Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
7:00 am, February 29th, 2020 - 105 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Good on our PM !!😀.
NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern lashes Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison – the reaction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12312704
I haven't seen the interview with the two PMs but I imagine it went like this.
Indeed it did – sort of. 😉
There is an obvious middle ground here; Australia merely needs to implement the same reciprocal policy that NZ applies in the same circumstances. If someone has been in country for 10 years or more then for all intents and purposes they will be treated as residents and automatic deportation does not apply.
This would be a fair and very easy policy change for Australia to make, but the fact that Morrisson cannot speaks to contempt.
A significant chunk of the Australian economy lies within NZ, it needs to be taxed more to pay for the extra social services and prisons costs being imposed upon us.
Let's start with their banks.
100%
Wahoo!
As ever , Ardern over-acts for optics over substance, and everyone wets their pants with happiness.
The joint statement they released was one of the most substantive I've yet seen.
And our common actions in 2019 have been impressive.
I'm on phone but the full statement is on scoop.
This has the link:
https://twitter.com/kaupapa/status/1233257843882545154
Thankyou.
It's a big set of integrated policies and actions.
As for the "return" policy, it's just forcing society to deal with our hang problem that was there all along.
Morrison is just making our Police and Border people do their damn jobs.
The Serious Fraud Office is now involved in four prosecutions and a further three investigations into questionable donation practices, with the latest targets announced yesterday – Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel and Auckland mayor Phil Goff.
Does this suggest that electoral laws need to be reformed? Or does it show that finally electoral laws are being taken seriously by authorities and are being policed properly when complaints are made?
Listener editorial: A simple way to clean up the political donations mess
T
If the law is complied with and if not then policed properly perhaps it is close to good enough as it is?
The behaviour of some political parties needs to be reformed. Wagging a finger at them won't do it.
Nothing wrong with the law, it means political parties should comply, the rules are there.
Getting hysterical and saying they should be taxpayer funded is madness !~
You could say there’s nothing wrong with the Law and rules & regulations. They have been in place for a long time and are clear enough.
You could say that it may need more or better enforcement.
You could say that it may need more or better education.
Fact is that all Laws need to be reviewed from time to time to test their relevance and applicability. If they are no longer fit for purpose, e.g. because of societal/cultural changes or technological developments, they need to be amended at least.
IMO, the problem with political donations go much deeper than a Law goes and are symptomatic of a more widespread issue. Thus, it’s easier to put a plaster on the Law and pretend she’ll be right. That’s the usual response when it is too hard.
Nothing is going to be changed this side of the election.
I think it makes sense to see what the outcome of the SFO prosecutions and investigations is. And observe donations reporting from the campaign period (this year) and see if there are changes in practices, that is more transparency.
Then a review would be worth while, but rushing one now would be premature.
I agree that kneejerk reactions are never a good basis for political decisions but this has been going on for donkey’s years. But let’s wait and see, and wait and see, …
You don’t think this is symptomatic of something else, Pete? You must have given it a lot of thought, looking at your blog 😉
If you read the GP on this, they clearly start with the premise that parliament can't self-regulate. We have laws, some people are skirting around them in ways that unclear legally (and about to be tested), but parliament won't act to sort that out. It's not like what is going on this month is a one off.
Further, the GP position from memory is no donations and state fund instead. We're not having a debate about that and other options because everyone is focused on the NZF and Nat circus.
But how would state funding work?
(I presume you mean total state funding, we already have some state funding.)
Allocated by people's assemblies?
Basing it on previous election results may not fairly reflect what has happened since.
For example, Labour is now polling quite a bit more than their last election result. So are NZ First.
Maori Party?
Jami-Lee Ross?
How would you ensure that new parties weren't disadvantaged by funding of incumbent parties? The high threshold makes it hard enough as it is, and we are gradually running out of parties in Parliament. That suits incumbent parties, but it's arguably not good for MMP.
Not my area of expertise Pete. I'm sure there are people who have written intelligently about various ways this could work.
They are good questions.
Agreed. Opening up the discussion to this would be perfect.
I’d propose to give every party/candidate that/who stands in the election, registered or unregistered, a spending limit. Starting point for this would be the current spending limits: https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/for-starting-a-political-party/quick-guide-to-registered-and-unregistered-parties/
A kind of a ‘UBI’ for current and aspiring parties and politicians but with state oversight and accountability (and transparency!).
The only way I can see to stop parties and associated chancers from trying to pervert the regime is to get them out of controlling the spending. Current problems exemplify that.
yep.
I do not get paid to subsidise those fools.
No other marketplace other than the arts would have the gall to beg for volumes of state funding.
