Minimum basic income idea

Forums › Off topic › Minimum basic income idea

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1123737 7-Sep-2014 17:57

nathan: It's very sad how NZ over the years has lost its personal responsibility, and the answer to everything is Government should do something.

This is not going to end well. Govt does not have the balls to do anything as they are only thinking about getting reelected in 3 years time. The necessary changes will be deeply unpopular with those net receivers of govt handouts, WFF, accommodation supplement etc

On the flip side NZ ers thinking they are getting rich selling houses backwards and forwards to each other is ludicrous when you think about it

The comment someone else made about how Asian families look after their generations of family members is bang on

Let's be honest. The biggest net receiver is Superannuation. You chop that, and there's no need to go after everyone else because over 80% of the social welfare spend is gone.

The problem is that you advocate chopping super, and the retired and near retired spout how they've worked all their life and earned their super. They'll then turn around and say you should gradually reduce super entitlements so that they still have their super but by the time our generation reaches retirement age there's nothing left. Basically, the Baby Boomers collect all the benefits and pull the ladder up behind them.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1123741 7-Sep-2014 18:04

Means test it. We know its going to happen. JK was an idiot to say not under his watch.

Winston even more of an idiot sucking up to that constituency + saying drop GST off food and to find the $7B hole from "tax advoidance"

kiwirock

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1123747 7-Sep-2014 18:07

There's a country already trailing this so it will be interesting to watch. I think the Swiss are giving it a crack.

Regardless of whether it works or not, as resources run lower and lower around the world eventually we'll need to move to a resource based economy so something like a universal allowance will end up the norm in 150 years where the majority of work is replaced by automation and new technology.

Most important jobs for the well being of society such as food production, health care and transport can easily become quite automated. The great thing about capitalism to save a buck where possible will be it's own downfall. The more we automate everything the less jobs there will be, and therefore we'll all have to adpot to a shirnking New technology constantly creates less need for jobs.

So a monetary style economy will change eventually to something like a resource based one. From self centered to community based. This is where your universal credit or allowance will have mroe gravity.

If you do the numbers, working in the future would only require about 1 day by each person a week to keep the most important jobs of socierty functioning. Anything else would be for personal benefit only above basics that capitalists like to turn in to commodities and monetise the every inch of life for personal gain - not for community benefit.

I don't think a universal allowance would stop people from working. Most human beings are not lazy and lunitics that will drop back in to violence if not subdued by default. The only one's suggesting this are those with vested interest in the current monetary system.

If you think about a lot of invetors and discoveries, these only came from people with more time on their hands. These days, we see a lot less of it, because people are too busy keeping their boss rich in their 65 hours a week repeative daily lifestyle.

200 years ago we were already being more self sufficient and baterting for what else we needed. The current debt based system will fail, not if, but when. You can't base the monetary system on debt for growth. Especially when interest is not created when new money is. That eventyually leads to bubbles, market crashes, recessions and depressions. Also dare I say it, forecloures and bankruptcy is part of the current plan. Without it, the current system doesn't work. Most people don't realise that it happens by design. All it takes is for currency to loose value over spectulation and interest rates rise, or worse - we become more productive and our curreny gains to much value so up goes inflation to keep our exports attractive.

So no matter how hard you work, the reserve bank will poor some cold water on your fire. It's not designed to get better than it currently is.

You see, no matter how well we perform, we screw ourselves over. The worst advice I heard from National when they got in to power in the recession, was to SAVE. The economy simply doesn't work if money isn't being spent or if people stop taking out debt to create new money.

So I'm all for universal credit or allowance or whatever you want to call it not because of a more fairer more equal society, but because the current system doesn't work for everything and if we don't try something new... nothing ventured nothing gained.

Sorry for the novel. I'm quite interested in the current economic flaws that most aren't taught in school - because most kids are taught to keep feeding the current system not better or replace it (or think for themselves what they want their future to be).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1123754 7-Sep-2014 18:27

macuser: move to means tested pension...solved.

Also

Pay employers subsidy of $170 to take on unemployed staff at minimum 35 hours a week at minimum wage (or whatever wage is fair for role).

Conditions:

This subsidy ends after 3 months trial period, a permanent job offer must be given if employee has performed well in these 3 months.

This subsidy does not apply to seasonal work.

This subsidy will be recouped if employer is believed to hiring with only intent to keep staff for period of subsidy.

Then there is no incentive to save.And the rich people would just put their assets into trusts anway, so it wouldn't work. ALso it would be political suicide for any party to bring it in, based on the fact that people close to retirement have planned their finances based on it. Any change like that would need a good 30 years to be phased in, to give people time to save more.

Having universal super as it is is good, because it is simple and cheap to admin, and is affordable if NZ is productive.

