radiofree.asia

Category: THE SOCIAL DEBATE

  • Stimulus checks appear to how led to a surge in startups, especially in Black communities

    New research finds a big rise in new businesses despite the pandemic, particularly in predominantly Black neighborhoods.

    By: Quoctrung Bui

    Over the last year, multiple stimulus measures from the federal government have helped families buy groceries, pay rent and build a financial cushion. This aid might have also helped start a new era of entrepreneurship.

    There has been a surge in start-ups in America that experts have yet to fully explain. But a new study — using data that allows researchers to more precisely track new businesses across time and place — finds that the surge coincides with federal stimulus, and is strongest in Black communities.

    Across a number of states, the pace of weekly business registrations more than doubled in the months after the CARES Act was signed in March 2020. Business registrations rose again, by 60 percent, around the period of the supplementary aid package signed in December. Coinciding with the third wave of stimulus in March, weekly business registrations have been up by 20 percent, but the data is less complete.

    The pandemic might mark the end of a slump in entrepreneurship that has lasted for several decades. Steep job losses, a widespread shift in how people work and a big influx of federal spending could prompt the kind of disruption that changes how people think about work and what they want to do with their lives.

    “The idea that the pandemic has kind of restarted America’s start-up engine is a real thing,” said Scott Stern, an economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the research. “Sometimes you need to turn off the car in order to turn it back on.”

    The researchers caution that they can’t yet say that the stimulus measures caused the growth in new businesses, but they think that the timing and the rise are so stark that it’s hard to insist that it’s merely coincidence.

    The rise in registrations began shortly before the second and third bills were passed, but new entrepreneurs might have started anticipating the result after the first stimulus. “People had already been through this once and had a better understanding of how this would work,”said Catherine Fazio, director of M.B.A. programs at Boston University.

    Although there might be other factors at work, the researchers say the stimulus checks and increased unemployment benefits shored up confidence in the economy enough that millions felt comfortable in starting a business despite being uncertain about when the pandemic would end.

    “Start-ups have always fallen in recessions,” said John Haltiwanger, an economist at the University of Maryland who studies business formation. “This is the only one I know where start-ups grew.

    These results are based on an analysis of more than two years of business registration records from eight states (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington) by a team of economists from Boston University, Columbia, Rice University and M.I.T. The researchers chose the states because they had the most up-to-date records and together represented a reasonably large proportion of the national population.

    The state-level registrations gave the researchers information on start-up activity by week and ZIP code, a detailed view not normally available to the public. Most experts get their entrepreneurship data from the census, which is derived from tax identification numbers. That data is available only monthly and by state.

    For aspiring business owners, registering a business with a state is a key step. In some states, it can cost a person a few hundred dollars to file. In return, the registration protects personal assets in the event of a bankruptcy; confers tax and banking benefits; and makes hiring workers easier.

    The registrations were filed mostly as L.L.C.s or partnerships — the entities typically associated with small businesses — and didn’t generally include people engaged in gig work.

    Some part of the boom may be a catching-up process. At the start of the pandemic, the researchers estimate, the average ZIP code had an average of three fewer businesses registered a week than is typical. For comparison, when Hurricane Katrina hit the New Orleans area in 2005, affected ZIP codes registered only one fewer business a week than usual.

    But after the CARES act was signed, registrations in those eight states reached their 2019 levels as early as July.

    A large part of this surge was in businesses providing services for people struggling to adapt to the pandemic, with the biggest shifts in online retail and personal services (like day care).

    When the researchers mapped the data, they found that the ZIP codes that experienced the greatest increase in business registrations were in Black areas, particularly higher median-income Black neighborhoods. Even after controlling for other variables, the proportion of Black residents in a ZIP code had the strongest impact on the start-up growth rate.

    While the data doesn’t directly tell us the race of the entrepreneur, it does provide an address listed with the registration. Though that address isn’t necessarily the address of the establishment, for small businesses it tends to be.

    To Andre Perry, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, this flurry of small-business activity in Black communities may actually be a sign of struggle: “This is more about survival than it is about wealth creation. There’s lots of people who have lost their jobs and lost their businesses. People are starting to realize that side hustles are businesses.”

    You can see some evidence of this in the data. Robert Fairlie, an economist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, tracks what he defines as necessity businesses and opportunity businesses. Necessity businesses are those whose owners were previously unemployed.

    The share of businesses born out of necessity more than doubled, he said, to 30 percent in 2020 from 13 percent in 2019.

    Last summer, Pilar Donnelly started making playhouses in Houston for her two 6-year-old boys. She had been laid off from her job in sports marketing and wanted to give them something for their birthday. With no background in woodworking, she started off with a design she liked online and watched YouTube to learn woodworking techniques. After making a number of playhouses for her friends and family, she realized it could be a business. That business, which she registered in June, is called Wish You Wood Custom Creations.

    She said it was her personal savings and the unemployment benefits that really helped give her peace of mind last summer; the stimulus check wasn’t enough by itself to make a huge difference in her decision to start a business.

    “I did buy a saw with some of that money,” she said. “That did help a little bit.”

    Ms. Fazio says it’s telling that entrepreneurship is on the rise in Black communities at precisely a moment when economic support is at its most universal.

    “It feels significant that we saw this big response in neighborhoods where it doesn’t typically happen,” she said. “When you remove those gateways that have worked in some ways to limit access for certain communities, then you really do unleash potential.”

    It’s uncertain how these new registrations will translate into businesses that will continue to operate after the pandemic. If many of them are born out of necessity, it’s natural to expect them to wind down as workers return to their old jobs.

    But given how drastically the pandemic has disrupted the economy, and how businesses operate more broadly, there may be opportunities in the post-pandemic economy for entrepreneurs to take advantage of what didn’t exist before.

    Kaaryn Simmons, the director of the Columbia-Harlem Small Business Development Center, says that in this year of economic upheaval, the barriers of maintaining a small business have changed, allowing people to run operations that were unimaginable in the old economy.

    “You don’t have to do a storefront anymore — ghost restaurants, pop-up restaurants, online stores,” she said. “There’s more opportunity because there are different models that we didn’t see before.”

    Ms. Donnelly is sticking with her new path. She says her woodworking business has now become her full-time job.

    “Everyone I encountered either had a really good year or a really bad year — and for me I had a good year,” she said. “Now I’m working outside in the grass and the dirt. I have a workshop in the garage; I have scrap wood everywhere. My life is really different.”

    ___________________________________________________

    Originally published in New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/upshot/stimulus-covid-startups-increase.html

    The post Stimulus checks appear to how led to a surge in startups, especially in Black communities appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Only half of rural voters know that Democrats voted to send them stimulus checks, new poll finds

    While not a single Republican voted in favor of the third stimulus check, only half of rural voters in a new poll gave Democrats any credit.

    By: Ayelet Sheffey | Business Insider

    Americans have so far received three direct payments from the federal government in response to the coronavirus. The first two were distributed under President Donald Trump’s watch, but while not a single Republican voted in favor of the third round, only half of rural voters in a new poll gave Democrats any credit.

    A poll conducted by Rural Objective PAC — a super PAC that works to build support for Democrats in rural areas — found that 50% of voters in rural areas associated providing COVID-19 stimulus checks to American families with the Democratic Party, while 32% associated the payments with Republicans, 11% associated them with neither party, and 7% weren’t sure.

    “We’re not connecting with these voters, even if we have great policy,” JD Scholten, the executive director of the Rural Objective PAC, told Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman of The Washington Post, which previously reported on the poll’s findings.

    The poll surveyed 2,149 voters in nine battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin — and while 68% of those voters supported stimulus checks, it’s clear Democrats weren’t getting credit for a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

    Most rural voters did associate Democrats with extended unemployment benefits and state aid, though. Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan passed using a mechanism known as budget reconciliation without a single Republican vote.

    The first two payments occurred under Trump, who signed payments topping out at $1,400 and $600 into law during the pandemic, but even then Democrats controlled the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Some Democratic lawmakers are also calling to make stimulus checks permanent — something that has received broad support from both Republican and Democratic voters and by some estimates would cut the number of Americans in poverty in 2021 to 16 million from 44 million.

    Twenty-one Democratic senators urged Biden in a letter to include recurring direct payments in his $4 trillion infrastructure plan and said “a single direct payment will not last long for most families, and we are worried about the cliff facing unemployed workers when the unemployment insurance extensions expire on September 6.”

    But voters not knowing whom to credit for certain policies is nothing new.

    When President Barack Obama was attempting to expand healthcare access over a decade ago, many voters didn’t want the government to interfere with their Medicare when Medicare was already a government-run program.

    “I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said: ‘I don’t want government-run healthcare. I don’t want socialized medicine. And don’t touch my Medicare,’” President Barack Obama said at an AARP-hosted town hall on healthcare in 2009. “I wanted to say, you know, that’s what Medicare is: a government-run healthcare plan that people are very happy with.”

    The Washington Post separately reported in 2009 that a rural voter told Rep. Robert Inglis of South Carolina to “keep your government hands off my Medicare,” prompting Inglis to explain that the voter’s healthcare was already provided by the government.

    Scholten, of the Rural Objective PAC, told The Post that if there’s one thing Democrats could use to win support of rural America, it would be direct payments.

    “This was one of the biggest investments we’ve seen in rural America since the New Deal,” Scholten told Sargent and Waldman. “It’s good policy. It should be good politics, too, but right now Democrats aren’t taking advantage of it.”

    The post Only half of rural voters know that Democrats voted to send them stimulus checks, new poll finds appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Working too many hours is literally killing people, a new study shows

    The highest health burdens from overwork were seen in men and in workers who are middle-aged or older, according to a WHO study.

    Working long hours poses an occupational health risk that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year, the World Health Organization says.

    People working 55 or more hours each week face an estimated 35% higher risk of a stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease, compared to people following the widely accepted standard of working 35 to 40 hours in a week, the WHO says in a study that was published Monday in the journal Environment International.

    “No job is worth the risk of stroke or heart disease,” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, calling on governments, businesses and workers to find ways to protect workers’ health.

    The global study, which the WHO calls the first of its kind, found that in 2016, 488 million people were exposed to the risks of working long hours.

    In all, more than 745,000 people died that year from overwork that resulted in stroke and heart disease, according to the WHO.

    “Between 2000 and 2016, the number of deaths from heart disease due to working long hours increased by 42%, and from stroke by 19%,” the WHO said as it announced the study, which it conducted with the International Labour Organization.

    The study doesn’t cover the past year, in which the COVID-19 pandemic thrust national economies into crisis and reshaped how millions of people work. But its authors note that overwork has been on the rise for years due to phenomena such as the gig economy and telework — and they say the pandemic will likely accelerate those trends.

    “Teleworking has become the norm in many industries, often blurring the boundaries between home and work,” Ghebreyesus said. “In addition, many businesses have been forced to scale back or shut down operations to save money, and people who are still on the payroll end up working longer hours.”

    Also, recessions like the one the world has seen in the past year are commonly followed by a rise in working hours, the researchers said.

    The study found the highest health burdens from overwork in men and in workers who are middle-age or older.

    Regionally, people in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific region had the most exposure to the risk. People in Europe had the lowest exposure.

    In the U.S., less than 5% of the population is exposed to long work hours, according to a map the WHO published with the study. That proportion is similar to Brazil and Canada — and much lower than Mexico and in countries across most of Central and South America.

    Several steps could help ease the burden on workers, the study states, including governments adopting and enforcing labor standards on working time.

    The authors also say employers should be more flexible in scheduling, and to agree with their employees on a maximum number of working hours. In another step, the study suggests workers arrange to share hours so no one is working 55 or more hours in a week.

    To compile the report, researchers reviewed and analyzed dozens of studies on heart disease and stroke. They then estimated workers’ health risks based on data drawn a number of sources, including more than 2,300 surveys on working hours that were conducted in 154 countries from the 1970s through 2018.

    The post Working too many hours is literally killing people, a new study shows appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Monthly child tax credit payments to start hitting bank accounts July 15

    Qualifying families will get monthly payments of up to $300 a month for each child under 6 and up to $250 a month for each child 6 to 17 years old.

    By: Lauren Egan

    For the first time, the payments, normally given annually as tax refunds, will be distributed monthly. Because the advance payments are beginning halfway through the year, families will get the second half as tax refunds.

    Around 80 percent of the families that qualify have direct deposit already set up and do not need to take any additional steps. The other 20 percent will get payments by check or debit card.

    The $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief plan, which the Senate passed in March, boosted the child tax credit program for the 2021 tax year, increasing the maximum payments families can receive per child from $2,000 to $3,600.

    Starting in July, families will get monthly payments of up to $300 for each child under 6 years old and up to $250 for each child 6 to 17 years old. The credit goes away once a child reaches 18. Qualifying families can expect to receive the payments on the 15th of each month unless the date falls on a weekend or a holiday.

    According to the IRS, the increased amounts are phased out for families with incomes over $150,000 for married taxpayers filing joint returns, along with qualifying widows or widowers; $112,500 for heads of households; and $75,000 for all other taxpayers.

    In a call with reporters Sunday night, senior administration officials stressed that switching to monthly payments would allow families to better plan their household budgets.

    The officials also said the administration has worked to streamline the payment process and make it easier to navigate, having learned from its experience with the stimulus check payments and in fine-tuning the process.

    Still, the officials cautioned that some hiccups are likely during the rollout because it is a new program.

    The officials said the administration will pursue an outreach strategy to help Americans take advantage of the program, as well as to raise public awareness that extra money will be showing up in their bank accounts monthly. President Joe Biden will take part in the outreach efforts, the officials said.

    Biden has called for extending the child tax credit increases in the American Rescue Plan through 2025, as well as making them permanently fully refundable.

    “While the American Rescue Plan provides for this vital tax relief to hard working families for this year, Congress must pass the American Families Plan to ensure that working families will be able to count on this relief for years to come,” Biden said in a statement.

    “For working families with children, this tax cut sends a clear message: help is here,” he added

    The post Monthly child tax credit payments to start hitting bank accounts July 15 appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act Will Reduce Global Warming and Distribute Basic Income

    U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett should support legislation that would result in carbon dividends being paid to Americans while saving lives.

    By: MARK REYNOLDS AND JAN BERRY

    “Climate change action without carbon pricing is like running with shoe laces untied, much harder,” explained Dr. Charles Sims, the director of the Energy and Environment Program for the University of Tennessee’s Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy in Knoxville. “I want to learn more about it,” said U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett.   

    Volunteers for the Citizens’ Climate Lobby were meeting with Burchett and his staff to discuss the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 2307). It hit the House of Representatives on April 1 and already has over 40 cosponsors. We hope Burchett will join his colleagues in the House and support this legislation. This policy will quickly slash our climate-changing emissions and save American lives by reducing pollution — and that’s not all. It will also spur business innovation and lead to affordable clean energy, and it will do all of this while putting money in people’s pockets. Let’s explore how. 

    First, the policy puts a steadily rising price on carbon pollution. This price signal will steer our economy away from fossil fuels, leading to a 30% reduction in carbon emissions in just five years. With this policy in place, America will be on the path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 — a critical target, according to the scientific community. That deadline comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s game-changing 2018 report, where the authors also specified that carbon pricing, such as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, is “a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies.” 

    As fossil fuel use drops and emissions decline with this policy, public health will also benefit. We could save 4.5 million American lives over the next 50 years by replacing pollution with clean air. That’s why the Lancet Commission endorses carbon pricing, calling it “the single most powerful strategic instrument to inoculate human health against the risks of climate change.”  

    Carbon cash-back payments

    While driving these massive benefits, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will also provide economic benefits to Americans.

    Each month, people will receive a carbon dividend or “carbon cash-back” payment. In other words, the carbon fee revenue will go into people’s pockets to spend with no restrictions. With this policy in place, 85% of Americans would come out ahead or essentially break even.  

