Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

Todays CPI inflation figure remaining stubbornly high at 8.7% comes at the end of two years where prices have risen by nearly 20%. JRFs cost of living tracker (published today) shows that recent price rises combined with historically inadequate social security have meant that despite the government stepping in to support those on low incomes, things are simply not getting better.

Anticipated interest rate rises tomorrow are also causing rising alarm for millions, especially those who have built up arrears and debts due to the prolonged crisis.

Around nine in ten (87%) low-income households on Universal Credit have gone without at least one essential for the third survey in over a year three quarters (76%) having gone hungry, cut down on or skipped meals in the last 30 days, demonstrating the urgent need for an Essentials Guarantee to protect the nations health.

Commenting on the latest inflation figures, Rachelle Earwaker, Senior Economist for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

Last month, 5.7 million households did not have enough money to buy food and were skipping meals or cutting back on how much they could eat. Inflation remains stubbornly and unexpectedly high and even if it fell now that would not mean essential items suddenly become affordable. In fact, fresh and healthy food seems increasingly out of the reach of many with food inflation still over 18%.

Stubbornly high inflation puts the Bank of England in a difficult position tomorrow and this bodes poorly for the 4.5 million people who are already in arrears with essential costs such as rent and household bills. There is no letup for those facing hardship and millions who are feeling the pinch from all angles and will be feeling no relief today.

In May 2023 our tracker found that over half of low-income households on Universal Credit have been going without three or more of the essentials that we all need to live items like food, a warm shower or basic toiletries.

Going without essentials places a huge burden on families and the scale of hardship means the effect will be felt for years to come. Without action to implement an Essentials Guarantee, many families face the bleak prospect of running to catch up but never doing so because they are trapped by debt, rising prices and worsening health.

JRF, together with the Trussell Trust, is calling on the Government to implement an Essentials Guarantee, to ensure that, at a minimum, the basic rate of Universal Credit at least covers life's essentials and that support can never be pulled below that level.

The tracker found:

Continued here:

No relief for the 7.3 million going without essentials - JRF responds ... - Joseph Rowntree Foundation

We need to borrow on the basis of affordability and not on the basis of availability, Siddaramaiah read out this line as finance minister and deputy chief minister while presenting the state budget for 2005-2006.

On 7 July, 2023, when he presents the FY 2023-2024 budget for Karnataka the 14th budget speech of his political career Siddaramaiah may have explored every possible availability, and not affordability, of borrowings, primarily to fund the Congress five election guarantees.

Successive governments in the state have showed immense commitment to adhering to the Karnataka Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2002.

In recent times, with the exception of two years during the Covid-19 pandemic FY 2021-2022 and FY 2022-2023 Karnataka has always seen a revenue surplus budget one of the three parameters laid down by the FRA.

Revenue surplus is when the states revenue receipts from its own taxes, non-tax revenues, central grants and devolution from central taxes exceed the states revenue expenditure in the form of committed expenditure which includes salaries, interest payments, pensions, subsidies, welfare schemes, etc.

As per the vote on account presented by former chief minister Basavaraj Bommai right before the Karnataka Assembly elections, the estimated revenue receipts for 2023-2024 was pegged at 2,25,910 crore (2.25 lakh crores).

Of this revenue receipt, Karnataka has committed expenditure including existing subsidies, schemes, etc of around 2,07,837 crore which makes up 92 percent of total revenue receipts. This leaves any government just eight percent about 18,072 crores from the revenue receipts for new schemes.

By Chief Minister Siddaramaiahs own initial estimates, implementing the five guarantees could cost the exchequer between 50,000 crore and 52,000 crore annually. Revised estimates put the number at between 60,000 crore and 65,000 crores annually, but this is a work in progress.

Initial estimates suggested the Shakti scheme, which assures zero-ticket bus travel for women in government buses, could cost 4,050 crore while Anna Bhagya, intended to provide 10 kg of free rice to below-poverty-line and Antyodaya card holders every month, could cost 10,092 crore.

The estimated cost for the Yuva Nidhi unemployment stipend for youth is 1,274 crore while Gruha Jyothi free electricity up to 200 units scheme is estimated to cost 13,000 crore.

Congress big ticket guarantee, Gruha Lakshmi, which assures a 2,000 monthly basic income for women heads of households, is pegged to be the most expensive with an estimated cost of 39,000 crore.

The government is now looking at ways to narrow down the eligibility criteria for this scheme.

The numbers could also increase subject to challenges like the ones Karnataka is facing in buying rice for Anna Bhagya after Food Corporation of India (FCI) rescinded its decision to sell grain to Karnataka following a Union government order.

Since the guarantees are social welfare schemes, they are counted as revenue expenditure or committed expenditure. Here lies the challenge to FRA rules.

There simply isnt enough revenue receipts for the Siddaramaiah government to fund these guarantees unless it takes measures to dramatically increase revenue by way of hiking taxes perhaps excise, property and professional taxes and/or mobilising tax collection by plugging leaks, increasing annual targets for different departments under the Revenue Ministry like commercial taxes, stamps and registration, transport or even sales tax on fuel. All such measures are sure to be met with criticisms.

