Left and Right Unite! – For the UBI Fight!
- This topic has 224 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Capitalism to the rescue.http://news.trust.org/item/20180329181240-v9pc1/
Quote:Sir Ronald Cohen, the founder and chair of the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment, which works to accelerate the movement around the world, often says that impact investment is "an evolution in thought and a revolution in means". This is an unstoppable movement and we are on the winning side of history… the impact investment thesis is values-based: capital has a higher purpose. Capital must be used to create positive social or environmental impact alongside financial returns. Impact can drive profitability and need not impair it…This "impact" movement is still about bourgeois vs. proletariat – just in a different avatar. Not on the battlefield, but in the financial markets. This revolution is not about guns and arms, but considers if the invisible hand of the markets can be guided by the invisible heart.Another solution from the think-tankshttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/pay-all-uk-25-year-olds-a-10000-inheritance-says-thinktankAll UK-born citizens should be given £10,000 as a “universal minimum inheritance” when they turn 25 to help address growing wealth inequality.Tax reforms and a selloff of assets including the government’s stake in Royal Bank of Scotland could help create a citizens’ wealth fund worth £186bn by 2029/30. The fund could be large enough to pay all 25-year-olds a one-off capital dividend of £10,000 from 2030. Such a fund would give everyone a stake in the economy and help young people invest in their futures, for example through buying a property, investing in education or starting a business, according to a report for the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice.
The political commentator Chris Hedges throws some cold water on the "Oligarchs guaranteed income scam"https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/04/02/oligarchs-guaranteed-basic-income-scamCan't agree with all of his reasoning but can concur with his conclusion.
Quote:A number of the reigning oligarchs—among them Mark Zuckerberg (net worth $64.1 billion), Elon Musk (net worth $20.8 billion), Richard Branson (net worth $5.1 billion) and Stewart Butterfield (net worth $1.6 billion)—are calling for a guaranteed basic income. It looks progressive. They couch their proposals in the moral language of caring for the destitute and the less fortunate. But behind this is the stark awareness, especially in Silicon Valley, that the world these oligarchs have helped create is so lopsided that future consumers, plagued by job insecurity, substandard wages, automation and crippling debt peonage, will be unable to pay for the products and services offered by the big corporations.Quote:If we are to drive back the attacks we face under capitalism and, indeed, to challenge that system itself and take our struggles in the direction of social transformation, it will be done through social mobilization and political struggle. Basic income is a futile hope for a way out that is, in reality, blocked. At the same time, a neoliberal version is in the works that is all too real and likely. It would be the most tragic miscalculation to lay down a progressive welcome mat for it.Poverty Alleviation and “Basic Income”: Progressive Cloak and Neoliberal Dagger
Interesting article here – with a historical angle to it https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/what-if-everyone-got-a-monthly-cheque-from-the-government/ar-AAuB0yL?item=personalization_enabled:false
It is detailed but it is also misleading
Quote:So far, it’s the only country willing to try.As the article itself demonstrates, it is only an experiment for a select few at the moment."…Last year, the government passed new restrictions on unemployment payments, penalizing people who refuse positions that are below their education and experience levels or within a certain distance from their homes…to provide Finns with the level of financial security they enjoy under their current system, basic income payments would have to be at least twice those of the trial. And to pay everyone, the country would have to change its tax structure…"
And Thomas More didn't envisage a basic "income" in his "utopia" but a society that didn't use money. Not at all the same.
ALB wrote:And Thomas More didn't envisage a basic "income" in his "utopia" but a society that didn't use money. Not at all the same.Ive tried to get in touch with the writer, Claire Suddath, to point out some of the problems with her article. She might respond so its a case of "watch this space"
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much interest. It will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.Kela researcher, Miska Simanainen, said "reforming the social security system is on the political agenda, but the politicians are also discussing many other models of social security, rather than just basic income".http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700
This article seems to suggest that the death of the UBI in Finland was prematurehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-universal-basic-income-experiment-wages-a8322141.htmlMiska Simanainen, a social affairs official, said the trial, where about 2,000 unemployed people aged 25-58 are being paid a tax-free €560 (£490) monthly income with no questions asked, was "proceeding as planned."
