people experiencing homelessness – if it gets the green light from mayor Andy Burnham.

    UBI Lab Network and Northumbria University experts have proposed a new basic income pilot for Greater Manchester. The model lays out how a £1,600 a month payment to create an income floor nobody could fall below would boost wellbeing, send poverty rates plummeting and tackle unemployment.

    The group sent the proposal to Burnham on Monday (10 February) after he signalled his intention to launch a basic income in the region in his manifesto for re-election last year. The Greater Manchester mayor has also previously pledged to make the case for a basic income with the Treasury.

    Alison Hawdale, co-founder of UBI Lab Manchester, told the Big Issue that Manchester’s devolution deal and the “imagination” of the city makes it the perfect place to develop the idea.

    “Greater Manchester is a proud and dynamic part of the world, and for hundreds of years its famously creative citizens have shown themselves to be resilient, resourceful and forward-thinking,” added Hawdale.

    “But we have chronic problems around poverty, homelessness, mental health and crime which have not gone away, despite decades of action from local and national government, community groups and business. It’s time to try something new.”

    A universal basic income has proven unpopular in Westminster with critics arguing that it is expensive and does little to boost employment and the economic inactivity that Labour has been struggling to shift.

    But the idea’s champions argue giving everyone a universal payment and using the tax system to recoup money could be a better alternative to a growing benefits bill.

    The idea is untested at national scale but there are existing pilots in the UK.

    The Welsh government is currently operating a two-year study with more than 500 care leavers while there was a proposed basic income pilot in East Finchley and Jarrow in London.

    In both trials, participants earn £1,600 per a month with no strings attached while academics test what it means for their lives. Results from both trials are currently under wraps.

    Meanwhile, the Scottish government has been developing a minimum income guarantee for some time. Academics argued that a basic income was more efficient than a minimum income guarantee as it is provided first then taxed rather than being topped up when peoples’ income falls below a threshold.

    Basic income campaigners in Manchester have also looked to international examples to shape the proposal.

    UBI Lab Manchester hosted an event with Mark Donovan, founder of the Denver Basic Income Project, last February. Donovan is currently running a pilot project in Denver involving homeless people, paying $10.8m (£8.7m) to over 800 people so far.

    Donovan told attendees how the interim results of the pilot showed that homeless people receiving a regular and unconditional income were able to make significant positive changes to their lives, thanks to the financial security offered by the basic income.

    “The time has been now for a long time,” Hawdale told the Big Issue.

    “During Covid, we definitely pushed it because the idea of furlough is not that far from the idea of a basic income.

    “Why it is gaining a lot of traction at the moment is because of AI. When I first came into this a few years ago to shout about ‘the robots are coming’ it didn’t get you anywhere, but since ChatGPT basically there has been an explosion of interest in there just might not be the jobs.”

    Now campaigners want Greater Manchester to be the next test bed, starting with hundreds of people experiencing homelessness in the city region.

    Campaigners hope the cash would help provide people the financial security that could provide a platform to turn their lives around.

    The pilot would run over two years, and would see each individual participant – not household – receive £1,600 per month. The cost for this would be £7.68m for 200 recipients, or £3.84m for 100 recipients.

    The experts said the costs to run a pilot could be raised through a combination of central government support, public donations, reallocated service funding from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and support from philanthropic organisations.

    They also hope this will convince Burnham, who has vowed to make the case for the idea with Keir Starmer’s government, to take the idea to the Treasury.

    The Labour government has targeted a shift towards prevention in its bid to reduce homelessness. Ministers have said they will spend £1bn tackling homelessness and rough sleeping in the next year with a significant increase in spending on prevention.

    Burnham has launched a “Housing First philosophy” in Greater Manchester, designed to use more preventative approaches to tackling homelessness and poverty as well as boosting wellbeing.

    He wrote in his 2024 re-election manifesto: “The evidence from our Housing First pilot is that, if you set people up to succeed, the vast majority will and, in turn, that saves money on crisis provision in other public services.

    “For this reason, we believe the logical next step, after the success of our Housing First pilot, is to bring forward a basic income pilot, as suggested by Compass. This would fit well with our new Live Well concept and would test whether a different, more preventative way of supporting people would lead to better use of public funds.”

    The paper submitted to Burnham on Monday – titled Basic Income for Greater Manchester: Plans for a Feasible, Affordable and Popular Pilot – insisted a basic income could help further efforts to prevent people falling into crisis.

    Campaigners previously met with the mayor to make the case for a basic income ahead of his re-election last year.

    One of the report’s authors, Eliott Johnson, a vice chancellor’s fellow in public policy at Northumbria University, told the Big Issue that focusing on people experiencing homelessness in Manchester offers the chance to show a “proof of concept” for the idea.

    But, ultimately, he sees the need for a basic income to be much more universal.

    “I think in that post-pandemic, we have a complete sea change in opinion about what we need to provide everyday people,” said Johnson. 

    “Suddenly, people who never considered that they might have to rely on the welfare system were exposed to it. So we’re in a completely new world.

    “I think one thing about Manchester and the devolution deal it has is that it enables quite significant progressive policy making potentially to be made. And I think Andy Burnham understands that.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Proposal launched for groundbreaking Basic Income pilot in Greater Manchester

    By Northumbria University

    See original post here.

    A new pilot proposal has been launched for a groundbreaking scheme which experts say could eventually end absolute poverty in Greater Manchester, as well as improve the health and wellbeing of millions of people.

    Led by academics from Northumbria University and campaigners at the UBI Lab Network, the new report outlines a pilot for a Basic Income that could eventually see a regular payment given to everyone in Greater Manchester, regardless of income, wealth or work.

