A Basic Income Handbook
By Annie Miller
()
About this ebook
Annie Miller
Annie Miller spent a major part of her working life in the Department of Economics at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh teaching business, economics, econometrics, mathematics and statistics for economists. In 1991, with her colleague Douglas Mair, she co-edited a book comparing different schools of academic thought in the late 20th century (Mair et al, 1991). In 1984, Annie was a co-founder of the Basic Income Research Group (BIRG), which changed its name in 1993 to the Citizen's Income Trust (CIT). She has been a trustee since 1989 and is currently its Chair. She contributes regularly to its Citizen's Income Newsletter. She gives talks to groups around the UK, and has presented papers on BI at conferences here in the UK, on the continent and in North America.
Read more from Annie Miller
Basic Income: A Short Guide Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNaked Nutrition: Whole Foods Revealed Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsField Tripping Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related to A Basic Income Handbook
Related ebooks
The Great University Gamble: Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Politics of Equality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Geography of the Everyday: Toward an Understanding of the Given Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFeminist Praxis Revisited: Critical Reflections on University-Community Engagement Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUndoing Work, Rethinking Community: A Critique of the Social Function of Work Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsVisualizing Palestine: A Chronicle of Colonialism and the Struggle for Liberation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFuture on Fire: Capitalism and the Politics of Climate Change Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLaw and the Utopian Imagination Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsImaginary Power, Real Horizons: The Practicality of Utopianism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBolivia beyond the Impasse Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSpaces of Danger: Culture and Power in the Everyday Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAn Accidental Utopia?: Social Mobility and the Foundations of an Eglitarian Society, 18801940 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBeyond Family: A Case for Another Regime of Reproduction, Sexuality and Kinship Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDemocracy, Social Justice and the Role of Trade Unions: We the Working People Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOn Digital Advocacy: Saving the Planet While Preserving Our Humanity (Speaker's Corner) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhat Is Extinction?: A Natural and Cultural History of Last Animals Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsContesting Race and Citizenship: Youth Politics in the Black Mediterranean Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsInside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitical Solidarity Economy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNavigating Austerity: Currents of Debt along a South Asian River Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMaking Constituencies: Representation as Mobilization in Mass Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPast Caring?: Women, work and emotion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNobody's People: Hierarchy as Hope in a Society of Thieves Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Genocide Paradox: Democracy and Generational Time Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhy They Stay: Sex Scandals, Deals, and Hidden Agendas of Nine Political Wives (First Edition) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRe-Union: How Bold Labor Reforms Can Repair, Revitalize, and Reunite the United States Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsState of the World 2014: Governing for Sustainability Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Paradox of Urban Revitalization: Progress and Poverty in America's Postindustrial Era Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Public Policy For You
The Affluent Society Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dumbing Us Down - 25th Anniversary Edition: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Just Mercy: a story of justice and redemption Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Bowling Alone: Revised and Updated: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The People's Hospital: Hope and Peril in American Medicine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick in America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Chasing the Scream: The Inspiration for the Feature Film "The United States vs. Billie Holiday" Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5"Trickle Down Theory" and "Tax Cuts for the Rich" Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Project 2025: Exposing the Radical Agenda -The Hidden Dangers of Project 2025 for Everyday Americans Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Project 2025: Blueprint for America's Future Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capital in the Twenty-First Century Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works--and How It Fails Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care--and How to Fix It Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Social Security 101: From Medicare to Spousal Benefits, an Essential Primer on Government Retirement Aid Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Abolition of Sex: How the “Transgender” Agenda Harms Women and Girls Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Men without Work: Post-Pandemic Edition (2022) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5No Visible Bruises: What We Don’t Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Least of Us: True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl and Meth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBattle for the American Mind: Uprooting a Century of Miseducation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Veterans Benefits for You: Get What You Deserve Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Health Disgraced Itself During COVID Mania Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Reviews for A Basic Income Handbook
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
A Basic Income Handbook - Annie Miller
ANNIE MILLER spent the major part of her working life in the Department of Economics at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh teaching mainly business economics, econometrics, mathematics and statistics for economists. In 1991, with her colleague Douglas Mair, she co-edited a book comparing different schools of economic thought in the late 20th century (Mair et al, 1991).
In 1984, Annie was a co-founder of the Basic Income Research Group (BIRG), which changed its name in 1993 to the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT). She has been a trustee since 1989 and is currently its Chair. She contributes regularly to its Citizen’s Income Newsletter. She gives talks to groups around the UK, and has presented papers on BI at conferences here in the UK, on the continent and in North America.
