Random Politics

[CCS]

Let's skip the preamble and go straight to the part where you tell us about your keen academic insight that proves why the UBI is a great idea socially.

[Lightspeed]

Maybe Pixie's academic insight has revealed there are always more perspectives than those already considered. That curiosity can only lead to further insight.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by CCS

Let's skip the preamble and go straight to the part where you tell us about your keen academic insight that proves why the UBI is a great idea socially.

Lets skip to the point where I think that I don't need to convince myself but am fully willing to admit that there may be things that I haven't thought of and am actually interested in what other people may see as potential issues.

Oh and I'll throw in a "jesus you can be a right royal cock at times" for free.

[CCS]

I'm not trying to be a cock. But your posts form a certain pattern and I'm just trying to expedite the whole deal.

Let's try doing this in reverse. You offer up your keen academic insights up front. Then we'll have our 2 cents worth and then you tell us why academia has discredited our opinions.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Maybe Pixie's academic insight has revealed there are always more perspectives than those already considered. That curiosity can only lead to further insight.

That's just fine. That's grand. I have no problem with that.

[blynk]

Why don't you both offer up the top 10 reasons you are for or against it.
On the count of three.
1, 2....

[Lightspeed]

Awww, CCS is feeling discredited. I wonder if we could find a pattern in his posting behaviour?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by CCS

I'm not trying to be a cock. But your posts form a certain pattern and I'm just trying to expedite the whole deal.

Let's try doing this in reverse. You offer up your keen academic insights up front. Then we'll have our 2 cents worth and then you tell us why academia has discredited our opinions.

I'm not interested in discrediting anyone's ideas/opinions, I'm interested in ways of looking at this that are either outside of my world view or that I just haven't considered.

If you need something to get the ball rolling though I'm somewhat confused by the far right views (in particular libertarians) that I've read on this, mostly slamming it. I would have thought this would be a wet-dream for them.

It's decentralised (in that the government isn't making value choices about who deserves what). It encourages personal responsibility (as everyone gets the same and they can do with it as they wish). It encourages spending and removes some of the risk from entrepreneurial ventures (at the entry level). It encourages work and labour flexibility (good for employers). These all seem like things which should appeal to free-market adherents.

[CCS]

Feeling discredited? No. Nice assumption. Typical of you.

I'm simply not interested in playing the usual games. As is typical of lolspeed, he wants to make everything about me.

*yawn*

Find a new obsession.

[Ab]

Any UBI that retains the existing gravy train of super for retirees is just theatre.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

Any UBI that retains the existing gravy train of super for retirees is just theatre.

Yep, pretty much agree with that - it's either universal or it isn't, can't really have a middle ground with something like this.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

Any UBI that retains the existing gravy train of super for retirees is just theatre.

Was thinking about this whilst doing the dishes (stupid holidays messing up my work schedule) and, from a philosophical standpoint, a UBI even starts to dismantle the idea of retirement as both something people would aim for or a "status" in society.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by blynk

Why don't you both offer up the top 10 reasons you are for or against it.
On the count of three.
1, 2....

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/free-press-28032016

Do you Want $200 or Not?
Labour won the 1957 election with the promise of a hand out. The newspaper headlines asked “Do you want £100 or not?” Now the promise is adjusted for inflation at $200 every week.

Money for Nothing
As the respected welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell points out, the Government is trying to replace cash benefits with income management and manage people on benefits into work. Labour’s idea is to put every adult New Zealander on an unconditional cash unemployment benefit.

The Easy Part is Giving it Away
Free Press asked Sir Roger Douglas about Labour’s new idea. “The easy part is giving it away,” he said, “The hard part is paying for it.” Sir Roger was handy with back of envelope calculations, here are a few from Free Press.

A Stupendous Giveaway
$200 per week is $10,400 per year. There are 3.5 million New Zealanders over 18 so that’s $36 billion. Total spending on Superannuation and Benefits is about $18 billion, so even if Labour promised to get rid of all current entitlements it would double welfare spending.

But it Won’t
Labour couldn’t eliminate entitlements because many are more than $200. Super annuitants wouldn’t lie down for a one third reduction. Families with multiple children would expect to keep their entitlements over $200, as would most of those receiving accommodation supplements.

How Would Labour Pay for It?
The total tax take from the Income, Company and Goods and Services Taxes is about $67 billion. Labour would have to raise tax rates by a third. That’s a 20 per cent GST, a 44 per cent income tax rate, and a 37 per cent company rate. It would be higher for the reasons above.

