I intend to add content to, and, update, this web page, as time progresses.
I do not claim credit for the work done by others - I include material created by others, to have as much meaningful and useful material here,
as possible, so as to provide as much information as possible.
I hope that I have adequately cited the work done by others, that is included here.
If any person whose work I have used below, regards my credit provided, as inadequate,or,
otherwise wants me to stop using their work, as I have been using it on this web site, then please advise me, using the link below.
I recommend viewing and listening to, and, considering, the following videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIL_Y9g7Tg0
- Rutger Bregman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQqN_d0tzYg
- Susan Danziger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ANdC7ZFAI
- Halldora Mogensen
and, of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNHAgXy5dxQ
-Guy Standing
The term "Universal Basic Income" is explained at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
;
"
Universal basic income (UBI), also called basic income, citizen's income, citizen's basic income, basic income guarantee, basic living stipend, guaranteed annual income, or universal demogrant, is a theoretical governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement.
Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally, or locally. An unconditional income that is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line) is sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income. The transfers effected by basic income are the same or similar to those produced by negative income tax.
Some welfare systems can be regarded as steps on the way to a basic income, but because they have conditions attached they are not basic incomes. An example is the wage subsidy, which is a similar but less ambitious proposal; another is a guaranteed minimum income, which raises household incomes to a specified minimum.
Policies based on basic income have widespread support from professional economists. A 1995 survey found that 78% of American economists supported (with or without provisos) the proposition that 'the government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a negative income tax'.
...
The idea of a state-run basic income dates back to the early 16th century when Sir Thomas More's Utopia depicted a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income. In the late 18th century, English radical Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Paine both declared their support for a welfare system that guaranteed all citizens an assured basic income. Nineteenth-century debate on basic income was limited, but during the early part of the 20th century, a basic income called a "state bonus" was widely discussed. In 1945, the United Kingdom implemented unconditional family allowances for the second and subsequent children of every family. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onward, the debate in Europe took off more broadly, and since then, it has expanded to many countries around the world. A few countries have implemented large-scale welfare systems that have some similarities to basic income, such as Bolsa Família in Brazil. From 2008 onward, several experiments with basic income and related systems have taken place.
Governments can contribute to individual and household income maintenance strategies in three ways:
The government can establish a minimum income guarantee and not allow income to fall below levels set for various household types, maintaining these levels by paying means-tested benefits.
Social insurance can pay benefits in the case of sickness, unemployment, or old age, on the basis of contributions paid.
They can create universal unconditional payments, such as the United Kingdom's Child Benefit for children.
A means-tested benefit that raises a household's income to a guaranteed minimum level is unlike a basic income in that the income delivered under a system of guaranteed minimum income is reduced exactly as other sources of income increase, whereas income received from a basic income is constant regardless of other sources of income. Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492-1540), for example, proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents "not on the grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity." However, Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief, the recipient must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work."
The first to develop the idea of social insurance was Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794). After playing a prominent role in the French Revolution, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote the Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humain ("Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind"; published posthumously by his widow in 1795), the last chapter of which describes his vision of social insurance and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity, and poverty. Condorcet mentioned, very briefly, the idea of a benefit to all children old enough to start working by themselves and to start up a family of their own. He is not known to have said or written anything else on this proposal, but his close friend and fellow member of the U.S. Constitutional Convention Thomas Paine (1737-1809) developed the idea much further, several years after Condorcet's death.
The first social movement for basic income developed around 1920 in the United Kingdom. Its proponents included:
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society.
Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple of the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled "Scheme for a State Bonus" (1918) that argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom." They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work.
C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.
...
Criticism of a basic income includes the argument that some recipients would spend a basic income on alcohol and other drugs. However, studies of the impact of direct cash transfer programs provide evidence to the contrary. A 2014 World Bank review of 30 scientific studies concludes: "Concerns about the use of cash transfers for alcohol and tobacco consumption are unfounded."
...
One argument against basic income is that if people have free and unconditional money, they would "get lazy" and not work as much. Critics argue that less work means less tax revenue and hence less money for the state and cities to fund public projects. The degree of any disincentive to employment because of basic income would likely depend on how generous the basic income was.
Some studies have looked at employment levels during the experiments with basic income and negative income tax and similar systems. In the negative income tax experiments in the United States in the 1970s, for example, there was a five percent decline in the hours worked. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner. The reduction in hours was higher when the benefit was higher. Participants in these experiments knew that the experiment was limited in time.
