Perspective on ‘A Basic Income for Everyone is Not Affordable’ – Part 2

This blog-post is a continuation to the posts


Top Economist says: “Universal Basic Income is Not Affordable”
Perspective on ‘A Basic Income for Everyone is Not Affordable’ – Part 1

Read them first for context.


In this blog I’d like to conduct the thought experiment of playing out the assumption that a basic income can be provided to everyone unconditionally – to then see what possible problems might occur and assess: if it is affordable – is it do-able?

First point to consider here is that to organize such a money stream – you’ll quite likely have to use income taxes as a source of funding. And that’s where I foresee possible problems. Income taxes today are a touchy subject, because everyone feels they have earned their income. If part of it is let go of and allocated towards ‘the common good’ – that’s cool, so long as people feel that it is justified. Considering the basic income as one of the expenses, where a person will now receive this income regardless of how much they work – you’ll most probably run into resistance and if it were to be established – resentment towards those who choose to simply live off a basic income. Sure – everyone will receive it, so even if one works and part of one’s salary goes towards funding a universal income, one will equally be paid out a basic income. For some that may mean receiving back more than what one paid in taxes. But for others, it will square out or they’ll still pay more taxes than the basic income amount. Inevitably this will lead to resentment, because we’ve for decades lived within the paradigm that money is something you should earn. So – for some to pay for others’ income entirely – no strings attached – may be easier in theory than in practice. So – yes, the numbers may work out, but that doesn’t mean you’ll receive the approval of the majority and get a green light to manifest a universal basic income system.

When it comes to income taxes and resentment, consider the current state of the welfare state – the complicated rules, the intricate web of conditions to qualify – the conditions set to ensure a person ‘deserves’ the support given. This complexity didn’t come falling out of the sky – it exists because people demanded it to be so. Although the ideas of unconditionally giving money to everyone and of giving up a part of one’s income to realize such a situation are noble ones – it’s worth asking the question if we as a society live up to that nobility. Herein a follow-up question could be: and if we do provide an unconditional basic income funded through income taxes – what is to say we will not end up right where we started, with ever increasing demands placed on those who do not ‘contribute’ to society in the conventional way of taking up employment and in one way or another being part of the national economy?

Apart from resentment, we have to also consider the dimension of what effect funding an unconditional universal basic income will have on employment. Herein I’m not referring to what effect it will have to create a support structure within which anyone will be guaranteed an income regardless of work efforts and whether that will induce people to simply stop working. Rather – I’m looking at the ‘message’ that is sent out by taxing the incomes of those who work, from the perspective of it being interpreted or having the same effect as punitive measures. For instance, in basic income experiments, the effect on unemployment was negligible or only significant in relation to certain individuals, such as youngsters, students and mothers – where it can be argued that this is not such a bad thing – they will be able to focus on other activities, such as educating themselves or raising their children, which will have long term benefits for society and the economy as a whole. But within those experiments, only the ‘receiving’ aspect of a basic income was tested – the ‘giving’ aspect of a basic income was not. Within the experiments, money was made available by governments or organizations and the effects of receiving the income were observed. What didn’t happen, was taking a small village or town that was approximately representative of the national population and taxing incomes in that village in such a way as to generate enough funds to redistribute it equally among everyone, where the amount given to each one is sufficient to live off of. In that scenario, one might have observed a greater shift from employment to unemployment, simply to be on the side of those that ‘benefit’ rather than those who work and pay for others to benefit.  It is this effect on unemployment that Paul De Grauwe was referring to in his article.

I’ll continue in my next post.

Read More

Common Concerns about the Implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed

The following is a Q&A discussion from the Living Income Guaranteed Facebook page.

Do we have equal education, ambition, and iq? should the cashier and server make the same as the entrepreneur with more risk and skin in the game? If you want more pay, find a profession in high demand. Also, if positioning the government to raise minimum wage rates only creates a market distortion inducing hyperinflation, increasing the rate of automated points of sales, job elimination, and pricing some smaller companies completely out of markets. i find it hard to believe that the people on this page can't see through a socialist ideology for the disaster that it is.

