- Date published:
6:00 am, February 9th, 2023 - 60 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Hello. this link was an Opinion in the ODT. On reading the first part…I was wondering..where is this going?
But it is about the UBI. And the dollar numbers "wasted"..seem amazing.
A UBI..seems to make real sense.
I realise this has probably been talked before…but what think?
(I am not an economist…FYI : )
However ..Tim Hazledine is emeritus professor of economics at the University of Auckland.
Maybe a Professor, but not very honest.
The $50B total includes super (by far its largest component), not just welfare (and then there are WFF tax credits gone gone gone).
And proposes doing so via UI of $250 in addition to wage income. And placing those not employed (including the sick and those on disability as well as those in old age) below the poverty level.
To the right of Roger Douglas, while he would go for a flat rate of tax he would not end super or payments to the unemployed. It was originally proposed by TOP under Gareth Morgan – who would have financed it by land taxes.
Additionally the choice of framing against, what happens if the govt just allows us to spend for ourselves, does away with transfer payments. Hazledine seems content to assume that somebody will just gift income over to anybody who is short, so we need not worry about who does and doesn't have income.
Hopefully he's graduated beyond any teaching roles at this stage in his career, because these assumptions should be made clear to the audience.
Cheers for that !
Thanks for that. Is exactly why I was asking what think. Def consensus seems to be : a RW/libertarian dream ! ..so Ill read up Weka's links : )
Heres a description of a better policy, from an expert.
JG vs UBI
The issue with the UBI is its a universal payment. It faces a choice in its scale (the amount of UBI paid). One choice is low (about as big as a basic benefit) in which case the next step up from out of, to in work, could be around double income. This would be socially exclusionary on welfare recipients. Eventually cost of living would restructure to adjust to this leaving long term welfare recipients relatively poor. This has been the calibre of most proposals I've seen, in many countries.
The other alternative is a generous one, but this likely needs a big tax adjustment. This is going to be at least as disruptive as the initial GST implementation, probably more so.
At this point the proposals tend to focus on efficiencies of universal payments. This basically is like saying MSD should just employ fewer staff, and its really not the issue.
All these things could be achieved much better by PAYE adjustments or simplifying the provision of welfare, without restructuring much of our economic framework.
Is there a way of redistributing it such that without necessarily favouring the poor, it at least treats them equally with everybody else?
In a sense a UBI does favour the poor, unlike GST. A UBI would make a real difference to a low earner, but it would just be "pocket money" to a millionaire.
A UBI is a terrible idea. The right likes a UBI – Freidrich Hayek, Roger Douglas and Milton Friedman are amongst its fans – because it simplifies everything. We get to keep our own money, the state collects just enough tax to cover the UBI and some core functions. The UBI is then expected to cover the cost of health, unemployment, education etc etc. The virtuous save their UBI against those things; the indigent squander theirs and suffer the consequences – about which we, freed from the burden of being our brothers keeper, need not care a jot.
Additionally, an UBI undercuts efforts to turn the minimum wage into a living wage. A right-wing party administering an UBI would say that workers who don’t need to work for basic needs don't need a minimum wage, much less a living one.
Much better is the idea of "Universal basic Services." UBS offers instead free housing, food, transport, education, forms of communication, healthcare and legal aid for all.
Aaron Bastani discusses it here:
The minimum wage was always intended to be a 'living' wage:
We have let the definition slip, what is the minimum if it is not enough to live on?
Oh god..favoured by them Chicago libertarian fans ? Def dodgy !..
"The idea of universal basic income, or distributing cash handouts regardless of employment status, had a moment in 2017.
Billionaires and the tech elite talked about the idea publicly, with perhaps the crown jewel of UBI’s moment in the cultural zeitgeist being the push Mark Zuckerberg gave the idea in his commencement speech at Harvard in May."
I'm no economist..but I know my internal alarm bells ring really loud when these guys say its a good idea…
Aargh yes !
I've written critically about UBI models from a left wing pov. The main points are this:
Oh thanks Weka I will read up on those. And as I said, Im not an economist and was not sure the Profs full story cred…seemed somewhat legit on first take ?. But consensus here…he seemingly not that great ! Nor the UBI idea ! I will def take on the Opinions here..as I value them : )
Cheers all !
IMO, Tim Hazledine has tonnes of credit on UBI and ‘welfare economics’ through loads of articles and media interviews over many years. The ’consensus here’ is merely the counter-opinion of a couple of commenters without known credentials to one recent piece by Hazledine. One of those commenters is on record as having a bias against the Economics Department in which Prof. Hazledine held a position. Make of this what you will.
Oh well, there you go. Another perspective. Thankyou for your input Incognito. Just goes to show how different… peoples take can be on something ? And…I not knowing what you have previously seen. Have to say, at times…i feel baffled by some of the reasoning. But at least I now have some things to read up on .
The Herald also received the promotion of the once TOP idea (it is no longer policy).
