• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Universal Income.

smartcooky said:
That is just right-wing/conservative BS spin.

With UBI, people can afford something over and above "bottom rung of the ladder" subsistence, which leads to them being able to afford necessities of life that they might have to go without. This means they spend more... if they spend more, they pay more tax. The businesses they spend it with do better, and they also pay more tax, and they have to spend more with their suppliers to cope with demand, so the supplies pay more tax. That works its way up the chain, to importing and manufacturing and services. The increased tax take means the government has more to spend on things such as social programmes, health, education and services. Less poverty also leads to less crime.

Its a philosophy which holds that everyone is important and no-one gets left behind, that can only be a good thing for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Most people in the target group don't actuall pay tax when you take into account WFF and home subsidies etc, apart from GST.

And the govts here including the Jascia haven't exactly shone in the less poverty less crime department.
 
smartcooky said:
This cannot be overstated... its a law of diminishing returns.

The population continues to increase and automation continues to reduce the number of jobs available.... you can only keep doing this for so long before you have a massive population with almost no jobs - and without something like UBI, no income and an eventual societal breakdown.
Click to expand...

Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in modern memory
 
I’m beginning to warm to the idea.

I used to think that it would encourage people not to work, but this can’t be right, unless the UBI were exorbitant. Most people just want to stop worrying so much about money and be able to have some luxuries. They would work to get the luxuries they could never afford before. I also think people would work because the practice of staying at home is actually quite boring! That was my experience when I wasn’t working for awhile, anyway. I didn’t absolutely need to work, but Jesus was it boring. I wanted the challenge and the extra cash more than I wanted to putter around at home.

It would also mean that the people who stay home to care for kids might be empowered (and finally rewarded) to do that.

I also think that businesses would be encouraged to offer better pay and benefits because they know their workers don’t have to stick around at a crappy job.

My big issues revolve around paying for it and just how big it should be.
 
The other nag I have with it and it is probably stupid and irrational as I am no econimist, so if this sounds dumb, I am dumb.

If every body of working age has the same amount of base money, wouldn't everything go up in price, as the businesses know everyone can afford the new rate?

As I say, forgive if dim.
 
cullennz said:
The other nag I have with it and it is probably stupid and irrational as I am no econimist, so if this sounds dumb, I am dumb.

If every body of working age has the same amount of base money, wouldn't everything go up in price, as the businesses know everyone can afford the new rate?

As I say, forgive if dim.
Click to expand...

It is often claimed it will lead to inflation, but does that actually happen in real life?

If you're selling Coke, and I'm selling Pepsi, which one of us is going to be the first to up our prices? Would that be better or worse for the one who does?

We would still be in competition - more money in circulation won't change that, will it?
 
I think any pilot programs are a good data point to start with, and I believe the ones in the US so far have seemed promising. I will have to look but was cost of the program considered in the positive outcomes? In that, I mean if they were giving 500$ a month, would the tax value be covered by the increased productivity of workers? Sometimes these studies claim a positive outcome but their definition of positive does not match mine.

I also tend to give too much weight on my own experience with people vs macro level studies. It seems like a hard line to draw how much to give and the 'slippery slope' of UBI leading to demands for more than any pilot program provided in the past being relented to moving forward leads me to want a slow and considered approach to this.
 
angrysoba said:
It is often claimed it will lead to inflation, but does that actually happen in real life?

If you're selling Coke, and I'm selling Pepsi, which one of us is going to be the first to up our prices? Would that be better or worse for the one who does?

We would still be in competition - more money in circulation won't change that, will it?
Click to expand...

TBF I am going by tenuous examples.

I live in Wellington. A couple of years ago the government (Ardern, The chosen one. Blessed be her existance. She can do no wrong) put up uni students housing allowance by 50 dollars a week universally.

Pretty much every student flat in Wellington raised their rent by 50 bucks within a couple of months.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/348499/robertson-asks-students-to-dob-in-dodgy-landlords

Part of me thinks. You scummy landlords!

