radiofree.asia

Category: THE SOCIAL DEBATE

  • Chavit Singson wants universal basic income in Philippines if elected senator

    By Raymund Antonio

    See original post here.

    During the Quezon City media forum on Saturday, Oct. 19, the former governor said that augmenting the income of minimum wage earners aged 18 years old and above is the first measure he would propose.

    “Alam mo iyong kung ano iyong universal basic income? Sa ibang bansa ginagawa na, ang tawag ko diyan, Chavit 500 dahil lahat ng may suweldo na minimum pero magkakaroon ng 500 pesos monthly hanggang sa mamatay sila (Do you know what’s a universal basic income? In other countries, that’s already being done, I call it Chavit 500 because those earning minimum wage will have P500 monthly until they die),” he told reporters. 

    “Eighteen years old ang ating kababayan, hanggang tumanda sila, 500 iyong ibibigay (Eighteen years old Filipinos until they are old, they will receive P500),” he added.

    Singson explained that this would be open to all Filipinos, regardless if they are voters or not.

    He said government has sources for this, pointing to large companies that have not been paying their taxes in the country.

    “Iyong pinanggagalingan, marami akong pagkukunan niyan. Maraming hindi nagbabayad ng taxes dito sa ating bansa, iyong Netflix, iyong mga Orion, singilin natin lahat iyan, diyan natin ilalagay (As for the source, there are a lot of them. A lot of companies don’t pay taxes here—Netflix, Orion, let’s make them pay, we’ll put the revenue there [universal basic income]),” he added.

    Touting his experience in local governance, the former provincial governor said he still has many plans lined up in his platform, but stressed that this would be the first thing he does if elected.

    He also thumbed down the lawmakers’ preoccupation with dismissed Bamban mayor Alice Guo and said that her case should be investigated by the police and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), so Congress can focus on making laws.

    “So, tutulong ako sa ating mga kapwa senador para gumawa ng batas. Marunong, magagaling na senador; magsama-sama kaming lahat para tumulong sa ating bansa, so, iyon po ang ating plataporma (I will help our co-senators to make laws. Our senators are intelligent and excellent; we can work together to help our country, so that’s our platform),” he said.

    Meanwhile, Singson shared that what convinced him to run for Senate was the existing red tape in government.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Democratic Party of Korea decides to revise party platform to include Universal Basic Income

    By The Korea Times

    See original post here.

    The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) decided Monday to revise its platform to include former leader Lee Jae-myung’s “basic society” welfare plan centering on guaranteeing universal basic income.

    The new party platform will better reflect Lee’s long-sought vision for a “basic society” with state-funded basic income, basic housing and other living standards, which he believes will help improve people’s livelihoods.

    During a meeting of the party’s central committee, the DPK also decided to add a preamble on restoring the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement and come up with measures to prevent accidental military clashes with North Korea.

    The move comes after Seoul fully suspended the 2018 inter-Korean military tension reduction agreement in June in response to North Korea’s sending of trash-carrying balloons.

    The DPK also decided to revise the party’s charter to expand penalties for those who refuse to accept the party’s election nominations. Currently, those who refuse to accept the results of primaries are banned from running for public office on the party’s ticket for 10 years, and the penalty will be expanded to those refusing to accept the party’s nomination results.

    The revisions will be confirmed at the party’s national convention on Sunday, during which Lee is likely to win a second term as party chief. (Yonhap)

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Democratic Party of Korea decides to revise party platform to include Universal Basic Income

    By The Korea Times

    See original post here.

    The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) decided Monday to revise its platform to include former leader Lee Jae-myung’s “basic society” welfare plan centering on guaranteeing universal basic income.

    The new party platform will better reflect Lee’s long-sought vision for a “basic society” with state-funded basic income, basic housing and other living standards, which he believes will help improve people’s livelihoods.

    During a meeting of the party’s central committee, the DPK also decided to add a preamble on restoring the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement and come up with measures to prevent accidental military clashes with North Korea.

    The move comes after Seoul fully suspended the 2018 inter-Korean military tension reduction agreement in June in response to North Korea’s sending of trash-carrying balloons.

    The DPK also decided to revise the party’s charter to expand penalties for those who refuse to accept the party’s election nominations. Currently, those who refuse to accept the results of primaries are banned from running for public office on the party’s ticket for 10 years, and the penalty will be expanded to those refusing to accept the party’s nomination results.

    The revisions will be confirmed at the party’s national convention on Sunday, during which Lee is likely to win a second term as party chief. (Yonhap)

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Food banks across Canada are begging to be put out of business

    By Sheena Goodyear

    See original post here.

    Josh Smee imagines a future in which food banks no longer exist in Canada, because people don’t need them.

    “Food banks as an organization are about as old as I am,” Smee, the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador charity Food First NL, told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

    “It feels like we’ve had this model forever, but we haven’t. It doesn’t have to be here.”

    Food First NL is one of several food charities across Canada who have signed onto a campaign called “Put Food Banks Out of Business.”

    Launched by the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank, it calls on Canadians donating to food banks this holiday season to also reach out to their local members of Parliament to advocate for the implementation of  basic income to keep people above the poverty line.

    “I think one of the most important gifts we can give alongside cash is the gift of our voice,” Smee said. 

    They’re making the call on Giving Tuesday, when charities around the world campaign for donations ahead of the holidays, sometimes with matching funds from companies.

    Across the country, the demand for food banks is surging. 

    A report by Food Banks Canada this year found there were more than two million visits to Canadian food banks in March 2024 alone — six per cent more than the year before, and 90 per cent more than in 2019.

    Of the 12,000 new people who are using food banks monthly, more than 50 per cent are employed full-time, while more than 60 per cent have a post-secondary education and are working.

    As working Canadians turn to food banks month after month, the report says the charities don’t have the resources to keep up. More than 30 per cent of food banks reported running out of food.

    That’s partly because food banks were never meant to shoulder this weight, says Marjorie Bencz, executive director of Edmonton’s Food Bank — the first one to set up shop in Canada.

    Edmonton’s Food Bank, she says, first opened its doors in the 1980s as a temporary measure to help people get through an economic downturn. 

    Decades later, it’s still open and busier than ever. What’s more, she says the conditions that led to its creation — low incomes and a lack of affordable housing — have not improved.

    “I think that the gravity of the situation is not understood by decision makers or maybe even broader community members, because what’s happening on the front line is food banks are just scrambling for resources,” she said. “This is not sustainable for any of us.”

    That’s why the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank created this campaign, says Matt Noble, the organization’s executive director.

    “In a country like Canada, food insecurity should not be the responsibility of the charitable sector and the goodwill of donors,” they said. 

    “Optically, it’s almost like we give the government a break by being here and looking like we’re taking care of it. We kind of take pressure off the government to actually solve the problem.”

    But the government isn’t listening to the people on the front lines of the food crisis, says Meghan Nicholls, chief executive officer of Food Banks Mississauga.

    “I have never been so angry,” she said. “We keep shouting to elected officials. I meet with them face-to-face and tell them what’s needed, tell them what’s happening in the community. And I get a pat on the back and a ‘Thanks for all your work.’”

    Donations still needed

    Despite the campaign to put food banks out of business, Smee says these charities still need Canadians’ generosity more than ever.

    But he’s calling on donors to also speak to their lawmakers about basic income, or make a note to bring it up the next time a candidate comes knocking. 

    “Our organization has done a lot of work talking to people who are experiencing food insecurity, and what they’ve said loud and clear to us is that they’re looking for policy change, not better emergency aid,” Smee said. “I think we need to respect that desire.”

    Asked if a Canada without food banks is possible, even with basic income, Smee says it’s possible food banks would stay open to help people through “those briefest of emergencies.”

    “But right now, we’re using food banks to get you through the month, to get you through the year and to get you through the decade,” he said. “That’s just not what they were ever designed for.”

    Still, he’d rather dream big. 

    “I think we need to be ambitious here and imagine a time when they don’t exist.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Food banks across Canada are begging to be put out of business with basic income

    By Sheena Goodyear

    See original post here.

    Josh Smee imagines a future in which food banks no longer exist in Canada, because people don’t need them.

    “Food banks as an organization are about as old as I am,” Smee, the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador charity Food First NL, told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

    “It feels like we’ve had this model forever, but we haven’t. It doesn’t have to be here.”

    Food First NL is one of several food charities across Canada who have signed onto a campaign called “Put Food Banks Out of Business.”

    Launched by the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank, it calls on Canadians donating to food banks this holiday season to also reach out to their local members of Parliament to advocate for the implementation of  basic income to keep people above the poverty line.

    “I think one of the most important gifts we can give alongside cash is the gift of our voice,” Smee said. 

    They’re making the call on Giving Tuesday, when charities around the world campaign for donations ahead of the holidays, sometimes with matching funds from companies. 

    Running out of food

    Across the country, the demand for food banks is surging. 

    A report by Food Banks Canada this year found there were more than two million visits to Canadian food banks in March 2024 alone — six per cent more than the year before, and 90 per cent more than in 2019.

    Of the 12,000 new people who are using food banks monthly, more than 50 per cent are employed full-time, while more than 60 per cent have a post-secondary education and are working.

    As working Canadians turn to food banks month after month, the report says the charities don’t have the resources to keep up. More than 30 per cent of food banks reported running out of food.

    Josh Smee, the CEO of Food First Newfoundland and Labrador, says people experiencing food insecurity want policy change, not charity. (Abby Cole/CBC)

    That’s partly because food banks were never meant to shoulder this weight, says Marjorie Bencz, executive director of Edmonton’s Food Bank — the first one to set up shop in Canada.

    Edmonton’s Food Bank, she says, first opened its doors in the 1980s as a temporary measure to help people get through an economic downturn. 

    Decades later, it’s still open and busier than ever. What’s more, she says the conditions that led to its creation — low incomes and a lack of affordable housing — have not improved.

    “I think that the gravity of the situation is not understood by decision makers or maybe even broader community members, because what’s happening on the front line is food banks are just scrambling for resources,” she said. “This is not sustainable for any of us.”

    That’s why the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank created this campaign, says Matt Noble, the organization’s executive director.

    “In a country like Canada, food insecurity should not be the responsibility of the charitable sector and the goodwill of donors,” they said. 

    “Optically, it’s almost like we give the government a break by being here and looking like we’re taking care of it. We kind of take pressure off the government to actually solve the problem.”

    But the government isn’t listening to the people on the front lines of the food crisis, says Meghan Nicholls, chief executive officer of Food Banks Mississauga.

    “I have never been so angry,” she said. “We keep shouting to elected officials. I meet with them face-to-face and tell them what’s needed, tell them what’s happening in the community. And I get a pat on the back and a ‘Thanks for all your work.’”

    Donations still needed

    Despite the campaign to put food banks out of business, Smee says these charities still need Canadians’ generosity more than ever.

    But he’s calling on donors to also speak to their lawmakers about basic income, or make a note to bring it up the next time a candidate comes knocking. 

    “Our organization has done a lot of work talking to people who are experiencing food insecurity, and what they’ve said loud and clear to us is that they’re looking for policy change, not better emergency aid,” Smee said. “I think we need to respect that desire.”

    Asked if a Canada without food banks is possible, even with basic income, Smee says it’s possible food banks would stay open to help people through “those briefest of emergencies.”

    “But right now, we’re using food banks to get you through the month, to get you through the year and to get you through the decade,” he said. “That’s just not what they were ever designed for.”

    Still, he’d rather dream big. 

    “I think we need to be ambitious here and imagine a time when they don’t exist.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Reimagining Conservation Post-Cop16: The Case for a Universal Basic Income

    By Carlos Adrian Perez

    See original post here.

    The recent COP16 underscored the need for inclusive conservation strategies in Latin America, where social conflicts and environmental vulnerabilities intersect. A Universal Basic Income could be the answer.

    The recent 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, or COP16, has highlighted the urgent need to rethink conservation strategies, particularly in Latin America, where the convergence of social conflict and environmental vulnerability creates a complex, high-stakes landscape.

    The global environmental crisis, manifesting in the accelerated loss of biodiversity, is exacerbated by deep socio-economic inequalities. Yet communities most affected by environmental degradation are often those that can play a crucial role in its protection. Traditional approaches are no longer sufficient; conservation efforts must be both innovative and inclusive. Therefore, it is vital that communities are included in the formulation of policies that impact their lives. And to take an active role in conservation, they require support through financing mechanisms tailored to their specific needs.

    The intersection of conservation and social justice is not merely an ideal; it is an urgent necessity that we must embrace to achieve a sustainable future for all.

    In this regard, Universal Basic Income (UBI) emerges as an essential tool for empowering vulnerable communities and promoting equitable conservation strategies. It is not merely about mitigating environmental impacts; these actions also strengthen community resilience and contribute to peace, helping to prevent conflicts. However, the true potential of UBI is only fully realized when supported by financing mechanisms such as Cap and Share.

    A Model of Climate Justice

    The Cap and Share model generates socio-economic equality through emission reductions and biodiversity protection. And by redirecting these resources towards UBI, we can create a virtuous cycle in which vulnerable communities benefit directly from conservation actions.

    Cap and Share enables communities to receive regular, unconditional payments, providing them with crucial financial security. This not only alleviates pressure on natural resources but also facilitates active community participation in the conservation of their surroundings. UBI is not simply economic assistance; it is a model of climate justice that ensures those most affected by climate change receive direct support, empowering them to become agents of change.

    Colombia Pilot Project

    In Colombia, where the intersection of urgent environmental challenges and violent conflict is particularly evident, a pilot project implementing UBI could be pivotal. This initiative would provide regular income to affected communities, offering them economic relief and the opportunity to engage in conservation practices. Such a project would not only generate immediate benefits for the communities involved but also serve as a vital case study for scaling UBI initiatives across similar contexts. The evidence gathered from this pilot could demonstrate the effectiveness of UBI in reducing poverty, enhancing food security, and fostering peaceful sustainable practices, thereby making a compelling case for broader implementation.

    Global evidence suggests that regular income from UBI can have significant positive effects on food security and community autonomy. Communities receiving cash transfers can diversify their income sources and improve their agricultural practices, thereby reducing pressure on ecosystems. In Colombia, this could mean a reduction in practices that contribute to deforestation, as communities empowered by financial security are more likely to invest in sustainable land management.

    Armed conflict in Colombia has left deep scars on the country’s social and environmental fabric. Displaced communities and areas of high ecological degradation serve as constant reminders of the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues. Restoring the environment and reducing inequalities must be tackled together to achieve lasting peace. Implementing UBI, supported by Cap and Share, could be a crucial step toward rebuilding the relationship between communities and nature, creating a foundation for sustainable development.

    A Sustainable and Equitable Future

    As we look forward, it is essential that the conversation around inclusive financing does not stall. Every dollar allocated to conservation should be seen as an investment in the communities that care for our most precious ecosystems. Both international and national actors must recognise the importance of these initiatives and collaborate to ensure that vulnerable communities have access to the resources they need.

    The implementation of UBI, alongside mechanisms like Cap and Share, not only offers an economic solution but also addresses the root causes of social and environmental injustice. In doing so, we not only protect biodiversity and ecosystems but also build more just and resilient societies, capable of facing present and future challenges. The intersection of conservation and social justice is not merely an ideal; it is an urgent necessity that we must embrace to achieve a sustainable future for all.

    Concluding this chapter of COP16, it is clear that the path to effective conservation must be inclusive. Promoting dialogue around financing mechanisms that empower vulnerable communities is essential to ensure that conservation strategies are fair and effective. Only by doing so can we strengthen the resilience of our communities and contribute to a more equitable world, where nature and humanity coexist in harmony. A pilot project in Colombia can provide the necessary evidence to scale these initiatives, offering a replicable model on a larger scale, which can be advocated in upcoming scenarios such as COP29 and COP30.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Rethinking Universal Basic Income: Economic Productivity, Quality of Life and the Sustainable Development Goals

    By Mariano Torras

    See original post here.

    Recent concern about the uncertain impacts of artificial intelligence has fueled renewed discussion of universal basic income (UBI). As in the past, much of the conversation depicts UBI as a policy expedient aimed at relieving the adverse effects (presumably inescapable and impending) of technological unemployment. We must, however, rethink the main purpose of UBI. It is a sound policy initiative quite independent of the technology question. By aligning with many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UBI could be a global game-changer. Appreciating this, however, requires looking beyond growth in gross domestic product as the predominant indicator of economic progress.

    Nobody questions─or should question─the goal of economic productivity. Yet when we emphasize productivity without a clear end goal we run into complications. We never desire productivity for its own sake; it is always an instrument to help us meet social goals. What, then, are (or ought to be) our goals? 

    For too long, economics has equated productivity gains with growth in income or gross domestic product. It is increasingly evident, however, that such a perspective is at best limiting and at worst harmful. Our social goals should not amount to material comfort on its own, rather the satisfactions it affords. Freedom, dignity, pleasures, diversions, new challenges─these are but a few of the constituents in our “quality of life”.

    Now it is undoubtedly the case that gross domestic product growth is vital for most countries in the global South. To the extent that income enables people to meet their fundamental survival needs and to enhance their life capabilities, its importance cannot be overstated. Yet it is more reason to institute a modest UBI even in the poorest countries, if nothing else as a means of keeping populations out of precarity (related to SDGs 1 and 2). Financing a UBI in a country with a limited budget is of course no trivial matter, but there are means of doing so.

    Unwarranted emphasis on income is of far greater import in the case of countries in the global North. Here, most people have met or exceeded the basic requirements for a dignified life; many, indeed, did so long ago. There has never been any question that, beyond a certain income level, we all encounter what economists call a “diminishing marginal utility of income”. The more money we earn, in other words, the less it matters in relation to our time─time available to engage with family and friends, take up hobbies or engage in creative pursuits. While seemingly obvious, the truism deserves far more attention, especially among economists.

    Unfortunately, our Western culture of work and productivity rails against such a view. Consumerism and the endless creation of so-called “positional” or Veblen goods—those for which demand increases as price increases—has individuals in the global North continually striving for more. And our penchant for hard work naturally makes many of us recoil at the suggestion of a UBI, since it could signify “rewarding” those who do not work.  

    Such a view is seriously misguided. A materially comfortable existence is, in many cases, not worth the trade-offs it entails. As the late David Graeber noted in his research on paid office work, employment in industrialized countries is increasingly soul-consuming, with a growing number of professionals questioning their own contribution to society. Graeber encourages us to think, in contrast, of the legions of artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers or even competitive athletes who would gladly accept the near poverty-level wages implied by UBI so that they might devote their lives to their passion (SDG 3). Liberating creative individuals in such a way would surely produce positive externalities for society─something easy to miss, unfortunately, as we continue to privilege quantitative values over more meaningful, albeit less tangible, benefits.

    Employing UBI to help us escape the consumerist treadmill would likely produce other indirect benefits. Substitution of intangible social achievements for material consumption would most likely, for example, be associated with responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), potentially helping the world achieve its goal of reducing the most adverse effects of climate change (SDG 13). In addition to promoting well-being (SDG 3), the increased leisure time that would result from a UBI could lead to more innovation (SDGs 9 and 11) as people would have more time to pursue diverse and creative interests instead of languishing in an office. Widespread adoption of UBI would also undoubtedly help combat technological unemployment as a side benefit, which aligns with SDG 8. Despite often not being quantitatively measurable, the above benefits would most likely dwarf whatever adverse incentive effects that might result from a UBI. 

    Objections on financial or budget grounds must, however, be taken more seriously. Granting everyone an unconditional stipend, however modest, would surely be extraordinarily expensive. It is, indeed, difficult to envisage such a scheme in the absence of substantial tax increases.

    Such a policy shift is warranted in today’s world. Inequality, both within and across countries, has arguably reached intolerable extremes. There is no question that the world’s wealthiest people could finance much of the shift to a UBI (SDG 10). The fact that it would be “universal”─i.e. everyone would receive the stipend─could help make the idea more politically palatable. The status quo is unfortunately an impediment to any such plan because extreme inequality reinforces itself through continued rent extraction instead of economic productivity─the precise opposite of what is needed. Some form of redistribution is therefore imperative and, we might even speculate, unavoidable.

    Fortunately, since the cost of living in the global South is, on average, so much lower than in the global North, the funds necessary to make a difference are not infeasible. Redistribution on its own is insufficient; widespread UBIs across the global South would require some assistance from the global North (SDG 17). Very much of it could come in the form of debt relief, which, given the external debts of countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Zambia, would be timely.

    As John Maynard Keynes presaged almost a century ago in his essay, “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”, the truth is that, at least in a simple technological sense, the global North has largely “solved” its  economic problem. Yet technology is, always has been, and will continue to be neutral. Even if humanity possesses sufficient specialized knowledge to liberate itself, a gravely and persistently unequal social structure continues to hamper all the world’s countries.

    What can be done? While necessary and seemingly inescapable, global adoption of UBI will require a paradigm shift in economics. A new model that more evenly balances quantifiable “productivity” and intangible “quality of life” is as indispensable as it is overdue. As even luminaries such as John Stuart Mill long ago suggested, the global North at least ought to privilege leisure and quality of life over the drudgery undertaken to pursue a material living standard.

    Wholesale adoption of a universal basic income in the global North, and a concerted effort in promoting it in the global South, is the way forward. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Basic Income Grant coalition in Namibia protests conditional basic income grant

    By Veripuami Kangumine

    See original post here.

    The Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition of Namibia protested against the government’s proposed basic income grant on Saturday.

    They say the grant excludes the majority of the population. This comes after the Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Welfare and Poverty Eradication began registering qualifying households countrywide for the conditional BIG of N$600 last week.

    BIG Coalition coordinator Rinaani Musutua says the government has not made an effort to collaborate with the organisation despite their advocacy for a universal and unconditional BIG for people for the past 19 years.

    “We are not happy with what the government is doing right now: excluding a lot of people in the country who are not eligible for that Haraambe cash grant,” she said.

    Musutua says the government should work with the organisation to find a solution to widespread poverty after Namibia was named a hunger hotspot by the United Nation’s agencies this month.

    She also alleges that the government’s conversion of the food bank into a ‘Haraambee cash grant’ was an intentional move to derail the organisation’s campaign, which has demanded a BIG of N$500 per person for Namibians aged 0-59 years.

    “You don’t set conditions on a basic income grant, because the basic income grant is unconditional. As soon as you set conditions on it, find another name for it,” she added.

    Musutua further alleged the coalition has been doing the government’s job addressing the public’s concerns regarding eligibility for the conditional grant that has been extended to more towns.

    The ministry is rolling out the conditional BIG as part of the transition from the food bank programme and the marginalised communities special feeding programme.

    “We will continue to make it clear that what we campaign for is completely different from what the government is busy with right now or trying to implement,” she said.

    “[This gathering] is an information session to explain to the public what exactly is going on now, because the public doesn’t really know,” she said.

    The gender ministry’s executive director, Ndiitah Nghipondoka-Robiati, said the ministry has actively engaged various stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and local leaders to address poverty and hunger in Namibia.

    “While there may have been challenges in achieving a fully unified approach, the ministry recognises the importance of collaboration and is committed to enhancing stakeholder engagement as we move forward,” she said.

    Nghipondoka-Robiati noted that the ministry implemented the conditional Basic Income Grant (CBIG), which is an extension of the former food bank programme designed for vulnerable and destitute households in urban and peri-urban areas.

    To qualify, households must meet specific criteria, including household income levels below N$1600, unemployment status or lack of access to other forms of support.

    She further said the ministry employed a verification system to confirm eligibility by cross-referencing information with the National Population Register and the Social Security Commission database.

    “This process ensures that only eligible households receive support while preventing fraud and maintaining accurate records,” she said.

    Some citizens may not qualify for the CBIG due to its specific eligibility criteria. The ministry is actively working to educate the public about these distinctions through media campaigns, community outreach and information sessions, she said.

    “The ministry is exploring options and modalities for expanding support services and considering alternative assistance programmes that may cater for those who fall outside the current eligibility provision framework,” she added.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Sustainable welfare for a sustainable planet

    By Nicholas Langridge and Milena Büchs

    See original post here.

    The world is in crisis, socially, ecologically, and economically.

    Billions around the world live in some form of poverty and inequality has reached unprecedented levels. The world has also transgressed six of the nine planetary boundaries that researchers say mark the safe space for humanity. In 2023, fossil fuel consumption reached an all-time high. As a result, it’s becoming more likely that the world will pass more than 2°C of warming by the end of the century.

    The endless pursuit of economic growth will not fix this. It will make the situation worse. New growth makes the world less equal because its benefits are disproportionately captured by the already rich, with just 2% of new wealth flowing to the poorest half of the population. Growth also further threatens the environment, and a recent poll of climate scientists found that many are now sceptical that sustainability goals and further growth are compatible.

    The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights concurs. In a recent report, they took the bold step of rejecting the continued use of GDP as a measure of economic progress, calling instead for a greater focus on human rights, wellbeing and the redistribution of existing resources.

    Even if further growth were desirable, decelerating technological innovation, reductions in the working-age population, and declining fossil energy supplies make the end of growth all but inevitable. The only question is how we will handle it.

    Welfare at the end of growth

    The (ironically rapidly growing) degrowth movement exists to actively anticipate and chart a course through the challenges thrown up by the end of growth.

    Welfare is one area that will need radical reform if it is to continue to function. Current welfare systems co-evolved with growth-based economies to be mutually dependent on each other. Welfare systems support, stabilise, and legitimise the current economic system by trying to keep poverty, inequality, and social exclusion in check while also increasing labour productivity through education and health services. Economic growth is necessary for maintaining those welfare systems, as they are mainly financed through growth-dependent sources such as social insurance contributions and certain types of tax revenues.

    But sustainable alternatives to this model are possible. A growing number of academics and civil society groups are advocating for the creation of a new forms of welfare that meet five specific criteria:

    • align with planetary boundaries
    • be decoupled from economic growth.
    • satisfy human needs
    • promote fair distribution of resources
    • be democratically decided and governable

    To achieve this in a post-growth future, a greater proportion of overall resources in the economy will need to be directed towards needs satisfaction and welfare. This means that there will be less available for unnecessary and luxury consumption, with the greatest change required by the wealthiest.

    Universal basic services (UBS) and universal basic income (UBI) are two prominent policies being discussed in the context of sustainable welfare ex. Advocates of both argue that they comply with sustainable welfare by:

    • redistributing wealth and resources from rich to poor
    • providing the material and non-material means for satisfying human needs in a post-growth context
    • mitigating the regressive consequences of green policies
    • providing people with the time, space and resources to engage in meaningful activities, including democratic participation.

    The sustainability of universality

    UBI and UBS are often framed as contrasting models in competition with each other. We argue that this should not be the case. Both have different, complementary roles to play in the provision of post-growth, sustainable welfare.

    UBS – public services that satisfy core human needs and are free at the point of use – make it possible to live a good life without relying on markets. Private firms chase profit, have growth written into their DNA, and often fail to make the necessary goods available, or do so only at unaffordable prices (think of the global housing crisis). Public services in contrast are progressive, with higher benefits to the poor, and do not need the profit motive to sustain themselves.

    Empirical studies have also shown that public services can lead to greater improvements in health, well-being, and other social indicators than private equivalents. And, despite their reputation, they can also be more cost-effective and use less resources. The UK’s National Health Service emits less than a third of the CO2 equivalent per person than the American private system. Mass transportation systems are known to be much less resource intensive than private cars.

    Degrowth prioritises social protection and those sectors contributing to wellbeing in ecologically sustainable ways over expansion and capital accumulation for the wealthy

    This does not mean that post-growth societies should include only that which can be publicly provisioned. No set of public services could meet every need, for every person, and to presume otherwise would be an attempt to restrict individual autonomy – an essential need in itself. Some needs remain better served through well-regulated markets, particularly where individual needs and preferences play an important role: think food, clothing, or leisure activities. But not all.

    This brings us to UBI. As an unconditional cash income paid to all on a regular basis, a UBI would provide people with the monetary resources they need to acquire basic goods and services of their choosing, whether available through private markets or through collectively or publicly owned and managed institutions. Freedom and individual autonomy are needs in themselves and central moral and philosophical features of UBI. It supports them not only as abstract rights but seeks to give people the genuine capacity to choose how they satisfy their needs.

    The combination offers a more sustainable future for us all. A core set of services catering to major life areas, provided efficiently to all outside the profit and growth motive. A basic income that gives people a minimum capacity to choose what they wish to consume, within well-regulated markets that are compatible with planetary boundaries.

    Sustainability is possible, but not guaranteed

    It’s important to acknowledge that policies such as UBI and UBS may make a sustainable future more possible, but they alone don’t create one. An economy that prioritises staying within planetary boundaries and satisfying everyone’s needs, strong market regulation, and redistributive funding sources are pre-conditions for a sustainable future, within which UBS and UBI can support needs satisfaction and ecological outcomes.

    The political will to execute a comprehensive programme is needed: responsibly decelerate and then end economic growth with the one hand, while putting systems into place so that people can make the shift to a new form of living with the other.

    To understand how this could work, we must understand that degrowth is not the same as a recession. Recession occurs when an economy designed to grow stops doing so, resulting in unemployment and welfare cuts which disproportionately hurt the poor.

