It has given me a dignified existence.
I used to depend on my husband.
But thanks to the basic income, that changed for me.
If I make beautiful clothes and can sell them, then I feel good.
Then I also did something for it.
Good evening, welcome to Panorama.
Forget everything you thought and think about work and income,
tonight we are going to wipe the blackboard clean,
and put another idea on it: the basic income for everyone.
What if, and we're not joking here,
what if everyone in our country aged 18 and over received
1500 euros from the government each month?
Those who want more can still work on top of that basic income,
those for whom 1500 euros is enough can do other enjoyable things.
However, we will scrap all other benefits
such as income support, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.
Everyone gets 1500s euros a month.
Unconditionally and until the end of your days.
Madness, I already hear you think.
Well, you should keep watching then,
because then you will see that the Swiss are going to have
a referendum about that basic income and that it already exists in practice.
Among others, in a village in Namibia.
Reports by Alina Kneepkens and Jozef Devillé.
Our country is at a standstill, we break world records on traffic congestion,
1 in 10 Belgian employees sits at home with a burnout
and not a single country can beat Belgium
at taking antidepressants and sleeping pills.
We work ourselves half to death, but government after government
we are asked to put some more effort
because we need to work even harder
and the government needs to cut spending.
The government wants at least to meet its budget targets.
Which has previously resulted in
the restructuration of the budget.
And now we must to cut spending before all.
Flanders has no money and the Federal Government has no money either.
The needed effort is already great and it will increase.
That is also the choice we make.
It is felt that many people can no longer keep up
and that the middle class is slowly being squeezed dry.
There is great worry among the Belgian working population.
We often hear that there is no alternative,
that we can't do anything but cut spending.
But it turns out that one big idea for changing how the government provides financial assistance
may have appeal to some on the left and the right.
It is a minimum level of government payments, known as guaranteed basic income.
What would the world be like if everyone had the right to earn an income,
even if they couldn't find employment?
Today, a utopia where everyone gets paid?
Switzerland may scrap its anti-poverty programs
and replace them with an unconditional basic income.
An unconditional basic income, what is that?
Exactly what the word says, that everyone aged 18 or older,
regardless of gender or current income,
receives a basic income from the government,
unconditionally, whether you have a job,
are studying or remain at home to take care of the kids,
everyone receives the same to meet his basic needs.
You are allowed to work and earn as much as you want on top of your basic income.
In Belgium, various people have been working
on a basic income since the 80s.
For example, Philippe van Parijs set up a working group
with, among others, Guy Standing and Roland Duchâtelet.
We still know Duchâtelet from Vivant
but today he is primarily known as the owner of several football teams.
Francine Mestrum is one of the rare
but very vocal opponents.
Psychiatrist Dirk de Wachter and Sarah van Liefferinghe of the Pirate Party
see the advantages for people's well-being.
We see how many people are stuck
in the rat race of working more, working harder, working longer,
so we can consume more and our economy can grow.
But we feel, and so do a lot of people, that this model frustrates us,
it exhausts us and makes us emotionally empty.
A lot of people can't handle the work,
consider it too burdening,
come to me and say: "Doctor, help me, I can't go on"
and "helping", as a doctor, means declaring them "unfit for work".
And so, in the last ten years the number of people
who became chronically unfit for work has risen with 50%,
we have to start thinking about that on a fundamental level
and basic income is one of those fundamental things
that can provide a beginning for that.
The time for basic income is now.
And the reason is that with globalisation, that took off in the 1980s,
what has actually been happening is, the world's labor supply,
the number of people exposed to a global labor market, has quadrupled.
So what has been happening in the last 30 years
is a downward pressure on our real wages.
The British economist Guy Standing
led the largest experiment with a basic income ever.
In India 20,000 people received a real basic income for two years.
Soon, he'll share with the world those incredible results.
Recently he was a guest in Brussels,
on invitation of former EU commissioner
of employment and social affairs, Laszlo Andor.
Thank you very much.
The worst thing would be to go back to the old norm.
Professor Standing used to work at the International Labour Organisation.
Now he talks in his books
about the growing underclass in our society
and what he, with a neologism, calls the precariat.
The precariat consists
of millions and millions of people
exposed to insecure labor.