The other part thinks why wouldn't you as it is garaunteed they will have that amount of cash to spend extra
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
TBF I am going by tenuous examples.

I live in Wellington. A couple of years ago the government (Ardern, The chosen one. Blessed be her existance. She can do no wrong) put up uni students housing allowance by 50 dollars a week universally. Pretty much every student flat in Wellington raised their rent by 50 bucks within a couple of months.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that is because the money is allocated for that specific purpose, and the student flats have a somewhat captive group.

That is different with UBI because people can choose to spend their money on anything they want.

Let's say Adern gave out UBI of $1000 a month to every person in the NZ population. Will every shop stick $1000 on every item they sell?

Of course not.

People may still put up their prices in the hope of getting more of that $1000, but then they are competing with each other for market share just as before.
 
angrysoba said:
Yeah, but that is because the money is allocated for that specific purpose, and the student flats have a somewhat captive group.

That is different with UBI because people can choose to spend their money on anything they want.

Let's say Adern gave out UBI of $1000 a month to every person in the NZ population. Will every shop stick $1000 on every item they sell?

Of course not.

People may still put up their prices in the hope of getting more of that $1000, but then they are competing with each other for market share just as before.
Click to expand...


That is a fair point.

Can see what you are getting at.
 
rdwight said:
I think any pilot programs are a good data point to start with, and I believe the ones in the US so far have seemed promising. I will have to look but was cost of the program considered in the positive outcomes? In that, I mean if they were giving 500$ a month, would the tax value be covered by the increased productivity of workers? Sometimes these studies claim a positive outcome but their definition of positive does not match mine.

I also tend to give too much weight on my own experience with people vs macro level studies. It seems like a hard line to draw how much to give and the 'slippery slope' of UBI leading to demands for more than any pilot program provided in the past being relented to moving forward leads me to want a slow and considered approach to this.
Click to expand...

I understand the slippery slope argument. Look at all the people demanding an unreasonable minimum wage.
 
cullennz said:
If every body of working age has the same amount of base money, wouldn't everything go up in price, as the businesses know everyone can afford the new rate?
Click to expand...

I think that idea is busted by the trillions tipped into the system by ongoing quantitative easing. Money is so awash even idiot things like Pokemon cards have inflated by thousands of percent.

Lots of asset bubbles, very little inflation, so I don't see UBI creating any.
 
Francesca R said:
I think the argument is that total taxation has to be higher and the burden of this will be that the economy is smaller as a result. That part is probably true but it doesn't mean it makes the poorest poorer
Click to expand...

If increased company taxes mean companies move off shore it certainly can make the poor poorer.

There needs to be safety nets, well funded public health systems and strong education systems. But I don’t think Universal Income will work as intended and there will be real risk to the economy.
 
cullennz said:
Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in modern memory
Click to expand...

It cannot, and will not stay that way... it is inevitable that we will end up with many more people than we have jobs for.

Think of all the jobs that used to be jobs done by people, that are all done by automation or technology now. Also, industries and trades that used to employ people, but which no longer exist... You seem to be about the same age as me, so some of those jobs you may recognise as having disappeared, or all but disappeared, in your lifetime.

• Telephone switchboard operators
• Link Boys
• Knockeruppers (not what you're thinking; they were also known as waker-uppers)
• Full service gas station attendants
• Ice cutters (which is actually a whole industry that employed tens of thousands of people - it completely vanished in less than a decade)
• Elevator operators
• Lamplighters
• Record stores
• Pin setters
• Telegram messengers
• Guard car attendants
• Computers (as in human computer)
• Bus conductors
• Linotype operators
• Scissor grinders
• Drysalters
• Crossing sweepers
• Newspaper vending boys

And there are recent ones, as well as ones in the process of disappearing, or that will disappear in next the decade or two. Here are just a few of the many....

