Category: Income movement

  • By: TALIB VISRAM

    Original post can be seen here.

    Guaranteed income has been having a moment: city-wide direct cash pilots have sprung up in Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles, the latter of which became the largest the country has seen, serving 3,000 residents. Some served a broader pool of low-income applicants, while others targeted very specific demographics. Gainesville, Florida’s program focused on the formerly incarcerated, while Columbia, South Carolina’s supported single Black fathers; in San Francisco, artists who took a hit from the pandemic received a basic income.

    While data varies from city to city, preliminary results show an overwhelming benefit: After only a year’s distribution of $500 checks to low-income residents in Hudson, New York, the program found that employment more than doubled among recipients, from 29% to 63%.

    Anecdotally, participants said they could plan beyond the day-to-day, start to pay off bills, and save money for grad school or a business. Mental and physical health improved. And, because of the unconditional nature of income versus other social welfare, recipients reported improved feelings of individual agency.

    But turning those short-term pilots into long-term state or federal policy is more difficult than just collecting more evaluative data. Programs are often constrained by time and money. They have to keep goals narrow and administrative costs low, to maximize the cash going out to individuals. They also have to navigate deeply rooted cultural stigmas. A study by The International Public Policy Observatory found that a major barrier to pilot expansion is a lack of public understanding about how these pilots can benefit the whole society; rather, many believe their neighbors are receiving “free money” from their taxes. For such reasons, the federal government has been reluctant to fund long-term programs, preferring older social security systems because they’re stringently means-tested and conditional.

    To combat those narratives, direct cash pilot programs need to engage local communities and transform them into advocates. That’s according to Income Movement, an organization that aims to fire up the people who participate in pilots, or may be eligible for future iterations; and their neighbors, to mobilize and influence elected officials with their own success stories. To help cities build their coalitions of neighborhood advocates, Income Movement is launching a guiding framework, the Pilot Community Engagement Program (PCEP), on May 16, ahead of June’s Guaranteed Income Community of Practice, a convening of more than 100 direct cash assistance pilot organizations from across the country, where the framework rollout will be the primary agenda item.

    PCEP’s goal is, first, to educate neighborhoods about basic income, and to break stereotypes about what it means to receive cash assistance. It aims to partner with more pilots at local levels, and offer staff to help them run awareness events tailored to their specific communities. Finally, it will offer a digital toolkit, full of resources and best practices, to guide budding pilots on fundraising, targeting, and distributing funds. “Pilots themselves are this new invention, and people have really been inventing as they go along,” says Stacey Rutland, Income Movement’s founder and president.

    Rutland says ordinary voters have been “one of those most important levers for change” in the biggest movements of the past, such as racial equality, gender justice, and gay rights. If pilots end without building a coalition of advocates, it’s a missed opportunity—after all, these are some of the country’s most economically vulnerable people, and the constituents whose stories should most influence elected officials.

    Yet, while pilot programs are very good at collecting quantitative and qualitative data to show the worth of basic income to policymakers, what’s lacking from the advocacy landscape is an energetic movement.

    Last summer, California earmarked $35 million for the U.S.’s first statewide income plan, for foster youth—though funds are delegated to local organizations and municipalities to run their own programs. “Engaging [people] from the very start is so critically important, so that they know, understand, and really feel invested in what we’re doing,” Rutland says.

    Since its founding in 2019, the nonprofit has been building a proof-of-concept toward a model of engaging the community through educational events, and giving them the tools they need to run them, principally with three pilot programs. It partnered with San Diego for Every Child, a grassroots organization focused on ending child poverty in San Diego, which launched an income pilot in March. “Income Movement came in and helped us cultivate what those sessions would look like,” says director Khea Pollard.

    Together, they developed a community-event structure to help educate residents and turn them into advocates for cash assistance policies. Last December, before the program’s application process began, Pollard’s organization, with help from Income Movement, invited residents from the pilot’s zip codes to community dinners. They screened a short documentary, Inherent Good, about a groundbreaking basic income pilot targeted to Black mothers in Jackson, Mississippi. Attendees were then given the chance to share their views on direct cash, and on what it could mean in their lives.

    The event helped educate many who didn’t know what basic income was, or believed that it would be impossible to implement policy like that on a permanent basis. It also helped bust some deep-rooted meritocratic narratives, like the bootstraps trope that falsely assumes all Americans, regardless of status, can achieve economic success through hard work. Rutland and Pollard said the responses were generally positive; some attendees asked what they could do to help.

    Every community is different and will need different approaches. In Nashville, where a planned pilot, Moving Nashville Forward, is still in its fundraising stage, Income Movement has focused on building trust among the broader community, and educating them on the intersection of race and economics in the South. They held a “lunch and learn” series with economic and civil rights leaders; this summer, they hope to screen The Neutral Ground, a film about the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans.

    When PCEP launches, it’ll start working with new pilots; it’s already in talks with programs in Gainesville and Las Vegas. Depending on the communities, suggested strategies may involve town halls with politicians and workshops in small groups with income experts; participants may also be encouraged to man booths at fairs and markets, attend basic-income marches, and ask their local establishments to sign on in support. They may also work with older pilots to help append community elements. “Something like that would have been so helpful when we first started,” Pollard says.

    Now up and running, San Diego’s pilot will end in March 2024, at which point Pollard says the PCEP is “going to be very beneficial for raising that local work to a national level.” They will need the energy of a movement to go statewide, especially in a state like California, where there’s potential to connect the multiple cities currently running pilots, and force momentum to pass state policy, Rutland hopes, in the next couple of legislative cycles. Then, there’s the federal level.

    Income Movement remains agnostic about what a federal income policy might look like. But it points to the Child Tax Credit during the pandemic as an example of effective national policy, where millions received cash, which researchers estimated helped reduce the monthly child poverty rate by 26%.

    Rutland says the credit’s expansion in 2021 was spurred by the voices of ordinary people. The group put forward the stories of program beneficiaries to lawmakers, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, to share their stories, which was instrumental in persuading legislators to act.

    That will be the group’s model for pushing their agenda in the future. “A lot of the time, the needs of everyday people are what becomes part of the compromise at the table when policy is happening,” Rutland says. “We want to make sure that the folks who are in those rooms know the experiences, know the needs of people.”

    The post What will it take to make basic income programs permanent? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By Rita Gau

    Is it too much to expect to be able to meet your basic needs and have the resources to obtain what contributes to your well-being? Is it too much to expect to be able to pay your rent/mortgage, buy nutritious food, or visit your out-of-state family? What about buying a tube of Carmex, knee socks, a large kitchen spoon, or having car repairs done? How about going to lunch or a movie with a friend? These experiences I describe are part of what creates a fulfilling life. Don’t we all deserve that?

    As I turn 64 years old, I am just now learning that I am worthy of being able to meet my basic needs and more. Until recently, I didn’t know that I was supposed to have what I needed to bring me joy and pleasure. Things like basic health, safety, and loving connections with my family and friends seemed so out of reach to me. In the past year or so, I’ve realized that I have been depriving myself of what so many other people take for granted. For instance, the ability to run to the store to buy some glue to repair something in the kitchen, and not have to wait on two paychecks before doing so. Or feeling excited and able to say “yes” to a friend who asks you to join them for a night on the town or a simple dinner out.

    These desires and experiences all seem so ordinary and something many people seem to be able to do — but not me. The lack of money and not feeling worthy of having what I need has kept me from being able to enjoy life’s simple pleasures all too often. I haven’t been able to fully live my life in a way that honors me. In discovering that all deserve to live a fulfilling life, I am having to learn how to embody a mindset of worthiness and abundance.

    For me, a mindset of abundance includes the freedom to live a life filled with love, joy, financial resources, health, and the ability to provide self-care. The financial freedom to buy nutritious food, proper clothing, and household items for ourselves and our families should be everyone’s birthright. Having the ability to go to a health practitioner and purchase medicine when needed keeps individuals healthy. Providing our loved one with proper caregiving services and making sure our children have school supplies creates a healthy community. That is abundance.

    This deprivation I’ve been living with has been extremely painful. I have so often judged and criticized myself, asking: “What’s wrong with me?” and “Why can’t I manage to get a job that pays a livable and prosperous income?” Now that I am older, I see my friends and family retiring, being able to travel, own their own homes, and spend money on what’s important to them. Disconcertingly at age 63, I only have about $30,000 in retirement funds. I have a job that mostly pays for the basics and very few “extras.” If I were to draw social security at this age, it would only be approximately $1,027 a month — adding up to a yearly income of $12,324. That is over $500 below the poverty line.

    At times, I feel ashamed and a sense of failure. That little voice in my head tells me that I don’t have what it takes to fully financially support myself. I feel afraid and hopeless as I question how I will ever be able to live a richer life in all its forms. The anxiety, guilt, and sense of defeat I have felt due to not being able to meet my basic needs with ease has resulted in physical symptoms. Grief and self-rejection make appearances often. At times, a sense of futility and not wanting to be on this planet any longer contribute to paralyzingly crippling moments.

    Now, at this age, with less physical energy, a slower rhythm, and more time needing to be spent on self-care, I wonder how I will ever ‘catch up.’ I yearn to be able to take care of myself with greater freedom, dignity, to have the ability to meet my needs in a plentiful, healthy, and safe way. In Brené Brown’s book, Rising Strong, she writes about “the reckoning, the rumble, the revolution” of the self. It feels like I go back and forth between reckoning with my past, rumbling through the present, and revolutionizing my future, which I am realizing is simply and gloriously the “dance of life.”

    Deep down, I know that I am supposed to be thriving rather than just surviving. My many attempts to learn about my roots of poverty and deprivation have been a struggle. I realized that I wasn’t worthy of or even aware that I was supposed to be worthy of being able to meet my needs and to have plenty of whatever contributed to my state of well-being. In order to learn, I read an excellent book called The Trance of Scarcity, by Victoria Castle, which beautifully describes how we have come to believe in the lies of scarcity.

    Even with many resources to help me learn how to increase my income, at some point, I got tired of it all. At first going to financial advisors, workshops, practicing prosperity activities and affirmations was an inspiration. It eventually became draining and deepened my already existing state of depression and anxiety.

    I know that I have a strong life force within me and I continue to move forward determined that I will not die in destitution. I now realize that I have a right to live with dignity. That we all have the right to experience the richness of life and all the world has to offer us. I am gradually discovering that I am worthy of having a prosperous life and that I am not alone. So many of us are on this journey to find financial freedom and stability. Millions of people are experiencing poverty of mind, body, and spirit. However, I believe this is the time in our spiritual and human evolution to examine our beliefs and actions. We must have the courage to elevate our quality of life.

    It’s time to take a stand for abundance! A stand for a society and global family that thrives not only financially, but supports equity and love for one another.

    I felt some hope when I learned about an idea called basic income, also known as guaranteed income, which is when a governing body provides a certain amount of money to some members of society. The main purpose of basic income is to be a powerful solution to alleviate poverty. Around the world there are many pilots and studies being conducted on basic income with much success. Here in the U.S. we have seen cash transfer programs launched during the COVID pandemic helping families weather the crisis. In many states, counties, and even cities, pilots are underway and providing data for us to demonstrate the power of cash. An organization called Income Movement is the organization that I’m most familiar with that supports basic income. I feel grateful to know that there are organizations such as this one to support an unconditional monthly income for people who are suffering financially.