In January 2014, her local MSP, Jim Eadie, hosted a seminar and round-table discussion on ‘Beyond Welfare Reform to a Citizen’s Income’ at the Scottish Parliament, at which Annie and the late Professor Ailsa McKay were keynote speakers. In her personal capacity, she presented written evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Expert Working Group on Welfare (2013) and to the Smith Commission (2014). Since politics in Scotland is now different from elsewhere in the UK, her fellow trustees at CIT encouraged her to set up a sister organisation in Scotland, the Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland.
Annie became a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in 1978. Her faith, her belief in ‘that of God in everyone’, and her commitment to the Quaker testimonies (values) of peace, equality, integrity and simplicity inspire all her work.
In this vital contribution to the debate about how we ground our welfare system more squarely on social justice, Annie Miller has done Scotland and the UK a service. It combines personal reflections with passion and technical adeptness, making the case for a Universal Basic Income powerfully in the process. Amongst many other achievements, this work presents the under-articulated feminist case for change – a vital component of the debate that should be more central. To be highly recommended.
ANTHONY PAINTER, Director of the Action and Research Centre, Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce
Annie’s book comes at the ideal moment in the Basic Income debate. With interest growing around the world, and progress taking place here in Scotland, the depth of economic knowledge that she brings to the debate will be invaluable in taking the idea forward.
JAMIE COOKE, Head of RSA Scotland
Annie has written not just a great introduction to the theory and background of Universal Basic Income, but a manual on the issues and opportunities for taking forward the practical implementation of basic income.
PAUL VAUGHAN, Head of Community and Corporate Development, Fife Council
At last! A book that helps us through the tangled dross to the pure gold of a Universal Basic Income.
JIM PYM, author of The Pure Principle
First published 2017
All royalties to be shared between
Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland, scio no. sc046356, www.cbin.scot and
Citizen’s Basic Income Trust, charity no 1171533, www.citizensincome.org
ISBN: 978-1-910745-78-6
The paper used in this book is recyclable. It is made from low chlorine pulps produced in a low energy, low emissions manner from renewable forests.
Printed and bound by
Bell & Bain Ltd., Glasgow
Typeset in 11 point Sabon by
3btype.com
The author’s right to be identified as author of this work under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Acts 1988 has been asserted.
© Annie Miller 2017
This book is dedicated to the memory of the late
Professor Ailsa McKay
1963–2014
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
A note about terminology
Preface – how this book came to be written
The structure of the book
Acknowledgements
PART I PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENTS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction: How did we get from there to here?
Imagine…
Why we need a BI system to replace the current Social Security System
The post World War ii consensus welfare reforms – how did we get from there to here?
Why not just improve the current social security system?
Our social security system is not fit for purpose – cut the Gordian knot
CHAPTER 2 Values and vision: the objectives
What sort of society?
Justification for a social security system
What objectives and outcomes could an income maintenance system help to achieve?
The case for vertical redistribution of income
Who are the rich?
PART II THEORY AND EVIDENCE
CHAPTER 3 The internal structure and design features of income maintenance systems
Townsend’s three principles
The design features of income maintenance systems
Comparison of some different income maintenance systems
Basic Incomes
CHAPTER 4 The effects of individual assessment on women’s lives: the unit for assessment and delivery of benefits – joint or individual?
The Marriage laws
Financial dependents
Household Economies of Scale – incentive to share accommodation
Effect of BI on women’s lives
INDIA 2011–13
CHAPTER 5 Migration – and giving a BI to rich people
Defining the population
Migration
Giving a BI to rich people to protect the poor: Eligibility – targeted or universal?
Why benefits should not be means-tested
ALASKA 1976 –
CHAPTER 6 When is discrimination justified? Entitlement: selective or non-selective benefits
Selectivity
Discrimination against couples
Can a case be made for selective benefits?
More on economies of scale
Housing costs
The needs of disabled people
Childcare costs and other public services
IRAN 2010 –
CHAPTER 7 More control over our lives Contingency: conditionality or unconditionality?
