radiofree.asia

Category: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

  • Trump’s cuts halt UCSF study that gave Black young adults guaranteed income

    By Anna Bauman, Jack Lee

    See original post here.

    Tremon Chandler, a 25-year-old from Ohio, moved to San Francisco four years ago with $3,000 in his pocket to chase his dream of becoming a rapper. Quickly realizing his savings would not go far in California, he slept in his car and crashed with a co-worker before finding housing. 

    But life stabilized when Chandler enrolled as a participant in the Black Economic Equity Movement, a clinical trial run by UCSF, which aimed to measure the impact of guaranteed income on local Black young adults. 

    Over the past year, Chandler used monthly $500 payments from the program to cover studio time, music videos and performances. He said the extra income gave him a sense of security while allowing him to invest in his budding music career between work shifts at a Sonic restaurant. 

    Chandler and another study participant, a 26-year-old Emeryville woman, told the Chronicle that the guaranteed income trial has boosted their careers, mental health and living situations — but conclusive evidence from the large-scale UCSF study may never be available. 

    In late March, the National Institutes of Health notified UCSF that funding for the $9 million project had been terminated because it “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” according to the termination letter. The study is among nearly a hundred federally funded research projects in California, worth more than $300 million in total, that the Trump administration has canceled in an apparent effort to target science that relates to diversity, equity or inclusion. 

    Much of the study’s funding, including the guaranteed income for participants, has already been spent or distributed, but the research has been brought  to a halt shortly before the finish line, said Sheri Lippman, principal investigator for the project and a professor of medicine at UCSF. 

    Without funding to support them, she said, the research team can no longer conduct final interviews, analyze years worth of data, or disseminate their findings to participants and policymakers, effectively squandering millions in taxpayer money that was awarded to UCSF under the Biden administration. 

    “It was like your world crumbles,” Lippman said. “This is not just a job for our staff and for the investigators — this is work we really believe in.” 

    In total, UCSF has lost 14 NIH grants totaling nearly $46 million, according to the university. 

    In addition to terminating NIH and National Science Foundation grants, President Donald Trump’s administration has canceled others awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, public records show. Some of the cuts appear to be aimed at DEI-related research, some at research focusing on vaccine hesitancy, while with others the reasons are less clear.

    The White House said in February that the U.S. government spends “too much money on programs, contracts, and grants that do not promote the interests of the American people.”

    The Department of Government Efficiency, an office created by Trump through an executive order in January and headed by Elon Musk, is tracking the canceled grants online with a “Wall of Receipts,” which includes a savings estimate per termination. 

    In a February executive order, Trump directed federal agencies to review their grants and contracts “in consultation with the agency’s DOGE Team Lead,” modifying or cutting them as needed “to reduce overall Federal spending or reallocate spending to promote efficiency and advance the policies of my Administration.” 

    Across the Bay Area, grant termination notices have thrown organizations into chaos and uncertainty as they shutter projects, lay off employees, or scramble to shore up major gaps in funding. 

    Local impacted groups include San Francisco nonprofits that work with the homeless and conduct educational research with a focus on equity issues. An EPA-funded grant for improving air quality inside Oakland public schools was also terminated, according to the California Department of Public Health. 

    The idea for the UCSF project emerged about four years ago, when the NIH announced it was seeking to fund unusually innovative and transformative projects to address health disparities. The agency acknowledged in the funding announcement that structural racism and other social factors can impact public health. 

    When Lippman learned about the opportunity, she said, one topic immediately came to mind: guaranteed income, an intervention that provides low-income people with regular cash assistance, no strings attached, which was growing in popularity at the time. 

    Researchers had launched a wave of studies on the topic as cities such as Stockton and Oakland rolled out guaranteed income pilot programs, Lippman said, but none were focused specifically on Black young adults, who are at high risk for mental and other health issues as they transition to adulthood. 

    “It’s also a time when they get set on a trajectory — a little extra cash could be the difference between going to school and seeking training or abandoning education altogether,” Lippman said. 

    After a competitive and peer-reviewed selection process, Lippman and two other principal investigators, Margaret Libby and Marguerita Lightfoot, won an NIH grant in 2021 and launched a clinical trial in partnership with MyPath, a San Francisco nonprofit. The team provided optional financial mentoring alongside monthly payments to 300 low-income Black residents in San Francisco and Oakland between the ages of 18 and 24. 

    Researchers had spent two years collecting information from the young adults about their financial, emotional and physical well-being. Final interviews were scheduled throughout this summer for the last group of participants, but the NIH canceled the grant in a March 21 email to the university. 

    “Research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness,” the NIH termination letter stated, adding that diversity, equity and inclusion studies “are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race … which harms the health of Americans.” 

    The university submitted an appeal on behalf of Lippman on April 15, arguing that researchers designed the trial with rigorous and evidence-based methods “at the core of scientific inquiry.” 

    “They’re on a mission to end anything they conceive to be even remotely DEI-related, and they have equated our project with a DEI initiative, even though we’re looking at an intervention that could benefit people across America,” Lippman said. 

    NIH said in a statement that the agency wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” and is prioritizing research that “directly affects the health of Americans.”

    “We remain dedicated to restoring our agency to its tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science,” the agency said. 

    It’s unclear where public support stands for Trump’s slashing of funding for research he dislikes. According to an April poll from Pew Research Center, more than half of Americans opposed cuts the administration has made to federal agencies. Republicans and Democrats were split on ending federal DEI initiatives. 

    In federal court, lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, among others, are seeking to restore funding for NIH grants canceled “without any reasonable explanations.” 

    In the meantime, MyPath and UCSF have laid off two project staff members and a postdoctoral researcher who is now hunting for other jobs in academia while working to finish a portion of the guaranteed income project without pay. 

    The postdoc, who spoke to the Chronicle on the condition of anonymity out of fear that doing so could hurt future grant prospects, said they were elated to work on a study with potential policy impact and disheartened by its sudden end. 

    “We’re losing what our participants gave us,” the researcher said. “They stayed with us for two years, completed surveys, gave of their time and effort — we’re losing an opportunity to share their story.” 

    Lippman said the research team worked with community leaders to design the study and developed close relationships with participants, offering supportive resources and staying in frequent communication with them. 

    But the termination has forced the team to break its commitment to members of the Black community, which has historically suffered from exploitative research practices, Lippman said. 

    “The community we’re working with hasn’t always trusted researchers,” she said. “Ethical researchers have been fighting to gain back trust.” 

    Without much faith in the appeal process, Lippman said she has created a fundraising page and contacted philanthropists in an effort to scrounge up dollars from alternative sources. The researcher hopes someone “sees an opportunity to finish something that really could make a huge difference.” 

    Participating in the guaranteed income trial has already had an impact for Chandler, who performs under the artist name BDNTre. He has now been signed by a Los Angeles management company and said he feels capable of breaking through in the music industry. 

    “Five-hundred dollars can take the right person a long way,” he said. “You can put yourself in better places.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Kaiden-Chase

    See original post here.

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

    UBI: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the Current System

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

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

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

    Economic Benefits: Reducing Poverty and Increasing Stability

    Beyond cost savings, UBI could have transformative economic effects:

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

    Challenges and the Path Forward

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

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

    Conclusion

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

    Sources:

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal Basic Income

    “Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody?“

    The post Universal Basic Income first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A UBI Pilot Could Be About To Help Hundreds Of Homeless People

    Academics at Northumbria University and campaigners from the UBI Lab Network have launched a groundbreaking proposal for a UK first-of-its-kind Universal Basic Income pilot. Crucially, it’s one that could start the ball rolling towards ending absolute poverty in Greater Manchester for good. The pilot would help to build the case for the eventual roll-out of a country-wide Universal Basic Income (UBI) scheme.

    However, its potential seismic impacts aren’t only limited to these longer-term goals. This is because the Basic Income scheme itself could be about to make a difference for young homeless people across Greater Manchester – and it could do so right away.

    The post A UBI Pilot Could Be About To Help Hundreds Of Homeless People appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

    By Abdallah Fayyad

    See original post here.

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

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

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

    The answer isn’t so straightforward.

    How means testing can sabotage policy goals

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

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

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

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

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

    Why universal programs are a better choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

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

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

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

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

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • 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.

  • Largest Study on Guaranteed Basic Income Proves Transformative for Participants

    For eight years, researchers have been quietly putting together the largest, most comprehensive study on programs that give people a monthly stream of cash — no strings attached. Over time, does that income transform people’s lives? The data is now in. Put together by OpenResearch, the nonprofit lab founded by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the study followed 3,000 participants from 2020 to…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Some people are being given thousands of dollars with no strings attached in universal basic income trials. They mostly spend the cash wisely.

