The idea of a universal basic income has been around for a long time. However, it has seized the imagination of large sections of the public only very recently, in the wake of the global financial crisis and the subsequent political upheavals.
The failure of the market liberal — or neoliberal — economic order that has been dominant since the 1970s is evident to just about everybody. This has presented a big problem for the parties of the center-right, supporters of the “hard” version of neoliberalism exemplified by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
However, it has presented an even greater problem for the parties of the center-left, which capitulated to neoliberalism in the 1990s, but sought to retain their relevance by offering a “soft” version, sometimes described as a “third way,” along with claims to superior, less ideological, management.
Illustration: Louise Ting
None of this works in political terms any more. The right has mostly managed to retain its support by stoking resentment against various ethnic, religious and cultural minorities. However, the left needs new and exciting ideas, after decades of defensive managerialism. A universal basic income seems to fit the bill.
As a vision of the future, there is plenty of appeal in the idea of a society in which everyone has sufficient resources to meet their basic needs, regardless of their assets, abilities or the way they choose to live their lives. However, in the realm of electoral politics, the unavoidable question arises: How do to get there from here? Given the obvious impossibility of implementing a universal basic income in one or a few terms of governments, what should be the first steps?
For a variety of reasons, the most ardent supporters of a universal basic income are more excited by the first term “universal” than by the second, “basic.” Logically, this leads to the idea that we should begin with a small universal payment, which would gradually increase in value to the point where it becomes sufficient to meet basic needs.
The US state of Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, paid out of the invested proceeds of oil royalties is often cited as an exemplar of this approach. The fund, which began operations in 1982, paid out about US$2,100 to every Alaskan resident in 2015. There is an obvious problem here — US$2,100 per year is less than US$50 per week, a handy addition to the budget but not nearly enough for a person to live on.
So, in the absence of independent income — say, from private investments — the number of Alaskans who have been freed from the need to work, or meet the demanding conditions for unemployment benefits, is zero.
Nor is there any real prospect that this is to change. Even if the dividend were to double or triple, it would not provide a poverty line income as defined by the US government, let alone a decent living standard. In addition, in the absence of an unlikely oil bonanza, there is no reason to expect any increase at all.
In practical terms, a strategy of starting with a small universal benefit and gradually increasing it, can yield no real impact for several decades. Over the course of such a period, it is virtually certain that some real or imagined budgetary emergency would see the program curtailed and ultimately scrapped.
The alternative is to start with “basic” rather than “universal.” That is, begin by providing sufficient income to support a decent standard of living to those most in need, then expand it to the entire population. This approach is often referred to as a guaranteed minimum income, and is seen by many universal basic income supporters as a second-best “residualist” scheme.
However, in reality, provided the objective of ensuring that everyone has at least a basic income is achieved, universal basic income and guaranteed minimum income schemes are almost identical. To be more precise, in terms of the ultimate distribution of income and effective marginal tax rates — including the effects of means-testing basic payments — any universal basic income is equivalent to a guaranteed minimum income with the same guaranteed payment and similarly progressive taxes, and vice versa.
For wage earners operating under the pay-as-you-earn system, there would be no difference in net pay, just a different way of calculating it on the payslip.
The main difference is that the universal basic income requires collecting more taxes from people on high incomes and returning some of that revenue to the same people in the form of a universal payment. The appeal of making the payment universal must be weighed against the “churning” costs of collecting and returning it. In an integrated tax-welfare system, such as that in place in Australia, these costs, while real, are not huge.
For taxpayers, the universal basic income could be implemented as a tax rebate, which would cancel out the extra tax relative to a guaranteed minimum income. So, if we actually achieved a genuine guaranteed minimum income, transforming it to a universal basic income would be largely a matter of definitions.
However, the problem of the ultimate design is less important than the choice of a path to get there. Compared with “universal first” the “basic first” approach has the merit that Australia is already part of the way there and the next steps involve clear and feasible, political demands.
The basic old age pension in Australia is around 28 percent of male total average weekly earnings (MTAWE) for single pensioners and 42 percent for couples. This income has proved sufficient to almost completely eliminate poverty among the old, who were once the most exposed to privation. The same level applies to service pensions, disability support pensions and carer payments.
By contrast, unemployment benefits were briefly set equal to pensions at 25 percent of MTAWE during former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam’s tenure. However, a long series of cuts and freezes have reduced access to benefits and cut their relative value to about 18 percent of MTAWE today.
That has been combined with aggressive attempts to claw back benefits from anyone who might possibly have received income in addition to their benefits, culminating in the recent data matching fiasco.
Any demand to increase access to basic incomes therefore involves a direct assault on the policy directions that have prevailed for at least the past 25 years.
It links an ultimate, currently unattainable objective to immediate political struggles. Until they capitulated to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this combination of currently achievable goals and and an ultimate objective of transforming society was the standard approach of social democratic political parties.
Of course, an attempt to expand access to income support will be politically difficult, more so than advocacy of a small universal payment. However, in an environment where the economic and political order is breaking down, political caution is a road to oblivion.
Social democratic parties need to break with their current role as the responsible managers of the “status quo” and offer a radical vision for the future. An expanded, and ultimately universal, basic income is such a vision.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry