Charismatic

Linky to article.

Interestingly we already spend $28.2bn per year on social security and welfare. On a per capita basis that's $121.29 per person per week. The initial proposition floated was $200 per person per week .

jmh

I like it. I think we need a fairer system and the current offensive policing carried out by WINZ is costly and intrusive. People should not be receiving different amounts depending on whether or not they are having sex. The current benefits system is clumsy, open to abuse and doesn't adequately support those who need it. People often move in and out of employment based on job insecurity, childcare challenges/costs and sickness. Where this has been trialled in other countries, people stopped work to re-train, become a stay at home parent or start a new business. Some chose to volunteer.

The economic benefits are a reduction in the cost of administering the benefit system and the increase in money supply in the economy.

Bo-Jangles

I quite like it too, I know the right-wing anti benefits for anyone folks won't like it but it's not dissimilar I suppose to giving everyone tax free status on a certain level of income. Those that don't want or need it can always opt to give it back or donate to someone else.

I can see many knock on indirect 'benefits' and some potential to break those elements of the poverty cycle that ultimately lead to cost for the Government via crime, poor living conditions and health.

I can't quite get my head around the effects for funding pensions; in one way I thought it might alleviate the problem of having a growing percentage of aged people but now talked my way out of that.

Dumbo

I like the idea of this and it seems to make sense, not just in NZ.......any idea how many jobs would be lost as a result of this coming in? and what is the job market like for those who would be looking?

Of course it is not just the spend on social security and welfare but the benefits associated with the freeing up of capital assets which could be rented or sold off.

Charismatic

Research into the Swiss version (which is much larger in nominal value) indicates ~2% of working age people report they would leave the workforce.

I think it would work well for people who wanted to start their own business actually to have a little income until their business gets off the ground. Small business is the engine of economic growth.

Also many students could probably just about scrape by with part time employment and not need loans in many cases.

The more I think about it the more merit I see in the idea.

jmh

I'm reminded of my uncle. He has had ill health during the latter part of his working life. ACC would fund him for a while, then kick him out to get paid work, then he would get sick again and be back on ACC, then they kicked him out.... Now he's on super, he is holding down a part-time job and has been working there for a number of years. The stability and the ability to work part time has benefitted his health, and I'm guessing costs the state less.

There will be some lazy slackers, but no system stops that. I was just watching a BBC programme about poverty in London in the 19th century, where the only solution for people out of work was prostitution or crime. If there are no benefits that next best thing is theft for some.

LoCarb

I wouldn't support it.
Woolly thinking is driving this idea that there isn't and won't be work available because of new technology.
There is so much work that needs doing in society and isn't being done now because of government cutbacks.

It will prolong and encourage a reduction in work participation and therefor a decline in productive output, leading to an inevitable fall in our already mediocre standard of living.

What we need is a Job Guarantee Scheme as proposed by Modern Monetary Theory, instead of the government's stated and deliberate policy of 5% unemployment (and 10% under-employment and 5% given-up-looking) system we have now.

jmh

I don't think it will lead to a decrease in participation - look how many retirees continue to work after 65 when they get their super. The UBI will only be enough to live off, it won't buy the nice car/holiday/house. Most people will continue to work for those.

LoCarb

"......all serious academic support for BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) is based on the idea that many people will quit working (this is considered desirable in order to eliminate bad jobs and ultimately ‘decommodify’ labor. So the goal is to reduce the supply of labor and reduce production.

16 Reasons Matt Yglesias is Wrong about the Job Guarantee vs. Basic Income - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives


".....the Universal Basic Income is merely welfare by another name: a laissez-faire solution to contemporary social and ecological crises. UBI says: opt out, care for your own, and let the gods of self-organization take care of the totality."

Universal Basic Income: a Laissez-Faire Future?

jmh

Yes, there are a lot of opinions and points of view flying about, usually based on the person's beliefs on economic systems and drivers of human behaviour. It will be interesting to see what actually happens when it's trialled. To the owners of the means of production the feudal system looked superior to industrialisation. We are now moving into the next new era.

LoCarb

John Key thinks it's "barking mad".

John Key: Labour's universal income idea 'barking mad' - Politics - NZ Herald News

Although I wouldn't go that far, it must be the first time I can remember that I've agreed with him!

LoCarb

We did move into a new era back in the 18th century, escaping from feudalism.

Unfortunately...we are now heading back to a similar system....aka...neolibralism.

Smart Parasites | Michael Hudson

Bo-Jangles

I think a complete overhaul of the state sector in terms of revenue gathering and where things are paid from such as ACC, WINZ, healthcare pensions and workforce would save a few billion. I can't believe that a population of less than five million warrants the current level of Government agencies, bureaucracy and administration to feed the merry-go-round of money into and out of the Governments coffers.

IRD just announced a further restructure with 1500 jobs to go in the next five years and I find it quite amazing that they still have that many spare people left; as they have already had some major restructuring in recent years and laid off about 700 staff.

Charismatic

I'd be careful of cutting IRD too far because you don't want to get into the situation the US with the IRS where IRRC they can generate $8 in revenue for every $1 they fund the IRS. Also if you've ever tried to contact IRD it's not as if their call center is overstaffed, perhaps reallocating some of the staff if they know complicated things about tax would be helpful for us simple folk.

Not long now until us PAYE workers can file actually. It's like Christmas but with money instead of festive knitted jumpers.

jmh

Of course he does. The establishment will try and maintain the status quo until it's too late, than they'll claim it was their idea all along.