In the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, also in the 1970s, there were also slight reductions in hours worked during the experiment. However, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling. Under Mincome, "[t]he reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women".
A 2018 study of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which has paid out an average of approximately $1,600 annually per resident (adjusted to 2019 dollars), and considered the largest scale universal basic income program in the United States, running from 1976 to the present, seems to show this belief is untrue. The researchers, Damon Jones and Ioana Marinescu, show that although there is a small decrease in work by recipients due to reasons like those in the Manitoba experiment, there has been a 17 percent increase in part-time jobs. The authors theorize that employment remained steady because of the extra income that let people buy more also increased demand for service jobs. This finding is consistent with the economic data of the time. No effect was seen when it came to jobs in manufacturing, which produce exports. Essentially, the authors argue, macroeconomic effects of higher spending supported overall employment. For example, someone who uses the dividend to help with car payments can cut back on hours working as a cashier at a local grocery store. Because more people are spending more, the store must replace the worker who started working less. Meanwhile, the distribution of the dividend doesn't affect the international demand for oil and the jobs connected to it. Jones and Marinescu found instead that the larger scale of the program is what allows it to work and not dissuade people out of the workforce.
Another study that contradicted such a decline in work incentive was a pilot project implemented in 2008 and 2009 in the Namibian village of Omitara. The study found that economic activity actually increased, particularly through the launch of small businesses, and reinforcement of the local market by increasing individuals' buying power. However, the residents of Omitara were described as suffering "dehumanising levels of poverty" before the introduction of the pilot, and as such the project's relevance to potential implementations in developed economies is unknown.
James Meade states that a return to full employment can only be achieved if, among other things, workers offer their services at a low enough price that the required wage for unskilled labor would be too low enough to generate a socially desirable distribution of income. He therefore concludes that a "citizen's income" is necessary to achieve full employment without suffering stagnant or negative growth in wages.
...
Advocates of basic income often argue that it has the potential to reduce or even eradicate poverty.
According to a randomized controlled study in the Rarieda District of Kenya run by the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the Give Directly program, the impact of an unconditional cash transfer was that for every $1,000 disbursed, there was a $270 increase in earnings, a $430 increase in assets, and a $330 increase in nutrition spending, with no effect on alcohol or tobacco spending.
Economist Milton Friedman supported UBI by reasoning that it would help to reduce poverty. He said: "The virtue of [a negative income tax] is precisely that it treats everyone the same way. [...] [T]here's none of this unfortunate discrimination among people."
Martin Luther King Jr. believed that a basic income was a necessity that would help to reduce poverty, regardless of race, religion or social class. In King's last book before his assassination, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, he said: "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
...
The first comprehensive systematic review of the health impact of basic income (or, in other words, unconditional cash transfers) in low- and middle-income countries included 21 studies, of which 16 were randomized controlled trials. It found that unconditional cash transfers may not improve health services use. However, they lead to a large, clinically meaningful reduction in the likelihood of being sick by an estimated 27%. Unconditional cash transfers may also improve food security and dietary diversity. Children in recipient families are more likely to attend school, and the cash transfers may increase money spent on health care.
...
A public poll by YouGov in 2020 has found that the majority of people in the United Kingdom support a universal basic income, with only 24% unsupportive. In March 2020, over 170 MPs and Lords from all political parties signed a letter calling on the government to introduce a basic income during the COVID-19 pandemic.
...
On 12 April 2020, Pope Francis called for the introduction of basic income in response to COVID-19.
"
At
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/social-affairs/unsw-and-acoss-report-shows-3m-australians-living-poverty
as viewed at 0030 on 20 October 2020, was
"
UNSW and ACOSS report shows 3m Australians living in poverty
21 Feb 2020
Belinda Henwood
Government action on income support, housing and employment could lift people out of poverty.
A new report by UNSW Sydney's Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) and the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) finds that poverty rates have remained at much the same level for the past decade, despite economic growth.
The 2020 Poverty in Australia Overview was launched today by ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie at Vincentian House in Sydney. It shows more than 3.24 million people (13.6%), including 774,000 children under 15 (17.7%), are living below the poverty line. In Australia, the poverty line is $457 per week for a single adult.
Associate Professor Bruce Bradbury at the SPRC, the report's lead researcher, says the poverty rate in Australia is worse than in most other wealthy countries, including New Zealand, Germany and Ireland.
