In 1980 the German Green Party adopted its Federal Program which included a call for a guaranteed annual income. This was part of a broad program which called for an ecological and social transformation of society. Not only did the Greens reject the Soviet model of state socialism, they also rejected capitalism as inherently destructive of the environment and exploitative of human beings. By its nature, capitalism produces gross inequalities in wealth, income, status and power. This system was to be replaced by a new social order with workers’ ownership and control of the private sector and workers’ control in all public institutions. Economic planning would be done by participatory democracy at the local and regional levels. The GAI and the reduction of the work week for all would be funded by a dramatic reduction in military spending.

This policy was reversed after 1990-1 following an internal political struggle. Today the German Greens, who have been partners in government with the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), are committed to a “modernization” of the German economy which involves a dramatic reduction in the programs and benefits for unemployment insurance, social assistance, and pensions. The original GAI has faded from memory.

At least since 1980 we have seen governments in all the industrialized countries progressively cut taxes on those with high incomes, corporations, and wealth. We have seen an expansion of regressive consumption taxes.  In all these countries there has been a steady roll back of the benefits of the welfare state. These governments have been Liberal, Conservative, Social Democratic, and broad left coalitions including Green parties. Without exception. We have seen the same thing here in Saskatchewan with the Romanow-Calvert government. For example, during the NDP government of Allan Blakeney (1971-82) social assistance rates were above the Basic Needs level, and they are now well below that level.

Well what about the Canadian Green Party? At their August 2006 convention, the GPC replaced its historic commitment to progressive taxation. It now calls for “tax shifting” from taxes on income and corporations to consumption taxes on environmentally destructive activities. Their new policy on carbon taxes, strongly supported by Elizabeth May,  is a regressive consumption tax which offers no offset for low income people. In Denmark and The Netherlands, which have the most advanced ecological taxes, such taxes now make up 50% of the cost of electricity for the home and 50% of the cost of home heating fuels. The Green taxes implemented in Europe are occasionally offset to some degree for employees, but rarely offset by any compensation for low income people who are not employed or in the work force.

Any GAI we are likely to get in such a political context will be similar to that proposed by the MacDonald Royal Commission, around $10,000 per year. Can anyone live on that? If we even get this kind of a GAI, it will likely be because of support from business interests. It is naive to suggest that a GAI of this order will result in any higher wages. We already have the example of government subsidies to private businesses as job creation programs, usually providing 50% of the wages paid to new employees. Does this result in a higher wage?  Not in the least. The employer accepts the subsidy, and the wages remain what is normal in that economic sector. A GAI in these political circumstances would be another subsidy for business. It would be justified as a way to continue with low wages in order to be able to compete with offshore low wage industries.

I have been active in the general anti-poverty movement for years. I am a member of NAPO. I receive the GIS because my fixed income is below the poverty line. The best that we can do today is to continue to struggle to keep what is left of the welfare state and devote our efforts to building a new political movement that will challenge the present status quo. Pushing for a GAI in the present political context is a dead end and a diversion.

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist, retired from the formal work force and living on a fixed income which consists of the OAS, CPP and GIS.


   

Comments

Written by Hugo Chavez on 2007-06-20 10:33:53 Jack,    It is time to step out of the time machine and join the new century. GAI is the best alternative to reach your goals and by stating that it will probably end up like this or that, you have given up before the fight has begun.    Also, I am not opposed to job subsidies for businesses and if a GAI creates more jobs or someone can take a low wage job and still live comfortably then isnt that an accomplishment in itself?

What would the real Hugo Chavez do? Written by warnock on 2007-06-25 09:16:23 The real Hugo Chavez has a strong commitment to ending poverty, unemployment and inequality. If he were head of the NDP and Premier, he would certainly return to a progressive tax system on wealth, corporations and high incomes. Royalties on the extraction of natural resources would be raised at least to the levels of the past. He would re-create Sask Oil and by legislation give them 60% of all oil developments. He would merge Sask Energy with Sask Power and once again give the Crown corporation complete control over natural gas development. With the additional revenues (at least $3 billion) he would raise social assistance rates to a decent level and put lots of cash into affordable housing. He would also likely nationalize what is left of the forest industry and turn it over to First Nations to develop with workers' control. He might recreate Sask Forest Products and the Timber Board to give assistance.  In the last election in Venezuela 94% of the electorate voted and 60% voted for Chavez and his party. With such a policy record in Saskatchewan, who knows, the 40% who do not vote now might come out and give support to the NDP!