If even the enhanced estimates for revenue receipts cannot cover the cost of revenue expenditure, Siddaramaiah may present his first ever revenue deficit budget as chief minister.

Siddaramaiah takes great pride in his fiscal management abilities and has demanded the same from incumbent governments when he was in the opposition.

To his credit, when Siddaramaiah presented his first budget (FY 2004-2005) after Karnataka enacted the FRA 2002, he presented a revenue surplus budget for the first time in eight years.

In every budget he has presented since the FRA was enacted in Karnataka, Siddaramaiah has adhered to parameters set by the Act, including always presenting a revenue surplus budget.

The 2023-2024 budget could very well be his toughest challenge yet.

The obvious way to fund the guarantees is additional borrowing but borrowing for revenue expenditure is not sign of financial prudence and opens up a pandoras box of mounting liabilities. Borrowings as Capital Receipts are ideally meant for Capital Expenditure for infrastructure building, creation of tangible asset etc.

Officials from various department have also suggested dropping of several existing but redundant schemes or subsuming of smaller schemes into larger umbrella schemes to move around funds.

Then there is the option of off-budget borrowings via infrastructure boards and development corporations from open market.

While it can be a short-term relief measure, such repeated off-budget borrowings via boards and corporations has cost Kerala heavily with the Union government slashing the states overall borrowing limit by nearly half this fiscal. Such is its result in Kerala, that the state government is struggling to even pay social security pensions.

As per the 2023-2024 vote on account document, Karnatakas liabilities are expected to be 5,64,896 crore, which amounts to 24.20 percent of the states GSDP.

Under the FRA, the states liabilities cannot be more than 25 percent of GSDP. While the total liabilities also includes capital receipts (borrowings) announced by Bommai in his vote on account speech which can be reallocated or rejected by the Siddaramaiah government the state can only borrow an additional 18,674 crore before it violates FRA rules.

Unlike the Union government or several other states like Kerala or Andhra Pradesh that violate FRA rules year after year with revenue deficit budgets, borrowings beyond 25 percent of GDP/GSDP and fiscal deficit more than three percent of GDP/GSDP, Karnataka has had an impeccable record of healthy fiscal management.

For a man who was prematurely mocked over his financial understanding when he was gearing up to give his first budget speech, Siddaramaiah has often treated prudent fiscal management as a passion project.

Even as those around him point to several states and even Union government violating FRA rules with disdain, Siddaramaiah is looking to mop up resources while keeping the budget tightly within the FRA rules.

Despite all measures, the cost of the five guarantees although only applicable for less than three quarters that are pending this particular fiscal run the risk of violating FRA rules in what could be a first for Siddaramaiah as chief minister.

Read the original post:

Additional borrowings, higher revenue targets, hiked taxes may still ... - South First

Green co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson at their tax policy announcement. Photo / Alex Burton

OPINION:

Poverty is a political choice, Greens co-leader James Shaw declared at a meeting on June 11, and we choose to end it.

Shaw went on to announce a tax and benefits policy package he says will bring relief to 95 per cent of taxpayers and introduce a much-improved welfare system. And there will be a wealth tax that leaves middle New Zealand and the family homes of almost everyone untouched.

The impact of these reforms would be enormous, if they were introduced. So why arent expert economists shouting from the rooftops about them? Its a far more significant plan than anything produced by any party in a very long time.

If Shaw is talking through a hole in his head, lets hear it. But if he and his party really have found a way to end poverty and make most of us better off, while not impoverishing anyone else, they should tell us that too.

And perhaps even more importantly, what do the other political parties have to say?

I wont be lectured to about economics by the Green Party, said National Party leader Christopher Luxon, practically spitting into the reporters microphone.

David Seymour, from Act, laughed.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Labour would have its own tax policy in due course, which prompted several commentators to predict he will rule out the Greens plan, because, you know, cue screaming, it includes a wealth tax.

Why such a non-response? Could it really be true that none of them has anything of substance to say about a costed plan to end poverty?

Or is their silence merely because there is nothing they can say? Because to talk about it would be to acknowledge that the plan makes sense, and thats the thing they fear the most?

So there they are, like wolves padding quietly around the edges of the field, waiting to tear the little Green lambs apart because theyre so innocent, they couldnt possibly understand economics.

Youd think every political party would want to end poverty. It was such a hot topic in the 2017 election, National Party leader Bill English and Labours Jacinda Ardern tried to outbid each other in the televised debates.

Well lift 50,000 children out of poverty! said one. Well do 100,000! said the other. No, we will! said the first.

Since then, Labour has established official and mandatory reporting measures for poverty, which is a significant achievement because the advisers said it couldnt be done. And as Shaw noted, 30,000 children have been lifted above the poverty line set by those measures. Thats good too.

But not good enough. As he also noted, that still leaves 45,000 children below the line. Thats one in 10. Among Mori, one in five. What about them?

So what did James Shaw announce on June 11? What is this plan the other parties are so determined to pretend is irrelevant?

The centrepiece is an Income Guarantee (IG). Everyone, whether in or out of work and including tertiary students, will receive at least $385 a week, after tax.

Its not a universal basic income: You dont get it if youre employed for more than that amount. And its really not a lot. Its a bottom line: It ensures everyone will have at least $20,000 a year to live on. Thats about the same as half the couples rate of superannuation.

The IG comes hand in hand with a complete shake-up of Working for Families (WFF). Labour was going to do this, but events got in the way.

WFF is complex and discriminatory, because it excludes those not in work. The Greens propose a simple system: a single payment of up to $215 per week for a first child and $135 for each other child, with the amounts steadily abating for family incomes over $60,000.

Theres also a payment of $140 per week for every family with a child aged under 3 and a further payment of $135 per week if youre a single parent and out of work or studying.

There are tax changes. The first $10,000 of your income will be tax-free, which translates into a tax cut of between $16 and $26 a week for every individual earning under $125,000.

In other words, it not only helps the squeezed middle National and Labour are squabbling over, it defines middle so generously, it includes 3.7 million taxpayers.

If youre earning over $180,000, on the other hand, youll pay a new marginal top rate of 45 per cent.

Theres a new corporate tax, which is actually an old one. The Greens want to shift it back to what it was in 2008, when National came to power: 33 per cent. This is not evil. Its merely a bit fairer.

Lets remember these are not tough times for everyone. Supermarkets are doing so well out of inflation theyre making more than $1 million in profits a day. Airlines are so thrilled about our desperate post-Covid need to fly, theyve jacked their prices up to extraordinary levels.

As for the banks, theyre just loving all this inflation, disaster recovery, business uncertainty and a soft property market. The very things that are stressful for the rest of us are making them record profits to beat their own record profits from last year and the one before.

The Greens also propose to reform ACC into an Agency for Comprehensive Care, covering illness as well as injury, and offer more support for people with disabilities.

But what about that wealth tax? If you own assets, including property, worth more than $2m, youll pay 2.5 per cent a year.

Its per individual, not per couple. It applies to assets after mortgages and other debts are deducted. Its a marginal tax. And you can defer payment.

This means a couple would not pay the wealth tax on their family home, unless it was worth more than $4m and they had no mortgage. Even then, they would pay the tax only on the value over $4m. If they couldnt afford it, they could wait til they sold the house.

Its very hard to see how any of this would be unreasonably tough on anyone.

There is also a trust tax, of 1.5 per cent, to discourage people from hiding their wealth. This aligns with what should be the governing principle of any fair tax system: all income is taxed equitably. Theres no injustice in that.

The Greens policy isnt perfect. Some of the settings may be too high, or too low. Overseas, there is debate about the relative merits of a straight wealth tax compared with other forms of taxing wealth. But it deserves debate.

As Shaw argued, among all the countries in the world with similar economies to ours, New Zealand is the only one that does not tax wealth in some way, whether its through a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, stamp duty, an estate tax, an inheritance tax, any form of land tax or some combination of these.

Its not only doable, its normal.

So, again, why the silence of the other parties? This policy sets a kind of benchmark. If the others believe they can do better, bring it on.

Theres an idea in this country that has our political discourse in a kind of headlock. Its that whats good for the very wealthy is good for everyone.

But the Greens say their policy will make 95 per cent of all taxpayers better off. Are we supposed to ignore that because the wealthiest 5 per cent keep insisting their interests are aligned with everyone elses?

Shaw began his speech by talking about the fire at Loafers Lodge in Wellington, which claimed five lives in May. He called it symptomatic of one of the greatest political and policy failures of the last generation.

This isnt an abstract debate. Ending poverty and breaking that headlock should be front and centre in this election.

Simon Wilson is a senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.

Read more from the original source:

Simon Wilson: Green Partys poverty plan for Election 2023 - and the ... - New Zealand Herald

Mayflower Hotel Washington, D.C.

5:03 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Jill said you women should take off your high heels or you should just lie down. (Laughter.) My lord, talk about commitment, standing all this time. (Laughter.)

Thank you, Doc. I appreciate that introduction. I really do.

My name is Joe Biden. Im Jills husband and Kamalas running mate. (Laughter and applause.) You all think Im kidding.

I want to thank start by thanking Kamala for taking the lead on this issue and so many other issues in our campaign and our governing.

And I want to thank Jill and Doug for their work in shining a spotlight on the issue affecting women.

And I want to thank all of you EMILYs List, NARAL, Planned Parenthood for your endorsement. Its a big deal. Its a big deal. Your support was critical last time around, and were so grateful for it and were hard working with with you again.

I cant think of three organizations who will do more have more consequential impact on the right and the ability to regain freedom.

You know, you have troops on the ground in every single state, and were going to need all those troops in those states.

We want to thank Nancy Pelosi, a good friend, whos been an ally and friend of mine for a long time, as well as the many members of the Congress who are here and elected officials from all around the country.