"Our report finds that 13.6% of people in Australia are living in poverty and that poverty rates have remained at about this level for the past decade. Child poverty has consistently been higher than overall poverty, ranging from 16% to 18% over the past decade and now sits at 17.7% - more than one in six children," he explains.
Director of the SPRC, Professor Carla Treloar, says we cannot accept these high, persistent levels of overall poverty and child poverty.
"We can see in recent decades the impacts of changes to income support settings on poverty levels. It's clear we must take action on income support, housing and employment to lift people out of poverty," she says.
Dr Goldie says that supporting each other is who we are as a nation, but our economy is leaving people behind with persistently high poverty rates.
"People living in poverty include young people working to get their foot in the door of the competitive job market, single parents juggling caring responsibilities, and older people confronting age discrimination.
"The job market is changing, with jobs less secure and fewer entry-level jobs. Our housing costs are among the highest in the world and are locking people in poverty. For households of working age with the lowest incomes, average housing costs rose by 42% from 2005 to 2017.
"Australia's income support system was designed to help people when they are going through tough times. But key income support payments - Newstart and Youth Allowance - have not increased in real terms in 26 years and they are both well below the poverty line," Dr Goldie says.
"Not only has poverty remained consistently high in our wealthy country, the depth of poverty is getting worse, with households in poverty on average living 42% below the poverty line, up from 35% in 2007.
"It's clear we must act to lift people out of poverty. The government can reduce poverty ..."
...
Report snapshot:
3.24 million people in Australia (13.6% of the population) live below the poverty line
774,000 children under the age of 15 (17.7% of all children in Australia) live below the poverty line
More than one in eight adults and one in six children live below the poverty line in Australia
The poverty rate in Australia is worse than in most other wealthy countries; it is worse than in New Zealand, Germany and Ireland
In Australia, the poverty line is $457 per week for a single adult; the poverty line is measured as 50% of median income
The average poverty gap (the gap between the poverty line and the incomes of people in poverty) is $282 a week
The single rate of Youth Allowance (plus Rent Assistance and Energy Supplement) is $168 per week below the poverty line
Our survey of young people on Youth Allowance found 9 in 10 skip meals and1 in 3 have withdrawn from their studies because of a lack of funds
The single rate of Newstart (plus Rent Assistance and Energy Supplement) is $117 per week below the poverty line
Our survey of people on Newstart found more than 8 in 10 regularly skip meals and more than half have less than $15 a day left after housing costs
The single rate of the Age Pension (plus Pension and Energy Supplements) is closer to the poverty line, but still $10 per week below
Among the lowest 20% of working-age households by income, average housing costs grew by 42% from 2005 to 2017 (compared with an average rise in housing costs of 15% for the middle 20%)
Newstart, Youth Allowance and Rent Assistance have not increased in real terms in 25 years
ACOSS is calling for a $95 per week increase to Newstart and Youth Allowance; a $20 per week increase to Rent Assistance (as a first step) and for these payments to be regularly indexed to wages, as is the case for the Age Pension
"
Note: that report is dated "21 Feb 2020" - before the coronavirus and its economic impact, hit Australia.
Note, also:
At
http://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty/
as viewed at 0100 on 20 October 2020, was
"
How is poverty defined?
Poverty can be defined in different ways. ACOSS and UNSW use two international poverty lines to measure poverty in Australia. These lines are set as a proportion of median income, and define a level of income, below which people are regarded as living in poverty. We use two poverty lines - 50% of median income and 60% of median income, whereby people living below these incomes are regarded as living in poverty.
...
Australia is a signatory to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. The first of these goals is "No poverty". However, Australia has the 16th highest poverty rate out of the 34 wealthiest countries in the OECD - higher than the average for the OECD; higher than the UK, Germany and New Zealand. People living in poverty in Australia often miss out on essentials such as food or a roof over their heads. Children living in poverty often miss out on items such as school excursions.
Our 2020 report Poverty in Australia 2020: Part 1, Overview found that there are 3.24 million people (13.6%) living below the poverty line of 50% of median income - including 774,000 children (17.7%) and 424,800 young people (13.9%). In dollar figures, this poverty line works out to $457 a week for a single adult living alone; or $960 a week for a couple with 2 children.
The report further found that:
More than one in eight adults and more than one in six children are living in poverty.
