radiofree.asia

Category: THE SOCIAL DEBATE

  • Bill banning Harris County’s basic income program passes Texas Senate

    By John Lomax V.

    See original post here.

    The Texas Senate passed a bill Thursday prohibiting local governments from providing direct financial assistance to their residents. 

    It’s the latest blow to Uplift Harris, the county’s guaranteed income program that would have provided $500 per month to a random cohort of qualified residents. Texas Sen. Paul Bettencourt, one of Uplift Harris’ most vocal critics and the author of Senate Bill 2010, labeled the program “lottery socialism” in a Thursday news release. 

    “Public funds should advance public interests, not be handed out as blank checks in politically motivated pilot projects,” Bettencourt, a Houston Republican, said. “This bill defends taxpayers and reinforces our Constitution’s limits on government giveaways.”

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis championed the program, which was created in 2023. Uplift Harris was intended to provide direct financial assistance to up to 1,500 families living at 200% below the poverty line, according to an overview document published by Precinct 1. 

    Hidalgo’s office did not respond to the Houston Chronicle’s request for comment. A spokesperson for Precinct 1 said Ellis’ office is working on a public statement, but did not submit one by deadline. 

    Ellis previously said in a June 2023 news release that Uplift Harris was intended to address “unchecked and ongoing inequality.” 

    “Similar programs in other cities and counties have been shown to increase employment and the incentive to work while reducing poverty,” Ellis said. “But the benefits go even further. Families report improvements to their physical and mental health and are able to spend more time with their children. They also have a greater sense of self-determination when they are trusted with the resources they need to build a better life.”

    But the program faced opposition from conservative lawmakers who said it violated a clause in the Texas Constitution prohibiting the use of public funds to provide gifts. Following criticism from Bettencourt, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the county in early 2024.

    The lawsuit culminated in an order from the Texas Supreme Court that temporarily halted payments under Uplift Harris one day before they were scheduled to begin disbursing. 

    “This is quite unlike a food-stamp program, a housing voucher or a medical-care program, in which the public funds can only be directed 
    to their intended purpose,” wrote Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who authored the court’s opinion on Uplift Harris. “It appears that, for all practical purposes, there truly are ‘no strings attached,’ and we are directed to no precedent indicating that a government in Texas may make such payments without running afoul of our Constitution’s restrictions.”

    Following the Texas Supreme Court’s decision, county leaders launched a second, modified, version of Uplift Harris dubbed the “Community Prosperity Program.” Paxton filed a second lawsuit, and the case was sent to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals following a district judge’s ruling in favor of Harris County. The appeals court again ordered a temporary halt to the program in December. 

    Around $20.5 million from the American Rescue Plan Act, a federal stimulus package passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, were allocated to fund Uplift Harris. Bettencourt’s bill specifically bans using any government money, including federal dollars, to fund guaranteed income programs. It also prohibits officials from providing direct financial assistance to residents in the form of gift cards or indirect money transfers. 

    A companion bill introduced by state Rep. Ellen Troxclair, House Bill 530, is currently under consideration by the Texas House of Representatives. The legislation will need to pass both houses before it is sent to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to be signed into law. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Trump’s New Plan for Acquiring Greenland Is UBI for Its Residents—on Americans’ Dime

    By Lucas Ropek

    See original post here.

    It just gets crazier and crazier.

    President Donald Trump’s obsession with acquiring Greenland is ongoing, despite aggressive disinterest on the part of the territory’s inhabitants, or those of its parent country, Denmark. Indeed, the White House is reportedly considering some pretty creative tactics to sell Greenlanders on the deal, including paying them a regular annual stipend—on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime.

    The New York Times reported last week that the White House has a plan that sounds strikingly similar to a universal basic income scheme, or UBI. Such a program would represent the “carrot” approach, rather than the “stick” (Trump has also suggested a military invasion of Greenland, should Denmark refuse to sell). The newspaper reports that the Trump administration is:

    …studying financial incentives for Greenlanders, including the possibility of replacing the $600 million in subsidies that Denmark gives the island with an annual payment of about $10,000 per Greenlander. Some Trump officials believe those costs could be offset by new revenue from the extraction of Greenland’s natural resources, which include rare earth minerals, copper, gold, uranium and oil.

    For decades, proponents of basic income have encouraged the government to adopt such a program as a means of easing economic stress for millions of people here in America. Now, it seems the Trump administration is actually considering creating such a program—albeit for people living tens of thousands of miles away. The fact that the program would be funded with Americans’ money would presumably add insult to injury to the voters who thought Trump would shrink government spending, not add to it.

    Recent news suggests that the Greenland acquisition may not be all about extracting valuable mineral deposits from its frozen tundra. Last week, Reuters reported that Ken Howery, a former “PayPal mafia” member and the Trump administration’s pick for ambassador to Denmark, is officially involved in plans to use Greenland as a testbed for the development of so-called “freedom cities”—newfangled communities where government oversight and regulation are negligible and corporate profits and “freedom” are the priority. It was previously reported that Howery, who is a longtime friend of billionaires Peter Thiel and Elon Musk (both of whom have expressed interest in such communities), was in the running for the Danish ambassadorship. Howery previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Sweden between 2019 and 2021.

    Despite being geographically huge, Greenland only has a population of some 57,000 people. To deranged libertarian billionaires, it must seem like the perfect location to trial their utopian fantasies. Citing sources who are aware of the administration’s plans for the territory, Reuters reports:

    The vision for Greenland, one of the people said, could include a hub for artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, space launches, micro nuclear reactors and high-speed rail. The discussions reflect a longstanding Silicon Valley movement to establish low-regulation cities globally, including in the United States, which Trump himself promised to do in a 2023 campaign video. Proponents use different names for variations on the idea, including startup cities or charter cities, with the common goal of spurring innovation through sweeping regulatory exemptions.

    Additionally, Reuters reports that Howery is taking these discussions “seriously”:

    The discussions are in early stages, but the idea has been taken seriously by Trump’s pick for Denmark ambassador, Ken Howery, who is expected to be confirmed by Congress in the coming months and lead Greenland-acquisition negotiations, the people said. Howery, whose involvement with the idea hasn’t been previously reported, once co-founded a venture-capital firm with tech billionaire Peter Thiel, a leading advocate for such low-regulation cities.

    The pursuit of the “freedom city” dream has been fueled by a bizarre ideological movement known as the “Network State movement.” True believers of said movement want to build their own privately owned, cryptocurrency-powered cities—the likes of which are untouchable by traditional open and democratic government structures. This movement has been partially funded by Howery’s pal and fellow “mafia” gang member, Thiel. Indeed, the organizations behind the Network State movement have received considerable financial support from the billionaire, who also financially supported Trump during his first presidential run in 2016. In a statement to Reuters, Thiel’s spokesperson denied he was involved in “freedom city” plans: “Peter isn’t involved in any plans or discussions regarding Greenland,” they said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal Basic Income Could Slash UK Benefit Costs and Boost Economy, Studies Show

    By Kaiden-Chase

    See original post here.

    Implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the UK could significantly reduce the administrative burden and costs of the current benefit system while stimulating economic growth, according to recent research and pilot programs. Advocates argue that a well-designed UBI would streamline welfare payments, lift millions out of poverty, and increase financial security for workers—ultimately benefiting the broader economy.