Hi - it's not within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal to give each one equal wages, regardless of skill, profession or education. However, it is within the Human Rights Declaration to provide each one with certain rights - which requires a minimum living income. Wouldn't you say it is hypocritical to promise or guarantee these rights and then refrain from providing the means through which these rights find their expression - which in our world, is money? In terms of the inflation argument - please check out the hangout we did on that topic:

A living income is not a right. It's a right to persue, it. How can someone be provided something equal, or to a hyper -standard of their personal production? If a living is "guaranteed ", what is the motivation of the indevidual to continue to be a productive member of society? Where is this guarantee coming from, if the incentive to work is gone? Will farmers farm if they are guaranteed a living even if they dount? Will truckers get up at 3am and drive? Will doctors continue to practice?
The truth is, this utopian, society you are promoting sounds like roses and rainbows but the facts are, you are pushing the same socialist ideology that has been failing for hundreds of years.
I hope you never see the day your agenda is a reality. I hope you never have to explain why you have to stand in line for the only meal of the day. I think you should be studying the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, or for that matter, Rome. Noone can guarantee you a living, it's a fact. The people who say they they can, are only going to make those promises until they realize, that giving you that guarantee, means taking from someone else who WORKS for it. It's called slavery. What some see as greed and unfair, I call success.
Asking your government to guarantee your living, is in turn relinquishing your liberty to them. If you want to know your rights, read the constitution. There are no guarantees in life. If you want freedom and peace, and your rights? You have to work and fight for them. And that means taking personal responsibility for your actions and wellbeeing. If you want someone to guarantee you the the things that sustain your life and you are over the age of 18, you are completely delusional.

Hi - I hear your concerns regarding the Living Income Guaranteed proposal as they have been brought up before. If we lived in a world where jobs and opportunities for success were readily available to all - then, yes, we can suppose that it is ever person's choice to live in poverty and there might be reason to leave someone to their own vices. However, that is not the world we live in today. Not everyone grows up in the same environment that supports them with the skills to enter the job-market. Not everyone has access to decent education and even with having a degree and the will to work, youth unemployment is a growing phenomenon, because there are no jobs available. For a different perspective, I suggest you read the blog 'Redemption and the Right to a Living Income' as it is directly pertinent to the point you raised here. Placing that absolute 'rule' or 'principle' that only those who can make a decent living within the economic system rightly deserve it is problematic when you consider the world we live in, because it can not simply be argued that those in poverty choose to be there and/or that they are unwilling to change their living conditions.

In terms of work incentives, we looked at this point as well. If staying at home still provides you with your basic living necessities, would there be a reason to work? One point here I would like to bring up is that pilot projects for a basic income have all shown that work efforts are not reduced when a basic income is provided. So, there is reason to believe that our fears are just that - fears. But do we want to take that risk? We'd rather not. Therefore, within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the minimum wage be double the Living Income. That means that those with a job can definitely afford more luxurious lifestyles than those living with just the basic requirements - which therefore provides an incentive to take up employment.

In terms of your argument of taking from someone else who worked for their income to provide another with a living income, I suggest you read the Living Income Proposal itself again as we suggest a way of financing the Living Income Guaranteed that does not require means such as income tax which ensures that no one pays for anyone else's Living Income.

That guaranteeing a Living Income stands equal to, or is a slippery slope towards communism is quite a leap. Consider that communism was characterized by central planning and the centralization of ownership of resources. We propose instead that capitalism remains the way in which economic activities are conducted and we support the decentralization of power with minimal government - less government in fact than a welfare state implies. Herein, we agree with Libertarians such as Matt Zwolinski who recently wrote an informative and insightful article titled 'The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee'.