    By Theron Mohamed

    See original post here.

    Interest in a universal basic income (UBI) is only intensifying as the pandemic and other crises reveal the shortcomings of emergency aid programs, the likes of Elon Musk and Sam Altman warn AI will make human workers obsolete, and a one-two punch of historic inflation and steeper borrowing costs pinch household budgets.

    UBI generally refers to a recurring cash payment to all adults in a certain population, regardless of their wealth and employment status, and with no restrictions on how they spend the money.

    It’s been hailed as a safety net in case people lose their jobs or can’t work; a mental-health aid as it relieves financial worries; a buffer that lets people be more selective about which job they take; a tool to combat poverty, inequality, and the pain of unemployment; and a way to recognize the value of domestic labor like child and elderly care.

    UBI is typically pitched alongside a progressive tax system that ensures rich recipients are net losers from the program, as they pay more into funding it than they receive from it.

    Yet a common question and concern about UBI remains how people spend the money.

    How are UBI funds used?

    Early evidence from trials points to people primarily using their UBI funds to cover basic living costs such as food, housing, and transportation, rather than indulging in vices such as drinking, gambling, and drugs.

    Net beneficiaries of UBI are likely to be those people struggling to get by, so it makes sense they would spend most of the money on essentials, Karl Widerquist, a philosophy professor at Georgetown University-Qatar and the author of several books about UBI, told Business Insider.

    UBI champions say it will boost the economy by encouraging unemployed recipients to take jobs because they won’t lose their benefits, and provide a lift to people’s mental health and happiness.

    But “if recipients were to spend their income not to meet basic needs, to develop human capital, or to save for the future, wasting it instead, this would be a worry,” said Fabian Wendt, an assistant professor in Virginia Tech’s political science department.

    The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, a joint project from the Stanford Basic Income Lab and the Center for Guaranteed Income Research, pulls together data from more than 30 pilot programs in the US involving nearly 8,300 participants.

    It shows that about 36% of UBI funds were spent on retail sales and services; 32% on food and groceries; 9% on transportation; 9% on housing and utilities; 6% on financial transactions like saving and investing; 4% on travel, leisure, and entertainment; 2% on healthcare and medical expenses; 1.5% on miscellaneous expenses; and 0.6% on education costs.

    The breakdown may be a product of UBI trials largely focusing on poorer populations that are more likely to use the money to cover the cost of essentials and pay their bills, and have little left over to save or invest. As for the lack of spending on health and education, that might reflect the availability of government programs like Medicare and Medicaid as well as public schooling.

    Similar experiments have turned up similar results:

    • Rebecca Hasdell, a research advisor at the Stanford Basic Income Lab, recently conducted an umbrella review of 16 studies and found that recipients spent more on food and assets such as livestock in poorer countries, but there was less of a jump in their purchases of productivity-enhancing tools, and a mixed impact on savings and investment.
    • GiveDirectly, a nonprofit, is providing universal basic income to 20,000 people across 200-odd royal villages in Kenya over 12 years. Two years in, it has reported improved household and business savings, and recipients saving up and financing bigger projects via banks and credit associations.
    • UpTogether gave $5,200 to 1,000 individuals and families in San Antonio, Texas over a period of about 25 months. Recipients said they were most proud to cover their bills, pay for food, housing, and transportation, repay debt and save, and cover medical bills.
    • For example, Monique Gonzalez said the money helped her buy shoes, school supplies, Christmas gifts, and enroll one of her children in softball.
    • Another participant, Stephanie Hendon, was able to move out of a shelter with her four kids and rent a three-bedroom apartment. She also bought a new car, new clothes for her children, and landed a new job, setting herself up for later success.

    Why spending might not matter

    Concerns about lower-income recipients wasting their UBI may be overblown, experts say.

    “Good evidence shows that low-income people do not use drugs, alcohol, or tobacco at a greater rate than high-income people,” Widerqist said, adding that depression and other forms of mental illness are major drivers of drug use.

    “To the extent that UBI relieves people from misery, we should expect it would decrease vice spending,” he said.

    “Some people fall into habits of bad spending but that has nothing to do with where their income is coming from,” said Matt Bruenig, the founder of a think tank named the People’s Policy Project.

    “Plenty of people who receive income from paychecks blow it on drugs or gambling,” he continued. “Does that tell us there is some problem with our program of paying money to people for work? Obviously that’s silly.”  

    Douglas MacKay, an associate professor of public policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, agreed that social safety nets shouldn’t force recipients to make “good choices,” but instead show them respect by treating them as adults capable of making their own decisions.

    “I think there are good reasons to give people cash even if they sometimes spend it in ways that others think are ‘unwise,’” MacKay said. 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Report Lauds Effects of Guaranteed Income Program for Struggling Boston Families

    A guaranteed income program in Boston, Massachusetts, which began in the summer of 2021, resulted in numerous positive outcomes for recipients, highlights a recently published study by the groups that organized the program. Camp Harbor View and UpTogether, the organizations that dispersed the payments, privately funded the program from a group of 107 donors. Around $750,000 was raised in total…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Report Lauds Effects of Guaranteed Income Program for Struggling Boston Families

    A guaranteed income program in Boston, Massachusetts, which began in the summer of 2021, resulted in numerous positive outcomes for recipients, highlights a recently published study by the groups that organized the program. Camp Harbor View and UpTogether, the organizations that dispersed the payments, privately funded the program from a group of 107 donors. Around $750,000 was raised in total…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • MMP Blog #51: The Efficiency Fairy and Inflation Goblins

    The main objections to MMT are the belief that adoption of a fiat money necessarily leads to high inflation and perceived government inefficiency. Let’s expose these boogeymen.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • MMP Blog #50: MMT Without the JG? Conclusion

    Can you separate the MMT explanation of the cause of unemployment from the policy to cure it? Yes. Should you? Of course not.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • MMP Blog #48 Responses

    Comments and responses on the Modern Money Primer Part 48.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • Hundreds of cities experiment with giving people basic income

    By Thomas F. Harrison

    See original post here.

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (CN) — A massive social experiment is quietly taking place in some 200 American cities — what happens if you give poor people hundreds of dollars a month with no strings attached?

    These cities are running pilot programs that typically give randomly selected people $500 a month for a year or two to spend as they please. They collect data on the broad policy initiative, which could replace the current complex patchwork of social welfare programs with a much simpler “guaranteed basic income.”

    Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere are analyzing a wealth of evidence from the experiments. When the results are published in the coming year, it will add to a growing national debate over what the social safety net should look like, said Sean Kline, director of the Basic Income Lab at Stanford University.

    One city — Cambridge, Massachusetts — found initial results so positive that it has rolled out the program on a large scale. All families with children in the city whose income is less than 250% of the federal poverty level can now get unrestricted monthly payments of $500 for 18 months.

    Conservative economist Milton Friedman originally popularized the idea of a guaranteed basic income in the 1960s and President Richard Nixon proposed it in 1969, although it died in Congress. More recently the idea has been championed by a group of Republican senators including Mitt Romney, as well as Democrats such as entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who made it the centerpiece of his 2020 presidential campaign.

    While Yang championed a “universal” basic income, virtually all the experiments so far have been limited to low-income people.

    “We approach it as a tool to eradicate poverty,” said Sukhi Samra, executive director of a nonprofit called Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

    Friedman’s goal was to replace the complex state and federal safety net that now includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Women, Infants and Children; Section 8; and numerous other programs that are expensive to administer, hard to navigate and come with complex work requirements and limits on how the money can be spent.

    Friedman believed his idea was compatible with conservative values because it let people decide how to spend their own money and eliminated the “welfare trap” that disincentivized people from looking for work if it meant giving up benefits.

    Before, “whenever I found a part-time job, I was kicked off food stamps and cash aid,” said Tomas Vargas, who grew up on welfare and participated in one of the first basic-income pilot programs in Stockton, California.

    Traditional benefit programs made it hard to escape the cycle of poverty, he said in an interview, but the unrestricted cash helped him improve his situation. “Before, I was scared to take off time to look for a new job because I’d miss hours and I was living paycheck to paycheck. But now I could afford to put applications out there.” As a result, he landed a much better job as a full-time warehouse manager.

    In Shreveport, Louisiana, a pilot-program participant named Jessica said that previously “my days consisted of calling different organizations to try to receive assistance to support me and my children,” whereas the unrestricted cash gave her the breathing room to apply for jobs instead.

