This is a collection of articles and information that I have found about Basic Income, gathered here for convenience. It is not presented in any particular order.
syzygysue writes over at Think Left that the UK needs eight million new jobs to provide full employment. I believe this is true, but I also believe that it cannot and will not happen. There will be less and less jobs per head of population as manufacturing and logistics become more and more automated. Even in China it is proving cheaper to put thousands of robots in factories than to employ people with all of their foibles and demands, such as being paid a fair wage.
Working conditions in Amazon’s warehouses are abysmal, driving people past their breaking point and Tesco isn’t a whole lot better. People take these jobs because they are desperate to work but they shouldn’t have to accept such conditions. Humans are being used as mere cogs in a vast and uncaring machine and frankly, cogs do a better job of being cogs than humans do. We should accept automation wherever possible even as it puts people out of work.
But if people are put out of work by machines, how will they survive? To quote union leader Walter Reuther when Henry Ford asked how he would get robots to pay union fees, “How will you get them [robots] to buy your cars?”
The answer is that everyone put out of work by machines must receive an income from the general pool of wealth. A share in the profits of the machines as it were. In fact I will go further and suggest that everyone, regardless of other means, should receive this income. It goes by the name of Basic Income, Citizen’s Income, Minimum Income, Mincome, Guaranteed Income and probably some others. It is a salary paid by the government to every citizen, regardless of means, without asking anything of them in return. They are not required to look for work, or to volunteer for a charity, or to do community service, or anything else. It must be unconditional.
A little-known experiment took place in Canada in the seventies and put the principles of basic income to the test. It wasn’t quite the same thing – it was effectively a tax credit which was means tested and paid to those without any other income however it placed no requirements on the recipient and so it is a reasonable comparison to basic income. The trial was known as Mincome and it topped up the income of everyone in the town to at least the minimum level. The experiment was wildly successful in reducing poverty and bringing health benefits such as an 8.5% reduction in hospital visits. The trial was abandoned when a change of government brought new priorities but one of the people involved recently did a radio interview about it and it is worth a listen.
A Town Without Poverty (Note, video is black to start with.)
So how would basic income be paid for? It would replace the tax allowance for a start. If everyone received a few thousand pounds a year then they wouldn’t need tax relief on the first ten thousand pounds a year of their income. It would replace pensions, which are a vast chunk of the welfare budget. It would replace nearly all benefits, in one stroke removing means testing, the work capability assessment, and the stress and stigma of the current system. The rate of taxes would be adjusted to make up any remaining shortfall.
But wouldn’t people stop work if they didn’t have to earn a living? No, actually. Few people want to live on an income that allows for no luxuries or extras. People aspire to get more, and they are prepared to work for that. What is likely to happen is a rise in jobshares and part time work to top up the basic income, thus solving the problem of there not being any jobs for people who are unemployed at the moment. Actually, some people would stop paid employment but on the whole it is people should stop because they have other roles outside of the workplace that are just as valuable. Carers, parents, those in education, those who volunteer to help others. All are valuable roles that are losing out because people are required to work so much to get by. Writers, artists, entrepreneurs and more could all go and focus on creating what they want to create and we all benefit from that.
I believe that basic income is inevitable. If it doesn’t happen then society will collapse completely under the weight of poverty as our production becomes automated and people are treated like machines. That is not good enough though, and I believe we should introduce Basic Income today so that we can be a caring and civilised society.
FT: Obama must face the rise of the robots (Free registration required.)
FT: Foxconn looks to a robotic future (Free registration required)
Basic income guarantee [Wikipedia]
An audio version of this blog post is available on episode 164 of The Pod Delusion, 40 minutes in.
A lot of tasks are carried out by people not employed to carry them out. People care for relatives, cook for neighbours, run clubs for children, look after communal gardens where they live. This is the real big society. Many of these people are not in employment at all, never mind paid to do what they do.
Others pursue hobbies that might bring great joy to them and to society, or provide useful innovations applicable to other things. Writers, inventors, amateur scientists, musicians, artists – all produce things of great worth to society. When people work all hours for an employer these tasks are neglected but when people work less or not at all they are free to pursue these things.
Parents are not valued by society for the task that they do, instead it being expected that both parents in a couple will work
There is worth in a vast number of tasks that are not part of “work” and yet these tasks are not valued by people and government does not see any worth outside of a paid job.
Current attitudes to welfare benefits seem to focus on dividing people into deserving and undeserving poor. Politicians argue that we should have more conditionality in our system; that we should return to an insurance style of benefit for out-of-work benefits so that those who have not spent enough time in work cannot claim the same benefits that those who have worked for years can. They want to take benefits away from those who don’t make enough effort to find a job. The Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity scheme send people to do unpaid work for big businesses and charities, punishing those who refuse by taking away their tiny benefits for weeks, months or even years, even though such “work experience” is often simply manual labour that requires little training and does not help anyone to find a permanent job. Many people express the opinion that those in receipt of welfare benefits should not have “luxuries” such as Sky TV or broadband, and resent such things being paid for by benefits out of tax funds, seeing themselves as personally paying for such things. Indeed, government ministers have floated the idea of paying benefits in the form of payment cards that cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco which is a terrible idea.