The constitutions and the values and principles that we've been upholding are products of the past - where once upon a time, they were considered useful and an improvement over what was here before. However, if you look at the abuse that has been allowed in the name of these values and principles, it becomes clear that we have to formulate new principles for our global society to live by. We simply cannot continue as we are. If not for those in need - then out of self-interest - because in the battle where each person is fighting for their rights - we are disregarding the planet we live on and some day, we will all have to pay the price - unless we change what we're doing. That doesn't mean we have to implement a utopian society of equality - but would it be so outrageous if each person was given the bare necessities to survive?

Read More

Living Income Guaranteed and Taxation - From Redistribution to Contribution

‘The re-set’ is a UK-based movement consisting of several proposals to effect ‘a constitutional re-set to re-store fair principles, accountability, community led governance and ethics. Ensuring peoplecare, earthcare and fairshare for the benefit of all’. You can  check out their website here: www.thereset.org. An overview of the proposals is presented here: http://www.thereset.org/proposals.php.

In this blog the focus is the Proposal on the abolition of Taxes. The re-set proposes to abolish the current tax system and replace it with ‘TEAL’ – Total Economic Activity Levy:

“TEAL is very much a ‘pay as you go’ tax. Every time money is withdrawn or paid into a bank account, a tiny percentage of money from each transaction will speedily find its way into the treasury. Even people without bank accounts will contribute, because whenever a pack of cigarettes or a loaf of bread is purchased, the seller (say a shop) will be paid, and when the shop pays into his bank TEAL will be collected, and if you sell your labour (i.e. you have a job) TEAL will be paid by your employer and collected by your bank.”

This principle is the same one we propose under the Living Income Guaranteed proposal. Within such a system, the focus changes from ‘redistribution’ to plain ‘contribution’.  It’s not about trying to equalize incomes and moving it from the rich to the poor – but a matter of: if you make more use of the economic system, you proportionally contribute more to sustain it. One likes to believe that one’s wealth is derived from merit alone – but it simply isn’t. There is an entire economic system in place that enables a successful person to be successful. There are those who have gone before you, who have shared their know-how with you, there are those who have an income to buy your goods or services, an income they earned through participation in the economic system, there is physical infrastructure like roads and railway systems that enable all economic activity. If the economic system was self-sustaining and never required any financial input in order to maintain it or correct its inherent weaknesses, then we could say the economic system is a free one. Obviously, that is not the case. The ‘pay as you go’ tax is therefore a reasonable method of collecting the funds to be re-invested within the economic system that each one depends on.

If a basic income or living income is provided through non-tax funding – then the ‘pay as you go’ tax or ‘TEAL’ should be sufficient to mobilize the funds needed for other government expenditures, which we suggest would be quite limited if the economy in itself is largely corrected and empowered through the integration of the Living Income or Basic Income – then other taxes can indeed be abolished.

Read More

Day 248: Q&A on Living Income Guaranteed

Here follow questions and perspectives about the Living Income Guaranteed proposal - from the Discussion Forum at livingincome.me.

It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.

I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.

What I have understood so far is that the LIG is means-tested, in other words conditioned on not having wealth or savings or a paid job for that matter, but not conditioned on the willingness to take a job (I only know the latter through correspondence, but have found no references). What this seems to imply is that if you are willing to live with few belongings no one can force you to work. This would make the proposal as a whole partly conditioned.

But what happens if you are not working full-time? Will you be entitled to a Living Income supplement? And if so, how would it be calculated considering the minimum wage is twice the amount of the LIG? Is the minimum wage the same for a part-time job for instance?

As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?

From what I can see, LIG is to be paid individually and not to households or families, so that settles, I guess, the question of individuality, but how about universality? It is not entirely clear to me whether every individual, including children, will receive it, and, if so, the full amount. Also, if children are included, will their LIG be dependent on what means the parents have, savings, job or otherwise?

It is stated in several places that LIG is to be high enough to secure a decent standard of living, so that would seem to satisfy the last criteria.

I would prefer having all replies here or with links to texts, not videos. Thanks.

“It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.”

Yes, we’re working on exactly that. The information will soon be found on a page on this website.
“I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.”

