Basic income is a guaranteed income system where every citizen is given a fixed and equal amount of money every month. I will mention the merits of this system later. First, I would like to briefly consider two common objections, before turning to a third which is a little more sophisticated yet is by no means valid.
Objection 1: People will stop working. Society will therefore fail to provide for the basic necessities of its members.
It is true that many people will choose to not work for wages. However, wage labor is only one form of labor. Many other forms of organizing labor exist in our global society: NPOs/NGOs (just think of the volunteer groups that play such an important role in disaster relief efforts), work sharing, volunteer organizations, local communities, and of course informal network of friends.
In fact, proponents of basic income argue that the system will actually encourage people to learn more skills which allow them to contribute to society in a wider variety of ways. This is how, for example, the medieval and early modern guild systems developed - that is, a person who wanted to learn a new skill would join a guild that specialized in the sorts of work that enhanced such skills. The pre-modern apprenticeship culture in Japan is another great example of a non-capitalist, non-market based skill acquisition system.
Another way of countering this objection is to point out that the objector's understanding of labor and the labor as understood by the basic income earner will necessarily be very different. For the objector, labor is a means for getting paid money. To work means to earn money, and to live means to spend money. However, this is simply a distortion of what labor is. Originally, labor is meant as a way of life as well as a way of producing use value. If a person wants to join a community or a society, he or she can only do so through some form of labor. And if a person is really concerned about the survival of the members of his or her society, then they would not think about how to earn money, but rather think about what needs to get done in order to bring about and maintain stability.
In short, a basic income system liberates labor from being exchanged with a fixed amount of money. It changes the way citizens conceive of labor, and will allow them to develop skills according to need-based and community-based cultural norms. These are not utopian visions, but rather are facts of history.
Objection 2: There are not enough government funds to cover the costs.
Let us then take a look at the budget of the Japanese government - because that is where I happen to live (you can try the same with your own government and see if this objection really holds or not.) At present, the Japanese government spends a little over 90 trillion JPY in social welfare. If this were simply distributed to each and every Japanese citizen, every citizen will be given a guaranteed annual income of about 620,000 JPY which is about 50,000 JPY per month.
50,000 JPY per month is actually an almost perfect amount. If too much is given, and if citizens cannot spend the money, then there will be a problem of circulation. Now it is possible to implement a taxation system such that people who hoard or save excessively are made to return the extra money back into the pool of the national budget. Nonetheless, it would be much more efficient if citizens were simply given the amount necessary to survive and no more. If one wanted to consume luxury goods or go on trips or do anything that might cost quite a lot of money, then one would need to work and save in order to do so, which is perfectly fair.
Now the objector might continue by saying that part of government revenue comes from the national health insurance program and the national retirement pension program, and that by introducing the basic income system, these programs would have to shut down, which implies a shortage of funds. However, these programs bring only about 20 trillion JPY in revenue. On the other hand, the Japanese government pays 100 trillion JPY in bond interests. Sort out the bonds that have gone "toxic" and reduce spending on bond interests by 20%, and your costs are completely covered. This can be done through a variety of techniques; some can be conventional (merely evaluating the existing bonds) while others can be more radical (replacing current bonds with zero-interest bonds.)
Here again, there is a difference between the objector's concept of debt and debt as it is conceived by the advocate of basic income. For the objector, debt is something which has to be repaid at all costs, even at the cost of letting the members of the state starve or wander in the streets. This, indeed, is the concept of debt that has dominated most of the history of humanity for almost 5,000 years. However, the advocate of basic income conceives of debt as something which ought to be paid back only according to one's ability. From Aquinas onwards, there is a tradition of thought which permits debtors to default on their debt, or starving people to steal, without being penalized for doing so. In the same way, the debt of the state ought to be written off to the extent that is necessary for guaranteeing the survival of all of its citizens. The state can do this by introducing the appropriate laws.
Objection 3: The labor market will dry up, and corporations will move to other countries. This will substantially reduce tax revenues, which will make it impossible for the government to maintain the basic income system.
As of 2014, the Japanese government's tax revenue adds up to about 55 trillion JPY. Therefore, this objection is more substantial than the preceding two. Indeed, if corporations withdrew altogether from Japan, and if Japan lost its source of tax revenue, would not the system collapse?
