Με αφορμή και την σημερινή ανακοίνωση της Σκωτίας μετά την Φινλδανδία, τον Καναδά, την Ολλανδία κλπ ότι θα εφαρμόσουν πειραματικά τον θεσμό του Άνευ Όρων Βασικού Εισοδήματος για όλους τους πολίτες και για σκοπούς αρχειοθέτησης θα παραθέσω σχετικά λινκς που αφορούν το τεράστιο αυτό ζήτημα και το οποίο είμαστε οι πρώτοι και οι μόνοι μέχρι στιγμής που το αναδεικνύουμε στην Κύπρο
Σε άρθρο του στον The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/…/incomes-scheme-transforms-liv…
o Guy Standing καθηγητής Σπουδών Ανάπτυξης (Development studies) στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Λονδίνου ανάφερεται σε μια σειρά από πιλοτικά πειραματικά προγράμματα της UNICEF στην Ινδία τα οποία περιελάμβαναν την παροχή βασικού εισοδήματος σε όλους ανεξαιρέτως!
Τα αποτελέσματα ήταν σαφέστατα: Αντίθετα με τα όσα οι σκεπτικιστές προέβλεψαν το μοντέλο βασικού εισοδήματος δημιούργησε περισσότερη οικονομική παραγωγή και εργασία
(Contrary to what sceptics predicted the basic incomes model created more economic activity and work)
Το άρθρο έχει τίτλο, Το βασικό εισόδημα προς τους φτωχούς μπορεί να μεταμορφώσει ζωές
Basic income paid to the poor can transform lives
Υπήρξαν 4 βασικά αποτελέσματα από αυτό το κορυφαίο πείραμα ζωής:
Είχε τεράστιο αντίκτυπο και αποτέλεσμα στην αξιοπρεπή διαβίωση, με βελτίωση στην παιδική και ενήλικη διατροφή, στην υγιεινή, στην παρουσία στο σχολείο και στην απόδοση, στην βελτίωση του στάτους των γυναικών των ηλικιωμένων και των ατόμων με αναπηρίες.
Εν γένει βελτίωση σε μεγάλο βαθμό την ποιότητα ζωής των ανθρώπων και το πλέον σημαντικό δημιουργησε οικονομική ανάπτυξη και παραγωγή!
ΓΙΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΑΣΤΕ!
ΟΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΕΣ ΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΕΙΣ ΑΦΟΡΟΥΝ ΤΗΝ ΑΞΙΟΠΡΕΠΉ ΔΙΑΒΙΩΣΗ ΟΛΩΝ ΜΑΣ!
ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΚΟΡΥΦΑΙΟ ΖΗΤΗΜΑ ΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΠΑΣΧΟΛΗΣΕΙ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΜΑΣ!
ΚΑΙ ΟΜΩΣ ΤΟ ΑΓΝΟΟΥΜΕ!
ΕΛΑΤΕ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΑΣ, ΣΤΗΡΙΞΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΕΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΜΕΤΑΜΟΡΦΩΣΟΥΜΕ ΤΙΣ ΖΩΕΣ ΜΑΣ!
First, it had strong welfare, or “capability”, effects. There were improvements in child nutrition, child and adult health, schooling attendance and performance, sanitation, economic activity and earned incomes, and the socio-economic status of women, the elderly and the disabled.
Second, it had strong equity effects. It resulted in bigger improvements for scheduled caste and tribal households, and for all vulnerable groups, notably those with disabilities and frailties.
This was partly because the basic income was paid to each individual, strengthening their bargaining position in the household and community.
Third, it had growth effects. Contrary to what sceptics predicted (including Sonia Gandhi), the basic incomes resulted in more economic activity and work.
Conventional labour statistics would have picked that up inadequately. There was a big increase in secondary economic activities, as well as a shift from casual wage labour to own-account farming and small-scale business. Growth in village economies is often ignored. It should not be.
Fourth, it had emancipatory effects. These are unappreciated by orthodox development thinkers. The poor’s liberty has no value.
But the basic income resulted in some families buying themselves out of debt bondage, others paying down exorbitant debts incurring horrendous interest rates. For many, it provided liquidity with which to respond to shocks and hazards. In effect, the basic income responded to the fact that in such villages money is a scarce commodity, and as such that has driven up its price, locking most in a perpetual cycle of debt and deprivation.