Democracy is not a marketplace.
"No other marketplace other than the arts would have the gall to beg for volumes of state funding."
Eh? We generally apply state funding to things that aren't (or shouldn't be) markets. A democratic system that doesn't allow those with the most money to wield the most influence, strikes me as a pretty good example of such a thing.
Latest published Green party policy on this area from their website is not going as far as no donations – see p3: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/9619/attachments/original/1573526306/Policy-Open_Govt_Democracy.pdf?1573526306
That's a shame.
What's with that URL?
That's just what comes up when you 'Download the full policy' from https://www.greens.org.nz/open_government_and_democracy_policy
Generally I think their proposals on donations look reasonable, but the $35k limit does favour the Green Party who focus more on getting many small donations.
Limiting the size of donations would affect all the other parties in parliament more than the Greens. It would affect rich people donating, unions donating to Labour, large donations from wills (Greens got one of those a few years ago) and rule out or make it much harder Craig/Dotcom/Morgan financed parties.
I personally favour grappling with the questions you raised above and banning all donations.
I can see a bigger role for the Electoral Commission in collectively providing support services to help all candidates with elections, including comms support on a level footing. Why should opinion polling or donor-friendly policies determine how much is available for a civic activity?
If only criminals would just obey the law.
That would lead to/cause an existential crisis.
If only rich people would just obey the law. And rich criminals.
And people seeking power over others, like political parties.
Ah, I see Mr Farrar is also leading with the 'How about we just follow the law?' angle. Safety in numbers I guess.
PDF of the Dirty Politics.
This is pathetic. Mass hysteria. What is the matter with people. It’s ignorance and stupidity.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12312732
😀
How long before a political party will tap into (and stoke) the climate of fear in Election Year?
Announcement of election date + 1 minute wasn't it ?
Hmm, but calling it mass hysteria might be an inflammatory overreaction too. What I see is a lot of people who are 1) scared and 2) don't have enough basic knowledge about how this might play out (and thus how to prepare). I think solving the latter would help, and I'm not seeing the MSM doing a huge amount on that eg in that article they could have linked to a MoH or other govt webpage explaining how to prepare. Don't even know if the govt has much up about this yet.
There's a polarisation happening now between there's not need to panic, let's wait, and the people panicking. Prudence suggests taking a middle path. If the advice is to have 2 weeks of supplies in the house, that's if one gets sick or needs to isolate for another reason. But that's not going to cut it if NZ ends up in a 6 month epidemic where much of the economy is shut down.
There are some serious political issues too about who can prepare and who can't. Lots of poor people can't afford enough food this week, never mind stockpiling.
Many of the headlines and behaviour in the MSM are pathetic and drive these type of idiotic reactions by the public although to be fair much of the public fail to wait for the more reasoned comments from professionals before rushing off in a blind panic.
I wonder how many of those in a panic have all of both their and their families vaccinations up to date….rant over.
I'm not waiting. I'm reading what I can, but the govt and MoH will be managing things for the best public health outcome and that's not necessarily what is best for an individual.
I think there's probably a gap between what the MoH is advising and what is reaching the public. Haven't looked on FB but I'm guessing that sensible advice is being outweighed by reckons and fear based posts.
MoH maintains and updates a special webpage: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus
There, you will also find health advice for the general public: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public
However, I’m underwhelmed by their advice for prevention and how to protect yourself and others: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public#prevention
There are a number of easy basic steps they could and should (IMHO) include that I found on other (foreign) websites that made sense to me.
In other words: must do better.
From the looks of the latest news updates, it has been a case of mass hysteria in some parts of Auckland weka @ 3.3. I planned to go to the supermarket today but will leave it another day – visit my local green grocer instead.
Frankly, I would impose a temporary ban on all public scare mongering from quacks and cranks until the "emergency" is over. Slap a $10.000 fine on them and remove them from the internet if it's possible. Yeah, that's a slap in the face for "freedom of speech " but tough bickies. 🙁
I saw the news about people queuing at supermarkets. 'Mass hysteria' is a big phrase, I think this is more a case of the fact that society has become so disconnected that people don't really know what to do. People don't need to buy everything today, but people should be preparing.
Thanks weka. Too many calling others stupid, when they're actually concerned or scared. We live in the midst of a misinformation blitz from both social and mainstream media. Our countrymen require acknowledgement, support, and useful information: not scorn.
I think so. People who don't know what to do, don't know what to do, and castigating them during a time of potentially approaching crisis isn't going to help that.