    About two-thirds of the pilot programs use control groups to measure their success. In Stockton, “recipients were twice as likely to find full-time employment as the control group,” said Samra. “People can take a chance on themselves, and do internships or take time off to interview for a better job.”

    The Stockton experiment “produced positive outcomes on income volatility, anxiety and depression, the ability to plan, and labor participation,” Kline said.

    Most of the control groups simply compare people who got additional cash versus those who didn’t, rather than people who got unrestricted cash versus people who got the same amount of money through traditional social programs. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the unrestricted nature of the income allows people to better respond to their unique situations.

    Murray Wilson, who participated in a pilot program in Gainesville, Florida, said in an interview that he used some of the money to buy a mobility scooter that wasn’t covered by any government program.

    “Unconditional cash allows recipients to use the money in whatever way is most attuned to their needs,” Kline said.

    “A common criticism is that people will spend the money on drugs and alcohol,” added Samra, “but the data show that that’s not the case. They spend it on retail items at Walmart, groceries, clothes and transportation.”

    Cambridge is telling its struggling citizens, “We trust you to figure out how to best use this money,” said Elizabeth Pierre, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office.

    Vargas used some of the money to take his children on his family’s first-ever camping trip. “It’s a beautiful thing to be able to be present in my kids’ life,” he said, adding that he has been able to volunteer at school and that his children have acquired a new sense of direction and hope. “My daughter wants to become a Marine,” he noted proudly.

    Wilson has been taking care of his elderly mother, who is no longer able to stand or walk — another thing for which current benefit programs wouldn’t compensate him.

    “There are many ways of contributing to society that don’t amount to participation in the labor market, including caring for children and elderly family members, as well as volunteering in the community,” said Anna Marion, a doctoral student studying the issue with professor Douglas MacKay at the University of North Carolina.

    In New York, new mother Lisa Chin said the money was a godsend because she had to stop working and wasn’t eligible for maternity leave. She used it for diapers, a stroller and transportation for her daughter’s frequent medical appointments due to delivery complications.

    “Spending time with family leads to stronger family ties and helps to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty,” said Aaron Strauss, who runs a Los Angeles program that provides cash grants to parents.

    The basic-income idea got a boost in 2021 when the child tax credit was greatly expanded as a Covid-19 relief measure. For that year, families could collect the credit even if they didn’t owe any taxes, with the option of receiving half the amount in advance monthly payments. The one-year change reduced child poverty by 25% and could have reduced it by 40% if everyone eligible had claimed it, a study at Columbia University found.

    Seeing the results, some 11 states enacted their own child tax credit after the pandemic, Marion said.

    The figure of $500 a month is common in the pilot programs, although in some larger and more expensive cities the figure can reach $1,000. In Stockton, Samra explained, “we did focus groups and $500 was what mothers said was enough that you could feel the difference.”

    Most pilots run for a year, although some run for two or three. The program in Hudson, New York, is running for five years to see what happens over a long stretch of time.

    Most of the pilot programs focus on poor people generally, but some are aimed at more specific groups. Columbia, South Carolina, is trying to help fathers; New York City has a program for pregnant women and new mothers. A program in San Francisco is designed to benefit artists, while Gainesville and Durham, North Carolina, want to help people getting out of prison reintegrate into the community.

    In Gainesville, about 90% of the recipients had less than $50 to their name at the beginning, said director Kevin Scott, who noted that roughly a quarter of all probation violations happen simply because probationers can’t afford fines, court fees or expenses for urinalysis or an ankle monitor — so many people end up back behind bars because of poverty, rather than misbehavior.

    The Gainesville program pays released offenders $7,600 a year, or about a quarter of the cost of keeping them locked up.

    Wilson said he was able to pay off his court costs and start a new life. He was initially skeptical that the program was real. “I’m a criminal; I don’t deserve nobody giving me no free money,” he recounted. But when he learned that he had been selected, “I knew that I was never going to steal again. It was God’s way of showing me that he’ll help me, if I just realize how important it is to get my life together.”

    Very few of the pilot programs are funded by local taxpayers. Mayors for a Guaranteed Income received $18 million for grants from a group affiliated with Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter, now X. Cambridge raised $5 million for its pilot from private donations, including from Harvard and MIT. The rollout will cost $22 million, all of which will come from the city’s Covid relief funds.

    Beyond that, “it’s important to acknowledge that the sustainability of programs like this relies on funding from state or federal sources,” said Pierre, the mayor’s spokesperson. “By demonstrating the effectiveness of these initiatives, we can advocate for the continued expansion of our program and similar programs across the country.”

    But when the private donations and relief funds run out, it’s unclear if voters will be willing to foot the bill for an idea that appeals to progressives on the left and libertarians on the right, but might strike many in the middle as giving away something for nothing.

    That’s especially true if the free money comes on top of current benefit programs. It seems more likely that a successful proposal would eliminate or reduce the current patchwork safety net to fund the unrestricted cash grants, as Friedman advocated and Romney proposed.

    “The existing safety net is fantastically onerous,” Kline complained. “It puts up tremendous barriers; you have to get certified and and then recertified and small administrative problems can kick you out. Plus there’s a ‘time tax,’ and many people decide it’s not worth their time.”

    “It’s an intrusive and dehumanizing process,” said Samra.

    On the other hand, the current system “helps tens of millions of people a day, so tearing it all down is neither feasible or desirable,” Kline said, adding that programs would still need to be in place for people with disabilities and other groups that need specialized support beyond a basic income.

    There are other arguments against giving away money with no strings attached, such as the idea that it is unfair to people who work and pay taxes. Under the Trump administration, the USDA acknowledged that its own research questioned the effectiveness of a work requirement for food assistance but supported it anyway on fairness grounds, Marion said.

    She added that allowing the money to be used for anything could also make poor people targets for scammers and predatory lenders.

    But the advantage of unrestricted cash, besides being easier to administer, is that it gives poor people dignity, said Strauss. “Part of our goal is to change the way that people talk about poverty,” he emphasized. “There’s a misperception that people who are poor deserve it, but it’s really due to being born into certain circumstances.”

    Some people today view addiction as a moral failure, while others see it as a disease. Soon, voters may be asked to decide whether poverty should be seen as the result of a character defect — meaning any help needs to be carefully parceled out to keep people on the straight and narrow — or as a treatable condition caused by social environments, meaning the chief goal should be giving people enough resources to help themselves.

    It’s an age-old question.

    Samra summed up the case for the basic-income approach this way: “Poverty is a policy failure, not a personal one.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Try this in a small town. Try it in every town.

    By Yvonne Abraham

    See original post here.

    A new documentary featuring a guaranteed basic income experiment in Cambridge shows the good that comes from giving low-income families a little extra help each month.

    Look to the cities. That’s where hope lives these days.

    Nihilist Republicans in Washington, D.C., are determined to drive this country into a ditch; their obstructionism all but guaranteeing a government shutdown come Sunday.

    In addition to holding aid for Ukraine and disaster relief hostage, GOP holdouts are now demanding massive cuts to federal programs on which millions depend: Let them slash funding for disadvantaged schools, housing subsidies for poor people, nutrition assistance for young children, and home heating assistance for low-income families and maybe, just maybe, they’ll agree to fund the government.

    No way that gets past the Senate, but it certainly makes the priorities of the House GOP clear, as if they weren’t already. If a shutdown drags on, millions will be hurt. Those who hurt most will be more numerous in cities, where the effects of callous public policy are always more concentrated.

    But a lot of those cities are also the antidote for the cruelty and dysfunction that now defines Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s House. Because local government is where real innovation and transformation can happen. While Republicans are conjuring ever more awful ways to make low-income folks suffer, Mayors like Sumbul Siddiqui of Cambridge are restoring their dignity.

    In Cambridge, and in dozens of places across the country, local governments are giving their unluckiest residents a guaranteed income — payments of between $200 and $1,000 per month to help them pay rent, put food on the table, gas up their cars, get an education, or do whatever elsewill relieve them of some of the impossible choices they must make every day.

    “If we lift up from the bottom, the whole community will benefit,” Siddiqui said.

    In her city, 1922 families — 6,450 residents — are part of Rise Up Cambridge, a $22 million initiative that gives each family $500 per month for 18 months, no strings attached. To qualify, households must have children under 21 and earn less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level — so, about $75,000 for a family of four.

    The initiative will be accompanied by a study that will show where residents spent their payments, and how it affected their families’ health and well-being. But we already know from authoritative studies that if you give low-income people money, they use it responsibly.

