Most rich countries now have millions of “working poor” — people whose jobs do not pay enough to keep them above the poverty line and whose wages therefore have to be subsidized by the state. These subsidies take the form of tax credits.
The idea is a very old one. England implemented its “Speenhamland” system — a form of outdoor relief intended to offset rising bread prices — during the Napoleonic Wars. In 1795, the authorities of Speenhamland, a village in the county of Berkshire, authorized a means-tested sliding scale of wage supplements. The supplements that families received varied with the number of children and the price of bread.
However, the scheme was criticized for allowing employers to pay below-subsistence wages, because the taxpayer would make up the difference. In 1834, the Speenhamland system was replaced by the New Poor Law, which confined relief to workhouses, under conditions sufficiently odious to force people back into the labor market.
Then in the 20th century the Speenhamland principle was revived — and by none other than the free-market economist Milton Friedman. In 1962, Friedman proposed a “negative income tax,” whereby people earning below a certain threshold would receive supplemental income from the government, rather than paying taxes to it. The idea was to get people off welfare and back to work. It was implemented as the Earned Income Tax Credit in the US and the Working Families Tax Credit in Britain.
At the same time, there have been efforts to raise the level of earned income by setting minimum-wage legislation. However, the minimum wage has never reached the floor set for a “living income” and has not, therefore, appreciably reduced the bill for wage subsidies.
In 2008, about 5.5 million working families in Britain received tax credits, including working and child credits, housing benefits and local tax benefits. Austerity policies have reduced this number to 4.3 million. Given that there were 11.4 million working households in Britain in 2012, this means that an astonishing 38 percent did not receive a “living wage.” Or, to put it another way: The market-clearing wage was unable to provide a living income for 38 percent of working families. These are the working poor.
In his July 8 budget announcement, British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne proposed to cut £12 billion (US$18.61 billion) from the welfare bill over the next four years as part of his deficit-cutting plan. Of this, £9 billion is to come from cutting the tax subsidies for working families.
To offset this cut, Osborne proposed to raise the minimum wage from £6.50 per hour to £9 per hour over the same period. The increase would fall on employers, not the public purse, and so the reduction in credits and benefits is a net gain for the British Treasury. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that while the Treasury would save £12 billion, the gross increase in pay from the higher minimum wage amounts to only £4 billion.
“There is simply not enough money going into the new minimum wage to anywhere near compensate in cash terms people on tax credits,” Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson said.
However, even if the minimum wage were raised sufficiently to offset the withdrawal of tax credits, transferring more of the cost of labor from taxpayers to employers would be the wrong strategy. The reason is that for many — perhaps most — people, work would be a declining source of income.
After all, one prediction on which we can confidently rely is that automation is set to make increasingly large inroads into the world of human work. Up to 50 percent of existing jobs might be at risk in the next 20 years. It is at least an open question whether enough new jobs can be found to replace them, or whether it is desirable to continue producing more and more products simply to provide human employment at ever shrinking wages.
As robots increasingly replace human labor, people will need incomes to replace wages from work. Whereas tax credits point in the direction of replacement incomes, raising the minimum wage points in the opposite direction, by making income more dependent on jobs. In fact, focusing on the minimum wage would almost certainly speed up the automation process. Previous evidence that minimum-wage legislation does not reduce the demand for labor might not stand up against the rapidly falling cost of automating the production of goods and services.
In short, if Osborne is serious about his pledge to provide a living income for all, he should be moving toward the idea of a “basic” or “citizen’s” income, independent of the job market. A simple way forward would be to provide all citizens an unconditional tax credit, which could be built up gradually as the rewards from work fall.
Both free-market and socialist thinkers have long advocated implementing a basic-income scheme. However, the idea has always fallen foul of two objections: Societies are too poor to afford it, and it would be a disincentive to work.
The first objection is surely no longer true of the advanced economies, while the second is irrelevant, given that the goal is not to strengthen the incentive to work, but to enable people to live without work. An unconditional basic income would make part-time work a possibility for many who now have to work full-time at non-living wages. In addition, all workers would begin to gain the freedom to make the same choices regarding how much to work, and under what conditions, that owners of substantial capital now have.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Since the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation has taken Taiwanese students to visit China and invited Chinese students to Taiwan. Ma calls those activities “cross-strait exchanges,” yet the trips completely avoid topics prohibited by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as democracy, freedom and human rights — all of which are universal values. During the foundation’s most recent Chinese student tour group, a Fudan University student used terms such as “China, Taipei” and “the motherland” when discussing Taiwan’s recent baseball victory. The group’s visit to Zhongshan Girls’ High School also received prominent coverage in
Late on Tuesday evening, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law. A BBC analysis cited as reasons the opposition parties’ majority in the National Assembly, their continued boycott of the national budget and the impeachment of key officials and prosecutors, leading to frequent government gridlock. During the years that Taiwan and South Korea traveled the road to democratization, our countries hit many potholes. Taiwan cannot return to the Martial Law era. Despite the similarities in our authoritarian past, Yoon’s political travails are far removed from the issues Taiwan faces. Yoon’s actions are a wake-up call to the world about