I’m not close enough to the electricity industry to know for sure. But I suspect it’s because the companies that have huge sunk capital in fossil-fueled stations and don’t have to pay for their waste disposal and pollution are willing to sell power at a low enough price to make new geothermal uneconomic. Put a price on GHG emissions (ie require emitters to pay for the damage they cause) and we’ll probably see new geothermal plants built quite quickly.
Except many of them are sinking investment in wind power generation which suggests it isn’t fossil fuel alternatives which are stopping greater interest in geothermal generation.
That second link highlights one if the main reasons for a lack of development in this area. It states restrictions placed on use or underused government control are inhibiting development. Remove these and you are likely to get more generation via this source.
because we have a ‘laissez faire’ governement that can’t be bothered thinking/projecting and investing in the future. And we have a business world that can’t be bothered thinking/projecting and investing in the future if they can milk the ‘present’ cow till she dies.
In short, there is no political or economical will in NZ to switch from fossil fuel to renewables, and the current ‘oil exploration permits’ granted by the current National led Government is exhibit a.
Lots of people have responded to my question and have answered it in the way I expected. Geothermal energy generation is not as easy to develop as other renewable clean sources.
In under-developed countries and central north island areas, new geothermal needs truly substantial local partnerships. Which are hard work and take years. Needs high profitability to make that commitment.
The big problem that occurs to me when looking at the UBI is the need for rent controls (including state housing for life)..
Just like with accommodation supplement (or the extra money paid to those in Christchurch by both the state and the insurance companies) the first people with their hands out for that money will be landlords.
If the money is only circulating up to the owners of property then nothing is gained.
Yes, and we need to view a UBI as part of a range of social solutions. Housing, rent, wages, worker rights, top ups for those not working, all need to be addressed.
The Green Party vote is growing all through the years of neoliberalism.
A UBI isn’t dependent on a highly controlled state. It’s dependent on a govt that governs for everyone not just the people that it suits.
And it’s not like NACT aren’t an interventionist govt, they’re just intervening in teh wrong the things and in the wrong way (and incompetently a lot of the time too).
Wouldn’t everything have to be controlled though to keep expenses under control and in balance with the UBI?
Power companies, councils, rent, food, all these inputs would have to be set otherwise you’ll end up with people who can’t afford to live and no where to go for help.
Strong economies like Germany control rent already, and other things as necessary. It is only ragged ideologues like the Gnats that allow the free market to destroy their society.
The UBI will simplify the system so your comment is misguided if not disingenuous. Read the discussion paper and educate yourself and possibly even do some thinking before you post your ill-considered comments.
+1 A large part of the UBI conversation in the past day or so has been driven by regulars trolling who don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments. Completely disingenuous on both counts.
Well you can stop wasting your time talking about what the Labour Party are going to do weka.
Listening to Morning Report today I see that Grant Robertson has been slapped down and put in his place by his leader. He might have used the code UBI but that wasn’t what he was talking about. He told Guyon Espiner that it wasn’t going to be Universal. He even said that Guyon certainly wasn’t going to get it. He then said it would be introduced slowly, like the Old Age Pension/National Superannuation.
That took roughly 80 years to develop. Grant seemd to think that UBI would have a similar gestation period so anyone over the age of 10 can forget about it.
He probably read a bit more of the Morgan book and learnt what it would cost and how it would have to be paid for.
A pity Labour felt they had to give the Finance role to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject. http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201794319
Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.
It is a shame you are one of those who is someone who “don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments” isn’t it?
Yesterday you lied about what Little did on RNZ. I’ll have a listen to MR later and see if you are lying again.
“Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.”
So says you, according to some trumped up nonsense you’ve mangled from listening to the radio. Labour have a discussion going on about the UBI, why not take part in it? Oh that’s right, because your purpose here is simply to destroy.
I’ve taken part in UBI conversation on the standard for years. I think I’ll let my comments be the record on that.
“It is a shame you are one of those who is someone who “don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments” isn’t it?”
Funny, that’s what I said about you yesterday. You really must be scraping the bottom of the troll barrell if you can’t even formulate your own critiques and instead try and troll me by repeating back my analysis of you.
So, please cite,
– where I don’t understand a UBI is conceptually
– something that indicates I haven’t educated myself on the UBI
– have posted bullshit diversionary comments in discussions about the UBI.
“Funny, that’s what I said about you yesterday”.
You have a very defective memory. Have you already forgotten that you said it TODAY and it is in the comment that I was replying to. That is why I put it in quotes. I thought your own words described you opinions quite nicely.
You, as usual claim that I lied about what Little said. Just how do you think that was the case, or is it merely another of your reflexive accusations when someone says something you don’t like?
By the way, you seem to be close to the Green Party. Can someone tell Meteria Turei that the Governor General is NOT our Head of State. You would think that after nearly 14 years as an MP she would have learned something about our form of Government.
Grant defines the realistic limits of a ‘UBI’ quite sensibly IMO.
“No Govt. is going to come in and just hand out $30b”.
“It is a guaranteed basic income.”
“It is a Tax credit, not a hand out”.
On those terms, I think the idea has a lot of merit, and will be reasonably salable to the voting public.
So call it a GBI?
As soon as you imply that everyone will receive it, you have framed it in a way that makes a nonsense of the idea, and have rendered the UBI unsaleable.
Clearly, we cannot afford to give it to everyone, (where does the money come from?), and so if it was ‘Universal’, at a certain level of income threshold you must have a mechanism for taking it back off those who do not need it.
Beside which, what possible point is there to giving it to people who already have perfectly adequate or very high income?
As soon as you imply that NOT everyone will get it you cannot possibly talk about a UBI. You merely have variations on all the benefits we have at the moment. You retain all the work and cost you have now in the admin work without even the benefits of careful targeting.
That is the worst of both worlds.
The great advantage of a genuine UBI is the ease of paying the money out. It is like the way that National Super is done. The only thing you have to know, once you decide that someone is eligible, is that they are still alive.
Grant seems to be having great difficulty in coming up with some way of making the scheme politically sellable. I think he may have read Morgan’s book and not understood those pesky little bits on paying for it.
You can pay for the scheme. However you really do have to decide what amount you want to pay out, and how you propose to raise that amount of money. If it is not Universal you may as well stick to what we have.
Grant seems to be having great difficulty in coming up with some way of making the scheme politically sellable.
It’s sellable simply by using the word universal. Grant seems to be having the same problems as other RWNJs: Where does the money come from and why are we giving it to rich people?
Just why would he talk about a UBI, which means “Universal Basic Income”, if it isn’t going to be universal? He has to mean Universal or he is trying to con people. If isn’t universal use a different descriptor.
Wait. You don’t mean we have misunderstood and he is really talking about plans for a “Unified Business Identifier” do you?
You do realise I was talking about what “The lost sheep” said and not what Robertson was saying? I was, after all, replying to that person’s comment.
The lost sheep said
“As soon as you imply that everyone will receive it, you have framed it in a way that makes a nonsense of the idea, and have rendered the UBI unsaleable.
Clearly, we cannot afford to give it to everyone, (where does the money come from?), and so if it was ‘Universal’, at a certain level of income threshold you must have a mechanism for taking it back off those who do not need it.”
Yep. I can’t figure out if that’s intentional mindfuckery or if he’s just stupid. I tend to think the former. It’s the same tactic he’s using on me at the moment and I’ve seen him use it on other people. I’m not sure it is quite gaslighting, but it’s close. He just keeps repeating a lie about someone with the intention of it being accepted that the person he is talking about is deficient, often mentally. That’s why I find him creepy in ways that I don’t find other RWers. He really is nasty as an online person as well as having nasty politics.
@weka.
You did read my comment at 4.59pm?
You don’t seem to have understood it if you did.
I wasn’t talking about Grant. I was talking about “the lost sheep”
Good synopsis lost sheep, and I agree the framing and terms need to be chosen carefully. I like the guaranteed income bit, with emphasis on income security. We have to stop looking at this as welfare benefits too.
“Beside which, what possible point is there to giving it to people who already have perfectly adequate or very high income?”
Because as soon as you start doing things like income and asset testing you have to have a whole bunch of bureaucracy which takes money and causes stress and is often unfair. If the entitlement is universal you can see how it plays out at various income levels (see my comment below, someone should check my maths). I guess you could pick a different tax rate to shift the fairness in another direction.
I don’t see how having a variable tax rate which takes back some or all of GBI is more or less complicated than having a variable threshold at which some or all of GBI is not paid out….
But I do think the idea is more saleable without the obviously empty gesture of giving it to people who you don’t actually intend to receive it and who also don’t need it.
But in general, I agree there are some very plausible arguments around potential efficiency gains in delivery.
That is, if the basic level is sufficient to meet the needs of most people receiving it? Or will it continue to be necessary to to make many adjustments to the Basic income on a case by case basis according to need above the basic level?
Which begs that much discussed question of what level you set the GBI//UBI at?
Is Labour or anyone else proposing this as a cost neutral or even cost saving measure, or does it presuppose a redistribution of wealth?
Quite aside from your individual moral stance on re-distribution, I would think that the voting Public is going to be highly sensitive to that particular detail, and it will turn out to be the devil in the discussion.
To clarify, I didn’t mean variable tax rates, I meant what the flat tax rate should be is up for debate and that playing with the figures might show a higher or lower rate is more fair. If Red is around we can ask him why he chose 40%. I assume affordability is part of it.
I agree re how it’s paid for and perceptions of that are important, although this worries me less than some because I think we should have CGTs and FTTs. I also think that once people get the idea of tax credits it gets easier. Plus frame it alongside a move back to a fairer society for *everyone, eg good solid social policy on health, education etc. Betterthat than simply here’s some more dish which feeds into the greedy selfish meme.
So, according to that logic, we can’t actually afford to have anyone living in NZ.
where does the money come from?
Where the money always comes from – it’s created. Of course, we’re talking about the government creating it and not the private banks who will be banned from creating money.
and so if it was ‘Universal’, at a certain level of income threshold you must have a mechanism for taking it back off those who do not need it.
Yeah, we’d have these things called taxes. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? But instead of being used to raise funds for the government to spend they’d be used to take excessive money out of the economy after it’s used.
Beside which, what possible point is there to giving it to people who already have perfectly adequate or very high income?
Fairness. Because it’s given to everyone it’s fair. Then there’s the savings of not needing a government bureaucracy that spies upon people and abuses them solely for the purpose of taking their income away.
You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?
How do I perceive that as ‘fair’, rather than a completely meaningless farce?
Let’s say for simplicity’s sake that the UBI is 20k, and everything over 20k is flat taxed at 33%.
To give the value of the 20k “straight back”, a single individual would need to be earning three times the UBI rate plus the UBI. In this back-of-envelope illustrative example, 80k.
But if you were between contracts, or lost your job, or had to take unpaid leave, you’d still get that 20k every year, no paperwork, no humiliating judgement from social warfare caseworkers, no nothing. That’s your right. And that’s why it’s not a farce – your rent will always be paid.
By my calculations McFlock, under the current Tax scale, someone earning 80k per annum would be netting 62.7k after tax.
Under your back of the envelope tax scenario they would be still earning 80k per annum plus the 20k UBI. After paying 33% tax on the 80k above the UBI (26.4k), they would net 73.6k.
So they’d be 10.9k better off.
To ‘give back’ the UBI, you would actually have to make the flat tax rate on everything above the UBI somewhat higher than the current rate.
Around 48% by my calculation.
As I say, I think you will find that a much tougher idea to sell to the voting public than the UBI being something you simply don’t get until your income drops to a certain level.
my point is that no, the ubi is not “taken straight back” until the individual is earning a shitload. Not household income, individual income.
If the top 5 or 10% of income earners want to complain that they’re given a UBI with one hand and they pay it back in tax with the other, everyone else will ask why they have to fund an eligibility administration system simply so the very rich don’t have to pay their UBI to charity (lol, as if).
TLS’s “meaningless farce” suggestion only applies to the smallest minority of income earners. There are many reservations I still hold about a UBI, but tls’s bulshit isn’t one of them.
Bullshit
I think you’ll find my figures are accurate McFlock.
Let’s say for simplicity’s sake that the UBI is 20k, and everything over 20k is flat taxed at 33%.
Well, I’ve just had a wee play with your scenario…
If the top 5 or 10% of income earners want to complain that they’re given a UBI with one hand and they pay it back in tax with the other, everyone else will ask why they have to fund an eligibility administration system simply so the very rich don’t have to pay their UBI to charity (lol, as if).
Actually,
Under your scenario, someone currently earning….
40k – will be 13k / 27% better off.
100k – will be 17k / 22% better off
And even someone at the 1% threshold of 337k will be 21k / 9% better off!
It’s a giant lolly scramble!
And where does the money come from?
Draco going to print it for you?
Now you’re admitting that no, the money isn’t given straight back, because the vast majority of individuals will be better off.
So you ignore your previous statement and go with the “where’s the money coming from” angle.
That is bullshit. Regardless of whether what you say is true or false, you’ll simpy assume another time-consuming position to keep up the pretense that you’re contributing to the discussion.
You’re bullshitting. Why don’t you like the UBI? Why don’t you like the idea of everybody living in dignity? Would it really be that tragic if you, as an employer, had to treat employees as knowledgeable colleagues rather than lording it over the peasantry? Stop bullshitting – why don’t you like the UBI?
A lot of blustering around in circles McFlock, but you didn’t actually answer the question.
You claimed that ‘5-10%’ of earners would have to give the UBI back, but in the scenario you proposed even someone on the 1% threshold would be receiving extra money.
In your scenario 99.8% of the population are going to receive somewhere between 40 to 5% more income.
If you stand by that scenario?, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask where all that extra money is going to come from?
But you haven’t yet acknowledged whether your first question has been addressed: “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?”
The answer to that is not merely “no”, it’s “no, because the fundamental premise that the government is “going to take it straight back” would not apply to almost person in NZ.
So do you acknowledge that the question was a bullshit question?
I thought it was a legitimate response to Draco’s claim that giving the money and then taking it back through taxes was fair, because then everyone would be getting it.
But if you think it’s bullshit I’m happy to defer to your judgement.
Now can you answer my questions about your scenario please?
Well, no, it was a bullshit response, because taking an aggregate total in taxes from across the entire population does not translate into “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back”.
As you pointed out with your math, your statement is not true at all for the vast bulk of people.
But you partially answered your own question by repeating Draco’s comment:
[…] taking it back through taxes […].
Other possible sources include bureaucratic savings from the system’s simpicity, FTT, CGT, and even some sort of social credit scheme if that floats your political boat.
Hell, one could even forget the flat tax and go progressive on the really rich fucks. Make them pay fair price for their privilege.
But you know all this. You’re just bullshitting. Because your reason for existence is to waste people’s time.
Oh. You were just fantasising then.
The structure of your comment deceived me into thinking you were making a serious contribution to the debate on a realistic UBI..
So you read this comment and assumed it was a complete policy proposal, rather than a simple illustration that your question “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” was just fucking stupid?
What part of “Let’s say for simplicity’s sake” did you fail to understand?
My contribution to serious discussion on UBI was to answer one of your questions.
Perhaps you should take some time to reflect upon why you should find that a clear answer to your question is so unhelpful.
What part of “Let’s say for simplicity’s sake” did you fail to understand?
I think it was the assumption that you meant something simple?
As in, when you quoted some actual figures, you intended they had some straight forward ‘meaning’?
Now I see that your ‘meaning’ was that 99.8% of income tax payers should get a massive increase in income, and this would be paid for by an increase in tax on the remaining 0.2% of tax payers, a Financial Transactions Tax, a Capital Gains Tax, ‘some sort of social credit scheme’, and ‘going progressive on the really rich fucks’.
That’s simplistic enough for this blog I reckon. As simple as the ‘zero’ which represents the chances of a UBI being introduced once The ‘simple’ ‘Sheeple’ get the ‘simple’ idea that the UBI is ‘simply’ another ‘simplistic’ Trojan Horse for the fantasies of the tiny ‘simplistic’ minority who still believe in a Marxist vision.
‘Simply’, Lets revisit this discussion in a year, and see who was right eh?
It’s amazing how much bullshit you can string out of a perfectly straightforward answer to a perfectly simply question.
Just to clarify, you’re acknowledging that your scenario of “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” was just complete bullshit for the vast majority of people?
Under whatever specific proposal, if anything, comes from Labour’s thinking project it’s safe to say that for most the amount they pay in tax will not amount to the value of the UBI they receive.
How about, rather than revisiting this in a year, you just admit that you have no interest in resolving any issue discussed here? You’re bullshit might be transparent, but it sure as shit stinks.
BTW, you don’t actually know how hu-mons use the word “simply” do you?
Under whatever specific proposal, if anything, comes from Labour’s thinking project it’s safe to say that for most the amount they pay in tax will not amount to the value of the UBI they receive.
I just can’t reconcile that with your figures showing that 98.8% of tax payers will receive more cash in hand income?
Perhaps you can explain how that would work?