    UBI: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the Current System

    The UK’s existing welfare system is complex, costly, and often inefficient, with means-testing, sanctions, and bureaucratic overheads consuming substantial resources. A UBI—a regular, unconditional payment to all citizens—could replace much of this structure, reducing administrative expenses while ensuring a safety net for all.

    A 2020 study by economists Georg Arendt and others found that a full UBI (providing £7,706 per adult and £3,853 per child annually) would cost the UK £67 billion per year (3.4% of GDP) after accounting for tax adjustments and savings from scrapping existing benefits. This is far less than the often-cited “gross cost” of UBI, as it factors in the redistribution of funds through taxation and the elimination of redundant welfare programs.

    Another report by economists Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed estimated that a moderate UBI scheme—paying £60 per adult, £175 for pensioners, and £40 per child weekly—would cost just £28 billion net, less than the total welfare cuts since 2010. This model suggests that UBI could be funded by reversing austerity-era reductions in social security spending while maintaining fiscal sustainability .

    Economic Benefits: Reducing Poverty and Increasing Stability

    Beyond cost savings, UBI could have transformative economic effects:

    1. Poverty Reduction – A UBI set at or near the poverty line would drastically lower deprivation rates. Research indicates that such a system could reduce UK poverty from 16% to just 4%, virtually eliminating child and elderly poverty .
    2. Simplified Welfare System – By removing means-testing and conditionality, UBI would cut bureaucratic costs and reduce errors, delays, and sanctions that currently push many into financial hardship .
    3. Labour Market Flexibility – Unlike traditional benefits, which can create “welfare traps” (where people lose support upon finding work), UBI provides a stable income floor, encouraging more people to take on part-time or flexible work without fear of sudden income loss .
    4. Boost to Local Economies – Low-income households are likelier to spend additional income immediately, stimulating demand for goods and services. This could help revitalize struggling high streets and small businesses .
    5. Health and Wellbeing Improvements – Studies from Finland’s UBI trial showed recipients experienced better mental health and higher trust in institutions—factors that could reduce NHS pressures and improve workforce productivity .

    Challenges and the Path Forward

    Critics argue that UBI could discourage work or require substantial tax hikes. However, evidence from pilot schemes suggests minimal negative employment effects, with some participants working more due to reduced financial stress . Funding options—such as reforming corporate tax breaks (currently costing £93 billion annually) or adjusting income tax bands—could make UBI feasible without drastic fiscal changes .

    The Welsh Government is already trialling a UBI for care leavers, while Scotland explores broader pilots. If successful, these experiments could pave the way for a national rollout, offering a more efficient and humane alternative to the UK’s strained welfare state .

    Conclusion

    As the UK faces rising inequality and an overstretched benefits system, UBI presents a compelling solution: cutting bureaucratic waste, reducing poverty, and fostering economic resilience. With careful design, it could transform social security from a costly burden into a driver of prosperity.

    Sources:

    • BIEN (2020), The Cost of a Full Basic Income for the UK
    • Compass & New Economics Foundation reports (2019-2023)
    • Institute for Employment Studies (2023)
    • Welsh and Scottish UBI trials

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • New research will examine the use of welfare reform to tackle health inequalities

    By NIHR

    See original post here.

    As debate over changes to Britain’s welfare system continues to dominate the news, members of a multidisciplinary team of researchers are beginning a two-year study to examine the case for transformative welfare policy and the impact on public health outcomes.

    Led by public policy researchers at Northumbria University and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the study brings together experts in economics, behavioural science, health history and epidemiology to carry out analysis of a growing body of research which suggests establishing a universal support system to provide people with more financial certainty could have a positive effect on mental and physical health, while saving the NHS money.

    One option for reform is the introduction of a Basic Income, which is a regular cash payment from government to all citizens, regardless of whether they are in employment or how much they earn. However, while policies like Basic Income have been the subject of several localised pilots, they have yet to be trialled nationally in Britain. As a result, policymakers require new types of evidence on impact to determine whether the costs and benefits to public health add up.

    Leading academics from the universities of Northumbria, York, Warwick, Strathclyde, Birmingham and University College London (UCL), are now working to establish the latest evidence for government and policymakers in the study titled, Examining credibility of current evidence for welfare as a public health measure: pathways, causation and cost benefit of further research.

    Matthew Johnson, Professor of Public Policy at Northumbria University and research group Chair of the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “At a time in which there is a real need to support government in taking the difficult decisions it needs to take in order to resolve our era of crisis, this award is remarkable: the NIHR is supporting a programme of research examining the possibility of reversing decades of direction in social security policy by introducing regular payments to British citizens, including those in work.

    “This bold award provides an opportunity for an interdisciplinary panel of experts to interrogate thinking on this topic: Are estimates for potential impacts of Basic Income schemes correct? Might there be more or less impact than projections currently suggest? How might our assumptions of impact change when we are forced to consider as potential biases the social, disciplinary and ideological framings of our thinking? The outcome of this project will be a much clearer assessment of whether and in what ways we might promote public health through a reformed social security system.”

    The study will use expert panels and surveys of public opinion on welfare policies alongside economic modelling and analysis to generate a new body of evidence on options for reform. Findings will then be incorporated into an interactive microsimulation model known as the Triple PC: Public Policy Preference Calculator. This allows individual policies to be assessed on economic and health impact, as well as popularity among the public.

    Dr Howard Reed, Senior Research Fellow in Public Policy at Northumbria and Economics Lead for the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “Discussion of social security reform almost always focuses on significant costs. The long-term benefits of that reform are generally overlooked, with the potential health impacts of transformative public policy poorly understood within economics. This project presents an opportunity to upgrade economic understanding of the impact of social security reform, casting new light on the way in which changing rates of poverty and inequality has an effect on public health.”

    Dr Elliott Johnson, a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow in Public Policy at Northumbria and Impact Lead for the Common Sense Policy Group, said: “Government faces myriad pressures on its thinking at present. Budgets are strained and there is understandable concern about making largescale investment in social security given the associated necessity of reforming tax, particularly on wealth. Yet, this is an opportunity to support a new government in taking a bold, but necessary step, toward assessing options for national renewal. This will give us the ability to put a figure on the cost of doing nothing.”

    Research which informs how policymakers might review existing welfare programmes or adopt and deploy basic income schemes is at the heart of activity from the team of researchers, led by Professor Johnson, at Northumbria University. Whilst being involved in evaluating a Basic Income pilot for young people leaving care in Wales, Northumbria researchers have also supported a research report presented to Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, which outlines a plan for a Basic Income pilot in the city. In 2023, they carried out extensive research and community consultation exercises, in partnership with communities in Jarrow, South Tyneside and East Finchley, London to develop community-led proposals for a two-year Basic Income pilot on a smaller scale.

    As well as publishing reports on regional transport policy, democratic reform and the use of Radical Prevention Funds, the Northumbria team have also led the development of a blueprint for policy reform aimed at bringing an end to poverty and inequality in Britain. Act Now: A vision for a better future and a new social contract was published as a book before last year’s General Election. A second book, Basic Income: The Policy That Changes Everything, is due to be published later this year.

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

    Dr Joanne Atkinson, Head of Department for Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing at Northumbria University, added: “This NIHR funding award is fundamental to expanding the Common Sense Policy Group’s work and contributing to the Centre for Health and Social Equity as Northumbria strives to create world-leading knowledge that drives social mobility and powers an inclusive economy. This is an example of how high-quality interdisciplinary research on the key issues of our age can inform discussions on national policy.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Independent Candidate For Parliament in Germany Runs on Universal Basic Income as a Human Right to Exist

    By Ulrike Kiefert

    Translation by Raymond R. Watson, M.A.