The question that I want to ask, though, is why does everyone have to work?
I believe the answer is that they don’t.
In our modern industrial society we have driven down the cost of production through two things: exploitation of cheap overseas labour, and mechanisation and automation. I will come back to the first of these later, but what of the second?
Mechanisation has vastly reduced the need for labour. More could be done to continue this trend, but historically it has been opposed by unions because it puts people out of work. I think the time has come to say GOOD. Let’s put people out of work. Automate everything that can be automated. The remaining jobs should be divided up between everyone who wants to work, reducing the hours of all jobs until all those who want to work have the working hours that they want.
Of course doing so would leave many people without any income, or dependant on Job Seeker’s Allowance and looking for jobs that just don’t exist. (As is already the case.) These people cannot be punished for failing to find jobs that don’t exist, that is indefensible. I propose a change in the way that society thinks about people who do not work. We must stop resenting them, stop begrudging them any small luxuries that they may have, and instead pay them a decent income that allows a decent life. But that would be unfair! Why should they get something that you do not? Well there is a solution to that. Pay a salary to everyone, working or not, deserving or not. This concept is known variously as Universal Income, Citizen’s Income, Basic Income, or combinations thereof. Here’s how it would work:
Every adult citizen would receive a salary, paid to them by the government, of enough to cover basic living costs. It would perhaps be set at a level that would cover one person living in a shared house or a couple living together.
To finance this, the tax allowance would be abolished. Instead the citizen’s income would be paid tax free, and all earnings from other sources would be taxed at the standard rate from the start. Nearly all in-work and out of work benefits would also be abolished. Anyone without a job would stop receiving Job Seeker’s Allowance and Housing Benefit as those are replaced by the Citizen’s Income. Indeed, Housing Benefit to anyone who is in work would also cease.
Sick and disabled people would no longer receive ESA. They would receive Citizen’s Income too. In their case, though, they have additional expenses and a higher cost of living caused by needing to adapt things around them and inability to access some services so they would still receive Disability Living Allowance to provide for that, and care would still be funded by government.
The benefits that Citizen’s Income would bring are large. There would be no need to means-test people, and means testing is expensive. There would be no reason to track people’s efforts to look for work, and there would be no reason to punish anyone for not working – eliminating a huge bureaucracy required to do those things. There would be no stress and fear of losing benefits imposed on people who for one reason or another cannot work, no Work Capability Assessment – leading to improvements in health and quality of life.
Of course people will object to those choosing not to work, which is why we all need to approach the idea with less judgement. Although benefit fraud is tiny and the number of people who would choose not to work is low, such people do exist. There are people who do not want to work and there are people who are just plain unemployable. Under the current and proposed systems they would be punished for not finding work and ultimately end up homeless or dependant on family or charity if anyone at all. I do not think doing this is the action of a humane society. Would it not be better to let these people stay out of the workplace, avoid employing people who do not want to be there or would not do a good job? It may well be that eventually such people will decide that they do want to work and will then find a job that they want to do and pay taxes. There are many people that do want to work but only part time, and a Citizen’s income would enable them to do so where the current system would make it impossible.
Allowing more people to work for less hours might also have the benefit of making some jobs more attractive so that work currently carried out overseas or by immigrants becomes feasible to carry out locally, thus working towards solving the problem of exploitation of cheap overseas labour.
Such a system would have to be introduced alongside rent caps to prevent private landlords from taking advantage of more available income by inflating rents. I cannot pretend that a Citizen’s Income would not be very attractive to people in some other countries too, and short of introducing the idea worldwide we would have to consider carefully how to treat immigrants. (This sentence makes me uncomfortable, but I think it does need to be considered.)
Citizen’s Income would:
- Replace the tax allowance and the benefits system
- Make savings on means testing and administration
- Allow freedom to work part time, full time or not at all
- Allow the pursuit of hobbies and interests away from work
- Produce inventions and innovations that benefit us all
- Result in the production of books, music and art
- Allow people to perform services for others and their community
- Shift the balance of power from employers to employees
- Provide security when jobs are not secure
- Remove the fear and stress of disability assessments
The whole idea of Citizen’s Income necessitates a huge shift in the way that our society thinks but since many are calling for a rethink of our welfare system anyway I think now is the time to consider it.
Disclaimer: I am no expert, so if I have made any errors or misrepresented anything please let me know.
Basic income guarantee [Wikipedia]