    Recipients across the country, and in pilots in Massachusetts (There have been similar initiatives in Chelsea and among the families who send their kids to Camp Harbor View each summer), say the payments take some of the pressure off, allowing them to be more present for their kids, to pursue careers, further their educations, and build savings.

    “People use this money to stabilize and to try to get ahead,” Siddiqui said. “We make it so difficult in our country to escape poverty; there are so many hoops and hurdles. Spending time with your family shouldn’t just be a privilege of the wealthy.”

    The mayor, 35, knows whereof she speaks. Her parents emigrated from Pakistan when she was 2 and settled in Cambridge. Even though they worked hard — and are still working hard, into their 70s — they needed help. Siddiqui grew up in low-income housing in North Cambridge, and her parents still live in Roosevelt Towers, in East Cambridge. Her mother is a cashier at a supermarket, and her father is a shipping clerk at a department store. Their daughter attended Brown University, then Northwestern School of Law.

    Siddiqui and other mayors are featured in a new documentary called “It’s Basic,” which will be screened at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge on Thursday night.

    The film is about the growing movement to, as Republican President Richard Nixon — yes, Nixon — put it way back in 1971, “place a floor under the income of every family with children in America.” In addition to Siddiqui, it features two recipients in Cambridge: a single father struggling to provide for his two children, one with huge medical needs; and a young mother trying to qualify as a phlebotomist so that her little daughter can have a better life.

    “It’s Basic” will enrage you. But it will also make you optimistic that the tide will turn, and that compassion and justice will one day prevail.

    Let it be soon.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • UBI vs. Negative Income Tax

    By Matt Zwolinski

    See original post here.

    We’ve now seen the similarities and differences between a UBI and a variety of existing benefit programs. How does a UBI compare to other common proposals for new redistributive programs? For example, you might have heard about the concept of a Negative Income Tax (NIT), which Milton Friedman popularized as a means of replacing existing welfare programs. An NIT sounds very different from a UBI because, well, it sounds like a tax, not a benefit! But as we’ll see, in most circumstances, the two are mathematically equivalent. Friedman’s coauthor (and spouse) Rose Friedman described the idea as follows:

    The basic idea of a negative income tax is simple . . . Under the current positive income tax you are permitted to receive a certain amount of income without paying any tax . . . This amount is composed of a number of elements— personal exemptions . . . standard deduction . . . [etc.] To simplify the discussion, let us use the simpler British term of “personal allowances” to refer to this basic amount.

    If your income exceeds your allowances, you pay a tax on the excess at rates that are graduated according to the size of the excess. Suppose your income is less than the allowances? Under the current system, those unused allowances in general are of no value. You simply pay no tax . . .

    With a negative income tax, you would receive from the government some fraction of the unused allowances . . . When your income was above allowances, you would pay tax, the amount depending on the tax rates charged on various amounts of income. When your income was below allowances, you would receive a subsidy, the amount depending on the subsidy rates attributed to various amounts of unused allowances.

    To illustrate, imagine a negative income tax with a personal allowance of $30,000 and a tax rate of 20% on all income above $30,000. Individuals with incomes below $30,000 will receive a payment that equals 20% of the difference between $30,000 and their pre- tax income. Thus:

    • Amy, who earns $0, receives a net transfer from the government equal to 20% of her unused $30,000 allowance, or $6,000 (20% × (0 – $30,000) = −$6,000; i.e., a subsidy of $6,000);

    • Bruno, who earns $30,000, owes nothing and is owed nothing; and

    • Chloe, who earns $60,000, pays a tax of 20% on all her income above $30,000, or $6,000 (20% × ($60,000 − $30,000) = $6,000).

    This is mathematically equivalent to a UBI coupled with a tax on non- UBI income. Imagine a UBI of $6,000 paid to all regardless of income coupled with a 20% tax on all other income, with no exemption amount. Thus:

    • Amy, who earns $0, receives a UBI payment of $6,000 but pays no tax, resulting in a net transfer from the government to Amy of $6,000;

    • Bruno, who earns $30,000, receives a UBI payment of $6,000 but pays tax of $6,000 (20% of $30,000), resulting in a net transfer of zero;

    • Chloe, who earns $60,000, receives a UBI payment of $6,000 but pays tax of $12,000 (20% of $60,000), resulting in a net transfer from Chloe to the government of $6,000.

    And both are mathematically equivalent to a UBI that explicitly phases out with income. Consider a UBI of $6,000 that phases out at a 20% rate starting with one’s first dollar of non- UBI income that is coupled with a 20% tax on non- UBI income over $30,000. Such a UBI fully phases out once income hits $30,000 (20% × $30,000 = $6,000). Thus:

    Amy, who earns $0, receives a UBI of $6,000 and pays no income tax, for a net transfer from the government of $6,000;

    • Bruno, who earns $30,000, receives no UBI (his UBI fully phases out) and pays no income tax, for a net transfer of zero; and

    • Chloe, who earns $60,000, receives no UBI (again, on account of the phaseout) and pays income tax of $6,000 (20% × ($60,000 – $30,000)), for a net transfer to the government of $6,000.

    The first example involves an NIT; the second involves a UBI that doesn’t explicitly phase out coupled with a tax on all non- UBI income; and the third involves a UBI that explicitly phases out with income and is coupled with a tax on non- UBI income over an exemption amount. But all result in the same net transfers between Amy, Bruno, Chloe, and the government.

    Three points about these examples. First, although they use a flat rate of 20%, the equivalence holds in tax systems that use graduated rate structures. Second, they envision individuals as the taxable unit, while the tax systems of the United States and a few European countries (such as France and Germany) generally use families. Nothing mandates, however, that an income tax system use the family instead of an individual as the taxable unit, and in fact, many OECD countries use the individual.

    Third, the examples assume that an income tax will fund a UBI. The sole circumstance in which an NIT and UBI are not economically equivalent is if a UBI is funded solely from sources other than taxes on income (or a base strongly correlated with income). Imagine a UBI funded solely by revenue from auctioning off the broadband spectrum. In such a case, Amy, Bruno, and Chloe each receive $6,000, regardless of their income, since the revenue from firms that purchase broadband spectrum is not correlated with their individual incomes. But as we discuss in chapter 12, almost every serious UBI proposal of any significant scope would require some, if not all, of its funding from increased taxes on income or a base like consumption that strongly correlates to income.

    Assuming that a UBI will be at least partially funded by income taxes, we can see that the key difference between a UBI and an NIT is one of optics. A UBI appears to be just that— universal— while an NIT is explicitly tied to one’s income. UBI proponents argue that universal framing is key to minimizing the stigma associated with poverty, and that a drawback of an NIT is that it— like traditional welfare programs— explicitly targets the poor. And it may be the case that such framing increases support among some members of the public, given the popularity of seemingly universal programs like Social Security and Medicare. But it may also reduce support in other quarters. NIT proponents argue that the superficial universality of a UBI undermines its political viability, due to the “Why are we paying a UBI to Jeff Bezos?” rejoinder.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Denver Basic Income Project and Mark Donovan Gaining More Confidence One Year In

    By Bennito L. Kelty

    See original post here.

    Eat your heart out, MrBeast.

    Mark Donovan doesn’t know where he got the idea to start handing out $1,000 to people in need, only that he was doing it before it became cool.

    “I love the immediacy of it,” he says. “I love the impact that it could have directly.”

    Back in 2020, the idea of universal basic income was popularized by the campaign of presidential candidate Andrew Yang — an entrepreneur like Donovan, who co-founded a women’s sweater brand. But at that point, the Denver Basic Income leader was already handing out grants worth $1,000 to individuals impacted by COVID.

    To him, doling out $1,000 “felt like, at that moment, the most immediate step that I could take to make a difference in people’s lives,” he tells Westword — especially during the pandemic.

    “COVID was hitting, people had lost their sources of income, their stability, their housing, and meanwhile, the net worth of the people at the top was surging,” Donovan recalls. “I was looking for action. I was looking for immediate impact in any way I could.”

    In 2021, he founded the Denver Basic Income Project — the first major effort in the U.S. to test out a basic income — specifically for people who are homeless. He seeded the project in 2021 with $500,000 in gains from early investments in Tesla and has since given out more than $5 million in direct cash payments to nearly 900 people.

    Donovan was inspired by the success of the New Leaf Project in Vancouver, which started distributing $7,500 in cash payments in 2018 to people who had recently started experiencing homelessness. Similarly, he highlights the effectiveness of programs like the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, which gave out $500 cash payments in California, and the Magnolia Mother’s Trust, which handed out $1,000 a month to low-income Black mothers in Jackson, Mississippi.