    The authors say if rolled out fully, such a monthly payment would create an ‘income floor’ nobody could fall below, ending absolute poverty in the city for good, improving the health and wellbeing of citizens, and making it easier for those on unemployment benefit to get back into work.

    The proposal to pilot the idea has been instigated by UBI Lab Manchester, part of the UK-wide UBI Lab Network, a grassroots group that aims to explore the potential of Basic Income within the city. If taken forward, the pilot would initially involve hundreds of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in the area, providing a sense of financial security and creating a platform from which they can start to rebuild their lives.

    Matthew Johnson, Professor of Public Policy at Northumbria University, Chair of the Common Sense Policy Group, and one of the authors of the report, said: “At a time in which ambition and vision is required more than ever, Greater Manchester stands out as a beacon of hope for progressive policy. Basic Income is a pragmatic, affordable, feasible and, most importantly, an overwhelmingly popular policy.

    “It is popular because it deals with the root causes of today’s challenges: the financial insecurity that affects almost all of us, especially in the north. The proposals within this report are an opportunity for Greater Manchester to lead on national renewal by setting out a fundamentally transformative scheme that will capture Britain’s interest.”

    Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has previously indicated his support for piloting a Basic Income. His 2024 re-election manifesto pledged to bring forward a Basic Income pilot in order to test whether a different, more preventative way of supporting people could lead to better use of public funds. Authors of the report, A Basic Income for Greater Manchester: Plans for a feasible, affordable and popular pilot, have sent their proposal to the Mayor directly, and are calling on him to take their groundbreaking pilot proposal to the Treasury.

    The proposal

    The proposed pilot of a Basic Income in Greater Manchester would initially target the region’s most vulnerable citizens: young people from deeply disadvantaged backgrounds who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness.

    The pilot would run over two years and would see each participant receive £1,600 per month. The cost for this would be £7.68m for 200 recipients, or £3.84m for 100 recipients.

    The proposal outlines that the costs to run a pilot could be raised through a combination of central government support, public donations, reallocated service funding from the GMCA itself, and support from philanthropic organisations.

    Briefing for MPs

    On 27 February, the authors of the Manchester pilot proposal will host a briefing session for MPs within the Palace of Westminster on the potential transformative benefits of a Basic Income for Greater Manchester and the rest of the UK.

    The team behind the Manchester Basic Income pilot proposal believe:

    • it is more feasible and popular than alternatives, such as Minimum Income Guarantee and increases in Universal Credit
    • it can produce valuable evidence around the impact of preventive policies on poverty
    • it has the support of local communities and builds on similar pilots such as the Welsh Government’s Basic Income Pilot for Care Leavers
    • there are clear pathways to funding a pilot of sufficient size without requiring revisions to tax codes
    • this is an opportunity for progressive politicians to be brave and to demonstrate that big thinking can solve crises of insecurity

    The Welsh Government recently carried out a two-year pilot of a Basic Income for young people leaving care. Each of the 500 participants, all aged between 18 and 20, received £1,600 per month from 2022-2024. Professor Matthew Johnson is part of the team evaluating this pilot. While the full results have not yet been released, preliminary results suggest this intervention has already demonstrated a positive impact on financial stability among an extremely disadvantaged group of people.

    Dr Elliott Johnson, Vice Chancellor’s Fellow in Public Policy at Northumbria University, Impact Lead for the Common Sense Policy Group and one of the co-authors of the report who will speak at the briefing session for MPs, explained: “Young people have borne the brunt of ongoing austerity measures since the Global Financial Crisis. Andy Burnham has rightly prioritised preventing homelessness in Greater Manchester. This pilot is an opportunity to deal with that crisis at root – by giving young people the financial security that they need to make longer-term decisions that secure their future.”

    Alison Hawdale, co-founder of UBI Lab Manchester, said: “Greater Manchester is a proud and dynamic part of the world, and for hundreds of years its famously creative citizens have shown themselves to be resilient, resourceful and forward-thinking. But we have chronic problems around poverty, homelessness, mental health and crime which have not gone away, despite decades of action from local and national government, community groups and business. It’s time to try something new. This exciting new proposal offers a roadmap for how we can move forward with such a pilot. We’re hugely excited to get started.”

    Research which informs how policymakers adopt and deploy basic income schemes and reform existing welfare programmes is at the heart of activity from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, led by Professor Matthew Johnson, and based within the Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing at Northumbria University. In 2023, they carried out extensive research and community consultation exercises, in partnership with communities in Jarrow, South Tyneside and East Finchley, London and the independent think tank Autonomy. This research was used to develop community-led proposals for a two-year Basic Income pilot on a smaller scale.

    Since then, Northumbria researchers have collaborated with fellow academics, policymakers, third sector leaders, community representatives and people with lived experience to develop a blueprint for policy reform which their research suggests could bring an end to poverty and inequality in Britain. Act Now: A vision for a better future and a new social contract was published as a book before last year’s General Election. A second book, Basic Income: The Policy That Changes Everything, is due to be published later this year.

    Northumbria University is dedicated to reducing health and social inequalities, contributing to the regional and national workforce and improving social, economic and health outcomes for the most marginalised in society. Through its new Centre for Health and Social Equity, known as CHASE, researchers will be delivering world-leading health and social equity research and creating innovative, evidence-based policies and data-driven solutions to bring impactful change across the region, the UK and globally.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • UBI Taiwan’s single-parent basic income reaches a new ‘milestone’

    By Tyler Prochazka

    See original post here.

    UBI Taiwan hosted a press conference to spotlight the progress of its basic income pilot program for single-parent households. The event brought together policymakers, academics, and beneficiaries to celebrate this milestone and advocate for a more equitable future.