To state the obvious even though its clear by now; its almost redundant to say it this fight really matters. It really, really matters.

Since the day the Dobbs decision came down one year ago tomorrow, weve seen the devastating effects all across the country: women turned away from emergency rooms, denied lifesaving care; moms, college students, teachers, nurses traveling hundreds of miles to get basic reproductive healthcare.

And we just heard from Jill, whos heard the stories firsthand. You know, weve all heard the stories firsthand. People come up to you people you know and people youve grown up with.

You know, and since that dark June day last year, each of you has worked tirelessly to fight back.

In the Dobbs decision, the Court particularly practically dared the women of America to be heard.

This is what the majority wrote: Women are not without electoral or political power. You aint seen nothing yet, Court. (Applause.) I really mean it.

Think of the challenge that is.

I said at the time that I didnt think the Court or, for that matter, the Republican Party, who for decades have pushed

their extreme agenda have a clue about the power of women in America.

I said they were about to find out. (Applause.) And, by the way, in the midterms, we were supposed to be blown out. They did find out. (Applause.) And theyre going to find out again. I really believe in my heart, I believe it.

Look, we were we were criticized for making this an issue in the midterms. In fact, I got attacked for it.

But you know all along what Kamala and Doug and Jill and I knew as well: The Americans would not stand by and let the Court take away the right thats so fundamental, that wed fight wed fight to restore these protections of Roe v. Wade and make it the law of the land once again. And were going to do that. (Applause.) And we will not let the most personal decisions fall in the hands of politicians instead of woman and their doctors.

The Court was betting that all of us would remain silent. But my mother had an expression. She said, Joey, never bow, never bend, never yield. Just get up. Oh, you think Im kidding? You didnt know my mom. (Laughter.)

That the American that the women of America would remain silent was just beyond comprehension; that Kamala and I would remain silent. Well, were not. We will not remain silent.

And all over this country, thanks to the hard work of the voters, delivered a clear message. In Kansas, in Michigan, in Kentucky, in the polls in November, Americans voted to protect the womans right to choose. In fact, you all showed up and beat the hell out of them. (Laughter and applause.)

You know, whats really remarkable is despite the will of the American people, MAGA Republicans have made clear that they dont intend to stop with the Dobbs decision. No, they wont, until they get a national ban on abortion.

Speaker McCarthy said, quote, Our work is far from done. End of quote. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to

AUDIENCE: Booo

THE PRESIDENT: wants to criminalize doctors and nurses who provide medical care for their patients; make it a crime.

Republicans in Congress have proposed three national abortion bans just this last year. Well, make no mistake about it: If somehow Congress were to pass a national ban, I will veto it. (Applause.)

Lets also be clear that this decision also risks risks the broader rights of privacy for everyone. Thats because the fundamental right to privacy, which Roe recognized, has has served as a basis for so many other rights that are ingrained in our fabric of our country: the right to make the best decisions for your health, the right to use birth control. Did you ever think wed be arguing about that?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No!

THE PRESIDENT: No, Im serious.

The right to marry the person you love. (Applause.)

Judge Thomas said as much in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, writing, quote, For that reason, in future cases we should reconsider all the Courts substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

These guys are serious, man. I I said it when the decision came out, and people looked at me like I was exaggerating. But theyre not stopping here. Make no mistake, this election is about freedom on the ballot once again.

Look, weve made so much progress. We cant let it take us backwards. I believe that one of the best ways to continue making progress is to ensure women are at every table where every decision is made. (Applause.) And thats not hyperbole. Thats not hyperbole.

I promised that my administration would look like America. My Cabinet is the first majority-female Cabinet in history. (Applause.) You just heard from the first woman ever Vice President of the United States. (Applause.)

And perhaps the most critical of milestones we mark tomorrow.

We are reshaping our courts. Weve appointed more Black women to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal (applause) than than every other president in American history combined. Combined. (Applause.)

And, of course, I was proud to keep my promise to appoint Justice Jackson (applause) the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. And, by the way, shes smarter than the rest. (Applause.) She is Im serious. Shes incredible. She is genuinely incredible.

Were also making progress building an economy where all Americans have the opportunity to work, raise a family, buy a home, start a business.

We made historic investments in childcare, making it more affordable so parents can work and provide for their kids at the same time.

The first major piece of legislation I signed, the American Rescue Plan, provided historic tax relief for millions of families, helping to recover (applause) childcare costs through the largest increase in history of Childcare Tax Credit and the Dependent the Dependent Care child Tax Credit.

We helped 200,000 children care providers stay open, and small businesses, continuing to go through the pandemic and continuing to serve more than 9.5 million children.

These things matter.

I signed legislation increasing funding for Child Care and Development Block Grants by 30 percent, helping low-income families afford childcare.

But theres so much more to do. And were fighting over abortion?

For example, the United States is still one of the only countries in the world that doesnt guarantee paid leave. I remain committed to changing that (applause) and bringing us in line with every other single major economy in the world by passing a national program for paid leave and medical leave. (Applause.)