Conditionality and sanctions
Free riders and reciprocity
Participation Incomes (PI)
Effects of unconditionality on incentives to work
Macroeconomic effects of a BI scheme
Mincome program, Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada 1974–79
CHAPTER 8 Simplifying the administration system
Defining the population and criteria for eligibility
Alternative methods of assessment and delivery
Other effects of a BI on administration
CHAPTER 9 Chronology of evidence from around the world
Overview
Income maintenance experiments in the USA, 1968–80
Brazil 2004–
Namibia 2008–9
European Citizens’ Initiative on Unconditional Basic Income, 2012–14
Switzerland 2012–16
Finland 2015–
Netherlands, France and Germany
Update on BI projects in May 2017
Scotland
PART III ECONOMIC VIABILITY – FACTS AND FIGURES
CHAPTER 10 Deciding on the BI levels
Measures of prosperity in society
Poverty
A floor and two poverty benchmarks
Current UK means-tested benefit levels
The EU’s official poverty threshold
Minimum Income Standards
The timing of publication of information
An alternative poverty benchmark
CHAPTER 11 Costing a Basic Income Scheme
A note about costs
Costing an illustrative sample scheme
Which benefits to replace with a BI, and which to retain?
CHAPTER 12 How to finance a BI scheme?
Alternative sources for funding a BI scheme
UK taxes and their yields
Why income tax is the best source
Financing a BI scheme through the benefit and income taxation systems
Tax expenditures and structural reliefs
Sleights of hand with the Personal Allowance
CHAPTER 13 A restructured income tax system
A restructured income tax system
An alternative method for calculating the cost of a BI scheme
Even though progressive taxes are more redistributive, a proportionate tax (flat tax), has some advantages
An income / earnings disregard (EDR)
The structure of the income tax schedule
Will it cost too much? Can we afford it?
CHAPTER 14 Sample BI schemes for Scotland and the UK
No single optimum BI scheme
Clearly-stated prioritised objectives, assumptions and constraints
The first set of sample BI schemes, compared with current means-tested benefits
The second set of sample BI schemes, compared with the official EU poverty benchmark (AHC version)
Comparison of a set of three BI schemes
The third set of sample BI schemes, compared with the MIS poverty benchmark (AHC version)
Summary of the illustrative sample BI schemes
PART IV HOW DO WE GET FROM HERE TO THERE?
CHAPTER 15 How do we get from here to there?
Implementation
The sector approach
The gradual approach, increasing the amounts of the BIS over time
The political process
How might the scheme to be implemented be chosen?
CHAPTER 16 Conclusion
Recap: features of income maintenance systems – definition of a BI – broad objectives
Current problems that BI schemes could help to solve – criticisms of BI schemes addressed
Illustrative BI schemes
Hope for the future
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Figures for the UK 2011–15 and Scotland 2012–15
APPENDIX B Hypothetical BI schemes
Measures of inequality
Calculation of the Gini coefficient by linear interpolation
Mathematical proof
A hypothetical example of an international BI
Constructing an income distribution for individuals
Comparison of different progressive income tax schedules
APPENDIX C Design and cost your own BI scheme
APPENDIX D Chronology of Basic Income with respect to the UK
Sources of Data
Bibliography
Organisations (Information and Contacts)
List of Figures
FIGURE 13.1 Basic Income schedules without an earnings disregard compared with 2017–18 UK income tax schedule
FIGURE 13.2 Basic Income schedules with and without an earnings disregard compared with 2017–18 UK income tax schedule
FIGURE B1 Illustration of Lorenz curves derived in Table B 2 showing successive decreases in the Gini coefficient
List of Tables
TABLE 3.1 The internal structure of various income maintenance and income tax systems in the UK
TABLE 3.2 The structure of income maintenance systems
TABLE 3.3 How the structure of a Basic Income ( BI ) scheme helps to fulfil the Objectives
TABLE 9.1 Summary of some BI Pilot Experiments or Projects
TABLE 10.1 Measures of prosperity in UK and Scotland
TABLE 10.2 EU official poverty benchmark: Income Before Housing Costs ( BHC ) and Income After Housing Costs ( AHC ) for 2014–15
TABLE 10.3 Five measures of Minimum Income Standards for 11 household types, 2016
TABLE 10.4a A floor and two poverty benchmarks for the same time period, 2014–15
TABLE 10.4b A floor and two poverty benchmarks available for a BI scheme for the fiscal year 2017–18, based on information available in 2016
TABLE 10.5 Comparison of mean and median figures for the UK , 2010 to 2014
TABLE 10.6 The proposed poverty benchmark for BI purposes
TABLE 11.1, Scot Population of Scotland, mid-year estimates for 2015
TABLE 11.1, UK Population of the UK , mid-year estimates for 2015
TABLE 11.2, Scot Costing a simple illustrative BI scheme for Scotland in 2017–18, in terms of £bn, based on data available in 2016
TABLE 11.2, UK Costing a simple illustrative BI scheme for the UK in 2017–18, in terms of £bn, based on data available in 2016
TABLE 11.3 Which of these main UK benefits should be replaced by BI s?