    If you are struggling financially, I invite you to trust your inner guidance system and know that there is nothing wrong with you, and there never has been. I believe we are here to live full and abundant lives. If you feel moved by the idea of providing abundance to everyone through a guaranteed basic income, then join our efforts with Income Movement.Your voice is powerful, and together we can create a world where there is enough for everyone. A world where we can all thrive, not just survive.

    It is not too much to ask for. We are all worthy of living lives abundant with freedom, connection, and joy.

    Originally posted on: https://income-movement.medium.com/my-journey-with-money-supporting-myself-and-worthiness-f8ed8d480c50

    The post Rita Gau: My Journey with Money, Supporting Myself, and Worthiness appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By Sarah Ravani

    Oakland plans to start a guaranteed income program this spring for 600 residents — one of the largest such programs in the country, city officials said — as Bay Area leaders search for solutions to rising poverty and inequality in the wake of the pandemic.

    Through the pilot program, residents will receive $500 a month for at least 18 months with no strings attached, Mayor Libby Schaaf said at a Tuesday news conference. Checks could be in residents’ hands by this spring or summer. Low-income families — with at least one child under 18 — who are Black, indigenous or people of color will be randomly selected through an application process to vet eligibility, Schaaf said. Officials said those groups suffer from the greatest wealth disparity, according to data on Oakland’s population.

    More than 70,000 people — or 16.7% of Oakland’s population — live in poverty, according to the U.S. Census.

    “Our vision is an Oakland that has closed the racial wealth gap and where all families thrive,” Schaaf said of the Oakland Resilient Families program.

    “We believe that guaranteed income is the most transformative policy that can achieve this vision and whose time has come.”

    In the wake of devastating job losses during the pandemic that have exacerbated housing and food insecurity, guaranteed income is gaining momentum. San Francisco is considering a similar program and voted in December to begin studying a pilot program for between 500 and 1,000 residents.

    Supporters say that guaranteed income, which provides cash payments with no strings attached, can lift people out of poverty, address income inequality, alleviate stress and improve health. Critics say the programs are expensive and could discourage people from working. They also worry that if it replaces other federal programs, as some supporters advocate, it would hurt — rather than help — low-income people.

    Oakland’s program is different than some other cities because it’s focused on people of color.

    In Oakland, residents — regardless of immigration status —who are at or below 50% of area median income — about $59,000 per year for a family of three — are eligible. Half of the spots are reserved for very-low-income families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level — about $30,000 per year for a family of three.

    “The program sounds very promising,” said Candice Elder, executive director of East Oakland Collective, a community organization that helps homeless and low-income people.

    “What we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is how the community needs universal income… with no strings attached. And I’m glad Oakland is following in the footsteps of Stockton.”

    Oakland is paying for the program with private donations from Blue Meridian Partners, a philanthropic organization focused on poverty. So far, it’s raised more than $6.7 million and about 80% of those funds are going into the hands of residents. The Family Independence Initiative, a national nonprofit based in Oakland focused on fighting poverty, will run the program and it will begin with East Oakland residents before opening applications to other parts of the city.

    Jesús Gerena, the CEO of Family Independence Initiative, said the program will first target East Oakland because it has the “highest concentration of eligible families” and is one of the worst COVID-19 hot spots in the Bay Area.

    Prospective participants can apply now by filling out a multilingual online form with eligibility screening questions. The city’s goal is to get checks into the hands of 300 residents this spring and 300 more by the summer.

    The initiative is modeled after Stockton’s program, which provided $500 every month to 125 people for 24 months. Launched by former Mayor Michael Tubbs, Stockton led one of the first guaranteed income programs in the U.S.

    Tubbs, who lost re-election in 2020, said Tuesday when the program was first launched, opponents said people would stop working and would instead spend their money on drugs and alcohol. That didn’t happen, he said.

    “Civil rights has always been about protection — not just from police brutality but also from the brutality of poverty, the brutality of economic insecurity, the brutality of not being able to know if your bills will be paid every month and not because you’re not working hard,” Tubbs said.

    “We found that people were healthier. People were able to show up as parents, as partners and as neighbors,” he added.

    Jesse Rothstein, a professor of public policy and economics at UC Berkeley, said there is no doubt that giving people money helps. Rothstein, who co-authored a study called Universal Basic Income in the U.S. and Advanced Countries, said studies show that programs like basic income or food stamps help families and result in better outcomes for kids.

    While pilot programs are a critical first step, permanent programs are needed, Rothstein said. And that’s dependent on the federal government getting involved because it requires an “enormous amount of money.”

    “As you think about going beyond the pilot to something more general, you can’t ignore the question of how we are going to come up with the resources,” Rothstein said.

    Schaaf said she hopes that Oakland’s pilot program, as well as others throughout the country, will prove why the federal government needs to invest in guaranteed income.

    Surisa King, a 53-year-old mother who lives in East Oakland, is a disabled veteran who served in the Navy for four years. She receives $1,000 a month for disability and has been struggling financially. She has racked up parking tickets because there’s no available free parking near her apartment and a nearby garage costs $240 a month — which she can’t afford.

    King, who expressed interest in the city’s program, said it’s “very difficult living on a limited income, especially when you factor in food, car insurance, AAA and rent.”

    Phillip DeVaughn, a 66-year-old Oakland resident, said he lost his job as a track and field coach for high school students due to the pandemic. His only income is a $1,700 social security check every month.

    DeVaughn said having that extra $500 a month would help.

    “When I saw the guaranteed income program, it looked like something that could be of benefit to a retiree,” he said before asking how to apply.

    Guaranteed income has gained interest among city leaders in recent years and even some tech leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg. Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang ran his campaign on the idea and announced last May that his nonprofit, Humanity Forward, will issue $500 a month for five years to 20 residents in Hudson, New York.

    Last year, Tubbs formed Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Coalition — which includes mayors from Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and Oakland — to advocate for these programs.

    Councilman Loren Taylor said Oakland’s program has the “benefit” of learning from other similar initiatives.

    “There is a network of public entities, institutions that are doing guaranteed income — we are building on that as opposed to starting from ground zero with a blank slate,” he said.

    Taylor said guaranteed income will most help those struggling the most.

    “It’s definitely exciting,” he said. “It’s huge for Oakland.”

    _____

    Sarah Ravani is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: sravani@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @SarRavani

    To see original article please visit: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Oakland-to-launch-one-of-the-largest-universal-16045456.php

    The post Eighteen-month basic income pilot for 600 people of color to be launched in Oakland, California appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • “The results of this experiment will demonstrate whether basic income is a fleeting issue or a means by which to solve problems such as future income inequality.”

    By Sarah Wray

    Gyeonggi Province is set to launch a publicly funded trial of basic income for rural residents, with a view to providing evidence for local and national expansion. It is understood to be the first universal basic income (UBI) experiment of its type in South Korea.

    The initiative, led by Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jaemyung, aims to address challenges such as an ageing society, declining population, job losses and falls in income, as well as the broader threat of job automation.

    Dong-kwang Ahn, a spokesperson for Gyeonggi Provincial Government, told Cities Today:

    “We deem the sustainability crisis of rural areas to be comparable to the national problem that is expected to emerge with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

    The details of the pilot are still being finalised but by the second half of this year, between 3,000 and 7,000 rural Gyeonggi residents will begin receiving a payment of between KRW 100,000 (US$89) and KRW 500,000 (US$443) per month. The installments will last for at least two years, regardless of the recipients’ income, assets or employment status. Data will be collected and compared to that of a control group living in a similar area.

    The pilot will study the impact of the basic income on psychological wellbeing, the economy, employment and inequality.

    In a bid to stimulate the local economy, the payments will be provided in a form of regional currency, rather than cash, with a set period in which the funds must be used.

    “We believe that this community-level rural basic income social experiment will provide an opportunity to form a national consensus on basic income, advancing it to the national level,” Ahn said.

    International trend

    The programme highlights the growing international interest in guaranteed income schemes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and other societal shifts. As many as 25 US cities plan to launch guaranteed income pilots this year, inspired by the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), which recently released positive preliminary results. However, these programmes are mainly on a smaller scale, privately funded and constrained to low-income residents.

    Gyeonggi Province, which is the most populous region in South Korea, has committed KRW 2.7 billion (US$2.4 million) for the pilot and new legislation is underway to support it.

    “Unlike cases in other countries, Gyeonggi Province is considering policies with sustainability in mind…rather than one-time experiments through donation or charity or unstable experiments that do not guarantee regularity,” Ahn said.

    The initiative builds on existing programmes in the province. Under Gyeonggi’s Youth Basic Income programme, all 24-year-old residents receive KRW 250,000 every quarter, totalling KRW 1 million over one year. The policy was launched in 2016 when Governor Lee was Mayor of Seongnam City and has since been expanded throughout the whole province.

    Ahn said recipients have shown “increased levels of social interest, such as greater satisfaction and positivity in life as well as more favourable views of the role of local government.”

    In addition, the Gyeonggi Provincial Government made two rounds of COVID-19 relief payments via local currency to residents and said that through this, “the economic and income distribution effects of basic income have been affirmed”.

    Ahn said: “There is an apparent limitation in determining the effectiveness of universal basic income based only on the examples given above or as one-time payments. So, we have designed an experiment to pinpoint the changes that the basic income policy will bring, as well as problems and complementary aspects, before pursuing a universal basic income policy in the future.”

    “The results of this experiment will demonstrate whether basic income is a fleeting issue or a means by which to solve problems such as future income inequality,” he added.

    Scepticism

    UBI has plenty of detractors, though, many of who question both the premise and its practicality.

    “What proponents of basic income overlook is that individuals need money and public services. And the state must provide those services. But they’ll collapse if UBI is adopted,” Woo Seok-jin, economic professor at Seoul’s Myongji University told Voice of America earlier this month.

    He argued that while he is in favour of more targeted government assistance programmes, de-linking employment and income is too drastic.

    “Pre-empting future risks is good, but changing the system because of a future that hasn’t even arrived yet is just not realistic,” he is quoted as saying.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://cities-today.com/korean-local-government-to-pilot-basic-income/

    The post Two-year basic income pilot for at least 3,000 rural residents to be launched in South Korea appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Families will not get cash or checks, but debit cards they can use to make purchases. 110 Paterson families will receive $400 per month for one year with no restrictions on how they spend the money.

    By Joe Malinconico

    The City Council seems set to sign off on a program launched by the mayor that would provide 110 Paterson families with $400 per month for one year with no restrictions on how they spend the money.

    Residents later this month will be able to submit applications to participate in a lottery for the 110 slots, a drawing that will be conducted by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice, officials said.

    Those selected to get the monthly installments of $400 would be part of a study being conducted by Penn to examine the impact of the extra money on the recipients’ lives, officials said.

    Another 44 individuals and families would be picked to be part of “a control group” that would not get the added income and would be used by the school as a basis for comparison. Those in the control group would receive things like gift cards in return for their participation, officials said.

    Paterson will be one of about 14 cities around the country participating in the Penn study.

    The money given to participants will come from a $15 million donation that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made to a group called Mayors for Guaranteed Income, officials said.