The principle of universality in terms of ‘anyone gets a living income regardless of whether one is employed or not’: No – Living Income Guaranteed does not adhere to this principle. It is about making sure that everyone has a Guaranteed Living Income – meaning, an income that secures a dignified life. We suggest the minimum wage to be double a Living Income so that if one is employed – one can afford not only a dignified lifestyle, but one with ‘perks’. In general terms, then, LIG is for those who are unemployed.

In terms of your question on working part-time – labor will be equated at an hourly rate, where the particular rate will also be determined according to one’s skill/educational level. One may thus be able to be employed part-time without requiring a Living Income Guaranteed as one is self-sufficient due to the particular rate one receives as determined by one’s skill / level of education. For those working part time on a minimum wage would mean they would receive the same amount of income as they would being unemployed and receiving LIG. Herein – one can look at setting an absolute minimum of part-time wage at 3/2 of the Living Income Guaranteed in order to create incentive for part-time workers. Alternatively, one can simply accept that those who are currently working part-time to make ends meet, will instead stop working, receive a LIG and from there perhaps have more time to perform the tasks that makes it impossible for them to work full-time in the first place, which are often tasks such as caretaking or studying. Those part-time workers who like to work to keep themselves busy or because they would like to contribute but have no financial reason to do so – can still do this and receive a part-time minimum wage, or can volunteer and receive LIG.

Children – Ideally, yes, children should receive a LIG, which would be available to the parents up until a specified age, after which, the parents are locked out and the LIG is solely accessible by the child. A child’s LIG is not dependent on the parents’ income. However – one would require investigating the financial capabilities of a particular economy at the implementation stage. It is possible that one would require to continue with a basic child grant system until the economy expands sufficiently to allow for a LIG for every child.

Individual – yes – Living Income Guaranteed is not given to families but to individuals.

Unconditional – yes, but only insofar as discussed above. Meaning – anyone receiving a minimum wage is excluded from LIG. However, there are no other specified conditions such as having to actively search for a job.

High enough for a decent standard of living – yes.

“As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?”

The primary way of financing LIG would be through the nationalization of resources:

Nationalization of Resources and Social Dividends
One of the ways to fund a Living Income Guaranteed is through the Nationalization of Resources within a particular country. Within this, relevant resources are appropriated towards the public good, where those companies dealing with the production and manufacturing process of these resources will be nationalized. The citizenry would then effectively become shareholders of these companies. Economic profits or surplus value generated by publicly owned companies would partially (or wholly if possible) finance the Living Income Guaranteed.
Aside from the obvious funding function of such a step, the nationalization of resources and connected enterprises also provides an opportunity for the management of the country’s resources by the people of that country, and is thus in fact an extension of direct democracy.

On Taxation:

Taxation
Within the Living Income Guaranteed, Direct or Personal Tax methods will be discontinued. Only Indirect Tax methods will be facilitated in the form of inter alia Value Added Tax (VAT), Sales Tax and Import Duties. When a society and system is in place which effectively tends to all points of requirement within a country, one does not require an extensive government structure to tend to those points which the private sphere has not yet covered. As such, there is no longer a need for excessive taxation, as the role and functions the government will be required to execute and fund, will be minimal.
The amount of tax an individual takes on, will then be directly related to one’s activity and participation within a particular system or section of society (eg. Toll roads / Road pricing).

Related articles

• Day 350: A Living Income Guaranteed will End Charity - for Real
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 246: Green Economics - the Newest Fad?

Read More

Day 199: For How Long Will You Take this Crap? -- Investigate EMC as a Real Solution

The South African minister of finance, Pravin Gordhan, presented the 2013/2014 budget.

The budget is referred to as a 'tight-belt budget' and the minister reminds everyone how badly the economy is performin, how we're all subject to it and that there's just no way around it, but to accept the conditions.

So, when we look at social grants - the following is the best they could do:

"Social grants are going up, but not by much. Old age and disability grants increase in April from R1 200 a month to R1 260, foster care grants will go up from R770 to R800 and child support from R290 to R300."