TABLE 11.4 UK Social Security transfer payments, 2013, 2014 and 2015
TABLE 11.5 Components of an added margin
TABLE 12.1 UK taxes and their yields, 2013, 2014 and 2015
TABLE 12.2 Estimated cost of the Principal Tax Expenditures and Structural Reliefs, 2013–14, 2014–15
TABLE 12.3 The value of the increase in Personal Allowance and changes to the threshold for the higher rate of income tax
TABLE 12.4 National Insurance and income tax due on additional rate payers.
TABLE 13.1, Scot Costing the same illustrative BI scheme for Scotland in 2017–18 in terms of a flat rate income tax, based on data available in 2016, as estimated in Table 11.2 Scot
TABLE 13.1, UK Costing the same illustrative BI scheme for the UK in 2017–18 in terms of a flat rate income tax, based on data available in 2016, as estimated in Table 11.2 UK
TABLE 13.2 Direct effects of illustrative changes in income tax rates
TABLE 13.3 Pros and cons of the structure of the income tax schedule
TABLE 14.1 Objectives and solutions for the design of the sample BI schemes
TABLE 14.2a Money values for BI s for entry-level BI schemes for 2017–18, and as proportions of Y-BAR for Scotland and the UK 2015
TABLE 14.2b BI sample schemes for Scotland and the UK , 2017–18, compared with the current means-tested benefit system
TABLE 14.3a Money values of BI s for EU benchmark schemes for 2017–18, and as proportions of Y-BAR for Scotland and the UK 2015.
TABLE 14.3, Scot BI sample schemes for Scotland, 2017–18, compared with the 2014–15 EU median income poverty benchmark ( AHC )
TABLE 14.3, UK BI sample schemes for the UK , 2017–18, compared with the 2014–15 EU median income poverty benchmark ( AHC )
TABLE 14.4 Comparison of sample BI schemes B(i), B(ii) and B(iii)
TABLE 14.5a Money values of BI s for MIS benchmark schemes for 2017–18, and as proportions of Y-BAR for Scotland and the UK 2015
TABLE 14.5b BI sample schemes for Scotland and the UK , 2017–18, compared with 2016 MIS benchmark
TABLE 14.6, Scot A summary of the eight sample BI schemes for Scotland 2017–18
TABLE 14.6, UK A summary of the eight sample BI schemes for the UK 2017–18
TABLE 15.1 The cost of Scheme A(i) for the UK in 2017–18
TABLE A1 Figures for the UK 2011–15
TABLE A2 Figures for Scotland 2012–15
TABLE B1 A hypothetical example of an international BI scheme, also showing how a BI reduces the Palma index and Gini coefficient
TABLE B2 Demonstration of the redistributive powers of a hypothecated flat rate income tax used to finance a BI scheme
TABLE B3 Summary of the results for the tables above
TABLE B4 Taxpayers and non-taxpayers in the UK , 2014–15
TABLE B5 Hypothetical examples to explore the outcomes of some progressive income tax schedules: the mean gross income of individuals, Y-BAR , is 20
TABLE C Excel template to design and cost your own preferred BI scheme
List of Abbreviations
AIDS Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
AHC After Housing Costs have been deducted
BHC Before Housing Costs have been deducted
BI Basic Income
BIEN Basic Income European/Earth Network
BIRG Basic Income Research Group
Blue Book UK National Accounts, the Blue Book , published each year.