    The City Council discussed the program Tuesday night and is scheduled to vote on whether to approve Paterson’s participation at its meeting next week. Mayor Andre Sayegh has been talking about the initiative for about a year and recently has been holding virtual community and town hall meetings about it. Sayegh said families will not get cash or checks, but debit cards they can use to make purchases.

    Councilman Shahin Khalique said some city residents have been confused about who will pick the people getting the money for the study. Sayegh administration officials said applications will go directly to Penn and that the lottery will be conducted by the university.

    “The council is not choosing; the mayor is not choosing,” said Business Administrator Kathleen Long.

    The income limits for participants are $30,000 for individuals and $88,000 for families, officials said. Applicants must be Paterson residents and ages 18 and above.

    Councilman Luis Velez expressed concern about public perception of the guaranteed income program because the city has a mayoral election next year.

    “We don’t want to send a wrong message,” Velez said. “We’re in an election cycle. It can be used for political gain.”

    Velez suggested the city should run the program through its human services department instead of the mayor’s office. But Councilman Al Abdelaziz said his colleague should focus on the positive aspects of the program and not worry about which city office is handling it.

    “It could come out of the chief custodian’s office as long as the checks get to the families,” Abdelaziz said.

    Councilman Michael Jackson questioned the income limits for the program, saying someone making about $25,000 per year would have much greater need for the extra money than families with annual incomes around $75,000.

    Sayegh administration officials said the income restrictions were based on “living wage” guidelines for New Jersey.

    City officials said residents with questions about the program should text them to 973-531-7301.

    _____

    Joe Malinconico is editor of Paterson Press.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/paterson-press/2021/03/04/paterson-nj-guaranteed-income-program-moves-forward/6908037002/

    The post Paterson’s basic income pilot program — 110 families will get $400 a month — moves forward appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The newly enacted child tax credit has the potential to reduce the number of rent-burdened households with children by nearly 9%.

    By Dana Anderson

    The newly enacted child tax credit, which will put an average of $221 per month into the pockets of families earning $150,000 or less with children, would make housing go from unaffordable to affordable for roughly half a million American families.

    Just over 5 million families in that category nationwide would be rent-burdened—meaning they spend more than 30% of their gross income on rent—with the credit, down 8.6% from about 5.5 million families before the introduction of the credit.

    The child tax credit, part of the newly approved $1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill that some analysts predict could cut child poverty in half, isn’t meant to directly tackle housing affordability. But because paying for housing is a major expense in raising children, this report analyzes how the bill could decrease the burden of paying rent for families with children. The credit would have a small but significant impact on helping a more reasonable portion of income go toward rent, but federal and state governments should focus on permanent strategies to make housing available and affordable for all Americans.

    It’s just one provision that will provide financial help to low- and middle-income Americans—the bill also provides stimulus checks and extended unemployment benefits, among other things. But the child tax credit has the potential to become permanent, which means it could have a bigger long-term impact than the bill’s other provisions.

    “Although the expanded child tax credit would make housing affordable for many low- and middle-income families, a huge number of them would remain rent-burdened, particularly in expensive parts of the country,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather.

    “That speaks to the severity of the housing affordability crisis in this country.”

    The research in this report finds that nearly half of the American families included in this analysis are currently rent-burdened. Although that share would be reduced to about 45% with the child tax credit, that’s still a large portion of middle-class families who have a hard time paying rent.

    “The stimulus package and tax credit are a promising start and they will certainly help a lot of families pay rent and put food on the table,” Fairweather continued.

    “But it’s critical that the Biden administration implement long-term policies that substantially increase the supply of affordable housing to improve housing security for low-income families and help abate the homelessness crisis.”

    The child tax credit provides a $3,000 annual benefit for each child aged 6 to 17 and $3,600 for each child under the age of 6, with the full credit available to couples earning up to $150,000. That’s up from the previous credit of $2,000 per child. Redfin’s analysis compares the number of households that earn less than $150,000 with children that were rent-burdened before the new  tax credit to the number that would be once the credit goes into effect. The analysis calculates the average amount families will receive in child tax credits by metro area, taking into account the average number of children in each age range in that metro. The data in this report is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1-year American Community Survey for 2019.

    The median family included in this analysis has two children, pays $1,294 in monthly rent and earns $50,247 per year.

    The credit provision will have the biggest impact on low-income families in relatively affordable areas like El Paso and Raleigh, mainly because extra money goes further in places where rent and other costs are already less expensive. It will have a smaller impact on pricey areas like the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

    See the table at bottom of original article for metro-level detail on the potential impact of the child tax credit on paying for housing.

    _____

    As a data journalist at Redfin, Dana Anderson writes about the numbers behind real estate trends. Her dream home is either on the beach or in the mountains, but either way, it has a comfortable window seat and cozy fireplace.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.redfin.com/news/child-tax-credit-impact-affordable-housing/

    The post Biden’s Child Benefit Will Make Rent Affordable for Half a Million American Families With Children appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Biden’s stimulus plan contains an experiment in Universal Basic Income. The bill’s child tax credit has the potential to change the way that the United States addresses poverty.

    By Sheelah Kolhatkar

    On Tuesday, March 9th, Amy Castro Baker stood on her front porch and watched as her two teen-age children boarded a bus and went off to school together for the first time in a year. Her sense of relief was profound. Baker, a researcher of economic mobility and an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice, had been through a challenging period familiar to most parents—and especially to working mothers. For the past year, she had balanced the demands of a full-time job with overseeing her kids’ online schooling, while also cooking, cleaning, and running the household as a single parent.

    “We’re at the point in my home where it’s a choice between what’s higher risk, covid or my kids’ mental health,” Baker said. “I’m not sure I could have handled another month.”

    These are the kinds of difficulties that the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9-trillion pandemic-relief bill recently passed by Congress, was designed to address. Benefits in the bill could help millions of families who are facing similar challenges and are living under much greater financial precarity.

    The bill, which was signed by President Joe Biden on Thursday, offers a variety of benefits intended to address economic hardship caused by the pandemic.

    No Republicans voted for the legislation, largely based on the argument that the pandemic will end soon and the economy doesn’t need the help. And it’s true that some aspects of the legislation go beyond the demands of the pandemic, addressing economic disparities that existed before covid-19 hit. The bill includes provisions to give one-time, fourteen-hundred-dollar payments to individuals earning fewer than eighty thousand dollars a year, and to increase unemployment insurance by three hundred dollars per week until early September.

    But it is the plan’s expanded, fully refundable child tax credit—which is worth thirty-six hundred dollars for each child under age six and three thousand dollars for those aged six to seventeen—that has the greatest potential to change the way that the United States addresses poverty.

    _____

    Sheelah Kolhatkar is a staff writer at The New Yorker, where she writes about Wall Street, Silicon Valley, economics, and politics. She is the author of “Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street.”

    To see original article please visit: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/joe-bidens-stimulus-plan-contains-an-experiment-in-universal-basic-income?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_031521&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd66f832ddf9c6194388f0d&cndid=21862528&hasha=4b8351c39eab9a607e0729efcc51c26d&hashb=f76512918a8feeca6884ef8539e55ed2daa041a9&hashc=89b19f33b8b780fe458223e541d60addc12272dcbac4e272bb9cfbcd8ddd1214&esrc=AUTO_PRINT&mbid=CRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily

    The post Child Tax Credit Opens the Door for UBI appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • He is best known for his work on a Stockton pilot project that provided $500 a month to a small group of low-income residents.

    By Carla Marinucci

    OAKLAND, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom has tapped former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, nationally known for his work on universal basic income, to become an adviser on income inequality, child poverty and California’s economic recovery from Covid-19.

    Tubbs, 30, is best known for his work on a Stockton pilot project that provided $500 a month to a small group of low-income residents, a concept that became part of the national political conversation and was promoted by Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. A rising Democratic star, Tubbs suffered a surprising loss in his November bid for a third term.

    He told POLITICO that he will become Newsom’s “special adviser on economic mobility and opportunity” beginning Tuesday, with a special emphasis on the Central Valley, where unemployment and poverty rates have been among the highest in the state.

    The position is unpaid.

    “California is the fifth largest economy in the world, and one of the most diverse places in the world,” Tubbs said. “And the governor and I are in agreement that economic gains and opportunity have to be broadly shared.’’

    Tubbs was a Stockton success story, growing up in the disadvantaged south side of town before going to Stanford University. He was elected mayor of Stockton at age 22, becoming one of the youngest elected officials in the country. His advocacy on income equality issues and UBI efforts made him the focus of the HBO documentary, “Stockton on My Mind.”

    The decision by Tubbs to become a high-profile ambassador and actor in Newsom’s administration comes as the governor is facing the growing specter of a recall, with proponents claiming they’ve already collected more than the 1.5 million valid signatures they need to qualify the election by a March 17 deadline.

    In an upset last November, Tubbs was defeated in the wake of fierce criticism from a local blog, police and firefighter opposition and criticism from residents who said he had not done enough to solve the city’s homelessness and crime problems.

    Tubbs said he was wooed for a Biden administration job — and that he accepted it — before deciding instead to stay in California and focus on helping his home state rebound from the pandemic.

    Asked whether his move was related to the recall, Tubbs said, “Most people in this country and in the state understand the recall is utter nonsense. I really view my role as providing extra willpower and extra firepower to the governor’s initiatives that are already ongoing.”

    Tubbs’ announcement comes on the heels of a newly-released study which showed the universal basic income experiment he launched in Stockton — giving randomly selected residents $500 per month for two years with no strings attached — “measurably improved participants’ job prospects, financial stability and overall well-being,” NPR reported.

    Among the key findings of the report by independent researchers were that the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) cash infusions slashed month-to-month income fluctuations that households face and boosted the full-time employment of recipients by 12 percentage points. The program also appeared to address key mental health issues related to poverty, including measurable feelings of anxiety and depression, the study suggested.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/11/michael-tubbs-gavin-newsom-economic-adviser-475375

    The post UBI Gains a Friend in High Places appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • How government-provided cash gives people the tools to solve their own problems.

    By Aisha Nyandoro and Natalie Foster

    As President Joe Biden prepares to sign the American Rescue Plan, a surprising bipartisan hero has emerged: the Child Tax Credit. The new law will nearly double this already-existing credit for one year and send $250 to $300 per child every month to almost every family in America. Biden and Democrats in Congress have expressed support for making these changes permanent. And the enthusiasm for the policy extends across the aisle, with Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) introducing his own version. 

    For those of us working in economic policy, this is nothing short of revolutionary—a guaranteed income for families with children is estimated to cut child poverty in half, bringing close to 5 million American children out of poverty.

    It is a major step forward to leave the punitive welfare system of the past four decades in the past, and instead embrace the simplicity and efficacy of unconditional cash.

    Much of the foundation for the insufficient and conditional nature of our current benefits system can be attributed to GOP idol Ronald Reagan. His administration paved the way for a generation of conservatives to eviscerate the social safety net by fear-mongering about fraud and waste by the poor, all while slashing taxes on the wealthy. Decades of policy were shaped by this false narrative, which is still evident in conservative hand-wringing over whether pandemic aid was too generous to minimum-wage workers struggling to survive through COVID-19.