To appreciate the full extent of the emancipation, one should hear the story of the young women who at first wore veils and were reluctant to offend their elders when having their photographs taken to obtain eligibility for the basic income. Within months, they had confidence enough to be sitting and chatting in the centre of the village unveiled. They had their bit of independence.
These four effects – welfare, equity, growth and emancipation – combine to be transformative.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor
Basic income paid to the poor can transform lives
Contrary to what sceptics predicted the basic incomes model created more economic activity and work
Indian women and children work as stone crushers.
Women and children work as stone crushers in a creek. Photograph: Ursula D ren/dpa/Corbis
Guy Standing
Thursday 18 December 2014 16.36 GMT Last modified on Friday 19 December 2014 12.05 GMT
View more sharing options
Shares
4,137
Comments
35
The idea of providing low-income people with money to reduce poverty and insecurity was, until recently, regarded with scepticism in development circles. But that is changing rapidly.
The World Bank and others have been converted to conditional cash transfers (CCT). These provide poor people with cash on condition they send their children to school and for medical treatment. It is extended to other conditions, such as doing designated work or undergoing some treatment, including sterilisation, the idea being to induce people to behave in ways deemed good for them.
Numerous tests have concluded that these conditions work. But they should be rejected as morally dubious and paternalistic as poverty targeting always fails. However measured, there are huge exclusion and inclusion errors, and the outcome is often regressive.
Recently, we have conducted three unconditional basic income schemes in India, funded by Unicef. A basic income is a modest cash payment (in this case, a third of subsistence), paid individually, unconditionally, universally and monthly, guaranteed as a right. Altogether, more than 6,000 men, women and children received it, with the children’s money paid to the mother.
In one pilot, everybody in eight villages were provided with a basic income for 18 months, and their experience evaluated by comparing what took place in 12 otherwise similar villages, in a modified randomised control trial.
Making the experiment unique was that it tested for the independent and combined effects of the basic income and a collective body working on behalf of recipients. In half the villages, SEWA (the Self-Employed Women’s Association) operated; in the rest, it was absent.
The only condition was that every adult had to open a bank or co-operative account within three months, into which the basic income was paid. Despite scepticism from our advisory board, a 98% bank account rate was achieved in that period; the rest followed.
Advertisement
The methodology is described in a new book. What the pilots show is that a basic income can be used as development aid and as regional policy in the European Union to deter migration from poor to richer countries. The main conclusion is that a basic income can be transformative. It had four effects, most accentuated by the presence of the collective body.
First, it had strong welfare, or “capability”, effects. There were improvements in child nutrition, child and adult health, schooling attendance and performance, sanitation, economic activity and earned incomes, and the socio-economic status of women, the elderly and the disabled.
Second, it had strong equity effects. It resulted in bigger improvements for scheduled caste and tribal households, and for all vulnerable groups, notably those with disabilities and frailties. This was partly because the basic income was paid to each individual, strengthening their bargaining position in the household and community.
Third, it had growth effects. Contrary to what sceptics predicted (including Sonia Gandhi), the basic incomes resulted in more economic activity and work.
Conventional labour statistics would have picked that up inadequately. There was a big increase in secondary economic activities, as well as a shift from casual wage labour to own-account farming and small-scale business. Growth in village economies is often ignored. It should not be.
Fourth, it had emancipatory effects. These are unappreciated by orthodox development thinkers. The poor’s liberty has no value. But the basic income resulted in some families buying themselves out of debt bondage, others paying down exorbitant debts incurring horrendous interest rates. For many, it provided liquidity with which to respond to shocks and hazards. In effect, the basic income responded to the fact that in such villages money is a scarce commodity, and as such that has driven up its price, locking most in a perpetual cycle of debt and deprivation.
Advertisement
To appreciate the full extent of the emancipation, one should hear the story of the young women who at first wore veils and were reluctant to offend their elders when having their photographs taken to obtain eligibility for the basic income. Within months, they had confidence enough to be sitting and chatting in the centre of the village unveiled. They had their bit of independence.
These four effects – welfare, equity, growth and emancipation – combine to be transformative.
Critics claim a universal scheme is unaffordable. But they would be a substitute for subsidies that in India account for a huge share of national income. They are distortionary, inefficient, regressive and prone to corruption. Switching is feasible and would have substantial positive effects.