    “Everybody is finding the same thing,” Donovan says. “We’re not surprised by the results. If you’re in this space, you understand that most people will use the money for basic needs.”

    Almost a year has passed since the Denver Basic Income Project began its efforts to hand out monthly payments of as much as $1,000 to 820 people. This was ultimately done as a way of testing how to make a basic, job-free income work.

    Donovan ran two pilot phases of the project, in August 2021 and July 2022. The program was able to embark on a year-long effort after being awarded $2 million by the Denver City Council in September 2022. Participants were selected from homeless and community service organizations such as the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Servicios de la Raza and the Gathering Place, and were separated into three groups.

    The first group pocketed $1,000 a month for twelve months (lasting through this coming November). The second group received $6,500 the first month and $500 for the next eleven months. The last group only got $50 a month for twelve months because they’re a comparison group.

    When DU researchers interviewed 24 participants — eight from each group — three months into the project, they found promising results: According to their study released in July, the project was helping people meet basic needs, such as food, child care and paying down debts.

    One of the participants told researchers, “I have gotten into some housing, and it’s helped me a lot with doing that to help me pay off a lot of my debt.” Another participant from the $50-a-month group said, “It helps me put food on the table when I don’t have any money or I run out of my food stamps.”

    In response, Donovan says, “I’m extremely pleased with where we are. This income floor creates stability, an accelerated path toward safety, housing, work.” The study was validating, he adds, noting, “It proves our theory of change is right.”

    The $50 group surprised Donovan. Although participants are getting $600 out of the year-long project compared to $12,000 the other two groups are receiving, they’re “part of the program and are engaging in services, and maybe just have hope because of the way we’re approaching the community,” he says.

    Starting up the Basic Income Project cost about $9 million that first year, according to Donovan, but he expects that it would cost less to do it in 2024. The initial cost was for “organizing from 2021 to the beginning,” he explains. “It was a startup. We had to build everything from scratch.”

    Keeping things going will settle a lingering question about what the Denver Basic Income Project could look like in the long term. “If I had the money to do it myself, I would just do it, but I don’t have that kind of wealth,” Donovan says. “We don’t know what happens when you sustain an income floor for a community of people who are experiencing homelessness.”

    As the project leader, Donovan also looks forward to seeing other places try their own basic income initiative.

    A few years ago, he had hoped to take his program to 200 other cities in the span of a few years, but many places have already started attempting similar projects. Cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco have all tried out basic income programs, as have many large counties throughout the U.S.

    The City of Boulder just started taking applications for its Guaranteed Income Pilot Project, which will give $500 a month to 200 low-income families for two years.

    Donovan is hoping to gain support with a public rally on Friday, September 22, at the State Capitol to raise awareness for Denver’s program and basic income as a movement in general. Advocates for the idea, including Denver City Councilwoman Shontel Lewis and Donovan, are scheduled to speak.

    “We’re seeing it create hope,” Donovan concludes. “We’re seeing that people that maybe were disconnected and somewhat hopeless before are seeing a brighter future, the possibility of a brighter future, and that is a really powerful foundation.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal basic income proves to be an effective method of development aid

    See original post here.

    Simply transferring money to people living in poverty works. They then invest it in food, clean drinking water, education and a sustainable house with solar panels. These are the main findings of a study by the University of Groningen that examined an initiative by INclusion, which was the first Dutch NGO to launch a universal basic income project in Uganda in 2020.

    The universal basic income project started in August 2020 in the village of Welle, Uganda, in cooperation with the Ugandan NGO AFARD. The village then had 350 inhabitants, more than half of whom lived in extreme poverty. For the past three years, INclusion gave all the inhabitants of Welle – adults and children – 15 euros per month, without conditions. Such a partial basic income is called an unconditional cash transfer (UCT) in discussion of development cooperation and aid.

    Concrete findings

    A “baseline measurement” was conducted before the project began, and in December 2022 residents were interviewed again so that it could be assessed what had changed after 2.5 years. The just-released research report was written by Lisa van Dongen, PhD candidate at the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB). Van Dongen is supervised by professor Robert Lensink and associate professor Annika Mueller, both part of FEB’s Department of Economics, Econometrics and Finance. Some of Van Dongen, Lensink and Mueller’s concrete findings are:

    • extreme poverty has decreased from 55% to 10%
    • food security increased significantly, as did access to clean drinking water
    • elementary school participation increased from 70% to 87%
    • there was 75% less dropout from work and school due to illness
    • many residents built new, more sustainable homes
    • residents also invested in land for agriculture
    • the percentage of households owning cattle increased from 9% to 49%
    • ownership of solar panels increased from 19% to 74%

    Given all these positive changes, it is not surprising that the residents also told the interviewers that their stress has greatly decreased – such as daily worries about food and medicine – and that they are now more optimistic about their future.

    First Dutch UCT project

    INclusion plans to continue providing universal basic income for a total of seven years, until 2027. This will give the residents of Welle time to use the funds in such a way that they won’t fall back into poverty soon after the project ends.

    INclusion is the first Dutch organization to implement a UCT project, but it is already being used more widely by other organizations, such as the U.S.-based GiveDirectly. INclusion’s project differs from other projects in that it is the only one in which 10% of the money is not given individually, but through a village fund. The inhabitants of Welle jointly decide how to spend it. First, the village fund was used for a well in the village. Women and children now spend much less time fetching water every day.

    PhD candidate Lisa van Dongen: “During my research in Uganda, villagers proudly showed me the well, which the entire village gratefully uses every day. This shows that such a village fund can have an important impact on the development of the village.”

    Former Minister of Development Cooperation Jan Pronk and historian and best-selling author Rutger Bregman are positive about INclusion’s new method of development cooperation and support the organization in a Committee of Recommendation.

    “The basic idea,” says director of INclusion René Heeskens, “is that people living in poverty know best themselves what they need, and that they are also the most motivated to improve their own situation.” That idea is confirmed by this project and other research on this topic. “When you give people living in poverty the opportunity to improve their own living conditions, with a little help, they grab it with both hands.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Denver’s universal basic income project reports early success

    By Esteban L. Hernandez

    See original post here.

    A midterm report from the Denver Basic Income Project found giving people experiencing homelessness free money is a meaningful way to improve their lives.

    Driving the news: The report released Wednesday found people receiving money with no strings attached are benefiting significantly by using it to pay for groceries and other bills.

    • Others are using it for expenses like obtaining housing, rent, cars and paying significant debt.

    Why it matters: The program’s success so far could mean it continues after its initial one-year period.

    What they’re saying: “What we can conclude from the midyear report is how much hope this has provided to the unhoused community,” Andre Cunningham, co-chair of the DBIP’s advisory board, tells us.

    Context: The 846 participants — who include both sheltered and unsheltered people — are broken up into three groups. One group gets $1,000 for 12 months, another gets $6,500 for the first month and will get $500 for the remaining 11, and the final gets $50 for a year.

    • While people who received $50 a month reported feeling frustrated, many still said it was helpful to have the extra cash.

    Between the lines: Only 24 people were interviewed for the midterm report (eight from each of the three groups) about three to four months into the program. The spending was self-reported by participants, with some saying they used it to celebrate with non-essentials like a concert ticket, dining out or buying an outfit.

    • Cunningham said measuring success will mean seeing whether the program helped meet people’s basic needs like ensuring someone has housing, food or transportation.
    • Maria Sierra, DBIP’s community engagement manager, said during a press briefing on Wednesday it’s not clear yet how many people used the money to secure permanent housing.

    Yes, but: Some people struggled to decide how to spend the money, feeling “tension” between suddenly having it and the responsibility to use it effectively.

    • Many were surprised about the program when selected, with some likening it to winning the lottery, and others fearing it was a scam.
    • Overall, the money helped most people feel relief and reduce stress,

    The big picture: Other cities like Des Moines and San Francisco, which like Denver’s program is focused on the unhoused, are hosting similar projects.

    • Around the country, numerous programs have drawn largely positive results for providing safety nets to people like single women and people of color.
    • Cunningham said Denver’s is among the largest in the country.

    By the numbers: At least $5 million has been distributed so far in Denver, with the program paid largely by charitable foundations like, the Colorado Health Foundation and the Denver Foundation, and individual donors.

    • Denver City Council last year approved using $2 million in federal pandemic relief money for the program.

    What’s next: A final report is expected in October.

    The post Denver’s universal basic income project reports early success appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The NHS is 75: could a universal basic income be our next ‘national religion’?

    By Calix Eden

    See original post here.