    Degrowth, by contrast, is the democratically planned transition to an economy which does not grow at the aggregate level by design. It prioritises social protection and those sectors contributing to wellbeing in ecologically sustainable ways over expansion and capital accumulation for the wealthy.

    In a post-growth economy, resources for needs satisfaction and welfare would represent a much larger proportion of overall production and consumption than they do today. Unnecessary and ecologically harmful economic sectors would be downscaled, and their resources would be redirected to the provision of factors which contribute directly to higher wellbeing.

    Multiple policies for funding sustainable welfare have been discussed in the academic literature. Common proposals include progressive income taxes, taxes on wealth, taxes on luxury consumption, or taxes on carbon, resources, and environmental bads. Work on modern and ecological monetary theory has also demonstrated that governments with sufficient monetary sovereignty can, in fact, mobilise the necessary resources by issuing public money. While public money creation remains limited by inflation, productive capacity, and ecological boundaries, this can be managed through a combination of the taxes mentioned above.

    The degrowth movement still has a lot of work to do to prepare for the future it seeks to create. Much more research is needed, for example, into the best combination of these funding sources, their compatibility with degrowth and sustainable welfare perspectives, their political feasibility, and their alignment with monetary theory.

    But the movement understands its direction of travel and the basic building blocks it needs to get there. Sustainable welfare, which would likely include elements of UBI and UBS, can be achieved if productive resources are redirected away from harmful and unnecessary industries and towards the provision of ecologically sustainable needs satisfaction and welfare. As one of the 20th century’s most influential economists, John Maynard Keynes, famously noted in a 1942 BBC address: “Anything we can do, we can afford”.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Corporations raised $16 million to oppose Oregon’s universal basic income plan. They won.

    By Allie Kelly

    See original post here.

    Oregon’s effort to institute a statewide universal basic income failed on November 5. With 73% of the total votes counted, The Associated Press reported that 78.8% of those voters opposed the policy.

    Measure 118 — also known as the Oregon Rebate — planned to give $1,600 annually to all residents who spend more than 200 days in the state. If it had passed, Oregon would have been the first state to implement a UBI policy giving all residents no-strings-attached cash. Alaska also has a program that resembles basic income, but it’s structured differently than Oregon’s proposal.

    To fund the initiative, Oregon planned to increase the corporate minimum tax rate by 3% on in-state sales exceeding $25 million.

    Prior to November 5, the policy was unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats, many of whom said the rebate could lead to increased prices for consumer goods and slower job growth. Major corporations also spent millions to oppose the measure.

    The opposition movement to Measure 118 raised over $16 million — more than 26 times what the Oregon Rebate support PAC raised.

    The measure failure comes as basic income programs across the country gain popularity as an approach to poverty reduction. Advocates for Oregon’s measure hoped that cash assistance would create a “fairer and more just economy” for state residents.

    Oregon’s UBI policy failed, but basic income is still gaining national momentum

    Business Insider has previously reported on basic income research, and state-level efforts to create lasting cash assistance programs. Oregon’s ballot measure resembles basic income experiments in other cities and countries.

    Over 100 guaranteed basic income pilots have launched across the US, and participants told BI they used the money to pay for housing, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical bills. These pilot programs are often funded through philanthropy, local governments, or private donors. Some states, like California and New Mexico, are also making efforts to incorporate basic income into state policy.

    But GBI differs slightly from UBI. Although the guaranteed basic income pilots offer no-strings-attached cash, the money is limited for a set time period and selected participants, many of whom are low-income and fit specific demographics such as single parents, artists, or students.

    Universal basic income would give everyone ongoing cash payments, regardless of their income level. A UBI program hasn’t been successfully launched in the US.

    During his 2020 presidential run, Democratic Candidate Andrew Yang pitched the Freedom Dividend, a federal basic income policy that would give $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18.

    The Alaska Permanent Fund, which began in the 1970s, is a model similar to universal basic income. It gives state residents annual payments (which were $1,312 per person in 2022) funded through the state’s oil revenue.

    Some tech leaders have also suggested that cash assistance programs will become more necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

    Still, any program like the Oregon Rebate would require funding and any major tax changes would need to be approved by voters.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: Open Your Heart to Universalism

    By Nicholas Freeland

    See original post here.

    I very much enjoyed Stephen’s humble and courageous admission that he is a reformed poverty-targeter! And I admire his plaintive appeal to all deluded believers in poverty targeting: “please, look at the evidence”.

    But I am not sure that evidence is the answer. After all, as Stephen says, many of the precepts of targeting the poorest “seemed logical”. Rather, I would like to begin with a quotation from Blaise Pascal, a French polymath from the 17th century, who wrote that “Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point”: the heart has its reasons, which Reason knows nothing about.

    To illustrate this, please allow me also to indulge in some personal reflections! Like Stephen, I have been working in social protection since it became fashionable in the early 2000s. At that time, I was Programme Director of the DFID- and AusAID-funded (as they were then!) Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP), promoting social protection across southern Africa. We were fortunate enough to have an extremely enlightened team,1 and we agreed from the outset that we would be guided by our principles. These were exciting times for social protection, and the final evaluation of RHVP by the Overseas Development Institute (cited in our Valedictory blog) found that “the Programme stuck to strong, clear messages on social protection and took an ‘uncompromising’ approach which sometimes involved controversial or critical stances. In many cases this drew defensive reactions, but over the course of the Programme, not only were many of those messages vindicated, but the messages delivered can be linked to a number of concrete policy changes”.

    We did not approve of the Kalomo social cash transfer pilot that Stephen now admits to have been promoting to his DFID colleagues. First, we were opposed to all such pilots. We didn’t feel it was right to be “experimenting with the lives of the most vulnerable”, and we wrote a Comment (which would nowadays be called a Blog) arguing that: “A social protection pilot that comes into a community to try out a new form of transfer can undermine existing coping systems, build reliance on the new transfer and create expectations of future support. When the pilot comes to an end and if it is not brought into the mainstream of an adequately funded and properly managed on-budget programme, the beneficiaries may even be left in a more vulnerable state than before the pilot entered their lives”.

    But, second and more importantly, we were viscerally opposed to the concept of targeting the 10% poorest, appallingly named the “non-viable poor”. You don’t need evidence to know that it is impossible to identify the poorest 10% (imagine trying to do that among a group of your friends or colleagues). You don’t need evidence to be certain that, even if you could, your assessment would change from one day to the next. You don’t need evidence to be aware that most of the 10% poorest in one district can be far better off than the 10% poorest in another district. You don’t need evidence to understand how damaging it will be to social cohesion to provide a cash transfer to one household and not to the near-identically deprived household next door. You don’t need evidence to recognise the stigma that might be attached to being categorized as “non-viable”. Your heart tells you all of this!

    We had already written a general Comment “Missing the Target” which argued that “The sooner we … move to universal rather than targeted social transfers, the sooner social protection – in whatever guise – will have a genuine impact on poverty.” Then, as evidence started to emerge from Kalomo, and – horror of horrors – we found that it was to be carbon-copied in Mchinji, Malawi, we wrote a more specific Comment. This was called “One Out of Ten: Social Cash Transfer Pilots in Malawi and Zambia”, in which we argued that “we need to be honest enough to recognise the fatal flaw in the prevailing model: that community-based targeting of an inadequate 10% quota is an unacceptable model for national replicability in sub-Saharan Africa”. [I returned to the same subject, in a couple of blogs for Development Pathways: one on “Crocodiles and CROCO dials”, and another a spoof review of the World Bank’s 2022 “Revisiting Targeting in Social Assistance: A New Look at Old Dilemmas”.]

    Nor is it only in the area of poverty-targeting that you can usefully rely on instinctive gut-feeling rather than on rational evidence. From an early stage of RHVP, we were opposed to workfare programmes as a component of social protection. How can you possibly justify to someone who needs social assistance that they have to undertake labour-intensive public works in order to get it, expending valuable energy, incurring high opportunity costs, neglecting household responsibilities, sometimes taking children out of school, and so on. We wrote a couple more blogs on this too. One was specific to Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (an aberration which continues to this day, and which I have again revisited in a blog called “Thidwick in Ethiopia”!), and one was a more general one called “Public Works Don’t”.

    Similarly with the conditions that are sometimes attached to cash transfers. Again, our initial dislike of conditionality was instinctual rather than evidence-based. How is it possible to claim that you are providing social assistance, when you can punish beneficiaries by taking it away if they don’t behave as you ask them to behave? It should also be abundantly obvious that monitoring compliance with imposed conditions places an additional burden on already-overworked staff at schools and health centres. Much better to trust beneficiaries to do what is best for them, and to keep the system simple. [As another French polymath, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, wrote, this time in the 20th century: “La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu’il n’y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu’il n’y a plus rien à retirer” – perfection is attained, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.]

    We wrote a series of blogs spelling out the shortcomings of Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) under the slightly corny pseudonym of “Sissy Teese”; and an article in the IDS Bulletin which echoed Thomas Love Peacock’s assertion about the sugar trade in the West Indies that CCTs are “economically superfluous, physically pernicious, morally atrocious and politically abominable”.

    It really staggers me, twenty years on, that we are still having to persuade unreconstructed poverty targeters that such targeting is an embarrassing dead-end, that workfare is as unacceptable now as it was in Victorian poor-houses, and that people should not be deprived of social assistance if they don’t meet arbitrarily imposed conditions.

    I fear that evidence is not enough. So I end with a final quotation, from a contemporary and distinctly non-French polymath, Bruce Springsteen: “Come on and open up your heart”. In matters of social protection, please trust your instincts and do what your heart tells you!

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • New poll shows more people in the UK support Universal Basic Income than oppose it

    By Chris Jarvis

    See original post here.

    New polling has found that a plurality of the British public support the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). A UBI is a scheme through which every person in the country would receive a payment from the state which is designed to help meet some or all of their basic needs and costs.

    Advocates for a UBI argue that it could play a major role in alleviating poverty and addressing income inequality in the country by ensuring that nobody falls below a minimum standard of living.

    The new poll found that 46 per cent of people in Britain support the introduction of a UBI, compared to 33 per cent who oppose it. The remaining 20 per cent said they didn’t know whether they support or oppose a UBI.

    The poll also found that 50 per cent of people think a UBI would improve quality of life and 52 per cent think it would reduce poverty.

    YouGov – who carried out the poll – also found that half (50 per cent) of those who support a UBI think it should cover all a person’s basic living costs, irrespective of other forms of income. Meanwhile, 45 per cent of UBI supporters think it should only cover some basic living costs, with people being expected to supplement the UBI with other forms of income.

    Despite the levels of support for a UBI, the YouGov poll also found that more than half (56 per cent) of the public don’t think such a scheme would be affordable for the government.

    Support for a UBI is highest among Labour voters – 61 per cent of whom said they support the measure. 54 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they back it, as did 31 per cent of Reform voters, and 21 per cent of Tory voters.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Why Measure 118 in Oregon Was Written To Be Fully Universal

    By Antonio Gisbert

    See original post here.

    Beyond Trafficking and Slavery: Welcome. Can you start out by telling us about yourself?

    Antonio Gisbert: I was born and raised in Madrid, Spain. My family immigrated to the United States when I was a child and I grew up here. I was a scientist in my first career, and then became a union organiser. Now I do political organising.

    BTS: How did you get into political organising?

    Antonio: It all started very organically. Around 2018, a group of friends and I started meeting up in coffee shops and public spaces. We vented about our economic conditions and how we’d like to improve society.

    We discussed how the biggest corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, and wondered whether we could change that. We thought that if that money could be collected and moved to the people who need it most, it would be the most effective way to improve economic security.

    BTS: Did you know much about universal basic income (UBI) going into this? Is that what you were basing these conversations on?

    Antonio: No. I had really not heard of universal basic income before. We discovered it by learning about the principles of economic inequality and microfinance.

    Microfinance asks how a relatively small amount of money can make a big difference in our communities. It proves it doesn’t cost the world to decrease disparity or make society better. That kind of literature, mostly from the Global South, is so powerful.

    BTS: You’ve been spearheading the campaign for the Oregon Rebate. How did you arrive at the initial value of $750 per year per person, which I believe has now been revised upward?

    Antonio: We estimated that increasing corporate tax revenue by the most conservative estimate would bring in about $3 billion in tax revenue every year. We divided that by four million Oregonians and came up with roughly $750 per person per year. We wanted to start with the maximum conservative estimate because that felt safer. We do not want to promise something that we could not deliver.

    $750 annually can be negligible or transformative, depending on your privilege, income, and socioeconomic status. To some it’s not a lot of money. But to others it could mean paying an electricity bill or buying their kids groceries.

    The state of Oregon has by now done some financial analysis. They estimate that the Oregon rebate would actually bring in about $7 billion a year, which is a lot more money than our initial estimate of $3 billion. Theirs is likely more accurate, and it’s higher than ours, so that’s great. Nobody’s going to be upset if they were expecting to receive $750 and got $1,600 instead.

    Data shows that if everyone in Oregon received a direct cash transfer of around $1,600 per year, that would reduce child poverty by about half

    BTS: So you want everyone to receive the UBI money, not just needy families?

    Antonio: When we say everybody in Oregon, we really mean everybody. Our values centre on human dignity. We’re all equally deserving of good things in society because we’re all equal members of society, regardless of whatever status or condition society might put on us.

    A mother in our group spoke eloquently about how she had raised her son in poverty in Alaska, and how the $1,200 a year she had received there had made a huge difference in their lives. She and her son brought our group to a consensus on this. If it works in Alaska, why couldn’t it work in Oregon or anywhere else?

    BTS: How would the taxes, revenue, and proposed distribution of UBI work exactly?

    Antonio: We propose a 3% tax increase for any company with revenues in Oregon over $25 million. Every person in Oregon would get an equal share of that: every adult, every child, every dependent. It doesn’t matter whether you file taxes or don’t file taxes. It doesn’t matter whether you are housed or unhoused. It doesn’t matter whether you are in custody or not. It doesn’t matter whether you’re documented or not. Everybody in Oregon would get the rebate.

    BTS: What’s some of the pushback you’ve faced?

    Antonio: In the United States, there’s a very strong, anti-tax narrative that comes from the political right. We’ve also faced opposition from the centre or left-of-centre crowd, which is surprising because they claim to care about economic development and reducing poverty.

    There’s a deeply entrenched scarcity mindset across the political spectrum. Most people aren’t even conscious of it, but this belief that there’s not enough to go around is very strong. Yet we have giant corporations that have amassed so much wealth they can’t even spend all of it. They have an unimaginable amount of money. What we’re asking for is small in comparison.

    BTS: Were you surprised by the opposition from the political left?