Turn to the Heavens.... Written by www.livableincome.org on 2007-06-27 00:05:15 ABOUT Keynote Speaker Guy Standing: current co-chair of the Basic Income  Earth Network (BIEN)  http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/BIEN/EC_temp.htm  and former Director of Socio-Economic Security, International Labour  Organization    Author of: "Why unions should campaign for a basic income":    "Trade unionists, as well as all those who count themselves as  egalitarians and advocates of social solidarity, should support a basic  income as a right of a good society in which dignified work could  flourish… A basic income would also enhance real freedom…. It would  encourage people to gain greater personal control over how they use  their time. Anybody who counts himself or herself as on 'the left'  should be keen for the poor and the vulnerable gaining more control over  the key assets of society and time is one of them. By the same token,  granting a basic income would help to legitimize forms of work other  than labour, such as care work and community work… There is a huge  opportunity to develop a new progressive vision, if we have the courage  to take it and have open minds… A basic income should be part of that."  Guy Standing, European Trade Union Institute (TRANSFER), Review 04/2004.  Go to this web page with link to download the full article.  http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/protection/ses/frame.htm    Guy Standing is also author of the 2002 book: "Beyond The New  Paternalism" where he "argues for a complex egalitarianism, in which  basic income security is recognized as a right for all. Work (including  voluntary, community and care work), and not labor, must be the basis of  a 'good society,' and policies must be judged by their capacity to  promote occupational security."  http://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-New-Paternalism-Guy-Standing/dp/185984345X    He is also co-editor of "A BASIC INCOME GRANT FOR SOUTH AFRICA"  Standing, Guy & Samson, Michael. (Juta Academic Publishers), 2003, 152p.  "Edited by Guy Standing (ILO and co-chairman of BIEN) and Michael Samson  (Director of Research for Cape Town's Economic Policy Research  Institute), this is the most comprehensive book so far on the basic  income proposal for South Africa, with contributions by both proponents  and critics.  SOURCE: http://www.widerquist.com/usbig/25JAN-FEB2004.htm    And the editor of the 2005 book: "Promoting Income Security as a Right:  Europe and North America, ( London: Anthem Press, paperback, 601pp.)    He is also Professor of Economic Security, University of Bath, and  Professor of Labour Economics, Monash University and is one of the  leading speakers on Basic Income in the world.

Written by Hugo Chavez on 2007-06-28 14:30:33 Jack, the REAL Chavez is also curtailing freedom of the press. Is that part of your plan, too?

