Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) – Citizens Information

What is the Basic Income for the Arts(BIA)?

The new BasicIncome for the Arts (BIA) pilot scheme aims to support the arts andcreative practice by giving a payment of 325 a week to artists and creativearts workers.

The main objective of the scheme is to address the financial instabilityfaced by many working in the arts.

The pilot scheme closed for applications on 12 May 2022.2,000 eligible artists and creative arts workers were selected at random andinvited to take part in the pilot scheme.

The anonymised randomised selection of participants was held on 29 August2022. Successful applicants were notifiedon 8 September 2022.

The pilot runs over 3 years, from 2022 to 2025.

You should check the BIAguidelines for the most up to date information.

Approximately 2,000 eligible applicants were selected to participate in thepilot scheme.

Once you meet the eligibility criteria, you were included in an anonymisedrandom sampling process. A randomiser software was used to select participantsat random. The sample was checked to ensure adequate representation.

The anonymised randomised selection of participants was held on 29 August2022. You should have received notification of the outcomeof your application on 8 September 2022.

Check your email and spam folder for this correspondence from the Departmentof Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. If you cannot find anemail you should email basicincomeforthearts@tcagsm.gov.ie.

You can appeal if you think the process for reviewing your application wasnot adhered to.

You must have a decision email from the Basic Income for the Arts PilotScheme team to make an appeal and you must appeal within 5 working days of thedate on the decision email.

You will be paid a BIA grant of 325 a week. Payments will be mademonthly.

The pilot will run over 3 years, from 2022 to 2025. As this is a researchpilot there is no guarantee that funding will continue after the pilot.

Start date of your payments will depend on how quickly bank details andevidence of tax clearance are returned to the Department of Tourism, Culture,Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.

You will also have to complete your baseline survey before receivingpayment. The baseline survey collects data relating to your situation beforethe BIA payment starts.

The baseline survey will be made available on the online portal in thecoming weeks, and you will be notified by email when this happens.

The first payments are expected to be issued during the second half ofOctober.

The weekly payment will be back-dated to 29 August 2022, which was the dateof the anonymised randomised selection.

The payment will be taxable, but the amount of tax paid will depend on yourindividual circumstances.

You will need to register with Revenue as self-employed and pay Schedule Dincome tax, where appropriate, on the BIA payment. Income from the pilot willbe liable for Class S PRSI.

You are entitled to earn additional income, which would also be reckonablefor the purposes of income tax.

Income from the scheme will be treated as income from self-employment forthe purpose of various means tests.

If you are in receipt of a social welfare payment and receive payments fromthe pilot scheme, you should advise the Department of Social Protection (DSP)of this change in your circumstances.

Read more about how the BIAinteracts with DSP payments.

The pilot scheme will evaluate the impact of a basic income on artists andcreative arts workers. The pilot programme will collect and analyse data fromBIA recipients and a control group throughout the pilot.

If you were selected to participate on BIA, you will:

You can read more about the typeof data you will need to collect and share if you are selected toparticipate in the BIA pilot.

A number of eligible applicants who are not selected to receive the paymentwere asked to participate in a control group. Control group participants willrespond to the same survey and data requests as those in receipt of thepayment.

If you participate in the control group, you are paid two weeks basic incomefor each of the 3 years of the pilot scheme. This means you will get 6 weeks ofthe BIA payment to compensate you for the time required to engage in the datacollection process.

Read more here:

Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) - Citizens Information

Universal basic income – Pros and cons – Economics Help

A citizens income, basic wage or Universal basic Income (UBI) is a concept of paying everyone in society a universal benefit regardless of income and circumstances.

The main advantage is that ensures a minimum standard of income for everyone without any costs and bureaucracy of means-tested benefits. Also, it avoids the disincentive to work that can occur with means-tested benefits. In times of crisis, a UBI can also provide a social safety net with minimum admin costs.

The disadvantage is that is an expensive undertaking to pay everyone in society a universal benefit and there is a concern it may encourage some to live on benefits without contributing anything useful to society.

A citizens income or universal basic income would primarily be paid for out of general taxation, though in some models it could involve redistributing profits from publicly owned industries.

Under the proposals of Citizens Trust income, benefits should be distributed according to age.0-24 year olds would receive 56.25 per week, 25-64 year olds would receive 71 per week and those 65 and over would receive 142.70 per week.

The citizens income would replace all benefits except disability and housing benefit. The total cost for 2012/13 would be 276n close to the existing annual welfare budget.

It would replace child benefit, income support, JSA, NI and state pensions. It also estimates savings of 10bn from administration of pensions and tax credits.

The interesting thing about a citizens income is that it gains support from both the left and right. The left supports its aim to create a more egalitarian society. There is support from the right who dislike the disincentives and bureaucracy of means tested benefits.

From a personal view, I like it because my lodger is on a zero-hour contract he often doesnt have money to pay rent, but he is not eligible for any benefits. A citizens income would be good to provide a minimum income guarantee.

Related

External links

Here is the original post:

Universal basic income - Pros and cons - Economics Help

Child poverty across eastern Europe and Central Asia soars by 19 per cent, as Ukraine war and rising inflation drive four million children into…

GENEVA/NEW YORK, 17 October 2022The war in Ukraine and rising inflation have driven an additional four million children across eastern Europe and Central Asia into poverty, a 19 per cent increase since 2021, according to a new UNICEF study published today.

The impact of the war in Ukraine and subsequent economic downturn on child poverty in eastern Europe and Central Asia which features data from 22 countries* across the region - shows that children are bearing the heaviest burden of the economic crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. While children make up 25 per cent of the population, they account for nearly 40 per cent of the additional 10.4 million people experiencing poverty this year.

The Russian Federation accounts for nearly three-quarters of the total increase in the number of children living in poverty due to the Ukraine war and a cost-of-living crisis across the region, with an additional 2.8 million children now living in households below the poverty line. Ukraine is home to half a million additional children living in poverty, the second largest share, followed by Romania, with an additional 110,000 children, the study notes.

Beyond the obvious horrors of war the killing and maiming of children, mass displacement the economic consequences of the war in Ukraine are having a devastating impact on children across eastern Europe and Central Asia, said UNICEF Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia Afshan Khan. Children all over the region are being swept up in this wars terrible wake. If we dont support these children and families now, the steep rise in child poverty will almost certainly result in lost lives, lost learning, and lost futures.

The consequences of child poverty stretch far beyond families living in financial distress. The sharp increase could result in an additional 4,500 children dying before their first birthdays, and learning losses could be equivalent to an additional 117,000 children dropping out of school this year alone, the study notes.

The poorer a family is, the greater the proportion of their income committed to necessities such as food and fuel. When the cost of basic goods soars, the money available to meet other needs such as health care and education falls, the study notes. The subsequent cost-of-living crisis means that the poorest children are even less likely to access essential services, and are more at risk of violence, exploitation and abuse.

For many, childhood poverty lasts a lifetime. One in three children born and raised in poverty will live their adult lives in poverty, leading to an intergenerational cycle of hardship and deprivation, the study notes.

The challenges faced by families living in or on the brink of poverty deepen when governments reduce public expenditure, increase consumption taxes or put in place austerity measures in a limiting effort to boost their economies in the short-term, as this diminishes the reach and quality of support services that families depend on.

The study sets out a framework to help reduce the number of children living in poverty and prevent more families from falling into financial distress:

UNICEF has recently partnered with the EU Commission and several EU countries to pilot the EU Child Guarantee initiative to mitigate the impact of poverty on children and provide them with opportunities to thrive in adulthood. With more children and families now being pushed into poverty, a robust response is warranted across the region.

UNICEF is calling for continued and expanded support to strengthen social protection systems in high- and middle-income countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia; and the prioritization of funding for social protection programmes, including cash assistance programmes for vulnerable children and families.

Austerity measures will hurt children most of all plunging even more children into poverty and making it harder for families who are already struggling, said Khan. We have to protect and expand social support for vulnerable families before the situation gets any worse.

###

*including Kosovo, under UNSC Resolution 1244

Originally posted here:

Child poverty across eastern Europe and Central Asia soars by 19 per cent, as Ukraine war and rising inflation drive four million children into...

Basic Income Grant: What is the debate about? | GroundUp

What are people saying about the introduction of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee in South Africa? Graphic: Lisa Nelson

The possibility that a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) could be introduced in South Africa has sparked a lot of debate over the last two years.

Its advocates say this grant could address our extremely high rates of poverty and ensure that all people have an adequate standard of living. Its detractors say it would bankrupt the country.

In this three-part series from the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), we cover the basics of a basic income grant. In our first article, we gave an overview of what a universal basic income guarantee is and what transformative potential it could have.

In this, our second piece, we cover the evolution and current state of the debate in South Africa. Our final piece will focus on how we could finance it.

The idea of a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa goes back to the late 1990s, when organised labour proposed that the idea should be investigated by the government at the 1998 Presidential Jobs Summit. In 2002, the report of the Taylor Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa proposed a basic income grant of R100 per person, per month.

But then the debate disappeared for two decades. The recommendations of the Taylor Committee were ignored. The ANC was largely opposed to the UBIG during this period, influenced by concerns about hand-outs and dependency.

As successive governments pushed different growth agendas, there was less political interest in social security as a developmental strategy. It took time for the ineffectiveness of these growth agendas to become clear: massive unemployment persisted, inequality worsened, poverty deepened.

When the Covid pandemic hit, the UBIG debate re-emerged.

The temporary Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant of R350 a month was introduced by the government as a response to the impact of the pandemic and related lockdowns.

This was the first grant that able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 59 could receive. Until then, even though a large proportion of this group had no other income and were shut out of paid work due to South Africas structural unemployment crisis, they were not covered by the social grant system.

Civil society organisations began to call for a permanent UBIG to replace the temporary SRD grant, and the government listened.

In December 2021, a panel of experts commissioned by the Department of Social Development and the International Labour Organisation found that while the SRD grant had provided a lifeline for many, it had not made a sufficient impact on poverty because it was too small. In South Africa, four million households, comprising 11 million people, have income below the food poverty line (FPL), which was R595 per month in 2020.

According to the panel, a BIG introduced at scale, worth at least the FPL, would almost eliminate poverty in South Africa. The panel recommended that the SRD grant should be made permanent, and progressively increased over time. They said that no alternative measures could reasonably address the widespread and urgent income support needs of South Africans.

In January 2022, a coalition of civil society organisations met President Cyril Ramaphosa to argue that the SRD grant should be made into a universal basic income guarantee. They said that it should be increased first to the FPL and then by 2024 to the upper bound poverty line (R1,335 per month in 2021). These proposals were recently supported by a resolution of the ANC Policy Conference in July this year.

But support for a UBIG has not been unanimous.

Opponents of the grant, which include some groups in business and the National Treasury, have variously claimed that it is unaffordable, that its costs would overshadow any benefits, that it is a populist party-political tactic and that it would further a culture of dependency.

Critics of the UBIG say that it will cause the economy to slow down. The Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE), for instance, argues that while the UBIG will raise beneficiaries consumption, causing a boost to the economy, this will come at the cost of reduced consumption elsewhere.

This argument does not account for the extent to which a UBIG can boost local economies. It is not just increased spending that will result, but it can allow more people to become active participants in the economy, which would grow as a result.

UBIG beneficiaries will spend the money in their local communities, which stimulate these industries and increase tax revenues through increased VAT payments.

Informal sector workers would use a portion of their basic income to invest in self-employment and productive activities.