    See original post here.

    Many independent candidates are running in the federal election, although they have little chance of making it in the German parliament. Two of these lone wolves are Frigga Wendt and Christian Pape. Berliner Woche (Berlin Weekly) spoke to them. Independent candidates are heavily involved in the election campaign. However, mathematically speaking, they have little chance of being elected to Bundestag, the German Parliament. There are well over 2,500 individual candidates running nationwide. In Berlin, 121 candidates in twelve constituencies are vying for the first vote. So why would someone take on the exhausting election campaign when they know they have little chance of success?

    Frigga Wendt, who signs her emails with “FriGGa”, probably has better chances than most. The 44-year-old has already campaigned in two federal elections. In 2017, she didn’t do too badly for an independent candidate with 1,200 votes. Four years later, she only received 120 votes. Nevertheless, Wendt is running again on February 23 for the federal electoral district 82 in Friedrichshain/Kreuzberg and Prenzlauer Berg East. She’s competing against eight contenders there, including an independent candidate like herself. According to the official gazette, in all of Berlin four independent candidates are trying their luck. Wendt firmly believes that she will be elected to the Bundestag. Her motivation? To actively shape politics, to make what the German parliament offers “more extensive” and therefore more diverse, to “shed light on aspects that are missing in big politics as a little independent.” She is also frustrated with the established parties. Frigga Wendt wants to use her candidacy to “make the unconditional basic income as a human right, electable and visible.” This is what the German state of Schwerin native is advocating for. The key phrase next to her name on the ballot is: “Bedingungsloses- Grundeinkommen-als- Menschenrecht.de” (Unconditional basic income as a human right). Her vision: the basic income as a right to exist for all, direct democracy and an election campaign in which people vote on issues and content, “not on people.” This is important to her and that is why Frigga Wendt has decided to take on the task of an election campaign without the structural and financial support of a party.

    “Parties take themselves far too seriously,” says Wendt. And besides, who can represent her ideas and needs better than herself? “Of course, even if I were elected, I as an individual cannot automatically convince the rest of the Bundestag that it is finally time to recognize a human right to economic existence,” says Wendt. “But I can give my own concerns and that of many other people national attention and foster discussion.” But there’s also a hint of satire when the “freelancer, who supplements her welfare, and tutor for basic and human rights” – this is how the ballot describes Wendt’s professional background – promises voters “everything they want to hear” before the election. Or when she states on her website that her motive for running is “to have a well-paid job.” Like Frigga Wendt, Christian Pape is also a maverick. The economist is running in the Berlin district Neukölln. The catchphrase link for his election campaign is ”www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/profile/christian- pape” (representative-watch.de/…). Wendt and Pape know each other from previous election campaigns, events, petition drives and initiatives. They’ve also collected signatures together. In order to qualify as an independent candidate in your constituency, you need 200 so-called supporting signatures. Normally, this is easy to do in time. Especially in summer. This time, however, the deadline was rather tight due to the early election date, which both criticize. It’s cold outside and it gets dark quickly. Not everyone likes to be chatted up by strangers without a campaign booth.

    Christian Pape, who has written an entire book, „Die Grenzen des deutschen Wirtschaftswachstums’’, (The Limits of German Economic Growth) about his reasons for running for the German parliament, would like voters to be informed early on about the parties and candidates they can choose from. “For example, a booklet could be sent with the election voting card in which all parties and district election candidates are named and can present themselves via a short text,” Pape points out. Including a link for further information. This helps the independent candidates who otherwise hardly anyone – neither politicians nor the media – has on their radar. And the voters benefit from it too. According to Pape, they would not just see all the choices when they first get to the voting booth.

    In the last few weeks before the federal election, Frigga Wendt and Christian Pape will be campaigning, campaigning, campaigning. She wants to hang posters painted herself, distribute flyers, and advertise online. He, on the other hand, is not using posters this time, preferring to campaign in person and “approach people directly”. Christian Pape feels he’s better remembered that way. In any case, both of them have to invest “an incredible amount of time” so that voters might vote for them in the end.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By David Gordon Koch and Ryan Hillier

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Tracy Smith-Carrier & Elaine Power

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

    Ontario’s basic income pilot

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

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

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

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

    Impact on participants’ mental health

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

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

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

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

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

    Structural violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Eradicating poverty

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Craig Lord, The Canadian Press

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Mary Papenfuss

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Steve Kraske, Elizabeth Ruiz, Zach Wilson

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ginther said she’s concerned.

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By The Canadian Press

    See original post here.

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

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

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

    However, it has never appeared in a campaign platform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By NYU Law

    See original post here.

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

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

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

    What sparked your interest in guaranteed basic income?

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

    Has your view of UBI changed over the years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Tom Cooper

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Lakshmi Varanasi

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Alternatives North releases basic income guarantee proposal

    By Emily Blake

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Estimated costs and benefits

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

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

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

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

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

    How would the program work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Political support needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Explosive court ruling on SRD grant in South Africa

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

    Government ordered to “progressively increase” the grant and income threshold, and allow in-person applications.

    • The Pretoria High Court has declared some Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations unconstitutional.
    • This included the online-only application requirement, the R624 monthly income threshold, and the grant’s value.
    • Judge Leonard Twala ordered the government to progressively increase the grant to align with inflation and the cost of living.
    • The judge said that gifts and once-off payments must be excluded from the income threshold.
    • Advocacy groups IEJ and #PayTheGrants welcomed the judgment, calling it a victory for South Africans and activists who tirelessly fight for better social assistance policies.

    Regulations limiting the access to the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant are unconstitutional and invalid, the high court in Pretoria ruled on Thursday. The court also ordered the government to increase the grant amount and the income threshold to qualify for it.

    Introduced in 2020 as an emergency response to the Covid pandemic, the SRD grant was initially set to last six months but has been extended annually. The value of the grant was raised from R350 to R370 in April 2024. The grant is available to people who get less than R625 per month, with SASSA conducting monthly checks on applicants’ bank accounts to ensure they continue to meet this criteria. This often means millions of people receiving financial donations or assistance from friends and relatives, are excluded from receiving the grant.

    In October 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the Institute of Economic Justice (IEJ) challenged the government’s SRD grant regulations, arguing that these rules exclude millions of potentially eligible South Africans.

    Among the issues raised were the exclusive reliance on online applications, the definition of income and financial support, and the reduction of the income threshold for eligibility. They also asked the court to declare that SASSA’s failure to pay successful applicants the SRD grant, timeously or at all, is unconstitutional and unlawful.

    The case was heard by Judge Leonard Twala. Advocate Jason Brickhill from the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), for the applicants, argued that the SRD grant’s regulations created significant barriers for vulnerable groups, particularly by restricting applications to online submissions. He said this excluded many people without access to smartphones, computers, or the internet. He said that SASSA’S R624 income threshold test included “any income”, meaning those who receive another grant on behalf of the beneficiary like the child support or disability grants, were automatically disqualified.

    Advocate Gilbert Marcus, representing the National Treasury, argued that adjusting the SRD grant for inflation could impact the other seven social assistance grants. He said the SRD grant was meant to be temporary and cautioned that expanding it could undermine broader poverty reduction strategies focused on economic growth and job creation.