Without knowing where they're going.
They have no sense of occupational career.
It's a trend in which we've been stuck since the 80s, with Thatcher and Reagan,
and after 30 years of "greed is good"
it's time for something else.
Other models, now!
Invest in people, not in weapons! Michel, U-turn or war!
Shut up and work!
No cuts to our future!
Harder? Faster? Longer? Like Machines?
And this uncertainly is extremely stressful.
So people in the precariat are living, mostly,
on the edge of unsustainable debt.
One accident, and they're out in the streets.
According to the countries, we are now 2 or 3 times richer
per capita than in the golden 60s,
and we're still here with an enormous amount of unemployment.
People who fear for their job, and we're 2 to 3 times richer.
Aren't we all acting completely foolishly?
Poverty is solved with income,
so people need to receive benefits that are high enough,
which is not happening today.
The proponents of a basic income are completely right in that regard,
poor people need an income
to live in dignity.
To see with our own eyes what a basic income
does to people in poverty, we traveled to Namibia,
a country of great contrasts.
The gigantic profits from diamond exports
stand in shrill contrast with the dangerous situation
where people live in poverty.
Otjivero is a poor settlement in the desert
where people had nothing at all.
We were dirt poor, here in Otjivero.
But thanks to the basic income
we had something to eat and somewhere to sleep.
Otjivero was chosen in 2009 for an experiment
where its 930 residents received 100 Namibian dollars each month
or about 7 euros per person.
Unconditionally, people were free to decide
what they would do with that money.
It was mostly plastic and carton box-houses,
in which people lived.
And the grant proved
that after six months, a year after the implementation,
- you could see how the face of Otjivero changed.
The Namibian council of churches, a few labor unions and NGO's
provided the funds for this extraordinary project.
Priest Wilfred Diergaart and bishop Zephania Kameeta
chose Otjivero as the ideal settlement for this experiment.
This piece of no man's land in the desert
is populated by various ethnic groups.
Scientists Claudia and Dirk Haarmann
have performed intensive research on location
and in cooperation with the University of Cape Town
they analyzed the results.
When we started with the pilot project, we thought
that 100 Namibian dollars is not a lot of money,
it will just make the difference in terms of food security
and it will just help people to cope with their daily lives in poverty.
But we were actually very surprised by the results:
malnourishment went down from 42 to 10 percent.
People had enough food to eat.
But the amazing thing is that people really started to become active
and took their lives into their own hands.
And there actually was a real empowerment process within the village.
Thanks to the basic income, my business flourished.
I'm a carpenter, I make beds and such.
We thought about how we could improve our lives.
Marie-Rose set up as a hairdresser. She also sells bread and biscuits.
It's my job.
I get money from here.
It's called purchasing power: as soon as you give people money,
they can also spend it.
The greatest success I have seen there,
was the establishment of a bakery
from the proceeds of this grant.
My name is Frida.
That bakery has now reached the level of self-sustainability.
If you give a person money, why should they become lazy?
Take me, I'm not lazy, I have been given hope again,
and I'm busy every day.
If you give someone money, they can decide for themselves what to do with it.
The government only gave us corn flour
but not everyone eats porridge.
How do you know that everybody likes to eat corn flour?
Not everyone eats it.
You give them money and they decide what they want to buy.
And that is the way an adult learns about life.
It is an adult policy, rather than a paternalistic policy.
But why do we need a basic income in Belgium
when we already have such an extensive benefits system?
Well, you only get money unconditionally if you're the king.
Belgium does have a fine social safety net,
but it's also terribly complex.
If people start working part-time, which is sometimes possible,
they have less income than their disability benefits.
So they are punished for it.
That is exceptionally counterproductive.
It makes you dependent, that also takes away your motivation.
You earn less with a low paying job
than you would get on benefits.
So one of the main arguments in favour of basic income
in the Belgian or European context
is that the current system creates a sort of poverty trap,
an unemployment trap, because it's conditional,
because those benefits are conditional.
We have gotten to the point where we are paying people
to monitor what an unemployed person is doing, and that's insane.
And with a basic income grant, you don't need a huge administration.
The redistribution of money currently requires us to spend a lot of money
on people who are doing something that is frankly pointless.