We can get all this done and so much more. We can restore the protections of Roe v. Wade and make it the law of the land again, but were going to need your help badly.

So, let me ask you this: Do you think your colleagues are with us?

AUDIENCE: Yes! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tell you what: They better damn well be. (Laughter.)

After the Dobbs decision came down, I signed two executive orders, and my administration took a number of actions to protect the access to reproductive healthcare.

And its just the one I signed the third executive order, which is to strengthen the affordability of high-quality contraception. The idea that I had to do that I mean no, I mean, really, think about. Think about it.

I know Im 198 years old (laughter) but all kidding aside, think about that. I never ever thought Id be signing an executive order protecting the right to contraception.

But the only sure way to protect a womans health and rights is for Congress to pass a law. (Applause.)

As Ive said before, the Court got Roe right 50 years ago, and I believe Congress should restore the protections of Roe v. Wade once and for all. (Applause.) But we need your help.

So, Ill ask again: Are you with us? Youre going to get this done? (Applause.) I really mean it.

So, let me close let me close with this.

Over the last week or so, weve seen extraordinary support from three of the most important voices in the country coming together to get behind this campaign: organized labor (applause) climate leaders (applause) and all of you representing the powerful groups fighting to protect the advantage for womens rights. (Applause.)

Your strong support, your determination, your ago- your advocacy are why Ive never I know Ive said this before, and I want you to listen to it again, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart: I have never been more optimistic about Americas future than I am today.

And with your help, Kamala and I are going to continue to make the progress. Were going to finish this job.

We just have to remember who the hell we are. Were the United States of America. (Applause.) And theres nothing, nothing beyond our ca- if we work together.

So, God bless you all. May God protect our troops. (Applause.)

Lets go get this done. Lets get this done! Thank you. (Applause.)

5:13 P.M. EDT

Read more:

Remarks by President Biden in a Political Event with Reproductive ... - The White House

Keen to learn more about a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) but not sure where to start? Over the next week the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) will be releasing seven factsheets covering all you need to know about how a UBIG can help to chart a course to a more equal, just and prosperous South Africa. You can read the seven factsheets here, first on The Daily Vox and on the IEJ website.

The factsheets boil down local and international research, in a way that is quick and easy to read and understand. The series will cover:

Well be publishing the factsheets daily over the next seven working days so be sure to check back in. First up today, the answer to the BIG question, why does South Africa need a UBIG in the first place?

This series is a collaboration between the IEJ and The Daily Vox. The IEJ has produced the factsheets which are exclusively available on The Daily Vox website.

Read the original:

Why does South Africa need a Universal Basic Income Guarantee ...

GENEVA/NEW YORK, 17 October 2022The war in Ukraine and rising inflation have driven an additional four million children across eastern Europe and Central Asia into poverty, a 19 per cent increase since 2021, according to a new UNICEF study published today.

The impact of the war in Ukraine and subsequent economic downturn on child poverty in eastern Europe and Central Asia which features data from 22 countries* across the region - shows that children are bearing the heaviest burden of the economic crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. While children make up 25 per cent of the population, they account for nearly 40 per cent of the additional 10.4 million people experiencing poverty this year.

The Russian Federation accounts for nearly three-quarters of the total increase in the number of children living in poverty due to the Ukraine war and a cost-of-living crisis across the region, with an additional 2.8 million children now living in households below the poverty line. Ukraine is home to half a million additional children living in poverty, the second largest share, followed by Romania, with an additional 110,000 children, the study notes.

Beyond the obvious horrors of war the killing and maiming of children, mass displacement the economic consequences of the war in Ukraine are having a devastating impact on children across eastern Europe and Central Asia, said UNICEF Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia Afshan Khan. Children all over the region are being swept up in this wars terrible wake. If we dont support these children and families now, the steep rise in child poverty will almost certainly result in lost lives, lost learning, and lost futures.

The consequences of child poverty stretch far beyond families living in financial distress. The sharp increase could result in an additional 4,500 children dying before their first birthdays, and learning losses could be equivalent to an additional 117,000 children dropping out of school this year alone, the study notes.

The poorer a family is, the greater the proportion of their income committed to necessities such as food and fuel. When the cost of basic goods soars, the money available to meet other needs such as health care and education falls, the study notes. The subsequent cost-of-living crisis means that the poorest children are even less likely to access essential services, and are more at risk of violence, exploitation and abuse.

For many, childhood poverty lasts a lifetime. One in three children born and raised in poverty will live their adult lives in poverty, leading to an intergenerational cycle of hardship and deprivation, the study notes.

The challenges faced by families living in or on the brink of poverty deepen when governments reduce public expenditure, increase consumption taxes or put in place austerity measures in a limiting effort to boost their economies in the short-term, as this diminishes the reach and quality of support services that families depend on.