    Two Taiwanese national legislators were present at the event, offering their support and emphasizing the broader implications of basic income for Taiwan. They stated they hoped this experiment could become a stepping stone for Taiwan to become a more fair and just society.

    Yu-Ling Chang, Assistant Professor of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley, hailed the initiative as a pivotal development in Taiwan’s social welfare history. “Implementing the basic income experiment is a new milestone for social welfare in Taiwan,” she remarked.

    Adding a personal dimension to the event, Ms. Yu, the first participant in UBI Taiwan’s basic income experiment, shared her experience. She expressed gratitude for the program, which provided much-needed stability and relief during a challenging period in her life. “The basic income gave me a moment to breathe,” she said, reflecting on how it allowed her to focus on her child and navigate life’s uncertainties, such as her recent battle with cancer.

    A documentary about Yu’s journey with basic income will be released later this year.

    To further raise awareness and funds for the single-parent basic income program, UBI Taiwan held a national charity debate competition in December. Students from Taiwan and Japan participated to deliberate on whether Southeast Asia should implement basic income, presenting diverse perspectives on issues such as entrepreneurialism, foreign direct investment, fiscal capacity, and governance challenges in developing nations.

    The championship round showcased arguments from both sides, with opponents emphasizing feasibility concerns while proponents argued that the social costs of inaction outweigh the investment required to implement basic income.

    The tournament raised over $1,000 USD, with the proceeds going toward developing the single-parent program. The fundraiser was organized by UBI Taiwan and Ascent Academy’s Youth Leadership Program, which is designed to connect young people with social impact initiatives in the spirit of basic income.

    Beyond the debate competition, students in the Youth Leadership Program are developing additional programs to address pressing social issues. Current projects include initiatives to support the homeless using cash cards and provide educational resources for low-income students. 

    UBI Taiwan plans to expand the single-parent basic income program this fall. To support this initiative, the organization also hosted a fundraiser talent show in January, inviting supporters to perform in support of the program.

    Jiakuan Su, chairman of UBI Taiwan, said he saw positive changes during the pilot program from finding a better job to improved educational development for the child. 

    “The value brought by basic income is not just the money, but more importantly the changes it brings to your life,” Su said. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion | A stronger Canada starts with economic security for all

    By Tom Cooper

    See original post here.

    Canada stands at a pivotal moment, facing an existential threat that could shape our future for generations.

    The spectre of Manifest Destiny — the old idea that the United States is destined to expand its control over North America — has returned in a modern and more dangerous form. A re-elected Donald Trump wasted no time in advancing a belligerent and protectionist agenda that not only threatens our economy, but challenges our very sovereignty.

    Tariffs on Canadian goods would deal a devastating blow to workers, businesses and families already struggling with affordability. But Trump’s ambitions go far beyond economic pressure — he has openly suggested the idea of making Canada the 51st state.

    This is not driven by any admiration for Canada or its people — it is about control, it is about possessing our land, our industries and our vast natural resources. If we fail to act decisively to strengthen our own economic foundations, we risk being seen as vulnerable — a country that can be absorbed rather than one that stands firm in its independence.

    But the reality is not everyone in this country feels they have a stake in Canada’s future. While it has been heartening to see so many resilient Canadians stand up for our country over the last several days, the reality is millions in this country are facing skyrocketing rents, unaffordable groceries and wages that haven’t kept pace with the cost of living. Owning a home has become an untenable goal for many young people.

    Perhaps national independence is less of a priority for those who are just trying to survive? If we want to protect Canada’s sovereignty, we must address the deep inequality that pervades our society.

    We need to ensure that all Canadians have the economic security to feel like this country is a home worth fighting for, or the same disgruntled forces that brought Trump into office in the U.S. will surely rip apart the fabric of the Canadian dream.

    This will require bold policy initiatives. If tariffs do become a reality, one of the most effective measures Canada could take right now is to introduce an emergency basic income guarantee — a regular, unconditional payment that ensures people can afford their basic needs. Canada took this step during the pandemic, and while the Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit (CERB) had its problems, eight million Canadians were able to maintain their housing even while workplaces were shuttered.

    In 2020, the overall poverty rate in Canada saw a notable decline, dropping to 6.4 per cent from 10.3 per cent in 2019. This decrease was largely attributed to the introduction of CERB and other emergency benefits, which provided substantial financial support during a period of widespread economic disruption.

    In the short term, a basic income would provide stability for those who could be hardest hit by Trump’s tariffs. Trade disruptions could mean job losses in manufacturing, agriculture and other key industries. A basic income would help families stay afloat, giving them the breathing room to adapt — whether by retraining, starting a small business or simply keeping a roof over their heads.

    But this isn’t just about responding to a crisis. A basic income is a long-term investment in Canada’s resilience. By ensuring all Canadians have the resources they need to participate in the economy — and in society — we create a stronger, more self-sufficient country. People with stable incomes spend money in their communities, support local businesses and contribute to a healthier economy. A country where fewer people are struggling, one where everybody has a home, is one where everyone benefits.

    The idea of Canada becoming the 51st state is absurd. But when economic inequality is as deep as it is today, we can’t assume that everyone feels invested in defending this country’s independence. The truth is, Canada has already been losing ground — not to the United States, but to poverty, precarity and a political system that too often leaves the most vulnerable behind.

    A basic income is not just about poverty reduction. It’s about making sure that every Canadian, no matter where they live or what their circumstances are, feels like they have opportunity and a future in this country. If we want people to rally behind Canada in this moment of crisis, we need to make sure they have something to rally for.

    We can’t control who sits in the White House, but we can control how we support people here at home. A basic income would be a clear signal that Canada is choosing to invest in its own people, to build a fairer and stronger nation. In the face of economic threats, that’s the kind of leadership we need.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Over the past half-decade, guaranteed basic income programs have improved lives around the country. Now they’re under political attack.

    By Robert Davis

    See original post here.

    It’s easy to see the scars living unhoused has left on Hilliard McAlpin. Walking with me through the streets of Denver, Colorado, he’s quiet and moves like he’s trying to ward off a future attack. He will laugh at jokes, but quickly masks his smile. When we first meet, the forty-nine-year-old seems like he’s in a battle against the world.

    Then we arrive at the spot where McAlpin used to live. Civic Center Park in downtown Denver sits between Denver’s City and County Building and the Colorado State Capitol. The pair of neoclassical structures loom over the park, projecting the ideals of order, reason, and democracy. But in 2021, Denver officials cleared about 100 unhoused people from the park ahead of annual holiday events. In effect, the city signaled that people like McAlpin were no longer welcome downtown.

    McAlpin points out a section of the northeast side of the lawn where he used to camp. The grass was dead, trampled under the feet of tourists. Glittering streamers and holiday debris hang in the bur oak trees, food wrappers littering the sidewalk. After spending eight years in prison, McAlpin spent another eight years camping in the park and staying in some of the city shelters, which he described as dangerous places. The longer we walk, the more memories seem to come flooding back.

    “Homelessness never really leaves you,” McAlpin says.

    Across the street, a group of houseless people sit along the stone retaining wall separating the state capitol lawn from the sidewalk. A man yells sporadically and indiscriminately. McAlpin turns to me and says we need to go over there.

    As soon as we arrive, McAlpin’s demeanor softens. He makes eye contact and shakes hands with as many people as possible. He greets some with a warm “You good?” He slips a $20 bill to one individual and tells him to share the wealth with his friends. He says he has done the same thing for his mother and his friends when they have had financial issues. McAlpin tells me he’s always been compassionate, but that a program called the Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) has recently enabled him to give back.

    The Denver Basic Income Project is one of the largest guaranteed income pilots in the country. The publicly funded private program was launched in the fall of 2022 and has since distributed more than $10.8 million of no-strings-attached cash benefits to more than 800 unhoused people in Denver. Benefits ranged from receiving $50 per month up to $1,000 per month. At its peak, the program deployed roughly $475,000 monthly in cash and benefits like free cell phones for participants, according to DBIP Founder and Executive Director Mark Donovan. About 45 percent of participants had secured housing within ten months of joining the program, according to quantitative research on the program conducted by the University of Denver’s Center for Housing and Homelessness Research. DBIP also contributed to approximately $590,000 in cost savings for the city in emergency services, hospital visits, and jail time over its first year.

    For McAlpin, DBIP was a lifesaver. He struggled to find work or to receive other social benefits because of his criminal history. But that all changed soon after he entered the program. Being unhoused is among the most significant impediments to finding work. Travel to job interviews with no money for public transportation is impossible; it is also exceedingly difficult to consistently be punctual and dress professionally. Remote work can be challenging because of a lack of consistent Internet access, even when someone sleeps at a shelter or at supportive housing arrangements.

    McAlpin now works at a local company called GRID Alternatives installing solar panels. He also used the money to pay bills and provide food, rent payments, and other necessities for family members when they needed help. McAlpin now dreams of buying land and building a small community of self-sustaining homes inspired by the Pueblo Indigenous peoples.

    “It was really bittersweet,” McAlpin says about joining DBIP. “It was amazing to be able to help [my family], but it also accentuated the fact that our economic system and all these other things are in place to make things hard for the poor.”

    However, like other guaranteed income pilots operating across the United States, DBIP has faced significant political opposition. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston endorsed DBIP during his campaign in 2022, and his endorsement is still quoted on the program’s website. But in 2024, as funding from the city waned, Johnston rejected the city council’s budget amendment to continue funding the program in the 2025 budget—despite the efforts of DBIP, which held multiple public rallies in support of continued funding, as well as participants who spoke before Denver City Council to advocate for the program.

    DBIP made its last payments in September 2024 after the budget amendment failed. Donovan tells me the program still has $800,000 in the bank and is using the money to continue paying for phone services for its participants while he looks for additional funding. Beyond that, DBIP’s future remains uncertain. McAlpin tells me he’s no longer concerned about his own future due to the help he received from DBIP. But the potential end of the program still comes as a blow.

    “It all goes back to America’s divisions, our lack of wanting to understand, and America’s moral compass,” McAlpin said. “It’s all off whack.”

    Guaranteed income programs like DBIP emerged in the late 2010s as a way for governments to address the root causes of poverty. The programs are intended to create a so-called “income floor” that the most vulnerable populations can’t fall through by providing regular cash payments with no work requirements or other preconditions.

    Though the terms “guaranteed income” and “basic income” are often used interchangeably, guaranteed income programs specifically target people from socioeconomic backgrounds more likely to experience poverty and homelessness, according to the Economic Security Project. This includes people of color and Indigenous populations. There are also guaranteed income programs for single mothers, community college students, and domestic violence survivors, to name a few. Despite the “basic income” term in its name, the DBIP is a guaranteed income program.

    The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) program in Stockton, California, is one of the first guaranteed income pilots in the United States. It launched in February 2019 and gave 125 residents $500 of unrestricted cash per month for two years. Over those two years, the program reduced public expenditures on emergency services and helped more than 40 percent of participants land a full-time job. Many participants also reported feeling less stressed and anxious about their financial health. These results led former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs to form the group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income in June 2020, which, according to its website, now includes 166 mayors and county officials across the country.