More good news. Written by www.livableincome.org on 2007-06-29 17:28:20   4. FINLAND’S PRIME MINISTER SPEAKS FAVORABLY OF BIG    NewsRoom Finland reports that the prime minister of Finland, Matti  Vanhanen, of the Centre Party, said that the structure and level of  basic security should be reappraised, and that the current wide range of  benefits could be replaced by a basic income guarantee of about 600 or  700 euros per month. He argued, however, that BIG should be supplemented  by incentives to encourage those capable of work to enter the labor  market. According to NewsRoom Finland, “Mr Vanhanen's comment comes amid  a clash between the Social Democratic Party [SPD], the Centre's main  government partner, and the opposition Green League over guaranteed  minimum income.” The Finnish Greens accused the Social Democrats of  using made-up arguments to reject basic income. NewsRoom Finland  reported on February 26, “Finland's opposition Green League on Monday  accused the SDP of deploying trumped-up and populist arguments to reject  the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. The Greens' critique was a  response to a report by the Kalevi Sorsa foundation, an SDP-leaning  organization, faulting a basic income scheme as promoted by the Green  League. The leaders of the Green League said in a joint statement that  the foundation's report played down problems related to social security.  Ville Kopra, a researcher, says in the foundation's report that basic  income could endanger both universal validity on the labor market and  earnings-related unemployment security. The Greens say the Social  Democrats' resistance to change is dividing people into two classes  where only those in regular employment should enjoy sufficient basic  security.”    Two reports are on line at:  http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15100&group=Politics  http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15103&group=Politics        8. SEVERAL GERMANS ENDORSE BASIC INCOME    Several Germans have recently endorsed basic income. Ulrich Beck,  prominent sociologist in Germany and author of "The Risk Society," and  Kayja Kipping, chairperson of the left party PDS, have both endorsed  basic income as a way to give workers greater negotiating power to  demand more meaningful work. According to Kipping, many leftist are  uncomfortable with BIG because they suffer from “work fetishism.” Asked  to explain she replied, “Many think only paid work is a valuable  contribution. The ideology ‘whoever doesn't work should not eat' is  malicious. To me, this is a completely strange understanding of  contribution. Persons in the arms industry do social harm through paid  work. On the other hand, many activities that are not paid are important  for society.” Vienna. Should basic security be only for persons willing  to work and the needy? Ronald Blaschke , a philosopher, sociologist,  educator, and spokesperson of the German Basic Income Network also  argued for BIG and against work fetishism in an interview with Beate  Lammer on diepresse.com.    German businessman Gotz Werner argues has been arguing for basic income  in recent years. He renewed his support for BIG in an interview with the  daily die Tageszeitung, last November. The BIEN Newsletter published the  following excerpts from the interview:  Journalist: You speak very positively. You own over 1700 drug stores.  You have annual sales of 3.7 billion Euros. You are one of the 500  richest Germans.  Werner: That is untrue. Like almost all entrepreneurs, I wanted more and  more in the past. Today maximizing meaning is my top priority.  Journalist: Do you see the world with different eyes?  Werner: I have read the classics, Goethe, Schiller. I understand my own  success is not everything. I want to help others succeed. People are  central, not business. I try to imagine a positive world.  Journalist: "Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come," you say.  Werner: Victor Hugo said that. I only quoted him.  Journalist: Is the time right for your idea?  Werner: At least the idea could be discussed at last. Two years ago that  was something for a few experts. The halls are full when I give lectures  today.  Journalist: What has changed?  Werner: The old political slogans have nothing to do with the world  where people live. Unemployment grows despite temporary announcements of  success. Unbridled growth damages our resources. If Angela Merkel would  say "full employment" is possible, nobody would believe her any more…  Journalist: The unconditional basic income already has supporters in the  parties - from left to right. Why is this?  Werner: Because this is the most radical form of socialism and the most  radical form of capitalism. After one of my addresses, a listener wrote  to me: "Your basic income model has reconciled my socialist heart with  my neoliberal mind."    The full interview in German is available at:  http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/11/27/a0146.1/textdruck  An English translation is available at:  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/14/18337615.php  Other articles on BIG in Germany are on the web at:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354533.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/353198.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/352187.shtml  http://www.diepresse.com/textversion_article.aspx?id=607979  http://www.mbtranslations.com  http://www.commondreams.org  http://www.freitag.de/2006/50/06501501.php.      9. EDUARDO SUPLICY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT BASIC INCOME IN CHINA    Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy, one of the strongest supports of  basic income in any ruling government in the world, recently visited  China and reports substantial hope for the future of basic income in  China. Senator Suplicy spoke about basic income with several  highly-placed officials in the Chinese government. He found that  elements of universal, unconditional support exist in some current  Chinese anti-poverty programs, and that there is some hope the China  will move further in that direction. Suplicy also spoke with Professor  Tian Xiaobao, who is considered to be the first economist in China,  author of a 2006 book on Social Security in China.  According to Suplicy, “It was with Professor Tian Xiaobao that I had my  longest and very productive three hour conversation. After explaining  all the advantages of an unconditional basic income to him, after  describing experience of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend System and  the perspective of having such a system in Brazil, I asked him whether  he considered possible to think about having the institution of an  inconditional basic income for all 1 billion and 300 million or more  Chinese in the future. Professor Tain Xiaobao answered that he  considered the Basic Income a very sound and rational proposal, making  sense and being consistent with the objective of building a harmonious  society, such as advocated by Confucius 520 years before Christ. It is  also consistent with the objectives of today's Chinese government. He  told me, however, that to attain the objective of paying a basic income  to all Chinese, it would be required a time of preparation for the next  three quinquenal plans. Thus, a Basic Income would be desirable and  possible in 2020.”

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!