These types of positive spin-offs can, over time, resolve South Africas pressing challenges such as inequality, unemployment and poverty. This means that the net cost to the government decreases.

The benefits of a UBIG are far greater than the initial cost of its implementation.

The CDE also says that the only reason why a UBIG is now on the national agenda is that the governing party needs to shore up support.

But in a democratic system we should expect parties to pursue policy platforms that they expect to have widespread support, and benefit their constituency. We should also respect voters rights to judge the merits of such policies. The popularity of a policy is by no means an inherent argument against it.

This argument also ignores the pronounced and profound economy-wide impact of the Covid pandemic that led to the introduction of the R350 SRD grant. It also ignores the large number of civil society organisations and social movements that are calling for the adoption of a UBIG.

Another line of attack from UBIG detractors, including the Minister of Finance, is to claim that providing grants will create a cycle of dependency. This argument is not based on evidence.

The evidence of a large number of studies on cash transfers in Africa and other low- and middle-income countries demonstrates that UBIGs make people more productive.

Studies have shown that even meagre basic income support for vulnerable people increases autonomy and enables job-seeking, investment in productive assets, a transition from poor quality and exploitative jobs to more decent work as well as self-employment, small business creation, and womens economic empowerment.

As we mentioned in our previous article, basic income support helps people to join the formal labour market as it gives people money to look for a job.

The reality is, given the chance, people consistently seek ways to increase their economic participation and security.

Concerns about the affordability and sustainability of UBIG proposals have also come from the business lobby. The CDE and Intellidex argue that paying for a UBIG would require income tax increases or taking on debt that South Africa cannot afford. Income tax increases would lead to emigration and other destabilising economic effects, and South Africa already has a high debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio, they say. CDE and Intellidex argue that tougher taxes on the wealthy would compound the economic problems in South Africa.

They conclude that a UBIG is unaffordable.

But UBIG will act as a stimulus to the economy. Part of the cost associated with it will be recouped by the government through VAT. The remaining net cost can be sustainably financed through progressive taxation.

South Africas income and wealth inequality is a destabilising factor in the economy. Taxing and redistributing income more progressively using a UBIG could shift persistent structural inequality in the economy, as argued by IEJ director Gilad Isaacs in response to the Intellidex report.

This argument has found unusual supporters. In August this year, the historically conservative Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) came out in favour of a UBIG as a safety net, and a more redistributive tax system.

The IEJs analysis suggests that UBIG is achievable in South Africa in the short-term and would carry little risk if it is phased in carefully and responsibly. We have proposed an initial UBIG valued at R624 per month (the food poverty line at September 2021) that would overtime be increased.

In the final part of this introductory series, we will look at how we could finance this.

Vuyisiwe Mahafu is a Budget Policy Intern at the Institute for Economic Justice

2022 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.

Read the rest here:

Basic Income Grant: What is the debate about? | GroundUp

Artist Basic Income Take Me Somewhere

Deadline: 23:59 Monday 5th September 2022

Take Me Somewhere is offering a regular basic income to two currently practising contemporary performance artists in the form of 213* per week (c915 per month) for a 9 month period, as a contribution towards living costs. (*please scroll down to FAQs for explanation of how we calculated this amount)

We believe that major, structural, financial interventions are essential in order to sustain and secure peoples livelihoods, particularly in the post-pandemic landscape and in combating societal inequality and the cost of living crisis. Although we recognise there is a wide need for this across the country, as an arts organisation our modest pilot focuses on artists/ performance makers working in the area of contemporary performance.

There will be no expectations attached to the funding in terms of artistic creation. This fund is not a full artist salary, it is intended to supplement other forms of income such as artist fees or project funding. We expect it to be used broadly towards living expenses. The two artists selected will be paid additionally for their time to measure the potential impact made.

Our ambition is to add to conversation surrounding sustainability and wellbeing in the current moment but also to look at the particular ways the artists we work with feel challenged and can be supported. We are especially interested in finding out what a basic income does for creative practice, health & wellbeing, relationships and financial sustainability. By actively engaging with new artist funding models even on a small scale, we hope to become better advocates for contemporary performance artists within Scotland. We will work with an outside evaluator and make clear our findings, which may be more qualitative than quantitative in nature.

Two selected artists will:

Receive 213 per week for 9 months between October 2022 and June 2023, paid directly into their bank account. (This is likely to be subject to tax as self-employed freelance income, depending on your particular circumstances).

Be required to take part in an evaluation and monitoring process (paid for separately).

Remain anonymous in Take Me Somewheres public facing communications on the project (there is no requirement for artists to remain anonymous if they do not wish to; however Take Me Somewhere will not announce the selected artists through our channels)

You must be:

Over 18.

Currently practising, & having over 5 years professional experience working as a contemporary performance artist, outside of education and not including years studying. (years within FE/HE education will not count as professional experience).

Based in Scotland.

A professional artist working in contemporary, live practice, with capacity to evidence this via the application process. Please see supporting evidence of existing practice.

Willing to complete the evaluation process.

Tax compliant.

You must not:

Be in full time education.

Must not be in full time employment during the period of this project.

Be in receipt of private funding or regular financial support from family/friend, a significant other, private benefactor or trust and foundation. (Please see Financial Stability section 7).

Use this income as a substitute for Creative Scotland Open Project Funding or as match funding towards this endeavour.

Key Dates:

Applicatons Open: 1st August 2022

Applications Close: 5th September 2022

Random Selection Process & Applicants Informed: Week of 12th September 2022

1st Meeting (overview of scheme and establishing evaluation* processes, 1.5 hours): End of September 2022

1st Payment: Weekly BACS payments from 7th October 2022

Midpoint Evaluation Meeting (2 hours): mid-January 2023

Endpoint Evaluation Meting (2 hours): mid-June 2023

Last payment and project ends: 30th June 2023

* In addition to start, mid and end of project evaluation meetings, the successful participants will be expected (and paid separately) for approx 30 mins of time spent on evaluation per month from October - June 2023.

TMS recognises the systemic exclusion within the performance sector and is striving to put equity at the heart of our decision making. We are committed to increasing the diversity of people working in performance and especially encourage applications from those who identify as having characteristics currently under-represented in the cultural sector: including but not limited to artists with lived experience of being Black, Asian, Mixed Heritage and/or a Person of Colour, Refugee, D/deaf, Neurodivergent, from Working Class background, Disabled, Primary Carers (including parental) and/or LGBTQIA+.

Selection ProcessThe process of selection is a non-competitive lottery process. We will pick an application from a random, number generator while still considering equalities, diversity and representation. In order to ensure that at least one of the applicants comes from a self identified, under-represented group we will have two separate draws:

Applications close.

First draw: Is exclusively for applicants who self-identified as being part of an underrepresented group

Second draw: All remaining applications, including those remaining from the first draw, are drawn at random.

Drawn applications checked to ensure they meet the minimum eligibility criteria, including documents related to proof of income and years practising, in case they arent sufficient, then there is a redraw.

We looked at a lot of examples of non-competitive processes and looked at resources including Jerwood in Practice. The recipients of the award will remain anonymous although our findings will be made public (there is no requirement for artists to remain anonymous if they do not wish to; however Take Me Somewhere will not announce the selected artists through our channels). Some of the data we acquire from the evaluation will be quantitative and qualitative and possibly personal in nature hence the requirement for anonymity. We are also keen not to prejudice any future work or income the selected artists may receive within that period.

Artists will be asked to fill out a basic eligibility questionnaire.

Proof of Professional Artistic Practice in Contemporary Performance.Applicants should provide one piece of evidence from each of the following two categories:

1. Proof of income from your work as a professional contemporary performance artist (within the last 5 years). One piece of evidence from the following list:

Grant Award Letter

Creative Scotland Funding Award Letter or email

Commissioning agreement or residency/presentation contract

Invoice or payslip (not from non-artistic roles)

2. Proof of active engagement within contemporary performance (within the last 5 years). One piece of evidence from the following list:

This scheme is intended to provide a financial buffer and be a small step towards removing financial barriers and hardships that exist for artists when making work.

This is not the right opportunity for someone that is receiving other significant sources of support, is inherently financially comfortable, or for whom it would not make a significant difference to their practice and way of working and living in the world. Because this initiative is aimed partly at supporting individuals financially, we politely ask you not to apply if you are financially secure and in receipt of:

Financial support from friend or family

Rent from additional property (or in kind rent support)

Investment income

Significant inheritance

International government support

Regular funding from a trust or foundation that supports your practice (as opposed to project funding)

PHD funding

Other regular private financial support that supports your artistic practice.

We do not include government benefits or income from other part-time employment that you may currently use to support your work within this definition of income. However, please see below for more information on how this might affect any benefits you receive and how to decide if this is the right opportunity for you.

We ask that you carefully consider if accessing this opportunity will negatively affect any benefits that you receive. We do not intend that the scheme makes people worse off financially and expect you to check in advance of applying whether additional income will affect this or not.

Whilst this is not an employment offer it is likely, depending on your own specific circumstances, that the payments will be treated as income for tax purposes and/or affect any benefits or social welfare that you receive.

Applicants are required to investigate what their own particular tax and social welfare situation may be should they receive payment. Those in receipt of a social welfare payment who will be asked to confirm that they have advised the Department of Social Security/Job Centre Plus of this change in their circumstances.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says this: A UBI based on current benefit levels would bring clear gains for those who are currently ineligible, where they are on a low income but are shut out, or fall out, of the existing system; it would probably bring smaller gains for many of those successfully claiming current benefits.'

You can check how our Artist Basic Income opportunity might affect benefits on the UK Government website or at the entitledto website. It is our intention that the payments are made to two artists whom this will make a financial difference to, rather than having a negative impact and we ask that you check this before applying. Further useful information about benefits can also be found on MoneySavingExpert or at Citizens Advice.

As part of the evaluation we will measure against baseline outcomes at the start, middle and end of the programme. We will ask you to log some comments under certain themes in a journal* in the intervening months. We imagine this to take up 7 hours of time over the 9 month period. There is a payment of 287 for successful applicants.

We will aim to measure things like your current financial sustainability, capacity to research and develop new creative work, your capacity to practise self-care, or the hours you are able to spend on creative work versus other employment at the start, middle and end of the project to get a sense of impact over time. This not exhaustive. Evaluation categories will include:

Creative Practice - Learning and Development

Health and wellbeing

Relationships

Financial Sustainability

*If writing is a barrier to you then we can look at ways in which to support the process through other means.

Is this Universal Basic Income ?It is important to note that our Artists Basic Income is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practising artists to focus on their creative practice. As a small organisation we are not in a position to offer more than 2 opportunities, although it draws on the similar principle and we believe that this type of support should be made available to all people.

Is this expected to be a Living Wage? No. This a contribution towards living costs. The two people taking part in our pilot will be professional artists, who can still earn income from their artistic practice or other work.

Am I expected to work full time as an artist & live off this amount?No. This 213 a week / 915 a month (approx. week x 4.3) is intended as a non-outcome driven contribution to living costs, supplementing other work or artist fees.

How was the amount calculated?213 per week was budgeted in Oct 2021 & based on Scottish Government led pilots. We also looked at other European pilots, the largest being Spain (1,015 per month /852.04 or 198 per week). The Green Party have been campaigning for a Universal Basic Income at 85 per week. The only scheme we have seen which is higher is Ireland (1,169.60 325 per week /272), which was annouced in April 22 after we had made our application to Creative Scotland for this funding. These initiatives offered a contribution to income with artists also earning income from artistic projects.