    More than 150 guaranteed income initiatives have been launched since 2017. Yet, despite their numerous successes, these programs have faced significant and well-funded opposition. Opponents often rely on straw man arguments—such as claims that guaranteed income increases low-income households’ reliance on welfare and disincentivizes people from finding full-time work.

    But according to the Stanford Basic Income Lab, guaranteed income programs have the exact opposite effect on welfare reliance and workforce participation. Census data indicates that there are more than 1.4 million married couples with children under the age of eighteen who live below the poverty line, a total that has increased by 3 percent since 2019. Federal data from 2023 also shows there are 168,699 people in families with children who are houseless, a population that has grown by 16 percent since 2022. The country’s affordable housing shortage has primarily driven this trend, which speaks to the need for additional support systems like guaranteed income.

    Rightwing advocacy organizations such as the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and politicians such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have been the main propagators of lies about guaranteed income. For instance, FGA argued in a report from February 2024 that guaranteed income pilots fundamentally stifle the economy and degrade American cultural values like self-determination.

    Paxton took this opposition a step further when he sued Harris County, Texas, in April 2024 to prevent it from launching a guaranteed income program called Uplift Harris. The program sought to use $20.5 million of federal COVID-19 relief funds to provide $500 monthly payments to approximately 1,900 low-income-earning residents. Two lower courts in Houston rejected Paxton’s attempts to block the program before the ultraconservative Texas Supreme Court ruled in June that the pilot likely violated the Texas state constitution’s prohibition on “gratuitous payments to individuals.”

    In August, Harris County officials tried to revamp the program to require that participants spend the money only on necessities like food, utilities, and shelter. These requirements are largely redundant, as research from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income Research found that most recipients spend their money on life-sustaining expenses like housing.

    Paxton responded to the changes by suing Harris County again in September 2024. He argued that using public funds to support low-income-earning households in this way “directly violates the law” and accused Harris County officials of “[undermining] the legal process out of apparent desperation to push this money into certain hands as quickly as possible.” A Harris County judge struck down Paxton’s second attempt to block the program in October, although the MAGA firebrand continued to fight it and appealed the decision. As of December 2024, the final appeal is pending, so no payments can be made.

    The backlash is having a sustained impact on guaranteed income pilots nationwide, with many programs being shut down when pilot periods end. Even progressive cities like San Francisco have had to shut down guaranteed income programs because of Republican backlash. Funding for Chicago’s guaranteed income program, which was established in 2022 to help those who experienced economic hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic, was cut from Mayor Brandon Johnson’s $17.3 billion 2025 budget.

    Some Republican-controlled state legislatures have stepped into the fight as well. South Dakota, Iowa, and Idaho have all passed laws prohibiting basic and guaranteed income programs. Arizona, Mississippi, and Wisconsin lawmakers have all introduced similar legislation, although it failed to pass in those states.

    For DBIP participants like Rosemarie Palafox, the impact of guaranteed income is too good to pass up. Palafox tells me she had experienced homelessness on and off for most of her life. Her most recent spell came after she lost her job doing asbestos abatement. To make matters worse, Palafox was in a car wreck around the same time, preventing her from finding another job. She ended up moving into a Safe Outdoor Space—a city-sanctioned campsite for homeless people—operated by the Colorado Village Collaborative, where she was then put into a lottery to join DBIP.

    Palafox was accepted into the program and received an initial payment of $6,000 plus $500 per month for a year. That money was life-changing, she says. Palafox was able to enroll in classes at Metropolitan State University of Denver, where she studied construction management. She spent about half of her stipend on rent and utilities for a two-bedroom apartment and used the remaining funds to buy necessities like a laptop for school, as well as clothes and bedding for her nine-year-old niece, who lives with her.

    Before connecting with DBIP, Palafox says she relied on Section 8 housing vouchers and welfare benefits to make ends meet. That patchwork required a lot of paperwork, which made it hard to find another job, and to make it to doctor’s appointments for the knee injury she had sustained in her car accident.

    Now, Palafox says she doesn’t stress about money or losing her benefits. She is graduating from MSU a semester early so she can have knee surgery and start looking for a job in the construction industry. None of that would have been possible without the guaranteed income from DBIP, she says.

    “I’m not just, like, sitting around doing nothing,” Palafox says. “I’m trying to get stable and start a career, so I don’t have to depend on nobody.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Trump is making plans for a sovereign wealth fund. Alaska already has one, and it’s funding a universal basic income.

    By Lakshmi Varanasi

    See original post here.

    • Bipartisan support is growing for a US sovereign wealth fund.
    • The Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes money to Alaska residents annually, could be a model.
    • Challenges include funding sources, legislative hurdles, and state-owned natural resources.

    Bipartisan momentum is building around a sovereign wealth fund that could help the United States reduce its national debt or fund ambitious projects.

    At the White House, President Joe Biden’s top aides have circulated plans for a fund to finance national security interests. And former President Donald Trump recently called for a similar state-owned investment fund to finance “great national endeavors” during a campaign stop at the Economic Club of New York.

    It is unclear how an American fund would be funded or how it would operate. However, lawmakers might have something of a model in The Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes the money it makes to the state’s residents as annual dividends.

    “The fund was initially established with revenue from mineral extraction, primarily oil, but within a few years after its initiation, its primary source of revenue is investment returns,” Sarah Cowan, executive director of the Cash Transfer Lab, previously told Business Insider. “It diversifies the Alaskan economy because, at this juncture, the revenue from this fund primarily does not come from oil.”