The study sets out a framework to help reduce the number of children living in poverty and prevent more families from falling into financial distress:

UNICEF has recently partnered with the EU Commission and several EU countries to pilot the EU Child Guarantee initiative to mitigate the impact of poverty on children and provide them with opportunities to thrive in adulthood. With more children and families now being pushed into poverty, a robust response is warranted across the region.

UNICEF is calling for continued and expanded support to strengthen social protection systems in high- and middle-income countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia; and the prioritization of funding for social protection programmes, including cash assistance programmes for vulnerable children and families.

Austerity measures will hurt children most of all plunging even more children into poverty and making it harder for families who are already struggling, said Khan. We have to protect and expand social support for vulnerable families before the situation gets any worse.

###

*including Kosovo, under UNSC Resolution 1244

Read more:

Child poverty across eastern Europe and Central Asia soars by 19 per cent, as Ukraine war and rising inflation drive four million children into...

DENVER (KDVR) Denver City Council is now officially a part of a new initiative to curb rising homelessness in the city. Council members voted unanimously on Monday to fork over $2 million for the project that will go directly into the hands of those living on the streets.

The Denver Basic Income Project is the first of its kind for Denver and the founder, Mark Donavan, tells FOX31 the goal is to help the most vulnerable population thrive in the Denver community, adding the main objective is to get the unhoused into homes.

The more that we come together with the city and show that we can do better and show better support and create accelerated pathways out of homelessness, thats fantastic, Donavan said. So, were thrilled to have them as a partner.

On Monday, council members passed the measure to give $2 million from the American Rescue Plan Act to the project. The Denver Basic Income Project will give certain members of the homeless community direct cash, $12,000 for a year, to try and get them back on their feet.

Donavan said it is a pilot program in Denver but has proven to be effective in other states. He said the goal is to serve 820 people in its first phase, saying theyve already raised more than $7 million, and the $2 million from the city will guarantee more help to those who need it the most.

We have an affordable housing crisis and its getting increasingly difficult for people to stay housed and thats a huge problem, so the trend is things are getting worse, not better, Donavan said. This is an emergency measure that will stabilize and help people that are in really challenging situations.

The trial will involve the applicants being separated into three groups. The first will get $6,500 up front and then $500 for 11 months. The second group will get $1,000 a month for one year. The last group will act as a control group and those will get $50 a month for one year.

Donavan said impact and outcome will be studied for the groups during the year. Applications for those in need will be available next month, but there are strict eligibility requirements.

Eligibility for participation includes:

Originally posted here:

Denver approves $2 million for basic income project

South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with extremely high rates of poverty and unemployment. Large numbers of people are excluded from the economy without the means to ensure that their basic needs are met. Recently there has been a lot of debate about the introduction of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (Ubig) in South Africa and its potential to address poverty and ensure that all people have an adequate standard of living.

Yes, we can afford a Universal Basic Income Guarantee

But what the introduction of a basic income grant means and what it looks like is not always clear. In this three-part series from the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), we cover the basics of a basic income grant. This, our first article, covers the overview of what a Ubig is, what different types exist and what transformative potential it may have. Our second piece covers the debate in South Africa and our final piece focuses on how we could finance it.

A basic income guarantee is a commitment by government to ensure that everyone has a minimal level of income to meet their basic needs. This is done through a regular cash transfer or grant.

Not all basic income guarantees are the same. A major point of difference is whether a guarantee is universal or targeted.

A Universal Basic Income Guarantee is something that all people (usually within a certain age range, for instance: all adults or all working-age adults) qualify for, regardless of their income or employment status.

A targeted basic income on the other hand is only paid out to those who meet some kind of qualifying criteria, usually that they are unemployed and/or have income below a certain level, typically referred to as a means-test threshold.

In a targeted grant, the level of this threshold is an important decision and determines the impact of the grant. If a threshold is set too low, for example, people who need the grant will not receive it. Advocates of a targeted grant argue that since only those who most need the grant receive it, this is the best use of scarce resources.

With a universal grant, everyone qualifies for the grant regardless of their income. Advocates of a Ubig argue that this reduces the administrative burden on the state because government officials do not have to go through difficult and time-consuming assessments of whether an applicant qualifies or not. A universal grant would mean there is less chance that people who need the grant wont receive it (due to something called exclusion errors). Research shows that targeted grants are difficult to administer, and always involve some level of accidental exclusion of rightful beneficiaries. Many previous recipients of, and current applicants for, the current R350 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant can attest to this.

Visit Daily Mavericks home page for more news, analysis and investigations

In addition to whether a grant is targeted or not and how any targeting is designed, the value of the grant is also an important design decision as it is important to ensure that the grant is set at a high enough level that it improves peoples life choices, rather than trapping them in poverty and dependency.

Many countries have introduced basic income support in some form, often to test its impact, and there is a lot of research that shows what the effects can be.

South Africa does not have any permanent income support for able-bodied people between the ages of 18 and 59. The Covid-19 SRD grant is a temporary measure which targets some people in this group but it has many limitations. There have been debates about the introduction of basic income support since the 1990s.