CB Child Benefit
CBI Citizen’s Basic Income/Child Basic Income
CBINS Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland
CI Citizen’s Income
CIA Central Intelligence Agency ( USA )
CIT Citizen’s Income Trust/Citizen’s Basic Income Trust
CTB/CTR Council Tax Benefit/Reduction
CTC Child Tax Credit
DWP Department of Work and Pensions
EDR Earnings Disregard
ESA Employment and Support Allowance
EU European Union
FBI Full Basic Income
FES Family economies of scale
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HB Housing Benefit
HBAI Households Below Average Income
HES Household economies of scale
HH Household
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus (infection)
HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationary Office
HSHLD Household
IS Income Support
JSA Jobseeker’s Allowance
KELA Social Insurance Institution of Finland
LA Local Authority
LEL Lower Earnings Level ( NI system)
MDR Marginal Deduction Rate
MIS Minimum Income Standards
MISUR Maternity, Invalidity, Sickness, Unemployment, Retirement ( NI )
MP Member of Parliament (Westminster)
MSP Member of the Scottish Parliament.
MTB Means-tested benefit
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NHS National Health Service
NI/NIC National Insurance/National Insurance Contribution
NIT Negative Income Tax
NMW/NLW National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage
NPISH Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households
OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ONS Office of National Statistics
PAYE Pay As You Earn
PBI Partial Basic Income
PI Participation Income
PT Primary Threshold, ( NI system)
PWC Parent with care (primary care-giving parent)
S2P State Second Pension
SCIO Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation
SERPS State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
SNAP Scottish National Accounts Project
STP Single Tier Pension
TC Tax Credit
UBI Universal or Unconditional Basic Income
UC Universal Credit
UEL Upper Earnings Level ( NI system)
WTC Working Tax Credit
WWII World War Two
Y-BAR Mean gross income per head of man, woman and child
A note about terminology
A BASIC INCOME (BI) is a cash payment where assessment and delivery is based on the individual. It is universal for a defined population, is not means-tested, not selective except by age, and it is unconditional.
The concept has a fairly long history (see the Chronology in Appendix D), and during that time has had several different names, sometimes with extra conditions attached. In 1918, it was introduced as a ‘State Bonus’. The Social Credit Movement of the inter-war period called it a ‘National Dividend’. Milton Friedman, an American Nobel Prize-winning economist, introduced the concept as a ‘Negative Income Tax’ (NIT) in 1962. In its original incarnation, it was based on the household and had a 100 per cent withdrawal rate until the cash transfer had been paid off. Thus, originally a NIT was an income available only to poor people, rather than a BI paid to everyone, rich or poor. Its use in today’s debates is as a version of BI with an alternative method of administration, based on a fully integrated benefit and income tax system. This is discussed further in chapter 8.
Another Nobel Prize-winning economist, James Meade, used the term ‘Social Dividend’ from 1935, but implied different things at different times – sometimes as a needs-based system and sometimes as a payment to everyone with no differentiation. ‘Social Dividend’ was the term commonly used until the early 1980s. Since the 1980s, the term used in the English-speaking world has been ‘Basic Income’, although in the USA it is often referred to as a ‘Basic Income Guarantee’ (BIG). Some people dislike the term ‘Basic Income’, because it sounds too basic, and yet that is really what it is about. The Basic Income Research Group agreed to change its name to the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) in 1993. It is the only organisation that has consistently used the term ‘Citizen’s Income’ (CI), and this is recognised in the UK. Professor Ailsa McKay always referred to a ‘Citizen’s Basic Income’ (CBI), and the founding group of the new Scottish charity chose to use this term too, with its emphasis on citizenship. The terms CI, CBI and BI can be used interchangeably.
The term ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ (UBI) was adopted for the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI on UBI) in 2013. Since then the abbreviation, UBI, has frequently been used, but has often been interpreted as ‘Universal Basic Income’. These terms are also interchangeable with ‘Basic Income’.
My own preferred term is ‘Basic Income’. It is shorter, to the point, and avoids the problem of the apostrophe. The presence and position of the apostrophe are crucial, since otherwise it changes the meaning. The apostrophe before the ‘s’ in Citizen’s Income emphasises that it must be paid on an individual basis.
Please note that neither a Participation Income, nor a Social Wage, nor a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) is a Basic Income. The first is similar to a Basic Income, but it is conditional on recipients participating in society (see chapter 7). The latter is a guaranteed minimum income that is targeted on people with insufficient income in order to raise them up to a given poverty threshold (Mestrum, 2017). A BI is paid unconditionally to everyone, rich and poor.
