Skip to main content

Folks in Europe are currently campaigning for a basic income, which would provide a livable income directly to everyone as a human right, paid for by taxing the rich, financial transactions, carbon pollution etc. and eliminating old fashioned, expensive welfare programs. This video provides a good explanation.

If the European Citizens’ Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income collects a million signatures in the EU, "the European Commission will have to examine our initiative carefully and arrange for a public hearing in the European Parliament."

A hearing may not sound like much, but it's a start. Now it's time for us to start pushing for a basic income here in the US too.

One of the things that the Right does well is to promote crazy right wing ideas, like massive tax cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy or that global warming is a hoax, to push the debate toward the right.

When it comes to economic issues, there is no similarly well-funded and staffed effort to promote radical left wing ideas to move the debate to the left. Labor and lefty groups spend most of their time and effort on mainstream issues, and our president advocates a "middle-out economics" that apparently includes reducing cost of living increases for seniors on Social Security.

We need a bold new progressive economic philosophy to drive the conversation to the left. We need labor and progressive groups and elected officials to promote Rise Up Economics--the opposite of right wing Trickle Down Economics and way more progressive than the president's weak Middle Out Economics.

In addition to progressive basics like investing in jobs, education and health care and reforming our labor laws, Rise Up Economics could include a basic income for all as a way to eradicate poverty, reduce income inequality, and change the nature of work and the economy.

By seriously taxing the rich, Wall St. financial transactions, and carbon pollution and closing tax loopholes that allow rich guys like Mitt Romney to pay less in taxes than his secretary, we can invest directly in people, who will spend the money and truly stimulate the economy.

If we gave everyone just above a poverty-level income--about $12,000 in the US--then we'd lift millions out of poverty and provide much-needed economic security to the working poor.

A basic income would change work as we know it: many folks would be able to work less and spend more time with family and friends, freeing up some work for the unemployed and under-employed. Others who still want to work as much as possible could invest the money and improve their standard of living and maybe start their own businesses.  

Everybody would have the economic security and freedom only enjoyed right now by the rich.

Advances in technology will only lead to greater automation at work, as robots replace human workers and lower-paid workers from across the globe are able to do work currently done by higher-paid American professionals. Establishing a basic income is one way of sharing the wealth created by automation and outsourcing.

Right now we have the absurd situation where the vast majority of people on the planet are in competition with each other for a diminishing number of jobs. We are reliant on work as our only source of income, so employers can have us bidding against each other in a race to the bottom.

The results of this race to the bottom can be seen when Ipad assembly workers jump off of the roofs of their factories, or Mexican peasants risk life and limb to cross the desert into America, or Thai girls get sold into prostitution by their families. It doesn't have to be this way.

We can keep everything that is great about the free enterprise system: all the ingenuity and innovation that comes from being free to use your imagination as you see fit to create the inventions, products and services that can thrive in the marketplace. All that would stay the same. The only changes would be higher taxes for the very rich, and more consumers with more money to spend.

A simple basic income would be easy to administer and could replace a plethora of more expensive and bureaucratic public programs, including welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, unemployment insurance etc. All of those programs are all-or-nothing programs: if you make too much money, you aren't eligible for those programs anymore. Get a part time job, and you lose your unemployment. All of those programs are based on a 20th Century view of work: you keep the same job for the rest of your life and then you retire and move to Florida.

Today's economy is changing so rapidly, and we need our social programs to change too. Providing everyone with $1,000 a month tax free would be a simple way of boosting the economy and providing a level of economic security that we used to get from our jobs. The truth is that we can't rely on a job the way we used to. We can't rely on corporations or the government to create jobs: just ask the tens of thousands of teachers who got laid off or the construction workers who lost their jobs during the recession.

A basic income would be an ace up the sleeve of working people. It could be like a national strike fund: it would be a lot easier for workers to step out onto a limb and take on their boss at work if they knew they had a basic income to fall back on.

Providing a consistent source of income that we can all rely on would provide the American people with a sense of economic security in this crazy changing 21st Century economy. And it would provide progressives with an issue that drives the conversation way out to the left.

Let the conservatives explain why we can't provide economic freedom and security for all by simply sharing the wealth.

We only need to look to the LGBT community to see how successful they have been in pushing hard to the left. Ten years ago the idea of gay marriage was about as far left as any issue in America. But after pointing toward a vision of how the world should be that was as progressive as possible and fighting as hard as they could, they have made that crazy lefty issue a mainstream issue. We can do the same with a basic income.

Originally posted to RiseUpEconomics on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:35 AM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Anti-Capitalist Chat.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me on Twitter @riseupeconomics

    by RiseUpEconomics on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:35:02 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant idea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, AoT, RiseUpEconomics

    This kind of stimulus could really kick start the economy. A public option would be a great second push.

  •  Who is "everyone"? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Exactly what it sounds like (0+ / 0-)

      Everyone. Excluding children one would assume.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon May 06, 2013 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      One way of doing it would be citizens 21 and older. Another way is for adults to get a full basic income and children to get half that amount (payable to their parents). Another way would be having to work for 5 years before becoming eligible--I think something like that would be needed here in the US. In Europe and Canada and Brazil where this has gotten more attention, the idea of a basic income is that it's for everyone unconditionally.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me on Twitter @riseupeconomics

      by RiseUpEconomics on Mon May 06, 2013 at 01:09:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  An old idea well worth reincarnating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, RiseUpEconomics

    My favorite versions are the negative income tax and the basic job guarantee, and for maximum stimulative/stabilizing effect, I prefer they be deficit funded.

    Obviously, taxes will have to go up to prevent excessive inflation once the economy gets going again, but in no sense should those taxes be viewed as "paying for" the income guarantee.  

    Don't forget that a large amount of educational subsidy can be done away with if we've got a BIG as well.  College students won't have to take out 30k a year in subsidized and tax-payer insured loans if they're getting 30k a year anyway.

    From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

    by Nellebracht on Mon May 06, 2013 at 12:53:38 PM PDT

  •  I am all for changing the argument structure. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, RiseUpEconomics, PapaChach

    Be it compromise or acquiescence, the Left keeps moving to the right because the Right always seems to determine the subject.  If for no other reason than to move the arguments leftward again, I liked your ideas.

    •  Yes. $2T a year (0+ / 0-)

      That's a lot of money. But it would be a whole new economic set up, eradicating poverty for everyone except the most incorrigible fuck-ups and re-working work for the  rest of us. Well worth it.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me on Twitter @riseupeconomics

      by RiseUpEconomics on Mon May 06, 2013 at 02:36:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That assumes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that the way a BIG would work would be to just pay out to everybody your 13k a year, regardless of their personal income situation.

        You could more than halve that expenditure by structuring it like a negative income tax or a basic job guarantee, and that means you could boost the income support from a not-at-all-livable 13k to something more like 20-25k.

        About 15% of the roughly 300 million people in the US live below the poverty level.  If you provide a minimum income guarantee of 15k per person, structured such that as you earn money from regular employment, the support diminishes, but the take-home pay always increases as the time-worked times wages increase, then my rough calculations show that it should cost around $1.3 trillion a year.  

        And you could probably make it cheaper than that if you mess around with lower support for children, and/or lower aggregate support for household (25k for a 2 person household instead of 30k).

        Basically, it'd be about as expensive as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid put together.

        From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

        by Nellebracht on Mon May 06, 2013 at 04:08:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We can't make incremental changes... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but somehow we can make wholesale changes. It's like an Article V convention for Europe.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon May 06, 2013 at 03:19:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, cutting the link between work and income... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...sounds like an awesome idea, especially in Europe where there's no work to be had.  Might as well make it permanent.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon May 06, 2013 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

  •  I would suggest something more radical: (0+ / 0-)

    A minimum share of national GDP in the form of direct payment.  You could stop speculation and mitigate stupidity by prohibiting borrowing against it.

    Knowing the future is easy: Today's trivia becomes tomorrow's sacrament, and vice-versa.

    by Troubadour on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:23:12 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site