Experts meet to discuss providing basic payments to everyone - Global Welfare

AP WorldStream ^ | 9-12-02 | NAOMI KOPPEL

[Oldeconomybuyer]

GENEVA, Sep 12, 2002 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- Governments should scrap existing welfare programs and provide every person in the world with a basic income to meet fundamental human needs, according to experts meeting under U.N. sponsorship here Thursday.

Programs in the United States and elsewhere have shown that such payments can work, said Guy Standing, chairman of the Basic Income European Network, or BIEN, which organized the three-day conference.

"When we first introduced this, we were regarded as mad, bad and dangerous to know. But we are now welcomed by many policy-makers," Standing told reporters.

Around 200 government advisers, academics and other experts from 28 countries are discussing the idea that a basic income would improve economic security and would work better than current welfare programs.

The conference is being hosted by the International Labor Organization although the ILO - the U.N. labor agency - has no official position on the issue.

Among those speaking are the prime minister of Mozambique, Pascoal Mocumbi, and ILO Director-General Juan Somavia.

Supporters of a basic income insist that everyone is entitled to enough income to cover minimum needs - food, housing, clothing, education and health care, regardless of race, gender or age. The exact level of the payment would vary from country to country.

Standing, who is also director of the ILO's socio-economic security program, said the idea had long been rejected by governments as too expensive, but that many were now coming round. Such payments would simpler to administer than current welfare programs, he said.

A number of projects already have proved successful, Standing said. These include the Alaska Permanent Fund, introduced in 1976, that provides income to every resident of the largest U.S. state, and programs to provide money to women in Brazil and elsewhere provided their children go to school.

He also welcomed the introduction of a "baby bond" by the British government that puts money into trust when a child is born to provide it with income in adulthood.

Despite evidence that such programs work, industrialized countries have increasingly been moving toward complex means tests that can discourage the most deserving from claiming their benefits.

That approach also can lead to "poverty traps," where claimants who find jobs are worse off because they lose benefits.

BIEN also criticizes "paternalistic" conditions, such as requiring the unemployed to report regularly to a welfare officer, prove that they are actively seeking jobs or take a job they do not want.

There is little evidence of an increase in lazy people stopping work if they receive a basic income, Standing said.

"Actually, people want to work. It is one of the great fallacies that if you give people a small amount of income they aren't going to work. A lot of surveys show that ... people are motivated by other aspirations," he said.

Standing cited a BIEN survey of 19 industrialized countries which finds that welfare protection fell in 15 nations between 1990 and 2000, with improvements only in Australia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

------

On the net:  http://www.basicincome.org

[2banana]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

[Maceman]

Governments should scrap existing welfare programs and provide every person in the world with a basic income to meet fundamental human needs, according to experts meeting under U.N. sponsorship here Thursday.

Interesting how AP won't use the "subjective" term "terrorist" to describe people who hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, but has no problem bestowing the title of "expert" on self-important social engineers who seriously advocate utterly discredited socialist welfare state schemes.

[RogerFGay]

There's no telling what they have in mind. This wouldn't be the first time globalists have lied through their teeth to promote something. It was bizarre in its attack on "means testing" -- meaning they want worldwide communist style wealth redistribution as far as I can tell. The confusion they might be creating is that part of their description sounds like something proposed by Milton Friedman. If you're going to have a welfare program, just give everybody with too little income a little more. Close down all the giant bureacracies and just send them a check.

Now raise your hand if you think Europe is going to reform their welfare system by doing away with huge, expensive, complex bureacracies.

Just as I thought. I don't see a single hand raised.

[GATOR NAVY]

Alaska ping. Check out the moronic reference to the permanent fund.

[Bigun]

Interesting how AP won't use the "subjective" term "terrorist" to describe people who hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, but has no problem bestowing the title of "expert" on self-important social engineers who seriously advocate utterly discredited socialist welfare state schemes.

I have also observed MANY such "anomalies". It's ALMOST as if they were trying to promote certian agendas isn't it?

[meenie]

If the "experts" want to divvy up their salary with the less fortunate, who am I to criticize? Just keep their hands out of my hip pocket.

[VetoBill]

Unfortunately the socialists that want this have no abilities and unlimited wants.

[right wing]

Incredible.... This thread needs major continuous bumping. All FReepers need to take a look at this one.

WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THE UN NOW!

[johniegrad]

BIEN also criticizes "paternalistic" conditions, such as requiring the unemployed to report regularly to a welfare officer, prove that they are actively seeking jobs or take a job they do not want

This is breathtaking logic. It is "paternalistic" to means test, to enforce restrictions on taking that money, or to ensure that they are looking for work. It is not "paternalistic" to provide everyone in the world with a guaranteed income?

[Bigun]

I seem to recall these same people refering to the folks who created these Flawed global warming models as EXPERTS as well!

Hmmmmm!

[upchuck]

Oh yeah. The WWMIRS*. Isn't this just a logical extension? These folks would have proposed this 20 years ago if they thought they could have gotten away with it. We've, unfortunately, slid down the hill quite a bit in the last 20 yrs.

* World Wide Mandatory Income Redistribution Scheme

[upchuck]

Oops, I forgot: BUMP!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think this is what Wellstone has in mind.

[warped]

Ok so the article shows stupidity from the beginning. The Alaska Permanent Fund is not a welfare handout (at least not intended that way). It's a payment to residents from the oil revenues the state collects. All countries do not have oil revenues. They're using a totally un-related fund to prove a point. That's like tasting a peach and then telling me the apples are good. DUMB!!!!

[B4Ranch]

Let me make your day by pinging you to this article. /sarcasm OFF

[B4Ranch]

What makes these folks think they're "experts" or is that just the authors opinion.

[MissAmericanPie]

All of these globalist, especially the U.N., are desperate to get into and control the individuals pocket. No other wealthy country in the world has protection against global taxation but the USofA because of it's constitution, and it is the USofA's pocket that they are most desperate to get into.
We should not elect any political figgure that promotes globalism or promotes policies that mean the end of our sovereignty, personal privacy, or freedom. The dangers we face at present are the "Know Your Customer" demand of the IRS for banks to report unusual activity in their customers accounts, and the Patriot Acts "if more than ten grand is spent with any one company over a 12 month period the customer must be reported to the government by the business"

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The UN appears to be getting bolder every year with its "in your face" commands and opinions about what sovereign countries should be doing with regards to their internal policies. Probably makes Walter Crockkite and Hillary the beast happy, but I think its ultimate goal is to dip into the treasury of the US.

[Red Jones]

obviously, there's a very strong momentum towards world government. This momentum is entirely contrived and not supported at all by the people, but what does that matter?