Many of those affected are living in deep poverty - the average 'poverty gap' (the difference between the incomes of people in poverty in various types of families and the poverty line) is $282pw.
Who is affected most by poverty?
Most people living below the poverty line in Australia rely on social security for their income. The type of housing in which people live - rental or owner-occupied - also impacts poverty rates. Our second 2020 report: Poverty in Australia 2020: Part 2 - Who is affected? found that the majority (56%) of people below the poverty line are renting, while only 17% of people in poverty are home-owners who don't have a mortgage. In fact, the main factor determining the poverty status of older people is their housing status: 41% of renters aged 65 and over are in poverty, compared with just 10% of all people aged 65 and over.
Among different family types, sole parent families have the highest poverty rates, at 35%. Children in sole parent families, with a poverty rate of 44%, are more than three time as likely to live in poverty as children in couple families, who have a poverty rate of 13%.
People with paid employment are also living in poverty in Australia. Among people in households where the main income is wages, 7% are in poverty. This 7% is made up of families with children, those reliant on only part-time earnings, and those with high housing costs. Since most people live in wage-earning households, this group is a substantial part (38%) of all people in poverty.
"
At
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/time-for-a-universal-basic-income
as viewed at 0200 on 20 October 2020, was
"
Time for a Universal Basic Income?
The socio-economic crisis brought about by COVID-19 reveals cracks in existing social welfare systems and the need for radical transformation
By Dr Anne Decobert, University of Melbourne
(Dr Anne Decobert - Lecturer In Development Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne)
In the past weeks, hundreds of thousands of Australians have made new claims for government assistance, overwhelming existing social security systems. At the same time, it is clear that we aren’t "all in this together", as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has claimed.
As a lecturer in Development Studies at the University of Melbourne, I count myself lucky to still have a job in the midst of this pandemic. Many of my students aren’t so fortunate.
("We are all in this together," Prime Minister Morrison said of Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. - caption under picture)
Yesterday, I was on one of many Zoom calls with an international student who wanted assistance with an upcoming assignment. As with most of my student consultations these days, the conversation quickly turned to the difficulties the young woman is facing in her day-to-day life.
She told me she had lost the two part-time jobs that she was relying on to support herself in Melbourne. With no regular income and no possibility of returning to her country due to border closures and flight cancellations, she has no idea how she will survive the coming months.
This young woman is one of over 560,000 international students who, along with other temporary visa holders, have largely fallen through the cracks of the Federal Government’s COVID-19 response.
The long-term impacts of COVID-19 also mean that international students can't be sustained by one-off emergency grants offered by many universities and by the Victorian Government's emergency support package.
Of course, non-citizens are far from alone in being negatively impacted by COVID-19. In Australia, some 780,000 people lost their jobs in the week following the introduction on March 30 of restrictions on businesses and social gatherings. Young people, who often rely on contract or casual jobs in sectors like hospitality, retail or the 'gig economy', have been particularly affected.
(Temporary visa holders, including international students, are largely missing in Australia’s COVID-19 response. - caption under picture)
While accurate predictions are difficult to make, the Grattan Institute estimates that 14 to 26 per cent of Australian workers could lose their jobs as a result of COVID-19, with unemployment rates remaining high for years to come.
The pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated trends that analysts have warned us about for years - widening inequalities within and between countries; the decrease in secure forms of employment; and the growth of the 'Precariat', whose grievances Guy Standing presaged could fuel dangerous social instabilities.
Australia’s welfare systems were never designed to deal with these new realities. These systems are, as University of Melbourne Fellow Dr Jeremy Baskin put it: "designed for last century, with a binary way of thinking about employment that's no longer the experience of casual, contract and gig workers."
In response to increasing inequality and precarity, some countries had already started to experiment with a Universal Basic Income.
The most famous trial to date, in Finland, began in 2017 and involved the government giving 2,000 unemployed people €560 a month for two years. The grants were unconditional, recipients being neither subjected to means testing nor obliged to demonstrate they were seeking employment.
(Some 780,000 people lost their jobs in the week following the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions on 30 March. - caption under picture)
Critics were quick to condemn Finland's program as a 'failure' because it didn’t significantly increase employment.
Yet in many ways this was missing the point. The program improved people's welfare, agency and everyday lives. And in a world in which many will never get a "proper job", a Basic Income shouldn’t aim to push people into stable employment, but instead give people the ability to ensure their survival regardless of their employment status.
