Universal income -- Dħul universali

- no title specified

This last year has seen renewed interest in an idea that had been heard half a century ago, that of universal income, for which the revered Martin Luther King had agitated, when declaring “We must create full employment, or we must create incomes”.1

For those for whom the concept is unfamiliar, universal income (a.k.a. basic income) is a payment from government, or from its established entity, to all citizens, without exception, irrespective of whether in employment or otherwise. One could consider it as social assistance that ties together all other assistence, including for unemployment, with the difference that this is provided to everyone.

You will ask, what is the advantage of this, or what problem is it trying to solve?

Firstly, it simplifies the complex web of social assistance that exists in many countries, which need to be regulated and policed, and its difficult administrtion where each application needs to be scrutinised to determine whether one is eligible, before receiving the assistance. Today a person may be eligible for several schemes. With universal income, there is one scheme, for which everyone is eligible, period.

To give you an idea of the cost of administration of social services today, in Australia it's been reported that the country spends $3 billion a year, simply to administer the existing schemes of social services. It's unknown what a unversal income scheme would cost to adminsister - it's clearly not nothing, but certainly much less than that today.

There is also the potential to eliminate poverty in the country.

One criticism that is laid at such a scheme is that today, more assistance can be provided to who needs it more, because one can be eligible for more than one scheme. With universal income, there is one scheme for everybody.

Another criticism is that if someone has income without the need to work, this reduces the incentive to look for work. On the other hand, as universal income does not stop when one does work, the disincentive existing today of no longer being eligible for this assistance on assuming work would not longer exist.

Of course, the money needs to come from somewhere. The first parameter that needs to be considered is what level of payment are we talking about. There are proposals for this payment to be accompanied by the removal of the lowest income tax band, which is usually 0%. Naturally we're not considering people becoming rich out of this scheme. For example in Australia, if the payment was of $10k annually for every one of the 19 million adults in the country, the cost of the scheme would be $190 billion a year, almost exactly the aount of social services (excluding Medicare) which today cost $170 billion a year.2

There is interest around the world on this subject. Pilot projects have just started in Finland and Canada. On the other hand, a referendum in Switzerland on the subject showed that three quarters of voters were against the proposal.

I think that this interest will increase, not decrease. When one considers the rapid advance of technology, one cannot not ask how far are we from a new industrial revolution, with a large number of people being made redundant. This has already happened in the past after the invention of machines, and the effect of the computer has only just started to be felt.

Today there are a number of technologies being tested which have the potential to throw millions of people out of work, all at once. I can mention just a few: autonomous vehicles, which are able to put so many drivers out of work, for example taxi drivers and even those of new services such as Uber3; package delivery into homes with drones, which are being tested by Amazon4, which affects postal workers that are left; 3D printers, which have already proved capable of building (rather, printing) whole houses5, which has the potential to kill off so much engineering work.

I can see the potential for masses of people ending up without income. Normally, when technology threatens livelihoods, authorities insist that one learns new skills and try another industry.

The problem is that technology is advancing so quickly and in a wide range of industries, and is automating so many different manual tasks, that few traditional workplaces will be left. I fear that when government assumes that those losing their job can simply look for and find another, if only they would get off their arse, this will be less and less feasible for many people without work, and I think we're not far off from seeing this happen in front of our eyes.

Therefore, a system for basic income, financed more and more by those enterprises that have benefited by getting rid of their workers, might help those that are without work, or don't have sufficient work and income to maintain themselves and their families, would be able to live at least out of poverty.

In Australia, after the reform of centralisation of income tax, originally intended to finance the second world war6, followed by the huge industrial and political fights over GST towards the end of the twentieth century, a can smell another fistfight coming in future years, over universal income!

--------------------

Matul din l-aħħar sena, kien hemm interess ġdid f'idea li kienet instemgħet xi nofs seklu ilu, dik ta' dħul universali, li kien tħabat għaliha l-mibki Martin Luther King, meta kien stqarr “irridu nikkreaw xogħol għal kulħadd, jew inkella dħul”.1

Għal min ma semax biha, id-dħul universali (ukoll imsejjaħ dħul bażiku) huwa pagament mill-gvern, jew minn entità stabbilita minnu, liċ-ċittadini kollha, mingħajr eċċezzjoni, irrispettivament jekk jaħdmux jew le. Tista' tqisha bħala għajnuna soċjali li tgħaqqad flimkien l-għajnuniet l-oħra kollha, inkluża dik għal nies qiegħda, bid-differenza li tkun mogħtija lil kulħadd.

Tgħiduli, x'inhu l-vantaġġ tagħha, jew x'problema qed tipprova ssolvi?

L-ewwel ħaġa, tissimplifika s-sistemi kkumplikati ta' għajnuna soċjali li jeżistu f'diversi pajjiżi, li jridu jiġu rregolati u mgħassa, u l-amministrazzjoni diffiċli tagħhom fejn applikazzjoni trid tiġi miflija sabiex jiġi aċċertat jekk dak li jkun hux eliġibbli, qabel jingħata l-għajnuna. Persuna llum jista' jkun eliġibbli għal diversi skemi. Id-dħul universali hija skema waħda, li għaliha kulħadd eliġibbli, punt.

Biex intikom idea tal-ispiża ta' amministrazzjoni tas-servizzi soċjali illum, fl-Awstralja, huwa rrappurtat li l-pajjiż jonfoq $3 biljun fis-sena, sempliċement biex jamministra l-iskemi eżistenti ta' għajnuniet soċjali li jeżistu llum. Mhux magħruf kemm sistema sempliċi ta' dħul universali tqum biex tiġi amministrata - żgur mhux xejn, imma żgur ħafna inqas minn dik tal-lum.