    Antonio: Yes and no. In the US we’re not taxing corporations regardless of the political party that’s in control, so maybe it’s not such a big surprise after all.

    BTS: How do you counter that opposition? How do you explain the plan to people who are generally anti-taxation, or who believe there isn’t enough to go around?

    Antonio: Data shows that if everyone in Oregon received a direct cash transfer of around $1,600, that would reduce child poverty by about half. That’s a big difference. Reducing child poverty is not only the right thing to do, but it’s also good for society. Children who are better off do better in school and in their lives. Those children are going to grow up to be happier, healthier, and will be able to better care for society in return. It’s an investment in the future.

    BTS: The Oregon Rebate is on the ballot this November. How hopeful are you that it will pass?

    Antonio: We’re realistic and staying hopeful regardless of the outcome. It’s a long-term project. Every election, every campaign is an opportunity for more conversations about economic disparity and how to build a healthier and more equitable society. Obviously I’d love it if everybody was immediately in favour of the proposal. But if they’re not we won’t be deterred.

    BTS: We’ve talked about the opposition to the proposal. Who have been your biggest allies?

    Antonio: The strongest allies have been the people. We are people-centred and believe in people. Regular people wrote the proposed law. Regular people collected the signatures to qualify this proposal for the ballot. Regular people signed those petitions. Regular people are going to be the ones who vote yes or no in November. And regular people will be the ones who will receive the rebates and decide how they’ll spend their money.

    It’s totally up to them. And so most of the support has come from people who know they could use the money for their families by taxing corporations a little more. People immediately say yes to that. That just feels good to folks immediately.

    BTS: What do you think has been the most effective messaging for your UBI campaign?

    Antonio: We simply ask them, “Could you use $750?” Immediately, everyone – even the wealthiest people – say of course they could. It’s obvious. Everyone has some use for a little extra money.

    BTS: I was really impressed with your definition of universality. You said that anyone who has lived for 200 days in the land is eligible. Where did this inspiration come from? How did you conceptualise it?

    Antonio: We had to come up with a definition for inclusion that was maximally inclusive, but operable. This was important because in society, implicitly or explicitly, we exclude vast numbers of people.

    An obvious example of this are adults in custody. They have many rights taken away from them even before they go to trial, and as long as they are held they are excluded from society. We wanted to make sure they and other marginalised groups in Oregon also received the rebate.

    So we had to write in protections specifically for such communities, to ensure they have the same rights that I have. The same goes for undocumented Oregonians. These folks are our friends and neighbours, but our society routinely excludes them. We felt obligated to make sure those folks are also represented in the initiative’s language, so that they are protected and explicitly included.

    We need to get 1.1 million Oregonians to vote yes – a simple majority

    It’s really asking the question of who is an Oregonian? Normally this is defined by citizenship or residency, but there’s a big difference between those two ideas. We chose residency because it’s tied to the number of days spent in a place during the year. We also wouldn’t want people to travel from a different state just to claim the rebate – that would dilute the value of the rebate for those of us here.

    We decided on 200, because the personal tax code for Oregon also considers you a resident for the purposes of taxation if you’re in the state for 200 days or more. When you write a law, it’s generally a good principle to scaffold what you’re writing onto pre-existing law if you can.

    Birth and death are both exceptions to the 200-day rule. For example, if your child is born on 31 December, they did not spend 200 days in the state of Oregon. But babies are expensive and we want to be mindful of parents. So we include those children as eligible recipients of the rebate. Similarly, if somebody passes away we thought it would be cruel to tell grieving family members that the person they love missed out on the rebate because they died too early in the year. So we include those folks as well.

    BTS: What advice would you give other people who’d like to start a similar initiative?

    Antonio: We are very much a people-powered campaign; we’ve built the plane as we’ve flown it. I think you have to give yourself grace and support one another because social justice work really depends on the time, place, and the issue. I don’t think there’s a perfect formula that’s going to work everywhere. It’s very dynamic and specific to your community and issue.

    Given that caveat, the first step in your journey of direct democracy for any kind of social change is that you need a very clear theory of change. You need to have an idea of how power works, and what your position is within that space. And you have to really check your moral compass and your values.

    This is hard work. I would advise folks to work on something that is really meaningful, because it’s a lot of work. And you need something you’re really driven by to keep you going through the challenges. Because there will be challenges.

    Finding your moral voice and understanding the reason why you want to do this – that is the most important thing. It’s also the most rewarding aspect of such work.

    BTS: With elections in November, what are the next steps, and how many votes are required?

    Antonio: We’re going to be on the November 2024 general election ballot in Oregon. We need to get 1.1 million Oregonians to vote yes – a simple majority. We’re reaching out to voters and talking to them, so they know how voting yes is going to benefit their lives and those of their families.

    Their communities and local economies would do a lot better as well. It’s the circular economy effect. This money would normally be leaving the state, but we’d be bringing back billions of dollars into the local economy for us to use as we wish.

    Fingers crossed that we will win this November. After that comes implementation. Corporations would start paying the higher tax in January 2025, and the first rebates would go out in early 2026. So it will take at least a year to get it up and running if it passes.

    The revenue side is pretty straightforward, but then we’re going to have to work with our partners and the legislature to make sure their programmes are implemented as intended. For example, we wrote that the state of Oregon has to advertise the existence of the programme across the state in multiple languages. We’d need to make sure this actually happens, and that all residents of the state know about it.

    BTS: My last question is about the political parties. What are the Democratic and Republican parties saying about this officially?

    In the state of Oregon, there are more non-affiliated voters than card-carrying members of either major party.

    The Democratic Party is uncomfortable with some aspects of the campaign, but it’s hard to say why exactly. It might just be that we didn’t ask permission – we just did this and made it happen. Or it could be that they have other priorities.

    I haven’t spoken with the Republican Party about this, but I don’t imagine they’d support taxing corporations. But that doesn’t matter because the party doesn’t vote. Voters – real people – they vote.

    We don’t know for sure if we’re going to be successful, and we’re prepared to continue this work for future elections if we have to. There’s never been a guarantee that we’re going to do this in one go. This is important social change. It takes a while, and we’re okay with that.

    Think of it this way: during this election we’re conducting an experiment. We’re asking people directly if they think that it’s a good idea to tax giant corporations, and to then use that money for their own family’s economic benefit.

    On 5 November we’ll learn what they say.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A Sustainable Global Universal Basic Income Can Be Done

    By Patrick Brown

    See original post here.

    In September, Pope Francis attended the World Meeting of Popular Movements, an initiative he launched 10 years ago as a platform for grassroots organisations to come together and address the “economy of exclusion and inequality”. During his speech at the event, the head of the Catholic Church renewed his call for a global universal basic income (UBI), saying that implementing such a measure would not only be a reflection of compassion but also “strict justice”.

    Pope Francis has joined a growing international movement advocating for income redistribution through a scheme of unconditional monthly cash payments to every individual to cover their basic needs and provide economic security as a fundamental human right.

    A global UBI is not just a question of poverty relief. It’s also a question of social justice. Centuries of exploitation and overextraction of resources have concentrated wealth in the Global North, and as a result, most Global South countries lack the tax base and fiscal firepower to fund their own national UBIs. A global UBI would not only end world poverty, but also represent a necessary and equitable redistribution of wealth from north to south.

    Critics of the movement have often pointed to the significant cost that implementing UBI could incur for governments. So is there a sustainable way to pay for it?

    At Equal Right, a nonprofit that also advocates for UBI, we have developed detailed modelling laid out in our paper “Climate Justice Without Borders”. It shows that a charge of $135 per tonne on the global extraction of fossil fuels could raise as much as $5 trillion a year and fund a global UBI of at least $30 a month. A progressive wealth tax ranging between 1 and 8 percent on the world’s richest multi-millionaires and billionaires could yield another $22 for every person in the world, and a financial transactions tax of just 0.1 percent could raise another $16 each.

    These payments could be supplemented by other taxes on the global commons, including land, mining and artificial intelligence tools, recognising the equal right we all have to a share of the world’s wealth and resources.

    Now, a payment of around $70 a month may not be life-changing for many. But for the 712 million people living in extreme poverty worldwide, it would be transformational. Pilot programmes from Canada to India and Finland to Brazil have demonstrated the huge social and economic benefits of giving people cash.

    So, we can fund a global UBI by taxing carbon and wealth, but we must acknowledge the limitations of this approach. As carbon emissions decrease and wealth becomes more evenly distributed, taxable resources will diminish. This creates a cliff edge for the longevity of UBI, one that can only be bridged through more sustainable financing.

    At the same time, a green just transition is urgently necessary to end our reliance on fossil fuels, and huge potential exists in the Global South in particular. Currently, this transition is fettered by predatory, high-interest loans that keep many countries in never-ending debt cycles.

    That is why, to ensure the sustainability of UBI and support a green just transition, Equal Right proposes establishing a Global Commons Fund (GCF) – a people-owned initiative that would collect revenues from the fossil fuel charge, invest them in the green economy, and distribute a UBI as a dividend to all citizens. Based on the performance of similar sovereign wealth funds, like Norway’s (which is worth $1.7 trillion), we expect the fund could become self-sustaining (and no longer be reliant on extractive revenues) within around 20 years. However, an initial capital endowment from Global North countries could expedite this.

    The GCF would seek to end the debt cycle for poor countries and provide grants for climate mitigation and adaptation. It could even pay interest to governments who show leadership by keeping their fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

    Crucially, we must ensure that this fund does not encourage further exploitation of our shared resources. Therefore, we propose a global cap on carbon extraction, based on scientific recommendations to keep global temperature rise within 1.5 degrees Celsius. Fossil fuel companies would then pay a charge to access every tonne of fossil fuel extracted under this cap.

    The “cap and share” model we have put together not only funds a global UBI, but also mitigates the climate crisis, paving the way for a radical but necessary socio-ecological transformation needed to keep us within planetary boundaries and avoid continued climate chaos.

    The UBI itself could be a powerful tool to tackle the climate crisis. For instance, in India, basic income pilot programmes have shown that households receiving UBI are more likely to transition to cleaner fuel options. In Peru, an NGO called Cool Earth provides a basic income for conservation work in the Amazon. Meanwhile, NGOs GiveDirectly and the International Rescue Committee are using data to predict natural disasters and provide cash payments to help communities prepare and rebuild, acting as a form of compensation for loss and damage.

    Climate justice and economic justice are two sides of the same coin. Our “cap and share” system not only addresses the urgent need for climate finance, but also tackles poverty and inequality by funding a global UBI.

    As the world looks towards COP29, and pressure mounts on member states to achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement and agree on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, Equal Right urges policymakers to consider the potential of the “cap and share” system.

    This radical yet necessary approach can fund a global UBI, as championed by Pope Francis, while capping fossil fuels and funding a better future for us all. Embracing these bold yet essential approaches will not only advance climate justice but also foster economic equity, ensuring that no one is left behind in the pursuit of a sustainable and just future for all.

    In a time of immense uncertainty, “cap and share” gives us options: a way out, a way through and a way forward.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Oregon businesses are spending millions to oppose a ballot measure that would give every resident a $1,600-a-year basic income

    By Kenneth Niemeyer and Katie Balevic

    See original post here.

    Oregon businesses are spending big to oppose a ballot measure that would tax corporations and give residents $1,600 a year in a rebate program that is similar to a universal basic income.

    And lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, seem to agree. They say the ballot measure is riddled with problems and could crater the state’s budget.

    Whether the state adopts Oregon Measure 118, however, will ultimately be up to the voters.

    Also called the Oregon Rebate, the measure would increase the state’s minimum corporate tax rate by 3% after a company makes $25 million in in-state revenue. Then, it would distribute that money to all Oregon residents, including minors and dependents, who have lived in the state for at least 200 days.

    The rebate “levels the playing field” for Oregonians, over 170,000 of whom signed a petition to get the measure on the November ballot, the Oregon Rebate website says.

    California donors have been the largest source of funding for the Oregon Rebate PAC, which has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of Measure 118, state filings show. As for the opposition, Oregon businesses have collectively raised $9.3 million to fight it.

    An unusual show of bipartisan opposition

    Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek told the Willamette Week in July that the ballot measure “may look good on paper, but its flawed approach would punch a huge hole in the state budget and put essential services for low-wage and working families at risk.”

    A united front of state Democratic legislators — who are more likely than their conservative counterparts to support the kinds of basic income programs that have gained popularity nationwide — is also fighting the ballot measure. They fear it could hamper job growth and “cause cuts to critical services like road maintenance, fire fighting, and addiction recovery,” the state’s Senate Democratic Leadership Fund said in a statement in August.

    The state’s Republican Party called the measure “misleading, misguided, and harmful to Oregonians and to Oregon small businesses” in a press release on Saturday.

    “If Measure 118 passes, the $1600 ‘rebate’ each taxpayer would receive would be dwarfed by the necessity of paying even higher prices for groceries, medicine, utilities, gasoline, clothing and just about everything else Oregonians struggle to afford already,” the party said. It added that the rebate could drive businesses out of Oregon.

    The Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, a nonpartisan entity, released a report this month that found low-income rebate recipients could be disqualified from receiving aid from federal programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid.

    “If there were no changes and Measure 118 becomes law, that just creates a $1.3 billion hole in the general fund,” Chris Allanach, the state’s Legislative Revenue Officer, told The Oregonian. “The Legislature could change it, but that has its own issues.”

    Despite months of opposition from politicians and business leaders, Antonio Gisbert, the petitioner behind the ballot measure, has maintained that the rebate would be net neutral.

    “In short, General Fund dollars do not fund the rebate, all implementation and related costs are paid for by the new revenue. The reduction in poverty decreases demand on services and the increased economic stimulus will boost the state’s economy and lead to increased tax receipts and the General Fund resources,” Gisbert told Business Insider in an email in August. He did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment.

    The fight over UBI

    Universal basic income programs offer recurring, unconditional payments to people regardless of their economic status. Measure 118 would make Oregon the second state in the United States to have some form of a statewide universal basic income, joining Alaska. The Alaska Permanent Fund distributes annual funds to all Alaskans.

    Proponents of these programs say they can help poor residents pay for basic needs and stimulate the economy, while their opponents — most commonly conservative lawmakers — argue that they are closer to “socialism” and offer payments with no merit.

    In his previous comments to Business Insider, Gisbert said he remains optimistic voters will support the measure in the general election.

    “It kind of does seem a little bit like some of these elected [officials] are more beholden to corporations and corporate interests than they are to the interests of everyday Oregonians,” Gisbert said. “We are super committed in instituting some degree of corporate tax justice.”

    Gov. Tina Kotek did not immediately return requests for comment from Business Insider.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • NDP’s push for basic income in Canada thwarted at second reading

    By Isaac Lamoureux

    See original post here.