    Aspects of the Reagan era can be seen in where the original Child Tax Credit fell short: it shows our limits on who we think is deserving.

    It did not go far enough in addressing the needs of the full family—for example, a disabled adult under a parent’s care, or an aunt without children whose lost her job due to COVID. What makes the new Child Tax Credit remarkable is the fact that it is unconditional—no complicated hoops to jump through or minimum income requirements of parents. Families will simply receive checks.

    With the dual crises of racial injustice and a virus response only now being taken seriously by a new White House, Americans must finally rid our politics of the poisonous ideology surrounding poverty in the U.S.

    For far too long, we’ve been sold a reductive story that people are poor because they don’t work hard and deserve to be.

    That people who are wealthy are rich because they work hard and deserve to be.

    This morality tale is a lie. Who is working harder—the CEO who leaves the office at 5 p.m. or the cleaner who spends the night scrubbing down the office? The truth is, our economic system has been engineered to funnel wealth to the very top, while the working class pay the price. The pandemic has illustrated the stark results: the collective wealth of America’s billionaires has grown by 36%—$1 trillion—while eight out of 10 U.S. households earning under $50,000 are still having difficulty meeting basic needs each week. We need to build an economy that recognizes a person’s inherent worth and ensures that we are all given the opportunity to not just survive—but thrive.

    The path to shared prosperity and common-sense policy should begin where the need does—within the community. We see how this pays off in a program like Magnolia Mother’s Trust in Jackson, Miss. It was developed through a process that was created based on the needs of the families living in subsidized housing it serves. Potential recipients had similar stories of waiting for hours at government offices to “prove” they were still poor, being penalized in lost benefits if they were able to scrape together a semblance of savings to try and get an apartment in a safer part of town. When asked what would help them achieve economic stability, the answers ranged from owning a reliable car to get to work to coming up with tuition money for their last semester of community college.

    The challenges were individual, but the solution was universal: cash. 

    The “radically resident-driven” nonprofit, Springboard to Opportunities, developed a program to provide a group of mothers $1,000 a month for a year. The results were more promising than any job training or budgeting seminar. The initial 20 recipients paid off $10,000 in predatory debt. The amount of meals made at home versus picking up fast food or takeout more than doubled. At the end of the first year, all the participants said they were able to pay their basic needs. Now expanded to 110 mothers, the second year is about to wrap up. While the data will take some time to collect, the money was crucial—the first payments went out on March 15, 2020, just as the U.S. was entering lockdown.

    One mother, Mimi, saw her hours as an Olive Garden server evaporate overnight. Unemployment insurance was slow and unreliable. She didn’t have health insurance, and worried about going back to work once the restaurant resumed service. The $1,000 from the program was the only steady source of income she had to care for herself and her children. 

    There are millions of Mimis across this country, and they deserve help—not judgment.

    Policies like the Child Tax Credit and recurring direct checks can provide them the agency and choice they need to do what’s best for themselves and their families. This pandemic has shown what we know to be true: cash gives people the tools to solve their own problems. Direct cash payments have driven poverty reduction and boosted local economies, but perhaps most important—cash has been a lifeline for people to meet basic needs and fill in the gaps in their own personal safety nets. 

    It’s time to relegate Reagan-era welfare policy to the history books and follow the new trail blazed toward equity, trust and dignity we are seeing U.S. leaders finally embrace.

    _____

    Aisha Nyandoro is the CEO of Springboard to Opportunities and the founder of the Magnolia Mother’s Trust guaranteed income program. Natalie Foster is co-chair of the Economic Security Project.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-relief-package-lifts-millions-of-children-out-of-poverty-and-shuts-the-door-on-reagans-punitive-welfare-legacy-11615407139

    The post Opinion: The new monthly child benefit shuts the door on Reagan’s punitive welfare legacy appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By Helen Lyons

    Working towards a universal basic income is urgent, says Georges-Louis Bouchez, president of the conservative Mouvement Reformateur party (MR).

    Bouchez spoke about the idea of a guaranteed €1,000 monthly income for Belgians that would replace all other social services, calling it an opportunity for people to “take control of their lives,” in an interview with De Tijd.

    It isn’t the first time the MR president has brought up the idea. He wrote about universal basic income (UBI) in his book, where he also said, “My generation is the first in contemporary history to consider that its future will be worse than that of the one that precedes it.”

    By using UBI to replace other social services, Bouchez says it will be affordable without having to increase taxes.

    “If the existing social security benefits and [other] benefits are replaced by a basic income, you already have about 70% of the funding. You also achieve efficiency gains,” he says.

    But people are divided over whether or not a UBI will discourage people from working. Belgian economist Koen Schoors wrote an editorial alleging that it will reduce labour participation at a time when we need more of it than ever to pay for ageing costs and coronavirus pandemic-related expenses.

    Bouchez disagrees, saying that people will still be encouraged to work because they’ll earn more money if employed. He also points out that there are already people who do not work and instead earn money through existing unemployment benefits.

    “In Belgium, you have people who are unemployed for life, who receive unemployment benefits of €800 to €1,000 per month, without having worked one day,” he says.

    “You see people in unemployment for three generations. I am convinced that social security, as it is now organised, does not allow people to take their lives into their own hands. A basic income can liberate people.”

    Mouvement Reformateur is a French-speaking political party in Belgium that was also the party of previous prime ministers Charles Michel and Sophie Wilmès.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/158323/georges-louis-bouchez-conservative-party-president-calls-for-universal-basic-income/

    The post Conservative Party President Calls for Universal Basic Income in Belgium appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • “Social assistance provided as charity rather than rights do not prevent poverty but perpetuate it,” 92 groups have said in a joint statement.

    Several unions, political parties and rights groups have launched a campaign for the introduction of a basic income guarantee against increasing income inequality during the coronavirus pandemic.

    The campaign was first initiated by the Union for Democracy (DİB) and supported by 92 groups, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), which has the third-largest group in the parliament.

    The Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK) and the
    The Confederation of Public Employees’ Unions (KESK) also announced support for the campaign.

    At a joint press conference yesterday (March 3), Nesteren Davutoğlu from the DİB said:

    “The real agenda of the country is unemployment, poverty and livelihood. The demand for an income guarantee is on the table. Our goal is to realize it.”

    “Social aids don’t prevent but perpetuate poverty”

    A joint statement by the 92 groups reads, “The income inequality has reached a terrible extent. Both poverty and the number of millionaires and billionaires is increasing.

    “Poverty is not only individuals’ inability to access shelter, healthcare and education services and their deprivation of adequate food but also their exclusion from the society.

    “Social assistance provided as charity rather than rights do not prevent poverty but perpetuate it.

    “… Especially in the pandemic conditions, it is the state’s primary to provide people’s most basic needs such as food, shelter and heating. If the aim is not to enrich the richest but to share the social wealth fairly and to prevent hunger and poverty, our country has resources to use for basic income security.”

    Selin Sayek-Böke, the secretary-general of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said at the conference that the pandemic revealed the corruption of the existing order.

    “There is a deep, severe and deepening poverty. It affects millions of insecure people the most,” she said.

    “We need to create an order in which all segments of the society can live in security. The basic income guarantee is a building block of such an order.”

    Garo Paylan, the HDP’s deputy co-chair responsible for economic affairs, pointed out the unfair distribution of public resources: “They say there are no resources. We have a lot of evidence to refute their claim that while there are resources for palaces, wars, partisans, interest rates but there are no resources for citizens’ basic needs.”

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://m.bianet.org/english/labor/240296-labor-groups-opposition-politicians-call-for-basic-income-guarantee-amid-high-ineuqality

    The post A campaign for basic income has been launched by multiple unions in Turkey appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Under the plan passed Tuesday, $6 million would go toward a universal basic income pilot program in Councilman Curren Price’s South L.A. and downtown district. Under the initial plan, a total of 500 households of single parents in Price’s district would receive $1,000 a month for 12 months.

    By Dakota Smith

    For months, L.A. politicians have wrestled with how to spend tens of millions of dollars cut from the city’s Police Department budget after protests erupted over George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis last May.

    A draft plan approved by the L.A. City Council in December would have devoted $88 million to youth and recreation programs, neighborhood beautification initiatives, job and business programs, nonprofit services and more.

    But that proposal ran into opposition from the police chief and the police union, as well as Mayor Eric Garcetti. The mayor vetoed the plan, saying the reprogrammed money should focus more heavily on racial justice, income inequality and community safety programs.

    On Tuesday, in a rare move, the City Council voted to override Garcetti’s veto, then went on to pass a more detailed proposal that seems to hew closer to his vision for how to allocate the money. Garcetti, in a statement, said he supports the council’s latest version of the spending plan.

    Tuesday’s vote marked the first time that the council has overridden a veto by Garcetti, city aides said.

    The plan backed by City Council President Nury Martinez and several council members now allocates $14 million slated for policing alternatives, including community intervention officers, according to a city report.

    An additional $18 million would be allocated for homeless prevention and homeless services, including eviction defense services, jobs and outreach workers.

    That initial allocation of $32 million reflects the spending priorities of six council districts.

    Tuesday’s vote was 11 to 4, with council members Bob Blumenfield, Monica Rodriguez, Mike Bonin and Joe Buscaino voting against the proposal. Ten votes were needed to override Garcetti’s veto.

    Blumenfield voted against the original spending plan, saying on Tuesday that “it wasn’t true to the intent of the funding” and that he was glad the mayor vetoed it.

    But he also voted against the revised plan Tuesday. Blumenfield cited several reasons, including recent budget cuts that slashed services and reduced city employees’ pay.

    “I love many of these new expenditures,” Blumenfield said. “But how can we look at our employees and our constituents, look them in the eye and tell them to accept all of these sacrifices, and then spend wildly on a host of new council-directed projects, as good as they are?”

    Other council members voiced concerns that residents outside the six council districts wouldn’t be able to access programs funded by the $32 million.

    Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, told the council at Tuesday’s meeting that her group strongly supported the council’s plan to override Garcetti’s veto.

    “We must get the money that was reallocated from LAPD into our communities,” Abdullah said, adding that “dollars need to go to intervention work, dollars need to go into the hands of those who are struggling in communities, dollars need to go into housing, especially for Black people.”

    In a letter sent last week to the city’s top budget and legislative officials, Martinez said the council’s objective is to “invest these funds in a manner that uplifts the voices and needs of their residents.”

    “The council should affirm its intention that these funds be used to address areas of most concern to our residents, including youth programming, city services, jobs and economic development, community and nonprofit investment, reimagining public safety, and homelessness,” Martinez wrote.

    Under the plan passed Tuesday, $6 million would go toward a universal basic income pilot program in Councilman Curren Price’s South L.A. and downtown district.

    Such programs, which typically provide a monthly stipend to a small pool of residents, have been launched in Stockton and Jackson, Miss.

    Under the initial plan, a total of 500 households of single parents in Price’s district would receive $1,000 a month for 12 months.

    An additional $7.75 million would go to a fund dedicated to paying for an “unarmed response” to homelessness and nonviolent calls, according to budget officials.

    Under the program, the greatest share of the money will go to districts with the greatest number of census tracts experiencing poverty and unemployment.

    Nearly $50 million would be distributed to three of the council’s 15 districts, all of which take in portions of South Los Angeles.