    Sims enlightened us: “There is pent-up demand for investment. Business and industry are sitting on their capital waiting for a consistent market signal on how the U.S. government will tackle climate change.” That’s why the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s report states, “Financial markets will only be able to channel resources efficiently to activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions if an economy-wide price on carbon is in place at a level that reflects the true social cost of those emissions.”  

    The Business Roundtable, a major trade association of CEOs of companies with collectively over $7 trillion in revenues, and the American Petroleum Institute have come out in favor of a “market-based mechanism” to curb greenhouse gas emissions with pricing carbon as an essential step in that plan.   

    Burchett has expressed interest in market solutions when it comes to addressing carbon emissions. His legislation, the Opportunity Zone Extension Act, incentivizes business investment and redevelopment in economically distressed areas, and also creates jobs in East Tennessee. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is in the best interest of businesses as well. With this bill, the government simply sets a predictable direction for businesses to move away from carbon emissions. Then it’s up to businesses how to move in that direction. 

    People in the Burchett’s district are ready to see results. Public polling shows 60% want Congress to do more to address global warming. That desire defies partisanship, with majority support for climate action from Republican and Democratic voters across the country. The Energy Innovation Act is a good step forward to put America on the fast track to a healthy, prosperous future.

    __________________________________________

    About the Author: Mark Reynolds is the executive director of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, and Jan Berry is its Tennessee state coordinator.

    The post The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act Will Reduce Global Warming and Distribute Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Sudan aiming to temporarily provide basic income to 80% of its population

    To ease the pain of reforms the government is introducing a donor-funded scheme that aims to provide a temporary $5 basic monthly income to 80% of its population of 43 million.

    By: Nafisa Eltahir

    For Intisar Altayib, who ekes out a living drawing henna tattoos in Khartoum, soaring prices in Sudan mean running up tabs at local stores and cutting back on evening feasts during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    She is one of millions struggling through an economic crisis that has deepened as Sudan tries to emerge from decades of isolation and conflict. Inflation has risen to more than 340% and there are shortages of everything from power to medicines.

    To ease the pain of reforms the government is introducing a donor-funded scheme that aims to provide a temporary $5 basic monthly income to 80% of its population of 43 million.

    The roll-out, which began in February, is a test for the transitional civilian-military partnership that is due to govern Sudan until 2023. Many Sudanese complain they have not seen the benefits of an uprising, triggered by the deteriorating economy, that overthrew former President Omar al-Bashir two years ago.

    Altayib, who has registered for the welfare programme but is yet to receive money, says that in her neighbourhood of Al Kalakla, prices are four or five times higher than a year ago and her family has all but stopped buying meat.

    Fuel price increases have put public transport beyond reach. “Ramadan is expensive, we have to rely on God,” she said.

    The family support programme came about as the government pursues an aggressive economic reform programme monitored by the International Monetary Fund, hoping to win relief on at least $50 billion dollars in debt and access funding from international lenders.

    The ongoing reforms have included a sharp currency devaluation in February and fuel subsidy cuts over the second half of last year. The IMF said in an October report on the reforms that they could lead to economic contraction, higher inflation and social tensions in the short term.

    The basic income scheme, known as Thamarat (fruits) or the Sudan Family Support Programme, is an effort to soften the blow, officials say.

    A survey of more than 3,000 families across Sudan from November to January showed that 30% were unable to buy staples like bread and milk, with price increases worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, said Milena Stefanova, country manager for the World Bank.

    PAYMENTS

    The start of the support programme was pushed back to late February because donors conditioned the release of funds they had pledged last year on the closing of the gap between the official and black market exchange rates.

    “The delay in implementing the programme reduces its impact because of the racing inflation in Sudan,” said Mohammed al-Jak, a University of Khartoum economics professor.

    Sudan has received $820 million from the World Bank and donor countries for the programme’s first two phases, which aim to cover 24 million people in 12 states for six months, the World Bank says.

    The programme is not yet funded to reach the remainder of the targeted 32.5 million, or for a potential extension of payments to a year.

    Some beneficiaries told Reuters they would use the money to pay off debts, or cover rent or home maintenance. Intisar, however, said the money wouldn’t make a huge dent in daily expenses and would be more useful for her family if she saved it up and started a business.

    “This amount has an impact, especially in Ramadan,” said Mohamed Aldai, a day laborer living in the Id Hussein area who said his family of six received 11,400 Sudanese pounds ($30).

    Payments were made to 84,028 families in March and April, the World Bank says. The government estimates family size at about five, and each member is entitled to a local currency monthly payment worth $5.

    The government hopes to use the programme to facilitate a permanent social safety net for the poorest million families, said Magdi Amin, senior advisor at Sudan’s Finance Ministry.

    Amin Saleh, undersecretary at the Finance Ministry, says delays in payments so far are due to issues with verifying data and setting up transfers.

    “People are struggling, we can’t afford to buy anything,” said Arafa Mohamed, a housewife in Al Kalakla.

    “We’ve been waiting since they told us about this money, we’ve been waiting all Ramadan.”

    ($1 = 380.0002 Sudanese pounds)

    The post Sudan aiming to temporarily provide basic income to 80% of its population appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The American Rescue Plan was a step toward universal basic income

    The American Rescue Plan lifted millions out of poverty and charted a new course for economic assistance by emphasizing direct cash relief. Is UBI next?

    By: MAX GHENIS

    In March, President Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. While the plan temporarily expands many safety net programs, such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and housing assistance, two of its programs shift the paradigm of economic relief toward direct cash assistance: the third round of economic impact payments and the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC).

    The economic impact payments of $1,400 per person reached over 150 million households and virtually all were paid within a month of the plan’s passage. This was extremely popular: Eighty-one percent of adults supported payments of at least $1,400, compared to 62 percent that supported American Rescue Plan overall. Prior rounds cut poverty substantially, and we can expect this round to do the same.

    The expanded CTC is similarly popular and poverty-reducing.

    Sixty-eight percent of voters support the program, which provides up to $3,600 per child for the next year, and for the first time it benefits our poorest children.

    By cutting child poverty nearly in half, the new CTC promises to improve children’s health, education and earnings down the line. Research from my team at the UBI Center shows that following the lead of most other developed countries with “child allowances” like these will reduce inequality and adult poverty, as well.

    What sets these successes apart? Unlike workfare programs, the payments and expanded CTC are unconditional — recipients don’t have to perform tasks or meet with case officers to qualify.

    Unlike most tax credits, including the pre-American Rescue Plan CTC, they don’t exclude the poorest Americans (though they stop short of being universal), and the new CTC will be distributed monthly.

    And unlike programs like food or housing assistance, they don’t restrict how recipients can use the money. That is, they share the defining features of universal basic income.

    In fact, divergence from universal basic income is where these policies have fallen short. By targeting the checks, some families are made worse off for getting a raise or working extra hours. Had the payments been universal, each dollar a family earns would mean more money in their pockets. Targeting hindered the CTC expansion, too. To avoid excluding families who fall under the income limit mid-year, and to avoid requiring families to repay the payments if their income rises above the limit, the IRS had to construct a portal for families to report income changes. As a result, the program had to be delayed until July.

    How do we strengthen and multiply unconditional cash transfers like these? One opportunity is extending the CTC expansion beyond this year, as Biden has proposed in his American Families Plan.

    We should go further and integrate elements of Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) more generous and universal CTC expansion, called the Family Security Act, which doesn’t require a portal to report income changes.

    As the administration contemplates other programs like child care through the American Families Plan, they could focus funds on an even larger CTC, providing families more choice over how to meet their needs.

    Another opportunity is passing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act that 29 House Democrats recently introduced. This bill would charge fossil fuel companies for their carbon emissions and distribute the revenue as a monthly cash dividend to all Americans, putting the U.S. on a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 and putting more money in the hands of low- and middle-income families.

    The American Rescue Plan lifted millions out of poverty and charted a new course for economic assistance by emphasizing direct cash relief. Let’s apply its lessons by designing future American policy programs around the defining features of universal basic income: unconditionality, universality and cash.

    ________________________________________________

    Max Ghenis is president of the UBI Center, a think tank researching universal basic income policies. Ghenis previously served as data scientist at Google. Follow him on Twitter @MaxGhenis.

    The post The American Rescue Plan was a step toward universal basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • How we essentially just implemented Nixon’s plan for an income guarantee for families half a century after it was originally proposed

    Nixon, Guaranteed Income and our future. How the 37th President Laid a Foundation for Monthly Cash

    By: Scott Santens

    “I propose that the Federal government pay a basic income to those American families who cannot care for themselves in whichever State they live.” 

    That sentence was one of the more surprising things I read when I first started learning about the concept of basic income. Those words were spoken by Richard Nixon on August 11, 1969. Many basic income advocates don’t even know that he did in fact use the phrase, “basic income” half a century ago to describe what he wanted to do as part of his Family Assistance Plan. 

    His plan though was not what we now refer to as universal/unconditional basic income or UBI.

    It was a guaranteed income for families, not childless adults, and the more someone earned after their first $60 a month in earned income ($446 in 2021 dollars), the less they got, until they got nothing.

    And it had a work requirement attached so that parental income was reduced if they refused to work (unless the parent in question was a mom with a child too young for school), but it was truly historic in what it was proposing. 

    The President of the United States was proposing that poverty should be reduced directly, that the problem was a lack of income, and so more income was the answer. He wanted to guarantee that a family with two parents and two kids would have an income that was not allowed to be lower than $1,600 a year (plus $400 in food vouchers). Today that $1,600 would be equivalent to an annual income of $11,900, which for a family of four is 45% of the federal poverty line based on our current definition of poverty being an income under $26,500 for a household of four. 

    His plan passed the House in 1970, and passed again in 1971 as that session’s H.R.1, but it never got through the Senate for him to sign.

    There are multiple reasons why it failed. Among those reasons were that those on the left hated the work requirement and thought the amount was too low, and those on the right didn’t like the idea of so many Americans getting “free money,” and also more Americans disliked the idea than liked the idea, and racism was certainly part of it for both Democrats and Republicans in the South, but here’s what I want everyone to think harder about right now in 2021: Nixon’s bill was basically just signed into law by Biden. 

    Biden’s monthly child benefit that begins in July is closer to Nixon’s plan than most people seem to understand.

    Nixon’s plan intended to provide income to every member of a family with kids. Biden’s plan will only provide income to kids, by way of their parent(s). However, because of Nixon’s work requirement, which dropped the parental benefit from $400 to $100 as punishment for not being employed or seeking work, the only ones whose incomes were truly fully guaranteed were kids, and the amount of that guaranteed income per kid in today’s dollars is $250 a month, the same amount that kids ages 6 to 17 will begin receiving in July. 

    In other words, half a century ago, kids came very close to being guaranteed a minimum monthly income in today’s dollars of $250, and five decades later, kids are finally going to start getting that money.

    Regardless of whether their parents work or not, no child in America starting in 2021 will go with less than $250 a month. That is an absolutely historic victory. With that said, this particular battle has not been won quite yet. As of right now, American kids will only get that income every month until 2022. Biden is now urging Congress to extend that to 2025. Four years of monthly checks is certainly better than six months of monthly checks, but those checks need to be made as permanent as Social Security itself. 

    I know some of you reading this may not be happy about basic income for kids if you don’t have any kids, but I urge you to consider these checks from the context of Nixon’s plan. Here’s my two cents on America’s failure to pass Nixon’s guaranteed income plan: it was one of the worst failures in the history of the United States Senate. No, it wasn’t a poverty ending amount. Yes, it had a work requirement. No, it wasn’t universal. Yes, it reduced the amount 50 cents for every dollar earned (above $60 a month). But, and this is a huge BUT, it would have set the precedent for an approach to poverty that was centered around getting money to people. 

    I believe that if we had set that precedent, and taken that approach to poverty over fifty years ago, that there would be no poverty in America today as defined by people living below the federal poverty line.

    I believe that we would have expanded that cash program into a full UBI by now, and that everyone who complained that it just wasn’t enough was absolutely wrong, and that those who were against “free money” were absolutely wrong, and that these things would already be absolutely obvious to everyone here in 2021 had we passed Nixon’s plan in 1971. So if you happen to think that a check beginning to go to almost every parent every month for their kids is somehow a bad idea, or a good idea but just not good enough, I urge you to consider an America where Nixon’s plan had passed, and how that would have changed everything. 

    We have a second chance to win that battle, and yes it’s only a battle, but it’s a big one.

    We’re talking about reducing child poverty by half, and we’re talking about 69 million kids in America (about 93% of all kids) getting money simply for being alive. This is the setting of that precedent, half a century after it was originally proposed, to recognize that poverty is a lack of income which should be addressed directly by income. If someone is living under the poverty line, then create an income floor under them and raise it to lift them higher. 

    Fifty years is a long time to wait to guarantee an absolute minimum of income. Let’s not wait any longer. Let’s make the monthly child benefit permanent. Then let’s extend that benefit to all adults of all ages, and in doing so, let’s abolish poverty once and for all. TL;DR: Making our new guaranteed income for kids permanent is the path to universal basic income. Thanks for supporting Humanity Forward. Your efforts are making a measurable impact on our progress towards a Universal Basic Income. Forward,-

    _________________________________________

    About the Author: Scott  Scott Santens is a leading advocate for Unconditional Basic Income, editor of Basic Income Today and Guest Columnist for Humanity Forward. For more content from Scott, visit scottsantens.com. 

    The post How we essentially just implemented Nixon’s plan for an income guarantee for families half a century after it was originally proposed appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Governor of California wants to provide two-thirds of residents a $600 stimulus check

    The middle class and low-income Californians are expected to benefit from UBI

    By: MAGGIE ANGST 

    Gov. Gavin Newsom today unveiled plans to deliver a second round of $600 stimulus checks — this time for middle-class residents in addition to low-income families — in an effort to speed up California’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The governor’s proposal to award two-thirds of Californians with stimulus checks is part of his $100-billion “California Comeback Plan,” which stems from an unprecedented $75.7 billion surplus in the state’s general fund projected for the upcoming fiscal year and an additional $26 billion from the federal coronavirus relief package.

    As part of the plan, Newsom intends to give $600 payments to taxpayers earning up to $75,000 in adjusted gross income and an additional $500 to families with dependent children, including undocumented families.

    He has also proposed spending $5.2 billion on rental assistance with the goal of getting 100% of back rent paid for Californians directly affected by COVID-19 and $2 billion in direct payments to help Californians pay off overdue water, gas and electricity bills.

    “This is all on the basis of the recovery that California is already experiencing,” Newsom said during a news briefing Monday. “And that’s because we are defeating and we are successfully applying strategies to address this pandemic.

    “…California is not just coming back, it’s roaring back.”

    If approved by the state Legislature, the new stimulus package would triple the size of the Golden State Stimulus package that Newsom signed into law in February — bringing the total funding to $11.9 billion.

    The first round of stimulus payments provided $600 checks for 5.7 million low-income Californians and grants to small businesses. Those who received the first payment will not be eligible for a second.

    The Legislature has until June 15 to pass the state budget, so the proposed payments would likely be distributed sometime this summer.

    The governor’s announcement comes just two weeks after a Republican-led campaign to recall him from office qualified for the ballot and just days before he is due to submit his revised proposal for a state budget bolstered by the significant funding surplus.

    At least one candidate looking to oust Newsom from office quickly took the opportunity to throw jabs at the governor.

    “Instead of making beastly, structural changes and slashing taxes permanently, pretty boy Gavin Newsom is making one-time payments to Californians to avoid being recalled,” John Cox said in a statement Monday. “But, Californians can’t be bought. Now is when we should be making big changes that will shake up Sacramento, lower taxes and make California permanently more affordable.”

    Full details of the governor’s “California Comeback Plan” will be trickled out over the next few days.