Another criticism is that a basic income would be inflationary. But it would be a substitute for more expensive policies. The criticism also neglects the elasticity of supply. Thus, it generated a sharp rise in food production, resulting in better nutrition and productivity and in lower unit prices.
The primary value of a basic income would be its emancipatory effect. If development is about freedom, one should challenge sceptics to show a better way to expand it. Nobody should claim it would be a panacea. Public social services, infrastructural policies and so on are vital. But a basic income should be part of a package of reforms. The development aid community should lend a hand.
• Guy Standing is Professor of Development Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
===================
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-01/a-basic-income-is-smarter-than-minimum-wages
A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage
298APRIL 1, 2016 8:56 AM EDT
By
Leonid Bershidsky
Just as the U.K. raises its minimum wage and as Bernie Sanders’s demands for a 50 percent increase in minimum pay keep winning him votes in the U.S., some politicians in one of the world’s most socialist countries, Sweden, are in favor of going in the opposite direction. They could be right, especially if nations can find a way to unhitch basic subsistence from work.
Sweden, along with some other countries with big social safety nets — Denmark, Norway, Switzerland — doesn’t have a legally mandated minimum wage. Instead, the minimum salary is collectively bargained. The country’s strong unions and socially responsible employers make sure that, at 20,000 kronor ($2,468) per month, it reaches about 64 percent of the average wage — more than twice the U.S. rate. Now, though, three opposition parties in the Swedish parliament are in favor of legislating to lower it as a way to adjust for the arrival of an army of immigrants with relatively low skills.
Minimum Wages
It’s not happening yet, since the ruling coalition is against government interference with the labor market’s workings, but it’s a logical idea. Though Sweden’s unemployment rate, at 7.6 percent, is not alarmingly high, it’s not exactly comfortable for a country where only slightly more than 5 percent of the workforce was unemployed before the 2008 financial crisis. Besides, Sweden has one of the rich world’s biggest gaps between native and immigrant employment rates. Youth joblessness is 70 percent higher among the foreign-born than among Swedes. Lowering the minimum wage could draw more of the new, mainly Middle Eastern population, into the workforce and reduce social and ethnic tension.
Minimum wage laws or strong unions that bargain up wages are a problem in any country with big immigrant inflows. Newcomers are at a disadvantage because of poor language skills and educational backgrounds that are often incompatible with the host countries’ labor market requirements. No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available. Instead of working for social justice, high minimum wages create an extra barrier for the integration of the least socially secure people into society. Such barriers can result in ghettos, rioting and the recruitment of disenfranchised immigrant youths by terrorist groups. The U.K., France and Belgium, all among the top 10 European countries by minimum wage size, have recently seen their share of those ills. Germany, which only introduced a national minimum wage last year and then opened its doors wide to immigrants, is in the process of manufacturing a similar problem.
The International Monetary Fund acknowledged this in a January paper:
While empirical evidence remains scarce, existing studies suggest that immigrants’ employment rates and the quality of the jobs they hold are higher in countries with low entry level wages, less employment protection, and a less dualistic labor market.
The IMF backed the idea of temporary exceptions from minimum wage laws for refugees, such as the German proposal that they be allowed to work for less during the first six months after getting refugee status, but warned that «the benefits of these targeted interventions should be carefully weighed against the risk of creating labor market dualities that may be difficult to unwind.»
The immigrant problem is just one illustration of why it may not be a good idea for governments to try to regulate the labor market instead of pursuing their ultimate goal — that of making sure people aren’t «dying on the street,» as Donald Trump likes to put it. It’s dawning on politicians in some countries that tying basic subsistence to work through the minimum wage is not the most logical way to achieve social justice.
These countries are experimenting with a universal basic income that will be paid to all, whether they work or not. A Finnish government working group tasked with trying out the scheme proposed parameters for a pilot project on Wednesday: Up to 10,000 people are to start receiving 550 euros ($627) per month next year. Finland’s economy is struggling — it’s still smaller than it was in 2008 — but the government calculates it can provide a basic, secure income to its entire population by cutting up the current benefit system.
Other countries looking at the scheme include Canada, where the province of Ontario is starting a pilot project this year, New Zealand, where the second biggest party in parliament is interested in adopting the idea as part of its platform, and the Netherlands, where four cities are piloting basic income programs. In June, Switzerland will hold a referendum on universal basic income, but the chances of success there are rather slim.