You are comparing “paying the individual’s received UBI back in tax” with “overall better off compared with today’s tax rates, if you took simplified figures as written in stone rather than illustrative”.
If you want to know why your question “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” is bullshit, read the above thread.
If you want a more in depth plan, look at the big kahuna or whatever Labour eventually proposes.
frankly, I don’t think you’re inteested in either.
Starting at 2:15 here’s a synopsis of what Robertson said,
1. Labour are considering the idea, there are pros and cons
2. Pros: simplify benefit system; enables people to adjust to changing work patterns; income security;
3. Cons: untested (although very interesting idea)
4. UBI is about the interaction between the income support and the tax system
5. There are a number of different models (being tested in the Netherlands, Finland)
6. In it’s purest form, it’s universal.
7. But it’s about the relationship between income and tax, it’s essentially a tax credit.
8. Espiner: it will be expensive! Robertson: we can introduce it over time (cf to Super), and it’s related to the amount of tax people pay
9. therefore higher income earners are less likely to benefit than lower
10. Espiner: what problem is trying to be solve here? Robertson: example is a beneficiary who wants to take on extra work. Current system is a disincentive because of the abatement process. If you guarantee people an income they are more likely to move around the workforce. Simply scrapping the abatement process is an option.
11. We’re facing a fundamental change in the nature of work availability.
12. Therefore we need to consider a range of options that give people income security. If work can’t do that anymore, the govt needs to consider other options.
13. We’re a long way from implementing this
alwyn,
“Well you can stop wasting your time talking about what the Labour Party are going to do weka.”
I haven’t been talking much about Labour at all other than what’s been in the report, and what we were all speculating on the other day when Little first announced.
“Listening to Morning Report today I see that Grant Robertson has been slapped down and put in his place by his leader.”
That’s not in the link you give, so citation please.
“He might have used the code UBI but that wasn’t what he was talking about.”
Yes, he was.
“He told Guyon Espiner that it wasn’t going to be Universal”
No, he didn’t. He said that how much you ended up with might depend on how much tax you paid. Based on Red Logix’s model (which is based on Keith Rankin’s work) it could look like this:
Current tax system: income of $25,000 – tax 17.5% $4375 = $20,625 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $25,000 – tax $10,000 = $15,000 + UBI $10,000 = $25,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 0%
Current tax system: income of $100,000 – tax 33% $33,000 = $67,000 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $100,000 – tax $40,000 = $60,000 + UBI $10,000 = $70,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Current tax system: income of $200,000 – tax 33% $66,000 = $134,000 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $200,000 – tax = $120,000 +UBI $10,000 = $130,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 35%
“He even said that Guyon certainly wasn’t going to get it.”
Lie. He said that someone like Guyon was “unlikely to be a great deal better off”. I have no idea what Espiner earns, refer to figures above.
“He then said it would be introduced slowly, like the Old Age Pension/National Superannuation. That took roughly 80 years to develop.Grant seemd to think that UBI would have a similar gestation period so anyone over the age of 10 can forget about it.”
Another lie. He use Super as a general example of how you could introduce something over time. He didn’t say how long it would take, nor did he imply that it would take 80 years.
“He probably read a bit more of the Morgan book and learnt what it would cost and how it would have to be paid for.”
“A pity Labour felt they had to give the Finance role to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.”
Two comments of no worth coming from your own prejudices and ignorance. Robertson stated up front that there are different models to look at (and that’s what the report says too).
“Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.”
Another nonsensical statement. My comments are my own thoughts unless I specifically refer to the Labour Party. All I’ve said about Labour so far is that they’re considering a UBI and they’ve released a report.
btw, re Epsiner getting it, the point is that it’s to guarantee a basic level of income. If Epsiner were to have a big drop in salary he would benefit more than with what he is on currently. That’s the income security aspect.
In my opinion a UBI will not achieve its promises overall. And it wont win Labour the election if its based on some kind of promise to fundamentally reform the tax system.
But i was just raising the tax free band to look at how that mechanism works in practice. It doesnt for example seem to be putting upward pressure on UK wages.
The UK also had ways to encourage savers to have money in the bank with ISA,s. Essentially you could save money tax free each year in cash, shares or a combo.
Since many people either have absolutely no savings or use property as savings in NZ and are a month away from not being able to pay bills, it is a way to start a saving’s culture which we do not have here.
I’m also thinking the pros of a UBI are good. There needs to be a safety net without red tape. I think universal benefits are good. When people start to ‘means test’ everything it can take so much red tape to work out the entitlements and so forth little money is saved.
In the UK with the disastrous disability. They cut people off who later died but saved little or zero money from the scheme.
Do you really mean a scheme like this?
“The account is exempt from income tax and capital gains tax on the investment returns, and no tax is payable on money withdrawn from the scheme either”.
Please provide details. I know of schemes that are exempt from tax on their earnings, or from tax on the withdrawals but not both.
The old Government Super scheme gave you the choice of one or the other, but not both.
An excellent summary Weka. Will use it as a reference.
I think the word has gone out to Alwyn and his ilk to rubbish UBI and try to stop it being discussed. UBI is part of a strategy to manage the Long term need to address employment problems. Current Governments have avoided the subject so if Opposition parties raise a possible solution, a Goverment is bound to attack it on any grounds with help of little helpers like Alwyn. A sort of spoilsport effect.
People over 65 freely choose to work or not, haven’t all suddenly turned into drug addicts or alcoholics, many have late in life turned to the arts for self-fulfillment, many work the hours they choose, may do voluntary work for charities or marae and so on.
If they earn they pay more tax.
We tested on a smaller scale for many years with family benefit. Everyone got this regardless of circumstance. We were proud of this.
“We’ve been testing it for years now with NZS.”
So we have. According to the 2013 census about 33% of the people in the 65-74 age group worked with 19% more than 30 hours/week
It drops off rapidly in older age groups. It has more than tripled since 1986. It clearly hasn’t put everyone off working has it? http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-65-plus/work-unpaid-activities.aspx
On the other hand there are only about 600,000 of them and the cost of NZS is about $12 billion, Even that amount was being questioned at the last election.
I don’t think the family benefit, even when it was at its peak in the 1950s is a relevant comparison. Most, if not all, woman stopped working when their children were young in those days if my memories are accurate. Woman, with children, who worked in the 1950s seemed to my young self to have been widows.
The cost is only being questioned because the very people who will benefit from it the most voted continuously to pay lower taxes at the very peak of their earning capacity when they should have been contributing towards it and paying for their free education they received when younger as well.
See some of us aren’t questioning the cost of NZS cause it’s the wrong question. The cost is well known and eminently predictable.
The correct question to ask is why aren’t we taxing the right people sufficiently to pay for it.
@D of SS
I was trying, without naming them, to comment on the Labour Party policy to increase the age of entitlement.
From October 2013
“Finance spokesman David Parker said today that unless there were massive tax increases, it couldn’t be sustained in its present form.
Speaking on Firstline, Parker said National was “putting their heads in the sand” by refusing to raise the age of eligibility for getting superannuation. “.
If I mention Labour wanting to do something like this some of the commentators here will get very upset and abuse me.
They were the ones questioning it. I think, like you, that we can afford it.
Mind you I am biased. I get it. I only applied for it though after interest investment returns fell through the basement floor.
Of course NZ can afford it, jesus this isnt even a worthwhile question. But there is a compromise, we probably cant afford it and have anything but govt budget deficits.
Problem is that these neo-liberal Labourites priorities are buggered and they have determined whats best for the polity and are beyond listening. Never does the question arise, what harm is the deficit actually doing to the country.
When you examine that you find its supposed to be causing higher inflation something most govts are trying to achieve. Either thats not what it does or the deficit should be expanded then. But no this doesnt cross any of these guys tiny closed minds.
Under the figures you quote, someone currently earning 100k would have 3k more in hand under the UBI scenario, but using correct current tax figures, they would actually have 6k less under the UBI.
Using current tax rates, the point at which someone would be ‘breaking even’ on the UBI model you use would be 40K. Under that and they would be better off, and over it worse off.
That sounds about ‘fair’ to me, as far as higher earners getting extra benefit, but I don’t believe 10k is anywhere near enough for a ‘basic income’!
Thanks! Good catch. I just treated each income bracket as a single tax rate, but can see from the calculator it’s taxed at different rates. I’ll see if I can figure it out later.
“but I don’t believe 10k is anywhere near enough for a ‘basic income’!”
Current tax system: income of $25,000 – tax (variable tax rates) $3,395 = $21,605 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 13.5%
UBI system: income of $25,000 – tax $10,000 = $15,000 + UBI $10,000 = $25,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 0%
Difference = +$3,395/yr or +$65/wk
Current tax system: income of $60,000 – tax $11,020 (variable tax rates) = $48,980 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 18.3%
UBI system: income of $60,000 – tax $24,000 = $36,000 + UBI $10,000 = $46,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Difference = -$2980/yr or -$57/wk
Current tax system: income of $100,000 – tax $23,920 (variable tax rates) = $76,080 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 24%
UBI system: income of $100,000 – tax $40,000 = $60,000 + UBI $10,000 = $70,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Difference = -$6,080/yr or -$117/wk
Current tax system: income of $200,000 – tax $56,920 = $143,080 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 28.5%
UBI system: income of $200,000 – tax = $120,000 +UBI $10,000 = $130,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 35%
Difference = -$13,080/yr or -$251/wk
“NZ has to become a highly controlled socialist state.”
As opposed to the highly controlled bureaucratic state we have now?
Sheesh BM, I thought you had at least had the redeeming feature of embracing freedom.
This system is worse than socialism, as it is the state and corporations working as idiotically as each other. The incentives not to work are massive, wages are low, and why try if you get nothing from it.
Plus Morgan and Co. who are pushing this are not even close to being socialist – so do we add disengious to your mantel as well BM?
The link is about this topic but TLDR version is,
* with a job guarantee the govt sets up a programme where it provides a full time at minimum wage job to anybody who applies.
* positions may be setup into the programme either to meet community goals or via applications from the non profit sector for help. Such roles dont really become redundant due to technology.
* during a recession the recently unemployed would be expected to shift from the main sector of the jobs market to the jg sector so fewer people are actually unemployed over this period.
I dont think my own limited imagination is a particularly good source and as i said positions can be created via community engagement.
*we have these guys on the trains who perform some kind of security function. Nobody wants to automate there jobs.
* regular beach litter removals. Nobody wants to automate that.
* tree planting programmes. We dont want to automate that to reduce its carbon footprint.
Without the profit motive much of the automation pressure goes away as well here.
I see the benefits and definitely think it is something that should be in the mix for consideration. I just worry that we go back to the days of seeing people leaning on shovels next to the motorway all day and the negative connotations that come along with that. It was one of the classic examples of why public works were considered inefficient waste.
I also worry about how it deals with the issue of those who carry out work like raising children or caring for family members. I suppose they could be considered one of the minimum wage jobs that people are paid for.
The same way this mornings herald claimed that the 49% of jobs that could be lost to automation over the next 10 to 20 years will be partially off set by new jobs. Ignores the fact the last new career to be created was computer programmer back in the 1960’s. There has literally not been a new classification of job since. Everything is just a repackaging of old skills and will account for automation in only very minor terms.
I suspect that the ever increasing issue of unemployment and inequality shows the current thinking has no idea of what “the way” is to deal with automation.
As funny as that is if we had a decent tax system it would. However not in the classic employee wages but in increased tax intake from a company having increased profits by not having to pay an employee.
Automation is not evil. We just need to work out how to work and economy where it becomes more abundant.
Just say on robot replaces 3 people worth 50k, the robot has a salary of 150k and pays tax on that.
Bit of a win for every one, government still gets the same amount of tax, businesses don’t have the hassle of staff and the population then can just chill out at the beach on their 50k a year universal wage.
The same system w’eve currently got could be kept and the best thing about is that it’s incremental.
If you can handle that sort of hypothetical gymnastics the concept of a universal UBI, or negative tax bracket should be pretty self explanatory as positive for society.
But being the typical National supporter, you are really trying to create the most complex system that you can, with plenty of loopholes to be exploited.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the simplest system possible that allows society and business to evolve into the future automated environment. A casual glance over the way we responded to the changes in New Zealand’s economy in the 70’s will show that proscribed and bureaucratic solutions aren’t the way to go.
It’s a credit to the Labour party that they’ve looked at this, seen that it’s going to happen and are trying to have a debate about how we transition to a society and economy that is as good, and preferably better than the one we have now. And that could involve transitioning 40% of our workforce, at all levels, to an entirely new way of living.
I reckon my idea is better.
You could even make it retrospective and introduce it now, get all the businesses that have already cut jobs due to automation.
This is is about having a UBI, but funding it via the technology that is putting people out of work.
Businesses have to pay wages as it is, so paying a robot wage won’t be an issue.
There’s still big positives for business to automate there’s no need for osh regulations, safety equipment, holidays, sick leave etc.
Of course some people will try and game it, you just have annual auditing system in place to catch the ones that do.
Sorry, just makes me think “Supplementary Minimum Payments”
The solution is deal with the transition of society, not create an impediment to the transition. Your tax will just create avoidance / evasion and other stupid choices.
Negative tax brackets seem to be a more elegant solution if you’re going to do through the tax system.
Have to say BM its a very creative and sort of weird concept you have brought up – my partner has just said the tax accountants would have a field day with it. I can see the logic of it in a “out of left field” sort of way. It certainly would help to pay for the UBI and employers would be better off without holiday pay, sickness leave etc that you mentioned. Maybe you should lodge a patent on it, it could possibly/impossibly be implemented in the future – you would make a fortune on the concept!
It’s the “current thinking” of this government, in which case the only response I can offer is: “you call that thinking?”
Also, how do you know the rise in unemployment is an entrenched phenomenon and not the predictable – and predicted* – consequence of National Party corruption and incompetence?
*the “bonfire of right wing politics”, as Helen Clark put it.
the only countries that have Job Guarantees are generally speaking socialist / communist countries.
You had a guaranteed job in East Germany, Hungary, Jugoslavia (before Milosovitch) etc etc. It might not was the job you wanted, but it was the job you did.
You also had waiting lists for cars, houses, food, etc etc etc.
But you had a job, and when you ran out of materials you stopped working. Very much like North Korea today.
So to say that a UBI is socialist, but Governmental Workprogammes are not is a bit short sighted.
Essentially, if the predictions of the worlds Kassandas come true, we will have something like an UBI as it would be easier and less costly to administer. We will also have to have social housing with rent caps and livelong tenure (unless we really want 60-80% of our population living as transients – and with an average tenanacy agreement lasting no longer than max 12 month we already have a large % of our population living as transients), and we will have to have free clinics for healthcare etc etc . If we want people to live, and participate in society.
Or we can go with the free market who will fix it all by itself, cause magic.
“British economist Paul Ormerod (quote from the Death of Economics) noted that the economies that avoided high unemployment in the 1970s maintained a:
… sector of the economy which effectively functions as an employer of last resort, which absorbs the shocks which occur from time to time, and more generally makes employment available to the less skilled, the less qualified.
He concluded that societies with a high degree of social cohesion (such as Austria, Japan and Norway) were willing to broaden their concept of costs and benefits of resource usage to ensure that everyone had access to paid employment opportunities.” Bill Mitchell
Thats an interesting quote Sabine because i wasnt aware that Austria Japan and Norway were communist countries. Thanks for the history lesson.
Ensuring access to employment is not giving a guarantee to employment.
We all have ‘access to employment’, as the drones at WINZ would assure you, but you have no guarantee that you get a job.
However, if you were to follow the premise that paying a UBI is socialist as in communism, than i suggest that you also look at providing a guaranteed job via the state as socialist. That was all I pointed out.
I am also quite sure that despite providing access to employment Austria, Japan and Norway have unemployed people.
So that access to employment is obviously not helping all people.
While a UBI would help all people. The government then could still provide access to employment as far there still is employment.
In a JG scheme (and they happen/happened in many places, including effectively if not in name in NZ in past eras) you go to WINZ and not only do they assure you access to employment, they send you on to an actual employer. Then WINZ pay your wages. That’s why its called a job guarantee, you go there and you are guaranteed getting a job (at least at the minimum wage).
Yes, some people won’t want to work for minimum wage. They might prefer searching for better paid work for example so we should still expect to see some unemployment rates in places with such a scheme.
I don’t really care how you want to label a JG scheme or a UBI scheme (socialist or capitalist or free market or whatever). That’s not an interesting question in any way. I am pretty sure I didn’t label either myself in any comments.
Every baby boomer I know is planning to live to 100.
They’ll probably make it too.
Was that really part of the conversation? I thought Winston’s lot were the generation before the baby boomers. My lot in fact. Just ahead of 1946.
“Every baby boomer I know is planning to live to 100.”
Unless of course you’re Maori or blue collar or have had a disability all your life…. In many of those cases you’d love to get even a year of NZS.
Was that really part of the conversation?
