Considering that candidates for elections in Korea rarely compete based on policy, this debate is like a sign that Korean politics has matured to the next level, so I am happy. However, inaccurate perceptions or unreasonable arguments have been mixed in the battles so far, and there is a fear that the debate will flow in the wrong direction.
Zero aim failure
Representative Lee Nak-yeon evaluated, “There is no place to do it except Alaska. It cannot be a substitute for the existing welfare system.” But Prime Minister Jeong Sye-gyun said, “It is impossible to implement a basic income.” No country has successfully implemented it,” he pointed out, is a misfire from failure to accurately grasp the concept of basic income.
Representative Lee and Prime Minister Chung must have taken the concept of basic income as a cash salary that equally pays a sufficient amount to all citizens. It may have been because of lack of exploration, but it may have been because Governor Lee’s policy was effective in revealing that it was impractical because it would take a huge budget to introduce such a system.
In fact, Jong-seok Lim, former chief of the Blue House, defined the basic income as “paying enough monthly living expenses to live above the poverty line without conditions,” and in order to achieve the long-term goal proposed by Governor Lee Jae-myeong, a huge budget of 317 trillion won. I refuted that I needed this.
However, none of the world’s advocates of basic income today are advocating the immediate introduction of such a high level of basic income. Rather, it is argued to start small with categorical basic income or partial basic income, and expand the scope and increase the amount when the people’s consent is formed.
Categorical and partial basic income
Categorical basic income is a salary that limits payment targets to several categories of the population, such as universal child allowance and universal basic pension. It is a well-known fact that both systems have already been implemented in many countries around the world. Partial basic income is the idea of starting with a low basic income. If the expected effect appears, increase the amount more, and stop there if increasing the amount seems to have adverse effects.
Philippe Van Parijs, the world’s leading theorist of basic income camps, points out that the immediate introduction of a full basic income is likely to cause a major impact on the income distribution, and a realistic alternative is to pay a lower level of basic income. I have said that there is only way to do it. He reminds us that even when public assistance and social insurance were first introduced in the past, payments were at a modest level compared to the present.
Considering the fact that most of the world’s basic income philosophers advocate the introduction of categorical and partial basic income, it must be said that the criticism of Lee Nak-yeon, Prime Minister Nak-yeon Lee, Prime Minister Jeong Sye-gyun, and former chief Lim Jong-seok Lee Jae-myeong is far beyond the target.
In fact, the term “basic income” was not used, but the new welfare system scheme that President Nak-yeon Lee revealed in his speech to the National Assembly is an excellent example of applying categorical and partial basic income. This is because, while mentioning the income support for each life cycle for children, youth, adults, and the elderly, the child’s allowance was extended to the age of 18, and it was proposed to guarantee a minimum life for young people. Nak Yeon-pyo Lee In a document known as a specific plan for the new welfare system (written by Hyeon-soo Choi, a researcher at the Institute of Health and Social Affairs), the child allowance is expanded and raised to the age of 12 for each life cycle until 2025, and the universal youth allowance for the age of 20 to 34 is introduced. It contains measures such as introduction of universal middle-aged allowance for ages 50 to 64, and maintenance or increase of the basic (disabled) pension.
Interestingly, at the time of the 2017 Democratic Party’s presidential election, Governor Lee Jae-myeong had already proposed a similar life cycle dividend payment as a policy pledge. The only difference is that Lee used the term dividend and Lee used the term allowance. Governor Lee Jae-myeong has his own reasons for protesting that it is not very different from the’basic service’ that Gyeonggi Province is preparing for Lee Nak-yeon’s plan.
The critique of basic income by Nak-yeon Lee, Sye-gyun Jeong, and Jong-seok Lim is a scarecrow. This is because most basic income philosophers and Governor Lee Jae-myeong do not insist on introducing the type of basic income that the three criticize. However, there is some ground for Lee Nak-yeon’s argument that basic income cannot be a substitute for the existing welfare system. This is because the right-wing version of the basic income theory tends to consider basic income as a substitute for the existing welfare system. Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, called the American version of basic income, for example, started with the intention of replacing the existing welfare system. However, except for the right-wing basic income philosophers, no one insists on replacing the existing welfare system with basic income.
