On Basic Income: Interview with Götz Werner
page 2 of 3

taz: The question still remains: where would the money come from?

GW: From taxes.

taz: Aha. Even more taxes.

GW: No. I propose a very simple solution: abolish all taxes except for VAT. It's the only tax that makes sense and is fair.

(Note: In France, Value Added Tax accounts for 52% of state revenues. Also check his 2012 (video) interview as he give a much deeper answer on the nature of money in relation to a basic income. Similarly, others advocating guaranteed income point out that money is an entirely arbitrary human invention--especially in the "weightless*" economy with infinitely reproducible products--and there is no need to 'take' money in from taxes when money could just be issued by federal governments for guaranteed income. See Richard Cook's Bailout for the People, LIFE's money article , or this prophetic 2005 article by Sharon Lee Robertson and her concept of "Failsafe Humanity." *Diane Coyle's entire book "The Weightless World" is available as a free 'weightless' download on her webpage, halfway down the page. )

taz: How high should it be?

GW: Much higher than now. Maybe 50 percent.

taz: You'll need to explain that.

GW: The purpose of the economy is to create an income for people by producing consumer goods. Unlike in the past we no longer live in an economy of lack. We're producing a surplus of goods. This is why consumption should be the only basis of tax. Not those who serve should pay tax, but those who make use of others' services. Hence, abolish all taxes - except VAT.

taz: And you think this is fair? Why would you want to take income and profit taxes off the rich?

GW: Because the rich also use their incomes for consumption - and thus would also pay the high VAT. Or they invest their income, which in turn causes more consumption. Eventually you will end up with consumption, and thus the ideal base for taxation.

taz: Everyone pays taxes according to their capability - you'd entirely abolish that concept.

GW: Why? VAT could be structured socially. A very high tax rate for luxury goods, a very low one for daily commodities. With a base income and a consumption tax, Germany would become an investor's paradise, a work magnet that creates a lot of jobs.

taz: The second most favourite question of sceptics is: why should man act against his nature and not just live in laziness when he has enough money to live?

(Note: most of the world's essential work is done for free already, by mothers and other unpaid family and/or community caregivers and volunteers, all of whom are not considered "productive" under current economic definitions and measures of GDP.)

GW: I ask the sceptics: would you stop working? They respond: not me. I enjoy my work. They only assume of others that they would be lazy.

taz: Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.

GW: No. Most people just have two different ideas of man - one of themselves and one of the others. In the first, spiritual image man is a creature of reason and freedom. In the other, materialist image man is more like an animal, a creature of determined impulse and reaction. This idea is mirrored in the phrase: trust is good, control is better.

taz: And you believe that everyone in your brave new basic income world will work by their own will?

GW: With an unconditional basic income, we're allowing everyone the space to do the work they consider necessary and sensible. We will work because we're seeing a purpose in it, not because we're being forced to. Is it not a truly free society in which everyone can abstain? In which everyone is free to say no to undignified circumstances? Free from existential worries, the people will unfold their talents.

taz: That sounds a bit like Paradise.

GW: You don't believe me. But it wouldn't be quite so easy to live on the basic income.

taz: Why not?

GW: There are no more excuses. All of the victim roles we've gotten so comfortable in no longer work. You cannot claim you're doing the job just because you need the money, you're only staying with your husband because you're dependent on his income...

taz: What would we gain from the basic income?

GW: Dignity and safety - and power. We could tell an employer that we no longer want to work for them because they're polluting the environment or because they're treating their employees badly. You can't imagine how such a basic income would unleash the abilities of our society.

taz: But won't there be people who won't want to work?

GW: They exist today, but they're still getting money from the government - they just have to deal with repressions from social service authorities. The people who don't want to work today won't want to work in the future.

taz: If you ask a Hauptschule (vocational oriented branch of German secondary school -translator.) student about what they want to be after school, many respond: dude, I wanna be on Hartz IV*! What happens to these young people who now receive a basic income? ( *Hartz IV is Germany's current unemployment benefits system.)

GW: I can't tell you. We will have to find out. But society needs to treat young people in a way that makes their start into life more attractive.

taz: And attractive means giving them their cash and leaving them alone?

GW: No. They need to find a purpose to their lives and set goals for themselves.

taz: Young people saying they want to go on Hartz IV is also influenced by their parents' indifference.

GW: Do you see the problem with your question? They only say this because their parents are on Hartz IV. Would Hartz IV not exist, they would have a different goal in life. Were there a basic income, they would see that their parents can choose freely how to spend their lives. Young people choose their own ideals. It's not like Hartz IV is the Matterhorn they want to climb.

taz: Who does the work nobody wants to do in your world? Who goes door to door and cleans the doormats?

GW: Maybe unpleasant jobs will have to be paid better. But fundamentally that's how it works today already. As an example: if you want your newspaper to be delivered at 5am, there are three options. First, you make the work attractive enough so that others will do it. Second, you have machines do the work. Third, you do the work yourself. There's a fundamental difference with the basic income in that work will be done voluntarily. The main factor is no longer the income, but the meaning of the work. This would massively improve economic efficiency.

Next - PAGE 3