The idea is radical and it sounds like money for nothing to many people, but it has more of a libertarian flavor than a Communist one. By guaranteeing basic survival, a government provides a service as necessary as, say, policing the streets or fighting off foreign enemies. At the same time, once this service is provided, the government can get out of trying to regulate the labor market: Its goal of keeping people fed and clothed is already achieved. The Finnish government believes the basic income scheme will encourage the currently unemployed to take part-time jobs, which they avoided for fear of losing their benefits.
Many people may agree to work for less than the current minimum wage, and on more flexible terms, if they’re supplementing a guaranteed income, not scrambling to avoid having to beg for food. There should be little incentive not to work at all: The amount proposed in Finland hardly provides a comfortable existence. And Finland’s ability to earmark the money from existing programs shows many critics’ fears that universal basic income may require impossibly high taxes may be misplaced.
One problem with a universal basic income, of course, is that it will make a country attractive to even more immigrants from poor countries where 550 euros a month looks like a princely amount. Keeping borders open will hardly be an option. Yet even regardless of basic income schemes, European countries need to bring their immigration procedures into line with increasing inflows, and they have already done a lot to reduce chaos compared with last year. And with basic income, the immigrants who have already arrived may integrate faster than they are doing now, because labor markets will be livelier and less forbidding.
It’s not the government’s business to tell private companies how much they should pay their workers. It is the government’s business, however, to help citizens feel less precarious and more secure. Businesses and wealthy individuals may well be prepared to trade the end of wage regulation and other rigid labor market rules for the higher taxes that may be necessary to make basic income work.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.net
===================================
Universal basic income trials being considered in Scotland
Two councils, Fife and Glasgow, are investigating idea of offering everyone a fixed income regardless of earnings
Glasgow
Glasgow is the ideal place to test a basic income scheme, said the councillor Matt Kerr. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod for the Guardian
Libby Brooks
Sunday 1 January 2017 09.24 GMT Last modified on Sunday 1 January 2017 11.25 GMT
View more sharing options
Shares
2,023
Scotland looks set to be the first part of the UK to pilot a basic income for every citizen, as councils in Fife and Glasgow investigate trial schemes in 2017.
The councillor Matt Kerr has been championing the idea through the ornate halls of Glasgow City Chambers, and is frank about the challenges it poses.
“Like a lot of people, I was interested in the idea but never completely convinced,” he said. But working as Labour’s anti-poverty lead on the council, Kerr says that he “kept coming back to the basic income”.
Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone £100 a week?
Read more
Kerr sees the basic income as a way of simplifying the UK’s byzantine welfare system. “But it is also about solidarity: it says that everyone is valued and the government will support you. It changes the relationship between the individual and the state.”
The concept of a universal basic income revolves around the idea of offering every individual, regardless of existing welfare benefits or earned income, a non-conditional flat-rate payment, with any income earned above that taxed progressively. The intention is to provide a basic economic platform on which people can build their lives, whether they choose to earn, learn, care or set up a business.
The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has suggested that it is likely to appear in his party’s next manifesto, while there has been a groundswell of interest among anti-poverty groups who see it as a means of changing not only the relationship between people and the state, but between workers and increasingly insecure employment in the gig economy.
Kerr accepts that, while he is hopeful of cross-party support in Glasgow, there are “months of work ahead”, including first arranging a feasibility study in order to present a strong enough evidence base for a pilot. “But if there is ever a case to be made then you need to test it in a place like Glasgow, with the sheer numbers and levels of health inequality. If you can make it work here then it can work anywhere.”
Advertisement
The idea has its roots in 16th-century humanist philosophy, when it was developed by the likes of Thomas More, but in its modern incarnation it has lately enjoyed successful pilots in India and Africa.
Despite its utopian roots, champions believe that this is an idea whose time has come, particularly in Scotland where the governing SNP voted in support of a basic income at their spring conference (although the proposal has yet to make it into their manifesto).
At the heart of any experiment with basic income is money: how much should people get and where will it come from? Kerr says his instinct is to base the amount on similar calculations to those made for the living wage.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
“It’s about having more than just enough to pay the bills. But part of the idea of doing a pilot is to make mistakes and also find out what is acceptable to the public. There will be a lot of resistance to this. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Part of the problem is we’re working against a whole discourse of deserving and undeserving poor.”
