Public Basic Income: An Ideal Plan or the Need for a New World

What happens if the government pays all the people in one country monthly as a fixed income? Do people become lazy? Do they not appreciate and waste this lost money?

The discussion of welfare and living standards is one of the hottest topics in economic policymaking in the world. Economists are developing new and more sophisticated models of wealth distribution in society every day to reduce some of the social inequality and its effects such as widespread poverty, class divisions, social criminality, and so on. One of the most controversial programs in wealth distribution is the universal basic income plan. In this article we are going to introduce you to this concept;

The basic idea of universal basic income goes back to the sixteenth century, where Thomas Moore, an English politician and philosopher, in his book Utopia, depicted a utopia in which all the people of the state received a sum of money as guaranteed income. Then in the late eighteenth century, British reformist Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Payne supported the idea of guaranteeing a level of income for the whole community. In the nineteenth century, the idea of a basic income was marginalized by the rise of capitalism in Europe and the United States, but in the twentieth century, with the emergence of extremist ideologies such as fascism and communism, as well as labour revolutions, capitalist polar states feared a proliferation of revolutionaries in these countries. They found. After World War II, welfare states came to power in Europe. The characteristic of welfare states was that they did not neglect wealth distribution programs while also considering the free market. During this period, various programs of state aid to the poor were implemented. One of these was the negative income tax plan. Designed by neoliberal economist Milton Friedman and Nobel laureate in economics, the program was designed to pay the rest of the government if one's income was below a certain level.

After the 1970s, with the advent of neoliberal policies in the US and Western Europe, wealth distribution policies were also diminished, but after numerous economic crises at the beginning of the 5th century, the discussion of wealth distribution programs was heated again, and some countries even had regular programs at the level. There are big ones. One of these programs is Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which has been running in the country for four years.

What is the basic income?

The definition of basic income varies across the world, but in almost all these definitions there are a few fixed cases:

Unconditional: The basic income paid by the government should not be contingent on anything. Of course, basic income can vary with age, but people of a certain age should all have a certain amount of basic income. Gender, education, job status, income status, and anything else should not affect the payment of basic income.

Automated: The basic income must be paid out of any kind of administrative bureaucracy and automatically paid weekly, monthly or at the beginning of each year.

Unchanging: By changing the housing, livelihood, occupation, and income status of a person, fixed income payments should not change.

Individual: The basic income should be deposited directly into the individual's account, not the family or spouse's account.

To be paid as an individual right: Basic income must be regarded as an individual's right, a right enjoyed by all citizens of one country. Therefore, everyone who is a national of, or a resident of, a country shall have the right.

Suffice it to say: there is not going to be massive social displacement with this income, but it should be enough to provide for the minimum. These minimums can also vary depending on the economic structure of each country; what matters is that it is enough.

Why is basic income more important today?

As mentioned, the idea of providing a basic income to individuals in the 5-year-old community has been discussed, but the provision of basic income has become more important today. This is important for two reasons:

1. Poverty, Social Divide and Unemployment:

Most welfare programs have been unable to eradicate poverty and reduce class divisions

Today, almost all poverty alleviation programs, including health insurance, food vouchers, educational scholarships, long-term loans to middle and poor people, and the poor, have shown their weaknesses in poverty reduction. On the other hand, the problem of automation and the mechanization of work has also intensified in recent decades, which has led to high unemployment. For example, in the last few years in the US alone, 5 million jobs have been lost due to automation. Although automation creates jobs in addition to destroying jobs, it also creates a class divide. Workers who have specialized in one job for many years cannot easily move to another specialty, thus having to accept a lower-skilled job and thus lower salaries. In the long run, this will create more class divisions in society.

A study in the US last year found that a person with a $ 2 hourly income would likely lose 2% of their jobs, even people with a $ 1 hourly income would likely lose a 1% chance of a job. Kurds and these statistics are constantly increasing.

Basic income advocates argue that if a person has a basic income, he or she can deepen his or her expertise and seek out a few skills without stress. Such a person cannot easily be replaced by a car. On the other hand, research has shown that no poverty-alleviation and wealth-distribution program tested to date has the effect of paying people cash. Some also argue that paying people cash is far more expensive than other wealth distribution programs. Studies show that in the United States, $ 1 billion is spent on a variety of government services and poverty alleviation programs, with less than $ 2 billion for all Americans able to live above the poverty line.