Going against the popular trend – a sceptical article on UBIhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/want-equal-society-universal-basic-income-might-not-policy-looking/
Quote:…the superficial simplicity of a Universal Basic Income belies a multiplicity of versions, and raises several questions. At what level should a UBI be paid? How does it factor in children? How will it support those with disabilities or who are out of work? Will it sit alongside or replace existing social security arrangements? And most importantly, what are the economic arrangements which govern how a UBI would be paid for?…those who advocate Universal Basic Income have varied motivations for doing so, and there are also multiple versions of what a UBI could look like in practice. For instance, there is a drastic rift between those for whom UBI is about transforming the economy and those for whom it is about papering over its cracks. This acknowledgement is often lacking from the UBI debate, but should be of primary interest…That there are radically different visions for Universal Basic Income is somewhat lost in a policy debate, which often presents UBI as a catch all policy which can offer both cost-effective efficiency and radical emancipation for those on low incomes. Worryingly this tension, and the myth of a coalition of support between left and right which underpins it, might see policymakers sleep walking into a position that suits very few…unless we are to engage in a radical economic transformation which drastically increases common ownership of economy, it is unlikely that Universal Basic Income on its own will do more than lock us into our current predicament….Proponents of UBI need to go big or go home.The German trade unions reject UBIhttp://www.dw.com/en/german-trade-unions-strictly-against-basic-income-concept/a-43589741Union leaders in Germany have said the concept of an unconditional basic income for all citizens has serious flaws. They said it would be the wrong answer to ongoing automation."It's no solution to shunt somebody aside with a standstill reward just because people cannot be offered any decent jobs anymore," the head of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), Reiner Hoffmann, said. Hoffmann insisted that pursuing a job was crucial to structure people's everyday lives and ensure social cohesion.The head of the powerful German union IG Metall, Jörg Hofmann, also spoke out against the idea of an unconditional basic income, saying that people were not happy sitting at home and doing nothing, or getting money for doing nothing.The president of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Marcel Fratzscher insists that only a process of lifelong on-the-job qualification could cushion the impact of digitalization on the domestic labor market. Fratzscher suggested putting aside some €20,000 ($24,200) for every working-age citizen to be spent on their training and qualification.http://www.dw.com/en/german-trade-unions-strictly-against-basic-income-concept/a-43589741
I think this article should be read to understand the reason why limits will always be imposed upon UBIhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/means_test.htm
Quote:Capitalism cannot exist without something which will drive the workers to submit themselves to exploitation for the benefit of the propertied class. That something is poverty and the threat of starvation. The capitalists must have always at their disposal the millions of wage-earners ready to be exploited in order to live. Once allow the able-bodied (i. e., profit-producing) workers to have free access even to the most frugal necessities of life and capitalism is ended. For reasons of stability and security of property the rulers must provide something for those workers whose services are not at the moment required, but it must be so hedged about by restrictions that it does not enable workers to receive from all sources more than will barely keep them alive…One thing is absolutely certain. Any political party which administers capitalism has got to find some means of compelling the workers to produce profits for the capitalists. Nothing but the alternative of starvation will do it. No appeal, whether in the name of patriotism, religion, social duty or anything else will serve the purpose. Capitalism is supported by force and will collapse if the force is withdrawn… capitalism is based on class ownership, class antagonism. The effort to keep the basis but humanise the administration may decrease somewhat the amount of human misery, but cannot solve the problem…Only Socialists have a solution. Society must get rid of the class basis and the system of wage-labour. It must be so organised that people are no longer offered the alternatives of being exploited or of striving to retain or become an exploiter. Wealth must be produced only for use and without the wealth producers being driven to their uncongenial tasks by the whip of starvation wielded by the ruling class and their governments. The incentive must be the common appreciation that work, in which all will co-operate, will be for the good of all. Access to the necessaries and comforts of life must be free. There will be no need for “means tests” for anyone. All will be members of society without privilege one over the other.Quote:Finland’s trial fails to find unemployed jobs
Finland has now embraced a different approach to the problem, imposing tougher new sanctions on unemployed people who choose not to accept jobs while receiving benefits.
Another UBI experiment begins
Stockton, Calif., is sending debit cards loaded with $500 to a select group of residents starting Friday. Each month for 18 months, 130 adults living in the city’s lower-income neighborhood will receive $500 to spend however they want. Researchers with SEED will track, study and analyze how the income boost affects residents’ spending and saving habits, and how it influences other factors such as quality of life and financial stability. The program will run until August 2020.
Researchers will regularly check in with recipients to conduct quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews – “How are people feeling? How are people spending money? Are people spending more time with families? How are health outcomes changing?” SEED hopes to feature the stories of some recipients beginning in March.
Presidential hopeful, Kamala Harris, proposed a bill last year what would provide middle class and working families a tax credit of up to $6,000 a year that could be accessed as a monthly check of up to $500.
Tech incubator Y Combinator conducted a feasibility study in Oakland that gave a few dozen residents between $1,500 and $2,000 beginning in 2016, and will soon conduct an expanded trial involving 1,000 people across two U.S. states.
UC Berkeley public policy and economics professor Hilary Hoynes said interpretations of what constitutes success for a universal basic income pilot program vary. Will more individuals be able to shift toward jobs pursuing their interests with fewer worries about living paycheck to paycheck, or will fewer people work in the labor market all together – and is that a good thing? Moreover, to implement a feasible universal basic income program, Hoynes said, policymakers and advocates would need to grapple with whether payments should be pegged to income levels – whether, when “you earn $20,000 or $60,000 or $100,000, (governments) start tapering out benefits,” for example.
“A universal payment of $12,000 per year to each adult U.S. resident over age 18 would cost roughly $3 trillion per year.”
Still, Hoynes said, there could be benefits to a pilot program such as SEED to better understand what recipients spend their money on, and the long-term effects of modest income increases on educational or employment decisions, in spite of its sample size and short duration.
Hoynes isn’t convinced universal basic income will be the solution to mass unemployment spurred by an artificial intelligence revolution, but she does believe the concepts are helpful in discussions about wage stagnation among low-skilled workers.Both programs in Finland and Canada have ended, with no plans to continue or expand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.