    Alaska’s fund offers benefits that mimic a universal basic income — a no-strings-attached, recurring payment distributed to people regardless of socioeconomic status. But there are some key differences. For one, the dividend doesn’t come out of taxes; it’s paid only annually and doesn’t equate to a livable wage.

    Federal lawmakers likely see a sovereign wealth fund serving a different purpose, like supporting industries or financing supply chain initiatives. Creating one at the national level also comes with more legislative hurdles.

    “Typically, many countries went through special law making to create a SWF, defining the SWF’s source of capital, investment mandate, and supervision system,” Winston Ma, an adjunct professor at NYU and the author of The Hunt for Unicorns: How Sovereign Funds Are Reshaping Investment in the Digital Economy, wrote to Business Insider by email. “Therefore, it’s not a simple corporate setup. It will involve lots of collaborative work between the executive and legislative branches — after the election.”

    Sovereign wealth funds — like Alaska’s or Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, which is the largest in the world — are often funded by wealth generated from state-owned natural resources. The issue is that “natural resources in the US are mostly owned by the states,” Ma said. So, consolidating those revenue streams might require some back and forth.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Alternatives North releases basic income guarantee proposal

    By Emily Blake

    See original post here.

    Alternatives North is advocating for the NWT government to introduce a basic income guarantee program, which it says could eliminate poverty.

    The Yellowknife-based social and environmental justice coalition released a report on Tuesday outlining a delivery model for basic income guarantee in the territory.

    Under the proposed program, eligible residents would receive an unconditional transfer payment – a sum of money you can rely on that tops up your income to a fixed amount, based on the region where you live.

    Alternatives North said such a program would ensure everyone in the territory can meet their basic needs and live with dignity and security.

    “The high cost of living is often seen as a problem with prices, which is obviously part of it, but we have to look at the other side of the ledger too, to the incomes that people have. That’s where a basic income guarantee comes in,” said Suzette Montreuil of Alternatives North.

    “It would be an upfront investment that provides a truly stable foundation for all residents of the NWT.”

    Estimated costs and benefits

    The report was prepared by PlanIt North and economist Michel Haener with assistance from Evelyn Forget, a professor at the University of Manitoba.

    The authors recommend that the NWT government replace income assistance with a basic income guarantee for five to 10 years. They said a 10-year pilot is preferred as it would ensure generational impacts are measured.

    The report estimates implementing the program would cost between $58.9 million and $138.3 million a year based on four delivery scenarios. Most new funding for the program could come from the federal government under a cost-sharing agreement with the territory, the authors said.

    The report said the cost would be offset by an estimated $6 million in savings from cutting the administration of income assistance, as well as up to $32 million in additional rental income to Housing NWT.

    Additional positives would include improved health outcomes, reduced use of the healthcare system, positive impacts on child development, crime reduction, an improved workforce and cultural revitalization, Alternatives North said.

    How would the program work?

    Under the proposed program, residents over the age of 18 would receive transfer payments if they have lived in the NWT for at least a year and if their income is less than their regional market basket of goods, a measure of poverty used by Statistics Canada based on the cost of a basket of a goods that represents a basic standard of living.

    Those payments would be distributed equally among adults in a household.

    The report states that recipients would not pay income tax on the amount they receive and it would neither limit nor complicate their access to benefits and support from other programs.

    In response to concerns that a basic income guarantee could disincentivize some people from working, the report explores four potential delivery scenarios.

    It recommended a program that provides payments up to 100 percent of a person’s regional market basket measure with a 50-percent reduction rate, meaning the amount of the payment that is reduced for each dollar earned in income. That scenario, estimated to cost $138.3 million a year to implement, was considered the least likely to create “a welfare wall” or discourage increased earnings.

    Alternatives North said the NWT is an ideal location to implement a basic income program. The report highlights the high cost of living in the territory among other factors that contribute to poverty, such as low education levels, housing issues, and intergenerational trauma from colonization and the residential school system.

    The group pointed out that the federal and NWT governments have committed to reduce poverty by 50 percent by 2030 relative to 2015 levels.

    Releasing a poverty report card in 2020, Alternatives North said the territory was failing at poverty reduction. That report found a quarter of children and at least one in five households lacked the financial means to achieve a standard of living.

    Statistics Canada found more than 17 percent of NWT households were living below the poverty line in 2022 according to the northern market basket measure, and nearly 28 percent of people lived in a household that experienced food insecurity.

    Political support needed

    Alternative North’s proposal requires support from both the NWT and federal governments for a basic income guarantee to become a reality in the territory.

    Montreuil said all NWT MLAs had been sent a copy of the report and several had expressed support. She said she hopes the proposal will be discussed in the legislature and considered by the NWT government.

    “I think it’s quite favourable to the NWT and it would be great to see them implement it,” she said.

    While some MLAs in the previous Legislative Assembly supported trying basic guaranteed income in the NWT, cabinet said it had no plans to explore such a project.

    At the federal level, as the upcoming election looms, Alternatives North’s Ben McDonald said some parties “may be more predisposed” to support such a program. Rolling out the program would require political backing no matter who is in power, he said.

    “One of the alluring things about this proposal is it really is about simplifying social supports. It’s about reducing administration and ultimately reducing administrative costs to government, and that’s something that would be alluring across the political spectrum,” said Christine Wenman, a planner with PlanIt North.

    Alternatives North said beyond political support, further work is needed to refine a delivery model, confirm costs and benefits, establish a monitoring program and engage with Indigenous governments and the public.