This is distinct from the Living Wage which is about meeting the real cost of living as is currently set at 19,305 per year (1,608.75 per month or 371.25 per week). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, state: It is important to distinguish UBI from a Minimum Income Guarantee, which at its most basic is simply a set of policies designed to ensure no one falls below a set income level.

I am an artist but dont work in contemporary live performance. Am I eligible?No. Unfortunately this pilot is only for artists working in contemporary live performance. Our vision is that Scotland is the place to experience and create radical performance and our mission is to create unparalleled conditions for this to transpire. To see the kind of work and artists we support please read our curatorial statement here.

I have a job and I am on PAYE, can I apply?Yes. If you have a part-time PAYE job that supports your practice then you are still eligible to apply.

I receieve benefits, should I apply? We advise you to check whether recieving the income will affect any benefits before applying. Further information is included in the documenation above.

I am studying or recently graduated from college/university?You must have 5 years of professional experience as an artist that is outside of study. We will not accept applications from those in study or who have graduated in the last 5 years.

Can I apply as a collective / group?No. We will only receive applications from individuals. This is about supporting individuals to increase their financial sustainability and develop their own practice.

Can I put this towards a project or use it as partnership funding?No. This is a pilot that is geared towards allowing more time to develop artistic practice. It should be invested in you and in ways that will affect your creative practice, health and wellbeing, relationships and your financial sustainability.

I work in the arts, but Im not an artist, can I apply? Applicants who cannot demonstrate that they have a professional creative practice that centres contemporary performanceare not eligable. This includes:

Full-time students

Arts Administrators

Producers

Promoters and agents

Artist managers

Marking and PR professionals

Craft makers

Designers (e.g. lighting, industrial, product, interior, VR, AR & MR, jewellery, graphic design etc.

Production Managers

The list is for illustrative purposes only and is not exhaustive.

How will I be paid?Payments will be made automatically and directly into your bank account on a weekly basis.

Is this taxable? It is likley that this income will be taxed. Findings from the Scottish Government pilot highlighted issues around any tax and benefit leglistlation required being reserved to the Department of Work and Pensions in Westminster. It is important to understand whether you will be disadvantaged by receiving this income.

What do you mean by evaluation? Our intervention in this area is small - we see this as an artist supportproject that like all of our projects will be evaluated. There have been large government fundedprojects thathave extensive data available. In our modest project our hope is that a learning by doing approach allows us to remain closer to the needs and challenges of artists working in a particular, relatively small sectorial area and at a particular moment in their career. By actively engaging and evaluating even on a small scale we hope to become better advocates for contemporary artists within Scotland. We will work with an outside evaluator and make clear our findings whichmay be more qualitativethan quantitative in nature.

Will there be value / merit assessments made of applications?No. Once an applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria they will be included in the randomised selection process which will determine the participants. We will not make any value judgments as long as the applicant is eligible.

For any further questions you can email connect@takemesomewhere.co.uk

See the original post here:

Artist Basic Income Take Me Somewhere

Universal Basic Income fails to get to the root of urban poverty – 2UrbanGirls

How UBI proposals distract from the real problem: housing costs.

By: Chares Blaine

In an effort to reduce poverty in their cities, eleven mayors have signed on to a push to guarantee abasic incomefor the more than 5 million people they collectively represent.

The first U.S. city to move forward on this initiative was Stockton, California, but the effort has gained more steam given the unemployment uptick due to Coronavirus-related government shutdowns of the private sector.

While the policy is well-intentioned, its far from the most effective way to eradicate poverty in Americas cities and, in the long-term, could have unintended consequences on the exact people the mayors hope to help.

Read the full article here.

**Editors note**

Since this article was written in 2020, cities like Compton (Compton Pledge), Los Angeles (Big Leap), and LA County (Breathe) have implemented similar programs designed to give free money to less than 1,000 residents as an experiment of sorts to see if the money, with no strings attached, elevate the recipients out of poverty without addressing problems such as rising housing costs, inflation, how to either maintain and/or expand the program without reliance on private donors and one-time monies received through the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA).

The daughter of the owner of the LA Times is being accused of seeking to reduce police budgets to pay for such programs. Nika Soon-Shiong is the mastermind behind the Compton Pledge and reducing the law enforcement budget in West Hollywood.

She announced last month she is leaving Los Angeles to return to Oxford to finish her doctoral studies with a thesis centering around cash transfer systems in India. Real convenient to kick up dust around public safety then leaving others behind to deal with the fallout.

Related

See the original post:

Universal Basic Income fails to get to the root of urban poverty - 2UrbanGirls

GROUNDUP OP-ED: Basic income grant separating the facts from the populism – Daily Maverick

The possibility that a universal basic income guarantee (Ubig) could be introduced in South Africa has sparked a lot of debate over the last two years.

Its advocates say this grant could address our extremely high rates of poverty and ensure that all people have an adequate standard of living. Its detractors say it would bankrupt the country.

In this three-part series from the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), we cover the basics of a basic income grant. In our first article, we gave an overview of what a universal basic income guarantee is and what transformative potential it could have.

In this, our second piece, we cover the evolution and current state of the debate in South Africa. Our final piece will focus on how we could finance it.

The idea of a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa goes back to the late 1990s, when organised labour proposed that the idea should be investigated by the government at the 1998 Presidential Jobs Summit. In 2002, the report of the Taylor Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa proposed a basic income grant of R100 per person, per month.

But then the debate disappeared for two decades. The recommendations of the Taylor Committee were ignored. The ANC was largely opposed to the Ubig during this period, influenced by concerns about hand-outs and dependency.

As successive governments pushed different growth agendas, there was less political interest in social security as a developmental strategy. It took time for the ineffectiveness of these growth agendas to become clear: massive unemployment persisted, inequality worsened, poverty deepened.

When the Covid pandemic hit, the Ubig debate re-emerged.

The temporary Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant of R350 a month was introduced by the government as a response to the impact of the pandemic and related lockdowns.

This was the first grant that able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 59 could receive. Until then, even though a large proportion of this group had no other income and were shut out of paid work due to South Africas structural unemployment crisis, they were not covered by the social grant system.

Civil society organisations began to call for a permanent Ubig to replace the temporary SRD grant, and the government listened.

In December 2021, a panel of experts commissioned by the Department of Social Development and the International Labour Organization found that while the SRD grant had provided a lifeline for many, it had not made a sufficient impact on poverty because it was too small. In South Africa, four million households, comprising 11 million people, have income below the food poverty line (FPL), which was R595 per month in 2020.

According to the panel, a BIG introduced at scale, worth at least the FPL, would almost eliminate poverty in South Africa. The panel recommended that the SRD grant should be made permanent, and progressively increased over time. They said that no alternative measures could reasonably address the widespread and urgent income support needs of South Africans.

In January 2022, a coalition of civil society organisations met President Cyril Ramaphosa to argue that the SRD grant should be made into a universal basic income guarantee. They said that it should be increased first to the FPL and then by 2024 to the upper bound poverty line (R1,335 per month in 2021). These proposals were recently supported by a resolution of the ANC Policy Conference in July this year.

But support for a Ubig has not been unanimous.

Opponents of the grant, which include some groups in business and the National Treasury, have variously claimed that it is unaffordable, that its costs would overshadow any benefits, that it is a populist party-political tactic and that it would further a culture of dependency.

Critics of the Ubig say that it will cause the economy to slow down. The Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE), for instance, argues that while the Ubig will raise beneficiaries consumption, causing a boost to the economy, this will come at the cost of reduced consumption elsewhere.

Visit Daily Mavericks home page for more news, analysis and investigations

This argument does not account for the extent to which a Ubig can boost local economies. It is not just increased spending that will result, but it can allow more people to become active participants in the economy, which would grow as a result.

Ubig beneficiaries will spend the money in their local communities, which stimulate these industries and increase tax revenues through increased VAT payments.

Informal sector workers would use a portion of their basic income to invest in self-employment and productive activities.

These types of positive spin-offs can, over time, resolve South Africas pressing challenges such as inequality, unemployment and poverty. This means that the net cost to the government decreases.

The benefits of a Ubig are far greater than the initial cost of its implementation.

The CDE also says that the only reason why a Ubig is now on the national agenda is that the governing party needs to shore up support.

But in a democratic system, we should expect parties to pursue policy platforms that they expect to have widespread support, and benefit their constituency. We should also respect voters rights to judge the merits of such policies. The popularity of a policy is by no means an inherent argument against it.

This argument also ignores the pronounced and profound economy-wide impact of the Covid pandemic that led to the introduction of the R350 SRD grant. It also ignores the large number of civil society organisations and social movements that are calling for the adoption of a Ubig.

Another line of attack from Ubig detractors, including the Minister of Finance, is to claim that providing grants will create a cycle of dependency. This argument is not based on evidence.

The evidence of a large number of studies on cash transfers in Africa and other low- and middle-income countries demonstrates that Ubigs make people more productive.

Studies have shown that even meagre basic income support for vulnerable people increases autonomy and enables job-seeking, investment in productive assets, a transition from poor quality and exploitative jobs to more decent work as well as self-employment, small business creation, and womens economic empowerment.

As we mentioned in our previous article, basic income support helps people to join the formal labour market as it gives people money to look for a job.

The reality is, given the chance, people consistently seek ways to increase their economic participation and security.

Concerns about the affordability and sustainability of Ubig proposals have also come from the business lobby. The CDE and Intellidex argue that paying for a Ubig would require income tax increases or taking on debt that South Africa cannot afford. Income tax increases would lead to emigration and other destabilising economic effects, and South Africa already has a high debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio, they say. CDE and Intellidex argue that tougher taxes on the wealthy would compound the economic problems in South Africa.

They conclude that a Ubig is unaffordable.

But Ubig will act as a stimulus to the economy. Part of the cost associated with it will be recouped by the government through VAT. The remaining net cost can be sustainably financed through progressive taxation.

South Africas income and wealth inequality is a destabilising factor in the economy. Taxing and redistributing income more progressively using a Ubig could shift persistent structural inequality in the economy, as argued by IEJ director Gilad Isaacs in response to the Intellidex report.

This argument has found unusual supporters. In August this year, the historically conservative Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) came out in favour of a Ubig as a safety net, and a more redistributive tax system.

The IEJs analysis suggests that UBIG is achievable in South Africa in the short-term and would carry little risk if it is phased in carefully and responsibly. We have proposed an initial Ubig valued at R624 per month (the food poverty line at September 2021) that would overtime be increased.

In the final part of this introductory series, we will look at how we could finance this. DM

Vuyisiwe Mahafu is a Budget Policy Intern at the Institute for Economic Justice.

First published by GroundUp.

See the rest here:

GROUNDUP OP-ED: Basic income grant separating the facts from the populism - Daily Maverick

What labour and trade union agenda should the new Colombian government and Congress pursue? Here are some proposals – Equal Times

In Colombia, we have recently seen alternative forces make significant headway in the configuration of the new Congress of the Republic and, according to the most recent polls, left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro could become the new president of Colombia.

Given this favourable political outlook, it is essential that we present the proposals advocated by the National Trade Union School (ENS) and the trade union movement for consideration by the new congress and potential new government with an anti-neoliberal perspective as part of their political and legislative agendas on labour and trade unions. If we manage to turn these proposals into public policy objectives of the new government and the recently elected Congress of the Republic, we will progressively be able to make the principles of ever more decent work a reality in our country.