    In a Mother’s Day video on Sunday, Newsom debuted another major budget proposal to increase spending for families and caregivers, including funding for 100,000 new state-subsidized child care slots and $200 million for home health care workers.

    “We’re going to be making some bold investments, and some big investments, in particular, to support parents,” he said in the video. “We have the backs of mothers and will be making investments to solve real problems and to acknowledge the extraordinary stress that so many moms, particularly working moms, have been under over this last year.”

    The state’s projected surplus is so expansive that all California taxpayers are likely to benefit from a future rebate, thanks to a state law put in place to restrict government spending.

    The law, approved by voters in 1979, was spearheaded by taxpayer watchdog Paul Gann. It requires the state to provide residents with a tax rebate when revenues outpace spending on taxpayer-funded programs — a provision that has not been triggered since 1986. Roughly half of the money must be spent on K-12 education and half must go back to taxpayers.

    State finance officials predicted in January that California would exceed the spending limit by $102 million — a figure that is expected to grow even larger in the final budget. Newsom said the exact dollar amount to be given back to California taxpayers under the Gann limit will be determined over the course of the next year or so.

    The realization marks a sharp pivot from last year’s budget process when Newsom and the Legislature took steps to close a projected $54 billion deficit stemming from the coronavirus outbreak.

    It turns out that California’s finances were much stronger than projected. The pandemic-fueled recession did not go as deep as state finance officials had anticipated, primarily because wealthy households, which contribute most to state taxes, have prospered as the stock market soared in the midst of the pandemic.

    Assemblymember Phil Ting, chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, said this realization has given the state a “historic opportunity” to help those who have suffered the most during the pandemic.

    “At a time when people need government the most, often we’re in a situation where we can’t help them,” Ting said at the event in Oakland on Monday. “But because of our progressive tax policy … we have an unprecedented budget surplus and that budget surplus is going right back to the most vulnerable Californians — the ones who need the help the most.”

    As of Monday, California had its lowest COVID-19 case rate since the start of the pandemic, and close to half the state has been fully vaccinated. But even though the state is poised to reopen most of its economy by June 15, tens of thousands of Californians are still unemployed and many residents are still struggling to cover their rent and keep up with additional expenses.

    Under the governor’s new proposal, landlords could be reimbursed for 100% of an eligible renter’s unpaid rent.

    Tom Bannon, chief executive officer of the California Apartment Association, called the announcement “welcome news.”

    “We thank the governor for understanding the difficulties that both tenants and rental property owners have endured during the pandemic,” Bannon said in a statement.

    The post Governor of California wants to provide two-thirds of residents a $600 stimulus check appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Significant election success for UK politicians backing universal basic income

    Scores of politicians including almost half of Welsh parliament have signed UBI trial pledge

    By: Steven Morris

    Scores of politicians who won seats in last week’s elections, including almost half of the Welsh parliament, have signed a pledge calling a universal basic income (UBI) system to be trialled.

    Members of the Senedd and the Scottish parliament and councillors across England have promised to lobby for the creation of pilot UBI schemes in their countries or areas.

    The system proposes that every citizen, regardless of their means, receives a sum of money regularly and for life to cover the basic cost of living. Its proponents argue it will alleviate poverty and give people time to retrain and adapt to changing workplaces, be more creative and become more active and engaged.

    In the run-up to the elections in England, Wales and Scotland, the UBI Lab Network, a worldwide group of activists, researchers and citizens, asked candidates to sign a pledge promising to put pressure on governments and councils to launch trials.

    Twenty-five candidates who won seats in the 60-strong Senedd signed up, as did 29 in Scotland. Andy Burnham, who was reelected as mayor of Greater Manchester, is also onboard.

    The UBI Lab Network is still calculating how many of its council hopefuls in England were elected but the Green party’s surge will help, as almost 300 of its candidates signed the pledge.

    Jonathan Rhys Williams of UBI Lab Wales said: “Wales has leapt to the forefront of the basic income movement. There are now 25 elected members of the Senedd who have backed our pledge for UBI – nearly half of our elected representatives and clear majority among the progressive parties.

    “The Welsh government must listen to those MSs [members of the Senedd] and the general public who back this idea, and make the case for the necessary powers to implement a trial that is representative of Wales. This could be the first minister’s Bevan moment.”

    Dawn Bowden, the Labour Senedd member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, said: “In a post-Covid recovery we have to address the huge inequalities that have been magnified throughout the pandemic. The current welfare system goes nowhere near addressing this, so I am suggesting that a starting point for reform should be for us to trial UBI and assess the impact this has amongst some of the lowest paid and disadvantaged in our society.

    “Making our society fairer should be something that we all sign up to and work to deliver.”

    Jane Dodds, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and newly elected member for Mid and West Wales, said: “UBI has the potential to transform the lives of people in Wales. It would ensure that people are lifted out of poverty, stress and uncertainty, and that money is put into our economy to create jobs and allow people to take on caring responsibilities and other options to enhance their lives.

    “I want to work with parties across Wales to look at how we trial a UBI system in Wales to ensure we put the recovery from Covid of our economy and our mental health in this sixth Senedd.”

    The Welsh first minister, Mark Drakeford, who led Labour to victory at last week’s Senedd elections, has described the idea of UBI as attractive.

    A poll carried out for Sophie Howe, the future generations commissioner for Wales, in the run-up to the elections suggested almost three-quarters of people were in favour of a UBI trial.

    She said: “People in Wales are facing incredible uncertainty as a result of both Covid-19 and the climate emergency – a basic income could be that stronger safety net which keeps people from falling through the cracks of support now and in the future.”

    Lorna Slater, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens, said: “The pandemic has shown that the UK’s social security net is full of holes.”

    The single Conservative who has signed, Andy Morgan, was reelected for Bolton council.

    The post Significant election success for UK politicians backing universal basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • 2021 Korea Basic Income Fair successfully concludes after drawing 600,000 visitors

    The 2021 Korea Basic Income Fair, the world’s largest venue for public discussions on basic income, attracted more than 600,000 online and offline visitors before ending its three-day program on April 30.

    Held under the theme of “Humans Humanely, Basic Income” and organized by the Gyeonggi Provincial Government, the 2021 Korea Basic Income Fair successfully concluded its three-day program on April 30.

    This year’s fair was held both online and offline in accordance with COVID-19 social distancing guidelines. Approximately 600,000 people visited the fair’s international conference, its offline and online exhibition halls, and the official website.

    In his opening address on April 28, Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jaemyung said, “Now, the world is suffering from continuous low economic growth due to lack of demand. Basic income guarantees economic recovery and continuous growth by expanding demand through income support.”

    During the opening ceremony, 53 local governments, including the Gyeonggi Provincial Government, joined the inaugural meeting of the Local Government Council on Basic Income and selected Ulsan’s Ulju Mayor Lee Sun-ho as the first chairperson of the Council. The Council declared its commitment to publicly discuss the local government-level basic income initiative so as to institutionalize and expand it nationwide.

    The International Conference on Basic Income was live-streamed on the fair’s official Webpage (basicincomefair.gg.go.kr) and YouTube for two days from April 28 to 29 on the topic of “From the COVID-19 Disaster to New Great Transition, Basic Income”.

    68 scholars and experts from Korea and abroad participated in the conference as speakers to discuss basic income and local currency policies.

    The speakers included Sarath Davala, President of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University and a 2001 Nobel Prize-winning economist.

    The 2021 Fair opened a 3D virtual exhibition so that visitors could learn more about basic income and local currency through videos, e-books, and other online materials.

    Kim Jae-yong, Chief of Policy Commitment at the Gyeonggi Provincial Government, said, “More and more people are becoming interested in this annual fair. We will make an effort to expand various basic income policies and models discussed at the international conference.”

    The post 2021 Korea Basic Income Fair successfully concludes after drawing 600,000 visitors appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Guaranteed Basic Income Saves Lives Platform in Turkey Recommends That 5 Million Citizens Start Receiving Monthly Basic Income

    Amid the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the government of Turkey will give citizens 1,100 lira income support.

    In the face of this one-time support, the Guaranteed Basic Income Saves Lives Platform has released a written statement and recommended that five million people should be provided with a monthly basic income of 2,000 lira (~240 USD) for an indefinite period of time.

    The Platform has raised concerns that the government has confined millions of people to their houses without income support amid the 17-day ‘full lockdown’ imposed as part of the pandemic measures. Noting that the lockdown was imposed in an unplanned manner, it has underlined that people now have weaker bonds to life due to desperation and hopelessness.

    Drawing attention to the recent increase in the number of people who take their lives in Turkey, the Platform has noted, 

    “If the public resources are used by prioritizing people’s needs and if the budget is not predominantly allocated to war, operations and armament expenses, a guaranteed basic income is possible. Isn’t the answer to be given by a vast majority of society to the question ‘War and hunger or peace and welfare’ obvious?”

    ‘Budget for basic income, not for war’

    The Platform has also referred to the annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) dated April 26:

    “The SIPRI announced that Turkey’s military expenditures stood at 17.7 billion dollars last year despite the outbreak.

    Since 2011, Turkey’s military expenditures have increased by 77 percent (the 3rd country in the world in terms of the rate of increase). Calculated based on the current foreign exchange rate, it means 150 billion lira.

    On the other side, the income support provided by Turkey to its citizens due to the outbreak in the last year is only 60 billion lira, which was paid from the unemployment insurance fund and donations. This year, it will give 1,100 lira to 5-6 million families only for once, just for the show. Because of this, it has increased the corporate tax to 25 percent this year.”

    ‘2,000 lira to 5 million people every month’

    Against this backdrop, the Platform has recommended that 5 million people should be provided with 2,000 lira as a Guaranteed Basic Income every month. Noting that 120 billion lira is necessary to give this basic income to five million people, the Platform has suggested the following method to acquire this money from the public budget:

    * When military expenditures are cut by one third, there emerges a financial resource of 50 billion lira.

    As for the remaining 70 billion lira;

    * The tax exemptions and cuts granted to the capital holders can be reduced by 30 percent (which makes 231 billion lira a year),

    * The Public Private Partnership investments can be expropriated and the payments made for this (16 billion lira will be paid only to the contractor of the City Hospital this year) can be cancelled,

    * It can be afforded by a progresive fortune tax to be collected from the owners of enormous fortune.

    The Platform has indicated that the number of people to benefit from the guaranteed basic income could be increased to 10 million at the second stage. It has also underlined that this practice is “not an endowment, but a right” for citizens, calling on the authorities to put this recommendation into practice immediately by prioritizing women and young people.

    About the Platform

    The Guaranteed Basic Income Saves Lives Platform was founded by 92 organizations in March 2021. There are several unions, faith, ecology and women’s organizations as well as several political parties, platforms and local associations under its roof, including the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK), Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK) and Turkish Medical Association (TTB).

    Making a press statement at the Parliament in April 2021, the Platform has been making various initiatives to put guaranteed basic income into practice. (HA/SD)

    The post Guaranteed Basic Income Saves Lives Platform in Turkey Recommends That 5 Million Citizens Start Receiving Monthly Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • UBI essay contest being held for high school students in the US and Canada

    As UBI policy is actively debated across the country, perhaps hearing from the voices of high school students, the next generation, can point the way

    CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

    This year is the first high school essay contest in honor of the 19th North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress. All high school students in the U.S. and Canada are invited to enter! The deadline is Friday, May 21, 2021.

    The winner will earn a cash prize of $300 and be invited to appear virtually at the NABIG Congress on June 17th-19th 2021, where the prize will be awarded.

    Essay Requirements:

    • Essay should be 2-3 pages, double spaced, 1″ margins, 12-point font.
    • Essay must be under 1000 words & written in English.
    • Any sources quoted or paraphrased should be cited in a list of references using some standard reference style, such as APA. (References are exempt from the word count.)
    • Essay should address at least one of the following prompts:
      • Should your country have a universal basic income? Why or why not?
      • Should there be a world basic income? If so, should this take priority over a universal basic income for your country? Why or why not?
      • How does basic income intersect with the aims and strategies of other social movements working for racial, social, and environmental justice?

    Eligibility:

    • You must be a student enrolled in high school in the U.S. or Canada (including territories) for the academic year 2020-2021.
    • Winners will need to provide a letter from a teacher or school administrator confirming that the essay is their own work and that they are a student enrolled in high school. The form and instructions will be provided to the winner at a later date.
    • Winners will also need to provide a parental consent form for participating in the Congress and receiving the cash prize. The form and instructions to do so will be provided to the winner at a later date.

    Essay Submissions: Please submit your essay by Friday, May 21, 2021 using this link: https://tinyurl.com/ESSAY-NABIG2021.

    Questions? Email us at nabigcongress2021@gmail.com with “HS Essay Contest” in subject line.

    Congress Registration: Anyone may attend the virtual NABIG Congress without submitting an essay! You can register using this link: https://tinyurl.com/NABIG2021

    High School Essay Contest Committee:     Aleeza Howitt, Eri Noguchi, Robert Taylor

    Link to online information: https://usbig.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/High-School-UBI-Essay-Contest-Announcement-040321.pdf and https://usbig.net/

    The post UBI essay contest being held for high school students in the US and Canada appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Who controls the basic income narrative?

    GLBI could lift millions of Canadians out of poverty, giving workers leverage and empowering them to make their own choices

    By: New Democratic Party MP Leah Gazan

    I put forth Motion 46 to address the need for a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada. It is time to heed the call to justice by the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, which calls for the establishment of a guaranteed annual livable income for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples.

    This call for justice comes directly from the families of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and Two Spirit persons. We know there is a direct correlation between poverty and violence that has resulted in the murder and disappearance of almost 5,000 Indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit persons in Canada.

    When you leave people without choices you place people at risk. Poverty costs lives. Poverty kills.

    When you provide people with an income guarantee alongside wrap-around social supports, it’s a cost-saving measure. It’s good economics to look after people. During COVID-19, with the creation of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, we have seen that a basic income is both possible and feasible in this country.

    Motion 46 proposes a permanent guaranteed livable basic income available to Canadians over the age of 18, including single persons, students, families, persons with disabilities, temporary foreign workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants.

    The motion also specifically calls for an expansion of accessible affordable social housing and health services.

    Motion 46 was not introduced to gut the social safety net. The motion is very specific. It does not replace our existing social safety net. Rather, it is in addition to our current, and future, public services and income supports that are meant to meet special, exceptional and other distinct needs and goals, rather than basic needs. It is designed to build on current guaranteed income programs that are no longer liveable like Old Age Security, the Child Tax Benefit, and provincial income assistance.

    I do not argue that basic income is a silver bullet. A basic income alongside the strengthening of our social safety net will provide a concerted effort to eradicate poverty and ensure the respect, dignity, security and human rights of all persons living in Canada.

    The privilege of controlling the narrative

    Some progressive critics of basic income advance arguments rooted in privilege, with an intent to control the narrative of the oppressed, the poor, the neglected, the forgotten, and the invisible. They encourage intellectual discussions about revolutions to overthrow systems of oppression while allowing piecemeal approaches for addressing poverty to continue.

    This self-righteous debate is borne on the backs of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC), who have to continue to risk our bodies fighting on the frontlines for minimum human rights.

    Even the criticism of neoliberalism is borne on the backs of the poor. John Clarke has referred to the neoliberal trap of basic income as an “ongoing project to create an ever more elastic and precarious workforce… basic income leads to a situation where a portion of the wage bill is now covered by general tax revenues.” But basic income is about human rights. Ample research has demonstrated the long-term benefits of a guaranteed income ensures that people have what they need to thrive, not just survive.

    It is dangerous to engage in abstract discussions about which human rights should be tackled first. Individuals in power are picking and choosing what rights they wish to support: clean water, universal childcare, affordable housing, poverty reduction.

    The lives of the people debating these rights do not depend on which policy agenda is the flavour of the day. They make decisions from a distance without being in the trenches of poverty, conveniently choosing to invoke the rule of law when it suits the economic narrative and pushing other rights aside when it does not. There is a lack of political will from those in power to resolve the poverty crisis.