Over a dozen countries are now implementing or experimenting with a temporary or permanent Universal Basic Income in response to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19.
These initiatives demonstrate significant shifts away from deep-rooted stereotypes of cash handouts breeding laziness and of low-income people being irresponsible with money. They also point to a potentially radical rethinking of human survival and social responsibility.
In Give a Man a Fish, Professor James Ferguson argues that we must move away from the idea of human survival being dependent on waged labour, and towards the idea of a "rightful share" - with citizens having a right to an income based on a share in ownership of national wealth.
(People contribute in multiple and meaningful ways to society, without this being through waged employment. - caption under picture)
In a lecture at the University of Melbourne in 2018, Ferguson then argued that presence rather than membership should be the basis for social obligation. Through their presence in Australia, individuals like my student would then have a right to a Basic Income, even if they aren't citizens.
But what might a Basic Income look like in practice?
Australia’s United Workers Union has advocated for a Basic Income of A$740 a week, equivalent to the minimum wage. The government would recoup a portion of these payments through income tax from higher earners, consumption taxes and the replacement of some existing welfare payments.
A Universal Basic Income would simplify welfare systems, reducing costly overheads and requirements like means testing. And as well as boosting people’s confidence and ability to survive, Basic Income payments could have positive knock-on effects by stimulating consumption.
Moreover, a Universal Basic Income would enable us to rethink how we value people's contributions to society. After all, people can and do contribute in multiple and meaningful ways to society, without this being through waged employment - a trend that will only increase as automation replaces many lower-skilled or routine jobs in the coming years.
(The current crisis may pave the way for systems better adapted to our current world, in which we will all be given a rightful share. - caption under picture)
Finally, it may seem contentious to extend Basic Income payments to international students and other temporary visa holders, but this can also be seen as a moral duty and a sensible economic strategy.
With the Australian economy highly dependent on international students and facing massive financial shortfalls and job losses, the Federal Government's current approach jeopardises our higher education system and the other sectors it supports by undermining the country's reputation and competitiveness as a destination for international students.
The COVID-19 pandemic will continue to have significant impacts on people's lives for months and perhaps years to come. But crises can also be times of opportunity.
With increasing calls for countries like Australia to implement a Universal Basic Income, there is hope that the current crisis may pave the way for systems that are better adapted to our current world and in which all of us will be given a rightful share.
First published on 19 May 2020 in Public Affairs
"
At
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-is-a-living-wage-and-is-it-the-answer-for-australia-s-working-poor
as viewed at 0600 on 19 October 2020, was
"
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sets the relative poverty line at 60 per cent of the national median income.
That's the level used by unions to calculate a living wage they say will ensure workers are not living in poverty.
"
At
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/employee-earnings-and-hours-australia/latest-release
as viewed at 0640 on 19 October 2020, is shown that, for Australia, the latest available amount for median weekly income for ordinary full time employees, appears to be $1,463 from May 2018.
(Note:
"
Key statistics
Median weekly earnings were $1,110 for all employees, $1,463 for full-time employees and $577 for part-time employees.
Individual arrangements was the most common method of setting pay (41.1%), followed by collective agreements (37.9%) and award only (21.0%).
"
)
60% of $1463 is $877.89; rounded up to the nearest dollar, becomes $878.
At
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/average-weekly-earnings-australia/latest-release
as viewed at 0640 on 19 October 2020, is shown that, for Australia, as at May 2020, the "Full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings" amount is $1,713.90 per week.
40% of $1713.90 is 685.56; rounded up to the nearest dollar, becomes $686.
So, my proposition is that a Universal Basic Income of 40% of the official "Full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings" amount be paid to every person who is at least eighteen years old, and who is resident in Australia (and, this could equally be applied to any ane every other country, with, in such other country, that country's name replacing the name Australia, in this context), and that this replace all other government social security payments.
If you are interested in joining a mailing list to discuss the prospect of a Universal Basic Income For Australia, and, this proposal, you might be interested in visiting the web page at
https://groups.io/g/SSTAPRAARFA
I can be contacted by email by clicking on my name at the end of this sentence - Bret .
This web page is authorised and printed by Bret Busby, 2 Pelham Street Armadale.
(Whilst the web page may be printed by someone else, I am advised that the wording in the above sentence, is required by the legislation governing an election.)
This web page was last updated on 20 October 2020