The starting point for making decent work a reality in Colombia would be to ensure compliance with the law and those rulings of the Constitutional Court that prohibit all forms of labour intermediation through Associated Work Cooperatives, foundations and other unauthorised organisations, and to curb abusive labour intermediation practices by temporary service companies. The state, for its part, should set an example of respect for labour standards by avoiding subcontracting and prioritising the direct employment of the staff who carry out missions in the public sector.

An issue of great concern in Colombia is the commercialisation of social security. A new system needs to be designed that is not driven by the market, and that is public, universal, solidarity-based and preventive.

What are the building blocks of this new social security and protection model? First of all, we need to remove the false social protection floor introduced by the government of President Ivn Duque, which has made working conditions ever more precarious. We also need to establish a public, universal and solidarity-based health system with a preventive rather than reactive approach. Another building block is the pension system, which should be predominantly public and based on the average premium (intergenerational solidarity) approach, to guarantee real retirement pensions. As regards occupational health and safety, the system should restore its true purpose of promoting health and preventing illness and death at work. We also recommend studying the possibility of introducing a basic income, at least on an emergency basis, to urgently address the terrible hunger crisis affecting over 21 million people in Colombia.

With regard to the right to freedom of association one of the dimensions of decent work Colombia must honour the international commitments undertaken by its governments (Obama-Santos Labour Action Plan, Roadmap with the European Union, OECD commitments), and implement the recommendations of international organisations such as the ILO, the rulings of the Supreme Court and constitutional mandates. More specifically, multilevel and sectoral collective bargaining needs to be developed, as recommended by the OECD, and so-called collective pacts prohibited in companies where trade unions are present, as recommended by the ILO.

In addition, Article 56 of the constitution needs to be regulated to define what is meant by essential public services and to prevent the few strikes that take place in the country from being declared illegal on unreasonable grounds.

The resources that the state dedicates to the supervision of employers obligations to ensure labour justice are far below the standards set by the international organisations to which Colombia belongs. The number of labour inspectors is 55 per cent lower than that indicated by the International Labour Organization and the ratio of labour judges to population is 83 per cent lower than the average for OECD countries, for example. Between 1993 and 2019, the number of labour cases increased by 177 per cent, but the number of labour judges remained unchanged. To ensure greater effectiveness of the Ministry of Labours inspection and monitoring responsibilities, the number of inspectors needs to be increased in line with international standards, and both a preventive approach and a rights protection approach should be adopted. More labour judges need to be appointed, and efficient and expeditious mechanisms for access to labour justice should be established to ensure the defence and restitution of labour rights and freedoms that are violated.

A promise left unfulfilled for more than 30 years by the Congress of the Republic is to bring the labour legislation into line with a series of principles set out in Article 53 of the political constitution. One of the priorities the new Congress should set itself is to fulfil this constitutional mandate, which also states that duly ratified international labour conventions should form part of the national legislation.

Given the lack of progress in overcoming gender discrimination in the countrys labour practices, an employment policy with a differentiated approach is needed aimed at promoting and protecting womens employment. The coronavirus pandemic had a highly negative impact on female employment. Although women have been progressing in terms of their levels of participation in education and labour, when faced with social emergencies they return to the home to take care of the family, as indicated by macro employment data. In view of this, urgent action needs to be taken to develop a national policy on the care economy, so that care work is democratised and women do not continue to be the only solution to care needs.

It is also important to include, as part of a differentiated approach, the Ministry of Labours inspection and monitoring of employment in care-related activities, as these are the activities that employ women in the main. The vast majority of domestic work positions are for example occupied by women (94 per cent), and it is a line of work that presents many challenges in terms of the protection of decent work.

Likewise, when promoting the creation of new formal jobs in the country, a differentiated approach should be included in the supply generated, since not only is there a higher level of self-employment among women, but the implications are much more complex due to the structural conditions in which women find themselves in Colombia.

Another pending issue is the anti-union violence that still prevails in our country, targeting trade union activists and leaders.

Coordinated action is needed to change this reality and should aim at eradicating the anti-union culture that legitimises violence; fostering recognition that ending anti-union violence is essential to ensuring non-repetition of the conflict; ending the high levels of impunity that limit victims access to truth and justice; promoting collective and comprehensive reparation for the trade union movement and reflection on the need, legitimacy and importance of the free exercise of trade union activity as a fundamental prerequisite for strengthening democracy and building peace.

Finally, measures are required to address the issue of digital platform work, which takes place in the context of high levels of illegality, precariousness and labour flexibility. These digital and virtual forms of work present major challenges in terms of legal frameworks, as they are not regulated by labour law but by commercial law. Digital work is an unavoidable trend, but labour regulation needs to be the only regulation that applies to these new forms of work organisation. Moreover, not only should employment relations be regulated by labour law; they should also include social protection for all the workers.

A key task for the new government is to rethink the development model that has governed us for more than 30 years, with appalling results. Stable and well-paid employment is only possible if the state implements policies that promote the full development of the countrys productive forces, with emphasis on scientific and technological progress, economic diversification and social, economic and transport infrastructure.

The new development model must guarantee freedom of enterprise but with a leading role for the state in guaranteeing social security; in regulating finance, trade and markets; and in boosting the productive economy.

The state must guarantee access to sufficient credit for productive investment in agriculture, industry, responsible mining, energy, communications and transport, rather than continuing to base our economy on mining and energy extraction activities, the export of primary products and financial-speculative rationales that contribute very little to employment and account for the high levels of informal employment in street sales and the subsistence economy.

This article has been translated from Spanish.

Follow this link:

What labour and trade union agenda should the new Colombian government and Congress pursue? Here are some proposals - Equal Times

Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income …

The headlines are shocking: "Finland plans to pay everyone in the country $876 a month"; "Finland plans to give every citizen a basic income of 800 euros a month"; "Finland plans to give every citizen 800 euros a month and scrap benefits."

The reality is a little less wild. Finland is definitely not close to paying "everyone in the country" or "every citizen" not yet, anyway. What it is doing is weighing a proposal for a basic income: an approach to welfare in which residents would get a flat amount of money every month, regardless of how rich they are.

Finland is, however, conducting a pilot project, with a tiny fraction of the Finnish population participating, according to Olli Kangas, director of research at Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution that runs basic unemployment, health, family, and many other benefit programs. Kangas and his research team have been tasked by the Finnish government with presenting proposals for testing out a basic income.

So, no, a European country is not on the verge of adopting a basic income. If the trial is a success, they could go all in, but that could be years off. Nonetheless, Finland is on the verge of conducting the most methodologically rigorous and comprehensive test of basic income to date. And that alone is a big deal.

The reason Finland is doing this now is thanks to Juha Sipil Finland's center-right prime minister who took office in May after his Centre Party won the largest bloc of seats in parliamentary elections. The party's platform promised to bring a "new political culture of bold experiments," of which the basic income trial is to date by far the boldest. Sipil has been publicly supportive of the idea of a basic income, and Kangas says the government has set aside 20 million (a little under $22 million) to fund the trial. The basics are laid out in the following PowerPoint presentation, which Kangas forwarded to me:

The consortium running the experiment headed by Kangas but including researchers at various research centers, think tanks, and universities plans to file an interim report on March 30 and a final report on November 15 that will lay out how exactly the experiment is to proceed. It will begin in 2017 and last for two years. So far, the consortium has already polled the Finnish population and found widespread support for the idea: 69 percent of Finns reported support for a basic income, with the median respondent calling for a minimum of 1,000 a month ($1,083).

The 800-a-month figure reported in the international press is just illustrative, Kangas says: "800 is just one sum, nothing more," he wrote in an email. "Nothing is fixed yet. It can be any other sum or many other sums." Indeed, Kangas is looking to test more than one model. He emphasizes that nothing is fixed yet. The research group only makes suggestions, and political decision-makers will then determine which models, which research settings, which target groups, and what benefits levels will be experimented with in 2017 and 2018.

There are four options he says ought to be considered and evaluated:

This degree of comprehensiveness puts the Finnish experiment far ahead of basic income trials in the past. US experiments from the 1970s not only focused exclusively on the negative income tax model, but they also only targeted existing welfare recipients. Utrecht, Netherlands, is conducting an experiment, but it's also only giving money to people already getting benefits. By trying a bunch of different models and not merely limiting the checks to existing welfare recipients, Finland's trial could give us much more meaningful results than past experiments.

Ideally, Kangas told me, he'd like to take several different kinds of samples. In the scientifically ideal research setting, there would be a national lottery so he gets a representative random sample of Finns across the country who'll receive a basic income. But he also wants to do regional lotteries that are regionally representative, and then lotteries confined to large towns. He also wants there to be some smaller municipalities that have a large portion of their populations (30 percent, say) get checks. In the PowerPoint, he suggests that in a couple of districts 100 percent of households could get checks.

The idea is to see what happens to a community under a basic income, rather than just to individual people. Having a whole town get benefits could have cascading effects as households escape poverty, as some people use the income guarantee as insurance so they can take risks and form companies, as universities see increased enrollment from people better able to afford supplies, etc. "If people in a smaller area are getting the benefits, their behavior vis-a-vis other people will change, employers and employees will change their behavior, encounters between clients and their street-level bureaucrats (social workers, employment offices, etc.) will change, and the interplay between different bureaucracies will change," Kangas says.

These externalities are not possible to catch in a national random sample, but the national random sampling makes for more reliable results on a household level. Thus, the combination of random nationwide sampling with local experiments would yield the most reliable results. But before any experiments start, all the models, their costs and distributional effects who wins and who loses will be evaluated by rigorous microsimulation, Kangas says.

A community-level trial has only really been tried once before, in Dauphin, Canada, in the 1970s, and the results were quite positive. While the more poorly designed US studies suggested that a negative income tax could deter people from work, in Dauphin only mothers of young children and teenagers appeared to work less; it's not as clear working less is a bad thing when it takes the form of maternity leave, or when it leaves young adults more time for studying and volunteering. Dauphin was instructive, but a more contemporary trial in Finland could provide still better evidence about what happens when an entire town comes under a basic income regime.

There are some ways in which the trial will necessarily be limited. It only lasts two years, and people's behavior after getting a benefit they know will be taken away shortly could differ from their behavior under a permanent basic income system.

The experiment also has a special difficulty due to the Finnish constitution's guarantee of equality, a guarantee that possibly conflicts with a policy randomly giving some people checks with no strings attached while giving others nothing. The PowerPoint suggests that the researchers will seek to get around this through the local experiments (where everyone in one area can get benefits, so people at least on the local level are equal) and perhaps by making participation voluntary, which could lead to some selection bias.

But all told, Kangas is overseeing what is by far the most important and informative test of a basic income to date. It's the first time a non-negative income tax basic income plan will be experimentally tested using rigorous methods in a developed country. That's a huge, huge deal, and we should all be paying attention in 2019 when the evaluations begin to trickle in. It's still very up in the air what the trial will show, and how the government will decide to use its findings.

Read more:

Finland's hugely exciting experiment in basic income ...

Get creative to help artists through pandemic – The Guardian

The Irish pilot of a universal basic income for artists (Editorial, 7 February) is partially the equivalent of Frances support for performing artists. There, dancers, musicians, designers and technicians who are working on a production receive unemployment support. This was introduced in 1936 as the rgime salari intermittent employeurs multiples (system for intermittently salaried workers with multiple employers) to support technicians in the film industry. This created the right to publicly funded unemployment benefits for each day that they were not in work. Recipients have to have done a minimum of 507 hours of paid work during a one-year period.