    This is apparent in government’s failure to go after offshore tax havens while having the political will to put in place laws that fine people living in poverty for loitering on the streets when their home is the streets. If someone can stay up all night figuring out how to make being unsheltered even more difficult, surely they could exercise the same intellectual imagination to figure out how to go after offshore tax havens in order to ensure affordable, accessible housing and a guaranteed livable income for all. After all, poverty is a violent human rights violation.

    The source of poverty in Turtle Island

    We cannot understand the poverty that we are experiencing today outside of race, gender, racism, ableism, colonization and the violent dispossession of land. To do otherwise is a futile exercise of washing over the ongoing white supremacy and racism that support inequalities and inequities in the present.

    There is an erasure of Indigenous peoples, and an erasure of peoples around the world, who have been, and continue to be, disrupted by violent colonialism. It is violent colonialism that has left Indigenous peoples poor and unsheltered on their own lands, and susceptible to violence where Indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit persons go missing with little or no action taken by authorities, and where Indigenous men and boys are murdered without justice, as in the case of Colten Boushie.

    Canada was built on the violent dispossession of the lands and resources of Indigenous peoples. Prior to these violent invasions, Indigenous peoples lived a sophisticated way of life with well-established educational and spiritual practices, governance systems, legal traditions and economies, including gift economies. The benefits were not for a privileged few, but for all members of the nation. It was a way of life based on interdependence, reciprocity, and interconnectedness. Everyone had a place in the circle, with a clear understanding that whenever you take something, you must always give something back. This was a way of life grounded in equity and equality, where no one gets left behind.

    During the 9th to 15th centuries, colonizers entered our territories during the feudal period. They assumed ownership over our lands, justified by the doctrines of superiority and “discovery.” Indigenous peoples were seen as less than human, a justification for the violent dispossession of land. Feudal lords began structuring society around relationships that were derived from their ownership of the land—in contrast to caretakers—and the only way one could benefit was through service and labour.

    We seem to be in the same paradigm today, but now the feudal lords have been replaced by corporations supported by the government who attribute the value of a human being to work and participation in a market economy that exploits them.

    The Crown, which claims ownership of the lands and resources on Turtle Island, continues to perpetrate colonial violence even today, as seen on Wet’su’weten territory, at Muskrat Falls, or on resource development sites like the Site C Dam and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. These polluting projects disproportionately impact BIPOC communities. This is called environmental racism and this is the root of capitalism, which started with the invasion of Indigenous lands—something that continues to wreak havoc on Indigenous nations today.

    This system leaves behind individuals who do not fit within the structural norms of capitalism, including many seniors, disabled persons, and people experiencing mental health issues and trauma. There are heightened levels of discrimination and racism in the labour market that make it difficult for BIPOC to gain employment that pays a living wage and upholds the rights of workers. Just consider these statistics:

    • Nearly 15 percent of older single individuals live in poverty.
    • 80 percent of Indigenous women are incarcerated for poverty-related reasons.
    • 34 percent of First Nations women and girls live in poverty.
    • Nearly 15 percent of elderly single individuals live in poverty.
    • 30 percent of Canadians with severe disabilities live on low income.
    • 45 percent of the overall homeless population lives with a disability or mental illness.
    • 1.3 million children in Canada live in poverty.
    • 40 percent of Indigenous children in Canada live in poverty, and 60 percent of Indigenous children on reserves live in poverty.
    • One in five racialized families live in poverty in Canada, as opposed to one in 20 non-racialized families.

    It is abhorrent that Canada continues to break the rule of law by failing in its obligations to address poverty. Indeed, the federal government has continually failed to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular Article 7, which states that every Canadian has the right to life, liberty and security, and the right not to be deprived of these values.

    The perversity of poor economics

    Looking after people is not the burden. The burden is what I call corporate welfare, whereby governments do not tax the ultra-rich while handing out billions in fossil fuel subsidies and delivering generous corporate bailouts. Our tax revenues are wasted on corporations, like the $50 million given to MasterCard, the $12 million given to Loblaws, and the multi-billion dollar bailout to Big Oil. Why is this not the problem being identified? Instead of protecting the status quo, it is time for governments to pay their fair share in support of greater equality and equity in this country, especially when that wealth was borne out of the deliberate and ongoing oppression and dispossession of BIPOC communities.

    If the main argument against basic income is about responsible spending, then let’s talk about the high costs of poverty, because poverty is one of the largest financial burdens on the economy, on the healthcare system, and on the criminal justice system in Canada.

    When you don’t look after people it costs a lot of money. Consider, for example, that the annual cost of keeping a man incarcerated in a federal prison is about $121,339 per year, while the annual cost of imprisoning a woman in federal corrections is $212,005. Or think about the fact that poverty is the most significant social determinant of health. Conservative estimates place the cost of poverty on the Canadian healthcare system at $7.6 billion.

    Basic income and the way forward

    I’m sharing my frustrations with the theoretical analysis of poverty while people continue to die in the streets of Winnipeg and in cities all across Canada. The privileged in this country continue to indirectly benefit from the dispossession of Indigenous land and from the continued exploitation of BIPOC, people with disabilities, seniors, students, and women, while opponents of measures like basic income reach their conclusions in the absence of our voices.

    Basic income is the way forward in lifting millions of Canadians out of poverty, and empowering them to make their own choices.

    Basic income would give workers leverage. No one would be desperate to take any job offered at any wage, as we saw with migrant workers in meatpacking plants across Canada during the pandemic. Companies operating without adequate safeguards despite warnings from health experts created breeding grounds for disease. A basic income would mean not having to put up with degrading work, as people could be better placed to refuse a job offer. This would put the power back in the hands of workers, giving them the power to walk away.

    I want to be clear: I am in full support of a living wage. I am in full support of continuing to fight for the rights of workers. But that doesn’t mean we are faced with an either-or decision. We can have both a basic income and a living wage with good working conditions for all.

    For so many reasons, not everyone is able to work. Basic income would ensure the dignity and survival of people with disabilities, and for those who provide other kinds of work not valued in capitalist systems, including care work in domestic settings. Artists would finally have what they need to thrive and not just to survive. Can you imagine the pandemic without movies, books, poetry, or music? I can’t. It kept my spirit alive.

    It is time to stop making excuses and tackle poverty head on. We can do this. It’s about choices, and I choose human rights, not big corporations, not banks, and not perpetuating and expanding coercive and piecemeal social policies that maintain the status quo. It’s time to put people and our Mother Earth first.

    The post Who controls the basic income narrative? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A petition calling for $2,000 monthly stimulus checks to every American has surpassed 2 million signatures

    Social change is often bottoms up, starting from people and then moving through the political process. UBI is no different and the people are speaking loud and clear.

    By: Yelena Dzhanova

    _____________________________________________

    HIGHLIGHTS

    • A petition calling for $2,000 monthly stimulus checks reached more than 2 million signatures.
    • It argues that the three checks aren’t enough to deal with the pandemic’s financial repercussions.
    • Senate Democrats have urged recurring relief checks to help stave off financial difficulty.

    _____________________________________________

    More than 2 million people have signed a petition calling for $2,000 monthly stimulus checks to support Americans as the pandemic continues.

    The petition was posted on Change.org last year by Stephanie Bonin, who owns a restaurant in Colorado.

    “I’m calling on Congress to support families with a $2,000 payment for adults and a $1,000 payment for kids immediately, and continuing regular checks for the duration of the crisis,” Bonin wrote in the petition.

    “Otherwise, laid-off workers, furloughed workers, the self-employed, and workers dealing with reduced hours will struggle to pay their rent or put food on the table.”

    In the petition, Bonin urged Congress to issue “immediate checks and recurring payments.”

    “Congress needs to make sure that we won’t be left financially ruined for doing our part to keep the country healthy,” she wrote.

    There have been three rounds of stimulus checks in 15 months.

    Eligible Americans received $1,400 stimulus checks in March. The Trump administration issued two stimulus checks nine months apart: The checks in the first round were $1,200, and those in the second were $600.

    Congress had been slow to issue the checks because of partisan disagreements — Democrats and Republicans had different visions of the check amount and other relief measures in an overall spending package.

    Bonin criticized the amount of time it took Congress to come to an agreement.

    “Another single check won’t solve our problems – people are just too far behind,” Bonin wrote. “Like we’ve been saying from the beginning of this pandemic, people need to know when the next check is coming. And the best thing our government can do right now is send emergency money to the people on a monthly basis.”

    Bonin’s petition garnered so much support that Change.org recognized it in its list of 10 petitions that changed 2020.

    Senate Democrats have urged Congress and the Biden administration to pass recurring relief checks to help stave off the financial devastation brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

    “Supplying Americans with monthly support until they can get back on their feet can save our communities from financial ruin,” Bonin wrote.

    _________________________________________

    Original post in Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/petition-monthly-stimulus-checks-2000-signed-2-million-people-2021-5

    The post A petition calling for $2,000 monthly stimulus checks to every American has surpassed 2 million signatures appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • During Biden’s first address to Congress as president, Americans were searching online for a fourth stimulus check

    With more than 160 million checks from the last COVID relief bill now delivered, Americans are asking if more are on the way.

    By: Travis Pittman

    Americans are wondering if President Joe Biden would bring up the idea of a fourth COVID relief stimulus check during his first address to Congress Wednesday. Searches for “Biden speech stimulus” and “Biden 4th stimulus” increased on Google during his speech.

    Americans who made up to $75,000 in 2020 will get the maximum $1,400 check under the American Rescue Plan which was signed on March 11. Couples who file taxes jointly and made up to $150,000 will get $2,800. The amount received decreases to zero for individuals who made up to $80,000 and couples who earned $160,000. There’s a $1,400 kicker for each dependent in the household.

    The president brought up the subject of the American Rescue Plan during his address.

    “We kept our commitment and we are sending $1,400 rescue checks to 85% of all American households. We’ve already sent more than 160 million checks out the door. It’s making a difference,” Biden said, following it up with examples from a couple of Americans who said it helped them pay for much-needed things.

    But there was no indication from the speech that Biden plans to introduce another bill with more stimulus checks.

    Multiple reports last month indicated 50 Democratic members of the House and up to 21 Democratic U.S. Senators signed letters urging Biden to push for recurring payments to Americansas long as the pandemic continues. 

    “Unemployment insurance has replaced lost income for millions who have lost their jobs. But millions of others do not qualify for unemployment insurance after seeing their hours reduced, switching to lower-paying jobs, or temporarily leaving the workforce to care for family members during the pandemic,” the letter, obtained by Fox News, reads.

    Another check could be a boon for many Americans. A poll from Impact Genome and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 38 million Americans say they are worse off financially than before the outbreak began in the U.S. For people below the poverty level, 29% said their personal finances worsened.

    The federal poverty line for a family of four in 2019, prior to the pandemic, was $25,750. If you took all three stimulus payments from the last 14 months, that family would have received $11,400 from the government.

    Overall, the Impact Genome/AP-NORC poll found 52% of Americans say they were able to save money for most of the past three months, while 37% broke even and 10% were short on paying bills. 

    Americans broadly supported Biden’s first COVID relief package, passed seven weeks ago. Pew Research said support for the bill was 70%. A Politico/Morning Consult poll found 72% supported it. 

    A George Washington University political scientist compiled data to find the bill was the fifth-most popular congressional bill or executive action in the last 31 years, the Economist reported.

    But even with that, the passage of the $1.9 trillion bill — which included provisions for extended jobless benefits, increased child tax credits and more — was not easy to come by. Democrats used budget reconciliation. Through two votes in the House and one in the Senate, no Republicans voted in favor and there were a couple of Democratic votes in the House against. It took the dropping of a $15-per-hour minimum wage and some intense negotiations with moderate Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, over unemployment benefits to barely get it through the Senate.

    The post During Biden’s first address to Congress as president, Americans were searching online for a fourth stimulus check appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • How could UBI support a Circular Economy?

    This post is an interview between Timothea Armour, Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland Editor and Teja Hudson, a zero waste consultant and founder of Zero, a social enterprise that aims to prevent waste and improve sustainability in Scottish workplaces.

    In this interview, Teja shares some of her thoughts on the relationship between people and planet, social change and how the Circular Economy fits into the wider climate change conversation.

    ______________________________________________________

    I asked Teja some questions to find out a bit more about how what she does fits in with what we do, and how creativity is important to all of it!

    Timothea: At its broadest reach, this event will be exploring the relationship between the way both humans and the planet are being failed by the current system. How are those two things interrelated? 

    Teja: I think it would be a huge misconception to suggest that humans and the planet are not almost totally interrelated at this point. We completely rely on the planet and all of its systems for survival, so if the conditions in the biosphere shift too far away from what we need to live then we face extinction like any other species. We have already seen that our failing economic and social systems are having a vastly negative impact on the ecosystems, species and climate around the globe, promoting greed and environmental abuse for profit… Which in turn makes our systems even worse… The two are caught in a negative feedback loop. I say almost totally interrelated because there’s one distinction: unlike us, the planet will ultimately be fine. It has endured five mass extinction events already, so life here would eventually bounce back in some form after a sixth; the total failure point for humans is much earlier than for the planet in general, even though life as we know it would be gone and the new wave of life might be unrecognisable to us.

    But it’s not a done deal yet. The good news it that the presence of a feedback loop makes it a lot easier to affect positive change on both fronts.

    What is clear is that the current system of capitalism and free markets and endless growth is failing us socially; not only are we leaving too many people behind on too many fronts, we are also failing to tap into the full potential of our social resources to do better.

    How many brilliant and creative minds have we lost to preventable social inequalities: poverty, hunger, disease, gender inequality, persecution, violence, lack of education…? How many people want to make the world a better place but are too busy struggling to survive to be able to? And how many people would become artists and inventors and entrepreneurs and thinkers and care workers and philosophers and volunteers and cross-disciplinary experts if they could afford to quit their day job? 

    These people represent a vast untapped well of potential for social change. Humanity needs those people. Our environment needs those people. And if we can unleash their potential into the world, we might actually see the kind of change and the rate of change we need, to bring ourselves back into balance with the natural world. This is what the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are aiming for, so the principle is there in 193 nations, we just have to do the work now.

    Timothea: What is the Circular Economy and where does it fit into other discussions relating to the environment, for instance, recycling and climate change?  

    Teja: The Circular Economy is a way of looking at the resources on our planet and understanding that everything is part of a circular system instead of a line. Since the Industrial Revolution we have largely been operating with a Take-Make-Waste attitude, which is a linear progression that moves in one direction only, and at the end we create an enormous amount of waste that we try to hide in landfill or send somewhere else so we can pretend it doesn’t exist. We just throw away all those materials and mine for new ones, which is a very damaging and inefficient way to do things. 

    With the Circular Economy, you take waste out of the equation completely, so when an item reaches the end of its life it is broken down into raw materials again and those materials are used to create something new. It mirrors what happens in nature, everything is used to create something else over and over again and nothing is wasted.

    The aim is to keep resources circulating around that loop for as long as possible, bringing in very little virgin material and preventing anything from escaping. Right now we do this with the recycling that does happen, but the aim is to build that idea of eventually breaking down and reusing the materials from every product into the way we manufacture and use absolutely everything. 

    From a climate change perspective, it reduces emissions because it takes less energy to recycle/remanufacture something than it does to extract the raw materials and create it from new, and will potentially reduce the distance materials will travel, as they’ll already be distributed instead of having to be shipped from the locations of natural deposits. We’ll also view all of the rubbish in the world as a resource of valuable raw materials and will end up collecting lot of the physical pollution and excavating existing landfills to extract the value from them.

    Timothea: How and why should organisations like Zero, whose primary concern is an environmental one, and CBINS, whose primary concern is social, be working together to change the situation? 