Yep. It assumes property values will stay where they are now or increase. In many places they are already decreasing as that generation starts to die off. Years of neglect in rural communities means lack of jobs, lack of hospitals, lack of all sorts of things is resulting in lower property values or an inability to sell.
Some large urban areas might get propped up by immigration and foreign buyers but it ain’t true everywhere.
When I asked “was it really part of the conversation” I was meaning the one between Key and Banks. Did they really say that Winston’s followers were dying off?
A question for all those people who think if we just avoid antagonising the Muslim world (whatever that term means) then we won’t be subjected to terror attacks.
What has Belgium been up to recently that made it a target?
“What has Belgium been up to recently that made it a target?”
I suspect you haven’t thought very carefully about these matters if you ask that question.
The most obvious response to your question would be the arrest of the suspect in the Paris bombings last November – as has already been suggested by media commentators (such as the person interviewed on Morning Report today who thought it likely that terrorist attacks had been ‘brought forward’ in response to that arrest).
But there’s another point you’re missing. In one sense perhaps ‘we’ (in the West) are all the same to ‘them’ and, more tellingly, that perception is reinforced by several observations.
First, Belgium is the headquarters of the EU (one of the bombs was close to the EU headquarters) and the EU has, within its union, several states who have less than glorious records of management, intervention and even rule in the Middle East.
Second, many of the messages from other European and Western leaders have reiterated a position emphasised in similar messages of condolence in the past – that these attacks are an attack on ‘all of us’ and an attack on ‘our’ values – not just those of Belgium.
So it seems that by targeting a ‘soft target’ like Belgium the terrorists have, indeed, hit back at those they perceive as having ‘antagonised’ them. That is, the leaders of the UK, US, France, etc. themselves seem to think that ‘they’ were as much the target as Belgium.
Having said all of that these attacks are utterly reprehensible and unforgivable – though quite explicable and not surprising.
Profile of National
.
Yesterday John Key wanted to steal money from us – to pay for his Defamation Crime. Possibly up to NZD1,5 Million. Who knows?
He will be visiting Mr Obama very soon. I hope he won’t attempt to steal money from him ! But again – who knows?
Also, do you think he will keep his creepy hands away from Obama’s daughters? Anybody’s guess I expect. He harasses girls in his own suburb, with impunity.
How gutter low the National party of NZ really is. Mismanagers; bullies; self centered; arrogant; thieves – stealing assets from the common man; secretive over incredibly stupid TPPA negotiations; flogging off NZ land and resources to foreigners (to get kick backs for national party funds); callous about jobs and workers conditions. And so on and so on …
They say Piggy Muldoon another national politician was bad. At least he was not evil like Key and and his accomplice English.
I can’t remember a National govt that improved the lives of ordinary Kiwi’s, I know in the late 60’s they had a near zero unemployment rate, but since then they haven’t managed much better than 5 or 6% at the low end and over 10% at the high end.
You probably remember the Shipley govt, took $20 off every pensioner to give the wealthiest a tax break, more older NZ’ers left for Aussie than ever before.
In five decades of observation of NZ govts, the Clark govt delivered the greatest benefits to this country that I’ve ever seen, nearly everyone had a job, and when I said everyone, that included the spouse, the redistribution of wealth to the lower incomes through tax benefits (working for families), investment in infrastructure, rebuilt the local Hospital where I live after the Nats threatened to close it and increased the capacity of all the schools by adding additional class rooms, and now all we hear is that Labour destroyed the country, most can’t remember that far back to be able to compare too today.
The media has done it’s best to undermine Labour, and the weak minded have “bought” the BS, hook line and sinker, the reality is that I’m one of the over 200k Kiwi’s that left NZ since 2011 for a “Brighter future”, and would like to return, but I just can’t stomach Key, and until I see Kiwi’s waking up to the BS being fed to them, I don’t see any improvement in NZ.
The first time I saw Key on TV, I new he couldn’t be trusted, that was in 2006, ten years ago, and guess what, he’s proven over and over again exactly that.
So, come on Labour and come on Andrew Little, honesty IS a virtue.
they generally were at the start of the co-op model, right up until trading in shares was opened up to allow ‘capital raising’, hence the NZX funds trading in shares……so now you have suppliers, who have given over the rights to the share income (but not ownership of shares per se) who are having payments cut at the same as record profits are being made and paid out as divedends…
I’d suggest they are very much in the minority. On Morning report this morning on the radio a news item suggested the vast majority of shareholders who will receive the benefit are farmers.
Possibly, although the crucial statistic is not how many of the shareholders are farmers but ‘how many of the farmers producing the milk are shareholders?’
At the extreme, it is theoretically possible that all shares are owned by one farmer; hence all shareholders would be farmers but all but one of the farmers producing the milk would not be shareholders.
I don’t know the answer to what would be the ‘correct’ question to settle this point.
The term “supplier” has also been used to describe contractors of late as well, which is muddying the water as well. Don’t know if it’s a deliberate distraction, or by whom, but very poor communication by Fontera for allowing it to happen.
For those who have an interest in the strange happenings at Rangiora High School, the Listener has a detailed post. Did the Ministry go through all this to get their hands on the millions held by the 100 year old investment Held by Rangiora High? How can they do all this to a successful school, lead by an industrious hard working Principal.
“For Peggy Burrows, that pathway has been cut abruptly short. With lawyer Richard Harrison (who represented Christchurch Girls’ High School principal Prue Taylor when she was sacked in 2012), Burrows will challenge her dismissal.” http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/education/school-daze/
Well, some people commenting on this site seem to be proposing that the Government should be guaranteeing everyone a job. Those commenters would applaud your theory.
Last time i checked being a Lawyer still required a qual. Did the TPPA remove that for their disputes process? Quite happy for joe blogs kiwi to arbitrate on TPPA disputes actually for a job. Dont think Disney has that in mind however.
I really don’t understand where the Labour party is going ? Is it $200 that’s enough to live on, I am not sure pensioners agree, Is it the living wage or do they have a plan to guarantee everyone a job and pay them living wage plus a Universal income ? Can someone enlighten this pensioner with a vote, please!
“Can someone enlighten this pensioner”.
I don’t think anyone can help you at the moment. Robertson, who seems to trying to be the proud daddy, seems to give a different story every time he talks about it.
I think he is hurriedly trying to read and understand what Morgan’s book said but it seems to be a bit too hard for him. He then seems to be trying to amend the details on the fly if someone points out politically impossible bits.
If they did what Morgan advocates, and you own your own home, you are going to be bitten on the bum. Only my opinion of course
Come back in about 2018.
Do you believe Morgans book position is reasonable? It seems to be saying there need to be some one off modifications to taxation etc… which will then modify prices so some imbalances an inequities are corrected and then stuff will be sorted out from then on because all that stuff was sorted to begin with.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the prognosis for the EU where about a decade ago consensus was no country really needed to run a 3% or higher deficit (until they did). It seems a very static view of the economy to begin with.
“I don’t think anyone can help you at the moment. Robertson, who seems to trying to be the proud daddy, seems to give a different story every time he talks about it.”
Citation needed. Link or it didn’t happen. We already know you are a liar so I’m happy to add this to the list if you can’t back up your statement.
Oh for some actual coherent policies consistent with socialist principles from Labour. The last link is interesting because there was supposed to be an attempt to have the members of the Standard influence policy. We were asked for suggestions even.
Can’t see many of those suggestions anywhere near Labour’s policies.
(Also reminded me how much I miss Xtasy’s contributions).
The year of the manifesto, which turned into the year of keeping your powder dry, which turned into the year of mainly neo-liberal policy, which turned into the year of losing my vote, which turned into the year of losing the election was just bonkers.
Well there’s little evidence that Labour is pushing the needs of beneficiaries and workers. 2012 was the year of the manifesto. 2013 was supposed to be the year of the policy.
But, as our own Labour grandee Mike Smith has pointed out, 2013 is also the year Labour develops its policies
I think that’s where The Standard could be of some use in that it offers a platform for members to suggest and test policy at a national level any time they want.
Tom, a UBI is meant to ensure that everyone has a basic income and doesn’t starve etc. It’s not become replacement, it’s a system of income security that is more fair and efficient than what we have now. Don’t get too caught up on the $200 thing. For one, there are lots of different UBI models and it depends on what other ways people have of getting income. Labour are focussed on workers and the disappearance of a regular 40hr/wk jobs and a high need for flexibility. They’re not saying everyone can live on $200/wk, they’re saying its a stop gap for people that didn’t earn this week. People who don’t do paid work (retirees, I’ll and disabled people, solo parents etc) will need to be taken into account too.
Have a look at the figures in my comment up thread and you can see how it might work via tax. Yes it’s different than the living wage and job creation both of which Labour also intend to do.
You can basically ignore everything alwyn is saying as he is lying about Labour and trolling the site to derail the conversation.
What way do you think it will go? I’m a bit worried low turnout amongst the young will make it closer than people thing. I may spiral into depression if we really change our flag to that childish design.
Polls suggest on average a 60% to 40% preference for the New Zealand flag. Something remarkable would have to happen for the challenger to win on the basis of that polling.
My initial thought is the very young (non-voting age) are very supportive of the New Zealand flag as are young adults in general. I imagine if young adults took the time to participate in surveys to register their support for the flag of New Zeland then they would take the time to vote. Perhaps this sector is the one which has lifted the turnout in the second referendum?
If so then John Key’s cheap looking tea towel will not stand a chance.
It’s a shame that belatedly addressing roading infrastructure could be viewed by RWNJs as a legacy of John Key. Particularly with respect to the open tap immigration policy adopted by his government.
The first one on that list hasn’t even been started yet, ffs.
Haha, what an unbelievably shit legacy. That’s even before the next generation find they can’t afford the fuel price to use the RONS or there simply isn’t enough oil to go around anymore. Communities like Kapiti end up with a unused aqueduct type structure and they’ll be wanting to tear it down.
Contrary to what the doomer cult you belong to says, people are going to be using cars for the foreseeable future.
New Zealanders will thank Key in years to come for building this fantastic roading network and not listening to the climate change, end of the world crowd.
I expect to see many statues of Key to be commissioned in the coming decades.
that would be about my guess too DTB….which if we ignore CC (as appears to be the case) is a disruptive change in itself when you consider the proportion of GDP it involves
“That will be Keys legacy, flag’s just a minor sideline.”
Yeah and what a waste of money that lot is. Like the Hamilton bypass, 17 bridges in a 22 km section costing just under a Billion dollars at this stage. Money that could be spent on better things like a fast modern wide track commuter service to Auckland with trains travelling at 200Km an hour..
It has been claimed that with the new Waikato Freeway it will cut 25 minutes off the journey. One billion dollars divided by 25 minutes give us 40000 dollars a minute just to join the fucking big traffic jam on the southern motorway that is STILL going to take you up to ONE hour to get into central Auckland,
According to Gary Numan, the song’s lyrics were inspired by an incident of road rage: “I was in traffic in London once and had a problem with some people in front. They tried to beat me up and get me out of the car. I locked the doors and eventually drove up on the pavement and got away from them. It’s kind of to do with that. It explains how you can feel safe inside a car in the modern world… When you’re in it, your whole mentality is different… It’s like your own little personal empire with four wheels on it”.
-Gary Numan
This explains the RWNJs’ approach to transport. They believe that to take your own personal fiefdom with you wherever you go is the way of the future.
Key’s legacy will be available as The Best of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Vols. 1 & 2. If you order online from the US you won’t have to pay GST 😉
I’ve heard there’s a bonus clip called UFO in Waitangi; soundtrack courtesy of Eminem CC PL 2.0 (Creative Commons licence Pretty Legal generic).
It will be close, but evidence so far is that the challenger is playing catch up.
There is a huge amount of support for the New Zealand flag despite what John Key says anecdotally.
After all, when he’s discussing the subject face to face with someone, that person is likely a grovelling yes-man who will say what the prime minister wants to hear.
Well, their going to the polls on June 7, Aussie Fed Election, Turnbull has just restored the “Clean Energy Finance Corp” that Abbott tried to shut down, as an election sweetener, but the experts say, too little, too late.
Their will likely be a double disillusion, as the senate has refused to pass the govts policies.
And Tony (Abbott) is being as disruptive as he possibly can be, makes for some interesting politics over the next few months.
This short blog post and the linked PDF document is the result of a collaborative effort by Anne-Marie Blackburn, Dana Nuccitelli, Bärbel Winkler, Ken Rice and John Cook. When the climate change (mis)information briefs pushed by David Legates and others started to make the rounds in January 2021 we wondered whether ...
A part of this morning's transport announcement which hasn't got a lot of attention yet: biofuels are back: “Our Government has agreed in principle to mandate a lower emitting biofuel blend across the transport sector. Over time this will prevent hundreds of thousands of tonnes of emissions from cars, ...
After almost twenty years of ignoring the Māori vote, National may run in the Māori seats again: A former National MP is excited the party could stand a candidate in the Māori electorate seats for the first time since 2002. One News reported last night that National's leader Judith ...
If one stubbornly clings to the Elimination strategy (I don’t support it, but that will have to wait for another occasion) then try to get it right. You need secure borders. We have attempted this with a very large measure of success. It has not been perfect as the Covid-19 Response ...
Diaspora: perception departs from reality In this collection of articles are two papers currently captivating the attention of people following the science and emergence of climate change, especially the rapid variety we've accidentally unleashed and which is now unfolding around us. The synthesis and review article Earth's Ice Imbalance by Slater ...
The ultra-rich have done very, very well out of the pandemic. Globally, the wealth of the ten richest people rose by US$540 billion last year, enough money to pay for the pandemic in its entirity. And in New Zealand, local billionaire Graeme Hart saw his wealth increase by almost NZ$3.5 ...
Postmodernism has long been looked upon as an indecipherable ideology and a source of amusement. In 1996 Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University, had a hoax article published in ‘Social Text’ an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. In ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections Anew study in Nature Sustainability incorporates the damages that climate change does to healthy ecosystems into standard climate-economics models. The key finding in the study by Bernardo Bastien-Olvera and Frances Moore from the University of California at Davis: The models have been underestimating the ...
In a recent interview with RNZ (14th of January), NZ Council of Civil Liberties Chair Thomas Beagle, in response to Simon Bridges condemnation of the post-Trump Twitter purge of local far Right and other accounts, said the following: “Cos the thing about freedom of expression is that it’s not just ...
Let’s be clear: if Trump is not politically killed off once and for all, he will become a MAGA Dracula, rising from the dead to haunt US politics for years to come and giving inspiration to his wretched family of grifters and thousands of deplorables well into the next decade. ...
Since its demise as an imperial power, and especially its deindustrialisation under Thatcher, the UK's primary economic engine has been its role as a money laundry, using its network of overseas territories as tax havens to enable rich people around the world to steal from the societies they live in. ...
Last month OMV quit the Great South Basin and surrendered its offshore exploration permits outside of Taranaki. This month, Australian-owned Beach Energy has done the same: Beach Energy Resources New Zealand has decided to abandon all of its oil and gas exploration permits off the South Island coast, including ...
The new Northland case has been linked to the South African strain of Covid-19, one of a number of new, more contagious Covid variants. Here’s how they emerge and why. Let’s start with the basics. The genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for Covid-19 is a strand of RNA ...
MARVIN HUBBARD, US citizen by birth, New Zealand citizen by choice, Quaker and left-wing activist, has been broadcasting his show, "Community or Chaos", on Otago Access Radio for the best part of 30 years. On 24 November last year, I spoke with him about the outcome of the 2020 General ...
This is a guest blog post by Daniel Tamberg, Potsdam, co-founder and director of SCIARA GmbH. The non-profit organisation SCIARA is developing and operating a flexible software platform for scientific simulation games that allows thousands of players to explore, design and understand possible climate futures together. Decision-makers in politics, business, ...
Yesterday's Gone: Cold shivers are running up and down the spines of conservatives everywhere. Donald Trump may have gone, but all the signs point to there being something much more momentous in the wind-shift than a simple return to the status quo ante. A change is gonna come. ONE COULD ...
Is it possible to live and let live in the post-Trump era? The online campaign to vilify Christopher Liddell, ex-White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant to Trump, makes for an interesting case study. Liddell is a New Zealander whose illustrious career in corporate America once earned him plaudits ...
A chronological listing of news articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Jan 17, 2021 through Sat, Jan 23, 2021Editor's Choice12 new books explore fresh approaches to act on climate changeAuthors explore scientific, economic, and political avenues for climate action ...
This discussion is from a Twitter thread by Martin Kulldorff on 20 December 2020. He is a Professor at Harvard Medical School specialising in disease surveillance methods, infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety. His Twitter handle is @MartinKulldorff #1 Public health is about all health outcomes, not just a single ...
The Treasury forecasts suggest the economy is doing better than expected after the Covid Shock. John Kenneth Galbraith was wont to say that economic forecasting was designed to make astrology look good. Unfair, but it raises the question of the purpose of economic forecasts. Certainly the public may treat them ...