I understand that this applies more broadly across the arts in France, and a similar system exists in Belgium. In December 2020, the UK trade union Equity called on the government to introduce a basic income guarantee for creative workers in the performing arts. This would provide them with financial stability during the pandemic and ensure that they are free to take work when it arises without fear of losing other forms of support. We should not ignore one of the UKs most successful assets in the way the government seems to be doing.David CockayneLymm, Cheshire

Heres my big idea for an arts policy that your excellent editorial called for: use a windfall tax on pandemic-fuelled profits made by online gambling and video-streaming services to support a new deal of the soul. This would pay organisations to commission art for, with and by children and young people that deserves a wider audience. Ensure that freelancers are paid to be at the heart of this, and go beyond schools to find those young people most at risk of continued social isolation and dislocation.Joe HallgartenLondon

Go here to see the original:

Get creative to help artists through pandemic - The Guardian

BC has better tools than universal basic income to create a more just society, report finds – UBC News

B.C. Legislature in Victoria.

Jan 28, 2021 |For more information, contact Corey Allen

A basic income for all is not the best policy option to effectively tackle poverty and other justice-related issues in B.C., according to an expert panel of economists whose report on the idea of a basic income guarantee was released today.

The report, Covering All the Basics: Reforms For a More Just Society, found that a more successful strategy for creating a more just society would prioritize expansive reforms to current systems, administration, policies, and programs. The goals would be to improve social supports to vulnerable groups, deliver benefits to underserved single working-age adults and low-income renters, and provide targeted basic incomes to people with disabilities and youth aging out of care, among dozens of other recommendations.

Our evidence suggests that a mixed, tailored system is the best approach for positive change, said Dr. David Green, professor at the Vancouver School of Economics at UBC, and the panels chair. British Columbians would stand to benefit the most with different approaches in different circumstances.

The panels co-members are Dr. Jonathan Rhys Kesselman at SFUs school of public policy and Dr. Lindsay Tedds at the University of Calgarys school of public policy.

The report is the culmination of more than two years of study, and is based on more than 40 research papers commissioned by the panel.

The panel made 65 recommendations to the government, including:

For the full report and all of its recommendations, click here.

For the executive summary, click here.

For more about the panel and the research papers, visit bcbasicincomepanel.ca

Find other stories about: Basic income guarantee, Dr. David Green, UBC Vancouver School of Economics

Originally posted here:

BC has better tools than universal basic income to create a more just society, report finds - UBC News

Universal basic income has time come for it? Debate intensifies in pandemic – WRAL Tech Wire

Christine Jardine, a Scottish politician who represents Edinburgh in the UK parliament, was not a fan of universal basic income before the pandemic hit.

It was regarded in some quarters as a kind of socialist idea, said Jardine, a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats party.

But not long after the government shut schools, shops, restaurants and pubs in March with little warning, she started to reconsider her position.

Covid-19 has been [a] game changer, Jardine said. It has meant that weve seen the suggestion of a universal basic income in a completely different light. In her view, the idea sending cash regularly to all residents, no strings attached now looks more pragmatic than outlandish.

She isnt the only one to change her mind. As the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus drags on, support in Europe is growing for progressive policies once seen as pipe dreams of the political left.

Group of economists calls for stimulus checks until economy recovers

In Germany, millions of people applied to join a study of universal basic income that will provide participants with 1,200 ($1,423) a month, while in the United Kingdom, more than 100 lawmakers including Jardine are pushing the government to start similar trials.

Austria, meanwhile, has launched a first-of-its-kind pilot program that will guarantee paying jobs to residents struggling with sustained unemployment in Marienthal, a long-suffering former industrial town about 40 miles southwest of Vienna.

Whether the spike in popularity and research will translate into a wave of action is an open question. But some, like Jardine, see reason for optimism.

Throughout history, times of crisis have produced large changes in the role government plays in our lives. Out of the Great Depression came former President Franklin Delano Roosevelts plan to distribute social security checks in the United States, for example, while the foundations of universal health care in Britain were laid during World War II.

Experts see the coronavirus pandemic as a world-changing event that could result in a similar tectonic shift.

Big political changes generally do follow big upheaval events, said Daniel Nettle, a behavioral scientist at Newcastle University.

Universal basic income, in its purest form, means giving money to everyone, regardless of how much they earn, so they can have greater freedom to move between jobs, train for new positions, provide care or engage in creative pursuits. Interest in the concept has risen in recent years, driven by concerns that automation and the climate crisis would lead to a mass displacement of workers.

Job insecurity caused by the pandemic, however, appears to have generated new levels of support for the policy. One study conducted by Oxford University in March found that 71% of Europeans now favor the introduction of a universal basic income.

For an idea that has often been dismissed as wildly unrealistic and utopian, this is a remarkable figure, researchers Timothy Garton Ash and Antonia Zimmermann wrote in their report.

It probably helps that the pandemic has helped normalize cash transfers from the government, said Nettle, who has also conducted his own polling. According to data compiled by economists at UBS, nearly 39 million people in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and Italy were being paid by governments to work part time, or not at all, as of early May.

Though the numbers have come down, millions are still receiving this kind of support, and a fresh wave of restrictions in Europe has triggered an extension of benefits. The United Kingdom, for example, has extended its furlough program which pays as much as 80% of lost wages, up to 2,500 ($3,321) a month through March.

The rapid blow to the economy dealt by the pandemic has also left policymakers scrambling for quick solutions, said Yannick Vanderborght, a professor at Universit Saint-Louis in Brussels, who specializes in universal basic income. The broad distribution of aid therefore has greater appeal, since it can theoretically be rolled out faster than more targeted measures.

The problem is we need urgent economic support for large groups of workers, Vanderborght said.

As enthusiasm grows for such policies, researchers are taking new steps to study their effectiveness.

The trial of universal basic income in Germany run by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin (DIW) in partnership with the nonprofit Mein Grundeinkommen is now sorting through millions of applicants. Financed by roughly 150,000 private donors, experimenters aim to begin distributing money to 120 individuals starting in spring 2021.

The study will last for three years. It will also track 1,380 people who do not receive the extra cash as a point of comparison.

Participants will be asked to complete regular questionnaires during the study. Questions will range from how many hours theyre working to inquiries about mental wellbeing, values and trust in institutions, according to Jrgen Schupp, a senior DIW research fellow who is managing the project. Those who receive 1,200 each month will be asked to disclose how theyre using the money.

Unlike an experiment conducted in Finland between 2017 and 2018, which targeted people who were unemployed, the German project is looking to distribute cash to a representative sample of the population regardless of employment status.

Theres no guarantee, of course, that the study will show that universal basic income has broad benefits, even though its generated significant attention from supporters of the concept.

We want to convert this engagement into basic scientific knowledge, Schupp said.

The job guarantee pilot in Austria, meanwhile, kicked off in October. It will also last for three years.

The program, which is funded by a regional division of Austrias public employment service, aims to provide paid, long-term jobs to roughly 150 residents of Marienthal the subject of a seminal study on the effects of long-term unemployment in the 1930s who have been unemployed for at least a year. Those who opt in will enroll in a two-month training course before starting a job that matches their skillset, from gardening to child care or home renovations.

The primary goal is to provide social inclusion, meaning and a source of income to the participants, said University of Oxford professor Maximilian Kasy, who co-designed the study. Participants will also be asked to fill out regular assessments on their daily routine, personal health and involvement in the local community.

Sven Hergovich, managing director of the employment service, started pitching a job guarantee program for Marienthal before the pandemic hit. But the employment crisis sparked by Covid-19 has made it even more crucial, he said.

It is time to find new ways [to fight] long-term unemployment, Hergovich said.

As researchers gather data from the pilot programs, political momentum for overhauling social safety nets is building.

In September, the UK Liberal Democrats Jardines party voted to make universal basic income a part of their platform, joining members of the left-wing Labour Party in calling for trials. A petition demanding that Germany implement a universal basic income was debated by a committee of national lawmakers late last month.

But experts note that the loose coalition of universal basic income supporters still contains major divisions.

Theres huge dissent, for example, on whether such programs should stem from deficit spending or higher taxes on the wealthy, as well as whether payments should only go to those in need which would mean they wouldnt be truly universal.

Jardine, for example, thinks universal basic income should replace the current UK welfare system, while also providing people such as caretakers and gig economy workers with regular infusions of cash. But she isnt convinced that payments should be made to those above a certain income threshold.

When you have to turn it from an interest to a program, you start to see some inconsistencies, said Tim Vlandas, a University of Oxford professor of comparative social policy.

And such ideas still have plenty of opponents. The Conservative government under Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom maintains that universal basic income would be too expensive and reduce incentives to work, while failing to reach those who most need help. Chancellor Angela Merkels coalition government has also expressed concerns it could lead to a decline in employment.

Critics also raise fears about the broader economic ramifications of such policies. Some worry, for example, that providing a universal basic income could lead to a spike in inflation.

Jardine, for her part, acknowledges the uphill battle in convincing colleagues that universal basic income is the way forward. But in her view, the pandemic presents an opportunity.

Governments do change and they change their minds, she said.

Go here to see the original:

Universal basic income has time come for it? Debate intensifies in pandemic - WRAL Tech Wire

Basic income for all: Has the Covid crisis given us a new economic model? – The Irish Times

The concept of a universal basic income has already been suggested for arts workers hit by the pandemic, but what if there was a constant security and safety net for all, a payment always delivered to all citizens with no strings attached?

The idea was first floated by Thomas More in Utopia in 1516, is now being advocated by Pope Francis and President Michael D Higgins and is being considered by governments across the world. The basic income guarantee is frequently referred to as universal basic income (UBI).

UBI is a periodic payment paid at regular intervals as a cash payment without conditions, allowing those who receive it to decide what to spend it on. It is paid individually without a means test and is unconditional without a requirement to work or demonstrate a willingness to work.

In Ireland, the Green Party fought for a trial run for UBI to be included in the Programme for Government, and there is to be one at some stage over the next five years.

Among its most ardent supporters is Green Party Dublin Central TD Neasa Hourigan, co-author of the partys policy. The Green Party proposes a system of UBI in Ireland for all citizens in 2024, pending a successful trial. She envisages that the trial in Ireland will take between 18 and 20 months to plan and that the trial itself would run for two to three years.

A basic provision of economic resources would address poverty and economic inequality even though it doesnt promise to eradicate either, Hourigan says. She says that in Ireland we already recognise payments like these child benefit and state pension but UBI would close the gap between the two.

I am particularly wedded to UBI because it would have the greatest uplift for people on the margins of existing social welfare bands. The lowest income families should already be within the support network but those in part-time employment often find themselves just outside State help. UBI would address that and be particularly important for women and those who care.

The Greens are not alone in supporting UBI. It also has advocates in Fianna Fil such as Willie ODea, while outside government the Social Democrats have also expressed interest. The Department of Social Protection has said that the Low Pay Commission will examine UBI in due course.

It has been tested elsewhere. The longest trial run for UBI in the world is in Alaska. Since 1982, the state has been giving every woman, man, and child between $1,000 to $2,000 per year. A 2016 study by the University of Alaska found it reduced poverty up to 20 per cent.

In Finland, a two-year UBI study in 2017 and 2018 saw 2,000 unemployed Finns receive the payments of 560, with no obligation to seek a job and no reduction in payment if they accepted one. Participants reported greater feelings of autonomy, financial security, and confidence in the future, although it did not make them any more likely to find work.