    Marcus emphasised the government’s fiscal challenges, adding that expenditure exceeds revenue by R322-billion.

    Read the judgment here.

    After the National State of Disaster ended in April 2022, the grant was moved from the Disaster Management Act to the Department of Social Development’s (DSD) Social Assistance Act (SAA). New regulations reduced the monthly income threshold from R595 to R350, and limited applications to online submissions. Bank verification was also used to assess applicants’ financial means each month.

    In his ruling, Judge Twala noted that the shift in regulations led to a sharp drop in successful applicants. From March to April 2022, applications decreased from over 15.8-million to 8-million, and approvals fell from about 11-million to 5.6-million.

    The number of successful applicants continued to decrease, with only about 8-million of 14-million applicants approved by March 2023. This reduction resulted in Treasury cutting its budget for the SRD grant from R44-billion to R36-billion in 2023/2024, the judgment read.

    Twala agreed with the government that when public money is used to provide benefits to citizens, procedural safeguards are necessary. But he said that these must be “reasonable and fair”.

    He said there was “no reasonable justification” to subject potential beneficiaries, “who are mainly poor and vulnerable members of society, to a solely online application process”. He agreed with the applicants that the majority of people with insufficient means to support themselves and their dependents do not have smartphones, access to computers and the internet.

    Judge Twala noted that up to 15% of successful applicants do not receive their grant payments each month. “The respondents offered no defence for the non-payment of the SRD grant to successful applicants except to say that the system experienced some teething problems and that some of the successful applicants failed to furnish their correct banking information and cellphone numbers.”

    “The SRD grant is meant for poor people and to alleviate hunger. For this group of society to not receive the grant timeously or at all has dire consequences,” Twala said.

    Activists welcome ruling

    In his ruling, Judge Twala declared that the regulation restricting applications to an online platform is unconstitutional and must be amended to allow in-person applications.

    He also ordered that the definition of “income” be changed to include only regular payments from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments, excluding once-off payments or gifts. (SASSA’s system is not currently implemented in a way that can differentiate between these categories and it’s unclear how this can be done. – Editor)

    Judge Twala ruled that the fixed income threshold of R624 per month was “unconstitutional and invalid”. He directed the government to “progressively increase the threshold” in a manner that takes into account “the right to social assistance, inflation, and the cost of living”.

    The ruling also found the grant value to be insufficient.

    Twala ordered the Social Development minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to “devise and implement a plan to redress the retrogression in the value of the SRD grant and income threshold and progressively increase the value of the SRD grant”. This plan must be delivered to the court in four months.

    This ruling has been welcomed by Gilad Isaacs of the IEJ, calling it a crucial victory for vulnerable South Africans. “The judgment refuses to allow the National Treasury to justify indignities visited on the most vulnerable by claiming that the enjoyment of our rights is unaffordable,” he said.

    Elizabeth Raiters, deputy chair of #PayTheGrants, said, “This is a great day not only for beneficiaries but also for the activists of #PayTheGrants who have been working tirelessly with no funding, no proper resources, only maybe a broken cellphone in their hands and some data,” Raiters said. “I hope the government can start working together with NGOs like #PayTheGrants … Hand in hand these issues can be solved.”

    In a brief statement the Department of Social Development said: “The Department is studying the judgement and will respond in due course.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal basic income vs. welfare: Here’s what UBI could mean for America’s safety net

    By Allie Kelly

    See original post here.

    As America’s cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

    With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

    Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

    Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

    With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country’s budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

    BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

    How does UBI differ from welfare?

    The US’s welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

    Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

    Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don’t have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

    Could UBI replace welfare?

    Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

    US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

    Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that’s drawn from the state’s oil revenue.

    True UBI hasn’t been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a “Freedom Dividend,” which would’ve given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would’ve made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

    For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

    Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it’s not financially sustainable and gives people “free money.”

    “We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary,” Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

    Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

    In most of America’s basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

    Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

    “Anyone who’s had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income,” a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. “This is just assisting us in our time of need.”

    Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a “welfare trap” and an “unconstitutional” use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

    Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

    “We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future,” Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

    To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income’s financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

    Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Food banks were never supposed to be permanent, CEO says

    By Joey Chini

    See original post here.

    Public sees problem taken care of, but it’s actually getting worse, says Matt Noble

    Conceived as a stopgap measure to address unmet needs in some communities, food banks were first implemented on a large scale in Canada in the 1980s.

    The country’s first food bank opened its doors in Edmonton, where it was meant to provide temporary respite to the city’s hungry. It remains in operation to this day.

    Decades later, there are more than 5,000 food banks across Canada. Their mission is to “relieve hunger today and prevent hunger tomorrow.” 

    However, despite their efforts, reliance on food banks grows and they are increasingly providing long-term assistance.

    Some anti-poverty advocates are trying to change that trajectory. While the spotlight on food banks often centres around the need for donations, the advocates want to instead shine a light on the people who rely on their assistance.

    Matt Noble, executive director of the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank and the “Put Food Banks Out Of Business” campaign, says Canadians shouldn’t need food banks to keep people fed and they were never meant to be a permanent fixture.

    “Governments have been failing Canadians for far too long, and food banks have been here doing our best to pick up the slack. But the reality is that we shouldn’t need to be here,” he said.

    Noble says the existence of food banks creates the perception that food insecurity in the country is being taken care of, when, according to the most recent available data from Statistics Canada, things are actually getting worse.

    Dana Olstad, associate professor of population and public health at the University of Calgary, echoed Noble’s sentiment.

    “I don’t think anybody, including the food banks themselves, actually want food banks to be needed in Canada,” Olstad said.

    “In a developed country, food banks should not be needed. Everybody should be able to afford to eat three meals a day.… The fact that we have food insecurity in Canada, and that the rates are so high, and that they have been increasing, is a huge concern.”

    Not enough focus on solving food insecurity

    Olstad agreed food banks were never meant to be a permanent response to food insecurity. She says it has become normalized for people — mostly Black and Indigenous Canadians — to rely on food banks.

    “That’s because the need has not gone away,” Olstad said. “It tells us that something is going on in Canada.… People, even people with jobs — and many times good jobs — still don’t have enough money to be able to afford food.”

    Meaghon Reid, executive director of Vibrant Communities Calgary, says Canadian society has placed too much emphasis on donating to food banks — and not enough on the people receiving those donations.

    She says charities have done a great job in terms of adapting to demand for food, but they shouldn’t have to keep asking for more and more donations each year.

    “I think we have to zoom out, though, and look at this system and say, by continuing to fill the gaps and provide these Band-Aids for people, are we letting governments off the hook in terms of making sure that people are fed and have that adequate income to do so?” Reid said.

    She says Canadians should think about solutions to food insecurity instead of determining how much food or monetary donations are needed to keep people fed every day.

    “What are we doing to make sure that people require these services less frequently?” she said.

    The cost of food insecurity

    People who depend on food banks have exhausted all other avenues to keep themselves fed, Olstad says. She uses an analogy of someone who has to choose between paying for housing or paying for groceries.

    “You can’t pay half your rent. So, do you want to eat less or do you want to be on the street?” she said, adding this is often the case.

    “That’s why food insecurity is actually a really great indicator of poverty in Canada, because it’s telling us that more than 20 per cent of our population does not have enough money to be able to afford the basic necessities.”

