A/HRC/35/26 predistributive as opposed to redistributive, and involves a small sum and a fluctuating level of payment.44 (b) A partial basic income is limited, such as to a particular group of recipients. For example, the Netherlands and New Zealand both have universal basic pensions, under which all persons above a certain age receive an income without means testing. 45 (c) A supplemental basic income involves the introduction of a modest basic income alongside the existing social security system. Some commentators do not distinguish between partial and supplemental income. A Finnish pilot project, for example, describes partial income as involving a level of benefit that is “substantially lower” and not aiming to replace other current transfers “to the same extent as in full basic income”.46 Partial and supplemental basic income approaches can also overlap. The Finnish pilot provides €560 over a two-year period (2017-2018) to some 1,500 randomly selected individuals who are aged between 25 and 58 years and are already receiving a labour market subsidy or basic unemployment allowance. 47 The payment is automatic, unconditional and not means-tested. Consistent with Van Parijs’s approach, the basic income payment substitutes only for existing benefits that are lower than it. 48 It can therefore be cumulated with existing earnings-related benefits and housing allowances. Thus, the Finnish model is partial in the sense that it has been targeted at a specific recipient group on the basis of age and income, and it is supplemental in the sense that it does not completely replace the existing social security system. The preliminary report concluded that the deficiencies of the partial basic income are that it would not substantially change the current system or reduce bureaucracy, it would not solve incentive problems arising from a generous housing allowance, and it is a low amount, especially for single parents.49 (d) A full basic income involves the characteristics set out above in part II, section A — namely an income that is basic, individual, cash, regular, universal and unconditional. Nowhere in the world has such a scheme yet been implemented. One was considered in Finland, at a level of €1,000 per month, but concern was expressed about “possible work disincentives, conflicts with earnings-related unemployment security, political controversies, high costs, regional differences in housing costs and possibly the lack of legitimacy”, with the level “too high for some groups and too low for the others”.50 III. Similarities and differences with other schemes A. Negative income tax 32. Negative income taxes, inspired by the work of Milton Friedman, ensure that individuals who earn below a certain threshold receive payments from the government, rather than having to pay taxes. It is similar to basic income in that every citizen is automatically and unconditionally eligible, but it differs from the full basic income in that benefits phase out as incomes rise. Amounts may also be adjusted for households. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Jurgen De Wispelaere, “Basic income in our time: improving political prospects through policy learning?”, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 45, No. 4 (2016), pp. 622-626. Van Parijs and Vanderborght, Basic Income, pp. 159 and 160. “From idea to experiment: report on universal basic income experiment in Finland” (Kela, 2016), p. 24. “Objectives and implementation of the basic income experiment” (Kela, modified 13 January 2017), available from www.kela.fi/web/en/basic-income-objectives-and-implementation; and “Who can get a basic income?” (Kela, modified 28 December 2016), available from www.kela.fi/web/en/basicincome-who-can-get. Van Parijs and Vanderborght, Basic Income, p. 12. “From idea to experiment”, p. 37. Ibid., p. 24. 11