    The council is asking budget analysts to prepare a report with a list of additional appropriations, totaling about $56 million, by Friday.

    “From the beginning, this conversation has been about making bold investments that lift up our communities and speak to the urgency of racial and economic justice,” Garcetti said in a statement.

    “The latest version of the council’s spending plan does that, and I support it.”

    “It’s significant that we move this issue forward in terms of how we reimagine and reinvest public dollars,” said Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose district includes Koreatown and parts of South Los Angeles. “And it can’t be a one time proposition.”

    Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig L.A., which seeks to promote representative government and fight corruption, said the City Council was being “disingenuous” in its override of Garcetti’s veto.

    “The only reason anybody is OK with you overriding the mayor’s veto is because you’re now doing what the mayor told you to do,” Quan told the council.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-02/la-city-council-to-reconsider-88-milion-spending-plan-communities-color

    The post Police funding in Los Angeles to be partially reallocated from the LAPD to a one-year basic income pilot for 500 single parents appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Instead of reserving CARES Act stimulus funds for municipal operations — like everywhere else in the United States — Skagway leaders decided to redistribute most of the money to residents.

    By Peter Kujawinski

    Normally around now, Skagway residents start getting serious about the summer ahead. It’s no joking matter, because if you count the May and September shoulder season, they have to make all their money for the year in five intense months. On a busy summer day, 13,000 passengers disembark from cruise ships to soak up the atmosphere of this Gold Rush-era town in southeast Alaska surrounded by glaciers, mountains, deep fjords and the wilderness of Tongass National Forest.

    Despite a year-round population of only a thousand people, before the pandemic Skagway was the 18th most visited cruise ship port in the world, with $160 million flowing annually into its economy.

    For the summer of 2020, Skagway was expecting 1.3 million tourists to stroll down Broadway, its main street of historic saloons and hotels turned souvenir shops. It’s the kind of tourist-focused town that even Mayor Andrew Cremata has a side gig selling tours at the dock.

    Covid transformed Skagway from cruise ship fueled boom town to ghost town. There were no cruise ship visits in 2020, and 2021 looks grim as well. To make matters worse, the pandemic didn’t just destroy its economy; it also cut off Skagway’s land connection to the rest of the world.

    The only road out of town leads to the currently closed Canadian border about 20 miles away.

    An idle crane sits at the empty main cruise ship dock in Skagway. On a busy summer day, up to four cruise ships are usually docked with thousands of passengers flooding the town’s streets. Christopher Miller for The New York Times.

    To avoid a mass exodus of residents, the town came up with a unique idea. Instead of reserving CARES Act stimulus funds for municipal operations — like everywhere else in the United States — Skagway leaders decided to redistribute most of the money to residents.

    Each full-time resident, regardless of age, received $1,000 monthly from June to December 2020, on one condition: they had to spend the money within town.

    It could be used to pay a mortgage, to buy groceries at Skagway’s two grocery stores, home improvement supplies at the town’s hardware store, or to patronize the town’s DVD rental store. Receipts proving the purchase was local were required.

    The Skagway Hardware Company is one of the local businesses where residents could spend their $1,000 monthly stipends of stimulus money as an incentive to not leave the Alaska town. Christopher Miller for The New York Times.

    To Mayor Cremata and other local leaders like Jaime Bricker, president of the Skagway Traditional Council, the rationale was simple: ensure the town’s survival until tourists returned.

    Other programs they set up included vaccine distribution, coronavirus testing, paying for residents’ medevac insurance as well as helping the town’s food bank and highly rated school.

    “We had one goal a year ago: make it through to the ’21 season,” the mayor said. “Highly successful. We’re going to make it to the ’21 season.” He paused. “And so, now, we have to make a new goal.”

    Mr. Cremata was referring to the fact that on Feb. 4, the government of Canada extended a ban on cruise ships in its territorial waters until Feb. 28, 2022. This decision effectively has canceled Skagway’s summer 2021 season.

    To ensure Skagway’s survival, leaders including Jaime Bricker, the president of the Skagway Traditional Council, had the idea of paying residents until the tourists returned.  Christopher Miller for The New York Times.

    Town leaders have batted around options. For example, they have proposed a Save Our Skagway campaign, encouraging former seasonal workers to come back and visit. “You can come here and probably have the best vacation of your life without a lot of traffic in town and do all the things you didn’t get to do when you were working 70 hours a week through the summer,” Mr. Cremata said.

    But no one expects this or any other option being discussed to make up for the usual summer influx of cruise ships.

    “Businesses have gotten used to the volume that we see from the cruise industry,” Ms. Bricker said

    Ashley Call, an owner of Ocean Raft Alaska, has three boats that have been sealed up for nearly two years. He had expected 2020 to be the busiest season ever for his business. Christopher Miller for The New York Times.

    This is certainly the case for Ashley Call and his company, Ocean Raft Alaska. “The more the merrier for my business and honestly, in Skagway, most of the tour businesses are set up the same way. My doors will stay closed unless I have the volume,” he said, adding that he would be working in construction until the cruise ships returned.

    To make it through 2021, Mr. Cremata hopes any new stimulus package would include funding for hard-hit municipalities like his. But beyond just surviving another year, the mayor says current circumstances have provoked questioning among residents about tourism and Skagway’s future.

    “What’s good for Skagway? Is it healthy to be working 70 hours a week when your kids are out of school or is it healthier to have an economy that is a little bit more sustainable, not only from an economic perspective, but from a personal perspective?” Mr. Cremata said.

    “People have said in the past, I won’t even go down Broadway. I won’t even go to the post office when the cruise ships are here.”

    Mr. Cremata laughed. “There’s always a dichotomy in Skagway. As much as people might complain about going down Broadway, people love tourists here. And I do too.”

    _____

    Peter Kujawinski , a Chicago-based writer, is a former U.S. diplomat and the co-author of five books, including Nightfall and Edgeland.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/07/travel/covid-travel-tourism.html#skagway

    The post A town in Alaska in 2020 used CARES Act money to provide $1,000 a month for seven months on the condition residents spend it locally appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The American Rescue Plan would temporarily expand the child tax credit for 2021: allowing 17-year-old children to qualify, increasing the credit to $3,000 per child removing the $2,500 earnings floor, making the credit fully refundable and allowing half of the credit to be paid in advance through periodic payments from July 2021 to December 2021.

    By Joy Taylor

    An expanded child tax credit for 2021 is about to become law. After some procedural wrangling, the Senate narrowly approved President Biden’s stimulus package to help tackle the coronavirus pandemic and stimulate the economy. Because the Senate made some changes to the House-crafted bill, titled the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“American Rescue Plan”), the House will have to revote on the revised bill before sending it to Biden’s desk for his signature. We expect that will happen next week.

    One provision in the American Rescue Plan would, for one year, expand the child tax credit and make it fully refundable.

    Presently, the child tax credit is worth $2,000 per kid under the age of 17 whom you claim as a dependent and who has a Social Security number. To qualify, the child must be related to you and generally live with you for at least six months during the year. The credit begins to phase out if your adjusted gross income (AGI) is above $400,000 on a joint return, or over $200,000 on a single or head-of-household return. Up to $1,400 of the child credit is refundable for some lower-income individuals with children, but these people must also have earned income of at least $2,500 to get a refund.

    The American Rescue Plan would temporarily expand the child tax credit for 2021. First, the plan would allow 17-year-old children to qualify. Second, it would increase the credit to $3,000 per child ($3,600 per child under age 6) for many families. Third, it would remove the $2,500 earnings floor. Fourth, it would make the credit fully refundable. And fifth, it would allow half of the credit to be paid in advance by having the IRS send periodic payments to families from July 2021 to December 2021.

    Phase-Out for Wealthier Parents

    Not all families with children would get the higher child credit.

    The enhanced tax break would begin to phase out at AGIs of $75,000 on single returns, $112,500 on head-of-household returns and $150,000 on joint returns.

    Under the proposal, the IRS would look to the 2020 return to determine eligibility for the credit. If a 2020 return has not yet been filed, the IRS would look to 2019 returns. Families who aren’t eligible for the higher child credit would claim the regular credit of $2,000 per child, less the amount of any monthly payments they got, provided their AGI is below the current thresholds of $400,000 on joint returns and $200,000 on other returns.

    Periodic Payments in 2021

    Regarding the advance payments, the plan calls for the IRS to send out a check (mainly in the form of direct deposits) periodically from July through December to families. These periodic payments would account for half of the family’s 2021 child tax credit. For example, if monthly payments were made, this would result in payments of up to $250 per child ($300 per child under age 6) for six months and would be a nice windfall for many families. Take a family of five with three children ages 12, 7 and 5. Assuming the family qualifies for the higher child credit and doesn’t opt out of the advance payments, they could get $800 per month from the IRS from July through December, for a total of $4,800. They would then claim the additional $4,800 in child tax credits when they file their 2021 return next year.

    (Use our 2021 Child Tax Credit Calculator to see how much you would get per month under the current plan.)

    Democratic lawmakers want the IRS to start making the payments to eligible Americans in July, giving the agency just a few months’ lead time to set up its computer systems to handle such a massive, but temporary, new payment program.

    The American Rescue Plan also calls for the IRS to develop an online portal so that individuals could update their income, marital status and the number of qualifying children. People who want to opt out of the advance payments and instead take the full child credit on their 2021 return could do so through the portal.

    Some Overpayments Would Not Have to Be Paid Back

    With advanced payments of the child tax credit, there will sure to be instances in which families receive more in advanced child tax credit payments from the IRS than they are otherwise entitled to. And the American Rescue Plan contemplates this by providing a safe harbor for lower- and moderate-income taxpayers.

    Families with 2021 adjusted gross income below $40,000 on a single return, $50,000 on a head-of-household return and $60,000 on a joint return would not have to repay any credit overpayments that they get. On the other hand, families with 2021 adjusted gross incomes of at least $80,000 on a single return, $100,000 on a head-of-household return and $120,000 on a joint return would need to repay the entire amount of any overpayment when they file their 2021 tax return next year. And families with 2021 adjusted gross incomes between these thresholds would need to repay a portion of the overpayment.

    Is the IRS Up for the Challenge?

    Many tax experts and some lawmakers question whether the IRS, with its out-of-date computer systems, shrunken work force and its myriad of other duties, would be fully able to deliver periodic child credit payments, especially if the expanded child tax credit and advance payments are eventually made permanent, which could very well happen. Some Senate and House Democrats are already talking about making this permanent, touting the potential impact that a fully refundable, expanded child tax credit would have on reducing child poverty.

    Setting up a new program to deliver regular payments to taxpayers who must meet complex eligibility requirements to qualify for the child credit will be a challenge for an agency that is not used to sending out periodic payments.

    The IRS would need more funding for such a big undertaking. The House bill authorizes an additional $400 million for the IRS to take on the additional work, but some experts question whether this is enough. The IRS says that to facilitate advanced payments of the credit, it would have to build a system to compute and recompute payments as taxpayers provide new information. Such a system must also be able to issue and track payments, as well as to reconcile all payments sent out to each taxpayer during the year with the taxpayer’s credit taken on the tax return. The agency would also need to develop a program that would flag returns that don’t accurately include all advance payments received during the year.