    According to Vibrant Communities Calgary, 30 per cent of food bank users in Alberta receive social assistance, and the overwhelming majority of them also receive disability income supports. 

    Olstad says social assistance programs are insufficient because they are not giving people in need enough money to afford to eat.

    People with food insecurity have higher rates of chronic disease, mental health issues, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, among other conditions, Olstad says. This ends up costing Canada’s health-care system more.

    “If we could eliminate food insecurity, all those excess health-care costs would decline significantly,” she said.

    Reid says food insecurity is incredibly costly in Canada, to the tune of more than $80 billion annually, because food insecurity affects the country’s health-care system, its criminal justice system, soup kitchens and shelters, which rely on tax dollars to remain operational.

    “I think the better solution here is to invest in the right way, which is to make sure people have the food that they need. It is so expensive to keep servicing this problem,” she said.

    How to eliminate food insecurity in Canada

    The centrepiece of the “Put Food Banks Out Of Business” campaign, Noble says, is making sure Canadians have enough money to afford food. 

    “That’s why [we’re] calling for a guaranteed livable basic income, so that no one in Canada can fall below the poverty line,” he said. “[It’s] the single most impactful policy solution for addressing food insecurity.

    “The problem is poverty. People who are food insecure are poor. And it’s a simple problem with a simple solution. Poor people need money.”

    Noble says even if implementing a guaranteed basic income costs about the same as what’s being spent now on addressing poverty in Canada, the end result would be thousands of people being lifted above the poverty line.

    He adds implementing the policy would not replace major programs like public health care, public education or pharmacare — it would make sure everyone can afford to buy food.

    It seems like a simple solution, because people earning minimum wage in major cities often cannot afford to live in those cities.

    “It’s not a radical idea, it’s called basic income for a reason. We’re not talking about communism here. We’re literally just talking about an income floor so that no one can fall below the poverty line,” Noble said.

    Olstad agrees that a basic income in Canada would work best. In addition, she says programs like universal child care and pharmacare, among others, would further bolster food security in the country.

    Implementing a guaranteed, livable, basic income is a policy that is also supported by Reid.

    “We’re not going to work ourselves out of food insecurity with more food. The real answer here is more income,” she said.

    “This is not a luxury, it’s a basic need. And I think that we really need to look at that mismatch in the cost of living and what people are making both from employers, but also from income supports.”

    Noble says people who agree should call or write their MPs and let them know that ending food insecurity in Canada is an important issue to them.

    “There’s no reason that in a country like Canada we should have people living … below the poverty line and in such deep food insecurity,” he said.

    The last time a basic income was considered by Canada’s government was during Question Period in 2021, at the height of pressures brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    While information on basic income was compiled by government, ultimately it decided to continue to monitor research and analysis on the idea, without moving the policy forward.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal programs are much easier to administer than means-tested ones

    By Abdallah Fayyad

    See original post here.

    In an ideal world, everyone who qualifies for an aid program ought to receive its benefits. But the reality is that this is often not the case. Before the pandemic, for example, nearly one-fifth of Americans who qualified for food stamps didn’t receive them. In fact, millions of Americans who are eligible for existing social welfare programs don’t receive all of the benefits they are entitled to.

    As I wrote in an earlier edition of this newsletter, a big part of the problem is the paperwork and the bureaucratic hoops people have to jump through in order to participate in certain programs. But what’s often at the root of those hurdles is an all-too-common policy choice that lawmakers turn to: means testing — that is, establishing eligibility requirements (like income or wealth thresholds) for social programs.

    Means testing a given social program can have good intentions: Target spending toward the people who need it most. After all, if middle- or high-income people who can afford their groceries or rent get federal assistance in paying for those things, then wouldn’t there be less money to go around for the people who actually need it?

    The answer isn’t so straightforward.

    How means testing can sabotage policy goals

    Implementing strict eligibility requirements can be extremely tedious and have unintended consequences.

    For starters, let’s look at one of the main reasons lawmakers advocate for means testing: saving taxpayers’ money. But that’s not always what happens. “Though they’re usually framed as ways of curbing government spending, means-tested benefits are often more expensive to provide, on average, than universal benefits, simply because of the administrative support needed to vet and process applicants,” my colleague Li Zhou wrote in 2021.

    More than that, means testing reduces how effective antipoverty programs can be because a lot of people miss out on benefits. As Zhou points out, figuring out who qualifies for welfare takes a lot of work, both from the government and potential recipients who have to fill out onerous applications. The paperwork can be daunting and can discourage people from applying. It can also result in errors or delays that would easily be avoided if a program is universal.

    There’s also the fact that creating an income threshold creates incentives for people to avoid advancing in their careers or take a higher-paying job. One woman I interviewed a few years ago, for example, told me that after she started a job as a medical assistant and lost access to benefits like food stamps, it became harder to make ends meet for her and her daughter. When lawmakers aggressively means test programs, people like her are often left behind, making it harder to transition out of poverty.

    As a result, means testing can seriously limit a welfare program’s potential. According to a report by the Urban Institute, for example, the United States can reduce poverty by more than 30 percent just by ensuring that everyone who is eligible for an existing program receives its benefits. One way to do that is for lawmakers to make more welfare programs universal instead of means-tested.

    Why universal programs are a better choice

    There sometimes is an aversion to universal programs because they’re viewed as unnecessarily expensive. But universal programs are often the better choice because of one very simple fact: They are generally much easier and less expensive to administer. Two examples of this are some of the most popular social programs in the country: Social Security and Medicare.

    Universal programs might also create less division among taxpayers as to how their money ought to be spent. A lot of opposition to welfare programs comes from the fact that some people simply don’t want to pay for programs they don’t directly benefit from, so eliminating that as a factor can create more support for a given program.

    In 2023, following a handful of other states, Minnesota implemented a universal school meal program where all students get free meals. This was in response to the problems that arise when means testing goes too far. Across the country, students in public school pay for their meals depending on their family’s income. But this system has stigmatized students who get a free meal. According to one study, 42 percent of eligible families reported that their kids are less likely to eat their school meal because of the stigma around it.

    Minnesota’s program has proven popular so far: In September 2023, shortly after the program took off, the amount of school breakfasts and lunches served increased by 30 percent and 11 percent compared to the previous year, respectively.

    While it might not be politically feasible — or, in some cases, necessary — to get rid of means testing for all public subsidies, free school meals also offer an example of what a compromise might look like at the national level. Though Congress hasn’t made school meals free to all, it passed a provision in 2010 that allows schools to provide free meals to all students in districts where at least 25 percent (originally 40 percent) are eligible. The program showed that providing free meals to all lowered food insecurity, even among poor students who already qualified for free meals, by removing stigma. (The community eligibility provision now serves nearly 20 million students.)

    As for how universal programs can be paid for, the answer is, yes, imposing higher taxes. It might seem inefficient to give people a benefit if you’re going to essentially take it back from them in taxes, but what you actually end up with is a much more efficient program that is more easily administered and doesn’t leave anyone out.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: We all deserve more money. Let me prove why it’s time for universal basic income

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

    Universal basic income is not a utopian dream; it’s a practical step to tackle poverty, reduce inequality, and create a sustainable future.  

    As the world braces for a second Donald Trump presidency, the UK must reflect on its failure to deliver a meaningful alternative to tackle inequality and avoid drifting toward demagogues. 