    The group added that a basic income guarantee alone will not address poverty challenges residents in the territory face. Alternatives North called for expanded integrated service delivery, programs that address addictions and wellness, and adequate housing among other supports.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Leaked ANC document calls for basic income grant in South Africa in 2025

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

    • According to a leaked document from its January 2025 lekgotla, the ANC supports phasing in a basic income grant (BIG) this year.
    • But the official statement on the outcomes of the meeting by ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula did not mention a BIG or social grants.
    • The Black Sash has expressed concern at the party’s lack of commitment.
    • The ANC in response to GroundUp’s questions has said it remains committed to a BIG.

    The African National Congress (ANC) held its annual National Executive Council lekgotla at the end of January, outlining the party’s priorities for the year ahead and the five-year term of the administration.

    According to a document obtained by GroundUp, at the lekgotla the ANC supported phasing in a Universal Basic Income Support Grant (BIG) this year, in line with the promises made in the party’s election manifesto.

    The document states the ANC will “Strengthen income support through existing social grants and use the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grants as a mechanism towards phasing in the Basic Income Support Grant this year, as per ANC Manifesto.”

    Skills development initiatives for SRD grant recipients were also discussed. The ANC proposed working with Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) to provide targeted skills training for people receiving SRD grants.

    But when ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula presented the outcomes of the lekgotla on 28 January, there was no mention of a BIG. The official statement, although focused on economic transformation, poverty alleviation, and unemployment, did not provide any details on the implementation of a BIG.

    “The ANC’s battle of ideas is about ensuring that the movement’s transformative agenda is understood by society and embraced by all sectors, from the poor and working class to the youth and the middle class,” Mbalula said in a statement on the lekgotla outcomes. He emphasised the need for the ANC to address the aspirations of South Africans, particularly marginalised people, and to focus on economic transformation, job creation, and improving access to quality services.

    The Black Sash has expressed concern at the absence of any reference to a BIG in the official statement. Executive director Rachel Bukasa said, “The ANC’s failure to mention BIG in its official media briefing is deeply concerning and suggests a lack of political will to address South Africa’s crisis of poverty and unemployment.”

    The ANC has previously said it supports a BIG, and in its 2024 election manifesto, the ANC said it would strengthen comprehensive social security by “progressively implementing a basic income support grant by extending and improving the value and coverage of the SRD grant for the unemployed”.

    Black Sash criticised the ANC for failing to follow through on this commitment.

    Bukasa said although the ANC has acknowledged the SRD grant as a way to phase in the BIG, the party’s proposals are vague, lacking implementation steps and timelines.

    “The ANC has had ample time to implement a permanent, universal income grant, yet it continues to hide behind consultations, pilot programs, and conditionalities … [delaying] much-needed relief.”

    “If the ANC was serious about eradicating poverty, it would prioritise the immediate rollout of [a BIG] rather than making vague, non-committal statements,“ Bukasa said.

    She said the government’s failure to implement the BIG is deepening inequality and “pushing millions further into poverty”.

    In a detailed response to GroundUp’s questions, ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri denied that the implementation of a BIG was removed from the party’s official address.

    “The BIG item outcome was not removed from the official address – as this suggests, it was on the agenda and then removed, which is not the case. The issue of the grant was part of a discussion in the Social Transformation Commission which was reported on the last day of the lekgotla; it was not a stand-alone item,” Bhengu-Motsiri said.

    Asked why the plans for skills development and targeted support for SRD grant beneficiaries were not mentioned in the ANC’s official address, Bhengu-Motsiri said instead of including “every detail of what was discussed in the outcomes of all the eight Lekgotla commissions” in the final statement, they focused on key priority areas and national and global challenges.

    Bhengu-Motsiri said the ANC is still committed to financing a BIG. “We will explore options such as new progressive tax measures, including a social security tax, while maximising fiscal space by effectively utilising existing resources,” she said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Leaked ANC document calls for basic income grant in South Africa in 2025

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

    • According to a leaked document from its January 2025 lekgotla, the ANC supports phasing in a basic income grant (BIG) this year.
    • But the official statement on the outcomes of the meeting by ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula did not mention a BIG or social grants.
    • The Black Sash has expressed concern at the party’s lack of commitment.
    • The ANC in response to GroundUp’s questions has said it remains committed to a BIG.

    The African National Congress (ANC) held its annual National Executive Council lekgotla at the end of January, outlining the party’s priorities for the year ahead and the five-year term of the administration.

    According to a document obtained by GroundUp, at the lekgotla the ANC supported phasing in a Universal Basic Income Support Grant (BIG) this year, in line with the promises made in the party’s election manifesto.

    The document states the ANC will “Strengthen income support through existing social grants and use the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grants as a mechanism towards phasing in the Basic Income Support Grant this year, as per ANC Manifesto.”

    Skills development initiatives for SRD grant recipients were also discussed. The ANC proposed working with Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) to provide targeted skills training for people receiving SRD grants.

    But when ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula presented the outcomes of the lekgotla on 28 January, there was no mention of a BIG. The official statement, although focused on economic transformation, poverty alleviation, and unemployment, did not provide any details on the implementation of a BIG.

    “The ANC’s battle of ideas is about ensuring that the movement’s transformative agenda is understood by society and embraced by all sectors, from the poor and working class to the youth and the middle class,” Mbalula said in a statement on the lekgotla outcomes. He emphasised the need for the ANC to address the aspirations of South Africans, particularly marginalised people, and to focus on economic transformation, job creation, and improving access to quality services.

    The Black Sash has expressed concern at the absence of any reference to a BIG in the official statement. Executive director Rachel Bukasa said, “The ANC’s failure to mention BIG in its official media briefing is deeply concerning and suggests a lack of political will to address South Africa’s crisis of poverty and unemployment.”