As for where the money comes from, “the funding question is always the big one, and really will depend upon the approach a pilot takes,” says Jamie Cooke, head of RSA Scotland, which has been spearheading research on the subject across the UK.
Drawing on the experience of similar projects ongoing in Finland, Utrecht in the Netherland and Ontario in Canada, Cooke suggests: “It could be funding from particular trusts, it could be individual philanthropic funding, as we have seen in the States, or it could be a redirection of the existing welfare spend.” Obviously the latter is much harder to do in a pilot, although that will be happening in Finland next year where the experiment is being taken forward by the national government.
As the Scottish government consults on what it has described as “the biggest transfer of powers since devolution began” – the devolution of around £2.7bn, or 15% of the total Scottish benefits bill, affecting 1.4 million people – both Kerr and Cooke believe that this is an ideal moment to consider the basic income seriously. “It’s a time to be testing out new – or rather old – ideas for a welfare system that genuinely supports independence,” says Kerr.
Advertisement
Cooke likewise believes that cross-party support is key, pointing to the fact that the leader of the Conservative group on Fife council has joined forces with the Fairer Fife Commission, the council’s independent poverty advisory group which initially recommended the trial, with the aim of designing a pilot within the next six months.
Scotland was recently added to the list of “places to watch” for basic income activity by the Basic Income Earth Network, founded by the radical economist Guy Standing, whose hugely influential book The Precariat identified an emerging social class suffering the worst of job insecurity and most likely to be attracted to rightwing populism.
“The thing about Scotland is that they really understand the precariat,” says Standing, who recently visited the country to meet civil servants, local authorities and campaigners to discuss a basic income. “The sense of insecurity, the stagnating living standards, all of those things are clear in Scotland and the fact that so many within the SNP are supportive means there’s a real opportunity to do a pilot in Scotland.”
The momentum is there, he says, and once it is framed around a desire for greater social justice “then you get away from the stale debate about whether if you give people the basic income then they will be lazy”.
“People relate to the idea that everyone should have a social dividend. Everywhere I go, it’s the communities that feel left behind by globalisation that are most interested [in the idea of a basic income]. We have seen a sea-change in attitudes.
“This sense of alarm about populist rightwing politics has brought more people to thinking we need to do something to provide better security for people. We are risking our economic and political stability if we don’t do something about it.”
===========================
Finland to test ‘universal basic income’ for the unemployed
A group of 2,000 unemployed people in Finland will receive a basic income every month from the state, tax-free and with no strings attached. Proponents hope to prove such schemes boost people’s motivation to find work.
Finnland Jobsuche (picture alliance/dpa/M. Bjorkman)
Starting in January, 2,000 unemployed people in Finland will begin receiving 560 euros ($585) every month from the state with no strings attached.
The new scheme, which will make Finland the first country in the world to test a universal basic income at the national level, will be managed by Finland’s Social Insurance Institution, known as Kela.
«We think that this could be a big incentive for people to take on at least part-time work,» said Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela’s legal affairs unit.
Better off in work
Recipients will not pay tax on the basic income, even if they find work and earn a salary in addition to it.
Turunen said many unemployed people who receive social benefits in Finland don’t want to take smaller jobs because they fear that, after tax, they will be worse off than before.
«It also gives people financial security,» Turunen added. «They can count on the fact that the money will be there on time. What they do with it is up to them.»
Finnland Fahne im Hafen von Helsinki (picture alliance/dpa/M. Antin)
Finland will be the first country in the world to test a universal basic income at a national level
Participants will be randomly picked from a pool of people aged 25-58 years old who received unemployment benefits in November 2016. Those selected to take part will be informed by December 31 and will not be able to opt out from participating in the trial.
Kela said the «primary goal» of the experiment is «related to promoting employment.» It should also reduce the amount of paperwork job-seekers have to deal with.
The scheme is due to last two years. Kela then hopes to extend it to more participants, but the funding for expansion has not yet been approved by the Finnish government.
Replaced by robots
Critics of the scheme claim that it could act as a disincentive for people to find work. However, as more and more jobs across numerous industries become automated, others argue that a universal basic income will be necessary when there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around.
