![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is what the hamster was running on last night - it's still going this morning.
I've previously stated my support for the concept of a Universal Base Income or UBI. A UBI is an important step in moving away from the paradigm that you have to have a job to be of any value to society to one where we actually take advantage of increased automation to allow everyone to work less and has a host of benefits including de-stigmatising getting a benefit.
Of course were a progressive political party to take on a UBI as a policy platform there would be a lot of opposition. Some arguments which might be raised against and my counters are:
1. It would cost too much
Balanced by a forecast drop in other costs especially the health budget and certain areas of the WINZ machine. With a UBI set at a liveable rate there should be no excuse for an unwell person (and I'm especially thinking of children here*) not to visit the doctor. People should also be able to afford to eat healthier. The major effect of this would admittedly take a generation or two to bubble up through the population, but that is no different from any other policy targeted at pre-emptive health care. Meanwhile, lets get those waiting lists down the right way!
* with a UBI there should be no excuse for a sick child not to be taken to see a doctor. Not to access any of the other early-childhood health services. Not to have access to childcare/early eduction if the parents desire.
Also balanced by the expectation that most of the money will come back in transactional taxes and income taxes* as that money moves through the economy. The majority of people that the UBI represents a significant improvement for will at least initially be most likely to spend it on.
* introducing a UBI would not be accompanied by a drop in income taxes in fact I'd pair it with an increase at the top end. I would however be looking hard at dropping GST back down some and (tangentially) as part of the tax policy getting rid of GST on local taxes (ie rates). Taxes paid for local services should remain and be spent locally not funnelled into a national slush fund. Alternatively redefine that amount as a national property tax and simply make the local councils the mechanism for it's collection. Another part would be getting rid of the withholding tax on eg interest-bearing savings accounts. We want to *encourage* savings and investment.
Obviously there is some serious modelling that needs to be done around these ideas to see if they hold up.
2. It would be too complicated to implement
We already have a UBI-for-over-65's in this country, it's known as National Superannuation. So the mechanism exists. Mind you with a UBI the concept of a "retirement age" ceases to exist. So does the concept of "unemployment" as we currently define it.
[Tangent: anyone else think that unemployment/sickness/etc "benefit" or "beneficiary" are critical misnomers. There may certainly be other of unemployment for some but I fail to see how receiving a paltry sum for the government in exchange for repeated jumping-though-of hoops can be considered one of them.]
There could be logistical issues with delivering a populations-worth of transactions in one hit - I imagine it would have to be staggered. I also see that for people on sufficient income it could simply be handled with different tax code.
3. You would be just trapping people into to being (more) dependant on the state
Rather we would be *freeing* people from being trapped in low wage, poor condition jobs just to get by, or from sticking with moderately better but personally unsatisfying jobs because they can't afford to go into training for the work they would rather be doing. Freeing them from having to choose between bills and food and childcare. Freeing them to pursue their passions in arts or crafts or any other of the fields which society seems to agree have value but is reluctant to pay for. Freeing them from health-destroying worry and stress about the the pressure society puts on them to be a "productive worker" and to manage their output according to their own abilities, to recognise that there are ways to contribute to society which do not involve a paycheck.
You could say "we are recognising the value that (grand)parenting, volunteering, studying, inventing, philosophising, having the time to take an interest and contribute your opinion to social/local/national issues have to society and we are rewarding time spent doing that."
*Most importantly* we would be freeing people to try and to fail with the security that there is a proper safety net there to catch them, to follow their dreams until they find that thing that they really love working at or create a successful business.
4. People will just spend it on TV's / booze / smokes / gambling
Ahh the spectre of the dole bludger. I challenge anyone who raises this to find this mythical beast and introduce me to them. Then we can have a serious discussion about why they feel there are no avenues to available for them to do with their life than get drunk and watch televison, and look at putting some in place.
Seriously, if that is what people want to do with their money (and it is their money once it hits their bank account) that is their choice. It will continue to support jobs in retail, distribution, production. Remember we are no longer requiring people to be working or looking for work to be considered of value. but I doubt very much that after 12 months you will be able to show me anyone who has done this.
I would pair introduction of a UBI with policy to make financial literacy a core subject in schools and easily available to adults who wanted it - probably by refocusing the resources which presently goes into limited-use CV and budgeting courses at WINZ. With the requirement to harass people into looking for work removed from their prerogatives WINZ would be able to become the care-support-and-training organisation a Department of Social Welfare -ought- to be.
When I say "financial literacy" I don't just mean basic numeracy and budgeting. I include explanation and understanding of interest, debt, investment, timespans - I want adults to walk away from these courses with (under the current system) an NCEA level certificate backed by having applied the concepts as taught to their own household spending.
4. It would just be an indirect subsidy to employers (as Working for Families turned out to be).
Your point? We're giving *everyone in the country money with the expectation that will flow up to businesses. The subsidy effect should be minor by comparison.
Oh, you mean employers should be paying their workers more not expect the government to do it for them? Well consider this - we just eliminated unemployment as we know it. The UBI + all this time on your hands to do something better with your life is a viable alternative to slaving away at a low wage job. Businesses which rely on that pool of easily-replaceable labour are going to have to up their game, their wages or or their conditions to attract and keep staff. If they can't, you really have to question how sustainable that business was in the first place.
I actually predict a lot more people employed overall, but for significantly fewer hours each. Also significant job growth in the adult education sector as people retrain, followed by an easing of the skills shortage currently facing NZ technology businesses.
5. You're giving this to children?
Of course. They are as entitled to it as any other citizen.
OK, it's a bit too much to be expecting babes in the cradle to understand the concept of money let alone spend it wisely. Up to a certain age it would go to the parent or guardian to send on the child's current or future needs, and there would potentially have to be governmental oversight on how that money was spent in some cases. My actual preference is to release a portion of the amount to the caregiver and set the rest aside in a kiwisaver / superannuation type account which can be accessed
- by the child after they leave highschool / reach a certain age in order to fund tertiary education* / travel / starting a business / buying a property / ...
* oh and look - this would seriously reduce the need for student loans
- by the caregiver to cover significant medical expenses for the child which are not covered by the public health / ACC systems. For children with ongoing health problems the amount of the UBI paid out to the caregiver would be increased - better to improve the child's life => future outcomes immediately than hang the untouchable golden apple in front of them.
- reverting to a normal payout directly to the child upon a certain age (probably a year or two before the pool came available, so say UBI at 16 (see also financial literacy in schools above) pool at 18 subject to earlier application) or upon the child moving into "independent circumstances" for some reason.
5a. [accuse]You're paying people to have kids![/accuse]
Seriously? That spectre is even more worn through than the dole bludger one. Here go and read this article particularly point 5 and then come back to me.
Certainly we're recognising that raising a child is expensive, and we are supporting those who through choice or mischance end up in that position (and don't think I am referring solely to mothers here - there is *no* intent to let unplanned fathers off their commitments and responsibility). But as I wrote above that money is the child's and intended to be spent (or saved) to their benefit (sure the parents/rest of the family can also benefit if some of that goes towards offsetting eg healthy food and heating costs for all).
Under this system (plus ongoing public healthcare and supplementary support where needed etc) there should be *no* excuse for a sick child not being taken to the doctor, or a child living in a cold house, or not being able to be clothed adequately or any of the other negative environmental conditions which go hand-in-hand with poverty. And if it seems that money is being blatantly misspent or misappropriated there will be legal and CYFS consequences.
Again I would like to see everyone who is going to have a child be educated as to their responsibilities in this area at very least in the same way as they are presumably educated or at least told about the importance of immunisations etc now, even unto NCEA certificate level.
6. How are you going to set a level. It's far more expensive to live in Auckland than [anywhere else in the country]
Granted. Exactly the same way the current system handles it - by setting the level at an intermediate point and where necessary boosting it with an accommodation supplement. Yes setting it at an intermediate level means those living in low-cost areas will have more "disposable" income from the UBI than those living elsewhere, this is desirable. It provides those people the ability to save up to move elsewhere (and of course they know they have an income once they get there) and it may also encourage those who -want- to save towards something to move towards those areas rather than being trapped somewhere more expensive by but proximate to jobs. A flow of people out of cities could re-invigorate any number of small communities around NZ even opening up opportunities for service jobs to move back there as well, and of course easing the accommodation crisis that some cities are facing.
7. We'll be overrun by immigrants coming here for the money!
You again?! There isn't a person in this country whose family tree could not be traced back to an immigrant. Show some respect for your ancestors.
I have great respect for immigrants. In many cases they've taken a *huge* leap of faith and left everything they have ever known behind them (or spent it on paperwork) in coming to settle in another country. They have no going back and they have a far greater appreciation of the benefits and privileges of living here than many of us who have had these things all our life. I believe strongly that in the main they are committed to working for and contributing to the benefit of all New Zealand. Let them come, we will only be made greater by their contribution.
I'm going to leave the culture debate for another post. Suffice it to say that culture is an amorphous, living changing thing, and I perceive no threat to "New Zealand" culture from immigration.
~~~
Whew. long post is long, and here are still tangential posts coming to be about culture and conservation.