Hemm ukoll il-potenzjal li jiġi eliminat il-faqar fil-pajjiż.

Il-kritika li ssir għal sistema bħal din hija li illum tista' tingħata iktar għajnuna lil min għandu bżonn iktar, peress li wieħed jista' jkun eliġibbli għal iktar minn skema waħda. Bid-dħul universali, hemm biss skema waħda għal kulħadd.

Kritika oħra hi li jekk wieħed ikollu dħul mingħajr il-bżonn li jaħdem, inaqqas l-inċentiv li jfittex ix-xogħol. Mill-banda l-oħra, peress li d-dħul universali ma jitwaqqafx meta wieħed jaħdem, m'hemmx id-diżinċentiv li jeżisti llum fejn ħafna mill-għajnuna soċjali ma tibqax eliġibbli għaliha malli tibda' taħdem.

Naturalment il-flus iridu jiġu minn x'imkien. L-ewwel parametru li jrid jiġi kkunsidrat huwa x'inhu l-livell ta' pagament li qed jissemma. Hemm proposti dan isir flimkien mat-tneħħija tal-ewwel faxxa ta' taxxa fuq id-dħul, li s-soltu tkun ta' 0%. Naturalment m'aħniex qed nitkellmu fuq nies li jsiru sinjuri. Per eżempju fl-Awstralja, kieku l-pagament ikun ta' $10k fis-sena għal kull wieħed mid-dsatax-il miljun adult fil-pajjiż, il-piż ikun ta' $190 biljun fis-sena, kważi eżattament daqs il-piż tas-servizzi soċjali (apparti l-Medicare) tal-lum li jiswew $170 biljun fis-sena.2

Hemm interess madwar id-dinja f'dan is-suġġett. Proġetti pilota għadhom kif bdew fil-Fillandja u l-Canada. Mill-banda l-oħra, referendum fl-Isvizzera wera li tliet kwarti tal-votanti kienu kontra l-proposta.

Jien naħseb li dan l-interess se jiżdied, mhux jonqos. Meta wieħed jikkunsidra l-iżvilupp mgħaġġel tat-teknoloġija, wieħed ma jistax ma jistaqsix kemm aħna 'l bogħod minn rivoluzzjoni ġdida industrijali, b'numru kbir ta' nies li mistennija jispiċċaw bla xogħol. Dan diġà ġara fil-passat wara l-invenzjoni tal-magni, u tal-kompjuter li l-effetti tiegħu għadu biss jibda jinħass.

Illum hemm diversi teknoloġiji taħt testijiet li għandhom il-potenzjal li jitfgħu miljuni ta' nies bla xogħol, u kollha f'salt. Nista nsemmi lill-vetturi awtomatizzati, li kapaċi jwaqqfu mix-xogħol lil tant xufiera, per eżempju tat-taksi u anke ta' servizzi ġodda bħall-Uber3; it-twassil tal-pakketti fid-djar minn vetturi li jtiru (drones), li qed jiġu ttestjati mill-kumpannija Amazon4, li taffettwa dawk il-ħaddiema postali li baqa'; il-printers ta' tliet dimensjonijiet, fejn diġà rajna anke djar sħaħ5 mibnija, jew aħjar ipprintjati, li għandu l-potenzjali li joqtol tant u tant xogħol ta' inġinerija.

Jien nara l-potenzjali li mases ta' nies se jispiċċaw mingħajr dħul. Normalment, meta t-teknoloġija thedded l-impjiegi tan-nies, l-awtoritajiet jinsistu fuq li wieħed jitgħallem ħiliet ġodda u jipprova industrija oħra.

Il-problema hi li t-teknoloġija tant qed tavvanza malajr u f'firxa wiesgħa ta' industriji, u li tant qed tawtomatizza xogħolijiet manwali, li qajla se jibqa' postijiet tradizzjonali tax-xogħol. Wisq nibża' li meta l-gvern jassumi li min jitlef xogħol jista' jfittex u jsib ieħor, basta jqum naqra fuq tiegħu, din il-ħaġa se tkun inqas u inqas fattibbli għal ħafna nies bla xogħol, u dan naħseb li mhux se jdum biex iseħħ.

Għalhekk, sistema ta' dħul bażiku, li tkun iffinanzjata iktar u iktar minn dawk l-intrapriżi li bbenefikaw milli ħelsu mill-impjegati tagħhom, tista' tgħin sabiex dawk in-nies li jkunu bla xogħol, jew li m'għandhomx biżżejjed xogħol u dħul biex imantnu lilhom innifishom u l-familji tagħhom, ikunu jistgħu jgħixu tal-inqas barra mill-faqar.

Fl-Awstralja, wara r-riforma biċ-ċentralizzazzjoni tat-taxxa fuq id-dħul (income tax) li bdiet biex tiffinanzja t-tieni gwerra dinjija6, imbagħad il-ġlidiet il-kbar industrijali u politiċi dik fuq il-GST lejn tmiem is-seklu għoxrin, qed inxomm ġlieda kbira ġejja fis-snin li ġejjin, fuq id-dħul universali!

1“Where do we go from here?”; Martin Luther King, Jr; 11th Annual SCLC Convention, Atlanta, Ga; 16/8/1967

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-27/is-universal-basic-income-dangerous-idea-of-2016/8149398, retrieved 23/1/2017

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/uber-launches-groundbreaking-driverless-car-service-in-us/7845820; retrieved 23/1/2017

4https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011, retrieved 23/1/2017