    An NDP attempt to push through universal basic income was short-lived after a majority of MPs voted against a bill to push through the initiative during its second reading.

    NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh endorsed MP Leah Gazan’s “Bill for a Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income”, however 83.5% of MPs voted against the bill.

    While the bill’s defeat is welcome news, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Franco Terrazzano, told True North that taxpayers need to stay vigilant and keep pushing back against any such policies.

    “Bad ideas never seem to go away in Ottawa, so taxpayers must stay alert and continue to push politicians to fight against guaranteed income schemes,” said Terrazzano. “Politicians should be making life more affordable by cutting taxes and letting Canadians keep more of their own money.” 

    Bill C-233 aimed to have the Minister of Finance table a report with a framework to provide Canadians 17 years and older, including temporary workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants, with a guaranteed livable income. The bill specified that the framework should outline that participation in education, training, or the labour market would not be required to qualify for the income.

    According to the bill, the amount provided would be region-specific and take into account the cost of goods and services necessary to ensure individuals could lead a dignified and healthy life.

    The bill’s overwhelming defeat resulted in 273 MPs voting against it and 54 MPs voting in its favour. NDP MPs and a few Liberals supported the bill.

    Prior to the bill being defeated, Terrazzano warned that its passing would be a disaster for taxpayers, businesses, and the Canadian economy, urging every politician to vote against it. 

    “The government is broke and is more than $1 trillion in debt, so this expensive scheme would mean massive tax hikes for average Canadians,” he told True North. “It would make it harder for Canadian businesses to find and retain talent because if the government pays people not to work, fewer people will work.”

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially doubled Canada’s debt on Aug. 30, accumulating more debt than every other Prime Minister before him combined. When he first took office, Canada had $616 billion in debt, which has now doubled to over $1.232 trillion.

    According to the CTF’s federal debt clock, the debt costs each Canadian over $31,000. 

    “The government can’t even launch a simple app or pay its own employees without soaking taxpayers, so there’s no way the government could launch this scheme without fumbling the ball and ballooning the tab,” said Terrazzano.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report in 2021, highlighting that universal basic income would cost taxpayers $85 billion a year. 

    Singh’s post to X promoting the bill received overwhelmingly negative feedback as of Sep. 25, with many users who replied urging Singh to force an election rather than pushing for more expensive socialist programs.The Bloc Québécois and NDP both voted against the Conservatives’ non-confidence motion on Wednesday, as neither are willing to budge on propping up the Liberal government.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Advocates Form the New York State Cash Alliance to Champion a Guaranteed Income in New York

    By Creatives Build New York

    See original post here.

    Today, Creatives Rebuild New York — in partnership with Win, Children’s Defense Fund-New York, and other advocates — announced the formation of the New York State Cash Alliance. The Cash Alliance is a diverse coalition of advocates, community organizers, cash beneficiaries, direct-service providers, policymakers, researchers, and artists who are organizing for a guaranteed income and aligned policies that expand access to unrestricted cash in New York State. The Cash Alliance has been formed in response to economic problems facing New Yorkers: the rising cost of housing, inflation, wage stagnation and the increasing demand for working multiple jobs. Guaranteed income is an evidence-based solution for rebalancing the economy for everyone, but especially those who need it most urgently. 

    Guaranteed income pilots continue to proliferate across the United States (with 130 pilots and counting), with a growing number in New York State, from Rochester to Hudson to NYC. The work of these pilots confirms the power of cash to transform lives in an economy that’s simply not working for most people the way it should. As the guaranteed income movement continues to grow this Alliance will strive to sustain the growing energy around guaranteed income, with the ultimate goal of getting a publicly-funded guaranteed income in the state of New York.

    For financial relief to reach all New Yorkers in need, the Cash Alliance also fights for policies to increase access to unrestricted cash, including shifting existing public benefits toward an unconditional cash model, expanding tax credits, and investing in new programs such as baby bonds. 

    The NYS Cash Alliance will be engaging in advocacy campaigns, legislative endorsements, organizing, community building, and education for guaranteed income and cash policies. The Alliance is a part of a broader, bold national movement for a guaranteed income. Cash coalitions are already organizing for a guaranteed income in Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington DC.

    “Win is thrilled to be part of the NYS Cash Alliance, following the successful launch of our Growing Strong program. Growing Strong is a direct cash transfer and peer support pilot for parents of infants and toddlers in our shelters. For families in economic crisis, guaranteed income is a vital support that honors their agency and expertise in their needs,” said Christine Quinn, President and CEO of Win. “With proposals in front of the legislature such as expanded tax credits for families and the MILC bill, we are excited to work together to turn the lessons from other guaranteed income pilots across the state into meaningful policy that will benefit not only our clients, but all people in New York.” 

    “The NYS Cash Alliance is organizing around unconditional cash support for New Yorkers at a critical moment and the Children’s Defense Fund-New York is proud to be part of the collective action,” said Julia L. Davis, Director of Youth Justice and Child Welfare at the Children’s Defense Fund-New York. “Our YouthNPower: Transforming Care direct cash transfer pilot for young people who were formerly in foster care has brought together a team of gifted leaders, creators, teachers, researchers, organizers, and policy advocates who care about our community of young people who have experienced the child welfare system to elevate policies like cash. We are excited to help build the movement with allies to create permanent policies for this kind of support.” 

    “The need for coordination and community is strong, making the NYS Cash Alliance a powerful entity to seed real change. New York State is home to millions facing economic precarity and holds tremendous power to be a leader for national policy. Our program is evidence that guaranteed income works,” said Maura Cuffie-Peterson, Director of Strategic Initiatives for Guaranteed Income at Creatives Rebuild New York. “At CRNY we know that the work of artists is essential to society and is central to New York’s identity, culture, and economy – and yet, is dramatically undervalued and consistently undercompensated. We’re proud of the organizing effort that Creatives Rebuild New York has undertaken to launch, convene and facilitate the Alliance. As we prepare for our CRNY sunset, we know the Alliance is well-poised to continue its advocacy in 2025 and beyond.” 

    “We are thrilled to join leading advocacy organizations, program practitioners, researchers, and policymakers in launching the New York State Cash Alliance,” said Steph Silkowski, Director of Policy & Strategic Initiatives at The Bridge Project. “As the largest unconditional cash program serving mothers and infants in the country, we know firsthand the benefits of flexible, no-strings-attached cash support for families in need. We look forward to growing the New York State Cash Alliance’s coalition, educating New Yorkers about the flexibility and dignity that comes with unconditional cash support, and advancing municipal and state policies that build a kinder, stronger, safety net for all New York families.”

    To learn more about this work and how to get involved, click here.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Scalise’s Democrat challenger promises universal basic income program

    By Nolan McKendry

    See original post here.

    (The Center Square) − A Democrat challenging House Majority Leader Steve Scalise supports a universal basic income program to address Louisiana’s economic, education and health care issues. 

    The seven-term Republican is likely to coast to reelection for an eighth term in Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District despite facing four challengers in the open or “jungle primary” on Nov. 5. 

    Scalise faces opposition from two Republicans, one unaffiliated and one Democrat. The Democratic candidate, Mel Manuel, is the only challenger with any reported campaign donations, with $10,367. According to Federal Education Commission records, the Democrat has $4,645 remaining in campaign funds. 

    A certified public school teacher with 15 years of classroom experience, Manuel has outlined a sweeping reform agenda focused on education, abortion rights, a universal basic income and LGTBQ+ rights. 

    Manuel, a passionate advocate for overhauling Louisiana’s public education system, emphasized the need to make teaching a more attractive and competitive profession. 

    “Not only is pay low here, but conditions in schools are absolutely terrible for the majority of educators. The only way we’re going to attract the best teachers is if we pay competitive salaries,”  Manuel told The Center Square. 

    Beyond teacher compensation, Manuel stressed the need for significant improvements to the physical and emotional environments in schools, pointing to the “prison-like” conditions students endure. 

    According to the candidate, Manuel’s 13-year-old daughter faces long, grueling school days that start as early as 6 a.m. and offer little opportunity for rest or recreation.

    “Schools start way too early for junior high and high schoolers… She’s exhausted, and the food is poor quality. How can we expect children to perform well in these kinds of conditions?” Manuel wrote in an email.

    Manuel called for shorter school days or the elimination of homework to allow children more time to play and rest.

    On broader social issues, Manuel signaled support for universal basic income and health care, as well as housing and food subsidies.

    “When people are doing well financially, when they’re not struggling, crime goes down and mental health goes up,” Manuel explained.

    Randall Arrington, one of the Republican challengers, has no reported campaign donations or official website and has campaigned primarily from YouTube and X. Arrington, on his X account, claims to be a professor of political science and a retired naval aviator. 

    “I will never trash talk [Scalise] during the campaign,” Arrington said in post on X. “But, it’s time for another Louisiana citizen to perform his civic duty, and allow Steve to go back to private life.”

    The second Republican challenger, Ross Shales, has a campaign which appears more official, though his platform deviates from today’s GOP platform.

    Policy proposals from Shales include redrafting the Second Amendment and term limits for the Supreme Court. He is also very critical of Donald Trump.

    “The Republican party can and should do tremendously better than its presidential candidate and any politician supporting him,” Shales wrote in an X post.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Trump and Biden agree: The US should finally start a sovereign wealth fund

    By Lakshmi Varanasi and Katie Balevic

    See original article here.

    Bipartisanship in the United States is unusual, especially during election time.

    So it is noteworthy that Democratic and Republican leaders both appear to want to establish a sovereign wealth fund to help the United States pay for stuff.

    Top aides to President Joe Biden, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and his deputy, Daleep Singh, have been quietly developing plans for a sovereign wealth fund over the past several months, Bloomberg reported.

    The details, including the structure, funding, and investment strategy, remain unclear, but planning documents are making the rounds through the White House and Biden hopes to make it happen before he leaves office.

    News of Biden’s effort came not long after former president Donald Trump called for a similar state-owned investment fund to finance “great national endeavors” during a campaign stop at the Economic Club of New York last week.

    Sovereign wealth funds are an old idea that many other countries — particularly ones that generate vast wealth from their natural resources, like Saudi Arabia or Norway — have long used to pay for big things. Countries park their cash reserves in the state-owned fund so it can grow.

    Norway’s $1.6 trillion Government Pension Fund Global, the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, for instance, reported in January that it made $213 billion in profit last year driven by returns on investments in tech stocks, Reuters reported. The Norges Bank Investment Management, the branch of Norway’s central bank that oversees the fund, said the fund is supported by investment returns on equities, fixed income, real estate, renewable energy infrastructure, and revenue from oil and gas production.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which manages about $925 billion in assets, reported a $36.8 billion profit for 2023, according to Reuters. The PIF says it is funded through four avenues — capital injections from the government, government assets transferred to PIF, loans and debt instruments, and retained earnings from investments. That money is being used to invest in everything from Uber and Blackstone to Heathrow and LIV Golf. It’s also using it to finance Vision 2030, a huge initiative to transform the country’s economy and reduce its reliance on oil.

    It is unclear how an American fund would be, well, funded, or how it would operate. But people familiar with the Biden administration’s plans told Bloomberg that if the United States launched a fund, it could invest in national security interests like technology, energy, and supply chain initiatives.

    This isn’t the first time Washington has toyed with the idea of a sovereign wealth fund. Last March, a group of bipartisan lawmakers led by Sen. Angus King and Sen. Bill Cassidy began discussing a sovereign wealth fund to pay for Social Security. At the time, Sen. Mitt Romney, who attended the talks, said the fund would allow the United States “to be able to borrow at low interest rates and invest in the growth of our economy, and perhaps economies of other nations as well.”

    The number of potential uses for the fund, if — again — it can ever be funded, is nearly unlimited, which excites lawmakers.

    The White House’s interest in a sovereign wealth fund stems partly from its desire to compete with China, which has multiple state-owned funds itself. White House aides suggested an American fund could bolster national interests through things like “bridge financing” for companies competing with China, according to Bloomberg.

    Others have suggested the fund could support technologies with high entry barriers, like geothermal and nuclear fusion projects or quantum cryptography. Or it could create synthetic reserves of critical minerals by purchasing futures contracts.

    Or, hey, maybe it could even be used to pay down the national debt.

    “It would great to see America join this party and instead of having debt, have savings,” billionaire John Paulson said last week in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “It would be, over time, larger than any of the existing funds.”

    It sounds nice, but it all hinges on government cash to fund it and sound investments to grow it.

    Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week that it was “hard to believe that setting aside lots of funds for unspecified investments made in unspecified ways, where you don’t even know what it’s going to be called, is a particularly responsible, kind of proposal.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A Newborn Tax Credit Could Be Worthwhile, With Sound Administration

    By Margot Crandall-Hollick

    See original post here.

    Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has vowed to make permanent temporary expansions to the child tax credit (CTC) and earned income tax credit (EITC) enacted by 2021’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. Alone, these expansions would provide valuable resources to many low-income families, reducing poverty and material hardships in the short term, as well as improving education outcomes and future earnings in the longer term.

    Grabbing the most attention, however, is Harris’s proposal for a larger CTC for families with newborns. Parents would receive up to $6,000 for their newborn—a $2,400 boost on the $3,600 ARP child credit for young children under 6 years old. The boost could help low-income families, especially if planned and administered well.

    Assuming these provisions went into effect in 2025, the Tax Policy Center estimates that reinstating the 2021 expansions of the EITC and CTC plus a larger CTC for newborns would cost $105 billion for that year. After 2025, the cost would increase substantially compared to current law because CTC enhancements enacted through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are scheduled to expire.

    Overall, low-income families with children would gain $2,750 on average from the combination of the expanded CTC and the additional credit for newborns.

    The families of virtually all newborns in 2025 would receive a larger credit compared to current law, with the largest increases benefiting the nearly 3 out of every 10 newborns whose families’ incomes are too low to receive the full benefit under current law.

    A $6,000 credit would triple the CTC received by most families today. The credit would be even larger for low-income families who currently receive less than the maximum amount of the credit because they don’t earn enough money.

    A larger CTC for newborns would provide a meaningful investment in children at a crucial moment in their lives. Research indicates that income supplements received when a child is young can improve a child’s future health and education outcomes and future earnings.

    Any parent can attest to the high costs associated with newborns—buying diapers, clothes, bottles or formula, to say nothing of car seats and cribs. But families often incur these expenses just as parental income falls, when parents must take time off of work or cut back on their hours to care for their new child. A larger CTC for newborns will boost income when it is needed most.

    But how would this benefit be delivered? Policymakers need to take care in establishing a CTC that reaches families in a timely, efficient fashion, minimizing administrative challenges.