[UBI is] a big idea but a transformative idea, in the way bringing in an old-age pension would have been seen as radical more than 100 years ago, says Bobby Lambert, joint co-ordinator of Basic Income Ireland, a campaign group for UBI in Ireland.

Lambert would rather the Irish trial did not focus on a group like the unemployed and rather a more general group of people, preferably a geographical area. To pay every resident in Ireland the basic income would cost an estimated 6.5 billion per annum.

Some taxes suggested to raise for money for UBI in the Green Party policy include pension funds, site value tax, speculative transaction tax and stamp duty for property trades that are not the principal private residence.

UBI would be given to each recipient from birth or point of residency, from cradle to grave, with the amount given to those under 26 years of age varied depending on wages in a similar way to how social welfare exists today with a set rate given to all adults over 26. Children under 18-years-old would receive 32.31 per week, according to the Green Party plan, with 112.70 for 18 to 21-year-olds, 157.80 for 21 to 25-year-olds and 203 for adults over 26 years old.

UBI is not without its critics. Laura Bambrick, the head of social policy and employment affairs at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, finds the idea of replacing existing welfare safety nets concerning. The money needed to pay adequate UBI, she says, would be better spent on reforming social protection systems and building better quality public services.

Our welfare system is complex precisely because the root causes of poverty are complex, Bambrick says. A one-size-fits-all payment will hurt those with the greatest risk of poverty.

She believes that no UBI payment would work as well as an average European welfare system for the most vulnerable people. And she contends that providing welfare top-ups on top of UBI, as advocated by some proponents of this system, would end up being far too costly. [It] would make for a uniquely Irish UBI, and I look forward to seeing their maths. Hourigan says that the difference between the current welfare rates and UBI will be made up by further State payments.

Welfare and efficient use of resources also concerns Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalisation and Development at Oxford University, who has spoken against UBI in the past.

He says that if you gave everyone half the minimum wage in Ireland, it would be bigger than the budget of all social welfare. He points out that UBI is favoured by tech billionaires and right-wing libertarians as well as left-wing progressives, and it may be used by the rich to normalise the automation of employment and abolish existing welfare supports.

Its giving everyone a low amount of money and we will give unemployed people less than they need and unnecessarily so. That is not the answer to either poverty inequality or the future of work.

Goldin also takes issue at the universality of UBI, saying it is a waste of needed funds to give the income to the wealthy. He says that societal safety nets and raising the wage of low-paid and vulnerable workers through the current system would be a more worthy use of resources.

The other issue frequently brought up by critics of UBI is the danger that an unconditional payment would disincentivise work, even though the trials done so far suggest that payments have little effect on employment.

Danny McCoy,chief executive of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec), says UBI would undermine our current active labour market policies which would result in labour supply challenges and could diminish overall labour cost competitiveness in the economy.

He says that Ibec remains open to debate on the merits of UBI and research that indicates it could be positive for entrepreneurship. On that point, Lambert highlights a UBI project in Namibia, which found it helped local business as they had the financial security to work on business ideas.

Hourigan says that Covid-19 has changed the discussion and been valuable to the UBI debate. There has always been a real resistance to the idea that our current tax system and economic models could support such a payment. The Covid-19 crisis has refocused the minds of many towards the well-being of communities.

UBI is not going to solve the housing crisis, says Lambert. But it is part of a general investment for a better and fairer society.

Continue reading here:

Basic income for all: Has the Covid crisis given us a new economic model? - The Irish Times

What is the Liveable Income Guarantee, and how could it affect you? – Yahoo Finance Australia

The economic crises that have punctuated the 21st century, most notably the global financial crisis and the Covid-19 crisis, have led to a growing realisation that alternatives to our present system arepossible and perhaps inevitable.

In particular, there has been an erosion of the belief that the economy is able to provide a decent income to everyone who wants to work.

A number of proposals have been put forward in the wake of this realisation, among them

universal basic income, which would unconditionally provide every resident (children and adults) with a regular subsistence wage

ajob guaranteein which the government would provide real jobs, at the minimum wage, to all unemployed Australians

Many seem utopian, which isnt necessarily a bad thing its good to look beyond the day-to-day to consider how things could be done differently.

In a new Australian National University Policy Brief we propose something practical, which we are calling aLiveable Income Guarantee(LIG).

It starts with one of the most successful institutions weve got: the age pension.

Before the age pension was introduced in 1908, retired Australians were highly likely to be poor. But now, on some measures, retired Australians are less likely to be in poverty than Australians of less than pension age.

Our proposal is to replicate this success for the entire population.

We are proposing a payment equal to the pension, and subject to the same asset and income tests, that would be provided to everyone who is willing to make a contribution to society consistent with their ability to do so.

Contribution would be defined broadly to maximise contributions. Examples would include full-time study, volunteering, caring for children, ecological care, and starting a small business.

The biggest shift relates to the treatment of unemployed workers and single parents.

JobSeeker is set to return to theunliveablerates of the former Newstart afterthe end of December.

We are suggesting that instead it be lifted to the rate of the age pension, which is about where it used to be before unemployment benefits were frozen in real terms in the 1990s.

Newstart versus the age pension

Dollars per fortnight, single. Source: Ben Phillips ANU, DSS

Parenting Payments have also been notoriously low, especially for single parents, whose support has been cut consecutively by five prime ministers fromHoward to Turnbull.

Unlike some proposals for a universal payment to all citizens, the increased expenditure required for the liveable income guarantee would be relatively modest, as little as A$20 billion a year.

This is roughly comparable to the budget cost of the income tax cuts, primarily directed to high earners, legislated to take effect in2022 and 2024.

The real barriers to the adoption of the proposal are ideological. The central assumption underlying economic policy in Australia has been that in a market economy everyone who wants a decent job is capable getting one.

It has followed that the unemployed are seen as either unwilling to work or suffering from particular deficits that need to be remedied by training and job readiness programscase by case.

Over the first two decades of this century, it has become evident this assumption is incorrect. The global financial crisis and the subsequent swing to austerity produced sustained high unemployment in much of the developed world.

While Australia avoided the worst consequences thanks to well-timed stimulus (here and in China) the unemployment rate has failed to fall below 5 per cent as underemployment has climbed for more than a decade.

Any prospect of a rapid return to full employment have been dashed by the pandemic.

Longer term it is clear that many existing jobs will disappear as a result of technological change, and it isnt clear that our current institutions will be able to manage the process.

While governments should commit to a return to full employment, they are unlikely to be completely successful.

The implementation of a liveable income guarantee would allow us to be better prepared in case they are not and to be better prepared for future disruptions, be they pandemics or anything else.

Story continues

On the brighter side, technological progress has increased our productive capacity to the point where we can afford to support a much wider range of non-market contributions to a market economy. The crisis has shown us how importantmany of those contributions are.

Looking beyond the crisis, it is possible (relatively simple) to create a society in which everyone has a decent standard of living, and no one is excluded.

Providing dignity to everyone who makes a contribution would benefit us all.

Authors:

John Quiggin: Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Elise Klein: Senior Lecturer, Australian National University

Troy Henderson: Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Sydney, University of Sydney

This article originally appeared in The Conversation.

Make your money work with Yahoo Finances daily newsletter. Sign uphereand stay on top of the latest money, news and tech news.Follow Yahoo Finance Australia onFacebook,Twitter,InstagramandLinkedIn.

Read the rest here:

What is the Liveable Income Guarantee, and how could it affect you? - Yahoo Finance Australia

Two Years of Duques Colombia: Deepening Neoliberalism, Increased Violence and a Public Health Crisis – NewsClick

Colombians had a brief moment of celebration following the Supreme Court of Justice's announcement that they were ordering the detention of lvaro Uribe Vlez. Photo: Colombia Informa

August 7 marked two years since Ivn Duque took office as president of Colombia. For the Colombian people, these two years have been marked by incessant attacks on the rights of people, an increase in violence and the deepening of the economic crisis. Added to this, today, Colombia has the eighth highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world and the number of deaths is also steadily increasing.

In this context,Peoples Dispatchspoke to Milena Ochoa, the director of the Corporation for Popular Education and Research National Labor Institute CEDINS and a member ofCongreso de los Pueblos(the Peoples Congress) to understand what two years of the Duque presidency has meant for the Colombian people, and how his poor management has made Colombia one of the countries worst hit by the pandemic. We also asked her about the implications of Colombias Supreme Court of Justice ordering the detention of former president lvaro Uribe Vlez on August 4.

Peoples Dispatch:Two years after the inauguration of Ivn Duque, how do you evaluate his time in office?

Milena Ochoa:We evaluate the two years of the Ivn Duque government as negative for the Colombian people. With respect to democracy, the rule of law and the search for peace, it has been completely negative. The government, led by Ivn Duque, is completely beholden to and acts in favor of the interests of the class that it represents the cattle farmers, the large landowners, the paramilitaries, the drug traffickers and the corrupt. This becomes clearer by the day. We do not have public policies to guarantee rights. Nor do we have possibilities of organization, of opposition and of struggle.

There are two key aspects to point out here. The first has to do with the search for paths to peace with justice. The current government has not respected the agreements with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and it has also blocked the possibility of continuing dialogue with the National Liberation Army (ELN). This is disastrous since the agreements and advances that we made throughout the history of Colombia are steps forward in building a political solution to the social and armed conflict in our country. The agreement with the FARC is understood as a state agreement between governments. But in this case, the government of Duque has not respected these commitments and gone directly against the just struggles for peace in our country and the steps towards building democracy.

Another element is the sharp rise in persecution and political violence. The assassination of social leaders, as well as the persecution and criminalization of social leaders, has increased. Over970 social leaders have been assassinated in Colombiasince the signing of the peace agreement. These killings have not stopped even amid the pandemic. On the contrary, the confinement and isolation measures have created ideal conditions for the continuation of this violence.

Duques rule has also been characterized by the continuation of the neoliberal model with a strong component of repression and social control. Within this neoliberal model, extractivist policies continue despite campaign promises such as a ban on fracking. But they are already doing tests and studies to implement fracking, and in some parts of the country, it has already begun.

These are some of the issues the social organizations are engaging with and struggling against.

PD:Colombia, despite being a relatively small country, has the eighth highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. How did it get there? How did the Duque government fail in containing COVID-19?

MO:There are a number of reasons for Colombia being in its current situation. A key factor is the measures that were taken by the government. But these should not be seen as mistakes because they are in fact consistent with the politics and interests of the ruling class. Thus, when isolation and physical distancing measures are put in place but without a basic income, without basic needs being met and without basic guarantees for people, they become measures of social control. These measures, accompanied by the growing militarization in rural areas and the cities, seek to avoid social outburst and protests that are imminent in moments such as this when inequality becomes so apparent.

The same is with people having to stay at home, but without the possibility of receiving aid. This is when 70% of the population of our country lives in informality and has completely precarious jobs. These measures become control mechanisms rather than steps to guarantee the protection of people.

Additionally, we have seen a series of reforms that are completely against the interests of the Colombian people. We have seen measures that inject public funds into the private sector and to business owners. We have seen how the economy has been reactivated through days of big sales and offers that led to huge crowds gathering in different parts of the cities in the super markets and in other big areas. Overall, we see a policy that seeks to manage the pandemic in a way that focuses on the functioning of the economy rather than on life.

A second and more structural aspect is how the pandemic has accelerated what was already a trend in the crisis of capital itself. The precarity of life, the privatization of rights like healthcare and patriarchal violence all of this has become worse and is spreading even further during the pandemic. The pandemic is sharpening all of these tendencies that were already inherent to capitalism and patriarchy.

