Citizenship and the case for a basic income
As long as social rights are seen as special entitlements for those who have ‘failed’
they will always be divisive, and reaffirm rather than undermine class differences.
In her assessment of the welfare state, Pateman makes the case for a guaranteed
income for everyone (Hoffman, 1995: 205), and the value of this proposal as a
citizens’ or basic income is that it would be universal. This proposal is also made
by New Rightists who speak of the need for a ‘negative income tax’. All would
receive this income, regardless of employment status. As Faulks points out (2000:
120), it could decommodify social rights (i.e. take them away from the market),
and break with the argument that those who lack capital must work for others. A
guaranteed basic income would give people a real choice as to how and in what
way they wanted to work, and empower citizens as a whole.
It would enable people to think much more about the ‘quality of life’ and the
ecological consequences of material production. It would enhance a sense of
community and individual autonomy, and underpin the social and communal
character of wealth creation (Faulks, 2000: 120). It is not difficult to see how a
basic income would also dramatically improve the position of women whose
precarious economic position makes them particularly dependent upon men or
patriarchal-minded partners. It is true that were this idea taken in abstraction from
other policies concerned with reducing inequality (as in the development of a
democratic policy for ethnic minorities and movements towards genuinely universal
education), then it could be divisive, tying women to domestic duties, and leaving
the capitalist labour contract unreformed, but as Faulks comments, ‘no one policy
can address all possible inequalities’ (2000: 120).
People seek to work outside the home for social reasons (and not simply economic
ones), and a guaranteed income would give people time and resources to be more
involved in community-enhancing activities such as lifelong learning, voluntary
work and political participation. The argument that universal benefits undermine
personal responsibility (Saunders, 1995: 92) seems to us precisely wrong since the
assumption that people will only act sensibly if they are threatened with destitution
and poverty reflects an elitist disregard for how people actually think.
What of the cost? Surely a citizens’ income is not economically feasible, given
the argument that the rich will not tolerate paying higher levels of taxation. The
idea of a guaranteed income appears to be a non-starter. There are a number of
counter-arguments that should be put:- A guaranteed income would markedly simplify the difficult and complex tax and
benefits system: significant savings could be made here. - People will pay for universal benefits if they are convinced of the need for them.
The widespread support for, say, the British National Health Service as a provider
of universal benefits shows that increasing taxation is much more palatable if
people are convinced that it is linked to changes which will really improve their
lives. Adair Turner lists some of the collective goods – subsidised public transport,
traffic calming measures, noise abatement baffles and tree screens to make our
motorways less intrusive – which he would prefer to (for example) a bigger and
more stylish car. ‘I would rather pay more tax to get those benefits than have
the extra, personal income available to buy more market goods’ (2002: 125).
Chapter 6 Citizenship 125