기본소득 도입의 조건과 과제

Abstract

본 연구는 대안적 소득보장제도의 하나로 주목받고 있는 기본소득제도의 도입을 둘러싼 이론적, 현실적 쟁점들을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 기본소득제도에 대해서는 다양한 입장이 존재하는 만큼 그 의미와 모형을 구체화하고, 이와 경합하는 다른 대안적 소득보장제도를 제시하고자 하였다. 기본소득 제도를 정의하는 개념을 명확히 함으로써 제도의 외연을 확정할 수 있었다는 것은 정책적 논의의 중요한 성과이다. 이 연구에서는 그것이 개념의 위계화, 즉 보편성, 무조건성, 현금성, 정기성, 그리고 충분성이란 순서가 중시됨을 확인한 셈이다. 하지만 이러한 잠정적 합의가 개념 간 위계를 결정하는 원칙에 대한 동의를 의미하는 것은 아니다. 공유부와 공화주의적 자유의 원칙과 기본소득을 연계시키는 것은 많은 과제를 남겨둔다. 또한 기본소득이 근거를 두고 있는 공유부 개념은 공유의 대상과 근거, 실현의 방법 등에 대해 많은 논의의 여지를 남겨두고 있다. 현행소득보장제도와 기본소득제도의 큰 차이를 고려할 때, 그리고 그 사이에 다양한 선택의 여지가 있을 수 있음을 고려할 때, 각 대안들에 대해 면밀하게 검토해 나가는 것이 중요한 과제일 것이다.

The purpose of this study is to review the theoretical and practical issues for introduction of the basic income system as an alternative of the income security system. This study mainly consists of three parts: The first part confirms the premises and backgrounds of the discussions related to the introduction of the basic income system(chs 2~4); the second is that each researcher asserts the basic income system and the alternative income security systems(chs 5~8); and the third part examines the practical issues in advance in relation to the introduction of the basic income system(chs 9~10). Basic income system can be defined as an income security measure (basic income in a broad sense) to provide cash payments to all citizens on a regular basis, or a detailed policy measure to share the principle but making a difference (basic income in a narrow sense). In order to introduce basic income in reality, it is necessary to objectively demonstrate the redistributive effect of basic income and to prepare practical financing measure. In addition, the relationship between basic income and the existing income security system should be clearly defined, and the reason why universal benefits should be implemented should be presented more clearly(Chapter 2). Evaluation is necessary whether the current income security system is functioning properly, which should be the starting point of any discussions on reforming the income security system, including the proposal of an alternative income security system. In Korea, the poverty rate and the income gap ratio are not sufficiently reduced because the current systems are lacking inclusiveness, resulting from excessively stringent means(asset) test criteria. This fact also suggests that there is ample room for expansion of inclusiveness and sufficiency even if the current system is redesigned without introducing an all-out alternative income security system(Chapter 3). We could confirm from the experiments with basic income systems in some developed countries that none of them have adopted the basic income as the basis of their social safety net. In many cases, the purpose of the policy experiment was not to presuppose the introduction, but to review the effect of the system before introduction. Even with the same name of basic income, however, the policy goals pursued in each country were very different, and the experimental process was found to be very vulnerable to the political changes. This could mean that it is important to create a political agreement between the pros and cons in order to secure the sustainability of the system (Chapter 4). From the standpoint of actively supporting the basic income, introduction of the basic income means a paradigm shift in the Korean welfare state. The basic income system can overcome the limitations faced by the existing social security system, such as expansion of precarious labor, deepening inequality, and human rights violations due to the means test. It is possible to prevent a decrease in work motivation while improving distribution structure. Principle of the basic income is divided into the principles of universality, unconditionality, and individuality derived from the nature of the commons, and the principles of regularity, cash benefit, and sufficiency. Considering that it is difficult to realize a full basic income with sufficiency in a short period of time, it may be useful to take a step-by-step realization method through partial basic income or categorical basic income(Chapter 5). A specific strategy to expand the basic income is to start with a partial basic income of 300,000 won per month, but by reorganizing the system, so that it is not at a disadvantage compared with the current income security system. When converting to the Full Basic Income, public assistance programs will be integrated into the basic income, and the social insurance system is maintained in the form of income-based social insurance. The Partial Basic Income is a transitional stage to the Full Basic Income. The Partial Basic Income System is to maintain the National Basic Livelihood Benefit while integrating the National Employment Support System, EITC, Child Allowance, etc. into the basic income. It will also partially integrate the Basic Pension and expand the target age while integrating the Child Allowance(Chapter 6). The flexible minimum income guarantee system integrates the existing National Livelihood Benefits, EITC, and the National Employment Supporting System for paying the benefits to those with less than 100% of the median income, but at a 40% of the gap between the selection baseline and the market income. Compared to the current National Livelihood Benefit System, this method has advantages of reducing the blind spots while raising the income benefit baseline and inspiring the work incentives by lowering the marginal income tax rate for beneficiaries compared to the Negative Income Tax(Chapter 7). It is an alternative to rebuild the income security system through innovation by improving the contents of the existing income security program and reorganizing the governance. The core plans of this reform are ensuring fairness in the labor market for equal pay for work of equal value, generalization of social insurance for all the employed (transition to income-oriented social insurance, unification of public pensions), expansion of the social risk range (introduction of sickness benefit, partial unemployment benefit, activity benefit, and basic livelihood security system reform), shifting the financial burden of social security from a bilateral way to a third party, and taxation of all cash benefits(Chapter 8). As a result of simulating the effect of the alternative income security system model, following facts were confirmed: When operated with the same financial resources as the current income security system, the universal basic income system and the individual negative income tax system show a smaller distributional effect than the current income security system. Assuming that a tax increase is possible, it can be confirmed that the distribution effect of the universal basic income in combination with the citizen income tax goes up as the tax rate of the fixed rate increases(Chapter 9). As a result of the survey on the perceptions of the basic income and taxation, there was a lot of support for basic income, but more opposition when introducing the basic income accompanied by taxation. It is confirmed that they agree to the expansion of welfare benefits while avoiding their own burden. The implication of this perception is that it is desirable to increase the tax after obtaining the national consent to introduce the basic income. Considering the practical difficulties, even if a basic income is introduced, it is expected to be inevitable to introduce it at a low level for some groups(Chapter 10). It is an important outcome of the our discussions that the extension of the Basic Income System could be confirmed by clarifying the Basic Income conception. This study could confirm that the hierarchy of concepts was important in the order of universality, unconditionality, cashability, regularity, and sufficiency. However, this tentative agreement does not imply a consensus on the principles for determining the hierarchy among the concepts. Linking the commons and republican principles of freedom to the basic income leaves many challenges. Also, the concept of shared commons as the basis of the basic income leaves much room for discussions on the subject, the basis, and the method of common ownership. Considering the big difference between the current income security system and the basic income system, and considering that there may be various options between them, it will be an important task to examine each alternative thoroughly.