    Typically, families receive the CTC annually, after they have filed their tax return. In many cases, families must wait months after the birth of their child to receive any tax benefit. If a family had a child in January 2024, for example, they could receive the CTC for that child the following year, perhaps by late February or early March 2025. And for many families who aren’t familiar with the tax system, including immigrant families, filling out a tax return to get the child credit can be a challenge.

    Under Harris’s proposal, policymakers would have to decide if they want the $2,400 newborn bonus administered separately from the $3,600 CTC for young children. If so, they could provide the $3,600 monthly (or provide a share monthly and the remainder claimed on a tax return, as they did in 2021) and provide the $2,400 separately, such as a lump sum payment as soon as possible after a baby’s birth. That could provide a valuable boost in income to help families afford large purchases for their newborns, like car seats and cribs.

    They should also detail other aspects of sound administration. What kind of information would the IRS need, and what infrastructure will allow quick and accurate delivery to families? How might the IRS help families who may be unfamiliar with filing a tax return?

    For some families, simplified filing tools may be helpful. Others may benefit from additional support using a trusted navigator to ensure they get the benefit. 

    With focus on the administration of this new benefit, including the resources the IRS would need to issue the CTC quickly and accurately, a newborn credit could be a valuable resource for families when they most need it.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • With Measure 118, a new business tax proposal is scrambling old battle lines

    By Dirk VanderHart

    See original post here.

    Eight years ago, a proposal to raise Oregon taxes on large businesses had corporations and public sector unions at each other’s throats.

    The tax hike proposed in 2016′s Measure 97 led to the most expensive ballot measure fight in state history, with the two sides spending more than $42 million combined. In the end, corporate interests won out: The measure went down in defeat.

    This year, Oregon voters will consider a similar taxing idea in the form of Measure 118, one with the added promise of putting money back in their own pockets. But business and labor are no longer split.

    Instead, many of the state’s most active political groups — and a growing number of politicians on both sides of the aisle — have come out against Measure 118.

    This week the board of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, which represents tens of thousands of grocery employees around the state, voted to oppose the idea. It joins Service Employees International Union Local 503 and the Oregon Education Association, whose boards both registered opposition earlier this month over concerns the measure could blow a hole in the state budget.

    Meanwhile, business interests from around the country have poured nearly $6 million into a campaign committee that is fighting the measure.

    In most races, that kind of pushback would go a long way toward dooming a ballot proposal. But it might not be so simple with Measure 118, known as “The Oregon Rebate.”

    The measure would levy a 3% tax on any business’s Oregon sales above $25 million, then divvy up the money raised among Oregon’s more than 4 million residents, no matter their age. A recent analysis by state revenue officials suggested the policy would reap more than $6.5 billion a year in additional corporate taxes, and send around $1,600 a year to every resident of the state beginning in 2026 — either via tax credits or direct payments.

    That number is far from certain, but it’s likely to be a strong selling point for Measure 118 boosters. The proposal is a pared-back version of “universal basic income,” the idea of alleviating poverty by sending no-strings-attached payments to citizens. It would put Oregon in league with Alaska, which issues a yearly “dividend” to residents based on revenue from oil production in the state.

    Measure 118′s backers might have a lot of money to spread their message of easing Oregonians’ financial worries.

    Josh Jones, a Southern California billionaire who, in the words of his LinkedIn profile, “likes Universal Basic Income,” has contributed $480,000 to the measure to date. Two more donors listing California addresses, financier Alexander Tamas and Gisele Huff, president of the Gerald Huff Fund for Humanity, have donated a combined $123,000.

    Nearly all of that money was spent collecting signatures to land Measure 118 on the ballot, but the suggestion is clear: Donors with serious money and a desire to explore the promise of no-strings-attached payments to better people’s lives are taking an interest in Oregon.

    “We’re playing to win,” said Antonio Gisbert, a Portland resident and chief petitioner behind the ballot proposal. “At the end of the day we think that Oregon voters are going to see the value in Measure 118. It’s one thing for giant corporations to be telling you that this rebate’s going to be bad for you. I’m not sure that people are going to believe that.”

    In fact, the rebate proposal’s origins lie partly in the fight over Measure 97. That’s apparent from the taxing mechanism itself: Measure 97 would have slapped a tax of 2.5% on business’s Oregon sales above $25 million, whereas this year’s proposal increases it to 3%.

    Back in 2016, Gisbert was an organizer with Oregon AFSCME, a union representing government employees. The core idea of Measure 97 — taxing large corporations that Gisbert says too often pay a laughably low amount of state taxes in order to pour around $3 billion a year into bolstering services like education and health care — appealed to him.

    So when the measure failed by nearly 20 percentage points, Gisbert and some friends started reimagining how to sell a corporate tax hike to voters. He reasoned that Oregonians were put off by the notion of handing billions to a state government they didn’t trust to spend wisely.

    “We looked around and said, ‘Well, what can we build on? Let’s not reinvent the wheel and come up with a new tax completely,’” Gisbert said. “Then, of course, our big spin on it was: Okay, let’s use this money to get every Oregonian a cash rebate.”

    The Measure 118 campaign is hoping to sell Oregonians their vision of fairly taxing big business in order to increase prosperity, including slashing childhood poverty and virtually ending state taxes for lower-income Oregonians.

    According to the state’s Legislative Revenue Office, the measure would “significantly reduce or eliminate personal income tax liability” for Oregonians who make less than $40,000 a year. Collectively, those people would go from paying $458 million a year in state taxes to receiving a refund of $550 million under the rebate policy, the office said.

    All of those outcomes seem in step with the aims of the state’s big labor unions, which tirelessly preach policies that can lift up lower-income people. But Gisbert’s most powerful allies in the Measure 97 fight are preparing to oppose him.

    Three of the state’s four largest unions have already come out against Measure 118. The remaining holdout — Oregon AFSCME, where Gisbert once worked — just hasn’t held a vote yet.

    “There are so many questions about how it’s written and how it’s going to be interpreted,” Joe Baessler, Oregon AFSCME’s executive director, said in a recent interview with OPB. “That just makes us super nervous.”

    It’s not that unions are suddenly opposed to increasing taxes on corporations. They’re chiefly concerned with recent findings that Measure 118 could wind up unintentionally hobbling the state’s general fund budget, money their members rely on.

    The reason centers around the way Oregon taxes businesses. Under the tax code, many large corporations either have to pay taxes as a percentage of their taxable income, or pay a “corporate minimum tax” that is based on their Oregon sales, whichever is larger.

    Measure 118 would increase the amount big companies owe under the minimum tax, and would result in more businesses paying far more tax via that route, an estimated $13.6 billion in the 2025-27 budget cycle.

    But, according to legislative attorneys, the measure would also mean the state receives less money via the other part of its business tax code, the one based on taxable income. And according to legislative attorneys, nothing in the measure gives the state the ability to recoup that loss.

    Under this reading of the law, the state would rebate around $13.6 billion in 2025-27, all of it raised via the new tax, but at the same time, lose out on more than $1 billion in business taxes that would have normally flowed into the state’s general fund.

    The specter of a budget cut has become a major concern for labor groups and politicians. The Legislature’s four most powerful Democrats issued a joint statement last week, laying out their objections.

    “In these tough times, we all want working families to get every break they can, but Measure 118 is not the answer,” the Democrats said. “We have grave concerns it will slow job growth and cause cuts to critical services like road maintenance, fire fighting, and addiction recovery.”

    In total, nearly 50 state lawmakers oppose the measure, according to the No on 118 campaign. Two members of Congress, Gov. Tina Kotek and Treasurer Tobias Read have also come out against it.

    Gisbert said his campaign disagrees with the legal analysis that suggests his measure would have budget repercussions. But if that reading ultimately prevails, he is open to helping lawmakers tweak the language of the measure after it passes to ensure it is revenue-neutral. (That could reduce the amount Oregonians can expect as a yearly rebate to $1,400 or less.)

    “We can all sit down and implement this thing correctly and justly as intended,” Gisbert said. “Our goal is to keep the state whole.”

    That won’t placate many opponents. Oregon Business & Industry, the state’s largest business group, has so far marshaled the most forceful campaign attacking Measure 118.

    A website set up by the group argues higher business costs would increase the prices of goods and services, a conclusion shared by state analysts, who found it could result in a 1.3% price increase by 2030.

    “It’s a tax on sales — not profits,” the website says. “That means Oregon businesses would be forced to pay this new $6.8 billion tax regardless of whether they make a large profit, make a small profit, or are losing money.”

    Whether labor unions jump in with their own opposition campaign remains to be seen, said Melissa Unger, executive director of SEIU Local 503. If they do, their arguments are likely to differ from those coming from business.

    “This is a bunch of outside folks trying to play with Oregon to try to see what’s possible nationally,” Unger said. “We’re not just a ballot measure playground.”

    Gisbert, facing opposition from his old allies, says he doesn’t take it personally.

    “We can still be friends,” he said. “At the end of the day, I would not be doing this work if I didn’t believe that The Oregon Rebate is going to be good for every person in Oregon. Whether you’re a union member or not, you’re going to get those 1,600 bucks.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Harris proposes $6,000 tax credit for new parents

    By Emily Peck

    See original post here.

    In a speech on Friday in North Carolina, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris will propose a raft of progressive economic proposals that echo and expand on President Biden’s agenda, campaign officials said.

    Why it matters: Until now, Harris has offered little in the way of details on her economic plans.

    State of play: The economic plan includes tax cuts for middle-class families, including a $6,000 child tax credit for families during the first year of a kid’s life — when expenses go up, and income often goes down while a parent steps out of the workforce for child care.

    • Harris, echoing Biden, wants to bring back 2021’s expanded child tax credit, which was $3,600 per child under age 5 and $3,000 for those older, under the American Rescue Plan.

    For lower-income adults who aren’t raising kids — a group often left behind by federal anti-poverty programs — the proposal would expand the earned income tax credit.

    Zoom out: Both Harris and her opponent, former President Donald Trump, see fighting high prices and helping families as key to their campaigns.

    • Harris’ big challenge: acknowledging high prices while avoiding the blame for inflation that President Biden often receives.
    • Vice presidential candidate JD Vance has also said he’d like to expand the child tax credit, though he skipped a vote on a proposal to do just that earlier this month.

    Other details of Harris’ broader economic plan emerged earlier this week — including a housing agenda that would encourage the construction of 3 million more units, tax incentives for businesses, and $25,000 in down payment support for homebuyers.

    • Perhaps most controversially, Harris wants to ban price-gouging on food and groceries — though it’s not yet clear how that would work in practice.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Oregon residents will vote in November on a $1,600 annual universal basic income

    By Katie Balevic

    See original post here.

    Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting a ballot measure in Oregon that would increase corporate taxes to give residents an annual rebate.

    The proposal, known as Ballot Measure 118 or the Oregon Rebate, would add a 3% tax on corporations in the state once they make $25 million a year. The plan was originally known as Initiative 17. The money would be distributed among state residents, including children, as a $1,600 annual rebate.

    Despite the opposition from lawmakers, it’s not up to them. Ballot measures give residents a chance to vote directly on an issue. Oregonians themselves will be able to vote in favor or against the measure in November’s general election.

    Antonio Gisbert, the chief organizer behind the effort, told Business Insider he remains optimistic that a majority of voters will support the measure in the general election.

    “It kind of does seem a little bit like some of these elected [officials] are more beholden to corporations and corporate interests than they are to the interests of everyday Oregonians,” Gisbert said. “We are super committed in instituting some degree of corporate tax justice.”

    Cash payments with no strings attached are gaining popularity in the United States as a way to support vulnerable populations. Guaranteed basic income programs piloted across the nation have found that recipients, who are typically low-income, spend the money on rent, groceries, and transportation.

    While guaranteed basic income programs are aimed at specific groups, like low-income residents or new mothers, the Oregon Rebate would benefit all residents, making it more similar to a universal basic income.

    While Democrats are typically the primary supporters of basic income programs in city and state governments, many Oregon Democrats joined Republicans in opposition to Measure 118. In a joint statement from state House and Senate Democrats, the legislators said they have concerns about the rebate coming from corporate taxes.

    “In these tough times, we all want working families to get every break they can, but Measure 118 is not the answer. We have grave concerns it will slow job growth and cause cuts to critical services like road maintenance, fire fighting, and addiction recovery,” the Democrats wrote in a joint statement shared with Business Insider.

    An analysis from the state’s legislative revenue office found that Measure 118, which would increase corporation taxes while reducing personal income taxes, would “significantly” alter how the state draws on tax money to pay for public services.

    Citing the revenue report, the coalition of Democrats said the rebates would “increase prices for consumer goods and slow Oregon’s job growth.”

    “Meanwhile, the ‘rebates’ would go to every Oregonian — including the ultra-wealthy. As a matter of public policy, we believe this is a bad deal for Oregonians,” they said in the statement.

    In a statement on Thursday from the organizers behind Oregon Rebate, Gisbert said the initiative doesn’t need legislators’ support.

    “Our opponents can keep paying lip service to their donors and we’ll keep working to turn out voters in November,” Gisbert said in the statement.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Churches in South Africa join call for basic income grant

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

    Hundreds of churches have joined civil society’s call for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to be made permanent and become a universal basic income grant (UBIG).

    Currently, between 7.5 and 8.5 million unemployed adults depend on the R370-a-month SRD grant. This grant is paid directly into a bank account each month. However, a monthly check is made on these accounts to ensure that no other income is being received. Activists have complained that this has allowed Sassa to exclude millions of people who are, in fact, eligible for the grant.

    On Thursday, churches part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) pledged to urge the government to implement a UBIG. At an event hosted in Woodstock, Cape Town, the group also launched the Global Reformed Platforms of Engagement (Grape) programme, which advocates for “inclusive economic and social transformation”.

    During the event, clergy members representing dozens of umbrella bodies of churches across South Africa signed a pledge to support a UBIG. These include the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa, the Calvin Protestant Church, the United Congregational Church of Southern Africa, the Volkskerk, the Presbyterian Church of Africa, and the Dutch Reformed Church.

    The proposed basic income grant would be a cash transfer from the government to citizens aged 18 to 59. While the South African government has expressed support for this, there has been some pushback from big business and the Treasury.

    The Grape platform aims to mobilise churches and their congregants’ support on social justice issues to address poverty, reduce inequality, and improve education, health, and nutrition. Grape is already active in Kenya, advocating for access to clean and safe water.

    Reverend Dr Bukelwa Hans of the Grape programme said: “We consulted with church leaders about joining the universal basic income coalition. That included online workshops, developing activities, consulting with other church leaders, developing more material and then launched today.”

    Highlighting the challenges of poverty, inequality, and unemployment, Hans said that the UBIG should be offered to individuals instead of households and without stringent conditions.