The claim that we pay $50B in social welfare “benefits” is only true if one includes super – which is 2/3rd.
His observation that “managerialism” is a constraint on academia and thus freedom of speech is based on his own experience of change during his career – it was however simply part of the (delegations in modern jargon) regime applied to public sector bureaucracy and even corporate governance in the wider world.
I should clarify my comment that UI is no longer TOP policy.
TH says there is no party proposing to end the welfare state as he wants (and his $50B figure he mentions includes the 2/3rd "social welfare" component of super to those over 65).
TOP still have a UI (for those not currently paid benefits and super), but it is no longer intended to end the welfare state (benefits and super would still be paid and some such as disability at more generous levels).
TOP still have a UBI policy as core https://www.top.org.nz/universal-basic-income-policy.
They've been making changes in recent years to Morgan's welfare replacement system, but it's still hugely problematic. They have finally acknowledged that disabled people will get top ups, but it's unclear from the website if everyone else not able to work would be on a UBI at the dole rate (that's the end of welfare).
There are no plans in the public on what the changes for disabled people would look like. I've seen some shockingly bad ideas on this from many quarters, so until they have actual policy on the table that can be looked at I don't trust their plan.
They also still want to tax people's land on an annual basis, including that of people in poverty. Yes, there are people who own homes who would be badly affected by this. Compare this to the GP who want to tax rich people's excess wealth.
I asked for clarification on twitter
This could apply to all benefits, or just disability or just disability/sickness.
They do not mention continuance or otherwise of super.
I think they exclude all benefits and super, but they should make it clear.
Sure an extra charge to that of rates, but to central government. But deferral of payment for those on low income (against the equity in the home).
I didn’t see any mention of “managerialism” in Hazldine’s opinion piece on UBI!? What is your point?
Which I guess was why I only mentioned it in my comment to you – as you raised his academic career at Auckland University (so I googled the guy to see what he said about it).
I raised that?? Hmmmm …
First comment @ 1 that started this thread.
I don’t believe I raised Hazledine’s academic career as a discussion topic as such in this thread, which would see rather odd anyways.
You obviously did claim someone had a bias against the department he worked at. But then we all determine for ourselves “relevance” when making a comment.
Come on. 2/3 of his 50 billion figure is already pretty much administered as a UBI. He seems to be proposing restructuring WINZ over the other 15 billion and what department we call that in the budget. If he has a better argument he should write it, because so far its risibly weak.
Note, the previous budget forecast error was 10 billion.
And the relevance of this is what? What is your point?
I was surprised to see Hazledine's take. The article isn't well explained. Either he is in Gareth Morgan's camp (get rid of welfare, replace it with $200/wk), or he has ideas about welfare add ons that he didn't explain. Neither are satisfactory in the UBI debate/
AFAIK, Hazledine has never been affiliated with a political party. I thought he wrote the article as an academic (emeritus) doing what he and other academics have been doing which is stimulating public debate – he started and finished with his “little New Year’s wish” that clearly gave the piece a light and perhaps fluffy tone. After all, it is Election Year and ‘his’ headline certainly got attention. I did not see it as a comprehensive technical analysis (hardly!) ready for a policy proposal let alone for a complete overhaul of the welfare system in NZ.
That said, I don’t know where Hazledine got the $50B from. From Tables 5.1 and 5.2 we spent $42.86B on Social security and welfare expenses in 2022 of which $39.187B was on Welfare benefits and this included $17.764B on New Zealand Superannuation.
In any case, the discussion shouldn’t focus on the messenger (Hazledine) and the question whether he has cred or not, as some seem prone to, but on the message.
Total social security and welfare forecast for 2023 is $50B (admin and …).
Core social security and welfare forecast for 2023 is $42B
5.2 table shows
$19.5B for super
All other payment costs 18.5b
Total for all benefits is under $10B half of this $18.5B
The rest is made up of family and WFF tax credits, AS, paid parental leave and the Winter Energy Payment.
I don’t know where you get the additional $8B from for “(admin and …)” but it might be hidden column somewhere in the Excel file …
Why the distinction between “benefits” and the other Welfare benefit expenses? What is the relevance/importance?
Only guessing what the difference between total and core might be (payment entitlements are core …
The relevance is to what a proposed UI is replacing – AS, winter power, WFF tax credits either go to those in work or on super.
I wasn't suggesting TH was affiliated with a party. When I said in the GM camp, I meant that some people believe that welfare should be replaced with a UBI.
Yes, the fluffy tone bothered me.
I've been focused on the problems with the argument (I don't have a problem with the man). Did someone object to TH?
email to RNZ…
It is unclear why RNZ does not even mention once the ‘suffocating’ US led sanctions that are still being illegally leveled against the Syrian Government and civilian population even while facing the massive aftermath of this earth quake?
"A U.N. envoy on Thursday urged Western and Arab countries to lift sanctions imposed on Syria years ago, warning that the measures are exacerbating “the destruction and trauma” Syrian civilians have been exposed to since the country’s civil war started 11 years ago."