I've previously stated my support for the concept of a Universal Base Income or UBI. A UBI is an important step in moving away from the paradigm that you have to have a job to be of any value to society to one where we actually take advantage of increased automation to allow everyone to work less and has a host of benefits including de-stigmatising getting a benefit.
Of course were a progressive political party to take on a UBI as a policy platform there would be a lot of opposition. Some arguments which might be raised against and my counters are:
1. It would cost too much
Balanced by a forecast drop in other costs especially the health budget and certain areas of the WINZ machine. With a UBI set at a liveable rate there should be no excuse for an unwell person (and I'm especially thinking of children here*) not to visit the doctor. People should also be able to afford to eat healthier. The major effect of this would admittedly take a generation or two to bubble up through the population, but that is no different from any other policy targeted at pre-emptive health care. Meanwhile, lets get those waiting lists down the right way!
* with a UBI there should be no excuse for a sick child not to be taken to see a doctor. Not to access any of the other early-childhood health services. Not to have access to childcare/early eduction if the parents desire.
Also balanced by the expectation that most of the money will come back in transactional taxes and income taxes* as that money moves through the economy. The majority of people that the UBI represents a significant improvement for will at least initially be most likely to spend it on.
* introducing a UBI would not be accompanied by a drop in income taxes in fact I'd pair it with an increase at the top end. I would however be looking hard at dropping GST back down some and (tangentially) as part of the tax policy getting rid of GST on local taxes (ie rates). Taxes paid for local services should remain and be spent locally not funnelled into a national slush fund. Alternatively redefine that amount as a national property tax and simply make the local councils the mechanism for it's collection. Another part would be getting rid of the withholding tax on eg interest-bearing savings accounts. We want to *encourage* savings and investment.
Obviously there is some serious modelling that needs to be done around these ideas to see if they hold up.
2. It would be too complicated to implement
We already have a UBI-for-over-65's in this country, it's known as National Superannuation. So the mechanism exists. Mind you with a UBI the concept of a "retirement age" ceases to exist. So does the concept of "unemployment" as we currently define it.
[Tangent: anyone else think that unemployment/sickness/etc "benefit" or "beneficiary" are critical misnomers. There may certainly be other of unemployment for some but I fail to see how receiving a paltry sum for the government in exchange for repeated jumping-though-of hoops can be considered one of them.]
There could be logistical issues with delivering a populations-worth of transactions in one hit - I imagine it would have to be staggered. I also see that for people on sufficient income it could simply be handled with different tax code.
3. You would be just trapping people into to being (more) dependant on the state
Rather we would be *freeing* people from being trapped in low wage, poor condition jobs just to get by, or from sticking with moderately better but personally unsatisfying jobs because they can't afford to go into training for the work they would rather be doing. Freeing them from having to choose between bills and food and childcare. Freeing them to pursue their passions in arts or crafts or any other of the fields which society seems to agree have value but is reluctant to pay for. Freeing them from health-destroying worry and stress about the the pressure society puts on them to be a "productive worker" and to manage their output according to their own abilities, to recognise that there are ways to contribute to society which do not involve a paycheck.
You could say "we are recognising the value that (grand)parenting, volunteering, studying, inventing, philosophising, having the time to take an interest and contribute your opinion to social/local/national issues have to society and we are rewarding time spent doing that."
*Most importantly* we would be freeing people to try and to fail with the security that there is a proper safety net there to catch them, to follow their dreams until they find that thing that they really love working at or create a successful business.
4. People will just spend it on TV's / booze / smokes / gambling
Ahh the spectre of the dole bludger. I challenge anyone who raises this to find this mythical beast and introduce me to them. Then we can have a serious discussion about why they feel there are no avenues to available for them to do with their life than get drunk and watch televison, and look at putting some in place.
Seriously, if that is what people want to do with their money (and it is their money once it hits their bank account) that is their choice. It will continue to support jobs in retail, distribution, production. Remember we are no longer requiring people to be working or looking for work to be considered of value. but I doubt very much that after 12 months you will be able to show me anyone who has done this.
I would pair introduction of a UBI with policy to make financial literacy a core subject in schools and easily available to adults who wanted it - probably by refocusing the resources which presently goes into limited-use CV and budgeting courses at WINZ. With the requirement to harass people into looking for work removed from their prerogatives WINZ would be able to become the care-support-and-training organisation a Department of Social Welfare -ought- to be.
When I say "financial literacy" I don't just mean basic numeracy and budgeting. I include explanation and understanding of interest, debt, investment, timespans - I want adults to walk away from these courses with (under the current system) an NCEA level certificate backed by having applied the concepts as taught to their own household spending.