Q: Will the COVID-19 vaccines prevent the transmission of the coronavirus and bring about community immunity (aka herd immunity)? A: Jury not in yet but vaccines do not have to be perfect to thwart the spread of infection. While vaccines induce protection against illness, they do not always stop actual ...
Joe Biden seems to be everything that Donald Trump was not – decent, straightforward, considerate of others, mindful of his responsibilities – but none of that means that he has an easy path ahead of him. The pandemic still rages, American standing in the world is grievously low, and the ...
Keana VirmaniFrom healthcare robots to data privacy, to sea level rise and Antarctica under the ice: in the four years since its establishment, the Aotearoa New Zealand Science Journalism Fund has supported over 30 projects.Rebecca Priestley, receiving the PM Science Communication Prize (Photo by Mark Tantrum) Associate Professor ...
Nothing more from me today - I'm off to Wellington, to participate in the city's annual roleplaying convention (which has also eaten my time for the whole week, limiting blogging despite there being interesting things happening). Normal bloggage will resume Tuesday. ...
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weaponscame into force today, making the development, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons illegal in international law. Every nuclear-armed state is now a criminal regime. The corporations and scientists who design, build and maintain their illegal weapons are now ...
"Come The Revolution!" The key objective of Bernard Hickey’s revolutionary solution to the housing crisis is a 50 percent reduction in the price of the average family home. This will be achieved by the introduction of Capital Gains, Land, and Wealth taxes, and by the opening up of currently RMA-protected ...
by Daphna Whitmore Twitter and Facebook shutting down Trump’s accounts after his supporters stormed Capitol Hill is old news now but the debates continue over whether the actions against Trump are a good thing or not. Those in favour of banning Trump say Twitter and Facebook are private companies and ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections Democrats now control the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for the first time in a decade, albeit with razor thin Congressional majorities. The last time, in the 111th Congress (2009-2011), House Democrats passed a carbon cap and trade bill, but it died ...
Session thirty-three was highly abbreviated, via having to move house in a short space of time. Oh well. The party decided to ignore the tree-monster and continue the attack on the Giant Troll. Tarsin – flying on a giant summoned bat – dumped some high-grade oil over the ...
Last night I stayed up till 3am just to see then-President Donald Trump leave the White House, get on a plane, and fly off to Florida, hopefully never to return. And when I woke up this morning, America was different. Not perfect, because it never was. Probably not even good, ...
Watching today’s inauguration of Joe Biden as the United States’ 46th president, there’s not a lot in common with the inauguration of Donald Trump just four destructive years ago. Where Trump warned of carnage, Biden dared to hope for unity and decency. But the one place they converge is that ...
Dan FalkBritons who switched on their TVs to “Good Morning Britain” on the morning of Sept. 15, 2020, were greeted by news not from our own troubled world, but from neighboring Venus. Piers Morgan, one of the hosts, was talking about a major science story that had surfaced the ...
Sara LutermanGrowing up autistic in a non-autistic world can be very isolating. We are often strange and out of sync with peers, despite our best efforts. Autistic adults have, until very recently, been largely absent from media and the public sphere. Finding role models is difficult. Finding useful advice ...
Doug JohnsonThe alien-like blooms and putrid stench of Amorphophallus titanum, better known as the corpse flower, draw big crowds and media coverage to botanical gardens each year. In 2015, for instance, around 75,000 people visited the Chicago Botanic Garden to see one of their corpse flowers bloom. More than ...
Getting to Browser Tab Zero so I can reboot the computer is awfully hard when the one open tab is a Table of Contents for the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, and every issue has more stuff I want to read. A few highlights: Gugler et al demonstrating ...
Michael Cowling, CQUniversity AustraliaWe’ve probably all been there. We buy some new smart gadget and when we plug it in for the first time it requires an update to work. So we end up spending hours downloading and updating before we can even play with our new toy. But ...
Timothy Ford, University of Massachusetts Lowell and Charles M. Schweik, University of Massachusetts AmherstTo mitigate health inequities and promote social justice, coronavirus vaccines need to get to underserved populations and hard-to-reach communities. There are few places in the U.S. that are unreachable by road, but other factors – many ...
Israel chose to pay a bit over the odds for the Pfizer vaccine to get earlier access. Here’s The Times of Israel from 16 November. American government will be charged $39 for each two-shot dose, and the European bloc even less, but Jerusalem said to agree to pay $56. Israel ...
Orla is a gender critical Marxist in Ireland. She gave a presentation on 15 January 2021 on the connection between postmodern/transgender identity politics and the current attacks on democratic and free speech rights. Orla has been active previously in the Irish Socialist Workers Party and the People Before Profit electoral ...
. . America: The Empire Strikes Back (at itself) Further to my comments in the first part of 2020: The History That Was, the following should be considered regarding the current state of the US. They most likely will be by future historians pondering the critical decades of ...
Nathaniel ScharpingIn March, as the Covid-19 pandemic began to shut down major cities in the U.S., researchers were thinking about blood. In particular, they were worried about the U.S. blood supply — the millions of donations every year that help keep hospital patients alive when they need a transfusion. ...
Sarah L Caddy, University of CambridgeVaccines are a marvel of medicine. Few interventions can claim to have saved as many lives. But it may surprise you to know that not all vaccines provide the same level of protection. Some vaccines stop you getting symptomatic disease, but others stop you ...
Back in 2016, the Portuguese government announced plans to stop burning coal by 2030. But progress has come much quicker, and they're now scheduled to close their last coal plant by the end of this year: The Sines coal plant in Portugal went offline at midnight yesterday evening (14 ...
The Sincerest Form Of Flattery: As anybody with the intestinal fortitude to brave the commentary threads of local news-sites, large and small, will attest, the number of Trump-supporting New Zealanders is really quite astounding. IT’S SO DIFFICULT to resist the temptation to be smug. From the distant perspective of New Zealand, ...
RNZ reports on continued arbitrariness on decisions at the border. British comedian Russell Howard is about to tour New Zealand and other acts allowed in through managed isolation this summer include drag queen RuPaul and musicians at Northern Bass in Mangawhai and the Bay Dreams festival. The vice-president of the ...
As families around the world mourn more than two million people dead from Covid-19, the Plan B academics and their PR industry collaborator continue to argue that the New Zealand government should stop focusing on our managed isolation and quarantine system and instead protect the elderly so that they can ...
A chronological listing of news articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Jan 10, 2021 through Sat, Jan 16, 2021Editor's ChoiceNASA says 2020 tied for hottest year on record — here’s what you can do to helpPhoto by Michael Held on Unsplash ...
Health authorities in Norway are reporting some concerns about deaths in frail elderly after receiving their COVID-19 vaccine. Is this causally related to the vaccine? Probably not but here are the things to consider. According to the news there have been 23 deaths in Norway shortly after vaccine administration and ...
Happy New Year! No, experts are not concerned that “…one of New Zealand’s COIVD-1( vaccines will fail to protect the country” Here is why. But first I wish to issue an expletive about this journalism (First in Australia and then in NZ). It exhibits utter failure to actually truly consult ...
All nations have shadows; some acknowledge them. For others they shape their image in uncomfortable ways.The staunch Labour supporter was in despair at what her Rogernomics Government was doing. But she finished ‘at least, we got rid of Muldoon’, a response which tells us that then, and today, one’s views ...
Grigori GuitchountsIn November, Springer Nature, one of the world’s largest publishers of scientific journals, made an attention-grabbing announcement: More than 30 of its most prestigious journals, including the flagship Nature, will now allow authors to pay a fee of US$11,390 to make their papers freely available for anyone to read ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Gary Yohe, Henry Jacoby, Richard Richels, and Benjamin Santer Imagine a major climate change law passing the U.S. Congress unanimously? Don’t bother. It turns out that you don’t need to imagine it. Get this: The Global Change Research Act of 1990 was passed ...
“They’re here already! You’re next! You’re next! You’re next!”WHO CAN FORGET the penultimate scene of the 1956 movie classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The wild-eyed doctor, stumbling down the highway, trying desperately to warn his fellow citizens: “They’re here already! You’re next! You’re next! You’re next!”Ostensibly science-fiction, the movie ...
TheOneRing.Net has got its paws on the official synopsis of the upcoming Amazon Tolkien TV series. It’s a development that brings to mind the line about Sauron deliberately releasing Gollum from the dungeons of Barad-dûr. Amazon knew exactly what they were doing here, in terms of drumming up publicity: ...
Since Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953, US presidents have joined an informal club intended to provide support - and occasionally rivalry - between those few who have been ‘leaders of the free world’. Donald Trump, elected on a promise to ‘drain the swamp’ and a constant mocker of his predecessors, ...
For over a decade commentators have noted the rise of a new brand of explicitly ideological politics throughout the world. By this they usually refer to the re-emergence of national populism and avowedly illiberal approaches to governance throughout the “advanced” democratic community, but they also extend the thought to the ...
The US House of Representatives has just impeached Donald Trump, giving him the dubious honour of being the only US President to be impeached twice. Ten Republicans voted for impeachement, making it the most bipartisan impeachment ever. The question now is whether the Senate will rise to the occasion, and ...
Zero emission buses, cleaner cars and environmentally-friendly biofuels will soon be hitting New Zealand’s roads, as the Government delivers on its election promise to make our transport network more sustainable. ...
The Green Party is already delivering on its commitment for cleaner, climate-friendly transport through our Cooperation Agreement with the Government. ...
A growing public housing waiting list and continued increase of house prices must be urgently addressed by Government, Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson said today. ...
Prudence Steven QC, barrister of Christchurch has been appointed as an Environment Judge and District Court Judge to serve in Christchurch, Attorney-General David Parker announced today. Ms Steven has been a barrister sole since 2008, practising in resource management and local government / public law. She was appointed a Queen’s ...
The Government is delivering on its first tranche of election promises to take action on climate change with a raft of measures that will help meet New Zealand’s 2050 carbon neutral target, create new jobs and boost innovation. “This will be an ongoing area of action but we are moving ...
The Government is investing up to $10 million to support 30 of the country’s top early-career researchers to develop their research skills. “The pandemic has had widespread impacts across the science system, including the research workforce. After completing their PhD, researchers often travel overseas to gain experience but in the ...
A Waitomo-based Jobs for Nature project will keep up to ten people employed in the village as the tourism sector recovers post Covid-19 Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “This $500,000 project will save ten local jobs by deploying workers from Discover Waitomo into nature-based jobs. They will be undertaking local ...
Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw spoke yesterday with President Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. “I was delighted to have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Kerry this morning about the urgency with which our governments must confront the climate emergency. I am grateful to him and ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta today announced three diplomatic appointments: Alana Hudson as Ambassador to Poland John Riley as Consul-General to Hong Kong Stephen Wong as Consul-General to Shanghai Poland “New Zealand’s relationship with Poland is built on enduring personal, economic and historical connections. Poland is also an important ...
Work begins today at Wainuiomata High School to ensure buildings and teaching spaces are fit for purpose, Education Minister Chris Hipkins says. The Minister joined principal Janette Melrose and board chair Lynda Koia to kick off demolition for the project, which is worth close to $40 million, as the site ...
A skilled and experienced group of people have been named as the newly established Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board by Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis today. The Board will provide independent advice and assurance to the Minister for Children across three key areas of Oranga Tamariki: relationships with families, whānau, and ...
The green light for New Zealand’s first COVID-19 vaccine could be granted in just over a week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said today. “We’re making swift progress towards vaccinating New Zealanders against the virus, but we’re also absolutely committed to ensuring the vaccines are safe and effective,” Jacinda Ardern said. ...
The Minister for ACC is pleased to announce the appointment of three new members to join the Board of ACC on 1 February 2021. “All three bring diverse skills and experience to provide strong governance oversight to lead the direction of ACC” said Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Bella Takiari-Brame from Hamilton ...
The Government is investing $9 million to upgrade a significant community facility in Invercargill, creating economic stimulus and jobs, Infrastructure Minister Grant Robertson and Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene have announced. The grant for Waihōpai Rūnaka Inc to make improvements to Murihiku Marae comes from the $3 billion set ...
[Opening comments, welcome and thank you to Auckland University etc] It is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon to celebrate such an historic occasion - the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is a moment many feared would never come, but ...
The Government is providing $3 million in one-off seed funding to help disabled people around New Zealand stay connected and access support in their communities, Minister for Disability Issues, Carmel Sepuloni announced today. The funding will allow disability service providers to develop digital and community-based solutions over the next two ...
Border workers in quarantine facilities will be offered voluntary daily COVID-19 saliva tests in addition to their regular weekly testing, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. This additional option will be rolled out at the Jet Park Quarantine facility in Auckland starting on Monday 25 January, and then to ...
The next steps in the Government’s ambitious firearms reform programme to include a three-month buy-back have been announced by Police Minister Poto Williams today. “The last buy-back and amnesty was unprecedented for New Zealand and was successful in collecting 60,297 firearms, modifying a further 5,630 firearms, and collecting 299,837 prohibited ...
Upscaling work already underway to restore two iconic ecosystems will deliver jobs and a lasting legacy, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “The Jobs for Nature programme provides $1.25 billion over four years to offer employment opportunities for people whose livelihoods have been impacted by the COVID-19 recession. “Two new projects ...
The Government has released its Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in Budget 2020, will go. “The Government is committed to continuing its public house build programme at pace and scale. The extra 8,000 homes – 6000 public ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has congratulated President Joe Biden on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States of America. “I look forward to building a close relationship with President Biden and working with him on issues that matter to both our countries,” Jacinda Ardern said. “New Zealand ...
A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
$36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
The New Zealand public sector and judiciary has again been ranked the least corrupt in the world. The 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) released today by global anti-corruption organization Transparency International ranks New Zealand first equal ...
New Zealand is again ranked first equal with Denmark in the Transparency International annual index of perceived levels of public sector corruption. Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier has welcomed New Zealand’s position in the 2020 index. He says New Zealand’s ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Kaufman, Research Fellow, Vaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute The federal government’s A$23.9 million COVID-19 vaccination information campaign, launchedyesterday, aims to reassure the public about vaccine safety and effectiveness. It will also provide information about the vaccine rollout. We’ve ...
Business is Boring is a weekly podcast series presented by The Spinoff in association with Callaghan Innovation. Host Simon Pound speaks with innovators and commentators focused on the future of New Zealand. This week he’s joined by Hongi Luo, brand director at TikTok.In terms of cultural reach and impact, the ...
After Covid devastated its 2020, Basement Theatre comes roaring into 2021 with its Summer Season. Here’s the rundown of shows in-store, with some comments from programmer Nisha Madhan.Pre-FringeLust IslandWhen’s it on: February 2-6, 8pmWho’s involved: The women of improv troupe Hearthrobs (McKenzie’s Daughters, Salem Bitch Trials), including Brynley Stent, Alice ...
The whānau of Te Ahikaiata Turei supported by Māori and non-Māori staff at Unitec will take back a portrait of the Tūhoe leader who led the establishment of Te Noho Kotahitanga Marae and the values that brought the institute back from the brink of ...
A poll across the Early Childhood Education community found 93% in favour of pausing the ‘lunchbox rules’, or the Ministry of Education’s new Food Safety/choking changes to the Licensing Criteria, which came into effect on 25 January. “The message ...
Cycling advocates are calling for the transformation of urban transport, as New Zealand races to cut carbon. The Climate Change Commission will release its initial advice on Sunday 31 January. “Bikes and e-bikes are perfect for many local trips, ...
Three Ministers, led by the PM, joined in chorus today to warble about a bunch of measures aimed at helping to meet New Zealand’s 2050 carbon neutral target, create new jobs and boost innovation. Mind you, the measures mentioned seem to be more matters of decisions yet to be made ...
Michelle Kidd defines her role at Auckland’s specialist family violence court as te kaiwhakatere – the navigator. It’s a one-of-a-kind job, helping guide defendants through the court system. And there’s no one better suited to it than Whaea Michelle.First published November 24, 2020.Whaea Michelle is part of Frame, a series of short ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sallie Yea, Associate professor & Principal Research Fellow, La Trobe University Each year, thousands of men and boys labour under extremely exploitative conditions on commercial fishing vessels owned by Taiwanese, Chinese and South Korean companies. The Taiwanese fleet, which operates in all ...
Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis believes the Crown should maintain responsibility for the care and protection of at-risk and vulnerable children, regardless of their race. Moreover, he is confident his all-Maori team of advisers will not be taking race into account as they help to improve Oranga Tamariki’s care and protection of ...
It’s easy to sacrifice John Banks. It’s a lot harder for brands, sports organisations and government to truly stop funding racism. Are they willing to try?Yesterday John Banks, the former Auckland mayor and MP, became subject to one of the fastest firings in media history when audio covering his approving ...
A community is outraged after Auckland Council granted consent for a row of trees planted by local kids to be removed along a revitalised waterway in South Auckland, reports Justin Latif. An Auckland Council decision to give contractors the all-clear to chop down 12 mānuka and kānuka trees shading Māngere’s Tararata ...
Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu hopes that the recent changes to Oranga Tamariki leadership present an opportunity for a long overdue paradigm shift that will place whānau at the heart of the child welfare sector. Pouārahi Helen Leahy says that ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rice, Professor of Management, University of New England Elon Musk is now the world’s richest person, edging out previous title holder Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. His rocketing fortune is due to the booming share price of Tesla, the maker of electric vehicles ...
There are now three returnees who contracted the virus in the Auckland isolation facility then left into the community while positive. These are some of the questions that need to be resolved. At 10.20pm last night the Ministry of Health confirmed that the two cases they’d been treating as probable ...
Having a hard time remembering to scan in on the NZ Covid Tracer app when you’re out and about? Get this song stuck in your head and you’ll never forget again.Learn the lyrics:Aotearoa, it’s time to get scanning!I mean if you think about it, it never really wasn’t time we ...
We conclude our week-long examination of New Zealand writer Roderick Finlayson with a review of his stories by John Newton Roger Hickin’s Cold Hub Press is one of the small miracles of contemporary New Zealand publishing. Over the last decade, on what can only be a shoe-string budget, the ...
Thursday 28th January, AUCKLAND: Drive Electric, the not-for-profit with one mission – making electric vehicle uptake in New Zealand mainstream, welcomes the announcement by the Government today as a sign of what’s to come through 2021, and we are confident ...
The Government announced today key policy decisions on the proposed clean car policies. The MIA has stated on many occasions that we support well thought out and constructive policies that will lead to an increased rate in the reduction of CO2 emissions from ...
Get wild, get cultured, get fed and then get to bed: the essential guide to a perfect few days in the southern city. There’s one thing that preoccupies the staff of The Spinoff almost as much as arranging popular food items into arbitrary lists, and that’s Dunedin. A quite remarkable ...
John Banks’ racist exchange with a Magic Talk listener on Tuesday was the latest in nearly 50 years of talkback controversies. Donna Chisholm has the receipts.John Banks axed over Māori ‘stone age culture’ comments on Magic Talk1972: On Radio I, sports talkback host Tim Bickerstaff launches a “Punch a Pom ...
*This article first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission.Two new community Covid-19 cases have been identified as the more infectious South African variant, but Auckland Mayor Phil Goff sayit would be "premature to go into lockdown now". The two new cases of Covid-19 identified in the ...
Today, for the second time in two months Dunedin climate protectors have locked themselves to the railway tracks outside the Dunedin Railway station to stop the KiwiRail coal train from Bathurst Resources’ Takitimu mine in Southland to Fonterra’s ...
KiwiRail STOP Hauling COAL Today, for the second time in two months Dunedin climate protectors have locked themselves to the railway tracks outside the Dunedin Railway station to stop the KiwiRail coal train from Bathurst Resources’ Takitimu mine ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Dunn, Associate professor, University of Sydney The government is rolling out a new public information campaign this week to reassure the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, which one expert has said “couldn’t be more crucial” to people actually getting ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Therese O’Sullivan, Associate Professor, Edith Cowan University The COVID vaccine rollout has placed the issue of vaccination firmly in the spotlight. A successful rollout will depend on a variety of factors, one of which is vaccine acceptance. One potential hurdle to vaccine ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bernard Walker, Associate Professor in Organisations and Leadership, University of Canterbury Kiwis know what it’s like when life throws curveballs. We’ve had major quakes, floods, fires, an eruption, a terrorist attack and now a pandemic. In those situations, it’s the ability to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Irwin, Emeritus professor, Murdoch University While we continue to be occupied with the COVID pandemic, another life-threatening disease has emerged in northern Australia, one that’s cause for considerable alarm for the millions of dog owners around the country. This disease — ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cath Ferguson, Academic, Edith Cowan University Almost half of Australian adults struggle with reading. Similar levels of struggling readers are reported in the United Kingdom and United States. This does not mean all struggling readers are illiterate. It means they often struggle ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abbas Shieh, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning and Design, Islamic Azad University The industrial revolution transformed cities, resulting in places of residence and work becoming more distant than ever before. This spatial segregation is still largely embedded in the design of our ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia Review: Occupation: Rainfall, written and directed by Luke Sparke Historically, when a sequel to a film was greenlit, you could rest assured this was because the first film made a ...
Welcome to The Spinoff’s live updates for January 28, keeping you up to date with the latest local and international news. Reach me on stewart@thespinoff.co.nzOur members make The Spinoff happen! Every dollar contributed directly funds our editorial team – click here to learn more about how you can support us ...
Good morning and welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Tourism suffers in the shadow of Covid-19, two new positive cases in Auckland confirmed, and National will contest the Māori electorates.The front page of the January 4 Greymouth Star carried grim tidings for several of the glacier towns on the ...
*This article first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission. Two people who left managed isolation on January 15 have been confirmed as positive Covid-19 cases, with the Ministry of Health urging anyone who visited the same locations during the same time period as the infected pair in Auckland to ...
The watchlist of 'offensive or unreasonable' babies' names is to be reviewed, to include more names from other languages. Generations of the Īhaka family have played a meaningful role in bringing Te Reo and stories of Māori to our wider community. Archdeacon Sir Kīngi Matutaera Īhaka (Te Aupōuri, 1921-93) was known as the orator of ...
After Morocco’s flagrant violation of the terms of the ceasefire in Western Sahara on Friday 13 November 2020 war broke out between the two sides. In the midst of this war Tauranga based Ballance Agri-Nutrients has decided to carry on importing phosphate ...
Nicholas Agar suggests that our handling of the pandemic could be partly down to our distinctive Treaty of Waitangi relationship, and Māori ideas that enabled us to make it through without tens of thousands of deaths A mission for universities in the coming decade will be a deep understanding of the meaning ...
A young girl who once sent $5 to an embattled America's Cup team is now among the women on the water helping run the contest for the Auld Mug. As an eager and generous nine-year-old, Melanie Roberts posted a letter, with a $5 note, to OneAustralia’s America’s Cup team. It was 1995, ...
At 5am today, cock’s crow, the embargo lifted on the Ockham New Zealand Book Awards longlist. Here are the books in the race, followed by thoughts from poetry editor Chris Tse and books editor Catherine Woulfe. A shortlist of four books in each category will be announced March 3, with ...
Ignoring those QR codes when you drop into the supermarket? Can’t be bothered when you grab a coffee? The people serving you notice, and you’re freaking them out.So far, New Zealanders’ use of the Covid-19 Tracer app has been notably woeful. Food industry workers who’ve watched streams of customers walk ...
Steve Braunias reveals the longlist of the 2021 Ockham New Zealand book awards Apart from one or two unfortunate omissions which cast doubt on the sanity and intellectual acumen of judges, especially the nobodies who judged this year's non-fiction, the longlist for the 2021 Ockham New Zealand book awards is ...
By Lulu Mark in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea’s biggest hospital is straining to provide medical services to the growing population of the capital Port Moresby – with an estimated growth rate of 3 percent annually, a medical executive says. Port Moresby General Hospital chief executive officer Dr Paki Molumi ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Nationals who attend Thursday’s memorial service in Tweed Heads for Doug Anthony, who died last month aged 90, may muse on the contrast between the state of their party when he led it and now. ...
Returning to quarantine-free travel in 2021 doesn't just need a vaccine, but a way to check whether arriving passengers are actually immune to the virus. A smart Kiwi science start-up is working with a global biometrics giant to make that happen. A deal signed between Kiwi research and development company Orbis Diagnostics, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlyn Forster, PhD Candidate, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney This summer’s wetter conditions have created great conditions for flowering plants. Flowers provide sweet nectar and protein-rich pollen, attracting many insects, including bees. Commercial honey bees are also thriving: ...
Lotto scratchie tickets featuring the pop band Six60 are being withdrawn after a public backlash. In a statement, Lotto NZ said there had been a mutual decision made with the band to remove the tickets from sale following the negative feedback, and it offered an apology. The band faced criticism, both ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Russell Dean Christopher Bicknell, Post-doctoral researcher in Palaeobiology , University of New England Shell-crushing predation was already in full swing half a billion years ago, as our new research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B reveals. A hyena devouring ...
Vodafone has suspended advertising on the radio station amid calls for talkback host John Banks to be taken off air after yet another racist outburst. Alex Braae reports. In an alarming segment of talkback radio, former Auckland mayor John Banks endorsed the views of a caller who described Māori as a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Welch, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland When a COVID-19 case was found in Northland last Sunday, Aotearoa’s second-longest period with no detected community case came to an end. ESR scientists worked late into Sunday night to obtain a whole genome sequence ...
He has the perfect moustache, an exceptional mullet, and he uses terms like ‘face hole’ on national TV. Who or what is Dr Joel Rindelaub?I was drawn in by the moustache, but it was the mullet that really kept me there. Watching TVNZ’s Breakfast yesterday morning I was fixated. Often, ...
We’ll never be royals with nearly a quarter of declined baby names featuring “Royal” in some form or another. Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs has released the list of names declined in 2020 by the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and ...
After a raft of inquiries delving into and recommending what should be done about the politically beleaguered Orangi Tamaraki, along with the briefing papers we suppose he has been given, we imagined Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis would have no more need for expert advice. Wrong. He has ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Senior Lecturer and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University There’s a common assumption men take longer than women to poo. People say so on Twitter, in memes, and elsewhereonline. But is that right? What could explain it? And if ...
Just as sexuality is a spectrum, so too is asexuality. In Ace of Hearts, members of New Zealand’s asexual community talk about the challenges and misconceptions of identifying as ace.First published November 17, 2020.Ace of Hearts is part of Frame, a series of short documentaries produced by Wrestler for The Spinoff.“A ...
Sam Brooks wasn’t allowed to watch kids TV as a kid. Now, as a 30 year old man, he watches it for the first time.My mother’s approach to parenting was unorthodox. I wrote weekly book reports on top of my actual homework, I did maths equations in Roman numerals and ...
Pacific Media Watch newsdesk More leading Indonesian figures have made racial slurs against Natalius Pigai, former chair of the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) – and all West Papuans, says United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) interim president Benny Wenda. “Since the illegal Indonesian invasion in 1963, Indonesian ...
“The Government’s failure to even conduct a standard cost-benefit analysis for the most expensive infrastructure project in New Zealand’s history is mind-bogglingly arrogant,” says New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke. “A ...
The Ministry of Health is today drawing backlash from the local New Zealand vaping industry following its release of proposed regulations for the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. Vaping Trade Association New Zealand (VTANZ) President, ...
Sophie Gilmour and Simon Day are joined by special guest Hugo Baird, co-owner of Grey Lynn’s Honey Bones and Lilian, to talk about opening new pub Hotel Ponsonby.Auckland is a city of many bars but few really good pubs – the kind of places you’d be just as comfortable going ...
The appointment of an advisory board for Oranga Tamariki is welcome and should be a step toward a total transformation of the care and protection system to a by Māori, for Māori approach, Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft said today. Minister ...
Taking control of your financial wellbeing can have cascading positive impacts for your life and it can also be fun. With the help of the team at Kiwi Wealth, we’ve compiled some simple tricks for balancing your books in 2021. There’s something about the beginning of a new year, especially after ...
This is happening
http://nypost.com/2016/03/22/carbon-emissions-highest-theyve-been-since-dinosaurs-roamed-the-earth/
So why, why, why has our country not done this
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/geothermal-energy-markets-heating-up-reports-bcc-research-2016-03-22
Is it because the Muppet Tory’s can’t handle anything but one ridged ideology at at a time?
Or is it they embrace dystopia in their collective out look?
What is stopping more geothermal electricity generation in NZ?
I’m not close enough to the electricity industry to know for sure. But I suspect it’s because the companies that have huge sunk capital in fossil-fueled stations and don’t have to pay for their waste disposal and pollution are willing to sell power at a low enough price to make new geothermal uneconomic. Put a price on GHG emissions (ie require emitters to pay for the damage they cause) and we’ll probably see new geothermal plants built quite quickly.
Except many of them are sinking investment in wind power generation which suggests it isn’t fossil fuel alternatives which are stopping greater interest in geothermal generation.
A quick google turned up these pages.
http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/elec_geo.html
http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/geo_potential.html
http://www.windenergy.org.nz/operating-&-under-construction
It seems that there are both wind and geothermal projects underway. Our geothermal expertise is even an export earner.
https://www.nzte.govt.nz/en/news-and-media/media-releases/media-release-new-zealand-the-partner-of-choice-for-global-geothermal-industry/
And the point remains that putting a price on emissions will boost all of this economic activity.
That second link highlights one if the main reasons for a lack of development in this area. It states restrictions placed on use or underused government control are inhibiting development. Remove these and you are likely to get more generation via this source.
The other main reason being “its cost relative to alternatives.”
I guess wind turbines are cheaper than large-scale geothermal plants /sarc
And the RWNJ immediately demands unsustainable use of a limited resource.
What a fucken surprise.
Don’t know how that happened but if three of those comments could be deleted it would be much appreciated.
Andre @ 1.1
They’re currently working on increasing the capacity of geo-thermal power at Ngawha – quite a big undertaking, I understand.
because we have a ‘laissez faire’ governement that can’t be bothered thinking/projecting and investing in the future. And we have a business world that can’t be bothered thinking/projecting and investing in the future if they can milk the ‘present’ cow till she dies.
In short, there is no political or economical will in NZ to switch from fossil fuel to renewables, and the current ‘oil exploration permits’ granted by the current National led Government is exhibit a.
Except energy companies are investing in renewable. They just aren’t investing much in geothermal. The question is why is that?
It’s more expensive than wind and hydro and the easy generation capacity has already been developed.
No one agrees with your framing of the debate Gosman.
They know a free market model does not work, no matter how much people like yourself wish it would.
They also know your deflections are ideological.
Have you worked out yet, why no one bothers answering your questions – it is that they are ideologically loaded.
Are you so imbued with ideological smugness that you yourself don’t even know?
Lots of people have responded to my question and have answered it in the way I expected. Geothermal energy generation is not as easy to develop as other renewable clean sources.
In under-developed countries and central north island areas, new geothermal needs truly substantial local partnerships. Which are hard work and take years. Needs high profitability to make that commitment.
The big problem that occurs to me when looking at the UBI is the need for rent controls (including state housing for life)..
Just like with accommodation supplement (or the extra money paid to those in Christchurch by both the state and the insurance companies) the first people with their hands out for that money will be landlords.
If the money is only circulating up to the owners of property then nothing is gained.
Yes, and we need to view a UBI as part of a range of social solutions. Housing, rent, wages, worker rights, top ups for those not working, all need to be addressed.
Social security.
This is why a UBI will never succeed.
To make it work, NZ has to become a highly controlled socialist state.
Very few people want that, not at the moment anyway.
Nothing wrong with socialism.
Nothing wrong with a society that cares.
I love the way you speak for many people.
Alliance 59 votes
Communist League 135 votes
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/e9/html/e9_part1.html
The Green Party vote is growing all through the years of neoliberalism.
A UBI isn’t dependent on a highly controlled state. It’s dependent on a govt that governs for everyone not just the people that it suits.
And it’s not like NACT aren’t an interventionist govt, they’re just intervening in teh wrong the things and in the wrong way (and incompetently a lot of the time too).
Wouldn’t everything have to be controlled though to keep expenses under control and in balance with the UBI?
Power companies, councils, rent, food, all these inputs would have to be set otherwise you’ll end up with people who can’t afford to live and no where to go for help.
what do you mean by keep expenses under control, and what do you mean by everything?
Strong economies like Germany control rent already, and other things as necessary. It is only ragged ideologues like the Gnats that allow the free market to destroy their society.
That socialist nirvana, Singapore, does as well.
Nothing wrong with socialism Paul until you run out of other peoples money !
Socialism doesn’t use other peoples money. Capitalism does (The capitalists steal it) and that’s why it falls down every single time.
Nothing wrong with capitalism stigie until they run off with other peoples money.
The UBI will simplify the system so your comment is misguided if not disingenuous. Read the discussion paper and educate yourself and possibly even do some thinking before you post your ill-considered comments.
+1 A large part of the UBI conversation in the past day or so has been driven by regulars trolling who don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments. Completely disingenuous on both counts.
Well you can stop wasting your time talking about what the Labour Party are going to do weka.
Listening to Morning Report today I see that Grant Robertson has been slapped down and put in his place by his leader. He might have used the code UBI but that wasn’t what he was talking about. He told Guyon Espiner that it wasn’t going to be Universal. He even said that Guyon certainly wasn’t going to get it. He then said it would be introduced slowly, like the Old Age Pension/National Superannuation.
That took roughly 80 years to develop. Grant seemd to think that UBI would have a similar gestation period so anyone over the age of 10 can forget about it.
He probably read a bit more of the Morgan book and learnt what it would cost and how it would have to be paid for.
A pity Labour felt they had to give the Finance role to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201794319
Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.
It is a shame you are one of those who is someone who “don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments” isn’t it?
Yesterday you lied about what Little did on RNZ. I’ll have a listen to MR later and see if you are lying again.
“Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.”