Overall, the workers have borne the brunt of this crisis and the pandemic. In Colombia, more than 70% of the people who have died are from strata 1 and 2 (*). These are the precarious workers who are forced to leave their homes to make ends meet, because we are facing a situation of choosing between survival and infection. A large part of the population has been forced to opt for survival over avoiding infection. In response to this, the government has continued with a management strategy that favors the economy and big business but is against the people and their survival.

PD:On August 4, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the detention of ex-president lvaro Uribe Vlez. Within hours, President Duque had already expressed his support to Uribe. What does this decision mean for Uribismo? What does this decision mean for the people of Colombia?

The order for the detention of lvaro Uribe Vlez is a serious, destabilizing blow for Uribismo. For example, in the case of Ivn Duque, it implies recalculating this zone of comfort that was allowing him to manage the pandemic and make reforms and push forward policies with ease. In fact, the pandemic, in some respects, had allowed him to get a breather because his popularity was declining.

So in one way, the detention order forces him to change his stance, even with regard to the Supreme Court of Justice, which as a public functionary and as the president, he cannot do. He should actually respect the decision of the court because it is an institution that imparts justice in this country. However, he has taken the opposite route and this could even open up the possibility of sanctions or a disciplinary process because he cannot make this kind of statement in favor of his leader lvaro Uribe Vlez and against the Supreme Court of Justice.

Duque has already talked about reforming the justice system and his party, the Democratic Center, now talks about doing it via a National Constituent Assembly. If they do carry out any reforms to the justice system, it will be in favor of their interests and will lead to greater impunity.

A third aspect is that lvaro Uribe Vlez has always considered himself a powerful man, a patriarch who could not be questioned, someone who was practically untouchable. So the courts decision is an important symbolic victory. However, it must be recognized that this is a first step and the charges he is facing procedural fraud and bribery are perhaps the least serious crimes and least serious problems for lvaro Uribe Vlez at this moment.

What does this mean for the Colombian people? For the Colombian people, achieving justice is an enormous challenge. This is not only with respect to lvaro Uribe Vlez because like many others at different points of the history of our country, he did not act alone. The crimes against humanity, the massacres, the extrajudicial assassinations, his links to drug traffickers all of this makes his criminal record much bigger but he was never acting alone. The businessmen, other political leaders (both local and national), military forces, paramilitaries, large landowners they are all involved in this situation of injustice and impunity and extreme inequality. For the Colombian people, there are many challenges in taking forward the legal process against lvaro Uribe Vlez and we hope that it will actually advance in a process of truth, in a process of justice, and that he will be judged and sentenced for the crimes that he has committed in this country.

(*)In Colombia, municipalities divide the city into strata based on the socio-economic indicators of the residents. Stratus 1 and 2 are the poorest strata.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

See original here:

Two Years of Duques Colombia: Deepening Neoliberalism, Increased Violence and a Public Health Crisis - NewsClick

Why Kamala Harris VP pick could cost Biden the election – Fox Business

Republican National Committee chairperson Ronna McDaniel says Kamala Harris is a California progressive radial and calls a Biden-Harris ticket 'frightening.'

In what may go down as one of the worst vice-presidential picks in U.S. history, Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that he has chosen Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.,to be his running mate for the 2020 presidential election.

Harris is exactly the opposite of what Biden needed in order to compete with President Trump in November.

BIDEN'S SELECTION OF HARRIS FOR VP MEANS DISASTROUS SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC MODEL COULD GO NATIONWIDE

Harris is from California, a far-left state that Biden was certain to win regardless of who he selected to be his running mate.

She garnered so little support and enthusiasm among Democratic Party voters during the primary season that she chose to drop out of the race in December, more than a month before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Harris has been heavily criticized by many on the far left for her stances on some criminal justice issues while she served as the top prosecutor of San Francisco from 2004 to 2011 and attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017.

For example, she previously opposed a statewide police body camera mandate, fought against a reduction to Californias mandatory minimum law, and opposed the legalization of marijuana --a position she has since reversed.

TRUMP VS. BIDEN: STOCK MARKET WILL PICK THE WINNER

She has a long, well-documented record of political opportunism and grandstanding, going all the way back to her days in San Francisco.

According to an SF Weekly report from 2009, The cops, in turn, argue that District Attorney Kamala Harris, a striver and candidate for Attorney General, is loath to take difficult cases lest she blemish her political future with an embarrassing loss.

But worst of all, Harris has in recent years adopted increasingly more radical policy positions, frequently aligning herself with socialist politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

BIDEN PLEDGES TO ROLL BACK TRUMP'S $2 TRILLION TAX CUTS

Perhaps the most notable example is Harriss support for Ocasio-Cortezs Green New Deal, the most radical, socialistic proposal in history.

Among other things, AOCs Green New Deal resolution, which Harris co-sponsored in the Senate in 2019, includes a call for single-payer health care, retrofitting every home and business building in the country, a new system of publicly-owned banks, free college tuition, universal access to healthy food, a federal jobs guarantee, the complete destruction of the fossil-fuel industry and requirements that would prevent Americans from purchasing gasoline-powered cars.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

All told, the American Action Forum estimates the Harris-backed Green New Deal could cost as much as $94 trillion over 10 years, making it the most expensive plan ever proposed.

Harriss support for the Green New Deal and other socialistic policies such as a basic income program for most Americansand a $2,000 monthly stimulus check that would be paid out for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, put her squarely outside of the political mainstream and moves the Biden campaign even further to the left than it has already drifted over the past two months.

When you add up all of Harriss proposals, its hard to see how her platform differs substantially from that of Bernie Sanders. Although Harris denies she is a socialist, her recent track record suggests that is exactly what she is.

KAMALA HARRIS, BIDEN'S RADICAL VP PICK SIGNALS BAD NEWS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS, ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Bidens decision to choose Harris is bizarre, to say the least. She provides almost no political benefits and a whole lot of far-left baggage.

The reason Biden was chosen by Democratic Party primary voters in the first place is precisely because they didnt want a socialist on the ticket, and yet, thats exactly what they have ended up with now that Harris has joined the Biden campaign.

Harriss socialist policy views will not play well in the conservative Midwest and moderate upper Midwest. Middle-of-the-road voters in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as swing states further to the east, like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, have no interest in voting for the socialist policies championed by Harris.

When they find out just how radical Bidens new running mate is, it could very well prove to be catastrophic for his campaign.

With that in mind, the only person who should be happier with this pick than Kamala Harris is Donald Trump.

Justin Haskins (@JustinTHaskins) is the executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor-in-chief ofStoppingSocialism.com.He's the author of "Socialism Is Evil: The Moral Case Against Marx's Radical Dream."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Go here to see the original:

Why Kamala Harris VP pick could cost Biden the election - Fox Business

Magic Reports Second Quarter and First Half 2020 Financial Results with Record-Breaking Operating Income of $9.8 million, reflecting a 22% Year Over…

OR YEHUDA, Israel, Aug. 13, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Magic Software Enterprises Ltd. (NASDAQandTASE: MGIC),a global provider of end-to-end integration and application development platforms solutions and IT consulting services, announced today its financial results for the second quarter and first half ended June 30, 2020.

Financial Highlights for the Second Quarter Ended June 30, 2020

Financial Highlights for the Six-Month Period Ended June30, 2020

Declaration of Dividend for the First Half of 2020

In accordance with its dividend distribution policy, the Companys board of directors declared a semi-annual cash dividend in the amount of 17.5 cents per share and in the aggregate amount of approximately $8.6million, reflecting approximately 75% of its distributable profits for the first half of 2020.

The dividend is payable on September 10, 2020 to all of the Companys shareholders of record at the close of the NASDAQ Global Select Market on August 27, 2020.

In accordance with Israeli tax law, the dividend is subject to withholding tax at source at the rate of 30% (if the recipient of the dividend is at the time of distribution or was at any time during the preceding 12-month period the holder of 10% or more of the Company's share capital) or 25% (for all other dividend recipients) of the dividend amount payable to each shareholder of record, subject to applicable exemptions.

The dividend will be paid in US dollars on the ordinary shares of Magic Software Enterprises that are traded both on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

Guy Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer of Magic Software Enterprises, said:

In spite of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in March 2020, our outlook for 2020 has improved due to an increased demand, from existing and new customers, for digital transformation projects, as COVID-19 forced organizations and their employees to adapt to the new forced reality and work environment.

We are pleased to witness that our strong and stable financial position, coupled with our constant efforts to become a trusted advisor of the digital transformation market, are paying off, and we will continue to make our best efforts to enhance our portfolio, both organically and through acquisitions in order to offer the best one-stop-shop for digital transformation.

Conference Call Details

Magics management will host a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 10:00 am Eastern Daylight Time (5:00 p.m. Israel Daylight Time) to review and discuss Magics results.

To participate, please call one of the following teleconferencing numbers. Please begin placing your calls at least 10 minutes before the conference call commences. If you are unable to connect using the toll-free numbers, call the international dial-in number.

NORTH AMERICA: +1-888-668-9141

UK: 0-800-917-5108

ISRAEL: 03-918-0609

ALL OTHERS: +972-3-918-0609

For those unable to join the live call, a replay of the call will be available under the Investor Relations section of Magics website, http://www.magicsoftware.com.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release contains the following non-GAAP financial measures: Non-GAAP gross profit, Non-GAAP operating income, Non-GAAP net income attributable to Magics shareholders and Non-GAAP basic and diluted earnings per share.

Magic believes that these non-GAAP measures of financial results provide useful information to management and investors regarding certain financial and business trends relating to Magic's financial condition and results of operations. Magic's management uses these non-GAAP measures to compare the Company's performance to that of prior periods for trend analyses, for purposes of determining executive and senior management incentive compensation and for budgeting and planning purposes. These measures are used in financial reports prepared for management and in quarterly financial reports presented to the Company's board of directors. The Company believes that the use of these non-GAAP financial measures provides an additional tool for investors to use in evaluating ongoing operating results and trends and in comparing the Company's financial measures with other software companies, many of which present similar non-GAAP financial measures to investors.

Management of the Company does not consider these non-GAAP measures in isolation or as an alternative to financial measures determined in accordance with GAAP. The principal limitation of these non-GAAP financial measures is that they exclude significant expenses and income that are required by GAAP to be recorded in the Company's financial statements. In addition, they are subject to inherent limitations as they reflect the exercise of judgment by management about which expenses and income are excluded or included in determining these non-GAAP financial measures. In order to compensate for these limitations, management presents non-GAAP financial measures in connection with GAAP results. Magic urges investors to review the reconciliation of its non-GAAP financial measures to the comparable GAAP financial measures, which it includes in press releases announcing quarterly financial results, including this press release, and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate the Company's business.

Non-GAAP measures used in this press release are included in the financial tables of this release. These non-GAAP measures exclude the following items:

Reconciliation tables of the most comparable GAAP financial measures to the non-GAAP financial measures used in this press release are included in the financial tables of this release.

About Magic Software Enterprises

Magic Software Enterprises Ltd. (NASDAQ and TASE: MGIC) is a global provider of mobile and cloud-enabled application and business integration platforms.

For more information, visit http://www.magicsoftware.com.