Even after all the enormous challenges we went through in New Zealand during the rebuilding of Christchurch just a few short years ago…that the producers and presenters are not outraged that these sanctions are STILL in place while the people of Syria face an even worse aftermath, can only led one to conclude that those producers and presenters only have empathy for some human lives..but not all.
US must remove sanctions and allow Syria to rebuild – UN expert
"The conflict and violence have already had a dire impact on the ability of the Syrian people to realise their fundamental rights, having extensively damaged houses, medical units, schools, and other facilities," she said.
And yet there are still many on the 'left' who actually support US sanctions..many of them on this very forum….that in itself is quite depressing really, if you stop and think about it.
There you go again, FFS!
Really?? Did you conduct a poll or a survey here on TS? I have missed it. How many did respond and how many confirmed your fabricated nonsense? Oh, you’ve already answered my question @ 3.1:
You can’t help yourself attacking others whose opinions you vehemently object to but whom you cannot convert to your thinking or silence, not matter how hard you try – and try you do in your idiosyncratic attacks on messengers & media. Why not put us out of your misery …?
Adrian , we are loyal servants to our Big brothers in the
5 eyes alliance .As such we don't embarrass our big brothers in the media.
As well our media takes its cues from their big brothers, CNN,BBC,Reuters, etc which of course most often have a partisan anglophone view of the world
A more even handed report from AP ; the reality of sanctions causing mass secondary deaths is undeniable.It would take extreme propagandist skill and a pathologically ignorant public to think otherwise
" pathologically ignorant"….I like that one…describes quite nicely one or two people here and there.
Have either if you guys heard much about proposals to introduce digital currency/credit in Ukraine?
I understand there will be more info around the time of the
Global Corporation/Media/Government AllianceWorld Economic Forum.
The whole cashless society gives me the yikes.
Cash us a wonderful, tangible link to your own resources
I had read that the US, UK , and Ukraine are the biggest crypto users in the world.
Last night watched a terrific doco on the Rialto channel
"The New Corporation..The Unfortunately Necessary sequel" a follow up to The Corporation
How global corporations(actually mostly based in the US)have taken the place of government, privatising everything that's not nailed down , and professing to have social responsibility while ripping everyone off and destroying the planet
Here is an interview with the makers .
Seeing all those grifters hobnobbing at Davos is stomach turning
sorry , left the link out re Syrian sanctions
Thanks for the links.
I enjoyed The Corporation.
Sometimes though, I almost don't want to know.
I know .One feels furious but helpless.It's pretty grim
Fark man. I'm gonna go live in Stewart Island, probably less rain than Auckland
Is anyone doing any kind of public messaging about how to prepare for this?
Thanks weka, I haven't seen much so far.
Just heard on the radio, that aucklanders need to get in atleast 3 days supply, so the messages are getting out there, I live 4 hours drive away.
8km for projected track
As someone in the comments said, Cyclone Bola hit a low of 980. This one is shown as 968!
Auckland could be in for one hell of a battering.
All the very best for all in the upper north. And Mayor Brown, call a state of emergency now, in anticipation! Don't leave it until after your tennis match on Tuesday morning!
Opps – meant to be a reply to 4 above.
what was the one the other week?
Around 1000… different sort of weather system. Happily we don't have big tides next week as the surge from a low that deep would be really problematic on a 3.6m tide.
Big problem I suspect will be wind, big trees in very wet / soft ground have a bad habit of tipping over.
A petrocorp army straight out of some dystopian future.
Russian majority state-owned energy company Gazprom has been authorized to create its own private security outfit, in a move that Ukrainian intelligence says is part of a war-fueled "arms race" to develop a mercenary army.
Russia's government gave its go-ahead for the energy giant to create a private security organization on February 4, under the pretext of securing the country's energy sector.
Increasingly unstable country with a growing number of semi independent militia,!!!
What could possibly go wrong??
If anyone doesn't yet know how much worse Luxon would be than even Key or English, this detailed report of a public meeting in Rangiora says it all.
He panders to the fringe, the conspiracy theorists, and shows himself to have the spine of a slippery eel. What a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Note in the media that when they attack Luxon, they are "anti vaxxers and conspiracy throrists". When they attacked Parliament and Jacinda they were "anti mandate protestors".
A little poll on a name cahnge.
I prefer dual name signs for a while, boil the frog slowly, not an option though
I thought initially that Wayne Brown didn’t represent the city.
But really he does: a bunch of 70 year olds who’d rather be playing tennis than consider something from the perspective of anyone else in the city. People who banned intensification where it didn’t flood, then victim blamed. People who have no sense of the city as an entity outside their WhatsApp group. The people who built a dead end Britomart, eventually.
Hayden Donnel on Fletcher et al blaming the floods on intensification
It is not a fetish – and the kids will be fine – yeah right!