    Teja: Since environmental and social concerns are so closely linked, the task is for humanity to find a way to satisfy each within the boundary of the other. Our goals and values are the same; for humanity and the planet to survive and flourish together, so what helps the environmental movement to accomplish that will also help the social movement to accomplish that, and vice versa. If we help each other, we can also pool resources and audiences and be more effective overall.

    Timothea: Lastly, on a slightly different tangent, before set up Zero, you were working in the arts. Do you feel like a creative approach is important to the sort of work that you’re doing now, and do you think Basic Income could help us deal with the problems we face as a society more creatively? 

    Teja: I feel like creativity is really important in all aspects of our society, but especially at the moment with the social and environmental problems we face. We’ve been going along a certain track of capitalism and rational markets and the supremacy of man over his environment for a very long time now, and we thought it was working really well but we’ve just realised that it’s actually taken us way out on a limb. We’re hanging over a chasm and we urgently need to find a way out of this before the branch breaks, but we can’t use the same way of thinking as the last 250 years because that’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

    I think we’re going to need a great deal of diversity of thought to pull us back from the edge and find a new way forward that won’t take us over the chasm again. This is where we need the artists and the inventors and the entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers and also the women and the people of colour and those with varied abilities and identity, from every nation on earth. We need them all because we are them all.

    But this is also a problem, because I know from experience that it’s very hard to be creative when you’re stressed or pressured or uninspired, and particularly when you’re worried about money – all of which is more likely to describe the lives of the people we need, than those who have held power and led our thinking since the industrial revolution. So the system is definitely keeping these people down and making it very hard for them to flourish or to reach the halls of power, but their previous absence is precisely why we need their presence now.

    I have personally known so many artists and creative people who have struggled to practice their art and been weighed down by the need to make a living instead. I have seen incredibly talented people walk away from their industry because they can’t afford to keep practising and others compromise their art to make it more “commercial” in order to scrape by. I have seen the same thing with people wanting to start businesses – especially those with a more social or environmental focus – or write books, I have seen brilliant minds and kind souls get sucked into the corporate world instead of focusing on solving world problems. I have been in many of those situations myself in both art and business. And this is all to say nothing of the hours and opportunities to practice, develop and advance that are lost to mediocre employment or paralysis brought on by worry about money, nor the danger of society’s artistic endeavours resting exclusively in the hands of those who can afford to stay in such a career. 

    This is where Basic Income would be a revelation. With the basic necessities taken care of, artists would be able to focus on their art.

    Carers would be able to care for those who needed them. Anyone with an good idea would be able to start a business and afford to live until it was generating enough to support them, even if that took a while or if the focus was not on profit. Most of all, it would mean that when we needed them, highly experienced creative people, free thinkers and problem solvers would be available to help solve the problems of 10 billion people on one small planet instead of being stuck in a dead end job, ruined by a lifetime of struggle, stress and disadvantage. 

    __________________________________________________

    Original article here: https://cbin.scot/2019/07/23/basic-income-and-the-circular-economy/

    The post How could UBI support a Circular Economy? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Hawley proposes $12,000 tax credit for married parents with kids under 13

    Bill aims to give more freedom to families through better financial support in the forms of tax credits. Can it gain traction?

    By Evie Fordham | Fox News

    Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., will introduce a bill that would provide $6,000 parent tax credits to single parents and $12,000 parent tax credits for married parents with children under the age of 13.

    “Starting a family and raising children should not be a privilege only reserved for the wealthy,” Hawley said in a statement on Monday. “Millions of working people want to start a family and would like to care for their children at home, but current policies do not respect these preferences. American families should be supported, no matter how they choose to care for their kids.”

    Hawley’s bill aims to give more freedom to families to decide whether one or both parents should work full-time. The freshman senator’s proposal would give the fully refundable benefit to parents who hit a minimum earnings requirement of $7,540, which translates to 20 hours of work per week at the federal minimum wage. The legislation allows for the same earnings threshold for single and married parents and creates a “marriage bonus.”

    Hawley’s plan would deliver payments via the IRS and instruct the agency to create an online portal for families to input information. Families could also opt out of the monthly payments for a lump sum when they file their federal taxes.

    Hawley had teased the legislation on Saturday.

    “We need a plan to help working parents that is pro-family and pro-work. I’ll be proposing legislation this coming week that gives a major tax cut to working parents to help them afford to start a family and raise their kids,” he wrote on Twitter.

    Hawley’s announcement comes as many Democrats push for increased benefits for families with young children.

    Until this year, families could claim up to $2,000 a child as a tax credit, but millions of low-income households missed out on the full benefit because their earnings were too low to qualify. 

    But the benefits drastically increased under President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that Democrats passed in March and extended the full credit to the poorest of families. Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., successfully fought to increase the amount of tax credit, make it fully refundable and to authorize advanced payouts of the benefit. 

    It’s now worth $3,600 for each child up to age 6 and $3,000 for older children up to age 17. Eligible families should start seeing payments in July of up to $300 per child, but the new benefit only lasts a year. Torres and other Democrats are now pushing for a monthly child allowance on a permanent basis. 

    Hawley isn’t the only Republican interested in pro-family policy. 

    Republican Sen. Mitt Romney proposed permanent monthly payments to American families Thursday as the country struggles with declining birth and marriage rates and the coronavirus pandemic’s stranglehold on the economy.

    The Utah lawmaker and former GOP presidential nominee’s Family Security Act calls for $350 monthly payments per family, per child, for children age 5 and under. Children between the ages of 6 and 17 would warrant $250 payments instead.

    “American families are facing greater financial strain, worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, and marriage and birth rates are at an all-time low,” Romney said in a statement. “On top of that, we have not comprehensively reformed our family support system in nearly three decades, and our changing economy has left millions of families behind.”

    The post Hawley proposes $12,000 tax credit for married parents with kids under 13 appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Child credit will cut child poverty by 50%

    The American Rescue Plan has been hailed as a historic effort that will cut poverty by a third and child poverty by half. Congress can keep it going.

    By: Deepak Bhargava and Dorian Warren

    It took 20 years for the United States to finally wield the sharpest tool in its arsenal to cut child and family poverty.

    This summer, families with children 17 and younger will receive checks of up to $3,600 per child, on top of their one-time $1,400 stimulus checks, thanks to the expansion of the child tax credit in the American Rescue Plan.

    The plan has been hailed as a historic effort that will cut poverty by a third and child poverty by nearly half. The expansion of the child tax credit, which made it fully refundable, is the reason why. 

    With the average cost of housing, feeding and clothing a child at more than $1,000 a month, the expansion of the child tax credit could pay as much as two-thirds of the yearly costs of raising a child. 

    The work now is to ensure that Congress makes this poverty-busting tool permanent beyond a one-time infusion.

    Our hope is that elected leaders won’t take another 20 years to make it so, because we’ve seen how the slow arc of progress in little understood policies has huge ramifications for American families. 

    Two decades ago, our organization, Community Change, along with the Children’s Defense Fund and other groups, led a campaign to increase the refund amount from the child tax credit for individuals who qualify, regardless of whether they worked. We lobbied the Democratic-controlled Senate. 

    From Maine to Montana, grassroots groups led by low-income mothers and part of the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support supported by Community Change called their members of Congress daily and visited their offices, and even their homes.

    Our pressure and the voices of the women who were most impacted succeeded in expanding the child tax credit; the final legislation delivered $8 billion to low-income families per year.

    But it was a partial victory. We did not succeed in eliminating the work and income requirements for individuals to qualify, and we did not win in making the credit fully refundable, which would give filers refunds even if the amount is more than what they owe in taxes.

    Left opposed expansion 20 years ago

    The reason for the partial victory in 2001 was a surprising one — opposition from liberals. 

    Then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, wanted to expand the size of the credit, but under his proposal low-income people who paid no federal income taxes would not benefit. 

    It was a time in the aftermath of President Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform, which gutted many of the resources that low-income families relied on to survive. We expected the Republican opposition to our full demands, but liberals offered some of the harshest criticism, parroting many of the same racist and sexist tropes as their colleagues across the aisle who called our demands fringe. 

    It took 20 years of organizing, but the fringe is now mainstream.

    The child tax credit delivers significant financial support to families who have struggled during the pandemic and are simply trying to make it in this economy.

    Because, unlike years past when only individuals who worked and earned a minimum amount were eligible, this year’s rescue plan delinks the work requirements. Even those not working can earn the refund for children they are raising who are younger than 17.

    Monthly checks give stability

    Families also normally receive the refund the following year, but under the rescue plan families will start receiving it this year, as early as this summer. 

    The Treasury and Internal Revenue Service recently decided to pay families monthly, instead of one lump sum, which will provide parents with more stability knowing when cash is coming for diapers, rent and other basics. 

    Our job now as organizers is twofold. First, we have to make sure that the 10 million low-income people who are eligible but don’t file taxes claim their benefits.

    Second, we fight again to make the expansion of the child tax credit and its sister, the earned income tax credit (which was expanded to up to $1,500 for adults not raising children at home), permanent fixtures to help people living on the brink.

    _____________________________________________________

    About the Author: Deepak Bhargava, former president of Community Change, is a policy expert on poverty and co-editor of a new book, “Immigration Matters.” Dorian Warren, co-president of Community Change, is one of the country’s leading advocates of guaranteed income policies.

    The post Child credit will cut child poverty by 50% appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Unemployment benefits made up a record-high share of Americans’ incomes during the pandemic, and it shows a need for a better system

    Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income spiked during the pandemic more than in other recessions. Time for UBI?

    By: Juliana Kaplan,Madison Hoff

    During the pandemic, the amount of income from unemployment benefits began to spike, making up a greater percentage of personal income than in the past 50 years.

    Highlights:

    • Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income spiked during the pandemic more than in other recessions.
    • It shows the impact of expanded federal benefits and increased unemployment eligibility.
    • But permanent reforms may be needed to ensure states’ UI systems work as they should.

    hhh

    The unemployment insurance as a share of personal income peaked at 7.0% in June 2020. Before the pandemic, the highest percentage was in 1975 at 1.5%. Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income declined in the months after June 2020 but has since risen again slightly in recent months.

    The peak came right before an additional $600 in federal weekly benefits expired at the end of July. Those additional benefits helped prop up the economy as it was hit by the pandemic, as savings increased in April and spending spiked in May. The economic boost from stimulus checks and those enhanced UI benefits may have kept 12 million people out of poverty.

    A new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-leaning think tank, looks at the share of unemployment benefits as part of wage and salary income. They found that, prior to 2020, benefits from UI had never gone above 6% of a state’s salary and wage income; in 2020’s second quarter, it was above 20% in four states.

    EPI’s calculations used wage and salary data while Insider looked at unemployment insurance as a percentage of total personal income.

    What the unemployment spike could mean for future reform

    Importantly, according to the EPI report, the influx of federal UI benefits – both in the form of the additional $600 and the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which made more workers eligible for employment benefits – helped fill the holes in states’ unemployment benefits.

    “In particular, states with a higher share of Black residents were more reliant on federal assistance to provide UI benefits,” the EPI report says. “But if the pandemic programs fade with no structural reforms, the UI system will revert to being one that sees stingier benefits precisely in those states with higher Black population shares.”

    The fact that those holes needed to be filled, and the amount of income that unemployment made up during the pandemic, shows the need for unemployment reform, according to EPI.

    They argue that reforms could help codify some of the expanded eligibility and equity from beefed-up pandemic-era benefits, and help shore up the system ahead of future downturns.

    EPI found that, by the end of 2020, benefits that came from PUA – the program that opened unemployment eligibility to workers who normally wouldn’t be able to access benefits – became the greatest share of federal UI. David Cooper, a senior economic analyst at EPI, said that there were nine states where the money from PUA made up over half of all UI going to workers there.

    “I mean, that’s remarkable, that that more than half the assistance provided is going to folks who would not normally qualify for traditional funding,” Cooper said. “That just shows me that our existing eligibility requirements are way out of whack.

    The amount of federal money pouring into unemployment – and going to Americans who were out of work during an unprecedented pandemic – helped close gaps in state UI programs and provide direct relief. It also helped to address racial inequities, since, according to EPI, Black workers were more likely to live in states that had weaker UI; on the whole, workers of color, particularly Black workers, were disproportionately impacted by pandemic unemployment.

    Even with those expanded benefits, states still struggled to dole out unemployment benefits. Many had to rely on underresourced and neglected unemployment disbursement programs.

    “That meant that unemployed workers really had totally different qualities of life, totally different standards of support based solely on where they live,” Cooper said, noting that some states, like Florida, cut back on their UI systems after the Great Recession.

    “The federal unemployment insurance programs created by the CARES Act were a lifeline for millions of workers and families across the U.S,” the EPI report said. “However, the unprecedented magnitude of the federal response is indicative of the woefully inadequate benefits and gaping eligibility holes in existing state UI programs.”

    Currently, an additional $300 in weekly unemployment benefits is set to last through September. Some Democrats are pushing to make permanent expanded benefits and eligibility.

    “The biggest takeaway for me is that states were not there, that all states had not made the necessary investments to be prepared for another downturn, even one that wasn’t as extreme as the one we’ve just gone through,” Cooper said.

    He added: “We have to make those investments now. That is abundantly clear from what folks have experienced over the last year.”

    The post Unemployment benefits made up a record-high share of Americans’ incomes during the pandemic, and it shows a need for a better system appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Mongolia combined a strict shutdown with a fully universal cash payment and the President wants to make it monthly

    President asks Prime Minister to cooperate in providing MNT 1 million support to each household

    By: Baljmaa.T baljmaa@montsame.gov.mn

    The government of Mongolia, on April 8, Thursday, decided to impose a nationwide strict lockdown between April 10 and 25 by moving into the Red Level of heightened state of emergency readiness in order to contain the rising spread of COVID-19 in the country and also to provide a one-time cash grant of MNT 300,000 to each of Mongolia’s around 3.3 million population. 

    Following the announcement, the Office of the President of Mongolia Battulga Khaltmaa issued a press release that the Mongolian President sent an official letter to Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai the same day. 

    In his letter, the President emphasized that he had put forward his initiative of distributing support of MNT 1 million for each household to the State Great Khural and the government of Mongolia several times since November 2020 with a view to promoting livelihoods, national manufacturers, and businesses, and to keeping workplaces in these difficult times of the pandemic and lockdown measures. 

    The proposal of President Battulga sets out to allocate MNT 1 million to each household of Mongolia, of which MNT 200,000 is expected to be distributed in cash and the remaining 800,000 in form of vouchers for purchasing goods and products, except for alcohol and tobacco, only from national producers. 

    The President’s letter also praises the government’s decision to provide MNT 300,000 of support to each citizen ahead of another nationwide strict lockdown in order to maintain the livelihood of the population whose financial and employment opportunities are restricted by the pandemic. 

    “However, taking under consideration the ongoing vaccination drive, which is expected to continue until August this year, it appears that one-time MNT 300,000 of cash grant cannot serve as a support sufficient enough to overcome the financial problems and other difficulties caused by the pandemic and resetting the stable operations of businesses,” the letter reads. 

    “The law enforcement and jurisdiction have identified and revealed certain officials’ illegal assets worth around MNT 4 trillion hidden in offshore accounts and the grounds for recovering those assets have been prepared. Using this money, MNT 1 million of monthly allowance can be granted to each household until the end of August and with the help of this allowance, domestic manufacturers and businesses receive the support they need as well. Therefore, I ask you to cooperate with me to expose illegal actions and corruption, restoring the illegal assets to the state budget revenues and to curb the pandemic by supporting the population livelihoods and maintaining the employment.” 