    Let me begin with the personal. The NHS saved my life. When I was thirteen, I had a burst appendix resulting in critical brain surgery. I was given a 50% chance of survival and a high chance of permanent brain damage. My parents asked the surgeon if there was anything they could do that would help financially. The surgeon replied: ‘money doesn’t come into it – your son will receive the very best treatment possible right here’. It is totally unconditional. Like so many of us, I owe my life to the NHS.

    Thirty years ago, Nigel Lawson said the NHS has become our religion. At the opening of the Olympics nurses bounced on beds, where usually multi-million-pound pop stars croon. Can you imagine singing prison staff or dancing refuse collectors? During Covid we clapped the NHS and banged our pans week in and week out.

    No other country that I know of has anything approaching this level of enthusiasm for their health service. In fact, the NHS has become personified to us. It is our collective mother and father rolled into one. The care is unconditional, just like a parent still loves their child through thick and thin. Perhaps Nigel Lawson understated it – the NHS is far more than a religion.

    After 75 years and – despite serious problems – the NHS is part of the permanent fabric of our society. Many of us may have suffered personal hardship from the NHS – an endlessly delayed operation, a wrong diagnosis, inability to find a dentist or a lengthy wait at A&E – but in our minds that is not the core fault of the NHS as such, but rather lack of funding. The NHS transcends the particular problems of the time. It is there for all of us and has become the national glue that binds us together as a society.

    More universalism: not more austerity

    I believe the key to why we love the NHS is its universalism and unconditionality. Early NHS pioneers realised that in order to build a better society we had to provide for everyone and – crucially – this was a long-term investment beyond the immediate cost. Universalism is the only way to ensure nobody misses out. It is extraordinary to think how radical and daring this thinking was at a time when the country was bankrupt and in ruins.

    The NHS faced widespread establishment opposition from Churchill’s Tories – they voted against it 21 times – and the BMA who likened it to the National Socialism we had just defeated in the war. Now our dire situation as a country shares broad parallels with 1948. Our knee jerk reaction is always more austerity, but this has proven again and again to be a failure. It just shrinks the economy and makes us poorer. Let’s think laterally and consider what has worked in the past. Perhaps the answer is to extend universalism and build something new to protect us all? A universal basic income paid to every one of us fits that bill.

    Security without stigma

    We should remember that universalism is actually progressive because in real terms it means more to those with the least. Think of it this way – if we give £100 to someone wealthy and the same amount to someone on the breadline, it means little to the wealthy person but the world to the person with nothing. There is no stigma or jealousy, and none of the toxic ‘he gets more than me’ syndrome inherent in means testing.

    As far as the NHS is concerned, this could be a game changer. Mental health would surely improve if people had a consistent income – so many mental health problems are caused by financial stress and chronic insecurity – and diet would undoubtedly improve if people were off the breadline. The next government won’t want to take away something that has universal appeal and is our collective right, just like they don’t dare take away the NHS.

    Binding us together again

    The biggest cost to our NHS by a country mile is the pervasive poverty in our society, as Michael Marmot points out. A basic income for all would provide a foundation for everyone, rich or poor, black or white, able and disabled. Undoubtedly, it would cost a lot, but it would be an investment, just like the NHS. We spend untold billions in mopping up poverty, ill health and misery – could we find a way to support people before it happens? Whisper it quietly, but might this actually be cost-effective? Or, put it the other way round, can we afford to go on as we are?

    I know a basic income is not the answer to everything (nothing is)– we still need huge investment to tackle climate change, education, housing and, of course, our NHS – but it would be a vital start and would lift millions out of the poverty trap. Universalism is a net with no holes. Just as significantly a basic income for all could bind us together in a new way and give us renewed hope, just like the NHS in 1948.Now, that’s worth clapping for.

    The post The NHS is 75: could a universal basic income be our next ‘national religion’? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Could a Universal Basic Income be the answer to cost of living woes?

    By Madeleine Wedesweiler

    See original post here.

    Models for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) show that giving money to everyone in Australia would never come cheap.

    But experts say the concept, which has been around since the 1800s, provides useful ideas around policies that could help ease people’s financial pain during rising inflation and cost of living pressures.

    A UBI is essentially a payment from the state to each and every household with no strings attached, like a ‘dividend’ from being a ‘shareholder’ in society.

    It would allow some not to work, but others would need to work and pay extensive taxes on their income.

    Proponents argue such a payment would provide a society-wide safety net, protect workers from job losses from the increasing automatisation of work, and lead to greater equality.

    It has widespread support – 51 per cent of Australians are in favour, according to the 2019−20 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes – but there are many challenges involved, the biggest one being finding the money to pay for it.

    How would a UBI work in Australia?

    Associate Professor at the Australian National University’s Centre of Social Research and Methods Ben Phillips told SBS News a model of basic income he costed was “wildly expensive”.

    The model would see every adult in Australia take home $27,600 a year, roughly what the current age pension is, and wouldn’t mean an end to some payments that need to continue including childcare and family payments.

    “It would increase welfare spending from about $140 billion a year at the moment to probably over $550 billion per year, if done in a full-blown way,” he said.

    Associate Professor Phillips said that kind of spending is not a live policy option, and he would recommend updating the current welfare system instead.

    “You’d be looking at having to pretty much double personal income tax,”

    he said.

    “So if your current tax rate was, say, 30 cents of the dollar, it becomes 60 cents in the dollar. You might have to increase the GST from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, on everything.”

    In 2018, the then Greens leader Richard Di Natale announced a universal basic income policy for Australia, suggesting a scheme of between ‘$20,000 and $40,000 year’ would be necessary to ensure adequacy.

    Greens Treasury spokesperson Nick McKim declined to comment for this article.

    Co-Director of the Australian Basic Income Lab, Ben Spies-Butcher, said another model he costed was a liveable income guarantee that was centred on changing the requirements around JobSeeker requirements.

    It would cost around $103.45 billion and require income taxes to be raised by 12 percentage points.

    “The welfare system has a lot of surveillance and very harsh oversight, so this model said instead of having this thing that means you have to go to all these job appointments, or all these training programs, which often are pretty useless, what we should do is broaden our understanding of what a contribution to society looks like,” he said.

    “So if you’re caring for people, if you’re volunteering in the community, those sorts of things also count, and we should change it, so it’s similar to the tax system.”

    How have other countries trialled a UBI?

    A new trial announced this month in England would see 30 recipients receive no-strings-attached payments of around $2,800 a month for two years.

    Dr Spies-Butcher said there had been an explosion of UBI pilots and experiments and renewed interest in the topic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “If the pilots and trials weren’t working, they wouldn’t still be going,”

    he said.

    Since September 2022, Ireland has been trialling a program of giving 2,000 artists a payment of around $525 a week so that they could focus on making music, poetry and visual arts without focusing on a day job.

    It is not means tested, so participants may still be eligible for social welfare payments and will still be able to earn other money from their work.

    Fellow Co-Director of the Australian Basic Income Lab, Troy Henderson, said it could bring positive spillover effects for the rest of society.

    “But I’d make the broader point that if we’re talking about a UBI, we would like it to be available to everybody,” he said.

    Would it solve inflation problems?

    Dr Henderson said increasing any kind of social assistance could have a very important impact on people living in poverty in current circumstances.

    “I think there’s some merit to the argument that we should consider a universal basic income right now in relation to the cost of living crisis, because we’ve seen even when you break down inflation, that the largest increases in prices have been in relation to staple goods, things that people need on an everyday basis. They’re not discretionary,” he said.

    “So those goods are disproportionately important to people on lower incomes, including those receiving different types of social assistance payments.”

    Dr Spies-Butcher said a UBI wouldn’t benefit everyone right now, but it would take pressure off some groups, including parents with young children and students, who would benefit from not working.

    “The insecurity that’s associated with (the welfare system) is really debilitating,” he said.

    “Economic security is not just about how high costs are, it’s about being able to rely on having income and being able to plan in order to be able to meet your needs over time and not be completely terrified and stressed out all the time about whether payments will be cut or reduced.”

    Dr Spies-Butcher added it’s important to realise a UBI wouldn’t be a silver bullet for the rising cost of living but would need to be complemented by other policies on housing and healthcare.

    How would a UBI impact the workforce?

    One of the common arguments against a UBI is that it would be a disincentive to people working, and their productivity and the economy would decline.

    Dr Spies-Butcher said there’s extremely little evidence of that.

    “There’s been heaps of trials around the world, and the trials are different so that, they’re targeting different things. But pretty consistently, there’s been a very small labour market effect,” he said.