Incentives
Treasury modelled (and panned) a universal basic income five years ago. The main problem is the incentive you get from receiving $10,000 for nothing but paying higher taxes on work, saving and investment.

Skills and Education
Education is an investment in oneself, the Treasury said “it appears likely that the net effect would be to weaken education and training incentives.” The scheme rewards education with more tax.

Saving and Investment
Under a UBI, savings and investment would be taxed harder. As the Treasury put it “tax rates at these levels… would reduce savings incentives.” New Zealand has always been short of capital, which holds back our productivity.

Employment
The Treasury again: “overall labour supply is likely to fall due to an increase in effective marginal tax rates for the vast majority of workers; leading to decreased incentives to enter into the labour market or to increase labour market participation.” In other words, giving everybody free money then taxing workers hard reduces employment.

Brain Drain
Western countries battle for skilled people, who respond to tax rates. As the Treasury said, a UBI would mean “increased incentives for skilled workers to emigrate.”

Economic Growth
“Growth in GDP could be reduced by around 2.8 percentage points per year. Given New Zealand has had few periods in recent history of sustained growth of that magnitude this is significant.”

Tax ‘Integrity’
The higher the tax rate, the more appealing it is to avoid or evade. Higher tax rates under the scheme would lead to more avoidance, requiring higher tax rates, leading to...

The Kicker
Such a scheme “would not necessarily achieve its main goal of reducing poverty,” because it “could distribute money away from those most in need of government assistance and toward those who have choices and opportunities but choose not to work.” Need we say more?

Worst Idea Ever
We apologise for this rather lengthy Free Press, Labour’s idea has so many problems. But would a National-led Government introduce it in the right (wrong) political circumstances?

Key Says No... but.
"They've got no idea when it comes to policy," says Prime Minister John Key. "You'd be giving it to people that don't need it… You'd be giving my wife $11,000. With the greatest respect I think we would prefer that $11,000 went to children in need." And "it's unaffordable, and barking mad," says Mr Key.

Communism by Stealth
John Key once said of Working for Families: "They've got the vast majority of people now trapped in a one-size-fits-all. We all pay one rate - it's communism by stealth." "It didn't work very well for Eastern Europe and it won't work very well for New Zealand."

Bracket Creep
“This Government …loves taking extra dollars off those people at every opportunity it can… Yes, $2,600 per household extra, but $500 million more from the impact of fiscal drag or bracket creep—$500 million!”

Student Loans
“Interest-free loans are cheese in the mousetrap… this is Social Credit recharged with 21st century atomic energy.” (Bill English)

Capital Gains Tax
John Key once said that a Capital Gains Tax would "plunge a dagger through the heart of growth". As Free Press has reported over the past year, the so-called ‘Bright Line Test’ is a capital gains tax in drag.

A Long History
The first National Government opposed then adopted Labour’s cradle-to-grave welfare state. The second one bedded in Walter Nash’s import licensing regime. The third actually helped with Norman Kirk’s expansion of the benefit scheme to a no-strings-attached entitlement. The fourth adopted Sir Roger’s free-market reforms. Who is surprised that the fifth National Government happily accepts Helen Clark’s policies?

Coming to a National Government Near You
After backing down on Interest Free Loans, Working for Families, and the Capital Gains Tax, who doubts that a National-led Government would live with some form of Universal Basic Income if the political circumstances arose?

[[Malks] Pixie]

And do you agree with all those points CCS?

I've seen a few disputed (like the Treasury forecasting surrounding a UBI not accounting for reduced administration costs) and of course the old "communism by stealth" is just rhetoric (as this is pretty much the exact opposite to communism).

[CCS]

It doesn't really matter if I agree with them. They're reasonable points and they're up for debate.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

Feeling discredited? No. Nice assumption. Typical of you.

lolz, you were the one who introduced the idea of being discredited, and wanting to avoid that.

I'm simply not interested in playing the usual games.

You mean the games you play? That typically revolve around trying to find fault and cause for belittlement? That's your posting pattern, isn't it?

As is typical of lolspeed, he wants to make everything about me.

Were you touching yourself when you wrote that? lolz

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by CCS

It doesn't really matter if I agree with them. They're reasonable points and they're up for debate.

They are (mostly) reasonable points which are up for debate - but they are also produced specifically with a political purpose as opposed to exploring the idea of a UBI without any particular agenda. It's why I said I was interested in what people here thought the social con's could be.

Act have a particular view of the world (as do Labour, National, Greens etc), I'm interested in how actual people think it would effect the social realm of things.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by blynk

Why don't you both offer up the top 10 reasons you are for or against it.
On the count of three.
1, 2....