    Another issue that the IRS will have to deal with is how to minimize the potential for fraud when it comes to refundable child tax credits. For example, the IRS estimates that in 2019 it improperly paid $7.2 billion in such refundable credits.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-passes-3-000-child-173400185.html

    The post Senate Passes $3,000 Child Tax Credit for 2021 appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • LGBT+ people have so much to contribute to our society—be it in enterprise, the arts or in our politics. But still too many of us are held back by forces well beyond our personal control.

    By Gareth Lewis Shelton

    If you’re reading this piece, then you’re probably at least curious about Universal Basic Income (UBI) and its potential to change society. Many of the arguments for and against it are increasingly well rehearsed—giving workers autonomy, ending poverty. But there are some aspects where the conversation is only just beginning: namely that UBI has the potential to help people right across society, it could be especially transformational for LGBT+ people. What’s more, the campaign for UBI is picking up pace, with more and more people and political leaders calling for it. It is on its way.

    Like with other underrepresented and minority groups, LGBT+ people often feel the harsh end of inequality. A troubling 2019 YouGov poll revealed that LGBT+ people in the UK in fact experience a sizeable pay gap to the sum of £6700 PA (about a 16% gap between them and their cis-het counterparts). This is almost twice the estimated gender pay gap (8.6% for full time employees). In addition, a slightly older study from 2016 found that bi men were particularly impacted by pay inequality. This research is less than a decade old, and much more needs to be done to understand how and why this pattern manifests, but in the meantime a UBI would at least smooth out this inequality.

    Helping close this gap would help LGBT+ people deal with the realities of the extra costs that they often have to bear, particularly in the area of healthcare (which you can read Daveed’s blog about here).

    Image credit -    Sharon Mccutcheon
    Image credit – Sharon Mccutcheon

    Un-secure work and unemployment are potent challenges for LGBT+ people, particular for trans people and particularly so during the coronavirus pandemic. While unemployment figures for trans people are not actively monitored we are still able to piece together a troubling picture. In Ireland, trans unemployment is around 50%. In 2017-19 the UK Government carried out an LGBT+ survey of 108,000 people, and found that while 80% of respondents (16-24) overall had been in employment at some point in the past 12 months, trans people were almost 20% less likely to have been: with 65% of trans women and 57% of trans men having been in work in the 12 months leading up to the survey. 

    Protecting LGBT+ people from the pay gap and some of the harms of unemployment are powerful reasons in themselves to introduce UBI, but that’s not the full extent of how it could help and uplift LGBT+ people. It has a powerful role to play in giving LGBT+ people the means to escape oppressive environments—whether they be in the workplace or at home. We know all too well that harassment in the workplace is still a reality for many LGBT+ people.

    A TUC report from 2019 found that a shocking 7/10 LGBT+ workers experienced at least one type of sexual harassment at work, and that almost 1/8 LGBT+ women reported being seriously sexually assaulted at work.

    In addition Stonewall’s 2018 ‘LGBT In Britain: Work Report’ found that almost one in five LGBT+ staff had been the target of negative comments or conduct from colleagues in the past year; and that more than a third of LGBT+ staff felt the need to hide or disguise that they are LGBT+ at work because of fear of discrimination. It is vital that LGBT+ people in the workplace are equipped with the option to leave their employer where they do not feel comfortable, rather than feel trapped into totally unsatisfactory and unjust conditions.

    While the UK is lucky to have “the gayest Parliament in the world” with 45 out LGBT+ MPs, we cannot be complacent about LGBT+ representation in our politics.

    Too often LGBT+ people are still missing—or excluded from—our public debate.

    Some of that needs more campaigning for a culture change, but in other areas there are practical things that a UBI would be able to help with. For example, while it may be obvious that campaign materials are expensive in an election, funding yourself as a candidate while juggling work and campaigning is an acute challenge. Moreover, what people might not appreciate is that the work and campaigning to get selected as a candidate in the first place can be prohibitively expensive in some instances. As explored above, LGBT+ people often have fewer financial resources, which can have a prohibitive impact on access to politics. A UBI can help level the playing field. If we want to keep moving forward with LGBT+ rights, then we need more LGBT+ people at the table.

    Fortunately, the campaign for UBI is picking up speed, and more and more people and more political leaders have been calling for it.

    I was proud when in September last year, my party, the Liberal Democrats, returned to calling for Basic Income as official party policy.

    In 1989 then Party Leader, Paddy Ashdown, called for a form of basic income in ‘Citizens Britain: A Radical Agenda for the 1990s’. In our 2020 leadership election, it was great to see both Layla Moran and Ed Davey strongly make the case for a UBI as part of our platform moving forward. Right across the country, from Hull with Jack Haines to London with Luisa Porritt and Caroline Pidgeon, I’m proud that our party is making the case so strongly.

    And I’m even more delighted that it isn’t just our party that is making the case for a UBI. The Green Party has also very publicly called for a UBI, and there are new movements within the Labour Party and beyond to advocate for it as official policy. These green shoots are encouraging and we cannot afford to be precious or territorial about it. As with so many sweeping changes to our society, we need to continue to cultivate a cross-party and cross-society agreement to give UBI a strong and enduring foundation.

    LGBT+ people have so much to contribute to our society—be it in enterprise, the arts or in our politics. But still too many of us are held back by forces well beyond our personal control.

    A UBI cannot solve all problems—but at the very least it can help get LGBT+ people onto something approaching an equal economic footing, and grant us the autonomy to make the choices that are right for us. We shouldn’t wait for crises in order to do the work to remake our world, and make it freer and more open, but COVID-19 has given us a chance to reimagine things. Let’s not squander the opportunity.

    _____

    Gareth Lewis Shelton is Chair of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats. Gareth is also an entrepreneur in the creative industries and holds a Masters in Political Economy of Europe from the LSE. Connect on Twitter @GarethLShelton.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.ubilabnetwork.org/blog/ubi-can-help-lgbt-people-and-its-on-its-way

    The post UBI can help LGBT+ people and it’s on its way appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion by Eric Levitz

    For weeks, a handful of moderate Democrats in the Senate have been fighting to prevent $1,400 COVID-relief checks from reaching their own upper-middle-class constituents. It has never been all that clear to the public — or, by all appearances, to the senators themselves — why they wanted to restrict eligibility for these relief payments so badly. It is not as though Joe Manchin or Jeanne Shaheen are opposed to welfare for the affluent in all forms. To the contrary, Shaheen has lambasted Republicans for restricting the state-and-local-income (SALT) deduction, a tax subsidy that primarily benefits well-off homeowners.

    Nor could the moderates’ opposition be chalked up to (superstitious) fears of high deficits:

    Every Democratic senator has already tacitly agreed to support a $1.9 trillion stimulus package, and eligibility restrictions under discussion were always too minor to significantly impact the legislation’s bottom line.

    Nor could moderates claim to have the public on their side; the relief checks were overwhelmingly popular in their initially proposed form. And on this issue, one can’t attribute the moderates’ resistance to fealty to corporate interests; large retailers love stimulus checks.

    Nevertheless, despite the fact that Senate moderates had no coherent political or substantive argument for their position, the Democratic leadership caved to their demand Wednesday. As the Washington Post reports:

    Under the plan passed by the House, individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and couples making up to $150,000 per year would qualify for the full $1,400 stimulus payment. The size of the payments then begins to scale down before zeroing out for individuals making $100,000 per year and couples making $200,000.

    Under the changes agreed to by Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.

    That means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from a partial benefit under the revised structure Biden agreed to.

    Here are the two big downsides to this measure:

    • It means that 12 million fewer adults and 5 million fewer kids will receive relief checks from the bill. Whereas 91 percent of U.S. households would have received a check under the previous proposal, now only 86 percent will. That’s not a huge difference. But these days, elections are often won in the margins. And Joe Biden’s Electoral College win in 2020 was contingent on the support of affluent, longtime Republicans who decided to cross the aisle.

    Now, a bunch of these voters will end up receiving less in direct cash assistance from Joe Biden than they did from Donald Trump.

    • Since Democrats chose to narrow eligibility by accelerating the phase down in the value of the checks, they effectively engineered a confiscatory marginal tax rate for a small band of workers: A single taxpayer who earned $80,000 in 2020 will effectively pay a 70 percent tax rate on their last $5,000 of income. And since Americans have the option to claim a relief check on the basis of their 2021 incomes, Democrats have now actually given some workers a strong incentive to work fewer hours, so as to avoid a radically higher tax rate. That isn’t a huge concern for progressives. But “discouraging work” is typically the sort of thing moderate Democrats don’t want fiscal policy to do. Meanwhile, those who took on extra hours last year — assuming that they would not pay a 70 percent rate on income above $75,000 — are not happy!

    So, what do Democrats gain at the cost of denying checks to 12 million potential 2022 voters? How much money did Joe Manchin “save” the U.S. Treasury?

    According to a Democratic who spoke with the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein: $12 billion.

    Which is to say, it makes the relief package 0.63 percent cheaper.

    Slate’s Jordan Weissmann reports that the move is partially motivated by the byzantine rules of the budget-reconciliation process, which imposes a cap on how much money each committee is allowed to spend. One reason the Democratic leadership decided to cave to moderates on checks was that they wanted to make sure that the Senate Finance Committee’s appropriations remain under its assigned limit once the Congressional Budget Office scores the bill. Twelve billion dollars isn’t much in the context of the entire bill, but could be enough to keep the Finance Committee’s section under its ceiling.

    But this still doesn’t constitute a rational basis for creating a 70 percent tax rate on income above $75,000 — while giving 12 million voters a reason to resent your party.

    The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the $350 billion pool of fiscal aid to state and local governments. That is more than six times larger than the revenue shortfall these governments are expected to collectively face this fiscal year. There are sound reasons for providing state and local governments with more fiscal space than they require to meet existing obligations; in many parts of the country, municipal governments have been hollowed out in recent decades. But from a political and substantive perspective, shaving $12 billion off a pile of money that many red states are probably going to spend on tax cuts makes more sense than canceling relief checks to a significant minority of the Democratic base.

    Moderates must stop putting their fringe obsessions ahead of the Democratic Party’s best interests. Now is not the time to put centrist ideological purity above political pragmatism.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/1400-stimulus-checks-eligibility-democrats-covid-relief-bill.html

    The post Moderate Democrats Strip Stimulus Checks From 12 Million Voters for No Reason appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By Aria Bendix

    • In Stockton, California, 125 residents got $500 per month, no strings attached, for two years.
    • After a year, full-time employment among them had increased, and depression and anxiety had decreased.
    • The experiment ended in January but has inspired other mayors to launch more basic-income pilots.

    Michael Tubbs didn’t see much risk in giving money to his city’s poorest residents, no strings attached. The former mayor of Stockton, a city in California’s Central Valley, is a strong proponent of universal basic income, a policy that essentially pays people for being alive as a way to alleviate poverty.

    “My belief in it came from being raised by three amazing women, including my single mom,” Tubbs told Insider.

    “The issue wasn’t that they couldn’t manage money. The issue was they never had enough money to manage.”

    As mayor, Tubbs spearheaded the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, a pilot program that gave 125 residents debit cards loaded with $500 each month. The program launched in February 2019 and ended in January.