I am more for plugging the tax holes, as many of the rischest people, earning the most, pay less in tax than normal wage earners. ALso taxing these big overseas companies (inclduing some of the internet giants) that hardly pay any tax in NZ. I would prefer to bring in a financial transaction tax, which would bring in a large amount and relatively easy to admin, as it is a flat tax on all financial transactions.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1123757 7-Sep-2014 18:44

Kyanar:
nathan: It's very sad how NZ over the years has lost its personal responsibility, and the answer to everything is Government should do something.

This is not going to end well. Govt does not have the balls to do anything as they are only thinking about getting reelected in 3 years time. The necessary changes will be deeply unpopular with those net receivers of govt handouts, WFF, accommodation supplement etc

On the flip side NZ ers thinking they are getting rich selling houses backwards and forwards to each other is ludicrous when you think about it

The comment someone else made about how Asian families look after their generations of family members is bang on

Let's be honest. The biggest net receiver is Superannuation. You chop that, and there's no need to go after everyone else because over 80% of the social welfare spend is gone.

The problem is that you advocate chopping super, and the retired and near retired spout how they've worked all their life and earned their super. They'll then turn around and say you should gradually reduce super entitlements so that they still have their super but by the time our generation reaches retirement age there's nothing left. Basically, the Baby Boomers collect all the benefits and pull the ladder up behind them.

If it was chopped, then what would those people live on. It is a waste of time to even say that we could save moeny by chopping it, because it won't happen , and such a change will need decades to be phased in. Significant money is spent on both health and education. If those budgets were chopped and the whole system was user pays, and people could get government lent loans to pay for them which would come off their estate at the end of their life if not paid back, then that could save. But it also will never happen politically. The real answer is that the country needs to earn more,. But no political party have any great new ideas. I don't see the point of voting in any new party unless they have some great new ideas of increasing productivity. Tax changes like CGT are largely just shuffling the existing money around, and create jobs for more bean counters, as they are so difficult and expensive to admin.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1123779 7-Sep-2014 19:24

These threads at first make laugh and angry at the same time then realise its all fantasy.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1123780 7-Sep-2014 19:26

KiwiNZ: These threads at first make laugh and angry at the same time then realise its all fantasy.

The Campbell Live poverty thread makes me feel more stabby than this one. Far Right wing ideals outright offend me.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 506

#1123795 7-Sep-2014 20:01

mattwnz:
macuser:

Then there is no incentive to save.

Isn't there already no incentive to save already?

You get super even if you continue to work full time, that's ridiculous.

It shouldn't just be based on income testing, it should be also based on the physical ability to work.

For people living to 90, in their life time, they have probably spent about 45-48 years being unproductive in society.

(School/University + Retirement).

So for half of their life, they have not being producing anything.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#1123799 7-Sep-2014 20:04

KiwiNZ: These threads at first make laugh and angry at the same time then realise its all fantasy.

Why?

The current welfare system is wasteful and not that effective
A minimum basic income is one alternative
If you can think of a better one state it.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1123800 7-Sep-2014 20:06

KiwiNZ: These threads at first make laugh and angry at the same time then realise its all fantasy.

It doesn't hurt to kick a few ideas around. We're all a part of this county's economy ultimately.

What amuses me is every year at budget time, the TV networks typically get a nice little nuclear family on asking for more financial help from the government. They don't seem to understand (IMO) that all the governments really do is redistribute money through taxation, they don't create wealth.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

matisyahu

1639 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 355

Trusted

#1123801 7-Sep-2014 20:06

mattwnz:
Kyanar:
nathan: It's very sad how NZ over the years has lost its personal responsibility, and the answer to everything is Government should do something.

This is not going to end well. Govt does not have the balls to do anything as they are only thinking about getting reelected in 3 years time. The necessary changes will be deeply unpopular with those net receivers of govt handouts, WFF, accommodation supplement etc

On the flip side NZ ers thinking they are getting rich selling houses backwards and forwards to each other is ludicrous when you think about it

The comment someone else made about how Asian families look after their generations of family members is bang on

Let's be honest. The biggest net receiver is Superannuation. You chop that, and there's no need to go after everyone else because over 80% of the social welfare spend is gone.

The problem is that you advocate chopping super, and the retired and near retired spout how they've worked all their life and earned their super. They'll then turn around and say you should gradually reduce super entitlements so that they still have their super but by the time our generation reaches retirement age there's nothing left. Basically, the Baby Boomers collect all the benefits and pull the ladder up behind them.