Finns aren’t alone
Deutschland Kuka-Roboter im Porsche Werk Leipzig (picture alliance/dpa/J. Woitas)
Researchers have estimated that nearly 50 percent of jobs in the United States could be automated within the next two decades
In a referendum earlier this year, the Swiss public overwhelmingly rejected a similar universal income policy, which proposed the monthly payment of 2,500 Swiss francs (2,300 euros, $2,430).
However, similar ideas are being floated in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Kenya and India.
In the Canadian province of Ontario, a pilot program for universal basic income is also scheduled for 2017. This experiment is based on a paper written by former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who stressed the need to «generate an evidence base for policy development, without bias or pre-determined conclusion.»
Segal proposes a three-year program, with recipients being paid 1,320 Canadian dollars (930 euros, $970) a month, or 1,820 Canadian dollars (1,280 euros, $1,340) for people with disabilities.
DW RECOMMENDS
ILO: Robots threaten millions of jobs in Southeast Asia
The International Labor Organization has warned of the severe consequences presented by automation and disruptive technologies in the ASEAN bloc. Are the UN agency’s concerns founded? DW takes a closer look. (09.07.2016)
Eurozone unemployment falls to seven-year low
For the first time since April 2011, the eurozone’s jobless rate has fallen below 10 percent. The Czech Republic recorded the lowest rate within the 19-member bloc, while Greece logged the highest. (01.12.2016)
Switzerland strikes down ‘basic income’ initiative
Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea to give «an unconditional basic income» to all residents. Switzerland is the first nation to hold a referendum on the issue, with supporters worried about the future of jobs. (05.06.2016)
German MP proposes ‘free basic income’ for parents
A member of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union wants parents in Germany to receive a basic income regardless of their means. But this shouldn’t be confused with universal basic income, she said. (28.11.2016)
AUDIOS AND VIDEOS ON THE TOPIC
================
FINLAND: Basic Income experiment authorized by Parliament
December 18, 2016 Kate McFarland News, News & events
Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, announced on December 14 that the Finnish Parliament has passed the act authorizing an experiment of basic income. The experiment is set to begin on January 1, 2017.
Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health drafted the legislative proposal for the experiment in August, and submitted the proposal to Parliament after hearing public opinions on the draft proposal. The proposal elicited some controversy, in part due to the relatively small size of the basic income (560 EUR) as well as the choice of sample population, which will consist only of recipients of the country’s unemployment benefits. However, the basic design of the experiment remains unchanged: a random sample of 2,000 individuals, drawn from current working-age beneficiaries of unemployment benefits, will receive an unconditional basic income of 560 EUR per month for a two-year period. (Brief responses to the objections are included in the most recent version of Kela’s report on the experiment.)
The primary objective of the experiment is to assess whether an unconditional basic income promotes employment. Experimenters will compare the employment rate among basic income recipients to that within a control group of individuals who continue to receive traditional unemployment benefits. As Kela’s website states, the Finnish government is interested in basic income due to its potential to “reduce the amount of work involved in seeking financial assistance” and “free up time and resources for other activities such as working or seeking employment”. The experiment will also provide data used to estimate the cost of implementing a nationwide basic income.
The 2,000 experimental subjects will be chosen by a random-sampling algorithm and contacted by the end of December. Participation is mandatory for those selected.
The first payments will be distributed to subjects on January 9, 2017. Automatic payments will continue through December 2018.
More information about the experiment is available on Kela’s newly-launched web page, Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018.
Source:
Kela (December 14, 2016) “Preparations for the basic income experiment continue”
Photo (Helsinki) CC BY-NC 2.0 Jaafar Alnasser
=====================\h
What Happens When You Give Basic Income to the Poor? Canada Is About to Find Out
November 15, 2016 by NATALIE SHOEMAKER
Article Image
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Ontario is poised to become a testing ground for basic income in 2017 as part of a pilot program. Hugh Segal is the special advisor to the Canadian province and a former senator. He believes a supplemental income of $1,320 a month could provide a viable path to poverty abatement—effectively replacing welfare programs and a system he described as “seriously demeaning” in a paper discussing this basic income pilot project.
Segal suggests this pilot project would provide real evidence to whether basic income is the solution to poverty many governments have been seeking. It would answer many of the burning questions and concerns regarding such a system:
Can basic income policies provide a more efficient, less intrusive, and less stigmatizing way of delivering income support for those now living in poverty?