In our next article, we go into detail about the history of the debate in South Africa and discuss what a Ubig in the country could look like. We argue that a Ubig can have transformative effects in South Africa helping to shift structural poverty, alleviate some of the impacts of deeply entrenched unemployment and end hunger in the country. Rather than being a drain on the economy, a Ubig can contribute to growth as more people spend money in their local communities and have the means to better their economic position. DM

Osborne is a research associate at the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ). This is the first of a three-part series produced for GroundUp by the IEJ.

First published by GroundUp.

The rest is here:

Basic Income Grant what its all about and what i...

The possibility that a Universal Basic Income Guarantee(UBIG) could be introduced in South Africa has sparkedalot of debateover the last two years.

Its advocates say this grant could address our extremelyhigh rates of poverty and ensure that all people have an adequate standard ofliving. Its detractors say it would bankrupt the country.

In this three-part series from the Institute for EconomicJustice (IEJ), we cover the basics of a basic income grant.Inour first article, we gave an overview of what a universal basic incomeguarantee is and what transformative potential it could have.

In this, our second piece, we cover the evolution andcurrent state of the debate in South Africa. Our final piece will focus on howwe could finance it.

The birth of the debate in South Africa

The idea of a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa goesback to the late 1990s, whenorganisedlabour proposedthat the idea should be investigated by the governmentat the 1998 Presidential Jobs Summit. In 2002, thereportofthe Taylor Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Securityfor South Africa proposed a basic income grant of R100 per person, per month.

But then the debate disappeared for two decades. Therecommendations of the Taylor Committee were ignored. The ANC was largelyopposed to the UBIG during this period, influenced by concerns about "handouts"and dependency.

As successive governments pushed different growth agendas,there was less political interest in social security as a developmentalstrategy. It took time for the ineffectiveness of these growth agendas tobecome clear: massive unemployment persisted, inequality worsened, povertydeepened.

Covid-19 restarts the debate

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, the UBIG debate re-emerged.

The temporary Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant of R350a month was introduced by the government as a response to the impact of the pandemicand related lockdowns.

This was the first grant that able-bodied adults between theages of 18 and 59 could receive. Until then, even though a large proportion ofthis group had no other income and were shut out of paid work due to SouthAfrica's structural unemployment crisis, they were not covered by the socialgrant system.

Civil society organisations began to call for a permanentUBIG to replace the temporary SRD grant, and the government listened.

In December 2021, apanelof expertscommissioned by the Department of Social Development andthe International Labour Organisation found that while the SRD grant had provideda lifeline for many, it had not made a sufficient impact on poverty because itwas too small. In South Africa, four million households, comprising 11 millionpeople, have income below the food poverty line (FPL), which was R595 per monthin 2020.

Accordingto the panel, a BIG introduced at scale, worth at least the FPL, wouldalmost eliminate poverty in South Africa. The panel recommended that the SRDgrant should be made permanent, and progressively increased over time. Theysaid that "no alternative measures could reasonably address the widespreadand urgent income support needs" of South Africans.

In January 2022,acoalition of civil society organisationsmet President Cyril Ramaphosato argue that the SRD grant should be made into a universal basic incomeguarantee. They said that it should be increased first to the FPL and then by2024 to the upper bound poverty line (R1,335 per month in 2021). Theseproposals were recently supported by aresolutionof the ANC Policy Conferencein July this year.

But support for a UBIG has not been unanimous.

Opponents of the grant, which include some groups inbusinessandtheNationalTreasury, have variously claimed that it is unaffordable, that its costswould overshadow any benefits, that it is a "populist'"party-political tactic and that it would further a "culture of dependency".

A boost for the economy?

Critics of the UBIG say that it will cause the economy toslow down. The Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE), for instance,argues that while the UBIG will "raise beneficiaries' consumption",causing a boost to the economy, this will come "at the cost of reducedconsumption elsewhere".

This argument does not account for the extent to which aUBIG can boost local economies. It is not just increased spending that willresult, but it can allow more people to become active participants in theeconomy, which would grow as a result.

UBIG beneficiaries will spend the money in their localcommunities, which stimulate these industries and increase tax revenues throughincreased VAT payments.

Informal sector workers would use a portion of their basicincome to invest in self-employment and productive activities.

These types of positive spin-offs can, over time, resolveSouth Africa's pressing challenges such as inequality, unemployment andpoverty. This means that the net cost to the government decreases.

The benefits of a UBIG are far greater than the initial costof its implementation.

Populism or for the people?

TheCDEalsosays that the only reason why a UBIG is now on the national agenda is that thegoverning party needs to shore up support.

But in a democratic system we should expect parties topursue policy platforms that they expect to have widespread support, and benefittheir constituency. We should also respect voters' rights to judge the meritsof such policies. The popularity of a policy is by no means an inherentargument against it.

This argument also ignores the pronounced and profoundeconomy-wide impact of the Covid pandemic that led to the introduction of theR350 SRD grant. It also ignores the large number of civil society organisationsand social movements that are calling for the adoption of a UBIG.