    The ANC has previously said it supports a BIG, and in its 2024 election manifesto, the ANC said it would strengthen comprehensive social security by “progressively implementing a basic income support grant by extending and improving the value and coverage of the SRD grant for the unemployed”.

    Black Sash criticised the ANC for failing to follow through on this commitment.

    Bukasa said although the ANC has acknowledged the SRD grant as a way to phase in the BIG, the party’s proposals are vague, lacking implementation steps and timelines.

    “The ANC has had ample time to implement a permanent, universal income grant, yet it continues to hide behind consultations, pilot programs, and conditionalities … [delaying] much-needed relief.”

    “If the ANC was serious about eradicating poverty, it would prioritise the immediate rollout of [a BIG] rather than making vague, non-committal statements,“ Bukasa said.

    She said the government’s failure to implement the BIG is deepening inequality and “pushing millions further into poverty”.

    In a detailed response to GroundUp’s questions, ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri denied that the implementation of a BIG was removed from the party’s official address.

    “The BIG item outcome was not removed from the official address – as this suggests, it was on the agenda and then removed, which is not the case. The issue of the grant was part of a discussion in the Social Transformation Commission which was reported on the last day of the lekgotla; it was not a stand-alone item,” Bhengu-Motsiri said.

    Asked why the plans for skills development and targeted support for SRD grant beneficiaries were not mentioned in the ANC’s official address, Bhengu-Motsiri said instead of including “every detail of what was discussed in the outcomes of all the eight Lekgotla commissions” in the final statement, they focused on key priority areas and national and global challenges.

    Bhengu-Motsiri said the ANC is still committed to financing a BIG. “We will explore options such as new progressive tax measures, including a social security tax, while maximising fiscal space by effectively utilising existing resources,” she said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Revolutionize social assistance by learning to trust

    By Neil Howard

    See original post here.

    Welfare almost always comes with strings attached. Imagine what would happen if it didn’t.

    When the authorities provide social assistance to those in need, it almost always comes with conditions attached. These include behavioural requirements or criteria determining who is and isn’t eligible for support.

    Common examples include proving that you’re looking for a job, are too ill to do so, or that you fall into a particular category that policymakers have decided is worthy of aid – for example, working children or single parents.

    This approach is problematic for at least three reasons. First, it can be ineffective, because targeted support like this often excludes many who desperately need it. Second, it can be inefficient, because behavioural controls are often ill-designed and inappropriate, while policing them requires expensive, unwieldy bureaucracy.

    Third, it is often contrary to human dignity. Evidence from many countries shows that the administrative practices associated with conditions have a tendency towards discrimination and dehumanisation.

    So, what is the alternative? Simply put, to provide social assistance unconditionally, without behavioural requirements or targeting. In other words, to provide assistance to all and with no strings attached.

    Colleagues and I from joint research teams in the UK, India and Bangladesh have recently completed two large-scale policy experiments that attempted to do this in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, and the Indian city of Hyderabad.

    In both cases, we provided unconditional assistance to all residents of five urban communities. The assistance combined unconditional cash and open-ended participatory forms of community organising delivered by social workers embedded in the communities.

    Cash was pegged at basic income levels in both countries and the organising was focused on building relationships, developing capacity, and above all on generating locally rooted solutions to locally identified problems.

    Our findings offer great cause for hope. Alongside predictable reductions in poverty, the basic income generated improvements in health, wellbeing, access to education, and quality of housing. We also found what we are calling a “dignity dividend” attached to it. The cash signifies to recipients that they matter, and that the material difficulties they face and their humanity are both recognised and worth responding to.

    The lack of conditions here is essential. Recipients repeatedly contrasted this with painful experiences of stigmatisation at the hands of mainstream welfare provision. As one woman put it: “we can’t believe you would just trust us”.

    Making space for good things to happen

    Our research suggests that the community organising that was wrapped around the cash also operates as an effective form of social protection unto itself. This is because it enables connection to services or bottom-up responses to individual and group challenges that would not have been possible had we come with pre-set notions of what was the “right” thing to do.

    For example, in Dhaka, affordable healthcare was unavailable to most people and represented a priority. In response, the community organisers set up monthly health camps in partnership with local providers to offer basic, low-cost healthcare to hundreds.

    But the real magic appears to lie at the intersection between the cash and the community organising. The cash seems to motivate participation in the community work, while the community work catalyses the impact of the cash.

    Punitive and exclusive forms of conditional welfare provision may well be counterproductive.

    We saw this especially in the formation of a labour union among the garbage collectors participating in our experiment in India. The union has gone on to make groundbreaking demands of local authorities in relation to working conditions and pay.

    Evidence from parallel experiments around the world is showing similar trends. One inspiring example with formerly incarcerated people in the southern US has shown a massive drop in recidivism.

    Another, with disadvantaged people of colour in the American mid-west, has shown benefits across indicators including health, wellbeing and work. These findings have been echoed in Peru in an experiment with indigenous Amazonian communities.

    Importantly, this approach to providing social assistance is beginning to take hold more widely. The international charity, Give Directly, offers cash to the poor with no strings attached, arguing that dollar-for-dollar this is by far the most efficient and effective approach.

    And in South Africa and Brazil, advocates are pushing for the replacement of patchy, targeted social safety nets with a universal basic income that provides all citizens with a degree of guaranteed security.

    The conclusion from this new wave of research is hard to escape: we don’t need punitive and exclusive forms of conditional welfare provision. In fact, this approach may well be counterproductive.

    So, while our leaders continue to impose austerity on us, following former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s infamous dictum that “there is no alternative”, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. There is an alternative, and it is unconditional.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.