1. The overall change of the concept of job:

In the future, there will be nothing called employee

Analysts predict that in the coming years there will be nothing called a job, as we imagine it today. Being hired and hired will lose their meaning, and we will see a fundamental shift in the meaning of the job. Analysts believe that different types of self-employment, entrepreneurship and liberalization will replace the labour and employee jobs. In such a world, people need more support to be able to work freely and without worry because of the risk involved in these new jobs will be very high and costly. For example, an Internet taxi driver hired by a company does not have any rights to an employee, including fixed salaries, insurance, bonuses, etc., or a freelance programmer who, after completing the project, communicates with the employer will be disconnected. This situation puts people in a very precarious and dangerous situation. If the driver is unable to work for several months or the project developer fails to do so, they will not receive any compensation. In such a situation, having reliable and permanent financial backing can help people on their career path; also having financial backing can give people more boldness to start their own entrepreneurial projects.

Basic Income and People's Behaviour

John Steinbeck, an American writer, portrays the day-to-day life of a man who was born into a wealthy family but becomes homeless over time. The main character of the story, who is a friend of this man, gives him a huge sum of money, knowing that he will spend all that money on buying liquor and in doing so, and eventually do so. This is the image we all have in our minds; the dominant notion of a poor man is that his current situation is the result of his choices. But is it the same in the real world? And in the real world, if we donate to the poor, do they all spend it on alcohol, drugs and more?

Sociological research shows that this theory is completely baseless. Most sociological experiments show that people who receive cash tend to be more appropriate alternatives to cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol also, a study by the World Bank last year found that if poor people were given the right amount of alcohol, and their drugs not only increase but in most cases they decrease.

Another common stereotype about paying people is the belief that if people are guaranteed money, people have no incentive to work. This is also wrong. In the 1980s, a project was launched in Manitoba, Canada, to test the impact of basic income on people's lives. Although the plan was completely abolished after the change of government and the government did not provide enough funding for studies on its effects, in recent years many researchers have studied the results of the plan. The results show that only one per cent of people withdrew from work, mainly housewives and teens who used this extra time to attend school. Other studies also show that part-time jobs increased by 5 per cent during the implementation of the plan.

The welfare trap occurs when it is cheaper to work than not to work for people

Tim Worsetal, author and senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, believes that what diminishes people's motivation is no current income, but current welfare programs. He argues that welfare programs implemented today in most countries reduce the incentive to work by creating "welfare traps". Welfare programs in Western countries are designed to keep people dependent on these programs; on the other hand, they sometimes make working for them less profitable than not working. For example, suppose you get a $ 4 monthly welfare plan including food and clothing, housing rent, tuition, and so on. If you find something that brings in $ 4.9 a month, not only will your welfare plan be cut, but you'll probably be less than $ 5 after tax. So, it's better for you not to work. The welfare trap is one of the most significant problems facing current welfare programs in the world, while advocates of the Basic Income Plan believe it will not create such problems and working will always lead to additional income.

Another benefit of paying basic income is reducing individual dependency on work and worker alienation. The nineteenth-century thinker, Karl Marx, argues that any kind of wage labour results in the alienation of the individual. He believed that work should be a function of one's inner needs, not one's external needs. For Marx, man needs work because working is a value, but in today's world, people must work to meet their needs. Marx, therefore, regards wage labour as a kind of slavery.

Advocates of basic income argue that if people have guaranteed income, they don't need to look for the first job they find and can spend more time discovering their abilities and talents. In that case, they are no longer dependent on the wages they receive from the employer and can work for something they really care about.

Harper Lee was a lonely woman who worked as a part-time job at an airline and spent her spare time writing fiction but was unable to produce any successful examples of her stories. Until a generous friend gave him a year's wage. The following year, Harper Lee was able to complete the first edition of Killing Chicken, a novel that later won the Pulitzer Prize. From Harper Lee's story, it can be seen to what extent having the right financial backing can help to showcase one's innate abilities and talents.

Basic Income and Economic Growth

There are different opinions about the impact of basic income on economic growth; proponents of the basic income plan believe that by implementing this plan, people's education and expertise will be increased, thereby enhancing the productivity of individuals in their jobs and ultimately boosting economic growth. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the scheme will reduce economic growth by lowering people's desire for low-cost but compulsory jobs (such as mining, construction, agriculture, etc.) as well as increasing wages and thus increasing the cost of goods. Overall, the relationship between basic income and economic growth is not clear and requires many experiments at the macro level to fully determine its effects.

Basic Income and Women's Rights

The share of housewives in the world economy is $ 3 trillion, but they don't make a living

Women make up 3 per cent of the global community, and most of their services to the community are unpaid. Studies by the McKinsey World Institute show that the value of women's work in the world is over $ 2 trillion. This is close to China's total GDP and more than ten per cent of total world production. Women generally provide these services with their interest and desire, and a mother never asks for the care of their child, but the community is obliged to help support the mothers. Some mothers must work to support their children and cannot take good care of their children. Paying basic income can protect these mothers from economic hardship.

Meanwhile, some women's rights advocates argue that basic income for women may prevent them from participating in social activities and occupations and reducing their share of these activities.

Basic Income and Poverty

As noted, most welfare programs to date have been unable to eradicate poverty. Advocates of basic income argue that this program can eliminate poverty once and for all. Interestingly, proponents of this view include both economic factions. From the neoliberal Milton Friedman to the socialist Martin Luther King, everyone believes that basic income or negative income taxes can be a good alternative to today's inefficient welfare programs.

Proponents also argue that increasing income also helps improve community health and reduce the incidence of diseases such as hypertension and type 2 diabetes that is the source of stress.

Is the basic income economically viable?

Even if all the positive aspects of the basic income we considered were realized, would it be economically viable? Doesn't this plan cause inflation?

It is difficult to answer this question. The reason for inflation is the creation of money and unsecured monetary credit, so if projects are not financed in this way, one can be sure that inflation will not occur. But where should this credit come from?

There are many ways to fund basic income plans, but perhaps one of the easiest is to dismantle old welfare plans to fund basic income plans. In this case, in addition to budgeting for welfare organizations, you can save more on government spending by eliminating these government agencies and their bureaucratic mechanism, which in turn increases government funding to fund basic income schemes. Another option is to raise taxes on the wealthy, which could be taxed on capital, carbon, housing, and even a tax on the future of the robot.

But basic income is not necessarily a cost. Studies in the United States show that a $ 4 a month base income can boost domestic production by 8 per cent over eight years. It also increases workers' ability to bargain to demand fairer working conditions and higher wages. Research shows that for every dollar a worker earns, $ 1.5 adds to the national economy while adding $ 1 to high-income Americans adds just five cents to the national economy. As a result, it seems that basic income does not necessarily mean spending.

Basic Income and Referendum in Switzerland

In year 4, a video titled "Public Income, a Cultural Shock" was introduced to the Internet. The video, produced by two social rights activists, introduced and explained the concept of basic income. This sparked a stir among young people in German and French. In April, a grassroots campaign was launched in Switzerland to further open the way for people to make a living in Switzerland by introducing the concept further. By October 4, the campaign had successfully collected enough signatures (5,000 signatures) to hold the referendum. Thus, in year 2, the first date referendum was held on whether to implement the basic income plan in Switzerland.

The program suggested that it be granted a monthly allowance of CHF 9.5 per adult and CHF 1 child per child. The government had estimated that the program would cost 2 billion francs, much of it financed by dismantling the current welfare system, but the remaining 2 million francs would have to be taxed. The Swiss labour union-backed the plan, but the House of Representatives and the federal government strongly opposed it and called on the people to vote in the affirmative. Ultimately, the plan was rejected with a 2% negative vote. The main opposition was to raising taxes and fears of increased immigration to Switzerland. Swiss experience shows that in addition to people's mental readiness, all aspects of this plan need to be explored in the best possible way and at the least costly.

Conclusion

Despite all the interpretations that have been made, it remains to be seen whether the CAP can reduce or eliminate poverty. To answer that question, we need numerous other large-scale, long-term research, studies, and experiments to test all aspects of this plan - whether basic income enhances productivity and creativity or decreases people's willingness to work? Will it thrive or slow economic growth?

Certainly, no program in the world is perfect enough to have any flaws. The basic income of the public is no exception. But the long-term problems of this program should be minimized, which can only be resolved by expert research.

It is also not possible to provide a single copy of the Basic Income Plan for all countries. These plans can vary depending on the geography, culture, religion, socio-economic and political structure of each country. It is the task of policymakers and elites in each country to prescribe the best way to plan their basic income for their country.