Dependency debates

Another line of attack from UBIG detractors, includingtheMinisterof Finance, is to claim that providing grants will create a cycle ofdependency. This argument is not based on evidence.

The evidence of a large number ofstudieson cashtransfers inAfricaandother low- and middle-incomecountriesdemonstratesthat UBIGs make people more productive.

Studies have shown that even meagre basic income support forvulnerable people increases autonomy and enables job-seeking, investment inproductive assets, a transition from poor quality and exploitative jobs to moredecent work as well as self-employment, small business creation, and women'seconomic empowerment.

As we mentioned in our previous article, basic incomesupport helps people to join the formal labour market as it gives people moneyto look for a job.

The reality is,giventhe chance, people consistently seek ways to increase their economicparticipation and security.

Can we afford a UBIG?

Concerns about the affordability and sustainability of UBIGproposals have also come from the business lobby. The CDE and Intellidex arguethat paying for a UBIG would require income tax increases or taking on debtthat South Africa cannot afford. Income tax increases would lead to emigrationand other destabilising economic effects, and South Africa already has a highdebt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio, they say. CDE and Intellidex arguethat tougher taxes on the wealthy would compound the economic problems in SouthAfrica.

They conclude that a UBIG is unaffordable.

But UBIG will act as a stimulus to the economy. Part of thecost associated with it will be recouped by the government through VAT. Theremaining net cost can be sustainably financed through progressive taxation.

South Africa's income and wealth inequality is adestabilising factor in the economy. Taxing and redistributing income moreprogressively using a UBIG could shift persistent structural inequality in theeconomy, asarguedby IEJ director Gilad Isaacsin response to the Intellidex report.

This argument has found unusual supporters. In August thisyear, the historically conservativeOrganisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) came out in favour of a UBIGasa safety net, and a more redistributive tax system.

The IEJ's analysis suggests that UBIG is achievable in SouthAfrica in the short-term and would carry little risk if it is phased incarefully and responsibly. We haveproposedaninitial UBIG valued at R624 per month (thefood poverty line at September 2021) that would overtime be increased.

In the final part of this introductory series, we will lookat how we could finance this.

Vuyisiwe Mahafu is a Budget Policy Intern at theInstitute for Economic Justice.

Read the original post:

EXPLAINER | Basic Income Grant: What is the debate about? | Fin24 - News24

MARTIN Lewis' MoneySavingExpert is urging broadband customers to claim a discount that could save them hundreds of pounds a year.

The deal is for those on Universal Credit - but millions are missing out.

1

With the energy price cap coming into effect from October and petrol prices refusing to budge, you'll want all the financial help you can get this winter.

MSE is pushing for a brilliant broadband loop hole for those on Universal Credit which could save them a whopping 114 a year.

These loop holes are called social tariffs, and they're usually low on price every month if you stick with the same provider.

Eight providers offer discounted broadband social tariffs at the moment.

They are:

BT offers 36Mb speed broadband and line for 15 per month, plus an extra 9.99 upfront, and jobseekers can claim six months' free broadband with TalkTalk under their social tariffs.

Average broadband bills could cost somewhere around 40 a month - read Gina's story here to see how she slashed 300 off her bill on BT's social tariff.

More than four million people qualify for these cheaper social tariffs - and it's estimated that just55,000 of the 4.2million people who qualifyare making use of the saving.

Basically, social tariffs are cheaper broadband and phonedealsoffered by some providers to people on certainbenefits.

Unfortunately, most people don't realise these deals are available because they're not listed on comparison sites.

How you apply for a social tariff will vary depending on the provider.

BT and Virgin let you sign up online, but withSkyandNow, you'll need to call.

The deals on offer will vary too including the price and speeds available. With some providers you'll need to be an existing customer to qualify.

TalkTalkoffers six months broadband for free for those on jobseeker's allowance.

BT and Virgin Media have social tariffs for just 15 a month - the latter's has a 30-day rolling contract, so you're not tied in.

Now Broadband also has a rolling contract - it charges 20 a month.

Sky charges 20 a month - the deal is for 18 months, so you may need to pay an exit fee to get out early.

Before you sign up for any of the social tariff, check whether you could get a better deal elsewhere by using a comparison website such asMoneysupermarket.comor Uswitch.

To qualify for a social tariff you'll typically need to be in receipt of certain benefits including Universal Credit, Employment and support allowance, the guarantee credit element of pension credit, Income support, or Jobseeker's Allowance.

If you're not sure whether you're eligible,The Sun has come up with an easy toolin partnership with Nous to help you check.

Visitnous.co/thesunto find out whether you qualify for cheaper broadband in just two minutes.

You'll need to share some basic information about your households and give permission for your bank to share details of your broadband spending and whether you receive benefits.

Another benefit of a social tariff is that providers have promised they will not raise prices mid-contract, giving you certainty over your bills.

Read more from the original source:

Martin Lewis MSE warns millions are missing out on broadband discount and you could save 114 a year... - The Sun