So says you, according to some trumped up nonsense you’ve mangled from listening to the radio. Labour have a discussion going on about the UBI, why not take part in it? Oh that’s right, because your purpose here is simply to destroy.
I’ve taken part in UBI conversation on the standard for years. I think I’ll let my comments be the record on that.
“It is a shame you are one of those who is someone who “don’t understand the concepts, haven’t done their homework and/or are just posting bullshit diversionary comments” isn’t it?”
Funny, that’s what I said about you yesterday. You really must be scraping the bottom of the troll barrell if you can’t even formulate your own critiques and instead try and troll me by repeating back my analysis of you.
So, please cite,
– where I don’t understand a UBI is conceptually
– something that indicates I haven’t educated myself on the UBI
– have posted bullshit diversionary comments in discussions about the UBI.
“Funny, that’s what I said about you yesterday”.
You have a very defective memory. Have you already forgotten that you said it TODAY and it is in the comment that I was replying to. That is why I put it in quotes. I thought your own words described you opinions quite nicely.
You, as usual claim that I lied about what Little said. Just how do you think that was the case, or is it merely another of your reflexive accusations when someone says something you don’t like?
By the way, you seem to be close to the Green Party. Can someone tell Meteria Turei that the Governor General is NOT our Head of State. You would think that after nearly 14 years as an MP she would have learned something about our form of Government.
I”m not close to the GP. I’m a non-active member.
If you want to talk about you lying about Little take it to the appropriate thread.
Fuck off with the gaslighting. If you can’t argue the politics what are you doing here?
Trying to sow alarm and dispondancy, and when that fails generally disrupt discussions.
pretty much.
@McFlock At least you are being truthful
“Trying to sow alarm and dispondancy, and when that fails generally disrupt discussions.”
ahahahaha I see what you did there.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Your usual dose of malicious diversionary piffle Alwyn. Labour policy is to discuss a UBI. It’s being discussed. So what’s your problem?
As for economic know nothings, Robertson is $120 billion up on your gibbering idiot Bill English. Expertise is defined by performance.
+1
Grant defines the realistic limits of a ‘UBI’ quite sensibly IMO.
“No Govt. is going to come in and just hand out $30b”.
“It is a guaranteed basic income.”
“It is a Tax credit, not a hand out”.
On those terms, I think the idea has a lot of merit, and will be reasonably salable to the voting public.
So call it a GBI?
As soon as you imply that everyone will receive it, you have framed it in a way that makes a nonsense of the idea, and have rendered the UBI unsaleable.
Clearly, we cannot afford to give it to everyone, (where does the money come from?), and so if it was ‘Universal’, at a certain level of income threshold you must have a mechanism for taking it back off those who do not need it.
Beside which, what possible point is there to giving it to people who already have perfectly adequate or very high income?
As soon as you imply that NOT everyone will get it you cannot possibly talk about a UBI. You merely have variations on all the benefits we have at the moment. You retain all the work and cost you have now in the admin work without even the benefits of careful targeting.
That is the worst of both worlds.
The great advantage of a genuine UBI is the ease of paying the money out. It is like the way that National Super is done. The only thing you have to know, once you decide that someone is eligible, is that they are still alive.
Grant seems to be having great difficulty in coming up with some way of making the scheme politically sellable. I think he may have read Morgan’s book and not understood those pesky little bits on paying for it.
You can pay for the scheme. However you really do have to decide what amount you want to pay out, and how you propose to raise that amount of money. If it is not Universal you may as well stick to what we have.
It’s sellable simply by using the word universal. Grant seems to be having the same problems as other RWNJs: Where does the money come from and why are we giving it to rich people?
Another words, he’s a fucken idiot.
He probably is having problems with conceiving how to pay for it, but I don’t think he said it wouldn’t be universal. Alwyn made that up.
Just why would he talk about a UBI, which means “Universal Basic Income”, if it isn’t going to be universal? He has to mean Universal or he is trying to con people. If isn’t universal use a different descriptor.
Wait. You don’t mean we have misunderstood and he is really talking about plans for a “Unified Business Identifier” do you?
is immediately followed by Alwyn saying:
wow
So when alwyn’s outright accused of lying, they simply continue on as if the lie had been accepted without comment.
That’s some drumpf-level bullshit right there, Alwyn.
You do realise I was talking about what “The lost sheep” said and not what Robertson was saying? I was, after all, replying to that person’s comment.
The lost sheep said
“As soon as you imply that everyone will receive it, you have framed it in a way that makes a nonsense of the idea, and have rendered the UBI unsaleable.
Clearly, we cannot afford to give it to everyone, (where does the money come from?), and so if it was ‘Universal’, at a certain level of income threshold you must have a mechanism for taking it back off those who do not need it.”
Does that make it clearer?
Yep. I can’t figure out if that’s intentional mindfuckery or if he’s just stupid. I tend to think the former. It’s the same tactic he’s using on me at the moment and I’ve seen him use it on other people. I’m not sure it is quite gaslighting, but it’s close. He just keeps repeating a lie about someone with the intention of it being accepted that the person he is talking about is deficient, often mentally. That’s why I find him creepy in ways that I don’t find other RWers. He really is nasty as an online person as well as having nasty politics.
@weka.
You did read my comment at 4.59pm?
You don’t seem to have understood it if you did.
I wasn’t talking about Grant. I was talking about “the lost sheep”
You told the lie about Robertson elsewhere.
Good synopsis lost sheep, and I agree the framing and terms need to be chosen carefully. I like the guaranteed income bit, with emphasis on income security. We have to stop looking at this as welfare benefits too.
“Beside which, what possible point is there to giving it to people who already have perfectly adequate or very high income?”
Because as soon as you start doing things like income and asset testing you have to have a whole bunch of bureaucracy which takes money and causes stress and is often unfair. If the entitlement is universal you can see how it plays out at various income levels (see my comment below, someone should check my maths). I guess you could pick a different tax rate to shift the fairness in another direction.
I don’t see how having a variable tax rate which takes back some or all of GBI is more or less complicated than having a variable threshold at which some or all of GBI is not paid out….
But I do think the idea is more saleable without the obviously empty gesture of giving it to people who you don’t actually intend to receive it and who also don’t need it.
But in general, I agree there are some very plausible arguments around potential efficiency gains in delivery.
That is, if the basic level is sufficient to meet the needs of most people receiving it? Or will it continue to be necessary to to make many adjustments to the Basic income on a case by case basis according to need above the basic level?
Which begs that much discussed question of what level you set the GBI//UBI at?
Is Labour or anyone else proposing this as a cost neutral or even cost saving measure, or does it presuppose a redistribution of wealth?
Quite aside from your individual moral stance on re-distribution, I would think that the voting Public is going to be highly sensitive to that particular detail, and it will turn out to be the devil in the discussion.
To clarify, I didn’t mean variable tax rates, I meant what the flat tax rate should be is up for debate and that playing with the figures might show a higher or lower rate is more fair. If Red is around we can ask him why he chose 40%. I assume affordability is part of it.
I agree re how it’s paid for and perceptions of that are important, although this worries me less than some because I think we should have CGTs and FTTs. I also think that once people get the idea of tax credits it gets easier. Plus frame it alongside a move back to a fairer society for *everyone, eg good solid social policy on health, education etc. Betterthat than simply here’s some more dish which feeds into the greedy selfish meme.
So, according to that logic, we can’t actually afford to have anyone living in NZ.
Where the money always comes from – it’s created. Of course, we’re talking about the government creating it and not the private banks who will be banned from creating money.
Yeah, we’d have these things called taxes. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? But instead of being used to raise funds for the government to spend they’d be used to take excessive money out of the economy after it’s used.
Fairness. Because it’s given to everyone it’s fair. Then there’s the savings of not needing a government bureaucracy that spies upon people and abuses them solely for the purpose of taking their income away.
You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?
How do I perceive that as ‘fair’, rather than a completely meaningless farce?
It’s fair because everyone is treated exactly the same and no one is persecuted by needing it.
Because it’s not taken straight back.
Let’s say for simplicity’s sake that the UBI is 20k, and everything over 20k is flat taxed at 33%.
To give the value of the 20k “straight back”, a single individual would need to be earning three times the UBI rate plus the UBI. In this back-of-envelope illustrative example, 80k.
But if you were between contracts, or lost your job, or had to take unpaid leave, you’d still get that 20k every year, no paperwork, no humiliating judgement from social warfare caseworkers, no nothing. That’s your right. And that’s why it’s not a farce – your rent will always be paid.
“and everything over 20k is flat taxed at 33%.”
Do you mean that as a way of excluding the UBI from tax, or do you mean other income of 20K is tax free and taxed at 33% above that?
By my calculations McFlock, under the current Tax scale, someone earning 80k per annum would be netting 62.7k after tax.
Under your back of the envelope tax scenario they would be still earning 80k per annum plus the 20k UBI. After paying 33% tax on the 80k above the UBI (26.4k), they would net 73.6k.
So they’d be 10.9k better off.
To ‘give back’ the UBI, you would actually have to make the flat tax rate on everything above the UBI somewhat higher than the current rate.
Around 48% by my calculation.
As I say, I think you will find that a much tougher idea to sell to the voting public than the UBI being something you simply don’t get until your income drops to a certain level.
oh ffs,
my point is that no, the ubi is not “taken straight back” until the individual is earning a shitload. Not household income, individual income.
If the top 5 or 10% of income earners want to complain that they’re given a UBI with one hand and they pay it back in tax with the other, everyone else will ask why they have to fund an eligibility administration system simply so the very rich don’t have to pay their UBI to charity (lol, as if).
TLS’s “meaningless farce” suggestion only applies to the smallest minority of income earners. There are many reservations I still hold about a UBI, but tls’s bulshit isn’t one of them.
Bullshit
I think you’ll find my figures are accurate McFlock.
Let’s say for simplicity’s sake that the UBI is 20k, and everything over 20k is flat taxed at 33%.
Well, I’ve just had a wee play with your scenario…
If the top 5 or 10% of income earners want to complain that they’re given a UBI with one hand and they pay it back in tax with the other, everyone else will ask why they have to fund an eligibility administration system simply so the very rich don’t have to pay their UBI to charity (lol, as if).
Actually,
Under your scenario, someone currently earning….
40k – will be 13k / 27% better off.
100k – will be 17k / 22% better off
And even someone at the 1% threshold of 337k will be 21k / 9% better off!
It’s a giant lolly scramble!
And where does the money come from?
Draco going to print it for you?
Who is talking BS?
Sheep, you said “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?”.
Now you’re admitting that no, the money isn’t given straight back, because the vast majority of individuals will be better off.
So you ignore your previous statement and go with the “where’s the money coming from” angle.
That is bullshit. Regardless of whether what you say is true or false, you’ll simpy assume another time-consuming position to keep up the pretense that you’re contributing to the discussion.
You’re bullshitting. Why don’t you like the UBI? Why don’t you like the idea of everybody living in dignity? Would it really be that tragic if you, as an employer, had to treat employees as knowledgeable colleagues rather than lording it over the peasantry? Stop bullshitting – why don’t you like the UBI?
A lot of blustering around in circles McFlock, but you didn’t actually answer the question.
You claimed that ‘5-10%’ of earners would have to give the UBI back, but in the scenario you proposed even someone on the 1% threshold would be receiving extra money.
In your scenario 99.8% of the population are going to receive somewhere between 40 to 5% more income.
If you stand by that scenario?, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask where all that extra money is going to come from?
But you haven’t yet acknowledged whether your first question has been addressed: “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?”
The answer to that is not merely “no”, it’s “no, because the fundamental premise that the government is “going to take it straight back” would not apply to almost person in NZ.
So do you acknowledge that the question was a bullshit question?
I thought it was a legitimate response to Draco’s claim that giving the money and then taking it back through taxes was fair, because then everyone would be getting it.
But if you think it’s bullshit I’m happy to defer to your judgement.
Now can you answer my questions about your scenario please?
Well, no, it was a bullshit response, because taking an aggregate total in taxes from across the entire population does not translate into “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back”.
As you pointed out with your math, your statement is not true at all for the vast bulk of people.
But you partially answered your own question by repeating Draco’s comment:
Other possible sources include bureaucratic savings from the system’s simpicity, FTT, CGT, and even some sort of social credit scheme if that floats your political boat.
Hell, one could even forget the flat tax and go progressive on the really rich fucks. Make them pay fair price for their privilege.
But you know all this. You’re just bullshitting. Because your reason for existence is to waste people’s time.
Oh. You were just fantasising then.
The structure of your comment deceived me into thinking you were making a serious contribution to the debate on a realistic UBI..
So you read this comment and assumed it was a complete policy proposal, rather than a simple illustration that your question “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” was just fucking stupid?
What part of “Let’s say for simplicity’s sake” did you fail to understand?
My contribution to serious discussion on UBI was to answer one of your questions.
Perhaps you should take some time to reflect upon why you should find that a clear answer to your question is so unhelpful.
What part of “Let’s say for simplicity’s sake” did you fail to understand?
I think it was the assumption that you meant something simple?
As in, when you quoted some actual figures, you intended they had some straight forward ‘meaning’?
Now I see that your ‘meaning’ was that 99.8% of income tax payers should get a massive increase in income, and this would be paid for by an increase in tax on the remaining 0.2% of tax payers, a Financial Transactions Tax, a Capital Gains Tax, ‘some sort of social credit scheme’, and ‘going progressive on the really rich fucks’.
That’s simplistic enough for this blog I reckon. As simple as the ‘zero’ which represents the chances of a UBI being introduced once The ‘simple’ ‘Sheeple’ get the ‘simple’ idea that the UBI is ‘simply’ another ‘simplistic’ Trojan Horse for the fantasies of the tiny ‘simplistic’ minority who still believe in a Marxist vision.
‘Simply’, Lets revisit this discussion in a year, and see who was right eh?
It’s amazing how much bullshit you can string out of a perfectly straightforward answer to a perfectly simply question.
Just to clarify, you’re acknowledging that your scenario of “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” was just complete bullshit for the vast majority of people?
Under whatever specific proposal, if anything, comes from Labour’s thinking project it’s safe to say that for most the amount they pay in tax will not amount to the value of the UBI they receive.
How about, rather than revisiting this in a year, you just admit that you have no interest in resolving any issue discussed here? You’re bullshit might be transparent, but it sure as shit stinks.
BTW, you don’t actually know how hu-mons use the word “simply” do you?
Under whatever specific proposal, if anything, comes from Labour’s thinking project it’s safe to say that for most the amount they pay in tax will not amount to the value of the UBI they receive.
I just can’t reconcile that with your figures showing that 98.8% of tax payers will receive more cash in hand income?
Perhaps you can explain how that would work?
Your problem is that you are a moron.
You are comparing “paying the individual’s received UBI back in tax” with “overall better off compared with today’s tax rates, if you took simplified figures as written in stone rather than illustrative”.
If you want to know why your question “You give me money on the basis we both clearly understand you do not intend me to have it, and are going to take it straight back?” is bullshit, read the above thread.
If you want a more in depth plan, look at the big kahuna or whatever Labour eventually proposes.
frankly, I don’t think you’re inteested in either.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201794319
Starting at 2:15 here’s a synopsis of what Robertson said,
1. Labour are considering the idea, there are pros and cons
2. Pros: simplify benefit system; enables people to adjust to changing work patterns; income security;
3. Cons: untested (although very interesting idea)
4. UBI is about the interaction between the income support and the tax system
5. There are a number of different models (being tested in the Netherlands, Finland)
6. In it’s purest form, it’s universal.
7. But it’s about the relationship between income and tax, it’s essentially a tax credit.
8. Espiner: it will be expensive! Robertson: we can introduce it over time (cf to Super), and it’s related to the amount of tax people pay
9. therefore higher income earners are less likely to benefit than lower
10. Espiner: what problem is trying to be solve here? Robertson: example is a beneficiary who wants to take on extra work. Current system is a disincentive because of the abatement process. If you guarantee people an income they are more likely to move around the workforce. Simply scrapping the abatement process is an option.
11. We’re facing a fundamental change in the nature of work availability.
12. Therefore we need to consider a range of options that give people income security. If work can’t do that anymore, the govt needs to consider other options.
13. We’re a long way from implementing this
alwyn,
“Well you can stop wasting your time talking about what the Labour Party are going to do weka.”
I haven’t been talking much about Labour at all other than what’s been in the report, and what we were all speculating on the other day when Little first announced.
“Listening to Morning Report today I see that Grant Robertson has been slapped down and put in his place by his leader.”
That’s not in the link you give, so citation please.
“He might have used the code UBI but that wasn’t what he was talking about.”
Yes, he was.