I can only come up with 4:

1. Enjoys the suffering of others.
2. Fuck you.
3. Who cares.
4. Fuck off.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Act have a particular view of the world (as do Labour, National, Greens etc), I'm interested in how actual people think it would effect the social realm of things.

Treasury did a report a few years back on a universal basic income. I haven't read the whole thing but the gist of it is that it wouldn't raise people out of poverty and it would be hideously expensive.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Were you touching yourself when you wrote that? lolz

I don't see you contributing to the topic at hand so I assume your only motivation is me. I'm clearly correct on that.

[Lightspeed]

Or my motivation could be to undermine people who habitually derail discussions that don't suit them. If it seems to be about you, it might be because you're the only person still posting who does this.

[pxpx]

Would a UBI end up being a blunt stick, kind of like the OCR?

In Ubi-NZ, if 'poverty' still gets worse, does the government just increase the UBI? What happens when things get better? Does it become political suicide to reduce the UBI?

I'm undecided on the UBI, need more input.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Or my motivation could be to undermine people who habitually derail discussions that don't suit them. If it seems to be about you, it might be because you're the only person still posting who does this.

Uhhh, you need to look in the mirror, fella.

[Lightspeed]

That's all you've got, deflection. I offer my own opinions of what's being discussed, you only offer opinions of those offering opinions.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Would a UBI end up being a blunt stick, kind of like the OCR?

In Ubi-NZ, if 'poverty' still gets worse, does the government just increase the UBI? What happens when things get better? Does it become political suicide to reduce the UBI?

I'm undecided on the UBI, need more input.

It certainly could be. I think UBI as a standalone measure would be completely inadequate.

There are many ways to alleviate poverty that don't include handing over cash to the needy. But we don't seem to be willing to consider even these much more cost effective measures, such as free quality early childhood care.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Is the sole focus of a UBI just "because poverty"? Because if it is then, yeah, it does feel like a blunt stick approach - particularly because those just above the bottom of the heap would, in many cases, be getting less assistance than they already do (because those at the actual bottom of the heap don't get anything).

Originally Posted by CCS

Treasury did a report a few years back on a universal basic income. I haven't read the whole thing but the gist of it is that it wouldn't raise people out of poverty and it would be hideously expensive.

Yeah I've looked at some of the report and it very much felt that way. This is also why I'm interested in if a UBI would/could prompt significant social changes to the way those who are dependant on welfare view labour (the activity, not the party). If part-time work is a path way to wider employment then I can see a social benefit of a UBI not penalising those who only get 10-20 hours a week. Volunteering/internships also become much more accessible and beneficial and another way of both gaining skills and experience that employers want/need - while the organisations who take them on also benefit. I may have to go back to that report and have a closer read.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by pxpx

I'm undecided on the UBI, need more input.

If no improvement to poverty and high taxes aren't enough to convince you:

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWo...Zealand%20.PDF

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11613322

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11612852

http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/money_for_all

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-stan...is-too-radical

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.n...upid-idea.html

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.n...on-policy.html


Labour's paper:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1458272685


TL:DR



To me, those costs massively outweigh the benefits. I'll point out, while I'm at it, that one of the benefits is removing the bureaucracy around administering the social welfare system. That in itself is good. But it means a lot of people in the public service sector lose their jobs. Ironically, Labour is very traditionally pro-public service sector. How will they tell these people "Don't worry, you'll still have $11,000 per year salary!"

[CCS]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Is the sole focus of a UBI just "because poverty"?

I assume that is the case. I don't know what else a UBI addresses.

If part-time work is a path way to wider employment then I can see a social benefit of a UBI not penalising those who only get 10-20 hours a week. Volunteering/internships also become much more accessible and beneficial and another way of both gaining skills and experience that employers want/need - while the organisations who take them on also benefit.

I'm not against something along those lines - in principle. But I don't feel like a UBI is the way to do it.

I'd be interested in something addressing secondary tax. Labour has suggested it. National claimed in 2014 that they're already working on addressing secondary tax. Fuck knows where they are with that, though I get the feeling they're more about making compliance easier than lowering tax on secondary jobs.

[fixed_truth]

The details matter a lot with a UBI and I wouldn’t mind seeing a Royal commission done here so we can get things like the base level right as obviously it would need to be at a level where all people have an adequate income to live on. And also the tax revenue should come from those that can most afford it.