If you consider how prices will go up, including the tax on petrol, these increases mean absolutely nothing. If anything, those dependent on social grants will be worse off in the coming year.

Now - read the following two blogs:

Day 178: Zuma says to benefactors: "Everything you touch will multiply" - EMC will End Corruption

Day 142: Presidents under Fire

Now you have an idea of how come there isn't enough money for social support. I mean - that's the main purpose of government intervention, isn't it? To correct the unjust conditions created by the free market and to make sure everyone is well off. When it comes to deciding how much of the available government funds should be allocated for that purpose, personal self-interest overrides any compassion.

Self-interest overrides compassion every day in every country - more and more you will hear the same song, the same message: government doesn't have enough funds - sorry guys, nothing to be done! And as the population endures more and more suffering, the ideal justification is created to sell of national assets and enter the age of Privatisation - ask Greece and Spain how well it is working for them. It is spreading in Europe and the plot thickens in South Africa.

Start investigating Equal Money Capitalism as a viable and real solutions to the scams we have to put up with every day. If we leave it up to 'the big guys', nothing will happen. So, join the forum at www.equalmoney.org/forum and find out what you can do to support.

Source: http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressdisplay.com%2Fpressdisplay%2Fviewer.aspx%3Fissue%3D69122013022800000000001001%26page%3D1%26article%3Daa1b0d6f-cdd9-45ad-8568-bac891c85aff%26key%3DlrJ%2B8W1WJhorvjCLd6Ncdw%3D%3D%26feed%3Drss&ei=ZLgzUaq-Eamw0QXN04GwBA&usg=AFQjCNH0_5deeqlbdp6jgqm1uMtsf3DR2w&sig2=MhzS_fms3IjmTmjNkI8Isg&bvm=bv.43148975,d.d2k&cad=rja

Related articles

• Day 178: Zuma says to benefactors: "Everything you touch will multiply" - EMC will End Corruption
• Day 176: Will the Elite Manipulate the Public to Push for Privatization in EMC?
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 189: Will your Level of Education Determine your Income in EMC?
• Day 170: Companies and Industries in EMC
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 172: Retirement and Holidays within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 190: Fairness in the Work Place and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

Income Gap?

Q: There is a gap in production before a product reaches sales, how is that gap covered, meaning before this whole system is in place who is going to pay the living wages to people?

Everyone from birth will have an income allocated through the parent - so until your income from profit share is equal to everyone else's income - this point will remain in place and one will still receive an income within such transition periods.

Company Oversight

Q: Will there be a large bureaucracy to ensure compliance with EMC principles?

A: Within EMC the principle will be that everything is to work in harmony with each other.

Therefore - dependent on at which level a point of disharmony occurs, it will be addressed accordingly.
If there is a worker within a company that is not acting in a way that is best for the company as a whole - this point will be addressed by a tribunal within the company.
If it is an entire company that is behaving in a disharmonious way - it will be addressed by government departments.

Taxation and Banks

Q: Will VAT as being the only tax generate enough income for government to pay for all the infrastructure, sanitation, basic human rights and so on?

A: VAT will be added to each product in a way to make sure there is enough within the common pool of money - which is the tax - to ensure all the basic rights can be provided. Also consider that with all military expenditure falling away - there will actually be quite a substantial amount of money available to governments with which to fund these projects.

Q: Will there be also company tax - where any profits higher than what is necessary to pay employees - go as tax to government?

A: No, surplus profit that successful companies make, will be transferred to a bank.

Banks in an EMC will exist as financial intermediaries, gathering surpluses to cover deficits in other places. So - the banks will be in charge of providing extra funds to companies who are running a deficit. This point will always be temporary and the required funding will lessen as there is an intervention that takes place and action is taken to make the company more effective and able to compete.

When companies with deficits are identified - someone will be sent to intervene, because it might indicate that the company is not effective. Then the problem must be identified and they have to learn from those companies that are successful - so that all may become equally successful and effective within managing resources and distributing goods and services.