Preface
My story – or why it has taken me over 30 years to write this book
I THINK THAT I must have become a feminist at the age of about eight, when I realised that my mother did not have any money of her own, but had to ask my father for every penny – even to buy him a birthday present. He was kind and gentle, but inevitably he controlled the money. My next experience was in the mid 1960s, when, as a young, married, working woman, who believed that marriage was a way of proving how mature and responsible I was, I received my first tax return. This stated that if you were a married woman, you must pass the tax return to your husband for him to fill in on your behalf, (for which you would have to tell him any financial secrets that you may have had, and the reciprocal of which was not required). Of course, any tax rebates would be paid to him, and anyway, I was the one who carried out the financial administration for us both!
I assumed that, as a working married woman, in the period between jobs when I had no earnings, I would be eligible for Unemployment Benefit. However, I was rejected on the grounds that I had made myself unemployed by resigning from my school-teaching post at the end of the school year, which left a month before my next job started. I was told that it was up to my husband to keep me. I was incensed. I had not included the possibility of being a financial dependent into my vision of happy marriage. At that time a married woman could elect to have separate assessment for taxation on her earnings, but not on any other income. This remained the case until married couples became entitled to be taxed separately, starting in the fiscal year 1990–91. I did not think much of either the social security or income tax systems, especially for married women, and started thinking about alternatives. I remember talking about the concept of a ‘social dividend’ with a friend over breakfast one morning in 1970, who pointed me in the direction of Henry George’s Progress and Poverty (George, 1879, 2006).
In the mid 1970s, my husband and I separated. People asked why I had got married in the first place, since I knew what I would be letting myself in for? But, obviously, I was ignorant. So I wanted to explore where it said in the Marriage Laws that women have to be treated as second-class citizens. I bought a copy of the Marriage Act, which turned out to be a leaflet, merely stating who could marry whom, where and by whom. I noticed that it said ‘Chapter 15’ on the front, so I returned to HMSO and asked for the rest of it. The man laughed and explained that Chapter 15 referred to the fact that it was the 15th piece of legislation going through Parliament that year. So I asked how I could find out about how the Marriage Laws determined the role of women in marriage. He opened a very thick tome, which was an index of all the Acts of Parliament, and looked up ‘Marriage’. There followed several pages, each comprising three columns in small print, listing Acts that Marriage affected or was affected by. It seemed that the only way in which people could learn in advance about to what they were committing themselves, was to do a three-year PhD on the subject.
When men and women commit matrimony, they rarely know what the contract says. Not only that, but the small print can change over time, too. The key lies in the fact that the Marriage contract is not a contract between the husband and wife, as many assume. It is between the couple and the State, in which the couple agree to aliment, or maintain, each other, relieving the State from the responsibility of having to support the poorer partner. At the same time, this deprives the poorer partner from any state benefits, unless the other partner agrees to a joint application. In this condition lies the bane of married women. This is the reason why I think that the UK Marriage Laws are unethical, and I would like to see them changed, or at least this aspect of them. When I met my new partner, I declined his invitation to marry him, and we checked that our son would not lose out on his inheritance rights under the current laws. In 1986, The Scotsman printed my article, ‘The humiliation of an empty purse’, about financial dependence in marriage.
I read as much as I could find about Social Dividend and in 1983 I wrote a departmental working paper entitled ‘In Praise of Social Dividends’, copies of which I sent to people whom I thought might be interested. Later that year, I attended a one-day conference on income maintenance organised by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) in London. During the discussions in the afternoon, I heard other people say, ‘You would not have that problem with a Social Dividend’. We managed to identify each other and went off to the pub afterwards to get to know each other and agreed to keep in touch. They included Hermione (Mimi) Parker, Bill Jordan and Philip Vince. We met under the auspices of the NCVO for a few times over the next year and, out of that, the Basic Income Research Group (BIRG) was founded in 1984. I was surprised that, for a group who were in agreement over the concept, we argued fiercely about our individual ideas for Basic Income (BI) schemes. There was a learning process, too, to distinguish between whether we wanted a BI for its own sake, or for what it could achieve. It took quite a time to differentiate between instrument and objective, or means and ends. Also, we discussed whether we wanted a selective, needs-based benefit, or a Social Dividend that would be