    Hans said some church leaders visited Otjivero in Namibia, where a basic income grant had already been piloted, to assess its impact. “People opened up small businesses, and it improved their standard of living,” she said.

    Hans criticised the SRD grant for being insufficient to cater to people’s needs. “The church must make a noise when the government isn’t doing the right thing,” she said.

    Hans believes the UBIG should, at a minimum, be R760 per month and then be increased over time.

    She said there are many “misconceptions” that the UBIG is unaffordable and will cause beneficiaries to become dependent on the state.

    “The role of the church will be to clear up these misconceptions. Not everyone is going to use that money to go to the nearest store to buy alcohol.

    “The grant is for local economic development, redistribution of wealth so that people can get their dignity back. This grant will free them from the traps of poverty,” said Hans.

    Archbishop Thabo Makgoba, the South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, added that a basic income support grant was crucial to advance economic justice. “Providing a guaranteed minimum level of income frees people from the vicious cycle of poverty. It must be a prerequisite for our country to achieve inclusive economic development,” said Makgoba.

    Dr Kelle Howson, senior researcher at the Institute for Economic Justice, said the organisation has been keeping track of which political parties had pledged to introduce a BIG during their election campaign.

    “We found the majority of those parties in the GNU [government of national unity], committed in their campaigns to either expand social protection or introduce a UBIG,” said Howson.

    Our task is to hold them accountable, said Howson.

    Nioma Venter, representing the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, said the increase in floods, fires and damaging storms hit vulnerable communities the hardest. “The UBIG can provide a safety net for those whose lives and jobs are affected by these environmental changes.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: This right-wing lawsuit against San Francisco is a preview of what’s to come under Trump and Project 2025

    By Nuala Bishari

    See original post here.

    Three years ago, San Francisco launched an experiment to give 150 pregnant Black and Pacific Islander women $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for the duration of their pregnancy and six months after the birth.

    Half of all maternal deaths in San Francisco each year are Black women, even though they make up only 4% of births. The highest rate of infant deaths — more than 15% — are Black babies, while 10% are Pacific Islander American. San Francisco’s program was a desperate attempt to bridge these health disparities.

    Now, that effort is almost certainly about to come to a screeching halt. And another guaranteed income program to assist San Francisco’s transgender residents — who are 18 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population —  already has been shut down. Participants were only given a month’s notice before being cut off.

    This was not for lack of local support.

    “When the data shows Black expectant mothers have far worse health outcomes or trans people are more likely to end up homeless, we know we can and should invest in these areas to make real change,” Mayor London Breed said in a statement provided to me. “Personally, I’ve seen firsthand how targeted programs like this can transform lives. It’s not just good for the individuals, but for our entire city.”

    So, how could two successful programs, lauded by Breed as good-faith efforts to address systemic inequities, be on death’s door?

    Put simply: right-wing organizations are targeting local California governments, limiting their ability to help people as they see fit. And they’re winning.

    A lawsuit filed in November claimed that because San Francisco’s programs prioritize benefits for people based on gender, race and ethnicity, their use of public funds is discriminatory. The suit was filed by the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation on behalf of two plaintiffs — one of whom is San Francisco mayoral candidate Ellen Zhou. When I dug into the small organization behind the suit, and the Dallas-based lawyers it retained, I found connections to right-wing conspiracy theorists, former California politicians and ties to the Heritage Foundation, which created Project 2025 — the radical Republican blueprint for remaking the government if Donald Trump is reelected president.

    That’s some powerful political backing to take on small San Francisco pilot projects. But thanks to the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling last year that ended race-based preferences in college admissions, experts tell me lawsuits like this one are a legal slam dunk. And the shuttering of small guaranteed income programs is only the beginning.

    “The major mission is to ensure that California public agencies treat people fairly and equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, and other protected classes,” Frank Xu, president of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, told me over Zoom. “Racial preferential policies — including critical race theory, and diversity, equity inclusion — are lowering standards for our next generation.”

    The foundation emerged in 2020 after California voters overwhelmingly rejected a renewal of the state’s ability to consider race and gender as a factor in government hiring and contracting, and in public university admissions.

    Leveraging this win and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling, Californians for Equal Rights filed three active lawsuits: against San Francisco’s guaranteed income programs, a housing assistance program in San Diego and a policy in Alameda County that requires a share of public construction contracts go to minority- and women-owned businesses.

    Californians for Equal Rights lists a staff of seven on its website and an impressive array of advisers. Well-known figures include James Lindsay, an author and right-wing conspiracy theorist; former South Bay U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell; and Michael Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

    Xu maintains Californians for Equal Rights is a grassroots organization that relies on small donations.

    “Our board members are the big donors,” he said. According to its tax filings, the foundation received nearly $300,000 in donations in 2022, approximately half of which went to salaries.

    In the suit against San Francisco, it retained the American Civil Rights Project to fight its case, which, among other things, has filed numerous amicus briefs opposing trans rights across the country.

    Armed with powerful supporters and legal momentum, we can expect more lawsuits from Californians for Equal Rights.

    Statewide, more than 12,000 people receive money through guaranteed income programs. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been an ardent supporter. Forty-four mayors in California joined a network advocating for an income floor. More than 70% of voters in the state support a federal guaranteed income program to provide hundreds of dollars a month to those living below their county’s median income, according to a poll from earlier this year.

    For these programs to survive legal challenges, however, race, ethnicity and gender cannot be a factor.

    “We believe that the government should not be picking winners and losers on the basis of group characteristics,” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of Californians for Equal Rights, told me. While acknowledging that racism is prevalent, she views these policies as perpetuating the issue. “We have to make sure that the medicine is not worse than the disease. It boils down to almost a metaphysical question: Can we fight discrimination with discrimination?”

    Taken at face value, it’s a compelling argument. However, one program named in its suit, the Guaranteed Income Program for Artists, doesn’t prioritize participants based on race, ethnicity or gender. Another, which gives money to Black young adults, is a research project that isn’t funded by the city.

    To me, this implies Californians for Equal Rights has a bigger agenda, one that opposes allowing Democratic cities and their residents to help people as they see fit.

    Beyond that, the case highlights how right-wing victories at the federal level have started to impact local decision-making. Project 2025 states, “The casual acceptance and rapid spread of racist policymaking in the federal government must be forcefully opposed and reversed.”

    There’s no way that forceful opposition will be targeted only at the federal government; an infringement on the ability of local jurisdictions to help those in need is coming down the pipeline.

    That should scare all of us. This lawsuit, as small as it may appear, is a dangerous harbinger of what’s to come if Trump returns to the White House.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Thailand to send digital stimulus payments to two-thirds of its citizens

    By Kenneth Niemeyer

    See original post here.

    Thailand is the latest country to experiment with a cash handout program, hoping it will help its economy recover from a pandemic-induced slump.

    Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin said the program — called “Digital Wallet” — will offer payments of 10,000 baht, or about $275, to anyone making less than 840,000 baht, or $23,000, a year.

    In Thailand, that’s about two-thirds of the population. Thavisin said about 50 million people will likely qualify. The cash handout was a central promise in the prime minister’s campaign before he took office last year.

    After the success of pandemic-era cash handouts, numerous countries have flirted with extending the programs, or even making them permanent. Many of them are forms of a basic income, programs that typically offer cash payments with no strings attached to a particular group of people. Some candidates running for top office have even promised a universal basic income, which gives regular cash payments to all citizens with no strings attached.

    In South Africa, the country’s largest political party pledged to create and implement a universal basic income program within the next two years. Kenya also offers a basic income program that gives unconditional payments to 20,000 people.

    Andrew Yang became one of the most famous advocates for a universal basic income in the United States when he ran for president in 2020 on a plan to give all citizens $1,000 a month.

    Since then, numerous American cities — like Houston and Denver — have started basic income programs for low-income residents, inspired in part by the success of pandemic aid. The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Houston program after conservative politicians in the state challenged its constitutionality.

    The Thai prime minister’s plan differs from these kinds of basic income schemes because it restricts how recipients can spend the cash.

    In the “Digital Wallet” program, recipients can only spend the money in shops registered through the program. Spending on things like alcohol, cigarettes, and online purchases is prohibited and participants only have six months to spend the cash after they receive it, Time reported.

    Thavisin said this infusion of cash would create an “economic tornado” and called it a “life-changing policy for the people” when he announced it in April. Thailand has struggled to regain its footing after the COVID-19 pandemic leveled its economy.

    The program will start taking applicants on August 1 and payments will begin in October, Thavisin said on X.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • B.C. Greens to back guaranteed basic income, says party leader

    By Stefan Labbé

    See original post here.

    The Green Party of B.C. will back a plan to roll out a guaranteed basic income across several of the province’s vulnerable populations, the party’s leader said.

    The comments came in an interview with Green leader Sonia Furstenau a week after a B.C. study showed a national basic income could generate up to $541 billion in gross domestic product.

    The analysis costed out what it described as a “double dividend” — provide people with a basic income so they can weather the impacts of climate change, and tax the biggest polluters as a way to both pay for the program and deter the biggest polluters. 

    “There’s a significant public appetite for there to be a kind of paying back of what is owed to society by the big polluters, by the oil and gas industry, who have reaped significant wealth and profit at the cost of the stability of our climate,” Furstenau said.  

    “It is a policy that has a kind of staying power because there is evidence that it is effective.” 

    Furstenau, who has represented the Cowichan Valley since 2017 but plans to run in the NDP-held Victoria-Beacon Hill riding this election, said a basic income should first focus on “poverty elimination” but was hesitant to “predetermine” what form the party’s platform proposal will ultimately take. As the party deliberates, she said the proposal would likely target B.C.’s most vulnerable people.

    Glacier Media reached out to all of B.C.’s major political parties asking them whether and how they might support a basic income program.

    A spokesperson for the official opposition BC United said its upcoming platform “will focus on unleashing the power of free-enterprise to create jobs, foster innovation and investment and generate new tax revenue to create a more caring, results-focused government.”

    “BC United will focus on helping those who need it most by creating an environment where our government gives people a hand-up when they need it, not a hand-out,” said the party’s director of communications Adam Wilson in an email. 

    Questions posed to the Conservative Party of B.C. and a spokesperson for current BC NDP Premier David Eby were not answered. 

    Current system ‘traps a lot of people in poverty’ 

    Wilson cited a January 2021 government-mandated expert panel that concluded universal basic income is not a “just policy option.”

    The panel’s 500-plus page report came three years after a Green Party-NDP supply and confidence agreement included a promise by the government of the day to establish a panel looking into the prospect of a basic income. 

    Furstenau said that while the results of that panel suggested a universal basic income was not the best path forward for the entire population, it would still work for many low-income and vulnerable people in B.C. 

    “It did recommend a basic income for three groups: for people with disabilities, for women fleeing domestic violence, and for youth aging out of care,” said Furstenau. “And so it wasn’t a complete rejection of the idea of basic income.”

    The Green leader said that for those groups, a basic income would help alleviate some of the government “clawbacks” that prevent people escaping poverty. 

    Furstenau said that while things like B.C.’s carbon tax has helped big polluters shoulder some of the cost of climate action, effective carbon pricing should also be backed up with a windfall profits tax, and provisions that ensure more money is flowing back to people who need it most. 

    “Our current social services system in B.C. functionally traps a lot of people in poverty,” she said. 

    Instead of returning every month, those on social assistance would remain eligible for one to two years, time they could use to find employment or get some education, Furstenau said. 

    “What we need to recognize is that people need a level of certainty and security to be able to plan and to be able to see a pathway out of poverty,” she said. 

    Amid slip in poles, Greens remain ‘a party of science’ 

    The Greens currently hold two seats in the legislature — alongside Furstenau, Adam Olsen holds the riding of Saanich North and the Islands. But the party’s popularity appears to have slipped since 2020, when it received 15 per cent of the vote. 

    Since then, the Greens have faced their share of controversy. Earlier this year, former deputy leader Dr. Sanjiv Gandhi, who was set to run as a candidate in Vancouver, was dropped for inappropriate social media activity in November 2023.

    Gandhi had liked a tweet comparing B.C. provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry with Josef Mengele, an infamous Nazi doctor who experimented on concentration camp victims during the Second World War, said Furstenau at the time.

    One May 21 poll found 12 per cent of decided voters said they would back the Green Party, a three point slide from last election. That ties them with BC United — the current official opposition who under the BC Liberal brand won four consecutive majorities between 2001 and 2017.

    The Research Co. survey found that 42 per cent of decided voters would back the BC NDP, while 32 per cent said they would support the surging Conservative Party of B.C.

    An Angus Reid poll released May 31 found only 11 per cent of decided voters would back the B.C. Greens, the lowest support for any of the four major political parties.

    With now fewer than five months until the next B.C. election, a seismic shift in provincial politics has overturned popular support on the right. Voter sentiment, polls show, now suggest the current NDP government is only slightly ahead of the Conservatives — a party whose leader has consistently repeated false statements around climate change. 

    What role does Furstenau see the Greens playing in that political landscape? The same as it always has, she said: pursue solutions to crises that are “rooted in science and evidence.” 

    Green leader expects clash over climate science

    Earlier this month, Conservative Party of B.C. leader John Rustad told the Globe and Mail that the science around human-caused climate change is an unproven “theory” and “not even a crisis.” That position, which got Rustad kicked out of BC United two years ago, is also widely at odds with global scientific consensus.

    In its 2023 global review of existing evidence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — considered the gold-standard of existing climate science — found “human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming.”

    The IPCC group of scientists stated they have “high confidence” human-caused climate change “is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe” and that vulnerable communities are being hit the hardest. 

    “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence),” begins a nearly 40-page summary of the latest climate science.

    Furstenau said challenging political opponents who deny established science will remain a key priority for the Green Party. Doing so is especially important when three years ago, a record heat dome made 150 times more likely due to human-caused climate change killed 619 people in B.C., she said.

    “We lost hundreds of lives in 2021 to the heat dome. And what John Rustad is saying is not going to prepare for that kind of event.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Victoria councilors vote to further explore the benefits of Universal Basic Income

    By Sidney Coles

    See original post here.

    The idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) is once again receiving attention from policymakers and decision-makers at local, provincial, and national levels. 

    Last Thursday, Victoria City Councillors voted on whether to endorse the Union of BC Municipalitity’s (UBCM) resolution to explore a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in BC. Mayor Marianne Alto, who introduced the motion, acknowledged it was being brought forward as a followup to a resolution that the previous council had made in 2016.

    The idea of a universal minimum level of income support for all Canadians was first recommended by the Croll Committee’s report in 1971. A strong case for guaranteed income in Canada was made again in the Macdonald Commission’s 1986 report and in several of its background research studies. The commission itself described its proposals as “radical, not cosmetic, and wholesale rather than tinkering at the margins.”