Global School Curriculum

Q: Will we have a global school?

A: The principles of the educational curriculum will be the same on a global level, where the goal is to educate humans to become the most happy, the most effective and the most empowered individuals. How this is practically implemented and translated into a curriculum will be specific to each region.

Q: Why specific to each region?

A: Education doesn't require to be the same for every person all over the world - environments differ and so the curriculum must be tailored to ensure effective living within each one’s particular environment and culture

Related articles

• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System

Read More

Day 86: Who Really Pays the Taxes?

Governments spend lots of time specifying and developing the ways in which taxes are raised and who should carry the heaviest or the lightest tax burdens. However, governments can really only specify who hands over the tax to the government - and this is called the statutory or legal incidence of the different taxes.

But a distinction must be made between who hands over the money to the authorities (statutory/legal incidence of taxes) and who bears the actual burden of the tax (this is called the effective incidence of taxes).

Taking a company as an example. It is often forgotten that when a company is taxed, it is the individuals behind the company who bear the burden of the tax. In the case of a company, we can identify 3 groups of individuals:
1. The owners and shareholders of the company
2. The employees of the company
3. The customers of the company

Whenever a company is taxed at a higher rate, it will attempt to pass on the burden of the higher tax to: its customers - trying as much as possible to protect the owners, shareholders and employees of the company.

Having to pay a higher tax to be able to operate as a company in essence means that the company is incurring higher costs to supply the particular good or service the company supplies. If the cost of production goes up - we know that the price of the product will go up. So, even though it is a company that is being taxed, it is the consumers who end up paying the higher price - and thus, who bear the tax burden.

The extent to which companies can pass on their taxes will depend on the price elasticity of the good or service they are providing. If the demand of the product does not go down by much with an increase in price - then most or all the burden of the tax will be passed on to the clients/customers. If the demand, however, is very sensitive to a change in price - then the company will only be able to afford to pass down the tax to the customers to a limited extent.

So - even though the government uses taxation as a way to redistribute resources in a more fair or equitable way - the economic system itself negates these efforts to a large extent, rendering them ineffective - and thus, the government, using this tool, fails to establish an economic situation where all resources are fairly distributed amongst all.

Read More

Day 85: Financing Government Expenditure

There are three ways a government can finance its expenditure (and where usually all three are being employed): taxes, borrowing and income from property.

Taxes and borrowing are quite straightforward ( though we will dig deeper into the tax point later), but 'income from property' might need some additional explaining. Income from property basically refers to the income the government receives from for instance publicly owned enterprises, rent (eg. mining rights) and other forms of charges and license fees. When all of these are added up, they however only result into a very small proportion of the income of the government. In general, taxes will be where the major share of income originates, but is usually also not sufficient to cover all of the government's expenditure.

As seen in the previous blog, the difference between government income and government expenditure is called the 'budget deficit'. In order to finance this gap, the government will turn to borrowing.

As we all know, borrowing creates debt -- and as such, government borrowing will increase public debt. As the debt increases, so will the interest burden which also affects future generations as they will sit with the debts from those who were in government positions before them, and so when borrowing occurs, we are basically spending money at the expense of future generations which will have to pay this debt off. Because of this implication, borrowing will only be seen as justified when it is done in relation to capital investments which are expected to yield a return which will 'set off' the incurred debt.

Taxation

Taxes are compulsory payments which go to the government, and as we said before -- make up the largest share of government revenue.

There are three different types of taxes which each their own sub-categories: 1) Direct and Indirect Taxes, 2) General and Selective Taxes and 3) Progressive, Regressive and Regressive Taxes.

Direct taxes are also sometimes referred to as taxes on income and wealth. Direct taxes are levied on 'persons' (companies can also constitute as 'persons').  This tax includes personal income tax, estate duty and company tax. Indirect taxes on the other hand, are levied upon transactions and are usually paid by those who will be consuming the good or service in question. VAT, customs, and excise duties are examples of indirect taxes.

