Waatea 5th Estate – the Universal Basic Income debate

By
The Daily Blog
-
10
0

Joining us to discuss the Universal Basic Income…

Director of Unite Union and human rights activist – Mike Treen

On the phone – the co-author of the Big Kahuna and economist at the Morgan Foundation – Susan Guthrie

And on Skype live from Wellington on the eve of the Future of Work Conference – the Labour Party Spokesperson on Finance – Grant Robertson

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

10 COMMENTS

  1. Labour should really push taxing the rich, foreign corporations and closing tax loop holes. If they did that they would win next election by a landslide.

  3. Ideas of a universal basic income have usually failed to be approved in a past. Nixon promoted the idea in the USA in 1969 and it would have resulted in a much better deal for the unemployed and other groups in the South and Mid West but those in the more liberal states in the North East and NW were less inclined to accept it as those states offered considerable state supplements to the very meagre basic benefit and food stamps provided by the states. It was the ultra liberals like Eugene McCarthy and McGovern who were most determined to oppose Nixons plan as they demanded unrealistic levels of support of about 60% of the average wage.
    The argument that PM Key makes against the proposal seem particularly weak that it is absurd to pay the ‘unemployed wives’ of rich men like John Key a stipend of $200 a week, but in fact it is one of the strongest suits of the proposal as often in the past whether rich wives could escape from a disastorous marriage depended on whether they had any independent money. That independent could take them back to university, to other education to another town or even out of the county.
    I would guess that 50% of the present male workforce aren’t productive in world economic terms, and the external costs of employing them , ie poor work, pissing off other workers at the plant or shop, pissing off customers and overseas tourists, over stressing them so they suffer, bad temper and bad heath and are too tired for the kids and wife who they fail to please, overshadow any economic effect of increased employment. High Tory, R Miles

    • Money works in exactly the same way as a water irrigation system. The money has to flow to all sectors of society for capitalism to function properly. A bunch of bad economic actors spurred on by low interest rates and cheap borrowing are doing the opposite.

  4. I want to retire early. $200 /week sounds alright to me with other sources of income. Life a beach here i come. Some else can do the work.

    • Fab – I know someone who is looking for more work. Thanks for freeing your job up for someone else to do it. Enjoy your retirement.

      • I wrote this comment in reply to a Facebook question but thought it has some particular relevance in reply to David’s comment. So here goes.

        Economists are in such disarray that they are looking for any solutions. This disarray goes right back to the 1930’s when the economist Keynes once said that crises is caused by insufficient aggregate demand -ie, a “general glut”: aggregate demand insufficient to employ all those who wish to work.

        Important mistakes have been made through extending to the system a whole conclusion which have been correctly arrived at in respects to apart of it been taken in isolation, as individuals.

        Keynes first point on this: applying micro model on labour market to macroeconomy is a “fallacy of composition”

        -That is, what apples to an individual doesn’t apply to society.

        -As Yanis Varfaucus explains in response to a question on Q&A, and I do wonder if the guy understood what was being explained to him: http://youtu.be/YZNwdcESn90

        All we are getting from economics is bad mathematics.

  5. Great show!

    Excellent points discussed especially how the current welfare system is stopping people from accepting work.

    Also think that the 50 million incomes vs the average income needs to be discussed more. How is it, that in our society those earning eye watering amounts are not on the top tax rates? And what is the true tax rates when you add in all the xtra taxes most Kiwis have to pay?

    Labour has got it right by having this discussion about the future of work and about the possibility of a UBI. They made the mistake last election on focusing on the middle class to be taxed and penalised more and not focusing on the more important issue of why those earning 50 million plus are treating local tax as voluntary. There are so many hidden taxes and ways in NZ to extract payment for so called free services, (from school donations, to paid parking at hospitals, to long waiting health lists, to increased prescription charges etc) there is a revolt from paying more. Labour was trying to do the right thing last election but I believe it failed due to not understanding the amount of hidden taxes most Kiwis have to pay and the wage freezes or decreases in real terms that most Kiwis are facing.

    The UBI also helps those who are not paid for work like parents and caregivers. As we enter an ageing population and as education becomes more important the next generation and those contributing to it, need to be acknowledged in the economy.

    We were supposed to become a leisure society with technology – why are we now working longer and harder and with less financial stability?

Comments are closed.