Also re: automation - Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared Of Capitalism, Not Robots

[Delphinus]

Originally Posted by CCS

I'd be interested in something addressing secondary tax. Labour has suggested it. National claimed in 2014 that they're already working on addressing secondary tax. Fuck knows where they are with that, though I get the feeling they're more about making compliance easier than lowering tax on secondary jobs.

What is the issue with secondary tax? End of the year, request a Personal Tax Summary from IRD, they calculate the tax you overpaid from 2nd job, get refund, sorted. It's not that difficult.

I like the idea that UBI provides freedom for entrepreneurs to start new businesses, creative people to be able to create more art/music/etc.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

What is the issue with secondary tax? End of the year, request a Personal Tax Summary from IRD, they calculate the tax you overpaid from 2nd job, get refund, sorted. It's not that difficult.

According to Labour:

Labour has announced plans to scrap secondary tax for workers with more than one job - but National says it's already implementing the policy.

In the current system, those with more than one job often pay a higher rate on their secondary income. It is expected they claim a refund on the wash-up at the end of the financial year.

However, Labour says this is too complex, overpayments are often not claimed back and the system hits hardest those in casual work.

Within five years of taking office Labour would develop an alternative to secondary tax. In the interim, it would implement special tax codes until an Inland Revenue computer upgrade comes online.

"Many low paid workers are having to work two or three jobs to make ends meet and support their families," leader David Cunliffe said this morning.

"The current secondary tax regime makes life even more difficult for them and is an additional obstacle to meeting the basic costs of living.

"Labour will address this hardship by making sure that these workers ...have access to the money they earn when they need it - in their wage packets."

The policy would not reduce the final tax that any taxpayer owes but Labour says it would make the system "fairer and more transparent."

I'd actually be okay with reducing the tax owed on the second job by some small amount. As for what is counted as the second job - whichever pays the least of the two. Obviously it reduces the overall tax revenue, but typically Labour's approach is that it can be made back from the rich as long as it benefits the poor.

I like the idea that UBI provides freedom for entrepreneurs to start new businesses, creative people to be able to create more art/music/etc.

Is $200 realistically going to do much to help entrepreneurs to start a new business? I'm quite sceptical.

[blynk]

No, but $200 could go a long way towards weekly expenses when you are not getting paid.

[CCS]

It's less than some people get on the benefit.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by CCS

It's less than some people get on the benefit.

I don't have a source but I heard on the radio that Grant Robertson was making policy up on the fly and decided that the UBI would be additional to some existing benefits.

edit: correction - it's not labour policy, but the above goes to show that Robertson still has no idea.

[Delphinus]

Originally Posted by CCS

Is $200 realistically going to do much to help entrepreneurs to start a new business? I'm quite sceptical.

I think the biggest difficulty in starting a business is time. If you have to work a part time job earning $15.25/hour you have to work at least 15 hours a week to get $200/week in the hand. That's not a good use of time.
If you could cover your basic living costs (or a good % of them) from a UBI then yes that would help a lot starting a new business. Especially in the early days when you are working all hours, and not making any income.

Quitting a job and starting a business is a risk, UBI would decrease that risk.

[CCS]

That's a very small benefit for a huge cost.

[pxpx]

Surely starting a business would be more difficult under UBI, assuming tax hikes are what's required to fund it? (taking longer to break even etc)

[Delphinus]

Need to be earning over $70,000 to be in the top tax bracket. Once a business is in that position, I think people wouldn't be too worried.

[CCS]

So is $70,000 is your break-even? What do you do until then?

Are you proposing only the top tax bracket gets tax heavily to fund the UBI?

[Jodi]

Wow, no-one has tried to refute the many good points CCS has posted from the ACT party website.

While I won't spend my time refuting all the points, I'll at least tackle one:

Employment
The Treasury again: “overall labour supply is likely to fall due to an increase in effective marginal tax rates for the vast majority of workers; leading to decreased incentives to enter into the labour market or to increase labour market participation.” In other words, giving everybody free money then taxing workers hard reduces employment.

Well, no shit. People will leave menial min wage jobs so they can
1) look after their kids
2) train or continue education so they can get better paying jobs
3) fuck it, the job isn't worth the money its paying, and the benefit is all I need now.

The assumption that #3 will result in a mass of people just not working is not founded in evidence I've seen so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome)

So That point isn't actually a negative in my opinion.

As for the other points. They _all_ need to be addressed for a UBI to actually happen in NZ. No point sticking your head in the sand if you want UBI. You need answers (backed with evidence) to all those statements. UBI is hard, and NZ only really has one shot at implementing UBI.