Or people who are replaceable this way.
So we can make that redistribution a lot more efficient
by just giving a basic income.
And the people themselves, they do not need to cheat.
Also, there's no way you can cheat.
If no one can commit fraud to get a basic income,
no one needs to be checked.
One of the foremost parts
in our benefits system becomes obsolete this way.
Who was it that was looking for more ways to cut spending?
Basic income is an idea that refuses to die.
It started with Thomas Paine in 1795.
But also in 1848 in Brussels
Belgian Liberal Joseph Charlier wrote about it in this house.
That proposal is really a proposal
of a really unconditional basic income.
Modest, but really unconditional.
Only the person whose basic necessities are met
is independent.
Currently, those who depend on others for their absolute needs are slaves.
Perhaps one last excerpt that also expresses the ambition well.
The answer to the social problem is as simple as it is far-reaching.
That a simple idea can have immense consequences,
also proves this Belgian phenomenon.
No thank you.
Just kidding, gracias! Grazie!
Yes, with 2000 euros a month you don't need to worry for the rest of your life.
Win For Life, don't worry.
I scratched that lottery ticket in 2010
and it still didn't really sink in.
But when you stick that ticket in the machine,
and that jingle plays, you're like
"it really is real."
And then she said "oh, you're lucky,
because it's always paid out on the first of the month,
so starting the day after tomorrow, every month 2000 euros
will be deposited into your account.
For the rest of your life.
We'll call our winner Anja.
She is worried about the stigma
that she'd become lazy for the rest of her life.
Actually I'm working more than I used to,
since I got the Win For Life.
But also because I like doing it.
What I'm doing as an entrepreneur, that doesn't feel like working to me,
because I like doing it, but if I hadn't had that Win For Life,
I never would've had the chance to do what I like doing.
That's just wonderful.
That woman does what she likes.
She is free, that's really the whole point.
A basic income is a freedom income
and people don't realise that yet.
And when you see the collective happiness that is being wasted,
because people refuse to seriously think about it, that's huge.
That full time job is no longer putting me under pressure either,
like it was before.
I think that for a lot of people it's like: "I have to keep this job,
because it's all that I have and it's something to hold on to"
and in my case it's: "Well, if I Iose that job, it's not a disaster."
Something I've concluded as an entrepreneur is
people who like doing things
do it really well and they are much more productive than people
who are working because they have to.
That is also the function of a basic income,
in terms of people's human capital.
I would never have started my own business if I hadn't had that Win For Life,
for fear of failure or becoming bankrupt.
Anja also had more worries before she won her Win For Life.
Damn, my hair dryer broke down.
For example, about the safety of the ramshackle house she lived in
and she couldn't count on financial help from home
to buy a proper house.
I never would've dreamed we could live in such a beautiful house.
But that was not a problem, because suddenly the bank was glad to see us,
with 2000 euros extra income.
So in the case of Win For Life it is "For Life".
But the big problem there is that there is a huge difference
between 10, 100, 1000 people in 11 million.
But what happens in the heads of those 11 million Belgians
when we randomly offer a few people
an unconditional chance at 2000 euros a month?
Would they stop working?
2000 is a nice amount.
I wouldn't directly stop working, but my partner might.
You could go on a short vacation more often.
That would make life more pleasant and easier.
Perhaps a renovation?
I'd also save, I wouldn't immediately spend it on fancy things.
For the rest of your life you wouldn't have to work for somebody else.
I'd open a shop and I'd quit my job.
Open a shop or a restaurant.
I'll tell you right now that I'd use it for good causes.
Small-scale projects from people who want to do something
or the less wealthy.
Orphans, I pity them a lot as well.
Can I scratch now?
The reactions here confirm the expectations
of the societal effect of a basic income.
It makes people think about their free time,
it makes people more independent and nobody thinks of being lazy.
Alas.
Too bad.
But what do they think about the implementation
of a basic income for each Belgian?
That is of course not a bad idea, but it's not feasible.
It's not feasible.
Freedom is a sensitive matter to me.
It's a fantastic system, if it's for everyone.
If everyone can decide what to do with it,
I'll sign up right now, immediately.
If everyone is doing well, then there's also no misery.