    However, Associate Professor Phillips disagreed and said that because of the extraordinary taxes people would have to pay on their income, it wouldn’t overall be a good thing for employment but would benefit mental health.

    What about other welfare policies?

    The UBI is not in the mainstream frame of policy discussion by major parties, but it does offer insights into other ideas on modernising welfare policy.

    “There’s elements of our welfare system that I think are a bit too harsh,” Associate Professor Phillips said.

    “I think loosening some of those is probably a good thing would help a lot of people, particularly very disadvantaged people, and making the system a bit more generous for those who really need it. That’s where I would be going first, rather than a UBI.”

    Dr Henderson said if the Labor government wants to be progressive on welfare issues, it first needs to tackle “some of the cultural norms and stereotypes we have around the deserving and undeserving poor”.

    “The classic example is, you know, we have the pejorative term in Australia of the dole bludger, the person kicking back eating, you know, corn chips and, and smoking, while everyone else works hard.

    “Then, if you reach retirement age the next day, you are a deserving old age pensioner.”

    The post Could a Universal Basic Income be the answer to cost of living woes? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

  • Pennsylvania state lawmakers to introduce legislation for universal basic income study

    By CASSIE MILLER

    See original post here.

    Three state lawmakers from Philadelphia said they plan to introduce legislation directing a state agency to study and report back on the efficacy of a universal basic income program in Pennsylvania. 

    Democratic state Reps. Ben Waxman, Morgan Cephas and Chris Rabb, all signed onto a co-sponsorship memo seeking legislative support for the bill, which would require the Department of Human Services to conduct the study, which would also help state officials determine which municipalities would be best suited to implement a UBI program. 

    The idea of universal basic income is not new, but has continued to generate global interest in recent years, with nations such as Finland, and the United Kingdom, conducting trials.

    In 2020, Democratic state Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler, of Philadelphia, and U.S. Rep. Summer Lee, D-12th District, then a member of the state House from Allegheny County, also sought support for a similar proposal. 

    UBI has also been a topic on the presidential campaign trail, with then-Democratic White House hopeful Andrew Yang endorsing the concept during his 2020 run for the Oval Office. 

    The concept of UBI saw increased attention during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, which supporters have cited as an example of the need to explore UBI further. 

    In 2021, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, a mayor-led guaranteed income demonstration, studied the effects of UBI, providing 125 participants with $500 monthly for two years. 

    The SEED study found that recipients were healthier, more financially stable, and more likely to set goals and take risks as a result of the UBI program, but noted that the “exorbitant” costs of necessities, such as child care, medical care, and housing, continue to be sources of hardship and stress for many. 

    “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a comprehensive safety net reform,”

    \the study concluded.

    To date, many cities and municipalities across the country have continued to launch, test, and implement UBI programs, with  Chicago, Atlanta, Oakland, Phoenix, Denver and Baltimore among them.

    The study, the lawmakers wrote, would be a “vital first step in understanding how a universal basic income pilot program could be implemented in Pennsylvania.”

    The post Pennsylvania state lawmakers to introduce legislation for universal basic income study appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • 16 Reasons Matt Yglesias is Wrong about the Job Guarantee vs. Basic Income

    Yes, sending a check to people is not as “messy,” but let’s stop pretending that it’s a panacea for the fundamental problem of economic insecurity.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • How universal basic income’s impact on people’s finances could transform the nation’s health

    By Matthew T. Johnson and Elliott Johnson

    See original article here.

    In October 1936, 200 men marched from South Tyneside to London to protest against the poverty and unemployment in their town, Jarrow.

    Nearly a century later, Jarrow is taking part in a small pilot scheme to test how universal basic income (UBI) could tackle financial insecurity and health inequalities – which continue to plague the town. Under the scheme, two groups – 15 people in Jarrow and another 15 in East Finchley, London, will receive £1,600 a month for two years.

    This micropilot will produce new UK data on the impact of the basic income in these communities, particularly the stories and experiences of the people that participate. This can be used for further research on the effects of UBI on a larger scale in these communities. This will help show if there is a case for a national basic income, or at least more comprehensive UK trials.

    UBI generally involves giving a regular cash payment to all adult citizens. It differs from existing welfare systems that are conditional on people’s assessed needs.

    In this pilot, participants are paid the same amount as a separate Welsh government pilot that involves people leaving care. The Jarrow and East Finchley pilot is focused on a broader, locally representative pool of people in each of these communities.

    The project has been based on our research on basic incomes, which suggests that tackling financial insecurity is essential to promoting public health. This is a particularly important issue now because the effects of COVID and the cost of living crisis on Britons who are employed, self-employed or who run small businesses have left many people at risk of destitution.

    Financial insecurity has risen to levels unseen in generations. Evidence from the Child Poverty Action Group shows millions of Britons face fuel poverty, while the campaign group End Fuel Poverty Coalition found that 1,047 people died in England from living in cold, damp homes in December 2022.

    The Bank of England’s commitment to a gradual and sustained increase in interest rates has exacerbated the rate of repossessions without addressing inflation caused by factors largely beyond consumers’ control.

    This has created a second pandemic that will only get worse: mental ill health. Our recent report shows the only way we can bring this current crisis to an end is through bold interventions.

    Universal basic income (UBI) is a radical but, we believe, feasible alternative to the existing, failing welfare system. It could reduce poverty to unprecedented levels, address inequality within and between regions, and massively improve the nation’s health.

    A radical approach

    The government has committed to realign healthcare so that it’s not just about treating the ill, but preventing illness in the first place. One of the best ways to do this is to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality.

    The idea of the state redistributing resources by providing an adequate, regular and predictable payment to citizens is radical. It turns the discussion about welfare on its head: from a payment to a select few with no other means of satisfying their needs, to a payment that protects those in, as well as out, of work from the threat of destitution.

    One of the key, and often overlooked, consequences of this is its potential contribution to public health. Basic income set at an adequate level could boost public health in three ways.

    First, by reducing poverty, it would increase people’s ability to satisfy their basic needs by helping them to afford better food and housing.

    Second, by reducing financial inequality, it would also give people the option to leave abusive, damaging environments. This would reduce stress and stress-related illnesses. The pandemic has highlighted the dangers of people being unable to escape these environments and the potential long-term impacts on health are significant.

    And third, by giving people a more predictable and secure future, it would increase their perception of their lifespan. This could lead to changes in behaviour in the process. People with clearer long-term futures may be less likely to engage in hedonistic activities, such as drug and alcohol misuse, and more likely to engage in exercise and health-promoting activity, according to our research.

    While there are examples of people “binge spending” following large benefit payments, some evidence suggests that those that feel they have some kind of future ahead will spend money on activities that enhance their health, such as healthier eating and fitness. On the other hand, people facing destitution are more likely to engage in short-term, hedonistic behaviour, since they feel unlikely to have to face the long-term consequences.

    Such effects would be most keenly felt in those parts of the UK, such as the north of England, midlands and Wales, that suffer most from the low incomes, inequalities and general hopelessness that contribute to ill health.

    This generation’s equivalent of the NHS

    The NHS made healthcare free at the point of use. Three decades after its implementation, the Labour government sought to understand why health inequality persisted.

    The resulting report highlighted that people’s social and economic circumstances shaped their outcomes. To reduce health inequality, we need to deal with these circumstances, which have rapidly declined since the 2008 global financial crisis. And UBI can do this in the three ways outlined above.

    Future generations may look back at recent discussions about UBIs with the same confusion we feel when thinking of opposition to the NHS in the 1940s.

    The solutions Britain needs are just as far reaching as those implemented in 1945. Basic income is one such solution that could be as popular and transformative as the NHS.

    The post How universal basic income’s impact on people’s finances could transform the nation’s health appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Survey: Majority of Germans in favor of unconditional basic income

    By Berliner Zeitung.
    Translation by Raymond R. Watson, M.A.

    According to a study people, particularly young people, are in
    favor of a basic income. Even those who are very concerned
    about the climate and the environment are more likely to be in
    favor of a UBI.

    The majority of Germany’s population is in favor of an
    unconditional basic income. This was the result of two surveys
    conducted in the summer of 2022 conducted by the German
    Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin, Germany. The
    results of the surveys showed that 53 percent of respondents
    were in favor of this particular social model, while 36 percent
    were against it.

    Researchers from DIW and the University of Konstanz located
    in Baden-Württemberg, Germany also found that people with
    low incomes experiencing personal, financial challenges
    support introducing an unconditional basic income. A basic
    income of €1200 per month (US$1290) received the most
    support.

