Does this make sense?
Forum > Educational Presentations
by Quint Baker 12 Sep 2011 3:15 pm
9 Comments
The UBI would give an enormous boost to New Zealand art and culture. Why is the UBI not in place yet? Is the UBI a threat to the Government's anti-inflationary policies? Is the UBI considered too expensive? Could the UBI be funded simply by implementing the Tax system overhaul outlined in The Big Kahuna by recouping "the tax dodges so carefully designed by tax planning accountants"? Why does the Government seem intent on punishing active contributing low paid members of our society? Does Gareth Morgan have an annoying nasally voice?
Why an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI)?
Paying universal transfers acknowledges that every individual has the same unconditional right – to a basic income sufficient for them to live in dignity. The Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) provides this.
With this basic protection in place people are then free to add to that income through paid work if they choose. Equally, they can live on the UBI and pursue other activities – doing the unpaid work of caring for children or others in their community for example, or studying full time, or pursuing new business ventures. The UBI offers the prospect of ensuring everyone has the means to live while giving them the freedom to live their lives as they choose.
What is the alternative to a universal transfer?
The alternative – targeted transfers – involves discriminating between people. Some get more support than others. But on what basis should we discriminate between people? By the number of children they look after perhaps - but what about the number of dependent elderly parents they care for, or the step children that they care for when other parents also provide support? What about those who contribute a lot of time and money to their wider community, or who have high health costs? In practice it is not possible to credibly discriminate between people so many fall through the cracks of targeted transfers. As well, the very process of identifying “the needy” stigmatises people, removes the choices of those who receive help and exacerbates social divisions.
This is what the New Zealand Royal Commission on Social Policy had to say in 1988 about universal and targeted transfers:
“Universalism recognises that we are all members of society… being New Zealanders entitles and engages all of us, whatever our ages or circumstances, and support measures should be rights based. And those eligible for income support should not be subject to unnecessary and stigmatising procedures to establish what is theirs as a basic right.
A system designed only to assist the poor helps perpetuate existing social and economic inequality in the longer run by reinforcing distinctions between the poor and the rest of society, and at the same time it may lock the poor into a cycle of poverty by its system of benefit abatement. A further implication is that a highly targeted system will ultimately face considerable resistance from taxpayers unwilling to support a system perceived as rewarding the improvident and providing themselves with no return for their contributions. The longer run consequences could thus be an even more targeted system that provides continually falling benefit levels.”
Source webpage; http://www.gmi.co.nz/bigkahuna/universal-basic-income.aspx
Additional links; http://www.garethmorganbooks.com/?mode=description&id=12&height=670&width=800
http://www.gmi.co.nz/bigkahuna/
.
You are probably right? The UBI would still have to work similar to the benefits by being tailored to each individual circumstance and that would mean that the UBI would probably need a large bureaucracy just like WINZ?
The main problem with the current system for artists is that once they make income over and above their expenses, their benefits payments are reduced and this happens too quickly.
This sort of income erosion means that the bridge to a reasonable income gets washed out and vital reinvestment is compromised. The UBI proposal indicates that artists would get to keep what they earn over and above the UBI.
.
I disagree. I think it's all a lot of hot air ballooning. It's just the National Party trying to mask and distort the true agenda and to secure conservative and bigoted party faithful votes. The reality is that the government is desperately trying to curb the inflation produced by the cheap lending of the last capitalist "boom". The only tool they have is to increase the amount of those on a benefit to drive down wages. Why else sack so many public sector workers? Businesses are moving backward, lower wages and more people in poverty will reduce patronage and cause businesses to lay off staff increasing the benefit numbers. It's all working perfectly! The Labour Party will be the ones to actually reduce beneficiary numbers because their policies create jobs and then beneficiaries get tired of being hounded by their case workers about this job and that job and eventually give in to taking up a job that is close to suitable.
.
.
WARNING ENEMIES DON'T READ THIS. I REPEAT DON'T READ THIS
well mr m&m if that's you trying to go for my jugular, you are quite effective at being quite cutting and it's nice to see you've gotten up out of your seat but well you're wasting your time? i am like the walking dead.
so called "success" is something I already possess. i am a content man and i have all i want/need (whats the difference?). it's more that sadly i am surrounded by those striving for success which is rather boring because they are so tight lipped being so sane, not stepping out of line, like little lap dogs shamefacedly raising their soft pale hands quietly saying "pick me, pick me"
yeah yeah everyone wants to be somebody oh OH ....it's just so tired?
lets have fun God damn it!! lets have fun
New Zealand has well and truely formed it's own plutocracy