    Our current system leaves millions of children in poverty and inequality growing worse. How do we tackle systemic poverty and injustice while addressing the climate crisis and adapting to emerging challenges like artificial intelligence?

    The answer lies in ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met. A roof over their head, enough food to eat, and the ability to live with dignity should not be luxuries – they are fundamental rights. 

    One solution key to meeting those basic needs is universal basic income. 

    A universal basic income policy is simple yet transformative: it would ensure every citizen receives an unconditional recurring payment. While the exact amount is up for debate, it would broadly align with the minimum wage – around £1,200 to £1,600 per month. 

    And this is no dream. Pilot programs are already happening, including a trial in Wales for care leavers, showing universal basic income’s potential to create real change. 

    Now, you might wonder how can we afford to deliver this policy. I have a better question: How can we afford not to?  Let me prove that this is a better question to ask.

    First, the UK spends billions on universal credit – a dehumanising and costly system (both for the claimant and the administrators!) Replacing it with universal basic income would cut inefficiencies and guarantee support for all.

    Second, universal systems are simpler and fairer than means-tested ones. While some argue the wealthy shouldn’t receive benefits, it’s far more efficient to tax wealth than to impose complex eligibility requirements — a lesson the government should note over cutting everyone’s winter fuel payments! 

    Third, as a sovereign currency issuer, the UK can choose its spending priorities. Alongside universal basic income, measures like wealth and carbon taxes could help reduce inequality. Investing in people also saves money long-term, reducing pressure on the NHS, the justice system, and other services strained by inequality. 

    Finally, disabled individuals require special consideration. A ‘better-off’ mechanism ensures anyone currently receiving benefits would gain under universal basic income. Only the wealthiest – multimillionaires and billionaires – might contribute more, though there’s plenty of evidence that they too benefit from a fairer, more stable society.

    If we fail to deliver real solutions – not just in rhetoric but through policies that improve people’s lives – more demagogues will rise.  

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

    While a wealthy few soar above in private jets, mocking those in poverty beneath them, millions are barely getting by. Many juggle multiple jobs to cover bills, fight to keep a roof over their heads, or simply try to survive. This cannot go on. 

    Whilst that might sound idealistic, it’s the bare minimum we must achieve to build a fair and sustainable society.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: We all deserve more money. Let me prove why it’s time for universal basic income

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

    Universal basic income is not a utopian dream; it’s a practical step to tackle poverty, reduce inequality, and create a sustainable future.  

    As the world braces for a second Donald Trump presidency, the UK must reflect on its failure to deliver a meaningful alternative to tackle inequality and avoid drifting toward demagogues. 

    Our current system leaves millions of children in poverty and inequality growing worse. How do we tackle systemic poverty and injustice while addressing the climate crisis and adapting to emerging challenges like artificial intelligence?

    The answer lies in ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met. A roof over their head, enough food to eat, and the ability to live with dignity should not be luxuries – they are fundamental rights. 

    One solution key to meeting those basic needs is universal basic income. 

    A universal basic income policy is simple yet transformative: it would ensure every citizen receives an unconditional recurring payment. While the exact amount is up for debate, it would broadly align with the minimum wage – around £1,200 to £1,600 per month. 

    And this is no dream. Pilot programs are already happening, including a trial in Wales for care leavers, showing universal basic income’s potential to create real change. 

    Now, you might wonder how can we afford to deliver this policy. I have a better question: How can we afford not to?  Let me prove that this is a better question to ask.

    First, the UK spends billions on universal credit – a dehumanising and costly system (both for the claimant and the administrators!) Replacing it with universal basic income would cut inefficiencies and guarantee support for all.

    Second, universal systems are simpler and fairer than means-tested ones. While some argue the wealthy shouldn’t receive benefits, it’s far more efficient to tax wealth than to impose complex eligibility requirements — a lesson the government should note over cutting everyone’s winter fuel payments! 

    Third, as a sovereign currency issuer, the UK can choose its spending priorities. Alongside universal basic income, measures like wealth and carbon taxes could help reduce inequality. Investing in people also saves money long-term, reducing pressure on the NHS, the justice system, and other services strained by inequality. 

    Finally, disabled individuals require special consideration. A ‘better-off’ mechanism ensures anyone currently receiving benefits would gain under universal basic income. Only the wealthiest – multimillionaires and billionaires – might contribute more, though there’s plenty of evidence that they too benefit from a fairer, more stable society.

    If we fail to deliver real solutions – not just in rhetoric but through policies that improve people’s lives – more demagogues will rise.  

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

    While a wealthy few soar above in private jets, mocking those in poverty beneath them, millions are barely getting by. Many juggle multiple jobs to cover bills, fight to keep a roof over their heads, or simply try to survive. This cannot go on. 

    Whilst that might sound idealistic, it’s the bare minimum we must achieve to build a fair and sustainable society.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Volunteers providing meals in eastern P.E.I. renew call for basic income guarantee

    By Gwyneth Egan

    See original post here.

    In the kitchen at the Lower Montague Women’s Institute, volunteers with the Down East Food Collective regularly get together to prepare and cook more than 100 servings of freshly made sauces and pasta for Montague’s community fridge.

    They do this once a month to improve food insecurity on Prince Edward Island, and have been organizing monthly community cook days to fill the food pantry at the Montague Christian Church since April. 

    The volunteers work to fill the fridge first, then start filling up the freezer, said Tina Ratcliffe, one of the collective’s founding members. 

    The meals are usually gone within 24 to 48 hours, she said.

    “It brings great joy for me personally to be able to give back to the community,” she said.

    “When you see people using the fridge and taking and sustaining themselves by the meals that we have prepared, it’s phenomenal.” 

    She said she’s seen adults and children make use of meals the collective has prepared. 

    According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, 28.6 per cent of Islanders had trouble acquiring healthy food in an affordable manner in 2022. That number is up from 23.6 per cent in 2021. 

    With the number of people unable to get healthy food on the rise, the Down East Food Collective’s monthly meal prep initiative has no end in sight, said Irene Whitten, one of the founders of the project.

    “Until the government makes policy changes that are so needed, we do what we can,” she said. 

    ‘Food insecurity is an income insecurity issue’

    One of the policy changes advocates say would help is a basic income policy. 

    “Food insecurity is an income insecurity issue,” said Darlene Sorrey-Scott, a volunteer with the Down East Food Collective. 

    “If you don’t have an appropriate income or the sufficient income, food is one of the first things that goes — either the quality of your food goes down or you do without.”

    “A good, solid basic income policy needs to be looked at strongly in Canada, and doing an experiment in Prince Edward Island — in a small province — is the way to go,” said Sorrey-Scott. 

    “We need to demonstrate that when people have a basic income, they don’t have to ask continually every weekend for good, nutritious food. They’ll be able to go and buy it if they have a decent income.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: What “Universal Basic Guys” gets wrong about basic income – and why it matters

    By Ricardo Beaird

    See original post here.

    As an artist who brings complex stories to life through theater, I understand the power of storytelling to shape how we see the world — and what we believe is possible. Narratives can inspire hope, spark change or, as in the case of Fox’s new animated series “Universal Basic Guys” (now streaming on Hulu) reduce transformative ideas to shallow stereotypes.

    Some 64% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck – and the majority of families are one unexpected expense away from crisis. Yet in its portrayal of universal basic income, “Universal Basic Guys” turns a lifeline into a punchline. The show follows brothers Mark and Hank Hoagies (voiced by series creators Adam and Craig Malamut), who were “not well-off” even at their factory jobs, and now receive a monthly stipend comparable to those wages after losing their jobs to automation. Yet remarkably, universal basic income isn’t mentioned once in the dialogue of the opening episode. The only explanation of the policy comes from a blink-and-you-miss-it description in the opening theme song: “I used to work in a hot dog factory until the robots came along. And now there is no job for me but I get $3,000 a month thanks to basic income. Now we’re Universal Basic Guys. It’s still not much, but we’re still going to try.”

    The show squanders its premise by defaulting to the oldest stereotype in the book – that people would rather coast on government support than achieve stability through meaningful work. It goes on to reduce the brothers to caricatures making one bad decision after another – from blowing their guaranteed income on everything from a luxury cruise to an elite country club to an exotic pet. And when they do attempt professional growth, it’s played for cheap laughs. Take their foray into advertising through entry-level internships: Mark gets fired for drinking on the job while Hank rejects a promotion because weekend work might interfere with watching the NFL draft. Instead of these tired sitcom storylines, imagine showing how basic income could help former factory workers navigate career transitions, finding humor in their authentic struggles with professional growth.

    The show’s depiction of basic income couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather than participants luxuriating in newfound free time, a Stockton, California pilot found that full-time employment actually rose among those receiving guaranteed income, while their financial, physical and emotional health also improved. There’s little room for frivolous spending, either: in Minnesota’s Guaranteed Income for Artists pilot program, people allocate their funds primarily to essentials, with 35.94% directed toward critical retail purchases, followed by food (30.26%) and housing (10%). Many basic income programs are also designed specifically to support individuals working low-wage jobs or cobbling together income from gig work — and they’re part of a growing movement. With over 100 pilot programs across the United States, these initiatives are showing how financial stability enables people to invest in their futures.

    To better understand the reality of basic income, the showrunners would be well-served to speak with an actual recipient of UBI – like Torri Hanna, a fiber artist in the Minnesota program. Her monthly $500 stipend helped stabilize her yarn store and improve her housing situation with her daughter. She now creates art for downtown storefronts with the senior center, showing how basic income ripples through communities – an impact completely missing from Fox’s cartoonish portrayal.

    The stakes of such misrepresentation extend far beyond bad television. As artist and organizer Ricardo Levins Morales explains, “The soil is more important than the seeds,” – a profound insight into cultural change. Just as plants struggle to grow in toxic environments, transformative ideas like basic income can’t flourish in a culture poisoned by narratives that people can’t be trusted with economic freedom. Television has proven it can cultivate better ground for change. “Good Times” brought public housing realities to millions in the 1970s, addressing safety nets with nuance. “Superstore” used workplace comedy to illuminate low-wage workers’ struggles. Even Fox’s own animated shows excel at social commentary – “The Simpsons” roasts political hypocrisy while “Bob’s Burgers” exposes the struggles of running a small business. “Universal Basic Guys” doesn’t need to be a dry economics lecture, but entertainment can be both funny and nourishing to our shared cultural landscape.

    The show fails to tell the deeper story of how guaranteed income enables human potential. Imagine episodes where one brother finally confronts long-ignored student loan debt, where the brothers use their basic income for home improvements so their elderly mom can move in, or their well-meaning but chaotic attempts at community volunteering reveal that civic engagement is harder than it looks. These stories could mirror how real basic income recipients use stable income to tackle debt, create multi-generational housing solutions, and give back to their neighborhoods. This rich tapestry of real-world experiences offers far more compelling storylines than anything season one has shown us.

    What if “Universal Basic Guys” told a better story — that basic income unlocks purpose in two men labeled as slackers, trapped by systemic barriers and dead-end jobs? Instead of burying the concept in a throwaway theme song, the show could weave honest dialogue about this new social contract throughout its episodes, replacing silence with understanding. Their transformation could challenge assumptions about human potential and growth, especially now, as some states move to ban guaranteed income programs. Shows like this shape public perception and policy, making it vital to highlight how basic income fosters the economic freedom everyone needs to thrive.

    To reach its potential, Universal Basic Guys must evolve beyond parody into a narrative that reflects the real power of guaranteed income. With a second season already greenlit, it has a real opportunity to pivot and tell a story of struggle, resilience and growth, honoring the dignity and potential of those often overlooked. By portraying how basic income helps people rebuild their lives, the show could drive social change, proving that economic freedom is key to unlocking human potential.

    The stakes are high. Media influences policies and how we see each other. A nuanced, compassionate take on basic income could pave the way for a future where economic security is a right — not a punchline.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Biden says he was ‘stupid’ not to sign Covid stimulus checks as Trump did

    By Robert Tait

    See original post here.

    Joe Biden has voiced regret for not following Donald Trump’s example by putting his signature on Covid-19-era economic stimulus cheques sent to Americans during a speech about his record on the economy as he prepares to leave office.

    Five weeks after his vice-president, Kamala Harris, lost the presidential election to Trump, the US president suggested on Tuesday that his failure to put his name on the cheques may have contributed to voters blaming his administration for high prices even when the economy was improving.

    “Within the first two months of office I signed the American Rescue Plan,” Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based thinktank. “And also learned something from Donald Trump – he signed checks for people, $7,400 for people because we passed the plan. I didn’t – stupid.”

    Trump was widely criticised after becoming the first president to have his name printed on cheques disbursed by the Internal Revenue Service – America’s federal tax authority – in 2020. The move followed legislation from Congress intended to ease the impact of the economic slowdown that resulted from the first wave of the Covid pandemic.

    “I’m sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it,” he said at the time.

    Anecdotal evidence suggested that he may have been given credit by voters that was denied to Biden for his response to the pandemic.

    Campaigning for Harris, Barack Obama told audiences that some voters had told him that “Donald Trump sent me a check during the pandemic” to explain their support for him.

    Biden interrupted his speech after about 10 minutes to tell the audience that his teleprompter had broken down, forcing him to speak unscripted. Such a move was notable as during his presidency, critics frequently remarked on Biden’s public appearances for an over-reliance on teleprompter-scripted deliveries, suspected by many as intended to guard against his tendency for verbal gaffes.

    His attempt at justifying his self-styled “Bidenomics” approach amounted to a rebuff to detractors – both Democrat and Republican – who blamed his administration for failing to counteract inflation and persistently high prices, even while job creation and growth rebounded strongly after the Covid-19 pandemic forced a widespread economic shut down.

    “We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, managed a soft landing that many people thought was not likely to happen,” Biden said. “Next month, my administration will end, and a new administration will begin. The new administration’s going to inherit a very strong economy, at least at the moment.”

    During the campaign, opinion polls repeatedly showed concerns over the economy topping voters’ priorities, with many voicing frustration over high fuel and grocery costs. The administration blamed fallout from the pandemic – which prompted the enactment of a $1.9tn stimulus plan early in Biden’s term aimed at reviving the economy – and on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    But Biden suggested Trump might squander his economic legacy by reverting to “trickle-down” economics amid indications that the president-elect intends to extend his 2017 tax cuts, which drastically slashed rates paid by corporations and the rich, while imposing tariffs on foreign imports.

    “By all accounts the incoming administration is determined to return the country to another round of trickle-down economics … once again causing massive deficits or significant cuts in basic programs,” Biden said.