    UBCM plans to bring a resolution to the floor at its next annual general meeting (AGM), urging the provincial and federal governments to implement a UBI, “ensuring everyone has sufficient income to meet their needs, helping British Columbia and Canada lessen poverty and homelessness, alleviating the pressure on municipalities to use their limited resources to fill gaps in our social safe net.”

    Victoria council’s motion “follows on some national work that a variety of members of council and staff have been working on” in support of a number of municipal associations boosting a similar provincial program in PEI and looking to the federal funding across the country, according to Alto.

    Counc. Marg Gardiner was the sole opposing vote on the motion. 

    “I believe the case for a guaranteed income has not yet been proved,” she said. “Like many attentive citizens, I followed the Dauphin study during the ’70s.” 

    As grounds to reject the motion, she cited insider knowledge gained through her late husband’s participation in the Dauphin project, in his role as professor and chair of economics at the University of Manitoba. 

    “I cannot support the motion due to so many statements within it that are unproven,” she said. 

    The experiment Gardiner was referring to was called ‘MINCOME’ and was run in the town of Dauphin Manitoba between 1974 and 1979. It was designed by a group of economists who wanted to do something to address rural poverty in the region. Through  that program, the average family in Dauphin was guaranteed an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars. All the program benefits were indexed to the cost of living. Families with no other income who qualified for social assistance would see little difference in their level of support, but for people who did not qualify for welfare under traditional schemes—particularly the elderly, the working poor, and single, employable males—MINCOME meant a significant increase in income.

    In her 2011 study on the Dauphin experiment, “A Town with No Poverty: the Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment,” Evelyn Forget argued that “the data collection on the experiment lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff.” 

    Her study showed a direct link between receiving a guaranteed income and improved health benefits, with  regional hospitalization rates dropping to 170 visits in 1980 from 235 in 1974. Other results included overall improvements in people’s mental health, and a rise in the number of children completing high school.

    Despite these positive outcomes of MINCOME, the real cost of the program was ultimately its downfall. The original budget for the scheme proved to be broadly inadequate. The inflationary price increases of the 1970s, coupled with a larger than anticipated unemployment rate, meant that the proportion of the total going to program expenses exceeded estimates. It was this outcome that many of its opponents latched onto—this and the fact that some who had no income, but were living in well off households, were also eligible.

    Beyond cost, Coun. Susan Kim spoke to another criticism often raised of UBI which is  that the provision of a guaranteed income will disincentivize people to work. 

    “One of the debates in the department of political science at UVic that I would sit in on was the merits of UBI. Among leftists, there’s an argument: yes, support people, literally let them live, right? And the other argument is, well, then you’re giving the state an excuse to stop providing welfare programs,” said Kim. 

    “The way I see it, we’ve kind of already stopped anyway, so let’s go ahead with at least making sure people can pay their rent, afford the food that they need, and then have the knock-on impacts of positive long-term health outcomes for their families.”

    The MINCOME was the only experiment to comprise a “saturation” site, meaning every family in Dauphin—with a population of approximately 10K and another 2.5K living in its rural municipality—was eligible to participate in the GAI, regardless of their existing income. At the time, it was the most ambitious social science experiment ever to take place in Canada. Its instigators Derek Hum, along with Manitoba civil servants Ron Hikel and Michael Loeb, originally contemplated a budget of $17M and expected to enroll over 1K families, with Ottawa paying 75% of the costs through a cost-sharing agreement. Ultimately, it was acknowledged that the program was far more costly than anticipated and some saw it as an economic failure. 

    However, the Dauphin experiment was not the only one launched in Canada. 

    In 2017, Ontario’s Liberals launched a three-year pilot UBI project in Hamilton that was canceled by premier Doug Ford in 2019, who also cut funding to evaluate the project. An independent survey-based study on the project carried out by labour studies researchers at McMaster University, and funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, showed that the Hamilton basic income project had proven to be transformational. According to the researchers, it was “fundamentally reshaping their [the participant’s] living standards as well as their sense of self-worth and hope for a better future.” 

    They reported that respondents also saw less frequent visits to health practitioners and hospital emergency rooms, and moved to higher paying, more secure jobs. Over 80% of the group surveyed reported the basic income also had a positive effect on their mental well-being. Most respondents reported being more motivated to find better-paying jobs.

    These mixed-costs benefits will all be further considered when the UBCM brings the issue to the floor at its AGM in September. What is less debatable—and adjacent to the issue—is that municipalities are on the front line, responding when their residents are unable to support their own wellbeing. Local governments are pushed beyond capacity to deal with the downstream effects of poverty, putting unsustainable pressure on their limited ability to deliver necessary local public services and social supports. A federal cost-sharing universal basic income may alleviate these pressures.

    Victoria council’s motion “follows on some national work that a variety of members of council and staff have been working on” in support of a number of municipal associations boosting a similar provincial program in PEI and looking to the federal funding across the country, according to Alto.

    Counc. Marg Gardiner was the sole opposing vote on the motion. 

    “I believe the case for a guaranteed income has not yet been proved,” she said. “Like many attentive citizens, I followed the Dauphin study during the ’70s.” 

    As grounds to reject the motion, she cited insider knowledge gained through her late husband’s participation in the Dauphin project, in his role as professor and chair of economics at the University of Manitoba. 

    “I cannot support the motion due to so many statements within it that are unproven,” she said. 

    The experiment Gardiner was referring to was called ‘MINCOME’ and was run in the town of Dauphin Manitoba between 1974 and 1979. It was designed by a group of economists who wanted to do something to address rural poverty in the region. Through  that program, the average family in Dauphin was guaranteed an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars. All the program benefits were indexed to the cost of living. Families with no other income who qualified for social assistance would see little difference in their level of support, but for people who did not qualify for welfare under traditional schemes—particularly the elderly, the working poor, and single, employable males—MINCOME meant a significant increase in income.

    In her 2011 study on the Dauphin experiment, “A Town with No Poverty: the Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment,” Evelyn Forget argued that “the data collection on the experiment lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff.” 

    Her study showed a direct link between receiving a guaranteed income and improved health benefits, with  regional hospitalization rates dropping to 170 visits in 1980 from 235 in 1974. Other results included overall improvements in people’s mental health, and a rise in the number of children completing high school.

    Despite these positive outcomes of MINCOME, the real cost of the program was ultimately its downfall. The original budget for the scheme proved to be broadly inadequate. The inflationary price increases of the 1970s, coupled with a larger than anticipated unemployment rate, meant that the proportion of the total going to program expenses exceeded estimates. It was this outcome that many of its opponents latched onto—this and the fact that some who had no income, but were living in well off households, were also eligible.

    Beyond cost, Coun. Susan Kim spoke to another criticism often raised of UBI which is  that the provision of a guaranteed income will disincentivize people to work. 

    “One of the debates in the department of political science at UVic that I would sit in on was the merits of UBI. Among leftists, there’s an argument: yes, support people, literally let them live, right? And the other argument is, well, then you’re giving the state an excuse to stop providing welfare programs,” said Kim. 

    “The way I see it, we’ve kind of already stopped anyway, so let’s go ahead with at least making sure people can pay their rent, afford the food that they need, and then have the knock-on impacts of positive long-term health outcomes for their families.”

    The MINCOME was the only experiment to comprise a “saturation” site, meaning every family in Dauphin—with a population of approximately 10K and another 2.5K living in its rural municipality—was eligible to participate in the GAI, regardless of their existing income. At the time, it was the most ambitious social science experiment ever to take place in Canada. Its instigators Derek Hum, along with Manitoba civil servants Ron Hikel and Michael Loeb, originally contemplated a budget of $17M and expected to enroll over 1K families, with Ottawa paying 75% of the costs through a cost-sharing agreement. Ultimately, it was acknowledged that the program was far more costly than anticipated and some saw it as an economic failure. 

    However, the Dauphin experiment was not the only one launched in Canada. 

    In 2017, Ontario’s Liberals launched a three-year pilot UBI project in Hamilton that was canceled by premier Doug Ford in 2019, who also cut funding to evaluate the project. An independent survey-based study on the project carried out by labour studies researchers at McMaster University, and funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, showed that the Hamilton basic income project had proven to be transformational. According to the researchers, it was “fundamentally reshaping their [the participant’s] living standards as well as their sense of self-worth and hope for a better future.” 

    They reported that respondents also saw less frequent visits to health practitioners and hospital emergency rooms, and moved to higher paying, more secure jobs. Over 80% of the group surveyed reported the basic income also had a positive effect on their mental well-being. Most respondents reported being more motivated to find better-paying jobs.

    These mixed-costs benefits will all be further considered when the UBCM brings the issue to the floor at its AGM in September. What is less debatable—and adjacent to the issue—is that municipalities are on the front line, responding when their residents are unable to support their own wellbeing. Local governments are pushed beyond capacity to deal with the downstream effects of poverty, putting unsustainable pressure on their limited ability to deliver necessary local public services and social supports. A federal cost-sharing universal basic income may alleviate these pressures.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • South Africa’s cash giveaway plan is not universal basic income, experts say

    By Theron Mohamed

    See original post here.

    • A South African policy proposal is being hailed as the first national universal basic income plan.
    • However, experts say it’s promising but would pay too little to too few people to be a true UBI program.
    • UBI champions say that only helping the poor can lead to payments being seen as welfare checks.

    South Africa’s top political party has proposed a social safety net that’s been called the first national universal basic income (UBI) program. Experts say that’s a gross exaggeration.

    The African National Congress, led by Nelson Mandela in the 1990s, recently outlined its plan to expand South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress program. The temporary grants were rolled out during the pandemic to help struggling citizens meet basic needs.

    The ANC, now in coalition talks after winning just 40% of the vote in recent national elections, said it would boost the value of payouts and expand the program to more vulnerable people including caregivers, the unemployed, and the precariously employed. It promised to finalize the policy within two years of being elected.

    The party also suggested it could fund the program by introducing progressive taxes such as a social security tax, and emphasized it wouldn’t replace existing welfare programs or public services. It also signaled it would increase payments and expand eligibility over time.

    Cleo Goodman, the basic income lead at think tank Autonomy, told Business Insider that the ANC’s proposal followed years of basic income advocates making their case through “pilots, research and widespread campaigning.”

    South Africa’s civil society is also eager to expand the Social Relief of Distress grants to redistribute wealth, reduce poverty, stimulate the job market, and help people cover the costs of finding work, she said.

    Goodman said that what began as an emergency pandemic response has “instigated a serious move towards providing genuine economic security, through an unconditional cash transfer system that approaches universality.”

    Too little money for too few people

    Yet the ANC’s plan doesn’t truly qualify as a UBI program, which usually provides recurring cash payments to all adults in a population regardless of their wealth or employment status, and with no restrictions on how the money is spent.

    “Despite the name, this proposal falls far short of a basic income,” Karl Widerquist, a philosophy professor at Georgetown University-Qatar and the author of several books about UBI, told BI.

    “The payments are too small; they are means-tested; and they are means-tested in a way that makes it hard for some of the neediest, eligible people to get the funds they are entitled to,” he continued.

    Widerquist also flagged the potential for a “poverty trap” where people could lose the entire grant once their income rises above a certain threshold, discouraging them from earning too much and knocking them back when their earnings improve.

    The writer and academic said the ANC’s plans to extend the program are promising, but the initial proposal is only a “small step in the right direction.”

    He added that the timing “could be good or bad,” as the ANC’s coalition partners could hold it accountable for passing the policy if they support it, but if they oppose it then it “could easily fall by the wayside over the next few years.”

    It’s not surprising to see the ANC propose a targeted poverty-alleviation program instead of a full UBI scheme. The former is cheaper, less radical, and likely to be more palatable to voters than handing cash to the wealthy — even if new taxes would make them net contributors.

    But UBI proponents say that giving too little money to too few people doesn’t effectively combat poverty, and can stigmatize the grants as welfare checks. A compromise scheme also fails to provide a safety net that allows people to take time to find the right job if they get laid off, and may not fully recognize the value of domestic labor such as child and elderly care either.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Basic income can double global GDP while reducing carbon emissions

    By CELL PRESS

    See original post here.

    Giving a regular cash payment to the entire world population has the potential to increase global gross domestic product (GDP) by 130%, according to a new analysis published June 7 in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability. Researchers suggest that charging carbon emitters with an emission tax could help fund such basic income program while reducing environmental degradation.

    “We are proposing that if we can couple basic income with environmental protection, we can save two birds with one stone,” says first author U. Rashid Sumaila of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

    Sumaila has been working on ending harmful fishery subsidies worldwide, but many people who rely on fisheries for their livelihoods, especially those in developing countries, say they need the subsidies to support their families. “One of the ways we can deal with this is to give the people basic income. With that, we could achieve sustainability goals without compromising people’s livelihoods,” he says.

    The research team estimated that it would cost $41 trillion to provide the entire world population of 7.7 billion people with a basic income, or $442 billion to fund only 9.9 million people living below the poverty line in less developed countries. In return, giving basic income to the entire world population could boost the global GDP by $163 trillion, which is about 130% of the current GDP.

    Every dollar spent on implementing basic income can generate as much as $7 in economic impacts, the analysis shows. “If you give someone one dollar, they will spend part of the money to buy food or pay rent. And people that are paid for the food and accommodation will use part of this for their own consumption and so on. The dollar will trickle up throughout society. Our calculations show that the economic impact of that dollar will be much greater than its original amount,” Sumaila says.

    The team also explored ways to fund basic income. They estimated that taxing CO2 emitters alone can generate about $2.3 trillion a year, enough to provide a basic income for all people living below the poverty line in less developed countries.

    The researchers also suggested other alternative options to finance basic income programs, such as a plastic pollution tax or redirecting harmful oil, gas, agriculture, and fisheries subsidies to fund the program. These approaches can address two of the biggest challenges around the world—reducing environmental degradation and alleviating poverty. 

    Real world examples have shown the benefits of basic income programs. For example, in Indonesia, villages that received a basic income have substantially lower deforestation rates than those without it.

    “It’s not easy to implement carbon taxes, but that doesn’t stop our academics from reporting the evidence we have. Besides, we are not taxing everyone, just those who pollute the environment. They should pay for the damage they caused,” Sumaila says.

    Basic income can also be a proactive program, Sumaila says. When crises like pandemics or natural disasters hit, communities can be more resilient.

    “We saw during COVID-19, governments around the world were coming up with all sorts of programs to support people who suddenly lost their ability to earn income. If we had basic income in place, we didn’t have to scramble,” Sumaila says.

    ###

    This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada and the Chair Research Chair programme.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.