    The post Mongolia combined a strict shutdown with a fully universal cash payment and the President wants to make it monthly appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A majority of those surveyed in the US, UK, France, and Germany believe UBI is somewhat or very important

    The Pandemic changed people’s thinking and now most would welcome government-sponsored job training and other interventions according to Pew Research Institute

    BY KAT DEVLIN, SHANNON SCHUMACHER AND J.J. MONCUS

    The coronavirus outbreak has caused, among other things, a debate around how to best rebuild national economies ravaged by the pandemic. Across the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, significant shares believe their economic system needs either major changes or a complete overhaul, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in the late fall of 2020. Few in the four countries say their economy does not need any changes.

    A majority in France and half in Germany, UK and U.S. think economic system needs a major overhaul

    The desire for change is strongest in France, where seven-in-ten believe the economic system in their country needs either major changes or to be completely reformed. Half share this view in the U.S., UK and Germany, while around four-in-ten in these three nations say minor changes are warranted.

    Few would opt for no adjustments to the economic system, ranging from 3% in France to 12% in the U.S. Those who think the overall economic situation in their country is bad are more likely to call for major or total reforms to the system.

    When asked about various economic interventions the government could undertake, publics generally voice high levels of support for each potential program. Across five different economic policies, large majorities in all four countries think nearly all are important.

    Of the five policies tested, the idea of government-sponsored job and skills training for workers garners the highest shares saying it is very important for their national government to take such action in all countries surveyed.

    Sizable shares in these countries also believe it is very important for their government to implement policies targeted at helping those struggling financially, building more public housing, and increasing government benefits to the poor, all three of which are of high import for around four-in-ten or more in each country.

    Likewise, policies aimed at redistribution – raising taxes on the rich and providing a universal basic income – are very important priorities for at least three-in-ten.

    Across countries, those with higher levels of income are less likely to support many of these policies. And those who want major changes or total reforms to their national economic systems are also more likely to see these interventions as very important.

    Majorities in four nations think government-provided job training is very important

    Government regulations on business garnered more mixed public assessments in the four countries. Americans, in particular, generally see government regulation of business as a bad thing for the country, a view held by half of U.S. adults. In the three European countries, at least half see regulation as a good thing. Those on the ideological right are especially likely to see regulation negatively in the U.S. and Germany.

    Britons most supportive of regulating business, Americans the most wary

    Still, many hold out hope for their personal economic mobility despite the devastating economic effects of the pandemic in each of these countries. Two-thirds or more in the U.S., Germany and the UK believe they have a good chance of improving their standard of living, and roughly half in France share that opinion. Young people ages 18 to 29 are especially optimistic in France, the UK and the U.S., while Germans of all ages express about the same level of optimism.

    These are among the findings of a Pew Research Center survey conducted from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, among 4,069 adults in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. 

    Many want major or complete economic reforms amid the pandemic

    In the midst of a global pandemic that brought many national economies to a halt, half or more in the four countries surveyed say their country’s economic system needs at least major changes, with small shares in each country saying it needs to be completely reformed.

    A full seven-in-ten adults in France agree their country’s economic system needs at least a major overhaul, with 12% going so far as to say it needs complete reform. At the time of fielding the survey last fall, France had instituted a second nationwide lockdown, and the country’s unemployment rate had risen to its highest level in two years.

    In the U.S., the UK and Germany, sizable shares fall on both sides of the issue. While half in each country say that their nation’s economic system needs at least major changes, roughly four-in-ten say it only needs minor changes. Small but non-negligible shares think no changes are needed at all, ranging from 12% in the U.S. to just 6% in the UK.

    Among those who see economic uncertainty, stronger calls for reform

    Calls for reform are more prevalent among those who think their country’s economy is not faring well. In the U.S., a large majority (69%) of those who say their country’s economic situation is currently bad also say that the system needs major changes. Just 28% of those who say the economy is currently good support such reform, a 41 percentage point difference.

    Views in the UK are similar: 63% of Britons who say the UK’s economy is currently poor call for reforming their economic system; about a quarter who say the economy is good hold the same view on reform. Double-digit differences are also present in France and Germany as well.

    Similarly, those who say they have little chance of personally improving their standard of living are more supportive of reform in all four countries. In the UK and U.S., roughly seven-in-ten of those who are pessimistic about improving their standard of living say their economic system needs significant changes; fewer than half of those who are positive on their standard of living say the same.

    Ideology colors views on the topic of reform. The largest difference by far again comes from the United States, where 77% of left-leaning respondents say the country’s economic system needs at least significant changes.1 Fewer than half of Americans in the center and only a third of those on the right share this view.

    In all four countries, more support for economic reform comes from the left

    In the UK, the spread is similar: Roughly three-quarters of those on the left support either major changes or complete reform of the economic system, while about half in the center and four-in-ten on the right say the same. The differences are more modest in Germany, where support for reform is generally more mixed among all ideological groups, though with those on the left slightly more supportive than those on the right.

    In France, a full 77% on the left support reform – the same share as in the U.S. The difference, though, is that strong majorities on the center and right agree (64% and 69%, respectively).

    Those who identify as Remainers in the UK are more supportive than those who identify as Leavers of a major overhaul of the UK’s economic system. A majority of Remainers (57%) say the system needs either a complete reform or major changes, while just 43% of Leavers agree.

    Strong support for national governments to expand several types of economic assistance

    All five economic policy proposals included on the survey receive widespread support. At least half of those surveyed in each of the four countries say that each policy is at least somewhat important, and most proposals garner support from more than six-in-ten in each country. Some of these approaches register noteworthy shares of the public who say they are very important for the national government to pursue.

    Near-universal support for increase in government-provided job and skills training

    The idea of the national government providing more job and skills training for workers has the most support: About six-in-ten or more in each country say it is very important that the government do this. Support for this idea is high across all income and age groups in each country, and about nine-in-ten or more in each of the four countries say that it is very important or somewhat important the national government provides such training.

    Support for building more public housing also stands out, as 44% or more in each of the countries say that it is very important. Support for this is highest in the UK and Germany. In each of the four countries, larger shares of those in the lowest income groups say expanding public housing is very important than do those with higher incomes. The same is true in the U.S., UK and France when it comes to political ideology: Those on the left are more likely than those on the right to say building more public housing is important.

    Many say it is important for their governments to build more public housing

    Increasing government benefits for the poor is also a well-received idea in the four countries surveyed. About half in the UK, Germany and U.S. say increased benefits are very important, while about four-in-ten say the same in France. In all four countries, support is particularly strong among those with less income and, with the exception of Germany, people on the ideological left.

    Broad support for expansion of government benefits for the poor

    Raising taxes on the wealthy receives somewhat less support from the four publics. Support is highest in the UK, where about half (48%) say it is very important to raise taxes on the wealthy. In each of the four countries surveyed, those on the ideological left are more likely than those on the right to say it is very important that the national government raise taxes on the rich.

    Americans, Britons, French and Germans in the highest income group are more averse to raising taxes on the wealthy than those in the middle or lowest income groups. Still, around four-in-ten of the highest earners surveyed in the U.S. and UK said this policy is very important for the national government, while about a quarter of higher-earning French and Germans said the same.

    Sizable shares say it is very important to raise taxes on wealthy

    The idea of a government-provided universal basic income (UBI) received the least support in each of the four countries among the policies in the survey. UBI gained notoriety in the U.S. as a central point of Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential bid. It has been tested on smaller scales in places like Finland and Kenya, and a form of UBI has been in effect in the oil-rich U.S. state of Alaska since 1982.

    Higher income earners are least likely to view raising taxes on wealthy as very important for governments

    Around a third of Americans and about four-in-ten French and Germans say it is very important for the national government to provide a UBI, while half of Britons say the same. Although UBI received the least support of the five policies asked about, about half, and as many as 79%, in the countries surveyed say it is at least somewhat important. In Germany, where a UBI trial is underway, and the UK, where more than 100 lawmakers are calling for a pilot program, people of all ages are about equally likely to say UBI is important. But younger Americans and French are especially likely to hold this view, as are those on the ideological left in all four countries.

    Widespread support for universal basic income in Europe; American public split

    There are stark differences of opinion on UBI across income groups. In each of the four countries surveyed, those with the lowest levels of income are the most likely to say it is very important for the national government to provide a UBI. This difference is largest in the U.S., where 51% of those in the lowest income group are very supportive of this, compared with only 16% in the highest income group.

    People in lowest income group most likely to support universal basic income

    Americans and Germans with less education are more likely to say it is very important for the national government to provide a universal basic income than are those with more education.

    Across countries, views on the value of regulation are mixed

    When asked about government regulation of business, a full two-thirds of Britons say that it is a good thing for their country, and nearly six-in-ten in France say the same. Views on regulation in these countries are largely unchanged from when the question was last asked in 2017.

    Roughly half of Germans agree that regulation is generally good for their society, though 43% say it is bad for Germany. Notably, views against regulation have increased slightly since the question was last asked (36% in 2017 vs. 43% now).

    There is less support for regulation in the U.S., where half say it is bad for society, while 46% believe it has a positive effect.

    In France and the U.S., young people are more likely than their older counterparts to consider regulation a good thing; in both countries, those with more education are also more likely to see regulation as good.

    Ideological differences in views of government regulation in all countries polled

    In all four countries, ideology cleaves differences in views on regulation. The largest gap by far is in the U.S., where nearly three-quarters of those on the left believe regulating business is good, while just a quarter of those on the right say the same.

    Differences are more modest in the other countries polled. In Germany, 64% of those on the left say regulation is good, and roughly half of those on the right agree. In France and the UK, while a majority of all ideological groups see benefits to regulation, those on the left are moderately more positive than right-leaning respondents.

    Most say they have a good chance to improve standard of living in U.S., Germany and UK

    Despite the coronavirus crisis and the associated economic recession, half or more of those in the four countries surveyed said they have at least a somewhat good chance of improving their standard of living when the survey was fielded in November and December 2020. Compared with the other three nations, public opinion is more divided in France, where 51% think their prospects of improving their livelihoods are somewhat or very good, compared with 48% who say they are somewhat or very bad. And Americans stand out for their optimism, as nearly three-in-ten believe their chances are very good when it comes to improving their standard of living.

    Many say they have a good chance of improving their standard of living

    In the U.S. and France, younger people and women are more optimistic. When it comes to income, Germans, Americans and Britons in the highest income group are more likely than those in the lowest income group to say they have a good chance to improve their standard of living. Still, even among this lowest group, more than six-in-ten in Germany, the U.S. and UK say they have a good chance to do so.

    _____________________________________________________________

    Original post can be found here: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/04/22/many-in-western-europe-and-u-s-want-economic-changes-as-pandemic-continues/

    Methodology

    BY KAT DEVLIN, SHANNON SCHUMACHER AND J.J. MONCUS

    About Pew Research Center’s Fall 2020 Global Attitudes Survey

    Results for the survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Gallup and Abt Associates. The results are based on national samples, unless otherwise noted. More details about our international survey methodology and country-specific sample designs are available here.

    Acknowledgments

    BY KAT DEVLIN, SHANNON SCHUMACHER AND J.J. MONCUS

    This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals.

    Kat Devlin, Research Associate
    Shannon Schumacher, Research Associate
    J.J. Moncus, Research Assistant

    Sara Atske, Associate Digital Producer
    James Bell, Vice President, Global Strategy
    Alexandra Castillo, Research Methodologist
    Aidan Connaughton, Research Assistant
    Stefan S. Cornibert, Communications Manager       
    Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research    
    Moira Fagan, Research Analyst
    Janell Fetterolf, Research Associate
    Christine Huang, Research Analyst
    Michael Keegan, Senior Information Graphics Designer
    David Kent, Senior Copy Editor
    Nicholas O. Kent, Research Assistant
    Gar Meng Leong, Communications Associate
    Clark Letterman, Senior Survey Manager
    Gracie Martinez, Administrative Coordinator
    Mara Mordecai, Research Assistant
    Martha McRoy, Research Methodologist
    Patrick Moynihan, Associate Director, International Research Methods
    Julia O’Hanlon, Communications Associate
    Stacy Pancratz, Research Methodologist
    Jacob Poushter, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research
    Laura Silver, Senior Researcher
    Richard Wike, Director, Global Attitudes Research

    The post A majority of those surveyed in the US, UK, France, and Germany believe UBI is somewhat or very important appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Despite falling unemployment, America’s poverty rate just reached the highest level since the pandemic began

    The disconnect between poverty and unemployment is not surprising but as of last month, the U.S. poverty rate has been on an upward trajectory. It is a call for action around UBI.

    By: Quentin Fottrell

    Between February and March, the rate of poverty in the U.S. increased by 0.5 percentage points to 11.7%, resulting in the highest level since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, though the change wasn’t statistically significant. The second-highest rate of 11.6% was recorded in November 2020. These estimates were taken before the rollout of the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan.

    Since spring of 2020, real-time poverty data in the U.S. has been tracked every month by economists Bruce Meyer, from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame’s Department of Economics and the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities.

    More than 100 million claims for unemployment insurance have been filed over the last year, the economists wrote with co-author Jeehoon Han of Zhejiang University in China, describing the government’s three stimulus packages.

    “While new UI claims fell sharply from April through July of last year, weekly claims have remained high since then at more than 1 million claims each week, about 5 times the pre-pandemic rate,” they added.

    ‘Many government benefits expired, unemployment insurance benefits are typically only about half of pre-job loss earnings, and nearly 5 million people have left the labor force since the start of the pandemic and, therefore, are not counted as unemployed.’

    Those who experienced the sharpest rise in poverty included children, white people, women, those with low education, and those in nearly half of U.S. states that have more restrictive unemployment-insurance payment policies. Last month marked the first time that poverty has been so acute for children, non-minorities and women, the report added.

    Under the American Rescue Plan, individuals making less than $75,000 a year in adjusted gross income received $1,400. The payments decreased for individuals earning $75,000 and up — and phased out completely for those making $80,000 or more and couples making $160,000 or more in adjusted gross income. It was the third such relief package over the last year.

    Unemployment fell to 6% in March 2021 from a seasonally adjusted 14.8% in April 2020, as poverty rose. Initial jobless claims filed traditionally through the states fell to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 from 769,000 in the prior week, the government said last week, marking the largest decline since August. Yet 16.9 million people are still reportedly collecting benefits.

    “This disconnect between poverty and unemployment is not surprising given that many government benefits expired, unemployment insurance benefits are typically only about half of pre-job loss earnings, and nearly 5 million people have left the labor force since the start of the pandemic and, therefore, are not counted as unemployed,” the economists added.

    In the last week of March, 20 million Americans getting by primarily due to the generosity of friends and family were more likely to be suffering from food insecurity, according to a separate analysis by Claire Zippel, a research analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank focused on the impact of budget and tax issues on inequality and poverty.

    The post Despite falling unemployment, America’s poverty rate just reached the highest level since the pandemic began appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Canadians support a basic income. Will the Liberals finally deliver?

    The Liberal Party just passed a basic income resolution. So what now?

    By Claire Gallagher

    Liberal Party delegates voted to pass not one but two basic income resolutions at their national convention that ran from April 8-10, making basic income the governing party’s second most important policy issue.

    For those in support of basic income — ano-strings payment to anyone who needs it — this vote passing could seem like a cause for celebration. But before we get ahead of ourselves, it’s worth asking: what, if anything, will the Liberals do to make basic income a reality? For anyone keeping count, the Liberals have so far failed to follow through on their promises of universal pharmacare, ending boil water advisories and electoral reform, to name a few.

    Let’s consider the moment we are in. After multiple basic income pilots with positive results and numerous reports arguing its merits, basic income has arguably become a mainstream policy issue. According to a recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute, a majority of Canadians support basic income.

    It makes sense.

    Before the pandemic, 3.2 million people in Canada lived below the poverty line — poverty that has historically been disproportionately concentrated in Indigenous, racialized and migrant communities. And over the past year, millions of people lost their jobs while businesses collapsed under financial strain. For many, the COVID-19 crisis exacerbated and made visible existing inequalities.