“He told Guyon Espiner that it wasn’t going to be Universal”
No, he didn’t. He said that how much you ended up with might depend on how much tax you paid. Based on Red Logix’s model (which is based on Keith Rankin’s work) it could look like this:
Current tax system: income of $25,000 – tax 17.5% $4375 = $20,625 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $25,000 – tax $10,000 = $15,000 + UBI $10,000 = $25,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 0%
Current tax system: income of $100,000 – tax 33% $33,000 = $67,000 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $100,000 – tax $40,000 = $60,000 + UBI $10,000 = $70,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Current tax system: income of $200,000 – tax 33% $66,000 = $134,000 cash in hand income
UBI system: income of $200,000 – tax = $120,000 +UBI $10,000 = $130,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 35%
“He even said that Guyon certainly wasn’t going to get it.”
Lie. He said that someone like Guyon was “unlikely to be a great deal better off”. I have no idea what Espiner earns, refer to figures above.
“He then said it would be introduced slowly, like the Old Age Pension/National Superannuation. That took roughly 80 years to develop.Grant seemd to think that UBI would have a similar gestation period so anyone over the age of 10 can forget about it.”
Another lie. He use Super as a general example of how you could introduce something over time. He didn’t say how long it would take, nor did he imply that it would take 80 years.
“He probably read a bit more of the Morgan book and learnt what it would cost and how it would have to be paid for.”
“A pity Labour felt they had to give the Finance role to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.”
Two comments of no worth coming from your own prejudices and ignorance. Robertson stated up front that there are different models to look at (and that’s what the report says too).
“Anything you now post on the topic obviously has precisely nothing to do with what the Labour Party are thinking.”
Another nonsensical statement. My comments are my own thoughts unless I specifically refer to the Labour Party. All I’ve said about Labour so far is that they’re considering a UBI and they’ve released a report.
btw, re Epsiner getting it, the point is that it’s to guarantee a basic level of income. If Epsiner were to have a big drop in salary he would benefit more than with what he is on currently. That’s the income security aspect.
The UK has had a tax free bracket for a while. Should also be looked at I think.
Do you mean alongside of the UBI? So that in the example above of someone on $25,000, they would end up with $35,000?
No its related to what GR was saying about a tax credit in how it works there.
Instead of a UBI?
In my opinion a UBI will not achieve its promises overall. And it wont win Labour the election if its based on some kind of promise to fundamentally reform the tax system.
But i was just raising the tax free band to look at how that mechanism works in practice. It doesnt for example seem to be putting upward pressure on UK wages.
+1 Nic the NZer
There should be a tax free bracket.
The UK also had ways to encourage savers to have money in the bank with ISA,s. Essentially you could save money tax free each year in cash, shares or a combo.
Since many people either have absolutely no savings or use property as savings in NZ and are a month away from not being able to pay bills, it is a way to start a saving’s culture which we do not have here.
I’m also thinking the pros of a UBI are good. There needs to be a safety net without red tape. I think universal benefits are good. When people start to ‘means test’ everything it can take so much red tape to work out the entitlements and so forth little money is saved.
In the UK with the disastrous disability. They cut people off who later died but saved little or zero money from the scheme.
I believe NZ has an ISA type scheme already actually.
Do you really mean a scheme like this?
“The account is exempt from income tax and capital gains tax on the investment returns, and no tax is payable on money withdrawn from the scheme either”.
Please provide details. I know of schemes that are exempt from tax on their earnings, or from tax on the withdrawals but not both.
The old Government Super scheme gave you the choice of one or the other, but not both.
Was thinking of an exempt on earnings only scheme. Didnt realise ISA was both actually.
Thanks for that Weka.
An excellent summary Weka. Will use it as a reference.
I think the word has gone out to Alwyn and his ilk to rubbish UBI and try to stop it being discussed. UBI is part of a strategy to manage the Long term need to address employment problems. Current Governments have avoided the subject so if Opposition parties raise a possible solution, a Goverment is bound to attack it on any grounds with help of little helpers like Alwyn. A sort of spoilsport effect.
Thanks weka +++. The silence from Alwyn is defeaning.
“defeaning”.
What a wonderful word. Does it have a meaning?
I don’t buy that it’s untested.
We’ve been testing it for years now with NZS.
People over 65 freely choose to work or not, haven’t all suddenly turned into drug addicts or alcoholics, many have late in life turned to the arts for self-fulfillment, many work the hours they choose, may do voluntary work for charities or marae and so on.
If they earn they pay more tax.
We tested on a smaller scale for many years with family benefit. Everyone got this regardless of circumstance. We were proud of this.
We know these things are practical and possible.
“We’ve been testing it for years now with NZS.”
So we have. According to the 2013 census about 33% of the people in the 65-74 age group worked with 19% more than 30 hours/week
It drops off rapidly in older age groups. It has more than tripled since 1986. It clearly hasn’t put everyone off working has it?
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-65-plus/work-unpaid-activities.aspx
On the other hand there are only about 600,000 of them and the cost of NZS is about $12 billion, Even that amount was being questioned at the last election.
I don’t think the family benefit, even when it was at its peak in the 1950s is a relevant comparison. Most, if not all, woman stopped working when their children were young in those days if my memories are accurate. Woman, with children, who worked in the 1950s seemed to my young self to have been widows.
The cost is only being questioned because the very people who will benefit from it the most voted continuously to pay lower taxes at the very peak of their earning capacity when they should have been contributing towards it and paying for their free education they received when younger as well.
See some of us aren’t questioning the cost of NZS cause it’s the wrong question. The cost is well known and eminently predictable.
The correct question to ask is why aren’t we taxing the right people sufficiently to pay for it.
@D of SS
I was trying, without naming them, to comment on the Labour Party policy to increase the age of entitlement.
From October 2013
“Finance spokesman David Parker said today that unless there were massive tax increases, it couldn’t be sustained in its present form.
Speaking on Firstline, Parker said National was “putting their heads in the sand” by refusing to raise the age of eligibility for getting superannuation. “.
If I mention Labour wanting to do something like this some of the commentators here will get very upset and abuse me.
They were the ones questioning it. I think, like you, that we can afford it.
Mind you I am biased. I get it. I only applied for it though after interest investment returns fell through the basement floor.
Of course NZ can afford it, jesus this isnt even a worthwhile question. But there is a compromise, we probably cant afford it and have anything but govt budget deficits.
Problem is that these neo-liberal Labourites priorities are buggered and they have determined whats best for the polity and are beyond listening. Never does the question arise, what harm is the deficit actually doing to the country.
When you examine that you find its supposed to be causing higher inflation something most govts are trying to achieve. Either thats not what it does or the deficit should be expanded then. But no this doesnt cross any of these guys tiny closed minds.
Hi Weka,
Just pointing out that the calculations on current tax rates are a bit out and that’s significantly distorting the comparison with Red Logix’s model.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/incometax/calculator-tax-rate.html
Under the figures you quote, someone currently earning 100k would have 3k more in hand under the UBI scenario, but using correct current tax figures, they would actually have 6k less under the UBI.
Using current tax rates, the point at which someone would be ‘breaking even’ on the UBI model you use would be 40K. Under that and they would be better off, and over it worse off.
That sounds about ‘fair’ to me, as far as higher earners getting extra benefit, but I don’t believe 10k is anywhere near enough for a ‘basic income’!
Thanks! Good catch. I just treated each income bracket as a single tax rate, but can see from the calculator it’s taxed at different rates. I’ll see if I can figure it out later.
“but I don’t believe 10k is anywhere near enough for a ‘basic income’!”
It’s not supposed to be a stand alone income.
Ok, does this look better?
Current tax system: income of $25,000 – tax (variable tax rates) $3,395 = $21,605 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 13.5%
UBI system: income of $25,000 – tax $10,000 = $15,000 + UBI $10,000 = $25,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 0%
Difference = +$3,395/yr or +$65/wk
Current tax system: income of $60,000 – tax $11,020 (variable tax rates) = $48,980 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 18.3%
UBI system: income of $60,000 – tax $24,000 = $36,000 + UBI $10,000 = $46,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Difference = -$2980/yr or -$57/wk
Current tax system: income of $100,000 – tax $23,920 (variable tax rates) = $76,080 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 24%
UBI system: income of $100,000 – tax $40,000 = $60,000 + UBI $10,000 = $70,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 30%
Difference = -$6,080/yr or -$117/wk
Current tax system: income of $200,000 – tax $56,920 = $143,080 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 28.5%
UBI system: income of $200,000 – tax = $120,000 +UBI $10,000 = $130,000 cash in hand income. Total nett tax rate = 35%
Difference = -$13,080/yr or -$251/wk
Red’s original calculations http://thestandard.org.nz/universal-income-revisited/
“NZ has to become a highly controlled socialist state.”
As opposed to the highly controlled bureaucratic state we have now?
Sheesh BM, I thought you had at least had the redeeming feature of embracing freedom.
This system is worse than socialism, as it is the state and corporations working as idiotically as each other. The incentives not to work are massive, wages are low, and why try if you get nothing from it.
Plus Morgan and Co. who are pushing this are not even close to being socialist – so do we add disengious to your mantel as well BM?
National wants a highly controlled state and is putting in place lots and lots of rules to bring it about.
Rules on single parents, rules what beneficiaries can spend their money on, rules about universal testing at schools. The list goes on and on.
They just don’t want the social bit as they get all their wealth and jollies from putting others down.
A job guarantee can resolve these issues without radical changes in society going with it.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=23719
May be a good idea to increase the minimum wage to a living wage as a complimentary policy however.
How does a job guarantee work? How does it factor in the future work issues arising from automation and recession?
The link is about this topic but TLDR version is,
* with a job guarantee the govt sets up a programme where it provides a full time at minimum wage job to anybody who applies.
* positions may be setup into the programme either to meet community goals or via applications from the non profit sector for help. Such roles dont really become redundant due to technology.
* during a recession the recently unemployed would be expected to shift from the main sector of the jobs market to the jg sector so fewer people are actually unemployed over this period.
Can you just clarify for us what sort of low skill rolls you are talking about that can’t be automated?
I dont think my own limited imagination is a particularly good source and as i said positions can be created via community engagement.
*we have these guys on the trains who perform some kind of security function. Nobody wants to automate there jobs.
* regular beach litter removals. Nobody wants to automate that.
* tree planting programmes. We dont want to automate that to reduce its carbon footprint.
Without the profit motive much of the automation pressure goes away as well here.
I see the benefits and definitely think it is something that should be in the mix for consideration. I just worry that we go back to the days of seeing people leaning on shovels next to the motorway all day and the negative connotations that come along with that. It was one of the classic examples of why public works were considered inefficient waste.
I also worry about how it deals with the issue of those who carry out work like raising children or caring for family members. I suppose they could be considered one of the minimum wage jobs that people are paid for.
I am pretty sure the public sector is tarnished with being inefficitent and wastefull even today (without the guys leaning to show off for it).
The same way this mornings herald claimed that the 49% of jobs that could be lost to automation over the next 10 to 20 years will be partially off set by new jobs. Ignores the fact the last new career to be created was computer programmer back in the 1960’s. There has literally not been a new classification of job since. Everything is just a repackaging of old skills and will account for automation in only very minor terms.
The system requires that there be people with cash in hand to buy the robotic-chef burgers. I suspect they’ll find a way.
I suspect that the ever increasing issue of unemployment and inequality shows the current thinking has no idea of what “the way” is to deal with automation.
The robot pays PAYE.
As funny as that is if we had a decent tax system it would. However not in the classic employee wages but in increased tax intake from a company having increased profits by not having to pay an employee.
Automation is not evil. We just need to work out how to work and economy where it becomes more abundant.
Just off the top of my head
You could give each robot/program a labour value.
Just say on robot replaces 3 people worth 50k, the robot has a salary of 150k and pays tax on that.
Bit of a win for every one, government still gets the same amount of tax, businesses don’t have the hassle of staff and the population then can just chill out at the beach on their 50k a year universal wage.
The same system w’eve currently got could be kept and the best thing about is that it’s incremental.
Very good BM. 🙂
Can you imagine the howls of outrage if labour floated your idea of an income tax on robots,!!
BTW I think the idea has a lot of merit.
If you can handle that sort of hypothetical gymnastics the concept of a universal UBI, or negative tax bracket should be pretty self explanatory as positive for society.
But being the typical National supporter, you are really trying to create the most complex system that you can, with plenty of loopholes to be exploited.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the simplest system possible that allows society and business to evolve into the future automated environment. A casual glance over the way we responded to the changes in New Zealand’s economy in the 70’s will show that proscribed and bureaucratic solutions aren’t the way to go.
It’s a credit to the Labour party that they’ve looked at this, seen that it’s going to happen and are trying to have a debate about how we transition to a society and economy that is as good, and preferably better than the one we have now. And that could involve transitioning 40% of our workforce, at all levels, to an entirely new way of living.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11610112
Think about that for a sec, potentially 40% going into and maybe through unemployment. What’s that going to do to your street?
Edit – fixed the link
I reckon my idea is better.
You could even make it retrospective and introduce it now, get all the businesses that have already cut jobs due to automation.
This is is about having a UBI, but funding it via the technology that is putting people out of work.
Businesses have to pay wages as it is, so paying a robot wage won’t be an issue.
There’s still big positives for business to automate there’s no need for osh regulations, safety equipment, holidays, sick leave etc.
Of course some people will try and game it, you just have annual auditing system in place to catch the ones that do.
Sorry, just makes me think “Supplementary Minimum Payments”
The solution is deal with the transition of society, not create an impediment to the transition. Your tax will just create avoidance / evasion and other stupid choices.
Negative tax brackets seem to be a more elegant solution if you’re going to do through the tax system.
Have to say BM its a very creative and sort of weird concept you have brought up – my partner has just said the tax accountants would have a field day with it. I can see the logic of it in a “out of left field” sort of way. It certainly would help to pay for the UBI and employers would be better off without holiday pay, sickness leave etc that you mentioned. Maybe you should lodge a patent on it, it could possibly/impossibly be implemented in the future – you would make a fortune on the concept!
It’s the “current thinking” of this government, in which case the only response I can offer is: “you call that thinking?”
Also, how do you know the rise in unemployment is an entrenched phenomenon and not the predictable – and predicted* – consequence of National Party corruption and incompetence?
*the “bonfire of right wing politics”, as Helen Clark put it.
+1
the only countries that have Job Guarantees are generally speaking socialist / communist countries.
You had a guaranteed job in East Germany, Hungary, Jugoslavia (before Milosovitch) etc etc. It might not was the job you wanted, but it was the job you did.
You also had waiting lists for cars, houses, food, etc etc etc.
But you had a job, and when you ran out of materials you stopped working. Very much like North Korea today.
So to say that a UBI is socialist, but Governmental Workprogammes are not is a bit short sighted.
Essentially, if the predictions of the worlds Kassandas come true, we will have something like an UBI as it would be easier and less costly to administer. We will also have to have social housing with rent caps and livelong tenure (unless we really want 60-80% of our population living as transients – and with an average tenanacy agreement lasting no longer than max 12 month we already have a large % of our population living as transients), and we will have to have free clinics for healthcare etc etc . If we want people to live, and participate in society.
Or we can go with the free market who will fix it all by itself, cause magic.
“British economist Paul Ormerod (quote from the Death of Economics) noted that the economies that avoided high unemployment in the 1970s maintained a:
… sector of the economy which effectively functions as an employer of last resort, which absorbs the shocks which occur from time to time, and more generally makes employment available to the less skilled, the less qualified.
He concluded that societies with a high degree of social cohesion (such as Austria, Japan and Norway) were willing to broaden their concept of costs and benefits of resource usage to ensure that everyone had access to paid employment opportunities.” Bill Mitchell
Thats an interesting quote Sabine because i wasnt aware that Austria Japan and Norway were communist countries. Thanks for the history lesson.
Ensuring access to employment is not giving a guarantee to employment.
We all have ‘access to employment’, as the drones at WINZ would assure you, but you have no guarantee that you get a job.
However, if you were to follow the premise that paying a UBI is socialist as in communism, than i suggest that you also look at providing a guaranteed job via the state as socialist. That was all I pointed out.
I am also quite sure that despite providing access to employment Austria, Japan and Norway have unemployed people.
So that access to employment is obviously not helping all people.
While a UBI would help all people. The government then could still provide access to employment as far there still is employment.
In a JG scheme (and they happen/happened in many places, including effectively if not in name in NZ in past eras) you go to WINZ and not only do they assure you access to employment, they send you on to an actual employer. Then WINZ pay your wages. That’s why its called a job guarantee, you go there and you are guaranteed getting a job (at least at the minimum wage).
Yes, some people won’t want to work for minimum wage. They might prefer searching for better paid work for example so we should still expect to see some unemployment rates in places with such a scheme.
I don’t really care how you want to label a JG scheme or a UBI scheme (socialist or capitalist or free market or whatever). That’s not an interesting question in any way. I am pretty sure I didn’t label either myself in any comments.
I dont think a jg is a free market mechanism at all. It explicitely says that the jobs market creates insufficient jobs and goes about creating them.
The biggest one is, I believe, that in India. It is only 100 days a year and the work isn’t always available but it is a massive scheme.
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-6003
Yep. This is why we need for all housing to be state owned with a minimal rent set as a percentage of household income..