    Its critics argued that cash stipends would reduce the incentive for people to find jobs. But the SEED program met its goal of improving the quality of life of 125 residents struggling to make ends meet. To qualify for the pilot, residents had to live in a neighborhood where the median household income was the same as or lower than the city’s overall, about $46,000.

    A new report from a team of independent researchers found that Stockton’s program reduced unemployment among participants during its first year and helped many of them pay off debt. The report studied the effects of the payments from February 2019 through February 2020. SEED participants also reported improvements in their emotional well-being and decreases in anxiety or depression.

    “It’s really made a huge impact on my quality of life and being able to go do just normal things that a lot of people take for granted,” one participant said in the report.

    “Whether it’s go out to eat once every two weeks and sit down for a nice dinner, or whether it’s, you know, my mom’s birthday and I just want to get her a birthday present.”

    Tubbs said it was likely that the $500 monthly payments helped in other ways during the pandemic, such as tiding people over until their stimulus checks arrived or allowing them to take days off work if they got COVID-19.

    “We know anecdotally that the $500 allowed some members of the program to stay at home and not go to work because they don’t have paid time off,” Tubbs said.

    “They were able to listen to the doctor because they knew that the two weeks off work wouldn’t be catastrophic.”

    Michael Tubbs
    Mayor Michael Tubbs discussing basic income in Stockton. 

    Most of the money went toward food and merchandise

    Participants in Stockton’s basic-income program spent most of their stipends on essential items.

    Nearly 37% of the recipients’ payments went toward food, while 22% went toward sales and merchandise, such as trips to Walmart or dollar stores. Another 11% was spent on utilities, and 10% was spent on auto costs. Less than 1% of the money went toward alcohol or tobacco.

    By February 2020, more than half of the participants said they had enough cash to cover an unexpected expense, compared with 25% of participants at the start of the program. The portion of participants who were making payments on their debts rose to 62% from 52% during the program’s first year.

    Unemployment among basic-income recipients dropped to 8% in February 2020 from 12% in February 2019. In the experiment’s control group — those who didn’t receive monthly stipends — unemployment rose to 15% from 14%.

    Lorrine Paradela, a 45-year-old single mother, participated in Stockton’s basic-income pilot. Nick Otto/AFP/Getty Images

    Full-time employment among basic-income recipients rose to 40% from 28% during the program’s first year. In the control group, full-time employment increased as well, though less dramatically: to 37% from 32%.

    “Everything I thought would happen, I said would happen — I argued with Sarah Palin and Chuck Woolery and talked to ‘CBS This Morning’ and Bill Maher about — actually happened,” Tubbs said.

    “I remember telling people, ‘I think that $500 will allow people to work more if they choose to do so.’ And that playing out in the data, it makes me so proud.”

    The researchers also found that decreases in anxiety, depression, and extreme financial stress encouraged participants to set goals and helped them better cope with unexpected financial setbacks.

    “I had panic attacks and anxiety,” one participant said in the report. “I was at the point where I had to take a pill for it, and I haven’t even touched them in a while.”

    Basic income faces an uphill political battle

    Tubbs lost his reelection bid in November, but his departure didn’t affect the SEED program, since it was always designed to be temporary.

    stockton california
    A pedestrian walks through downtown Stockton on February 7, 2020. 

    Tubbs’ vision is to make basic income a national policy. In June, he launched Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a coalition of mayors interested in starting similar basic-income pilots across the US. At least 40 mayors, including Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, and Jenny Durkan of Seattle, have joined the group. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donated $18 million to the cause.

    Inspired by Stockton’s trial, Saint Paul, Minnesota, started a basic-income pilot in the fall, giving $500 a month to 150 low-income families for up to 18 months.

    Richmond, Virginia, is distributing $500 per month to 18 working families. And Compton, California, is giving 800 residents a guaranteed income of $300 to $600 a month for two years.

    No Republican mayor has joined Mayors for a Guaranteed Income — and interest in a basic-income policy skews heavily Democratic. Andrew Yang, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, made basic income a prominent part of his campaign platform, pledging to give $1,000 a month to every US citizen over 18.

    Tubbs said there was more than enough research to suggest that a federal basic-income policy would improve Americans’ quality of life.

    “I am so proud of all the pilots, but I’m ready for policy,” Tubbs said. “I’ve got all the evidence I need.”

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.businessinsider.com/stockton-basic-income-experiment-success-employment-wellbeing-2021-3

    The post Stockton, California gave some residents $500 a month for two years. After a year, the group wound up with more full-time jobs and less depression appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Ten senators want to make direct payments and unemployment insurance extensions automatic until the economy recovers.

    By Kevin Robillard

    Ten Democratic senators are pushing President Joe Biden to make direct payments and the extension of boosted unemployment insurance benefits automatic until the economy fully recovers from the coronavirus pandemic, aiming to take the fate of the recovery out of the hand of politicians and avoiding a key mistake of the Democratic plan to recover from the financial collapse of 2008. 

    Led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the senators are pushing Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party to include what are called “automatic stabilizers” in his Build Back Better plan, which is expected to be written this spring and summer and aims to jump-start the economic recovery.

    The stabilizers would automatically extend enhanced unemployment benefits and issue direct payments to American families until key economic indicators ― say, GDP growth, the unemployment rate or job growth ― reach predetermined levels. 

    The idea is to ensure aid to Americans continues until the economy recovers, regardless of changes in the political mood of the country or the legislative calendar. 

    Automatic stabilizers, like those in the Wyden plan, are important for moving relief to people who need it without giant political fights that drag on for months, holding the relief hostage.

    Natalie Foster, co-chair of the Economic Security Project

    “This crisis is far from over, and families deserve certainty that they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads,” the senators wrote in a letter to Biden released Tuesday morning. “Families should not be at the mercy of constantly-shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solutions.” 

    The 10 senators who signed the letter include the chairs of three major committees: Wyden, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who leads the Budget Committee; and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Other signatories include five veteran progressives ― Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin ― alongside newly installed Sen. Alex Padilla of California and the more moderate Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. 

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), right, bumps elbows Thursday with Xavier Becerra, nominee for secretary
    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), right, bumps elbows Thursday with Xavier Becerra, nominee for secretary of health and human services, after Becerra’s confirmation hearing.

    Wyden has argued in the past that stabilizers are necessary to avoid a repeat of the laggard recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.

    Then, Wyden argues, Democrats assumed they would be able to pass additional stimulus and economic relief measures after the passage of the Recovery Act early in President Barack Obama’s first term. Instead, Congress became consumed by other problems, public opinion turned against additional stimulus measures and Republicans worked to block additional relief, leading to repeated political showdowns over extending unemployment benefits. 

    “Automatic stabilizers, like those in the Wyden plan, are important for moving relief to people who need it without giant political fights that drag on for months, holding the relief hostage.

    “Automatic stabilizers are good policy and good government ― agencies can actually plan for a few months down the road,” said Natalie Foster, the co-chair of the Economic Security Project.

    The letter does not specify how large the recurring payments should be or in what ways unemployment insurance would be boosted. Democrats are set to pass a relief bill with generous boosts to unemployment insurance ― continuing an additional $400 a week in payments until this summer ― and $1,400 payments for most American adults and children. 

    Automatic stabilizers have broad support among congressional Democrats. Both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the moderate New Democrats endorsed the concept last year, and two key Biden administration figures ― National Economic Council Director Brian Deese and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen ― have also signaled their support. 

    Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Institute, said his group will push additional senators to sign on to the letter. 

    “President Biden could expect broad support throughout the Democratic Caucus if he includes recurring benefits in his Build Back Better long-term economic recovery plan ― and every senator would be smart to join Sen. Wyden and others in signaling their support now,” Green said. 

    Still, hurdles remain: House Democrats hoped to include stabilizers in COVID-19 relief legislation they considered last year but abandoned the plan after it was clear the Congressional Budget Office would estimate the cost of the stabilizers in the trillions of dollars. Even though it was unlikely the full amounts would be spent, the high top-line number scared off some moderate members, forcing the party to abandon the idea.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-senators-coronavirus-relief-package-automatic-stabilizers_n_603dc896c5b617a7e410475f

    The post Eleven Senate Democrats Urge Biden to Include Recurring Monthly Checks in the Next Recovery Package appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The Green Party is proposing a basic income model that would give every Canadian a basic revenue source that could cover necessities such as clothing, food and housing.

    By Yasmine Ghania

    Green Party leader Annamie Paul is calling on the federal government to launch discussions on creating a national guaranteed livable income.

    “A guaranteed livable income is almost inevitably going to have to be part of the solution if we’re going to ensure that everyone has a social safety net beneath them,” Paul said at a roundtable discussion Monday with Independent Sen. Kim Pate and co-founder of Revenu de base Québec Jonathan Brun.

    Paul says the pandemic has shed light on the high number of people who would have been struggling to make ends meet — had it not been for emergency benefits.

    There have been almost 10 million Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) applications since its launch in late September, costing the government $9.88 billion, according to the Canada Revenue Agency, plus millions more applications from its predecessor, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), as well as other benefits.

    So far, the government has indicated it isn’t itching for a basic income program.

    “It’s not something that we see a path to moving forward with right now,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a virtual town hall last December.

    Data suggests employment gains made in the fall have been wiped, with the unemployment rate rising to 9.4 per cent — its highest rate since last summer, according to Statistics Canada.

    As the pandemic rages on, Trudeau announced last week that the CRB and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit will be extended by 12 weeks and that Canadians will be able to claim an additional 24 weeks of employment insurance.

    The beefed-up benefits are a “sigh of relief” for Paul, but still not enough. “Now is the time to begin to talk about what is going to replace it,” Paul said.

    For Pate, a basic income is necessary since not everyone is actually eligible for the pandemic supports, leaving some people to still fall through the cracks.

    “They (the federal government) missed about one in seven or one in 10 Canadians,” Pate said. “As well, people who did apply for it but may have been on social assistance or on disability now find themselves being dumped off the system.”

    The Green Party is proposing a basic income model that would give every Canadian a basic revenue source that could cover necessities such as clothing, food and housing.

    Brun says the government should look at basic income as an “investment” that will churn out benefits in the long run.

    “There’s no doubt there will be economic activity, cost savings in terms of criminal justice, health care and other issues,” Brun said.

    Pressure for a basic income program has been mounting for several months. Last April, more than 50 senators signed a letter asking the CERB be turned into a guaranteed basic income program.

    P.E.I. lawmakers are currently eyeing a pilot on the Island, with three senators representing P.E.I. sending a letter to the prime minister and P.E.I. Premier Dennis King last month calling for a pilot project, as well as for the program to be expanded to the entire country in the future.

    Ontario began a pilot program in 2017, however it was scrapped early when Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party came into power. Meanwhile, B.C. has said it “would welcome” consultations with the federal government on the matter.

    However, not everyone agrees with this solution. A panel of economists appointed by the B.C. government found that basic income for all Canadians cannot tackle the deeper systematic issues that cause people to be in financial hardship.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/02/23/green-party-leader-urges-feds-to-consider-universal-basic-income-as-safety-net-beyond-pandemic.html

    The post Canadian Green Party leader urges feds to consider universal basic income beyond pandemic appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • For so many people, financial insecurity is a constant in their lives, curtailing their life chances and causing chronic stress. As I have argued before, universal basic income could be one way to lift people out of this situation, especially during these days of COVID-19.