It is important to notice that the basic income system produces a kind of a guaranteed market. Every month, 130 million people are in the market with 50,000 JPY each, ready to spend it on necessities. This makes it easy for business owners to predict the sort of things that will sell out, and will be able to reduce risk of overstocking and loss. Therefore, basic income would create a sustainable market which would be very attractive to businesses. This will be a strong incentive for citizens to start their own businesses and hire themselves as well as others around them. And, crucially, they can hire their friends without making those friends dependent upon them -- a crucial factor that allows business owners and employees to maintain a long-term good relationship. These considerations show that, while the rate of surplus value and therefore the rate of profit might diminish due to lack of exploitation opportunities, businesses can still hire people and sustain itself in a state that distributes basic income.
However, in order for the government to secure revenues, it is crucial to have a set of laws that discourage long-term hoarding and also prohibit unearned income, i.e. income due to rent, interest, and inheritance. How such a system ought to be designed involves many issues which require detailed consideration.
The problem of unearned income can be overcome if the right kind of laws are established. Once this is done, there will be a strong incentive for citizens to run businesses not for the sake of realizing the fantasy of a work-free life, but rather of becoming part of a society to which they belong. Being an idle consumer is in fact deeply alienating and dehumanizing. In the face of a choice between doing nothing and doing something which others ask of you, there is very little incentive to choose the former. And if the market does not provide the kind of services that the idle consumer needs, then it is that consumer's responsibility to provide such a service. For example, if it is essential for him or her to consume goods produced at a certain factory, and if nobody is willing to work at that factory, then he or she will not get those goods. The question arises as to whether one really does want or need the goods. If one does, then one would by necessity choose to work in the factory. If one doesn't, then one would stop wanting such goods, and the need for factory work disappears altogether.
As it is clear, this issue involves many small decisions at the national, communal, and individual levels. Therefore, unlike the previous two objections, there is no clean and straightforward way to address the issue. Nonetheless, the above general considerations ought to show that it is in fact more than plausible to suppose that businesses will continue to thrive in a society with basic income, and that a decent market will continue to function, in some cases discouraging consumers from acts of conspicuous consumption, in other cases encouraging them to do the work necessary to produce what they really need.
In today's Japan, there exists a significantly pro-work ethic and tradition, combined with a more than workable budget, which allows the state, if it so chooses, to introduce a basic income system right away. The barriers are mainly ideological, and it is important for writers who are advocating basic income to continue to criticize certain popular objections which are, on closer inspection, not supported by historical evidence but are rather ideological constructs.
To conclude, basic income has many merits besides guaranteeing the survival of all citizens. It also allows the government to cut spending on its bureaucracy, and it also guarantees a relatively stable consumer market. It prevents corporations from coercing individuals to work under horrendous conditions only for the sake of surviving. It also places a check on capitalist growthism, and thus allows the state to make real material progress in mitigating climate change issues. It turns the mechanization of work not into a crisis but rather into an opportunity and advantage. Moreover, it discourages businesses to try and create new markets of conspicuous consumption just for the sake of securing additional revenue. Finally, basic income alters the concept of money and labor quite radically, to the point where it might single-handedly allow the state and its citizens to survive through future crises of capitalism which are bound to intensify.
For information on pilot studies related to basic income implementation, this report by bigpush.net is thorough and detailed.
Support basic income: sign this petition on avaaz.org. In basic income politics, petitions make a real difference.
To conclude, basic income has many merits besides guaranteeing the survival of all citizens. It also allows the government to cut spending on its bureaucracy, and it also guarantees a relatively stable consumer market. It prevents corporations from coercing individuals to work under horrendous conditions only for the sake of surviving. It also places a check on capitalist growthism, and thus allows the state to make real material progress in mitigating climate change issues. It turns the mechanization of work not into a crisis but rather into an opportunity and advantage. Moreover, it discourages businesses to try and create new markets of conspicuous consumption just for the sake of securing additional revenue. Finally, basic income alters the concept of money and labor quite radically, to the point where it might single-handedly allow the state and its citizens to survive through future crises of capitalism which are bound to intensify.
For information on pilot studies related to basic income implementation, this report by bigpush.net is thorough and detailed.
Support basic income: sign this petition on avaaz.org. In basic income politics, petitions make a real difference.
