Sir, - While CORI and Professor Charles Clark and Garret FitzGerald all allude to the economic effects of the introduction of a basic income policy, no one has so far attempted an analysis of the political effects of such an under taking on the part of the State. Only Minister Richard Bruton, in comments publicised soon after Christmas, intimated that what ever the economics, basic income would be such a shock to the political system as to warrant considerable caution on the part of government.
But if government want to give serious consideration to the basic income issue in the course of the "Partnership 2000" agreement, it will have to tease out - for public scrutiny - the politics of this radical new way of delivering upon the State's brief to provide an income support mechanism to those who, temporarily or permanently, are deemed to be "economically inactive". While both the proponents and opponents of basic income can summon arguments to their cause, it remains more than likely that on such a fundamental issue as welfare provision, ideology will play a more important part than scientific evidence.
That I can determine, only the Green Party is ideologically committed to the idea of a guaranteed basic income for all citizens. Even if the obvious equitable base line of a viable basic income was proven to have no injurious effects on the economy, there would be those on the centre right who would oppose it claiming they would rather be free to be poor than suffer being coerced by the state apparatus into relative affluence. There would be those on the centre left, principally of the trade union lobby, who would oppose it because of its feared deleterious effects on work incentives (and the incentive to continue paying the union "sub") and because of the abolition of the social esteem attached to having an income from an occupation.
Then there is the issue of nominal versus effective tax rates. It seems likely that a majority of those on a nominal tax rate of 48 per cent - the likely "losers" in the scenario painted by Professor Clark - enjoy far lower effective tax rates through having access to various tax breaks across the spread of their income sources. The question of what in fact is the effective tax rate applying to the top decile of the population would have to be explored in any study of either the politics or the economics of basic income.
At the end of the day, it could be argued that while the social insurance system has its roots in medieval voluntarism (the guild system) it will always have a role as an expression of voluntary or associational ethic. Social assistance, on the other hand, came to be provided by the state only when it became obvious that such provision was the price the state must pay to maintain social order. It may be said that the fundamental argument in favour of basic income is that the price of social order, both economically and politically, has increased - although not by very much as it happens and that basic income will be introduced when that reality sinks in at the level of central government, in both its elected and its "permanent" manifestations. - Yours, etc.,
Dromore West, via Ballina,
Co Sligo.