Where will they get the money in the first place, is what I'm thinking.
I won't scratch for too long, because I still have potatoes to cook.
If there is a country where there is enough money for a basic income,
it's Switzerland.
The citizens of the country of banks will vote in 2016
on a basic income for every Swiss.
A group of a few artists
is calling itself "Generation basic income".
They collected more than 100,000 signatures
and compelled their government to a referendum
through the Swiss system of direct democracy.
If people vote yes,
the Swiss government will be constitutionally obligated
to implement the system, no matter what.
With that, Switzerland is internationally
the furthest along with a possible utopia.
Daniel Häni is an entrepreneur,
and the man behind "Unternehmen mitte" in Basel,
a coffee bar in a former bank building
where everyone is welcome, without having to consume anything.
The referendum is a political process.
People ask themselves questions
and when people ask themselves questions, they think.
In that way, awareness starts to exist.
The action of the money pile in Bern also fits in that context.
The basic income is an idea in a situation
where there is plenty of everything.
These are in fact 8 million real Swiss coins.
With this stunt, "Generation basic income" drew international attention.
You stand in front of that money pile and you ask yourself:
"What's still missing, if everything is there?"
The Swiss are often said to be neutral.
Enno Schmidt is very clear:
Even in a rich country like Switzerland, a basic income
is possible and necessary.
Whether people vote yes or no, is of course very important to us.
We want to win.
But to understand how a democracy works, you have to say:
even if the majority votes against basic income,
it tells us where we stand, and that's good.
Enno and Co. have a long way to go with their campaign
because the man in the street still has many doubts.
I really don't know yet, you have to weigh up these things.
I haven't thought enough about it yet.
I can't say if I find it good or bad.
I really don't know yet.
With basic income a discussion gets started
about what you really want to do.
I'd take the time to ask myself
if what I'm doing now is what I really want to do.
It's a development.
This is what we're doing now as a part of history.
It's necessary that a lot of people concern themselves with basic income
and develop the ability necessary for that.
It shows when you think about the matter.
A lot of people can't think for themselves.
They give in to an argument "and that's that".
So they have to develop independence,
just like other powers they don't have yet.
Then you're already close to a basic income.
Alright, dear Swiss, but you're not that special.
In Europe, citizens can submit an initiative as well.
The European citizen's initiative
is an initiative from the European Commission.
Christina Lambrecht of the Belgian movement for basic income
explains how it works.
We have written up a text regarding basic income.
We submitted it to the Commission,
and they said "Okay, you can go for it."
First of all, we have to surpass a minimum threshold of 7 countries.
15 countries have already joined the campaign,
and are getting ready to collect signatures.
So in Belgium we had to reach 16,500 signatures.
We reached 19,500.
When I reached the ministry,
they said to me, very friendly, mind you,
dear madam, we can't do anything with that at the moment,
at this moment everyone is in election mode,
and the current minister of home affairs,
I won't mention her name, that's not very friendly,
she's going to file that in a cabinet
and no one's going to look at it anymore.
So in my home I have 19,500 signatures of all those Belgians,
from north and south who supported our initiative
and frankly haven't been recognized to say
"Look, we want the European Commission to put that idea on the table."
Ok, let's go back to Switzerland.
Ironically, the country that isn't a member of the EU
and where a national citizen's initiative is binding.
Tumasch is a biological farmer
in the beautiful mountains of Lower Engadin.
What would happen, if an unconditional basic income was implemented?
What do you think about it?
I would get a freedom I do not currently have.
The basic income would be a sort of subsisdy.
But I would still keep working. And it has more advantages.
Like what? - It's the only solution
for our disrupted relations...
...or rather our disrupted financial system.
That's really a social problem that needs a solution.
And right now there is no better idea than basic income.
In Switzerland the idea is ripening,
but how are we doing?
We're willing to dream about a better future,
but our daily way of life
is still controlled by entrenched ideas.
The concept of a work week,
that's an obsolete concept.
The concept of a retirement pension at a certain age,
that's actually also an obsolete concept.
En then there's the robots, those are only getting better at their work
and they don't get burnouts.
Robots are already taking over a large part of our work
and in the future that will increase by another 47%.
We can actually afford to hand out money to everyone
and those who want to work get some more money
and those who don't want to work
they don't work and do what they want.
In principle, society is rich enough to do that.
With a basic income really everyone
in the history of mankind
gets the choice about the kind of work they want to do.
Finally the flexible labor market that people want so badly.
"Labor market" is actually an ugly word; people are not merchandise.
But with a basic income it will finally become a real market.
Then you can say yes or no to a job. So you can also say no.
With a basic income for everyone
you radically oppose the ruling status quo.
Freedom must be the most important thing, those who want to work can do that
and so can those who don't.
Power to the people.
Who could be opposed to that?
If people have a choice, they are empowered to make their own decisions,
they are empowered to become responsible, democratic citizens.
This is not always in business' interest or in every politicians' interest.
Basic income will give employees the possibility
to say no to unattractive jobs.
At a recent debate about basic income
this aspect quickly becomes the topic.
The basic income is a floor, a base,
on which people can build a life.
Not a net in which people remain trapped.
Well, when you think about it a bit,
it turns out it's not just something that's fair,
but also better for the economy
and better for the health of our society.
I mentioned just now, and I think we fully agree,
our labor market is changing greatly.
But paying a basic income for that is nonsense!
Francine Mestrum continues to oppose the basic income
because she worries about the liberal thinking behind it
and possible deterioration of current social protection.
There are thousands of people waiting,
who will take any job.
So, not a chance that employers will say
"We'll still pay you just as much"
"Oh, you don't want to do that work anymore, I will pay you some more"
That chance is zero.
But what is something that could happen?
What could happen, well, what my organisation is working on
and what we try to defend
is a reform of the social protection system.
We have worked for a 100 years
on a system of social protection with rights.
And today it's not working well enough yet.
So we need to improve it,
but we can't throw it overboard,
we don't have that right.
I don't think it's useful to turn the knobs
and increase child benefits a bit for the first one,
decrease a bit for the second one, and...
It no longer works, we must dare to rethink it radically.
Young people are more prone to question existing systems
and we hear and see that at this debate.
Yes, just like most people who came to listen,
I have heard good arguments for and against.
Yes, a friend of mine introduced it a year or two ago
and I was immediately opposed.
Because I thought, that is such a leftist utopia,
no realistic person can be in favor of that.
But in the meantime I've read so much about it
and I've changed my mind.
I see a young generation of people
and in the coming years, this young generation
will have to raise its voice.
A young generation of people who think completely differently
about work, about society.
Take me as an example: I am unemployed,
I'm educated, I'm unemployed.
Diploma, still unemployed.
Started a degree, completed it, still unemployed.
Completed paid training, still unemployed.
If someone were in my place, they would say
Don't do it, just go to sleep.
Young people don't think like the previous generation,
For them the world is something new, they're discovering it.
I think young people
are far more likely to assume the existence of prosperity.
I think it's good that people start thinking
about the social rights of a human
and these days people mostly point towards the duties.
These days people are mostly thinking about activating, activating,
but yes, indeed, the duty to contribute,
but you're also entitled to get something.
Basic income underscores that right and creates happiness.
Then I want to ask you what you're going to do with your basic income system
when someone
is feeling down,
say, he goes gambling one night, and he loses everything.
His money is gone, what do you tell him?
"You've had your chance. Too bad."?
Will he die in the gutter, or what?
A universal scheme
means, I know you're receiving it, and you know I'm receiving it.
It means, I can say to you:
You've got a basic income, try make something out of it.
And you can say the same to me.
When you talk to the people in Otjivero, they will tell you:
We feel like one family.
They told us before that no one was caring for anyone.
Even if there was a fight at a house close to you,
you would not go and enquire.
But now we have grown into one family.
So basic income enhances the community feeling.
But what about inflation?
As healthy, consuming Belgians,
wouldn't we want to know if our bread
will suddenly become three times as expensive?
It actually has a potentially lowering effect on prices.
If you provide a basic income, and if that leads to more demand
for local food or local services, guess what happens?
They materialise, because people have greater incentive
to increase the supply of those items.
That money circulates, and in fact improves the economy of the country
and, for that matter, the economy of the so called rural areas.
So you actually help strengthen the local economy, improve job creation,
and those tend to be import-substituting.
The money will not disappear,
like diamonds which have been exported
out of the country. It's here.
It leads to more money being generated,
because production goes up, and tax income goes up, etc.
So you can actually find
that using a basic income has a growth potential.
I don't think we need any more pilots
to prove what can be done with that.
Otjivero is basically like a window
how Namibia could develop what could be done.
Yes, Namibia can be that example.
If the leaders just take the courage and the political will,
Namibia can become that country in the world.
Suddenly, people are saying: wow, actually for many years we thought
that it would be impossible to have a basic income in... Africa?!
Our coalition has made the calculations.
And we have found that it is feasible
to implement a b.i.g. [Basic Income Grant] nationally.
And for Belgium?
Is it affordable in Belgium?
It's not affordable.
Bullshit, there is enough prosperity in this world.
We all know, nowadays that the 85 richest people on this planet
own as much as the 3.5 billion poorest.
With a basic income, you can scrap a number of budget items
from your social protection.
Income support, for example, disappears.
I've calculated it, there's about
12 to 13 billion you can scrap.
12 to 13 billion, that's not enough.
And I challenge all proponents of basic income
to come with a detailed,
well-founded calculation for basic income.
Very well, miss Mestrum, these are Pierre Catelin,
Ismaël Daoud and Axelle De Brandt.
Axelle and Pierre are therapists and are working on their book
about the model 'revenue de base XXL'.
Ismaël is an engineer and worked in his spare time for 6 months
on a calculation model.
In his spare time, because for now we don't have a basic income yet
to be free and innovative citizens.
Pierre and Axelle's model for basic income is very generous
so my first reaction was like, it's not feasible.
But then, I was curious and tried to calculate.
If basic income is adopted, it will happen here.
Our MPs will have less power if they vote for this, it takes courage.
He we are in the chamber of the federal parliament of Belgium.
Recently they voted for the 6th reform of the State,
which transfers competences
from the federal level towards regions and communities.
But we forgot about the citizens.
We had to organise a competence switch from public administrators to the citizens
therefore we need a 7th reform of the State that does just that.
In my job
I help people reorganise their lives.
And what people often tell me is,
they need more money and more time.
It's quantified as follows,
in billions of francs.
We need 187 billion euros to pay a basic income
of 1500 Euros to every adult, lifelong,
and also 200 euros to each child
plus all personal insurances, paid by the government.
We have recalculated it all, and figures look correct.
But isn't all of this, a bit too generous?
If the sums were lower, I'm afraid
we would ignore the potential of the system:
getting more freedom.
Firstly there are government expenditures that become superfluous,
because they are replaced.
The state won't need to spend 41 billion on pensions anymore
because basic income is itself a sort of pension.
Unemployment benefits would also become redundant
because in this system there is no unemployment.
Whether you work or not, you get 1500 euros per month.
A whole range of things like benefits
and pensions can be replaced,
thus saving about 71 billion,
but we still need to find 116.7 billion.
By a sound rationalisation of public administration,
Ishmael finds another 25 billion.
The third part consists of extra revenues from a tax shift.
It will focus on those who are now undertaxed.
In Belgium capital is taxed at 6 percent,
Labour is taxed at 43 percent, that's a big difference.
The idea is to increase taxes on capital, movable or immovable goods.
Then you can reduce taxes on labour.
So you get a more balanced system
where people do not have to protest in the streets,
because they feel they have contributed enough.
We consider it a noble contribution.
It offers a wide margin in society.
When people now hear the word 'contribution',
they think it's a swindle. That is not the goal.
There should be a differentiated VAT system:
higher for luxury goods, lower for basic goods.
But the average VAT should be around 25 percent.
That provides another 16 billion euros.
By an average increase of VAT to 25%,
and other shifts on taxes and charges, we arrive at 95.4 billion.
That brings us to a positive balance.
This model results in a profit of more than 4 billion for the government.
Namibia showed us how purchase power can rise.
But an exact projection of the spending power
isn't possible with this static model.
They also consider, however,
residual earnings and cost of government.
The price of the launch of the basic income is 0 euro,
provided that some public enterprises are privatized.
Dear Pierre, Ishmael and Axelle, are you really sure of this model?
Yes, - Absolutely.
In fact it will generate savings
without deterioration of public services.
Because this way, the system is much simpler.
You actually begins with a clean slate.
There are no poltical a prioris or ideologies.
Again, why should you do it?
Why should you give basic income to rich people?
Can somebody kindly answer this simple question?
Basic income is for everyone, that's the difference.
Some people do not realise that excluding rich people
is still excluding people.
A basic income excludes no one, it is not a class struggle.
It is about the human.
That problem has been solved as well.
(Applause)
Politicians are afraid that if you empower people too much,
they stand up and demand things and then they become empowered citizens.
And I think, politicians are afraid of that.
Because in Otjivero you could see this empowerment process.
They people can tell their own stories,
they even demanded the President to come out and say,
if you still have doubts about the basic income grant,
why don't you then come to Otjivero and discuss with us?
It is not that it isn't spoken about in politics.
A lot of politicians in Germany, Switzer- land and Canada are talking about it.
In a short term, it will be on the political agenda.
One of the problems with basic income
is that within each party there are both proponents and opponents
and sometimes you find very emotional proponents and opponents
and that in fact makes it difficult to move forward.
Because it is difficult for a party to find enough unity within itself
to effectively promote the idea.
To me, it also proves that it is an idea
of the future and not of the past,
because this left-right polarisation is an illusion.
It stems from our parliamentary system that dates from the 19th century.
The only Belgian party with basic income in its program
is the Pirate Party.
Basic Income Now, is their message.
There is no discussion about another economic paradigm
or another way to construct the welfare state,
because we're stuck in, 'this is what we have now'
and we don't dare to break away from that,
we must bind our voters to us
and satisfy them and they don't believe in it.
Every new party, especially a party with refreshing and good ideas,
is more dangerous than an idiot talking some bullshit.
We were a very dangerous party in that way
because we certainly had a strong image,
we were well prepared.
Duchatelet came up with a clear proposal for basic income in the late 90s.
with his party Vivant.
We got a lot of votes, by the way.
In 1999 we got 1 in 40 votes. For a party
that barely got any TV coverage, that's a great result.
So after the national elections
they immediately introduced an electoral threshold,
to make sure that next time we wouldn't be successful.
For the benefit of the rich employees must retreat.
It is becoming extremely urgent
that we need a new progressive politics of redistribution
and a new system of income distribution
in which people have the right to basic security
to exist as a human being in modern society.
If basic income is not part
of that progressive strategy,
then I think we are entitled
to be very alarmed about what's happening.
Therefore, it is important that this utopia, this dream, gives people hope
and gives people the message,
it's not wrong to be optimistic and hopeful.
'Be outraged, be committed'
he says, and I completely agree with that.
Think about your world, your existence, your job, your life
and try from there to mean something in the world,
and don't wait until some great leader
says from above, that's the way to act.
If we allow our societies to become more and more unequal,
and more and more prone to insecurity for masses of people,
then it will be scary.
A society with fewer insecure and angry people:
could a basic income really achieve this?
Basic income also poses new questions:
what will happen to migration,
if basic income only exists in Belgium?
Isn't the implementation required at a European level
or even to be studied globally?
Will we only then be talking about a real utopia?
Yes, I will tell you, it's unthinkable not to do it.
Yes, because only 8% of the people are producing everything we need.
And the other 92%, do we need to invent jobs for them
In some administration in order to give them money?
No, just give money to everyone.
People are scared of the Basic Income Grant,
because it does not stop of giving 100 Namibian dollars to poor Namibians.
But it touches many, many questions.
The thing is, that when any new idea,
or any idea that, confronting all problems, comes up,
the biggest challenge for people is to open their minds.
It's my life. It's not my job, it's my life.
Admittedly, something to talk about during upcoming family dinners.
If you are looking for additional arguments,
on our Facebook page you will find more information
about the financing model proposed by Ismaël, Pierre en Axelle.
And for those who still consider basic income a stupid idea...
the right to vote for women was also considered a stupid idea not so long ago.
Wishing you happy holidays
and a new year with only pleasant surprises
I hope to see you back for a new Panorama on Thursday 8th January.
Thank you for watching.