If it was chopped, then what would those people live on. It is a waste of time to even say that we could save moeny by chopping it, because it won't happen , and such a change will need decades to be phased in. Significant money is spent on both health and education. If those budgets were chopped and the whole system was user pays, and people could get government lent loans to pay for them which would come off their estate at the end of their life if not paid back, then that could save. But it also will never happen politically. The real answer is that the country needs to earn more,. But no political party have any great new ideas. I don't see the point of voting in any new party unless they have some great new ideas of increasing productivity. Tax changes like CGT are largely just shuffling the existing money around, and create jobs for more bean counters, as they are so difficult and expensive to admin.

The other problem I have with the CGT is that the government will become dependent on the revenue stream rather than it being a way to cool the housing market - same thing happened in Australia where states were orientating their budget around stamp duty from the buying and selling of housing then when the wind went out of the sails you have budgets with massive budget deficits such as what has happened in Queensland. I have a fear that if it is implemented we would see the government become dependent on the property market speculators for that revenue. If the tax collected as diverted to say the superfund then at least the government itself wouldn't be directly benefiting from it and thus not have a distortion on the budget and economic policy.

DarthKermit:
KiwiNZ: These threads at first make laugh and angry at the same time then realise its all fantasy.

It doesn't hurt to kick a few ideas around. We're all a part of this county's economy ultimately.

What amuses me is every year at budget time, the TV networks typically get a nice little nuclear family on asking for more financial help from the government. They don't seem to understand (IMO) that all the governments really do is redistribute money through taxation, they don't create wealth.

Always reminds me of the talk back caller many years ago: "I'm sick and tired of the government spending our money! they should start spending their own!" - the disconnect between the average New Zealander and how government works is amazing. It is even more amazing when you point out that the tax credits and welfare hand outs they receive are the equivalent of being bribed with ones own money. It is like me saying, "lend me $100" then turning around and saying, "ok, I'll give you $50 and hopefully you'll vote for me". What is even more funny is the failure to ask questions such as whether the money spent, the goal of the legislation and whether the goal has actually been reached - are we getting value for money or are we just throwing money at a problem because it makes us feel good. We only need to look at the thread I started regarding the Campbell Live show and how I and others had the audacity to start questioning whether throwing money at families who can't budget is actually a good long term solution to actually helping kids in poverty. But then again I guess those of us on the right like killing puppies and we're a few notches up from Atilla the Hun on a good day.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

kiwirock

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1123802 7-Sep-2014 20:11

I think there will evetually be a 'balance' as with all things in life in order to make it work.

There will eventually be a universal allowance plus capitalism on top for those that want more.... you can't quench love of money for those that go after it like there's no tomorrow. You also can't teach the laziest person on the planet to become as produtive as the most rich.

But again, the monetary system will change in the next 50 years and make this a requirement in a society that is largly unemployed because of technology advancements and aging population.

The way we measure is more importantly going to change, rather than the way things will change. Universal allowance will be one of those learning curves and trials/failures until we learn to measure differently and include more people in those changes for the greater good of each other rather than self.

kiwirock

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1123836 7-Sep-2014 20:40

There's another term for what the ideals behind a universal allowance is about.

The way of description is universal allowance. But the fundimental ideal is really 'propserity without growth' because this exactly what a universal allowance would create, to a degree, except allowing growth in terms of additional productivity on top would stop it from imploding on its self much like what the current economic model will also cause to itself without the other in balance.

I find it funny the ideal behind universal allowance should come up. We were just talking about growth at work last week. When I stopped and thought, we're making more money ever, the current model works great. Why would we want to create more growth? More growth would eventually change the business model and therefore in to unchartered territory or it could end up being the beginning of it's own end.

But then there's inflation... the monetary system is rigged to cause devaluation of any business model. This leads to being forced for new ideas and growth to the surface. The problem with this, is infinite growth is not possible, therefore eventually comes the next economic collapse when reality hits home from lack of finding a balance or sustainable plan in non-growth prosperity and getting too greedy.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#1123847 7-Sep-2014 20:57

Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that, every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
* The fifth would pay £1
* The sixth would pay £3
* The seventh would pay £7
* The eighth would pay £12* The ninth would pay £18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement; until one day the owner threw them a problem."Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
* And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 as well.It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Now who's round is it ?????

kiwirock

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1123874 7-Sep-2014 21:36

oxnsox: Tax System Explained in Beer

Great example of something not sustainable.

To the home brewer who doesn't go to the bar, at home, that has the right ingredients and is capable of reproducing the ingredients on his own land also drinks for free. Under the current economic wealth mreasurement (GDP), this man would be making no growth as resources aren't being depleted or created in greater quanties than the year before. Sustainability is not economic growth. But to this home brewer on his farm, his prosperity of free beer doesn't require economic growth. That's something the tenth man can't understand cause he thinks without him there is no prosperity acorrding to his way of measuring. The tenth's man's rational is flawed and enforced upon the masses. Mr home brewer still couldn't care less and drinks his flat-lining beer production every year.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8