    Study: Whoever considers climate protection important is
    also in favor of a UBI

    The study found that to finance a basic income most
    respondents support an increase in income and wealth taxes.
    One of the authors from the DIW study, Juergen Schupp said:

    “Politically, the idea of an unconditional basic income is highly
    controversial, but for years has been immensely popular among
    the German population.”

    He argues that UBI be taken into
    account in future debates on reforms to the German social
    systems.

    The impactful study analyzed whether people are in favor or not
    of a basic income in connection with social and demographic
    characteristics such as age, household income or life
    satisfaction. A total of 2,000 eligible voters were interviewed.

    Younger people, people with low income or low life satisfaction
    in particular are thus in favor of a basic income. Respondents
    greatly concerned about climate and the environment also
    would have favored a basic income.

    In recent years the issue has already been seriously debated
    politically in Berlin – but poignantly unsuccessful. A referendum
    held in the German capital in the fall of 2022 called “Expedition
    Grundeinkommen” (Expedition Basic Income) failed to meet the
    legally defined target for signatures. Thus, the corresponding
    initiative could not take place.

    The post Survey: Majority of Germans in favor of unconditional basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A Ballot Initiative in Oregon is Making Progress Towards Establishing a Statewide UBI

    See original post here.

    The Oregon Rebate (IP 2024-017) ballot initiative campaign has announced early success in collecting the necessary signatures to qualify for the November 2024 General Election. 

    The Oregon Rebate will establish a statewide Universal Basic Income in the form of yearly rebates valued at approximately $750. Every Oregonian, regardless of age, income, or status will be eligible to receive a yearly rebate. For example, a 4-person household will receive four rebates, or about $3,000, tax free. 

    The rebates are funded by increasing the minimum tax rate of the largest corporations doing business in Oregon. Currently, the minimum corporate tax rate for corporations with more than $25 million of annual Oregon sales is less than 1% and the Oregon Rebate proposes to increase this minimum corporate tax rate to 3%, still well below the 5-10% of personal tax rate Oregonians pay. 

    “Oregonians know that the biggest corporations are not paying their fair share, and that yearly cash rebates will help them make ends meet.” said Antonio Gisbert, chief petitioner of the Oregon Rebate. 

    The scope of the Oregon Rebate is noteworthy: Every year, approximately $3.0 billion of new revenue will be rebated among the approximately 4 million Oregonians. Using the UBI Center’s Basic Income Builder, the campaign estimates an overall reduction in poverty of approximately 15% and, specifically, a reduction in child poverty of approximately 26%. 

    “Cash is care, cash reduces poverty and provides opportunity, and cash stimulates our local economies and communities,” said Antonio Gisbert. 

    To date, among others, the Oregon Rebate campaign has been endorsed by PCUN, the Oregon Working Families Party, the Pacific Green Party, and the Oregon Progressive Party.

    The campaign has until July 2024 to collect the statutorily required 120,413 signatures to qualify for the 2024 General Election. Those interested in reading the full text of the petition, learning more, and getting involved or contributing to the Oregon Rebate campaign may do so at https://oregonrebate.org/. 

    The post A Ballot Initiative in Oregon is Making Progress Towards Establishing a Statewide UBI appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • OUT WITH CENTRELINK. IN WITH UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.

    Most governments around the world have welfare programs that attempt to provide for the basic needs of its citizens who are old, ill, poor, unemployed, disabled etc. Those programs are far from ideal and are as narrowly targeted as is possible. A huge amount of paperwork is needed to apply for welfare and if you …

    Continue reading OUT WITH CENTRELINK. IN WITH UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.

    The post OUT WITH CENTRELINK. IN WITH UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. appeared first on Everald Compton.

    This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.

  • Opinion: The Future of Guaranteed Basic Income Is At The Community Level

    See original post here.

    By: HALAH AHMAD &  STEPHEN NUÑEZ &  HOPE WOLLENSACK 

    Unconditional cash assistance is having a moment.

    Even before the pandemic, there was growing recognition that our heavily work-conditioned safety net is inadequate. It was especially prone to fail households during economic downturns, exactly when aid is most needed. And it was hamstrung by the “administrative burden” of eligibility verifications, burdens which disproportionately fall on African American and Latino/x families. Then, the economic turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of activity and interest in guaranteed income across the country.

    But while it’s clear that something has shifted in the U.S. political debate, the work of long term policy change will require grassroots mobilization — starting at the city and community level and led by beneficiaries and their communities. Practitioners and decision-makers must ensure this work is well supported.

    Undoubtedly, cash assistance has become a mainstream safety net idea: The Democratic Party embraced a fully refundable and unconditional Child Tax Credit as a central anti-poverty strategy, mimicking successful credits and allowances implemented in Canada, the U.K. and a host of other countries. The federal response to the pandemic included several rounds of stimulus checks (in addition to a pilot Child Tax Credit expansion). States like Vermont and New Jersey are beginning their own unconditional child allowance expansions. Over a hundred “guaranteed income” pilots have emerged in cities and counties nationwide to provide life-changing, direct assistance to over 38,000 households combined.

    Despite all this, Congress failed to extend the expanded federal child tax credit. It is clear that there is more work to be done to transform dozens of city and county pilot efforts into permanent policy change at the state and federal level. Many ask what is next when the charitable and public pandemic relief (ARPA) funds — that have supported cash pilots to thousands of households — dry up.

    Part of the answer lies with cities where, in the legacy of the National Welfare Rights Organization, models of recipient-driven engagement in pilot design are becoming efforts to turn beneficiaries into expert advocates. The Georgia Resilience and Opportunity Fund’s In Her Hands initiative is one such model for how to scale city-level efforts to a statewide program, aimed at both helping individuals now and building grassroots power for long-term change.

    The In Her Hands initiative provides a guaranteed income of about $850 per month for two years to 650 women. While the program reaches households across the state, it grew out of Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward Economic Security Task Force, which convened to advance a cash-based economic solution to persistent inequality and poverty in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s hometown.

    The task force brought together 28 community groups and leaders, including the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, City Councilmember Amir Farokhi, representatives from labor, local community developers, interfaith groups, and the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church among others, with supportive expertise from the Jain Family Institute. They found that “no matter how hard they work or smartly they budget,” Atlantans, especially Black Atlantans, struggle to make ends meet—and that a guaranteed income pilot program should be established. They advocated for a state “Georgia Work Credit,” like a state Earned Income Tax Credit. And they called for existing safety net programs, like housing assistance, to be more unconditional, and to support strategies to build Black communities’ wealth.

    The results of that effort within Atlanta led to a partnership with GiveDirectly to create the In Her Hands program spanning three communities in Georgia – Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward, rural southwest Georgia, and suburban College Park. The goals of the In Her Hands program are two-fold: to improve the financial well-being of program participants, and to generate insights to inform public policy broadly. To achieve the second goal, building from the ground up with community members is paramount.

    Expanding on the task force’s findings, the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity Fund convened community members and organizations closest to issues of economic insecurity throughout the process of building the program. They sought to learn from similar programs that empowered potential recipients to input on the design of the program, such as the Magnolia Mother’s Trust in Jackson, Mississippi among others.

    Across the country, guaranteed income pilots are turning to ways they can not only benefit their direct recipients but also push for narrative and policy change around cash in the safety net. The In Her Hands program is paving a way forward, combining cash assistance and messaging work for policy change. Specifically, the program is building a community-centered storytelling initiative focused on creating communal spaces for participants to collectively share & swap stories of economic insecurity on their own terms.

    The program creates space for brave and vulnerable connection among participants and their communities, becoming a launch pad for broader mobilization on issues of financial insecurity — principally, an income floor. Within the communities the program serves, In Her Hands is building grassroots power to shape both poverty policy and poverty narratives. These efforts are the building blocks of mobilization toward sustained policy change driven by the expertise and activism of recipients.

    As guaranteed income advocates, pilot practitioners, and researchers coalesce into a movement beyond the Child Tax Credit or emergency spending alone, it is time to shift the narrative around poverty and inequality by highlighting the deficiencies of our existing safety net. The next stage of work will be led by those telling their stories of having an income floor and continuing to work for greater economic opportunity for their families.

    Through these stories, city, county and state-based pilots across the country are beginning to combat pernicious and cynical myths about working class families — and about people of color in particular.

    The In Her Hands initiative is just one example. But it shows how community conversations can lead the way to a state-wide program that provides a fuller safety net, and how community voices can continuously shape the ways programs promote similar policies that center dignity at the state and federal levels — catalyzing momentum for a national guaranteed income program.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.