Would Universal, Basic Income Be a Dividend for All?

The idea of a universal basic income is often presented as the rare solution that can unite both the progressive left and the libertarian right. The left likes the idea of paying everyone a basic income without any conditions attached and the right likes the absence of bureaucracy in such a policy.

Recently, the idea of a universal basic income has gained support among technology entrepreneurs who see a “jobless” future of robots and AI emerging.

Economists tend to dismiss a universal basic income as a bad idea because the tax rates it would require would be unacceptable. Taxes are indeed a bad way to fund a universal basic income.

There is a fair and better way that fits well in traditional market economy-focused policies: a universal dividend based on the collective ownership of the economic infrastructure that generations have created over time.

Society as we know it today, came into existence through the hard work of our ancestors. A lot of that work was paid for by taxpayers’ money. Creative entrepreneurs have used that ‘common heritage’ to build their economic successes.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. It is undeniable that Bezos made a great contribution using the Internet for a store that is always open and sells everything.

But how successful could Bezos have been if there had been no roads? Or no electricity? Or no staff educated in public schools?

Bezos did not invent the World Wide Web either. And his company uses contract law that is based on concepts invented by the Romans more than 2,000 years ago.

Without all this common heritage, Amazon would have never become one of the biggest companies in the world. Would it not be reasonable and fair for all of us, as ‘members’ of the social system that has produced that common heritage over the past 2,000 years, to share in the successes based on that collective value?

In other words: Amazon would pay us for the use of the Internet, the roads and more — they would pay for the use of our common heritage. Jeff Bezos would be a little less rich. And all of us a little richer.

A payment for the use of the common heritage that we collectively ‘own’ is the best justification for a universal basic income. There is an example of such a financial right linked to ownership: Dividends are periodic payments that companies make to their owners, their shareholders.

Why shouldn’t every citizen of the world receive an annual dividend based on their share of the common heritage?

The word ‘basic income’ has a connotation of benefit — something you get for doing nothing. Dividend, on the other hand, is a word that is linked to ownership, to value — it underlines the businesslike nature of the payment.

We are entitled to dividends because of our share in the wealth we have jointly created and funded with our taxes — it is not a favor.

American entrepreneur and author Peter Barnes makes a compelling case for a universal dividend in his book With liberty and dividends for all. Barnes proposes to set up ‘management funds’ that own the rights to clean air, water and ecosystems or the radio wave frequencies.

The funds issue permits that companies can buy. From the income a capital is created that provides dividends to all interested citizens.

The same principle can be applied to automation, artificial intelligence and robots. A lot of innovation is based on previous research funded with public funds. It is perfectly fair and reasonable that all citizens benefit from these fruits produced with their taxes.

It has been done. Almost, 50 years ago, the state of Alaska launched the Alaska Permanent Fund. Since then, the fund has paid an annual dividend based on the abundant income from the sale of natural gas and oil by the state to each Alaskan resident.

In 1980, the capital of the fund was $900 million. By 2023, that value had risen to $75 billion. That year, each resident received $1,312 (more than $5,000 for a family of four).

A critic may argue that Amazon is already paying taxes for the use of our common heritage. Why would it make sense to set up a whole new structure of public wealth funds to achieve a goal that can also be realized through taxing corporations?

The answer is that taxation is a political instrument. This means that the levying and spending of taxpayers’ money is constantly changing under the influence of elections, lobbies and all kinds of interests.

Very limited fees for the use of our common heritage, can generate a universal dividend large enough to change lives at the bottom of society. That is not utopia. That is a fair, just, and much-needed redistribution of money flows based on a core capitalist principle: ownership.

Jurriaan Kamp is a California-based Dutch journalist, author, and entrepreneur. Kamp was born and raised in the Netherlands. He is known for his interviewing and interest in finding solutions for people and planet. Today Kamp produces and hosts the TV series “The Way Out,” for Earthx TV and PBS Socal. Read Kamp’s articles — More Here.