    We have recently had a glimpse of what’s possible when we simplify access to income support. When the pandemic hit, the federal government mobilized quickly to help people make ends meet through the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). While the implementation of CERB wasn’t perfect — not everyone who needed it received help, the eligibility criteria caused confusion and repayment requests caused financial anxiety and hardship — it helped millions stay afloat.

    At Leadnow, we have witnessed unprecedented support for basic income since the rollout of CERB. Our petition calling for a guaranteed, livable basic income has garnered over 51,000 signatures to date. And almost 250 Leadnow members recently submitted personal video messages to MPs about why they believe the time for basic income is now.

    In one video, a 61-year-old woman shares that she lost her job and has had to go without essential diabetes medication in order to afford food. Another member, named Kimberley, makes only $15,000 per year and is struggling financially as a result.

    We have noticed a growing support and a shift in the demographics of who backs a basic income — more and more people are becoming aware of its value and possibilities.

    “I am an advocate for basic income,” another Leadow member named Veronica said. “I know that the creative potential of our society depends on people knowing their inherent value, and that there is a safety net.”

    We have noticed a growing support and a shift in the demographics of who backs a basic income — more and more people are becoming aware of its value and possibilities, writes Claire Gallagher of @leadnowca #BasicIncome #UBI

    Basic income is a bold, common-sense solution to some of the big problems we are facing. By radically simplifying access to income support, we can help lift people out of poverty.

    But it’s not without criticism. Opponents of basic income are quick to point out the hefty price tag. Yet, maintaining the status quo is incredibly expensive. Poverty costs the government a staggering $72 billion to $86 billion every year.

    On April 7, theParliamentary Budget Officer released a report indicating basic income could quickly cut poverty in half. Previous research by the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis found basic income could grow the economy more than it costs. Not only would it lift millions of people out of poverty, but it would also create jobs.

    Others are rightfully concerned about whether it will lead to cuts in social programs. Basic income advocates must be prepared to speak out for a basic income that is progressive, adequate and unconditional, coupled with investments — not cuts — in a strong social safety net. In a country as wealthy as Canada, we have enough to ensure everyone can meet their needs and live with dignity.

    People across Canada are waking up to the rising inequality that is driving us apart, and they are watching the Liberals’ next move carefully. We already have the solutions, now we need political will and action.

    So, does the fact that the Liberals have passed basic income resolutions mean they will move forward with a basic income program soon? The answer is: it should.

    Over five years in government, the Liberals have demonstrated they can talk a good game. Now, in this extraordinary moment of crisis, it is up to them to decide whether to walk the talk and listen to Canadians. Investing in a guaranteed, livable basic income will help close the gaps in our social safety net. Our elected leaders should know it is the right thing to do.

    _________________________________________________________

    About the author: Claire Gallagher is a campaign manager at the independent citizens’ advocacy organization, Leadnow, where she leads the organization’s basic income campaign.

    The post Canadians support a basic income. Will the Liberals finally deliver? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • How stimulus checks are being spent point to Americans becoming more prepared for the next emergency

    As new $1,400 Covid stimulus checks roll in, Americans are using them to pay monthly bills, regardless of their incomes, a new survey finds.

    By: Lorie Konish @LORIEKONISH

    KEY POINTS:

    • New $1,400 stimulus checks are helping Americans keep up with bills and other necessities, as well as pay down debt.
    • Recipients said they expect the funds to provide them a financial boost for less than three months, and in some cases not at all.
    • One year into the coronavirus pandemic, the results could point to shifting attitudes toward money.

    ____________________________________________

    As new $1,400 Covid stimulus checks roll in, Americans are using them to pay monthly bills, regardless of their incomes, a new survey finds.

    Bankrate.com found that 45% of Americans plan to use the latest round of checks for monthly expenses, followed by 36% who plan to use the money for day-to-day essentials, 32% who want to pay down debt and 28% who intend to add to their savings.

    (Respondents were allowed to choose more than one use.)

    Notably, just 13% of survey respondents said they will put the $1,400 payments toward discretionary activities or nonessential items.

    The payments of up to $1,400 per person, plus $1,400 per dependent, were approved by Congress in March through the American Rescue Plan Act.

    To date, the government has sent more than 156 million payments totaling about $372 billion.

    “Just as with the two previous rounds of stimulus, monthly bills and day-to-day essentials are the two most common uses,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

    Bankrate.com’s survey also found the cash infusion likely will not last long.

    About 61% of respondents said the money may contribute to their financial well-being for less than three months. Meanwhile, 34% said the funds would last less than one month, including 14% who said it would not help them sustain their financial well-being at all.

    The online survey was conducted between March 24 and March 26, and included 2,626 adults.

    Separate survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau from March 17 to March 29 found that people who had received a stimulus payment in the past seven days mostly used it to pay down debt.

    The results could point to changing financial behavior, just as the financial crisis prompted Americans to be more conservative with their money.

    “Nothing like a recession really underscores the importance of emergency savings and reducing your debt burdens,” McBride said.

    That’s as another survey from Bankrate.com found that fewer than 4 in 10 Americans have enough savings to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense. The first order of business for most households is they need to boost their emergency savings,” McBride said.

    “If this stimulus payment does that, in the long run the economy will perform better if Americans have more savings and less debt,” he said.

    ___________________________________________

    To read original article, please visit: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/heres-how-americans-are-using-their-1400-stimulus-checks.html

    The post How stimulus checks are being spent point to Americans becoming more prepared for the next emergency appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Scotland has a ‘radical opportunity’ to introduce UBI, with the next Scottish Parliament expected to have a majority of MSPs who back it

    SCOTLAND has a “radical opportunity” to introduce a universal basic income (UBI), with the next Scottish Parliament expected to have a majority of MSPs who back the idea, campaigners have said.

    By Judith Duffy

    During the first leaders’ debate of the election, most parties – the Greens, Labour and the LibDems – said they were in favour of introducing a system where the Government guarantees a regular minimum income to every citizen.

    The Tories were the only party to rule it out, with leader Douglas Ross saying he was “not convinced by the argument”.

    Nicola Sturgeon revealed the SNP’s manifesto would set out steps towards introducing a universal basic income, even without the full powers over tax and social security required to implement it fully.

    She said: “I am very supportive of it and the pandemic has made me more supportive of it.”

    One of the countries which have conducted a basic income experiment is Finland, which ran a trial in 2017-2018 during which 2000 unemployed people received a monthly payment of €560.

    In Ireland, the Green Party has secured a commitment to initiate a trial of UBI in the lifetime of the current coalition government.

    Last week The Finnish Institute in the UK and Ireland held an event on UBI after the pandemic aimed at sharing lessons from the trial in Finland.

    Speaking at the online discussion, Jamie Cooke, head of RSA Scotland, pointed out that only a few years ago it was not an area of widespread discussion in Scotland.

    He added: “Currently we are heading towards elections here in Scotland in May of this year and at the leaders’ debate … four out of the five main political party leaders expressed their support for basic income as a concept and something to explore in Scotland.

    “So this is a radical shift and a radical opportunity for us to really take this forward, particularly as we look to a new parliament where I would hope and expect the majority of our parliamentarians will be pro-basic income in some form.”

    Questioned on how such a system could be funded, Cooke suggested exploring ways to gather levies from data could one option.

    “Data is one of the biggest – if not the biggest – resources in the world just now, most of which flows directly into private pockets,” he said.

    “It is not benefitting individuals financially, it is not benefitting society. I’m not saying it is an easy thing to do, [but] to find ways to tap into that as a resource would be a huge opportunity to start to pay for these kind of investments, which would have multiple benefits further down the line.”

    Minna Ylikanno, a senior specialist at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment in Finland, and adjunct professor in the Department of Social Policy at the University of Turku, also suggested ways could be found to fund basic income, such as targeting huge corporations that “somehow slip away from every tax system”.

    She added: “We had dreams that were hugely costly – free schooling, free school meals for children and we managed to do that and we still exist as an independent country.”

    Tuomas Muraja, a Finnish freelance journalist and author who was one of the 2000 people selected to take part in Finland’s two-year basic income trial, said the arrangement allows more freedom, increasing both creativity and productivity.

    “Basic income would put an end to the humiliation of the poor – students, unemployed people, stay-at-home mothers and fathers and retired people would gain more control over their own lives,” he said.

    ____

    View original article here: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19224718.holyrood-radical-opportunity-introduce-basic-income-system/

    The post Scotland has a ‘radical opportunity’ to introduce UBI, with the next Scottish Parliament expected to have a majority of MSPs who back it appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • IRS confirms monthly checks will begin being sent to parents starting in July

    “We have to create an entirely new structure for the Internal Revenue Service. We are not historically a benefits delivery federal agency,” Rettig said on Tuesday.

    By Kenadi Silcox

    The IRS says it will be ready in a little more than two months to start sending monthly payments to parents as part of the newly enhanced Child Tax Credit. The news came in a Senate Committee on Finance hearing Tuesday, in which IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig said he expects the system to send out monthly payments to be ready by July 1.

    Some 69 million households are set to benefit from the payments that some are calling “monthly stimulus checks” for parents of up to $300 per child. The payments are a provision in the American Rescue Plan that’s supposed to temporarily expand eligibility for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and pre-pay half of the tax benefit in a way that’s similar to a monthly child allowance.

    But concerns over the IRS’s ability to roll out an unprecedented monthly payment program, particularly after pushing the tax filing deadline to May 15 and while busy sending out the third round of stimulus checks, have left a cloud of mystery surrounding the logistics of the 2021 changed to the Child Tax Credit.

    According to Rettig, in order for the IRS to establish a system for sending out monthly benefits, the agency will need to hire at minimum 300 to 500 employees to deal with the increased volume of calls, oversee investigations of fraud and build out a web portal for the benefit by July 1. Under the financing guidelines outlined in the American Rescue Plan, Rettig says the estimated cost will be around $391 million.

    “We have to create an entirely new structure for the Internal Revenue Service. We are not historically a benefits delivery federal agency,” Rettig said on Tuesday. “It’s a challenge to do it by July 1.”

    The substantial challenge that comes with preparing the IRS to dole out benefits is why some experts have suggested delegating benefit distribution to the Social Security Administration, which already has the infrastructure for sending out checks to millions of people each month.

    Another challenge facing the IRS is ensuring families have an easy way to opt out if they would rather receive a lump sum payment as a tax refund rather than half of it as a monthly payment, particularly because many of those families may no have consistent internet access. Rettig addressed this concern during the hearing, saying “If people do not have broadband, they’ll end up needing to deal with us through paper sources,” either via the U.S. Postal Service or in-person at their nearest IRS agency.

    For those with internet access who wish to opt out, Rettig said that the IRS will be setting up an online portal by July 1 similar to the page the agency set up for stimulus check distribution. Parents can also use the portal to identify any changed circumstances like a new child and the age of each eligible recipient. Children under the age of six are eligible for up to $3,600 while all other children can get up to $3,000 this year.

    While Rettig affirmed the agency’s commitment to meeting the July 1 deadline put forth by Congress, he did note that if all systems are not ready to go by then, they will need to push back the rollout date. Some questions still remain around logistics for parents that the IRS is not yet prepared to answer, including how they will deal with families who end up being over- or under-paid come tax season next year or what the deadline will be for parents to opt out of monthly payments.

    On the congressional side, question marks also still remain regarding the future of the enhanced benefit. Although it was initially designed to be a temporary program as part of the coronavirus pandemic relief, many Democratic lawmakers have indicated that they would support making the Enhanced Child Tax Credit permanent. Others, including Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), have proposed upending the tax credit all together and rolling that money plus certain welfare programs into a monthly family benefits program.

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2021/4/2/22356886/how-birth-rate-covid-help-drive-mitt-romney-family-security-act-to-bipartisan-support

    The post IRS confirms monthly checks will begin being sent to parents starting in July appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Is The GOP Becoming More Supportive of Direct Cash Payments?

    By Andrew Trunsky

    • After years of fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness, the Republican Party has shown signs of a shift toward a more populist, pro-worker economic platform.
    • Some Republicans have introduced proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage or providing cash relief that hardly resemble previous efforts to cut spending or taxes, but instead mirror increasing calls to help working-class Americans who were struggling even before the coronavirus pandemic.
    • “There has been a strongly populist bend,” Republican Rep. Peter Meijer told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I think we’ve seen a lot of folks who are guessing that’s the way the party is going, and are proposing options that are more based around generating broad political support than they are around pursuing a more narrow policy end.”
    • “There’s a recognition [among Republicans] that the government already constantly intervenes in the market,” said Rachel Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. “There is a growing number of people on the right who are saying, ‘we already do this … Why aren’t we doing it to support the people who make up this country?’”

    After years of rhetoric echoing fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness, the Republican Party has shown signs of embracing a more populist, pro-worker economic platform as more Americans look to the government for financial help.

    Some Republican lawmakers have introduced proposals since the pandemic began aimed at increasing the minimum wage or providing cash relief that hardly resemble previous efforts to cut spending or taxes, but instead mirror increasing calls to help working-class Americans who were struggling even before the coronavirus pandemic. And while some in the party debate what forces have driven the change within the party, there is little doubt among Republicans that change is occurring.

    “There has been a strongly populist bend,” Republican Rep. Peter Meijer, a freshman from western Michigan and a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    “I think we’ve seen a lot of folks who are guessing that’s the way the party is going, and are proposing options that are more based around generating broad political support than they are around pursuing a more narrow policy end.”

    Meijer is one such Republican. He has advocated for direct cash relief instead of existing welfare programs that have large bureaucratic components and generate “paperwork overhead” for those depending on it, arguing that it can deliver critical aid to struggling Americans in more effective means that adheres to the idea of limited government.

    He even introduced his Direct Dollars Over Government Expenses ($DOGE) plan, which would have given $2,400 checks to qualifying Americans instead of the $1,400 outlined in the American Rescue Plan. His bill, however, was nearly $1 trillion smaller than the ARP, which President Joe Biden signed into law on Mar. 11.

    President Joe Biden signs the American Rescue Plan into law. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images)

    ‘For Whose Benefit?’

    Republicans also overwhelmingly supported earlier bipartisan relief plans that included direct checks, including the CARES Act passed last March and the stimulus passed in December, despite their extraordinary size and scope.

    “There’s a recognition [among Republicans] that the government already constantly intervenes in the market,” Rachel Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, told the DCNF.

    “The debate right now is for whose benefit should that be done? … There is a growing number of people on the right who are saying, ‘we already do this, why aren’t we doing it for the family? Why aren’t we doing it to support the people who make up this country?’”

    Even though every congressional Republican voted against the American Rescue Plan largely due to its lack of targeted relief, Meijer said that there is bipartisan opportunity regarding cash payments and other pro-worker policies.

    “There are Republicans who are willing to enter into good-faith negotiations,” Meijer said, discussing how there were broad areas of agreement over coronavirus vaccine and testing aid and direct payments for individuals and small businesses.

    Sen. Mitt Romney speaks alongside a bipartisan group of lawmakers as they announce a proposal for a Covid-19 relief bill. A bill was finally agreed upon after months of negotiations, and was signed by President Trump on Dec. 27. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

    When asked if a large aid bill primarily focused on cash relief and pandemic aid would have sailed through Congress with bipartisan support: “I believe it would,” Meijer said. “Those earlier [relief] bills were not viewed with an inherently partisan lens.”

    Not only has cash relief become more popular among lawmakers and voters alike, but an increasing number of Republicans believe that its expansion can coexist with the idea of fiscal conservatism.

    “Direct cash payments have long been part of the conservative playbook,” Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told the DCNF.

    “There has always been an attraction among free-marketers for the most basic type of assistance, which is a direct cash payment … Basically, you just give people money.”

    Far From Unanimous

    Many Republicans have pushed back against the intraparty shift and instead advocated fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness even with the pandemic. A majority of Senate Republicans blocked a December push for $2,000 stimulus checks multiple times even after former President Donald Trump backed the effort, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell labeling them as a “universal cash giveaway” and “socialism for rich people.”

    Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson blocked a bipartisan attempt to include $1,200 checks instead of the $600 ones in the December stimulus.

    “What I fear we’re going to do with this bipartisan package … is a shotgun approach,” Johnson said, objecting to the amendment’s size and lack of targeted funds.

    Few in Congress have adhered to the fiscal conservative line more than Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky. He not only voted against every major coronavirus relief bill, but has also never voted for the annual defense spending bill or federal budget.

    “We have no rainy day fund. We have no savings account,” Paul said in December before the stimulus passed. “Congress has spent all of the money. Congress spent all of the money a long time ago. The monster spending bill presented today is not just a ‘deficit’s don’t matter disaster,’ it is everything Republicans say they don’t believe in.”

    But despite the populist shift within the GOP and the growing bipartisan consensus that direct checks are efficient, effective and relatively simple, Republicans say that they are concerned about government spending, and have increased their calls to address the growing national debt since Biden won.

    “Cash payments are rarely, in the real world, an alternative to welfare,” Lincicome said. “They are a supplement. And I think that’s really where things can go off the rails, at least from a conservative viewpoint.”

    “[Conservatives] have always envisioned payments as a replacement to the welfare state, not a supplement to the existing welfare state,” Bovard said, mentioning how Meijer’s bill beefed up cash payments and pandemic aid while almost eliminating other non-targeted relief.

    But even with the concerns over the debt and Republican worry that hyperinflation may occur as a result of the American Rescue Plan, Bovard said that conservative lawmakers who were overly focused on deficits and spending are not in tune with the country or their voters.

    “An ideological clinging to deficit hawkishness as if that’s the only thing that matters, as if that’s the biggest threat, is completely missing the stakes of how most people see the world right now,” Bovard said.

    “It’s still an issue, but it’s not the ultimate one. People aren’t threatened every day by the debt.”

    “I think you have a lot of Republican donors that want to put the debt and the deficit in the driver’s seat because it’s the only thing they feel threatened by. But the reality is, the base of the Republican Party feels threatened on a day-to-day basis by tons of other forces,” she added.

    Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 2, 2021. Sen. Tom Cotton looks on. (Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images)

    Bipartisanship?

    Though the two parties have sharply diverged on social and cultural issues and partisan gridlock has become the default, signs of bipartisanship have appeared among Republicans and Democrats who have pushed for more pro-worker policies. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley jointly introduced a proposal for $2,000 relief checks in December after Trump said the $600 checks in December’s stimulus package were too small, and the pair later introduced similar plans to raise the minimum wage after the Senate parliamentarian excluded it from the American Rescue Plan.

    And even though most Republicans opposed Democrats’ effort to pass a $15 minimum wage, some, like Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, introduced a joint plan that would raise the wage up from the current $7.25.

    “There is a bipartisan consensus that austerity politics and faith in pure market absolutism has failed the working and middle class in America,” California Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat from Silicon Valley, told the DCNF. “We can come together to have industrial policy that creates good paying jobs in places left behind and that increases wages for those without a college degree.”

    “Recognizing the dignity of work and importance of community is not a left or right idea,” he added.

    “It is an idea rooted in ensuring that every American has an equal voice in our democracy and participates in the American dream.”

    ____

    View original article here: https://dailycaller.com/2021/03/30/republicans-embracing-economic-populism-cash-relief-minimum-wage/

    The post Is The GOP Becoming More Supportive of Direct Cash Payments? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Liberal Party overwhelmingly approves priority resolution for UBI in Canada

    With 8.7 per cent of Canadians living below the poverty line and thousands more struggling to make ends meet, backers of this policy say a UBI would “ensure that communities at risk are able to feel financially secure.”

    By: John Paul Tasker ·

    Liberal delegates to the party’s policy convention have overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution calling for the establishment of a universal basic income (UBI) in Canada, while also rejecting a call to hike the capital gains tax.

    By a vote of 77 per cent, Liberal members on hand for the policy plenary today backed a call to permanently implement an income program similar to the Canada emergency response benefit (CERB), which kept millions of people afloat with monthly cheques during the first wave of the pandemic.

    With 8.7 per cent of Canadians living below the poverty line and thousands more struggling to make ends meet, backers of this policy say a UBI would “ensure that communities at risk (including Indigenous peoples) are able to feel financially secure.”

    “Given the success of the CERB program, a UBI will assist seniors and low-income Canadians maintain an adequate standard of living, regardless of working status,” the resolution reads.

    Speaking to delegates assembled online, Alex Spears of the Young Liberals of Canada said a UBI would ensure the country’s “strong and robust social safety net is adapted to the 21st century,” adding that a program to send cheques to all families is “completely consistent with our values as a party.”

    He said the program would “put more cash in the hands of working Canadians and families” and could lift millions out of poverty.

    “UBI is not a silver bullet and it ought to be done in conjunction with many other progressive policies, but it is a critical step,” he said.

    Would a UBI work?

    The resolution does not say how such a costly program would be designed and implemented.

    Few jurisdictions around the world have successfully enacted programs that make regular payments to all citizens without means tests or work requirements.

    The parliamentary budget officer last week concluded that a universal basic income could almost halve Canada’s poverty rate in just one year, but at a steep cost: $85 billion in 2021-22, rising to $93 billion in 2025-26.

    While the resolutions are non-binding — the government ignored a 2018 convention vote to decriminalize all illicit drug use, for example — the policy endorsements could help inform future government spending and the Liberal Party’s election platform.

    The government has said it’s preparing to spend up to $100 billion this year to kick start the post-pandemic economy even after it reported a record-high deficit of $381 billion in the last fiscal year.

    While the idea of a UBI has gained traction in progressive circles — supporters maintain the massive price tag of such a program could be offset by dismantling existing provincial social welfare schemes — academics who study poverty reduction are split on its value.

    A 529-page report authored by researchers at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of Calgary concluded after a three-year investigation that a basic income for all is not the best way to address poverty and other social problems.

    Instead, the report said, governments should boost existing social support programs for vulnerable groups through improved disability assistance, dental care programs and more money to help the working poor pay rent. A more targeted approach to help the disadvantaged, as opposed to a universal program like UBI, would do more to lift people out of poverty, the report concluded.

    Conservative MP Ed Fast, the party’s finance critic, said pursuing a UBI would be a “risky and unknown experiment that will leave millions more Canadians behind.”

    He said the Liberal Party is trying to “reimagine” the Canadian economy while the country is still struggling with the pandemic.

    “The fact that UBI was supported at the convention this weekend is par for the course with Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. Instead of focusing on creating jobs, they are fixated on implementing risky, expensive and untested economic policies,” Fast said.

    Delegates endorse pharmacare, ‘green new deal’

    Liberal delegates also supported other progressive policies, such as the creation of a national pharmacare program and a “green new deal” to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions.

    B.C. members backing the new green-friendly policies say Canada needs a “10-year national mobilization” plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 because “a changing climate threatens human life, healthy communities and critical infrastructure.”

    While this proposal is also light on specifics, its supporters are calling for an “urgent, transparent and inclusive consultation process” with workers, labour unions and businesses affected by the shift to cleaner fuel sources. Delegates agreed there should be a “just transition” for energy workers who will lose their jobs as a result of move to renewable energy.

    Inheritance tax, capital gains hike rejected

    At a time when all levels of government are searching for new revenue streams to offset the costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, Liberal delegates rejected a resolution from the party’s Ontario chapter to hike the capital gains tax.

    Currently, when an investment is sold — a stock, a mutual fund or any one of a number of other assets — 50 per cent of any increase in value is taxed as income.

    For example, if a person buys a share in a publicly traded company for $20 and sells it for $40 at a later date, then $10 will be added to a person’s income for tax purposes; the other $10 earned goes untaxed.

    This preferential tax treatment is designed to encourage people to make investments to drive economic growth and provide companies with easy access to capital. Critics maintain this unfairly benefits the rich.

    The Ontario chapter proposed reducing the capital gains tax exemption to zero — meaning all investment gains would be taxed as income.

    As part of the same proposal, the Ontario chapter pitched an “inheritance tax” on all assets over $2 million. That proposal did not specify the rate at which these assets should be taxed, or how and when such a system would take effect. Delegates rejected the idea along with the suggestion to increase the capital gains tax by a 62-38 margin.

    ‘Please make me pay more taxes’

    One delegate, Jake Landau, the president of the Don Valley West Young Liberals, said he considers himself “upper middle class” and he believes the current system is tilted toward the wealthy.

    “I am asking everyone, please make me pay more taxes. I want to pay my fair share,” he said.

    Another delegate named Linda — who also did not give her last name — said she worries that a change to the capital gains tax might open the door to the federal government taxing the sale of primary residences.

    In the last election, the Conservative Party warned that a Liberal government would look to cash in on rising home values by levying a capital gains tax on home sales to raise funds — a charge the Liberals have denied.

    Right now, sales of primary homes are exempt from capital gains taxes — meaning the owners don’t have to pay taxes on any increase in a home’s value when it’s sold. The same rules do not apply to secondary, seasonal or investment properties, which are taxed like other investments.

    “My concern with this is it is a blanket resolution,” said Linda. “There are many people relying on capital gains in their home in order to retire and not live in poverty.”

    ‘Long-term care can be a nightmare’

    Party members also overwhelmingly backed a policy proposal — with 97 per cent in favour — to reform the country’s long-term care home system, which has been hit hard with death and disease throughout this pandemic.

    “The pandemic has shown us that long-term care can be a nightmare,” said one unnamed Liberal delegate. “Seniors will do anything they can to stay out.”

    The policy calls on the federal government to introduce new legislation to set “enforceable” national standards to prevent a repeat of the COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities that have claimed the lives of thousands.

    Kathleen Devlin of the Senior Liberals’ Commission said Canadians have been “horrified” by the conditions reported in long-term care homes throughout this health crisis.

    She said the Canadian Armed Forces report last summer from the pandemic front lines “embarrassed us all.” Soldiers reported that residents in some long-term care homes were bullied, drugged, improperly fed and in some cases left for hours and days in soiled bedding.

    “While it’s a provincial responsibility to deliver it, there needs to be federal leadership to give all Canadians equity when they’re at their most vulnerable,” Devlin said. “Sometimes we need a crisis to face what we already know.”

    According to the resolution, these new standards would address accommodation conditions, staffing levels, qualifications and compensation. The proposed legislation also would demand greater transparency in how homes are operated “and public accountability through random inspections and annual public reporting.”

    _____________________________________________________________________

    About the Author: John Paul (J.P.) Tasker is a reporter in the CBC’s Parliamentary bureau in Ottawa. He can be reached at john.tasker@cbc.ca. Follow J.P. on Twitter

    The post Liberal Party overwhelmingly approves priority resolution for UBI in Canada appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Organizations across the globe publish World Health Day manifesto in defense of vaccination and universal basic income

    Capitalism is the problem, social movements denounce on World Health Day.

    By Michele de Mello, translated by Ítalo Piva

    On April 7th, World Health Day, hundreds of social movements from around the world published an international manifesto in defense of life. After more than a year since the outset of the biggest pandemic this century, the world continues to average about 9 thousand deaths by covid-19 per day.

    To mark the date and make a global appeal, the International Peoples’ Assembly (IPA), which articulates hundreds of social movements and political parties on five continents, is organizing an Anti-imperialist Week of Struggle from April 7th to 11th, demanding that the vaccine against the novel coronavirus be treated as a public asset, among other things.

    In the manifesto, the internationalist network declares that “the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the contradictions of capitalism throughout the world, which puts profit above people’s lives”.

    Therefore, in the economic field, organizations demand that governments guarantee a universal basic income so that workers may comply with health measures – such as social distancing – and provide lines of credit so that small and medium-sized companies do not go bankrupt. With regards to geopolitics, they argue that the international debts of every nation and all conflicts should be suspended.

    “We are at a stage of the social struggle that we call an ideological struggle.

    “The main thing to be done is to make people aware of their rights so that society, in its different forms of organizing, puts pressure on their governments”, defends João Pedro Stedile, one of the leaders of the Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST), which is also part of the IPA international network.

    In Brazil and other Latin American countries, symbolic acts of protest are scheduled in various capitals for the week of struggle. In Europe, the IPA’s task is to collect 1 million signatures to demand that the European Parliament discuss a proposal to make the vaccine a public asset – something advocated by the internationalist network and by the United Nations (UN) itself.

    Concentration of power

    Worldwide, approximately 664 million people have been vaccinated against covid-19, however, the vast majority are in the United States (165 million), China (140 million) and the European Union (79.8 million), according to a survey by the Nosso Mundo em Dados website.

    The United Nations recognizes that the world’s largest economic powers hold 75% of the immunizations already produced, while about 130 nations have not even been able to kick off a vaccination program.

    “The countries where capitalism is most developed are stashing and doing business among themselves in regards to vaccines.

    “More than 130 countries have not yet started vaccinating simply because they are not part of this business model”, points out the president of Spain’s Communist Party, José Luis Centella Gómez.

    Europe and Latin America are experiencing fresh waves of contagion due to the emergence of new variants of the virus. In Brazil, the P1 and P2 strains appeared, which are more contagious and aggressive. In the United Kingdom, the VUI variant was detected for the first time, which can be 40% to 70% more transmissible and has already spread to Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark and even Australia.

    On the day that the World Health Organization (WHO) celebrates its 73rd year, social entities in Europe are demonstrating at the European Union headquarters, as well as UN buildings to demand equitable access to inoculations.

    “The United Nations, which on other occasions was very belligerent, has now been unable to raise its voice against the powerful. This leads us to once again demand a restructuring of the body and that the UN comply with its founding charter.

    “Instead of being an element of pressure, they are not playing any role”, criticizes Centella.

    The creation of the Covax consortium, promoted by the WHO, the Alliance for Vaccination (Gavi) and the Coalition for Innovation in Preparation for Epidemics (Cepi), which promises to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, was not enough to promote democratic access to vaccines. Therefore, the current principal demand is for breaking the patents on vaccines against covid-19.

    The proposal has been defended by India and South Africa in the World Trade Organization (WTO), since October last year. It would allow the vaccine formulas to be freely distributed, providing decentralization and accelerating their production. Although 100 countries support the measure, the United States, the European Union and Brazil were opposed to it.

    “The quickest way to produce the vaccine in poor countries is by breaking the patents. Hence, the laboratories that already exist in these countries, as is the case with Brazil, would start producing without concern for royalties and licenses”, explains João Pedro Stedile.

    While vaccine production remains governed by market logic, the largest pharmaceutical companies get richer. According to a survey by Forbes magazine, during the pandemic, 40 new billionaires from the health sector emerged, including the directors of Moderna and Biontech.

    In addition to preventing the release of the vaccine patent, the United States and the European Union have already acquired, in previous contracts, double or triple the number of doses necessary to immunize their entire populations. This market reserve has been constantly denounced inside UN bodies by representatives from Mexico, Venezuela, Russia and China.

    Since the start of the pandemic, the Chinese government has advocated that the vaccine be declared a universal asset.

    China is the largest exporter of vaccines in the world, sending around 500 million doses to more than 40 countries.

    For the president of the Spanish Communist Party, the root of the problem lies in the very structure of the current political-economic system.

    “We want to make it clear how capitalism is not part of the solution to any problem, but is the problem itself. Humanity is not free from suffering a pandemic, a natural disaster, but it must have the mechanisms available to deal with these issues. Today we have natural and medical resources available, but they are in the hands of a few.

    “So it is increasingly evident that we must end capitalism lest it ends humanity”, concludes José Luis Centella.

    View original article here: https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2021/04/07/capitalism-is-the-problem-social-movements-denounce-on-world-health-day

    The post Organizations across the globe publish World Health Day manifesto in defense of vaccination and universal basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.