• Attended gas stations (are being replacing by automated gas stations)
• Video rental stores are all but gone
• Cashiers and checkout operators (replaced by self-checkout)
• Flight attendants
• Automotive assembly line workers
• Travel agents (replaced by Trivago et al)
• Bank tellers (replaced by ATMs and online banking)
• Textile workers
• Posties
• Retail jewellers
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day there needs to be some one paying for this universal hypothetical, which goes to the rich as well as the poor.
 
smartcooky said:
It cannot, and will not stay that way... it is inevitable that we will end up with many more people than we have jobs for.

Think of all the jobs that used to be jobs done by people, that are all done by automation or technology now. Also, industries and trades that used to employ people, but which no longer exist... You seem to be about the same age as me, so some of those jobs you may recognise as having disappeared, or all but disappeared, in your lifetime.

• Telephone switchboard operators
• Link Boys
• Knockeruppers (not what you're thinking; they were also known as waker-uppers)
• Full service gas station attendants
• Ice cutters (which is actually a whole industry that employed tens of thousands of people - it completely vanished in less than a decade)
• Elevator operators
• Lamplighters
• Record stores
• Pin setters
• Telegram messengers
• Guard car attendants
• Computers (as in human computer)
• Bus conductors
• Linotype operators
• Scissor grinders
• Drysalters
• Crossing sweepers
• Newspaper vending boys

And there are recent ones, as well as ones in the process of disappearing, or that will disappear in next the decade or two. Here are just a few of the many....

• Attended gas stations (are being replacing by automated gas stations) • Cashiers and checkout operators (replaced by self-checkout) • Flight attendants • Automotive assembly line workers• Travel agents (replaced by Trivago et al)
• Bank tellers (replaced by ATMs and online banking)
• Textile workers
• Posties
• Retail jewellers
Click to expand...

Would mount an argument these haven't gone.

I've never flown without a flight attendant unless it was private.

You are also ignoring jobs created.

Web publishers, yadda yadda

And I know it is focused a bit on NZ we don't have any automotive assembly ine workers
 
smartcooky said:
It cannot, and will not stay that way... it is inevitable that we will end up with many more people than we have jobs for.

Think of all the jobs that used to be jobs done by people, that are all done by automation or technology now. Also, industries and trades that used to employ people, but which no longer exist... You seem to be about the same age as me, so some of those jobs you may recognise as having disappeared, or all but disappeared, in your lifetime.

• Telephone switchboard operators
• Link Boys
• Knockeruppers (not what you're thinking; they were also known as waker-uppers)
• Full service gas station attendants
• Ice cutters (which is actually a whole industry that employed tens of thousands of people - it completely vanished in less than a decade)
• Elevator operators
• Lamplighters
• Record stores
• Pin setters
• Telegram messengers
• Guard car attendants
• Computers (as in human computer)
• Bus conductors
• Linotype operators
• Scissor grinders
• Drysalters
• Crossing sweepers
• Newspaper vending boys

And there are recent ones, as well as ones in the process of disappearing, or that will disappear in next the decade or two. Here are just a few of the many....

• Attended gas stations (are being replacing by automated gas stations)
• Video rental stores are all but gone
• Cashiers and checkout operators (replaced by self-checkout)
• Flight attendants
• Automotive assembly line workers
• Travel agents (replaced by Trivago et al)
• Bank tellers (replaced by ATMs and online banking)
• Textile workers
• Posties
• Retail jewellers
Click to expand...

Marginally off topic, but those jobs have been replaced by huge numbers of new jobs in Australia at least. The link below lists 100s of skill shortage occupations:

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/working-in-australia/skill-occupation-list#

Australia is aiming at under 5% unemployment, and we will not have large numbers of people that we don’t have jobs for. I can’t see why the position will be different in NZ.
 
smartcooky said:
Nope. UBI is a proposed top up to a minimum amount considered to be liveable.
Click to expand...
Actually it's a fixed amount that every adult gets regardless of their taxable income.

Many countries have a version of this but it only applies to people earning a taxable income. In addition to other tax deductions and rebates, they get a fixed rebate which is subtracted directly from their tax bill (not to exceed the tax otherwise payable). Usually, this rebate is built into the tax scales so it is not immediately obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom