Panorama: a basic income for everyone

Suppose everybody gets 1,500 euros monthly on their account. Unconditionally, whether working or not. Don't start laughing just yet: the abolition of slavery, child labor and even the creation of Europe were once similarly impossible ideas. The most common counterargument - that it is not affordable - put Panorama thinking. How does money that comes for free affect a human life?

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.