    “I believe this approach is a major mistake. I believe we’ve proven that approach is a mistake over the past four years.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • NY Governor Hochul Proposes Sending 8.6 Million New Yorkers an ‘Inflation Refund Check’ as First Proposal of 2025 State of the State

    By The Governor’s Press Office

    See original post here.

    Proposal Would Deliver $3 Billion by Taking Excess Sales Tax Revenue Driven by Inflation and Giving That Money Back to Everyday New Yorkers

    $500 Payment For Families Making Less Than $300,000; $300 Payment for Individual New York Taxpayers Making Less Than $150,000

    Governor Has Delivered More Than $5.5 Billion in Supplemental Payments, Tax Relief and Rebates Since Taking Office

    As her first proposal for the 2025 State of the State, Governor Kathy Hochul today proposed New York State’s first-ever Inflation Refund, which would deliver about $3 billion in direct payments to around 8.6 million New York taxpayers statewide in 2025. This new refund would send a payment of $300 to single taxpayers who make up to $150,000 per year, and a payment of $500 for joint tax filers making up to $300,000 per year. Today’s announcement is one of several proposals to help address the cost of living that will be unveiled as part of the Governor’s upcoming State of the State.

    “Because of inflation, New York has generated unprecedented revenues through the sales tax — now, we’re returning that cash back to middle class families,” Governor Hochul said. “My agenda for the coming year will be laser-focused on putting money back in your pockets, and that starts with proposing Inflation Refund checks of up to $500 to help millions of hard-working New Yorkers. It’s simple: the cost of living is still too damn high, and New Yorkers deserve a break.”

    Governor Hochul’s proposed Inflation Refund is a one-time, direct payment that will reach New Yorkers throughout every corner of the State, as seen in the following regional breakdown:

    RegionEstimated Recipients
    New York City3,645,000
    Long Island1,344,000
    Hudson Valley986,000
    Western New York620,000
    Finger Lakes542,000
    Capital Region502,000
    Central New York340,000
    Southern Tier263,000
    Mohawk Valley208,000
    North Country163,000
    TotalAbout 8.6 Million

    Governor Hochul is proposing this new Inflation Refund to help address the impacts of inflation on the cost of everyday goods in the years following the COVID pandemic.

    In recent years, New York State has experienced growth in sales tax revenues that exceed historical averages. This growth has been driven largely by price inflation. With that in mind, Governor Hochul’s proposal will use that surplus growth to provide a one-time payment to New Yorkers. This payment would be granted to New York State taxpayer filers regardless of homeownership or parental status.

    New Yorkers who recently filed tax returns will be eligible for the payment. Taxpayers who are single, head of household, or married filing separately, will be eligible if their income was no greater than $150,000. Resident couples filing jointly will be eligible if their income was no greater than $300,000.

    If this proposed Inflation Refund is passed by the State Legislature, payments will be made starting Fall 2025.

    “My agenda for the coming year will be laser-focused on putting money back in your pockets, and that starts with proposing Inflation Refund checks of up to $500 to help millions of hard-working New Yorkers.

    Governor Kathy Hochul

    NYSUT President Melinda Person said, “Working families across New York know that the current systems are not working for them and NYSUT is glad the Governor is listening to this collective voice. We must seek out solutions that address the ever-increasing gap in income and wealth between the super-rich and the rest of us, and this proposal is a good first step.”

    CSEA President Mary E. Sullivan said, “This tax rebate is welcome news for CSEA members struggling with their finances. CSEA applauds Governor Hochul for doing the right thing for the working people of New York.”

    District Council 37 Director Executive Henry Garrido said, “It is clear from the many conversations with our members that the rising cost of living remains the greatest challenge facing working New Yorkers. Governor Hochul understands this deeply — and it’s exciting to see her put forth innovative ideas like New York’s first-ever Inflation Refund, which will create new ways to address the impacts of inflation and deliver much-needed financial assistance to New Yorkers. I look forward to working with the Governor to advance this important proposal and I am grateful for her continued focus on the issue of affordability.”

    NYS Public Employees Federation President Wayne Spence said, “One thing all New Yorkers can agree on is the cost of living is too high. Governor Hochul’s proposal for a new Inflation Refund represents the kind of thinking we need to help make it easier for New Yorkers to live, work, and raise a family in our state. This initiative would provide a little relief for working families and the public employees of PEF who work so hard to serve them. I’m glad the Governor is taking on this critical issue and look forward to working with her and the Legislature to deliver meaningful support to those who need it most.”

    Westchester County Executive George Latimer said, “Governor Hochul’s proposal is a much-needed, bold step toward easing the financial burdens faced by New Yorkers. There are tough conversations happening at kitchen tables all across New York, and this initiative aims to lighten those conversations while reflecting a deep understanding of the challenges our residents face and a commitment to ensuring economic relief reaches every corner of the state.”

    Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum said, “Too many working people struggle to survive in today’s economy and in a world of gross inequality. This announcement will provide necessary financial assistance for many working people across our state, and we fully support it. These hard working New Yorkers worry every day how their families can survive. We applaud Governor Hochul for focusing on their struggles and advocating for their needs.”

    United Way of New York City CEO and President Grace Bonilla said, “Governor Hochul’s proposed inflation refund is a critical step in addressing the affordability crisis impacting so many New Yorkers. As highlighted in our True Cost of Living report, 50 percent of New Yorkers struggle to make ends meet. Rising rents, utility bills, grocery prices and child care costs are pushing families to their breaking point. We witness these challenges every day and this refund is the type of direct investment needed to provide relief. We deeply appreciate the Governor’s leadership and commitment to creating a more equitable and affordable New York for all.”

    FPWA CEO Jennifer Jones Austin said, “I applaud Governor Kathy Hochul for leading New York State and the nation, for seeing that like millions of people throughout our country, hard-working New Yorkers are struggling to get by, get ahead and stay ahead, and for doing something about it. The recently released, first-ever national True Cost of Economic Security measure, tells us that what is keeping individuals and families from thriving economically is insufficient resources that haven’t kept up with modern-day, essential costs of living. In moving to increase resources to families in the State through initiatives such as expanded eligibility for child care tax credits, tax relief, tuition assistance and now, inflation refund payments, the Governor is showing leadership and positioning New York to be a model when it comes to providing its residents with the resources they need to secure their economic future, and to live with dignity.”

    Governor Hochul’s “Money in Your Pockets” Agenda
    This proposal is the latest step in Governor Hochul’s ongoing commitment to help address the cost of living by putting money back in the pockets of New Yorkers statewide.

    Since taking office, the Hochul Administration has delivered more than $5.5 billion in supplemental payments, tax relief and rebates, as well as expanding access to child care assistance and paid leave for families and pregnant women.

    These past efforts have included:

    • More than $4 billion in tax relief for middle-class New Yorkers and homeowners.
    • Over $600 million in extra payments for families receiving New York’s child tax credit and the Earned Income tax credit
    • Expanded eligibility of New York’s child tax credit to cover kids under 4 years old.
    • More access to child care assistance, with eligible families paying less than $15 per week.
    • Nearly $600 million in gas tax relief for everyday New Yorkers.
    • More than $200 million in additional food assistance for low-income kids.
    • Expansion of New York’s Tuition Assistance Program to make education more affordable.
    • The nation’s first-ever paid prenatal leave law, so pregnant workers don’t have to choose between a paycheck and a checkup.
    • Expansion of New York’s paid family leave program to cover more workers statewide.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.