How would the govt transfer all existing private housing to state ownership? (taking into account voters, and perceptions of fairness)
They’d buy them at present market value.
And people that didn’t want to sell?
Off to the “re education camp for new comrades” – those that don’t want to sell.
“They’d buy them at present market value.”
Wow. And we think a UBI might be expensive at $30billion/year.
“At the end of 2014 the market value of New Zealand’s housing stock stood at $768 billion or 323% of GDP”. Probably add another $100 bn by now.
From
http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Housing%20briefing%20paper%20-%20May15%20CPAG.pdf
@weka. Surely you have seen The Godfather? We will make them an offer they can’t refuse.
Well that will certainly solve the dip in spending since the GFC in NZ. Fiji holidays all round?
Just wait a bit longer til the baby boomers die off and there’s loads of houses and Winston Peters won’t have any voters.
If it’s good enough for Banks and Key to plan on that basis it’s good enough for me.
Every baby boomer I know is planning to live to 100.
They’ll probably make it too.
Was that really part of the conversation? I thought Winston’s lot were the generation before the baby boomers. My lot in fact. Just ahead of 1946.
“Every baby boomer I know is planning to live to 100.”
Unless of course you’re Maori or blue collar or have had a disability all your life…. In many of those cases you’d love to get even a year of NZS.
Was that really part of the conversation?
Yep. It assumes property values will stay where they are now or increase. In many places they are already decreasing as that generation starts to die off. Years of neglect in rural communities means lack of jobs, lack of hospitals, lack of all sorts of things is resulting in lower property values or an inability to sell.
Some large urban areas might get propped up by immigration and foreign buyers but it ain’t true everywhere.
When I asked “was it really part of the conversation” I was meaning the one between Key and Banks. Did they really say that Winston’s followers were dying off?
Key did, no matter how much you don’t want to believe it.
It is in the transcript.
@Muttonbird
Do you have a link to this transcript, or better still a link to a recording of the conversation? A recording would be best of course.
A question for all those people who think if we just avoid antagonising the Muslim world (whatever that term means) then we won’t be subjected to terror attacks.
What has Belgium been up to recently that made it a target?
“antagonising”.
🙄
Meanwhile, at the Flemish Peace Institute (wherever that is).
Please note that neither of these acts excuse or justify more killing, and also that despite the morals of the situation, violence begets violence.
Easy and convenient target for extremists in Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/why-was-belgium-targeted-by-bombers
Hi Gosman,
“What has Belgium been up to recently that made it a target?”
I suspect you haven’t thought very carefully about these matters if you ask that question.
The most obvious response to your question would be the arrest of the suspect in the Paris bombings last November – as has already been suggested by media commentators (such as the person interviewed on Morning Report today who thought it likely that terrorist attacks had been ‘brought forward’ in response to that arrest).
But there’s another point you’re missing. In one sense perhaps ‘we’ (in the West) are all the same to ‘them’ and, more tellingly, that perception is reinforced by several observations.
First, Belgium is the headquarters of the EU (one of the bombs was close to the EU headquarters) and the EU has, within its union, several states who have less than glorious records of management, intervention and even rule in the Middle East.
Second, many of the messages from other European and Western leaders have reiterated a position emphasised in similar messages of condolence in the past – that these attacks are an attack on ‘all of us’ and an attack on ‘our’ values – not just those of Belgium.
So it seems that by targeting a ‘soft target’ like Belgium the terrorists have, indeed, hit back at those they perceive as having ‘antagonised’ them. That is, the leaders of the UK, US, France, etc. themselves seem to think that ‘they’ were as much the target as Belgium.
Having said all of that these attacks are utterly reprehensible and unforgivable – though quite explicable and not surprising.
P.S. Brussels is also the headquarters of NATO. That makes it even more of a target than the EU headquarters.
Profile of National
.
Yesterday John Key wanted to steal money from us – to pay for his Defamation Crime. Possibly up to NZD1,5 Million. Who knows?
He will be visiting Mr Obama very soon. I hope he won’t attempt to steal money from him ! But again – who knows?
Also, do you think he will keep his creepy hands away from Obama’s daughters? Anybody’s guess I expect. He harasses girls in his own suburb, with impunity.
How gutter low the National party of NZ really is. Mismanagers; bullies; self centered; arrogant; thieves – stealing assets from the common man; secretive over incredibly stupid TPPA negotiations; flogging off NZ land and resources to foreigners (to get kick backs for national party funds); callous about jobs and workers conditions. And so on and so on …
They say Piggy Muldoon another national politician was bad. At least he was not evil like Key and and his accomplice English.
Observer (Tokoroa)
I can’t remember a National govt that improved the lives of ordinary Kiwi’s, I know in the late 60’s they had a near zero unemployment rate, but since then they haven’t managed much better than 5 or 6% at the low end and over 10% at the high end.
You probably remember the Shipley govt, took $20 off every pensioner to give the wealthiest a tax break, more older NZ’ers left for Aussie than ever before.
In five decades of observation of NZ govts, the Clark govt delivered the greatest benefits to this country that I’ve ever seen, nearly everyone had a job, and when I said everyone, that included the spouse, the redistribution of wealth to the lower incomes through tax benefits (working for families), investment in infrastructure, rebuilt the local Hospital where I live after the Nats threatened to close it and increased the capacity of all the schools by adding additional class rooms, and now all we hear is that Labour destroyed the country, most can’t remember that far back to be able to compare too today.
The media has done it’s best to undermine Labour, and the weak minded have “bought” the BS, hook line and sinker, the reality is that I’m one of the over 200k Kiwi’s that left NZ since 2011 for a “Brighter future”, and would like to return, but I just can’t stomach Key, and until I see Kiwi’s waking up to the BS being fed to them, I don’t see any improvement in NZ.
The first time I saw Key on TV, I new he couldn’t be trusted, that was in 2006, ten years ago, and guess what, he’s proven over and over again exactly that.
So, come on Labour and come on Andrew Little, honesty IS a virtue.
Fonterra is broken….in a supposed co-operative model the shareholders are making big profits, but the suppliers aren’t.
Which doesn’t make any sense, unless there are shareholders who aren’t suppliers, then it’s a big win….ohh hang on
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/78179286/fonterra-halfyear-profit-soars-muchneeded-good-news-for-farmers.html
https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZZX
Ummm…. the suppliers generally are the shareholders.
they generally were at the start of the co-op model, right up until trading in shares was opened up to allow ‘capital raising’, hence the NZX funds trading in shares……so now you have suppliers, who have given over the rights to the share income (but not ownership of shares per se) who are having payments cut at the same as record profits are being made and paid out as divedends…
Market capitalisation of farmers shares = 9.476 billion
Market capitalisation of non farmer units = 556 million
So only 5.5% of Fonterra is owned by non-farmers. Conversely 95% of the profit will therefore be paid to the farmers.
The reference to the NZX trading for Fonterra shares is a red herring. It’s a closed market managed by NZX. Only farmers have access to it.
I’d suggest they are very much in the minority. On Morning report this morning on the radio a news item suggested the vast majority of shareholders who will receive the benefit are farmers.
Possibly, although the crucial statistic is not how many of the shareholders are farmers but ‘how many of the farmers producing the milk are shareholders?’
At the extreme, it is theoretically possible that all shares are owned by one farmer; hence all shareholders would be farmers but all but one of the farmers producing the milk would not be shareholders.
I don’t know the answer to what would be the ‘correct’ question to settle this point.
Do you?
Most lower order sharmilkers won’t own shares so they will suffer the most.
The term “supplier” has also been used to describe contractors of late as well, which is muddying the water as well. Don’t know if it’s a deliberate distraction, or by whom, but very poor communication by Fontera for allowing it to happen.
For those who have an interest in the strange happenings at Rangiora High School, the Listener has a detailed post. Did the Ministry go through all this to get their hands on the millions held by the 100 year old investment Held by Rangiora High? How can they do all this to a successful school, lead by an industrious hard working Principal.
“For Peggy Burrows, that pathway has been cut abruptly short. With lawyer Richard Harrison (who represented Christchurch Girls’ High School principal Prue Taylor when she was sacked in 2012), Burrows will challenge her dismissal.”
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/education/school-daze/
Now I have discovered what is wrong with New Zealand.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/78156665/lawyer-numbers-soars-as-the-law-become-more-complex-and-numerous
No wonder we have become ever more litigious.
Does anyone else remember the Tom Paxton album “One Million Lawyers and Other Disasters”? On a per capita basis that is about where New Zealand has got to.
And imagine the legion of lawyers needed to thrash out TPPA disputes! Ker-ching!
Well, some people commenting on this site seem to be proposing that the Government should be guaranteeing everyone a job. Those commenters would applaud your theory.
Last time i checked being a Lawyer still required a qual. Did the TPPA remove that for their disputes process? Quite happy for joe blogs kiwi to arbitrate on TPPA disputes actually for a job. Dont think Disney has that in mind however.
I really don’t understand where the Labour party is going ? Is it $200 that’s enough to live on, I am not sure pensioners agree, Is it the living wage or do they have a plan to guarantee everyone a job and pay them living wage plus a Universal income ? Can someone enlighten this pensioner with a vote, please!
“Can someone enlighten this pensioner”.
I don’t think anyone can help you at the moment. Robertson, who seems to trying to be the proud daddy, seems to give a different story every time he talks about it.
I think he is hurriedly trying to read and understand what Morgan’s book said but it seems to be a bit too hard for him. He then seems to be trying to amend the details on the fly if someone points out politically impossible bits.
If they did what Morgan advocates, and you own your own home, you are going to be bitten on the bum. Only my opinion of course
Come back in about 2018.
Do you believe Morgans book position is reasonable? It seems to be saying there need to be some one off modifications to taxation etc… which will then modify prices so some imbalances an inequities are corrected and then stuff will be sorted out from then on because all that stuff was sorted to begin with.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the prognosis for the EU where about a decade ago consensus was no country really needed to run a 3% or higher deficit (until they did). It seems a very static view of the economy to begin with.
“I don’t think anyone can help you at the moment. Robertson, who seems to trying to be the proud daddy, seems to give a different story every time he talks about it.”
Citation needed. Link or it didn’t happen. We already know you are a liar so I’m happy to add this to the list if you can’t back up your statement.
Labour is still collecting and collating data and feedback, so no policies have been agreed yet.
Oh god not another year of the manifesto.
Oh for some actual coherent policies consistent with socialist principles from Labour. The last link is interesting because there was supposed to be an attempt to have the members of the Standard influence policy. We were asked for suggestions even.
Can’t see many of those suggestions anywhere near Labour’s policies.
(Also reminded me how much I miss Xtasy’s contributions).
The year of the manifesto, which turned into the year of keeping your powder dry, which turned into the year of mainly neo-liberal policy, which turned into the year of losing my vote, which turned into the year of losing the election was just bonkers.
Well there’s little evidence that Labour is pushing the needs of beneficiaries and workers. 2012 was the year of the manifesto. 2013 was supposed to be the year of the policy.
But, as our own Labour grandee Mike Smith has pointed out, 2013 is also the year Labour develops its policies
I think that’s where The Standard could be of some use in that it offers a platform for members to suggest and test policy at a national level any time they want.
Tom, a UBI is meant to ensure that everyone has a basic income and doesn’t starve etc. It’s not become replacement, it’s a system of income security that is more fair and efficient than what we have now. Don’t get too caught up on the $200 thing. For one, there are lots of different UBI models and it depends on what other ways people have of getting income. Labour are focussed on workers and the disappearance of a regular 40hr/wk jobs and a high need for flexibility. They’re not saying everyone can live on $200/wk, they’re saying its a stop gap for people that didn’t earn this week. People who don’t do paid work (retirees, I’ll and disabled people, solo parents etc) will need to be taken into account too.
Have a look at the figures in my comment up thread and you can see how it might work via tax. Yes it’s different than the living wage and job creation both of which Labour also intend to do.
You can basically ignore everything alwyn is saying as he is lying about Labour and trolling the site to derail the conversation.
Bazaar politics, exposed.
Labour’s discussion document (pdf) outlining 10 big ideas from the Future of Work Commission.
How odd. The prime minister wades in to criticise a private company’s operating affairs.
When Andrew Little says as much the RWNJs have a cow about it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/78179286/fonterra-halfyear-profit-soars-muchneeded-good-news-for-farmers
Flag day tomorrow. Drum roll please…
What way do you think it will go? I’m a bit worried low turnout amongst the young will make it closer than people thing. I may spiral into depression if we really change our flag to that childish design.
Returns are already higher than the first referendum with today and tomorrows still to come in.
http://www.elections.org.nz/events/referendums-new-zealand-flag-0/voting-second-referendum/voting-statistics
Some big variations by day, which is odd. I wonder if that’s to do with NZPost or processing rather than when people voted.
Polls suggest on average a 60% to 40% preference for the New Zealand flag. Something remarkable would have to happen for the challenger to win on the basis of that polling.
My initial thought is the very young (non-voting age) are very supportive of the New Zealand flag as are young adults in general. I imagine if young adults took the time to participate in surveys to register their support for the flag of New Zeland then they would take the time to vote. Perhaps this sector is the one which has lifted the turnout in the second referendum?
If so then John Key’s cheap looking tea towel will not stand a chance.
Interestingly Key doesn’t think hi legacy will be damaged if he looses.
My immediate thought was what legacy?
Farrar’s phone monkeys will be asking the question as we speak.
RONS
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/state-highway-projects/roads-of-national-significance-rons/
That will be Keys legacy, flag’s just a minor sideline.
It’s a shame that belatedly addressing roading infrastructure could be viewed by RWNJs as a legacy of John Key. Particularly with respect to the open tap immigration policy adopted by his government.
The first one on that list hasn’t even been started yet, ffs.
Haha, what an unbelievably shit legacy. That’s even before the next generation find they can’t afford the fuel price to use the RONS or there simply isn’t enough oil to go around anymore. Communities like Kapiti end up with a unused aqueduct type structure and they’ll be wanting to tear it down.
Better than selling the country down the river with bull shit election bribes like WFF and interest free loans.
Self serving Fuckwits.
RONS in the age of climate change and post-carbon. Yep, fitting legacy for the short-sighted greedy one.
Contrary to what the doomer cult you belong to says, people are going to be using cars for the foreseeable future.
New Zealanders will thank Key in years to come for building this fantastic roading network and not listening to the climate change, end of the world crowd.
I expect to see many statues of Key to be commissioned in the coming decades.
Of course we will be using cars in the future, just not as much, and people already curse the lack of public transport.
Roads of Numpty Significance.
Those are your beliefs and time after time they ignore realities.
You sir are a laughable idiot troll and should be banned as such under the policy.
define foreseeable future?
heh, nice one Pat.
About 5 to 10 years.
that would be about my guess too DTB….which if we ignore CC (as appears to be the case) is a disruptive change in itself when you consider the proportion of GDP it involves
Self serving? It’s the middle class right which has made hay from WFF and their kids from interest free loans.
RONS
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/state-highway-projects/roads-of-national-significance-rons/
“That will be Keys legacy, flag’s just a minor sideline.”
Yeah and what a waste of money that lot is. Like the Hamilton bypass, 17 bridges in a 22 km section costing just under a Billion dollars at this stage. Money that could be spent on better things like a fast modern wide track commuter service to Auckland with trains travelling at 200Km an hour..
It has been claimed that with the new Waikato Freeway it will cut 25 minutes off the journey. One billion dollars divided by 25 minutes give us 40000 dollars a minute just to join the fucking big traffic jam on the southern motorway that is STILL going to take you up to ONE hour to get into central Auckland,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw
-Gary Numan
This explains the RWNJs’ approach to transport. They believe that to take your own personal fiefdom with you wherever you go is the way of the future.
Key’s legacy will be available as The Best of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Vols. 1 & 2. If you order online from the US you won’t have to pay GST 😉
I’ve heard there’s a bonus clip called UFO in Waitangi; soundtrack courtesy of Eminem CC PL 2.0 (Creative Commons licence Pretty Legal generic).
UFO in Waitangi?
Steven Joyce took it on the chin in Waitangi.
ah, the IFO 😉
Yes, but polling by Curia found that “UFO” will sell better in the US market, which is much more important to John than the backwaters of NZ.
lol.
I think the flag result could be very close. I dont trust these right wing pollsters.
It will be close, but evidence so far is that the challenger is playing catch up.
There is a huge amount of support for the New Zealand flag despite what John Key says anecdotally.
After all, when he’s discussing the subject face to face with someone, that person is likely a grovelling yes-man who will say what the prime minister wants to hear.
Interesting how the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has had a silver fern in its logo since 2012.
Key really really digs that fern he was just biding his time feeding the chickens.
Well, their going to the polls on June 7, Aussie Fed Election, Turnbull has just restored the “Clean Energy Finance Corp” that Abbott tried to shut down, as an election sweetener, but the experts say, too little, too late.
Their will likely be a double disillusion, as the senate has refused to pass the govts policies.
And Tony (Abbott) is being as disruptive as he possibly can be, makes for some interesting politics over the next few months.