Forward Looking Statements

Some of the statements in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as "will," look forward, "expect," "believe" and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements (although not all forward-looking statements include such words). These forward-looking statements, which may include, without limitation, projections regarding our future performance and financial condition, are made on the basis of managements current views and assumptions with respect to future events. Any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance and actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statement. These statements speak only as of the date they were made, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. We operate in a changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time and it is not possible for us to predict all risks that may affect us. For more information regarding these risks and uncertainties as well as certain additional risks that we face, you should refer to the Risk Factors detailed in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2019 and subsequent reports and filings made from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Magic is a registered trademark of Magic Software Enterprises Ltd. All other product and company names mentioned herein are for identification purposes only and are the property of, and might be trademarks of, their respective owners.

Press Contact:

Noam AmirMagic Software Enterprisesir@magicsoftware.com

Link:

Magic Reports Second Quarter and First Half 2020 Financial Results with Record-Breaking Operating Income of $9.8 million, reflecting a 22% Year Over...

Why We Should Turn to Earned Income Tax Credit to Aid Those Struggling Through Pandemic – The National Interest

The pandemic is driving American families to the edge, with tens of millions at risk of losing their homes and over 1 in 10 U.S. adults reporting their households didnt have enough to eat in the previous week.

While Congress debates extending unemployment benefits that expired on July 31 and other additional aid, theres an important program that already exists that could help struggling Americans get through the crisis however long it lasts. Known as the earned income tax credit, or EITC, it provides aid primarily to the working poor. In a typical year, it lifts more than 8.5 million people out of poverty, while improving the health and well-being of parents and children.

Since the credit depends on earned income, many families may be at risk of losing all or some of the benefit because so many were laid off as economies in many states shut down. Even as restaurants and other businesses reopen, its likely that many of those who lost their jobs will remain unemployed or underemployed for many months or longer.

Our own research shows changes to the structure of the U.S. economy, with the sharp growth of low-wage and unstable jobs, is weakening the EITCs effectiveness at fighting poverty.

Some lawmakers are trying to reform the EITC as part of the next coronavirus bailout to ensure it helps more Americans and make it more like a basic income guarantee. We believe doing so would not only ensure low-income Americans continue to have access to this vital tax credit during the pandemic, additional changes could also strengthen the program for years to come.

The EITC success story

The earned income tax credit, which supplements earnings for many low- and moderate-income workers, has helped buffer economic hardship for single parents and other recipients since it was created in 1975.

Eligible taxpayers receive the credit after they file their taxes. And unlike a deduction, even those who didnt pay any income tax can receive the credit, which theyll get as part of their refund. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia also offer their own EITCs, typically based on the federal credit.

In 2019, taxpayers received about US$63 billion in credits through the federal EITC, making it the governments largest cash safety net program for working families with children. Recipients qualify for the credit based on how much money they earn and depending on their marital status and number of children. The benefit rises with each dollar earned until reaching a peak and then phasing out.

For example, in 2019, a single person earning $13,545 a year received $392, while a typical family of four with an annual income of $22,261 received roughly $2,951 which comes out to an extra $250 a month.

Put another way, a family with one child receives an average credit of 34 cents for every dollar of earned income, which rises to 40 cents for two and 45 cents for three or more children.

The tax credit has been tremendously successful. In 2018, the latest data available, the EITC lifted about 10.6 million people out of poverty and reduced its severity for another 17.5 million. And since its inception, it has reduced child poverty by 25%.

But the benefits extend well beyond providing struggling families with more income. Research shows the credit has helped improve the mental and physical health of mothers, improves perinatal health of mothers and their children, improves child development, reduces incidents of low birth weight among infants and improves childrens cognitive function.

It also enjoys strong bipartisan support because of its focus on encouraging and supporting working.

But the EITC only helps individuals able to find work, which becomes a bigger challenge in a pandemic or severe recession.

Our unpublished calculations from a national representative survey showed that about a fifth of the 25 million EITC beneficiaries in 2019 lost their jobs from March to April and over 16% remained unemployed in June, the latest data we have available. That means over 4 million working families could lose a large portion of their benefits in 2021, depending on a variety of factors.

Reforming the EITC

While these problems are most obvious in a recession, theyve worsened over the past four decades as the labor market has changed.

The share of workers doing low-skill, low-wage work has jumped from 42% in 1980 to about 54% in 2016. And an increasing number of these jobs are in the precarious gig economy that doesnt provide stable incomes. That means workers are less likely to see a steady aid from the EITC because the maximum benefits are gained when working full time at minimum wage.

The EITCs also provides very little support to those without children. A nonpartisan think tank estimates that about 5.8 million adult workers without any children as dependents are taxed into poverty or impoverished further each year because their EITC is too small to offset their federal income and payroll taxes.

House Democrats are pushing to reform the EITC in the next coronavirus relief bill. Specifically, theyd like to tweak the credits phase-in so that workers receive more benefits for fewer hours worked, allowing those who lost their jobs and remained unemployed for the remainder of 2020 to maintain benefits similar to last year. They also would lower the minimum age for receiving the credit to 18 from 25 for certain vulnerable groups like those experiencing homeless.

Wed suggest also increasing the benefit for tax filers without children and lowering the minimum age for everyone so that the millions of young people graduating from high school and college into an economic recession can get additional support.

These reforms would not only help now but could also deepen the impact of the EITC by creating an income floor for more people as the economy changes, essentially creating something very much like a basic income guarantee. A key difference, however, is that most universal basic income proposals dont require recipients to work.

While we cannot fully predict how interactions between job losses and the tax and benefit system will play out, this moment presents an opportunity to test reforms that would benefit low-income working families for years and decades to come.

Rebecca Hasdell, Postdoctoral fellow, Stanford University; Alice Milivinti, Postdoctoral Researcher, Stanford University, and David Rehkopf, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters

Read the rest here:

Why We Should Turn to Earned Income Tax Credit to Aid Those Struggling Through Pandemic - The National Interest

Millions of America’s working poor may lose out on key anti-poverty tax credit because of the pandemic – The Conversation US

The pandemic is driving American families to the edge, with tens of millions at risk of losing their homes and over 1 in 10 U.S. adults reporting their households didnt have enough to eat in the previous week.

While Congress debates extending unemployment benefits that expired on July 31 and other additional aid, theres an important program that already exists that could help struggling Americans get through the crisis however long it lasts. Known as the earned income tax credit, or EITC, it provides aid primarily to the working poor. In a typical year, it lifts more than 8.5 million people out of poverty, while improving the health and well-being of parents and children.

Since the credit depends on earned income, many families may be at risk of losing all or some of the benefit because so many were laid off as economies in many states shut down. Even as restaurants and other businesses reopen, its likely that many of those who lost their jobs will remain unemployed or underemployed for many months or longer.

Our own research shows changes to the structure of the U.S. economy, with the sharp growth of low-wage and unstable jobs, is weakening the EITCs effectiveness at fighting poverty.

Some lawmakers are trying to reform the EITC as part of the next coronavirus bailout to ensure it helps more Americans and make it more like a basic income guarantee. We believe doing so would not only ensure low-income Americans continue to have access to this vital tax credit during the pandemic, additional changes could also strengthen the program for years to come.

The earned income tax credit, which supplements earnings for many low- and moderate-income workers, has helped buffer economic hardship for single parents and other recipients since it was created in 1975.

Eligible taxpayers receive the credit after they file their taxes. And unlike a deduction, even those who didnt pay any income tax can receive the credit, which theyll get as part of their refund. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia also offer their own EITCs, typically based on the federal credit.

In 2019, taxpayers received about US$63 billion in credits through the federal EITC, making it the governments largest cash safety net program for working families with children. Recipients qualify for the credit based on how much money they earn and depending on their marital status and number of children. The benefit rises with each dollar earned until reaching a peak and then phasing out.

For example, in 2019, a single person earning $13,545 a year received $392, while a typical family of four with an annual income of $22,261 received roughly $2,951 which comes out to an extra $250 a month.

Put another way, a family with one child receives an average credit of 34 cents for every dollar of earned income, which rises to 40 cents for two and 45 cents for three or more children.

The tax credit has been tremendously successful. In 2018, the latest data available, the EITC lifted about 10.6 million people out of poverty and reduced its severity for another 17.5 million. And since its inception, it has reduced child poverty by 25%.

But the benefits extend well beyond providing struggling families with more income. Research shows the credit has helped improve the mental and physical health of mothers, improves perinatal health of mothers and their children, improves child development, reduces incidents of low birth weight among infants and improves childrens cognitive function.

It also enjoys strong bipartisan support because of its focus on encouraging and supporting working.

But the EITC only helps individuals able to find work, which becomes a bigger challenge in a pandemic or severe recession.

Our unpublished calculations from a national representative survey showed that about a fifth of the 25 million EITC beneficiaries in 2019 lost their jobs from March to April and over 16% remained unemployed in June, the latest data we have available. That means over 4 million working families could lose a large portion of their benefits in 2021, depending on a variety of factors.

While these problems are most obvious in a recession, theyve worsened over the past four decades as the labor market has changed.

The share of workers doing low-skill, low-wage work has jumped from 42% in 1980 to about 54% in 2016. And an increasing number of these jobs are in the precarious gig economy that doesnt provide stable incomes. That means workers are less likely to see a steady aid from the EITC because the maximum benefits are gained when working full time at minimum wage.

The EITCs also provides very little support to those without children. A nonpartisan think tank estimates that about 5.8 million adult workers without any children as dependents are taxed into poverty or impoverished further each year because their EITC is too small to offset their federal income and payroll taxes.

House Democrats are pushing to reform the EITC in the next coronavirus relief bill. Specifically, theyd like to tweak the credits phase-in so that workers receive more benefits for fewer hours worked, allowing those who lost their jobs and remained unemployed for the remainder of 2020 to maintain benefits similar to last year. They also would lower the minimum age for receiving the credit to 18 from 25 for certain vulnerable groups like those experiencing homeless.

Wed suggest also increasing the benefit for tax filers without children and lowering the minimum age for everyone so that the millions of young people graduating from high school and college into an economic recession can get additional support.

These reforms would not only help now but could also deepen the impact of the EITC by creating an income floor for more people as the economy changes, essentially creating something very much like a basic income guarantee. A key difference, however, is that most universal basic income proposals dont require recipients to work.

While we cannot fully predict how interactions between job losses and the tax and benefit system will play out, this moment presents an opportunity to test reforms that would benefit low-income working families for years and decades to come.

View original post here:

Millions of America's working poor may lose out on key anti-poverty tax credit because of the pandemic - The Conversation US

Could $50 a Week Empower High School Students to Set and Meet Education Goals? This New Orleans School Aims to Find Out – redlakenationnews.com

Amid the steepest economic decline in recorded U.S. history, there is renewed interest in the concept of universal basic income cash payments to low-income families. Now, with no end to the pandemic yet in sight, a New Orleans high school is poised to carry out a first-of-its-kind small-scale pilot to see whether modest grants to seniors will boost their prospects.

Launched three years ago with the goal of closing the Black-white wealth gap in its students lifetimes, Rooted School hopes to give 52 weekly transfers of $50 via a cash app to 10 members of the Class of 2021, starting in September. In partnership with the New Orleans education innovation incubator 4.0 Schools, which is funding the grants and the study of their effectiveness, Rooteds leaders hope to hire two university researchers to track its results.

The micro-pilot has a goal of graduating students from high school with the job skills to guarantee the economic stability to enable them to stay in college.

Could $50 a Week Empower High School Students to Set and Meet Education Goals? This New Orleans School Aims to Find Out

See original here:

Could $50 a Week Empower High School Students to Set and Meet Education Goals? This New Orleans School Aims to Find Out - redlakenationnews.com