While for instance VAT is an indirect tax it is also a general tax. It is a general tax because it is levied on most goods and services. Excise duties are also an indirect tax, but can further be classified as being a selective tax since it is levied on specific goods only (eg. Fuel, alcohol, tobacco).

We can differentiate between progressive, proportional and regressive taxes based on the ratio of tax paid to taxable income.

A progressive tax is a tax where the ratio of tax paid to taxable income increases as taxable income increases. This implies that people with higher incomes will pay a larger percentage of their income than those people with low(er) incomes.
A proportional tax is a tax where the ratio of tax paid to taxable income is the same at all levels for income.  (Eg, everyone pays 25%)
A regressive tax is a tax where the ratio between tax paid and taxable income decreases as taxable income increases. In this case, a larger percentage of the low-income people will be taken than those with higher incomes. This usually happens with indirect taxes such as VAT.

Read More

Day 84: Fiscal Policy and the Budget

So - what tools does the government have available to intervene in the economy?

These tools are:
- Government spending
- Taxation
- Borrowing

Every government specifies how they will make use of these tools in the budget. So - the budget will reflect a government's policy in terms of what types of results they wish to achieve and how they will practically do that. The main points that are given attention within the budget are government spending and taxation. For instance, the government will specify how much funds will be available for education, for healthcare, for military training, etc. - as well as what types of products will be taxed, by how much and how incomes will be taxed. Looking at a government's budget will give you an idea of what the government deems to be important and what not. The budget is in essence a plan in terms of how the government wishes to regulate the demand and supply for goods and services in the economy.

We have already discussed monetary policy extensively in previous blog-posts. The budget and all the tools a government has available are referred to as 'fiscal policy' ('fiscal' comes from the word 'fiscus', which is what the public treasury was called in ancient Rome). Monetary policy - as carried out by the central bank - and fiscal policy are attempted to be carried out in harmony to prevent the one policy from counteracting the other one.

In this blog-post we'll introduce you to the 'general idea' of how governments utilise the tools of government spending, taxation and borrowing - after which we'll discuss each point individually.

What will a government generally do when the economy is in a recession?

Firstly - what is a 'recession'? Recession is when the economy is doing 'bad'. Compare the economy to the human body - where exchanges take place, blood flows, organs interact with each other and each cell has certain requirements in terms of the sustenance that it requires in order to function properly. A recession is when the economy is 'ill' - where fluids don't move through the body effectively and resources/sustenance are not reaching the participating cells in an effective way. Signs of a recession are a fall in income, total production, investment spending, business profits and inflation - and a rise in unemployment and bankruptcy.

So - with the understanding of the word 'recession', we ask the same question again: What will a government generally do when the economy is in a recession?

When in a recession, the government will pursue 'expansionary' fiscal policies so as to stimulate economic activity. 'Expansionary fiscal policy' can be translated into: an increase in government spending and a reduction in taxes. Increasing government spending and reducing taxes are both policies to increase the money supply - eg: increase the amount of money in circulation in the economy.

When applying expansionary fiscal policy, a budget deficit is usually created - because governments increase what they spend, and decrease what they earn. The difference between what is spent and what is earned (the difference between what goes out in the form of government spending and what comes in in the form of taxes) is called the 'budget deficit'.

The opposite can also occur - when an economy, instead of being in a recession, is expanding too quickly. In those cases, all prices will rise (inflation) and industries in other countries will become more competitive in comparision, leading to balance of payment problems (where more money leaves the country than comes into the country). In such a situation, the government will attempt to pursue 'restrictive' or 'contractionary' fiscal policy. This can be translated into: a reduction in government spending and a raise in taxes. The idea here is to withdraw money out of circulation.

This all sounds really neat and simple - but in practicality, it's not that clear-cut. The problem is that there is usually quite a big delay between what happens in the economy (for instance a recession) and the response of the government (for isntance expansionary policy). Sometimes - by the time the government is aware of the recession and starts implementing expansionary policies, the economy may have already started expanding by itself and the governments' measures are pointless, or even make matters worse.

Read More