    By Matthew Smith Ph.D.

    I have recently been leading a Scottish Universities Insight Institute project to explore universal basic income’s potential to improve mental health. You can learn more about the project here. We’ve run some workshops where we’ve encouraged our participants to talk about how financial insecurity has impacted their mental health. Some of the stories are incredibly powerful and I hope to share them with you soon. But the experience also spurred me to think about times in my life when financial insecurity or other types of insecurity have had an impact on me.

    I didn’t grow up in poverty. But there was a period during my childhood when my dad left a steady job to start a new career, which relied on commission. This was during the mid-1980s, when the economy in Alberta, where I grew up, wasn’t so good. While my dad waited for his new career to take off (which it eventually did), there was a period of a few years where my parents had very little money and had to spend all their savings (including the pension from the steady job my dad had left) in order to stay afloat.  

    My folks did a pretty good job of hiding this from me and my younger sister. But there were signs. 

    For example, I remember always having patches on my jeans. Not just one or two, but up to six on each pair of jeans—patches layered over patches, usually on the knees. I thought this was pretty cool at the time. Looking back, however, I realize that patches were a lot cheaper than a new pair of jeans.

    Probably the most obvious example of our financial problems came in the spring of 1984, when my beloved Edmonton Oilers made it to the Stanley Cup Finals against the dreaded New York Islanders. The week before the series started, one of my sister’s friends was over and accidentally bumped into the back of our television. It fell to the floor and the screen smashed into a million pieces. I begged and begged for a new television so that I could watch the playoffs, but we simply didn’t have the money. I listened to the series on the radio, until the final game when I convinced my parents to let me go over to a neighbor’s to watch (we won, in case you didn’t know!).

    There was another hockey-related clue, too. In western Canada, everyone plays hockey. Even the “nerdy” kids that I hung out with played until they were 11 or 12. Everyone, that is, except me. It was simply too expensive to get me kitted out in pads and skates and drive me around the province. I don’t regret much about my childhood, but I can’t lie that I still wished I’d had the chance to play Canada’s game.  

    And then there were the arguments my parents had. They didn’t happen often, but when they did, they were always about money. Still married after 50 years, I doubt they have had a serious argument since the mid-80s, when our financial situation was so perilous. 

    So, what impact did all this have on my mental health? Not too much, I am glad to say. 

    But it did make me very averse to financial risk, to the point that—when I had the opportunity to change my career by coming to the U.K. and undertaking a Ph.D., I was unwilling to do so if it meant taking on any kind of debt. 

    Luckily I received a studentship and haven’t looked back. But whenever we have had to negotiate our immigrant status here in the U.K., that deep feeling of dread—of everything potentially falling out from under you─returns with a vengeance. It’s not a nice feeling.

    And yet, for so many people, financial insecurity isn’t just a few years in their childhood that they don’t really remember. 

    It is a constant in their lives, curtailing their life chances and causing chronic stress. As I have argued before, universal basic income could be one way to lift people out of this situation, especially during these days of COVID-19.

    At the very least, we should be more honest about the role financial insecurity plays in affecting our mental health.

    _____

    Matthew Smith, Ph.D. is a lecturer Wellcome Trust Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/short-history-mental-health/202102/stories-financial-insecurity-and-mental-health

    The post Worrying about money can have a lasting impact on our mental health appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • We are public opinion scholars at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. We conducted a survey to try to understand how the first round of aid had affected American families in need. What we found shocked us.

    Article via The Conversation

    As Congress prepares another injection of COVID-19 aid for businesses and individuals, there’s been debate about whether it’s necessary on top of the US$3.5 trillion spent so far.

    President Joe Biden had initially hoped to get bipartisan support for his $1.9 trillion proposal, but the only counteroffer from Republicans was a $600 billion bill, with many in the GOP suggesting more money wasn’t needed. And some economists have expressed concern that giving Americans too much right now could overheat the economy.

    We are public opinion scholars at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In cooperation with our partners at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Public Radio, we conducted a survey in July and August of last year to try to understand how the first round of aid had affected American families in need. What we found shocked us then and feels relevant now as the government negotiates its next steps.

    Despite trillions of dollars in government assistance, about two-thirds of families that suffered job losses or reduced wages during the pandemic still reported facing serious financial hardship.

    Many people were struggling – and still are – just to pay for basic necessities, like food and rent.

    The first round of pandemic aid

    Congress passed most of the initial relief in March, including direct payments to qualifying families, expanded unemployment benefits and loans to small businesses that turned into grants if they kept workers on their payroll.

    By July 1, when we began our survey, most Americans entitled to a direct check should have received it, and unemployed adults were still receiving supplemental aid of $600 a week on top of state benefits.

    We wanted to understand the financial burdens experienced by American families that were economically harmed by the coronavirus pandemic. And we wanted to see whether the government aid was helping the people who needed it most.

    Using a nationally representative, randomized survey design, we contacted 3,454 adults and asked them about the financial problems facing their households.

    We focused on the 46% who said they or other adults in their household either lost a job, had to close a business, were furloughed or had their wages or hours reduced since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. We published our findings in the economic affairs journal Challenge in January.

    Serious financial problems

    While it seems like a no-brainer that Americans weren’t ready for the unexpected employment disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was surprising to us that federal aid and charitable assistance seemed to be doing so little to support the people it was intended to help.

    We found that the aid didn’t put much of a dent in the financial problems faced by families earning less than $100,000, whether because relief was delayed or wasn’t spent, the amount wasn’t adequate or the funds never made it to the intended recipients.

    Among households with employment or wage losses during the pandemic, 87% of those earning less than $30,000 a year and 68% of those earning $30,000 to $99,999 told us they were still facing serious financial problems. And more than half of households in these income brackets reported they had already used up all or most of their savings – or they didn’t have savings to begin with. That share jumped to over three-quarters for people with incomes under $30,000.

    Savings take years or decades to accumulate, so it’s likely these households are in even worse trouble now. What’s more, significantly less aid has been provided from the federal government since we conducted our survey.

    Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Mary G. Findling, Robert J. Blendon and John M. Benson. Get the data

    Many Americans still need a lifeboat

    Our findings suggest there is a definite need for further government aid on a large scale for tens of millions of families.

    A useful way to think about this is how the government provides relief after a natural disaster.

    In disasters, cash payments are often sent directly to those in need, like lifeboats launched to rescue people at risk of drowning.

    And in fact, the pandemic has been an economic disaster for some – particularly low-income and Black and Latino households – more than others. They still need a lifeboat to get them through the storm.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://theconversation.com/americans-still-need-a-lifeline-despite-trillions-in-coronavirus-aid-155106

    The post Americans still need a lifeline despite trillions in coronavirus aid appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • One universal truth holds both pre-pandemic and now: The number one obstacle to escaping an abuser is financial insecurity.

    This article contains descriptions and discussion of violence and abuse.

    Opinion by Stacey Rutland, founder of Income Movement

    When I was 7 years old, my mom woke my sister and me in the middle of the night and told us to pack our belongings into the black garbage bags she handed to us. “And be as quiet as you can,” she told us. We were leaving our abusive stepfather for the first of what would become many times. That night, we drove 200 miles to a close family friend who had offered us her living room couch as a safe space to regroup.

    Four years later, the same stepfather left us. After beating our mom, he abandoned us in a home with rent we couldn’t afford without him. It was winter, and our heating bills skyrocketed. Free lunch at school was the primary nourishment for my sister and I during those cold months.

    Over the past months, I have imagined what these two crisis moments for our family would have looked like if there had been a quarantine-in-home order and a pandemic raging across the globe.

    But millions of women and children don’t have to imagine it; they are living it right now, with dire consequences.

    The increased stress that comes from more time spent at home during the pandemic has led to massive spikes in domestic violence, a crime in which women are victims 85% of the timeEarly pandemic data shows that in some areas, domestic violence homicides have more than doubled.

    Less alone time has also made it harder for victims to access help, as they are unable to escape the watchful eyes of their abusers (the National Domestic Violence Hotline’s website has a quick-exit button on every page to address this devastating reality).

    But one universal truth holds both pre-pandemic and now: The number one obstacle to escaping an abuser is financial insecurity.

    Our federal leaders have an opportunity in front of them. They can move forward with a standard solution for financial support during this pandemic. Or they can recognize our current reality and build legislation that addresses the needs of those most at risk, those our systems have pushed to the farthest margins. By doing so, they can design a solution that takes care of nearly everyone—including women and children facing quarantine with an abuser.

    What does such a program look like? To combat the financial control abusers exert over domestic violence victims, relief measures should use distribution methods that limit an abuser’s ability to isolate his victims by denying him access to existing bank accounts and credit cards. Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Automatic Boost to Communities Act outlines the use of pre-loaded debit cards that are unique and specific to stimulus support.

    This means women would receive their own cards with their own money.

    Rep. Tlaib’s proposal outlines distribution of cards via easily accessible public locations, further ensuring funds get into the hands of their intended recipients.

    domestic violence
    A young woman suffering from domestic violence stands alone in the bay window of her home. (Photo by In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images)

    Monthly $2,000 checks for the duration of this pandemic would also provide a critical lifeline to victims of domestic abuse. Most abuse survivors have only $250 in savings. These were the findings of a recent report by FreeFrom, a group that focuses on the nexus of intimate partner violence and economic security that has given out thousands of cash grants to survivors throughout the pandemic. Abuse survivors are also four times more likely than the average adult to have faced food or housing insecurity in the past year.

    Survivors report the pandemic has made things worse, from the stress of having fewer financial resources to slowed court proceedings delaying critical income like child support.

    FreeFrom also found that the average survivor needs just $730 right now to stay safe. Stop and think about that for a moment. In a country that can find billions for corporate bailouts and trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy, it is nothing short of shameful to ask women and children to quarantine in abusive conditions for lack of money.

    Instead, what if this economic crisis and health pandemic became an opportunity for women and children to leave a violent situation? What if our leaders wrote legislation that would consider these most vulnerable members of our community?

    What if this pandemic was, instead of a prison sentence for these women, an opportunity for independence and freedom?

    One $2,000 deposit onto an accessible debit card would pull them out of harm’s way. Recurring checks throughout the pandemic would make sure they have the financial security to stay safe and build new lives. And it would help the vast majority of those facing economic precarity during this pandemic as well.

    I know that access to financial resources would have given my mother the ability to leave my stepfather far sooner. I cannot change that for her. But I can fight to make sure that families in the same situation today have the economic security that paves their path to safety.

    I should not be alone in this fight. I urge the Biden administration and Congress to join me and protect our country’s most vulnerable by providing a literal lifeline to those who need it most. Pass legislation for monthly stimulus checks today. Support those who need it most during this devastating time.

    Stacey Rutland is the founder of Income Movement, an organization that’s been at the forefront of the fight for recurring stimulus checks.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.newsweek.com/domestic-violence-pandemic-within-pandemic-direct-stimulus-checks-would-help-opinion-1570623

    The post Domestic Violence Is a Pandemic Within a Pandemic. Direct Stimulus Checks Would Help appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.