Problems with Basic Income
Then, is there any problem with Governor Jaemyung Lee’s theory of basic income? Several flaws are also found in the Governor’s claim.
First, the Governor first proposed the amount of basic income payment as a policy goal, which is problematic in that it did not consider the justification of the financial resources. Former Director Lim Jong-seok said, “I can’t shake the question of whether the idea of basic income is fair and just in our reality right now.” In addition, there is some reason why many other people attack this branch’s basic income as populism. have. Governor Lee Jae-myung recently set a goal of paying 500,000 won per person per year in the short term, 1 million won in the medium term, and 6 million won in the long term on his Facebook page, and suggested ways to secure financial resources to achieve these goals.
This method of calculating the required financial resources after setting the amount of basic income payment first is an error made by many basic income theorists, and inevitably involves controversy about the legitimacy. Formally, even though the order of’finding fair financial resources ⟶ calculating expected income ⟶ distribution by 1/n’ should be followed, in the opposite direction, unnecessary controversy is avoided by following the sequence of’setting the target amount for basic income payment ⟶ calculating the required budget ⟶ securing available resources’. To induce.
Fortunately, basic income philosophers in Korea gathered in the Basic Income Korean Network generally view basic income as a dividend for common wealth. They argue that the income generated from resources for which all citizens have the same rights, such as land, environment, and big data, should be publicly redeemed and distributed equally, but it is difficult to find a reason to object to this. Why didn’t Governor Lee Jae-myeong actively accept the official position of the Basic Income Korea Network, which can address the issue of financial justification, and unfold a discussion?
Second, Governor Lee Jae-myeong proposes an increase in taxation as a way to secure the required financial resources, but made this a long-term task and made a plan not to try it for at least 10 years. Although it is better than CEO Nak-yeon Lee, who discusses the symptoms and draws a thorough line, it is a big mistake to postpone it to a task in the distant future. Isn’t it the time when the Gangsan can change in 10 years? It can also be criticized that a person who is aiming for the next president has presented as a task what he cannot do during his term. At some point, the tendency of Korean politicians to taboo the tax increase became stronger. In the 2012 presidential election, candidate Moon Jae-in boldly insisted on the realization of a welfare state and increase in taxation. In about 10 years, the Democratic Party’s economic policy has undergone a major regression.
Governor Lee proposed carbon tax, land tax, robot tax, and big data tax as targets for tax increase.The carbon tax and land tax are strong means to prevent climate deterioration and eradicate real estate speculation, respectively, while the robot tax and big data tax are the fourth industrial revolution. It is an important alternative in designing the future distribution system in preparation for this. In a way, it can be said that the introduction of these taxes is more important than the basic income itself for the future of Korean society. However, Governor Lee Jae-myeong made the mistake of treating these important policy measures only for securing basic income resources.
Alternative, variable basic income system
If basic income is paid in the order of’finding fair resources ⟶ calculating expected income ⟶ distributed by 1/n’, the amount of payment will inevitably change from year to year. But what about? This plan is already in place in the US state of Alaska, where the per capita basic income payment is not fixed and varies from year to year depending on the rate of return of the Permanent Fund. No problem though. I would like to call this a’variable basic income system’.
The variable basic income system, which does not determine the amount of basic income payment in advance, and once a legitimate fund is secured in an appropriate way, is distributed to all citizens each year by 1/n, can be implemented immediately. . In this case, there will be a problem that the amount of basic income per capita may be small in the early stages, but you can throw away the’greedy’ to alleviate poverty and inequality at once with basic income.
There is definitely a way to prevent people like former chief Lim Jong-seok from raising the question of fairness and justice about basic income and from feeling that not a few people are giving it away. That method can be linked to a means to resolve the fundamental frustrations of our society and to correct the future course. So, shouldn’t the variable basic income system be the trick to catching the two rabbits, reform and welfare?