Can those policies also encourage work, relieve financial and time poverty, and reduce economic marginalization?
Can a basic income reduce cost pressures in other areas of government spending, such as healthcare?
Can a basic income strengthen the incentive to work, by responsibly helping those who are working but still living below the poverty line?
In the United States, welfare programs are the staple of big government—a Republican nightmare. Paul Ryan has indicated he wants to phase-out these entitlement programs, however, he’s also concerned about solving the poverty issue in America. If Ontario’s proposed three-year project provides compelling evidence that basic income could do both, we may have a bi-partisan solution.
Segal is a conservative. In his view, welfare programs help alleviate some of the symptoms of poverty, but provide no long-term program to get people out.
“Testing a basic income is a humane and useful way to measure how so many of the costs of poverty (in terms of productivity, health, policing, and other community costs, to name only a few) might be diminished, while poverty itself is reduced and work is encouraged,” Segal says in the report.
A guaranteed income would provide a floor no one would fall beneath and citizens would receive it regardless of employment status. Conservatives like it because it provides an elegant solution that could replace the welfare state and the left love it because it provides a greater social architecture.
However, many question how giving people free money could fix many of our socio-economic issues. But we won’t know if we don’t try—if we don’t do the research to find a solution, which is what Segal suggests.
«There cannot be, nor should there be, any guarantees about what results a pilot might generate,” Segal writes. “The objective behind this endeavor should be to generate an evidence-base for policy development, without bias or pre-determined conclusion.»
This test of basic income won’t be the first. Researchers and governments across the globe have started implementing similar tests to see what happens when you give people no-strings-attached cash. Finland, the Dutch city of Utricht, and Kenya all have plans to create programs to test this system. Segal believes a program in Ontario could add to this growing body of research.
«This Ontario initiative takes place at a time when other jurisdictions, in Canada and abroad, are working in different ways toward a Basic Income approach to better reduce poverty,” he wrote. “The opportunity to learn from and engage with these other initiatives should not be overlooked, nor should approaches being tested elsewhere be necessarily re-tested here.»
A study in Manitoba, Canada done back in the 1970s provides us with an idea of what a community receiving basic income would look like. Many believe people would stop working, and become lazy. They would be half right, some people did stop working in Manitoba. But when you look at the data a little closer, we begin to see how poverty starts at an early age and how basic income could help them get out.
Allow me to explain: People in the town received a set income of $9,000 a year (by today’s standards) from the government. Evelyn Forget, an economist and professor at the University of Manitoba, who looked over the data from the study says there was a 9% reduction in working hours among two main groups of citizens.
Here’s the kicker: New mothers were using their additional income to extend their maternity leaves and spend more time with their infants, and teenage boys were using that income to stay in school.
“When we interviewed people, we discovered that prior to the experiment, a lot of people from low-income families, a lot of boys in particular, were under a fair amount of family pressure to become self-supporting when they turned 16 and leave school. When Mincome came along, those families decided that they could afford to keep their sons in high school just a little bit longer,” Forget told PRI in an interview.
Poverty affects all of us in some way (at some point 3 in 5 Americans experience it personally in their lifetime). All of us pay for its upkeep through taxes and can see how it wears down the institutions within our local communities. Basic income could be the solution. We have some data; we need more in order to make the proper call.
Ontario’s experiment will show what would happen if people between the age of 18 to 65, living below the poverty line, received a monthly income of $1,320 ($1,820 if they are disabled). Would they be better able to save and find work?
“There’s no magic bullet,” said Jennefer Laidley of the Income Security Advocacy Centre. “So it’s key that government is now exploring various solutions — reforming existing social assistance programs, improving the quality of work, and considering basic income.”
==================
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36446574
Switzerland to hold referendum on ‘basic income’
3 June 2016 Last updated at 14:28 BST
A referendum in Switzerland this weekend will decide whether the country introduces a guaranteed «unconditional basic income» for the whole population.
Under the plan each citizen will receive an equal monthly payment of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,554), regardless of their circumstances.
Imogen Foulkes reports.
===================
http://sioualtec.blogspot.com.cy/2015/12/blog-post_92.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
-osr- τίποτε δεν χαρίζεται..... όλα κερδίζονται μόνο όταν τα διεκδικούμε και τα θέλουμε αληθινά 