4. It would just be an indirect subsidy to employers (as Working for Families turned out to be).
Your point? We're giving *everyone in the country money with the expectation that will flow up to businesses. The subsidy effect should be minor by comparison.
Oh, you mean employers should be paying their workers more not expect the government to do it for them? Well consider this - we just eliminated unemployment as we know it. The UBI + all this time on your hands to do something better with your life is a viable alternative to slaving away at a low wage job. Businesses which rely on that pool of easily-replaceable labour are going to have to up their game, their wages or or their conditions to attract and keep staff. If they can't, you really have to question how sustainable that business was in the first place.
I actually predict a lot more people employed overall, but for significantly fewer hours each. Also significant job growth in the adult education sector as people retrain, followed by an easing of the skills shortage currently facing NZ technology businesses.
5. You're giving this to children?
Of course. They are as entitled to it as any other citizen.
OK, it's a bit too much to be expecting babes in the cradle to understand the concept of money let alone spend it wisely. Up to a certain age it would go to the parent or guardian to send on the child's current or future needs, and there would potentially have to be governmental oversight on how that money was spent in some cases. My actual preference is to release a portion of the amount to the caregiver and set the rest aside in a kiwisaver / superannuation type account which can be accessed
- by the child after they leave highschool / reach a certain age in order to fund tertiary education* / travel / starting a business / buying a property / ...
* oh and look - this would seriously reduce the need for student loans
- by the caregiver to cover significant medical expenses for the child which are not covered by the public health / ACC systems. For children with ongoing health problems the amount of the UBI paid out to the caregiver would be increased - better to improve the child's life => future outcomes immediately than hang the untouchable golden apple in front of them.
- reverting to a normal payout directly to the child upon a certain age (probably a year or two before the pool came available, so say UBI at 16 (see also financial literacy in schools above) pool at 18 subject to earlier application) or upon the child moving into "independent circumstances" for some reason.
5a. [accuse]You're paying people to have kids![/accuse]
Seriously? That spectre is even more worn through than the dole bludger one. Here go and read this article particularly point 5 and then come back to me.
Certainly we're recognising that raising a child is expensive, and we are supporting those who through choice or mischance end up in that position (and don't think I am referring solely to mothers here - there is *no* intent to let unplanned fathers off their commitments and responsibility). But as I wrote above that money is the child's and intended to be spent (or saved) to their benefit (sure the parents/rest of the family can also benefit if some of that goes towards offsetting eg healthy food and heating costs for all).
Under this system (plus ongoing public healthcare and supplementary support where needed etc) there should be *no* excuse for a sick child not being taken to the doctor, or a child living in a cold house, or not being able to be clothed adequately or any of the other negative environmental conditions which go hand-in-hand with poverty. And if it seems that money is being blatantly misspent or misappropriated there will be legal and CYFS consequences.
Again I would like to see everyone who is going to have a child be educated as to their responsibilities in this area at very least in the same way as they are presumably educated or at least told about the importance of immunisations etc now, even unto NCEA certificate level.
6. How are you going to set a level. It's far more expensive to live in Auckland than [anywhere else in the country]
Granted. Exactly the same way the current system handles it - by setting the level at an intermediate point and where necessary boosting it with an accommodation supplement. Yes setting it at an intermediate level means those living in low-cost areas will have more "disposable" income from the UBI than those living elsewhere, this is desirable. It provides those people the ability to save up to move elsewhere (and of course they know they have an income once they get there) and it may also encourage those who -want- to save towards something to move towards those areas rather than being trapped somewhere more expensive by but proximate to jobs. A flow of people out of cities could re-invigorate any number of small communities around NZ even opening up opportunities for service jobs to move back there as well, and of course easing the accommodation crisis that some cities are facing.
7. We'll be overrun by immigrants coming here for the money!
You again?! There isn't a person in this country whose family tree could not be traced back to an immigrant. Show some respect for your ancestors.
I have great respect for immigrants. In many cases they've taken a *huge* leap of faith and left everything they have ever known behind them (or spent it on paperwork) in coming to settle in another country. They have no going back and they have a far greater appreciation of the benefits and privileges of living here than many of us who have had these things all our life. I believe strongly that in the main they are committed to working for and contributing to the benefit of all New Zealand. Let them come, we will only be made greater by their contribution.
I'm going to leave the culture debate for another post. Suffice it to say that culture is an amorphous, living changing thing, and I perceive no threat to "New Zealand" culture from immigration.
~~~
Whew. long post is long, and here are still tangential posts coming to be about culture and conservation.
Tags:
