>From: "Allan McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>NEWSLETTER 8/99 29 June 1999 > >The website of the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) has some interesting >summaries of recent publications, including one of the book "Poverty in >Europe", by B.A.Atkinson, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. This is a revised and >updated version of three lectures given by Tony Atkinson, Warden of Nuffield >College (Oxford) in Helsinki in 1990. > >When considering a Europe-wide anti-poverty policy and the form it should >take, he argues that a means-tested minimum income guarantee is definitely >not the way forward, because it unfairly penalises the work of poor >households more than anyone else's, and also because a European-wide minimum >"has to be based on a benefit that is simpler than means-tested social >insurance". The alternative he favours is a universal basic income. > >When asking why such a scheme has not got close to being introduced, he >suggests "a major reason lies in the fact that it does not require any >counterpart on the part of the recipient". He then goes on to state that in >order to secure political support it may be necessary to compromise - not on >the principle of no test of means, nor on the principle of independence, but >on the unconditional payment. He then presents his idea of a "participation >income", with the belief "that such a Participation Income offers a >realistic way in which European governments may be persuaded that a basic >income offers a better route forward than the dead end of means-tested >assistance". > >These extracts were from the BIEN website. [There is a link with our >website] > >As Atkinson states, the concept of a participation income (read mutual >obligation) has arisen to help gain political support. It is in some ways >the intellectual counterpart of the political dogma "we won't pay people >not to work". This concept has its roots in the traditional welfare >approach that we take from the rich to help the poor - that welfare benefits >are funded by the taxpayers. It is this concept which has pursuaded >government to introduce a job creation programme based on "work for the >dole". > >The support income system we propose moves the financing of the scheme away >from taxpayers to national income. It is based on the principle of >distribution of national income, not the redistribution of personal incomes. >It is based on the principle of providing the income as a replacement of >income foregone. It is based on the principle of granting every citizen a >national dividend - invoking the concept of all citizens being shareholders >in Australia. > >Notwithstanding these principles the political reality is that there will >always be a suspicion when income support is to be granted with no strings >attached. The inherent belief that welfare payments, in whatever form they >may be made, are taxpayer funded has strong political influence. If we are >to counter this belief - if we feel strongly that an unconditional universal >support income is the way to go in this new age - then surely the answer is >not compromise, as suggested by Atkinson, but in a better understanding >within the community of what we are trying to achieve. This means more and >better research to support our claims, which in turn leads to the next item >in this newsletter, our submission to government. In this submission we >have specifically asked for assistance to enable further research and >updating of data. > > >Submission to Government. > >The submission to government has finally been completed and despatched. > >This submission is in the form of a discussion paper entitled: > UNEMPLOYMENT - A Search for a Solution. It is being sent to you as a >"Following Paper" immediately after this newsletter. > >Please let me know if you would also like a printed copy of the report. > >Your commments will be greatly appreciated. They will be valuable should >any discussion with ministers or advisory staff eventuate. > >Following is an extract from the covering letter of this submission. > > > Re: UNEMPLOYMENT - A Search for a Solution > >On behalf of OASIS-Australia I am pleased to present the attached discussion >paper as a contribution to the on-going debate on the problem of continuing >high unemployment. In making this submission there are two points I would >like to emphasise. > >First, part time employment (as defined by the ABS) is now firmly entrenched >in our labour market. Part time employment is no longer the preserve of the >second wage earner in a two income family, but as a section of the market in >its own right. Part time employment has made a significant contribution to >the increase in labour productivity in recent years, and this role will >continue in the future. The long term objective of full employment based on >full time employment is no longer realistic, or achievable. The answer to >the problem of high unemployment lies in our ability to adapt to this >changing labour market. > >Second, this adaptation requires consideration of the income support >measures now in place to cater for those in the labour force and in >retirement. Our existing system of means tested income support and our >occupational superannuation scheme have both been designed to suit a work >culture based on full time employment and a commitment to full employment. >Neither of these systems is suited to the changing nature of the workforce >evident in Australia today. > >Any possible solution to the problem of unemployment therefore must have >wide-ranging implications which extend far beyond the confines of the labour >market and this paper can only indicate some of these other areas to be >affected. One such area, for example, is the changing age pattern in the >population - the ageing of the population. > >No attempt has been made in the paper to comment on the many social problems >directly or indirectly influenced by high and persistent unemployment, as >these have been the subject of many reports and studies. > >Our objective in preparing this submission is to help stimulate debate >within the community and to make known the proposal which is basic to this >submission. This proposal , for a support income system for Australia, has >been developed over a number of years, and there is now a need to update and >extend the concept. We realise our limitations in this area, and therefore >seek your support. In particular we seek your support to enable a detailed >sudy of this proposal to be made by an independent institution, and to >encourage community debate on the proposal. > >As stated, this submission has far-reaching implications. It also >introduces new concepts and ideas designed to help enable us to adapt to the >changing technological, economic, and social pressures on our society. > >We feel, therefore, that consideration of this proposal should extend beyond >party political lines. OASIS-Australia is a non-political organisation with >an objective solely to promote the concept of a universal support income. >This proposal is not put forward as a "better" way, but as a necessary "new" >way to meet the problem. Copies of the submission are therefore being >forwarded to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian >Democrats. > >Copies of this letter and submission will also be forwarded to all >supporters of OASIS-Australia. > >Allan McDonald >Convenor >OASIS-Australia >___________________________________________________________________________ >