However I did see this today too, which might explain some of it.
https://twitter.com/wekatweets/status/1233547080293081089
How much of it is just Lotto outlets being in the same supermarkets?
what's going on with lotto today?
Only the biggest guaranteed payout ever. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/410677/2000-lotto-tickets-sold-each-minute-ahead-of-50-million-jackpot
lol, so the Herald's story about lines and stockpiling might be a crock?
Well, probably a bit of both. Given that one of the photos of almost-empty shelves in the article linked above was obviously the fresh banana display. If that's prep for the apocalypse, it's not exactly rational prep.
With any luck, it means people get it out of their system before the distribution networks actually get some real strain.
that's a good point. We can live in hope of increasing sense or at least adapting.
Finally, a decent test for the US health system.
Let's see if Bernie's team can capitalize it with their nationalized healthcare unicorn.
Elections are luck. Sanders may just have caught a bit.
To capitalise, Bernie will have to be quick on his feet to come up with a quick soundbite that tells people quickly why Medicare-for-all would deal with the situation better.
That's a complex argument to try to distill down to a soundbite, and Bernie hasn't shown much deft footwork so far. He's just been coasting on his ponderous history of saying exactly the same thing for fifty years.
"Trump spread the virus.
The virus of hate."
There you go Bernie.
Today's Herald's front page is utterly irresponsible. And when they get slapped with whatever the modern equivalent of a "d" notice is, they will whine about press freedom.
Hmm if a pandemic took hold is there provision in NZ law to delay an election for public health reasons?
Could Trump use some kind of emergency powers in the USA as well?
https://elections.nz/assets/Uploads/media-archive/fb61c5ea51/emergency_plans_paper_2014.pdf
that's reassuring. The issue then becomes how to manage public health during the voting period. Are we doing postal voting this year?
My reading is that the Election will go ahead, no matter what, although (some) polling places might be affected or even adjourned.
I do wonder what it might do to the turnout though and how this might affect the overall result. For example, you might speculate that elderly people might be less inclined to physically vote.
I don’t know the details of the postal vote, sorry. I believe it is not a general option and you have to ask for it: https://vote.nz/how-to-vote/cant-get-to-a-voting-place/
Sense would dictate that they increase the accessibility for the postal vote for those more at risk. We will see I guess.
Captain Trips!
https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1232666666645016576
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1232666666645016576.html
A first-world ‘crisis’ of a different kind also fed/fuelled by irrationality: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/119913504/lotto-frenzy-stretches-demand-for-ticket-paper
Wanting a share of $50m seems pretty rational from here. 🙂
Hate to disappoint but I have the winning ticket and I keep it under my pillow.
IP address tracing starting in 3…2…1…
I have a mobile pillow.
Damn.
If you are looking for something to read, suggest "Titan" by Stephen Baxter.
It has basically predicted what is happening now.
An expert on the 1918 flu epidemic in the US wrote this a couple of years ago on why it was so deadly. His conclusion; officials desperate to keep morale up during WWI, didn't tell the truth. And because the government lied, more people died.
That is why, in my view, the most important lesson from 1918 is to tell the truth. Though that idea is incorporated into every preparedness plan I know of, its actual implementation will depend on the character and leadership of the people in charge when a crisis erupts.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journal-plague-year-180965222/
Where it starts is so important then.
And the chumps running the shop.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1233510345433587718
https://twitter.com/nancylevine/status/1233406055075340288
https://twitter.com/LibsInAmerica/status/1233414007710769155
I have read extensively about the issue which is why it’s a non-starter. But anyone is welcome to justify how increasing tax rates to 55 percent, while making some people worse off, is going to fly.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
[I’m not sure I believe when you say you have read extensively. You didn’t seem to understand the RW connections with a UBI, but then proceeded to run RW arguments against a UBI. You asked what the purpose of a UBI is and then gave a narrow, self-serving answer that you appear to just be repeating over and over. Running simplistic lines that because Treasury said it’s a no go it can’t be afforded and they must be right, as if there are no other models. Did you even read the post?
Treasury was recommending to the Govt in 2018 that WEAG include a UBI in its brief.
My main problem here is that despite a warning from me to up your game, you continued to run a naysaying line that wasn’t related to the Post. I’d have less of a problem with that if it was an interesting or nuanced negation of a UBI (lots of us have reservations), but all that I see is some superficial nays backed up by some random links. The post took me a long time to write, and I expect a better level of debate than this.
Stay out of that post from now on. In premod until I see an acknowledgement. Count this as a warning for the future too. – weka]
From which haybale did you pluck 55% from?
Morgan's version, which everyone here likes to shit on had three core elements, a flat UBI of $12k pa, a flat PAYE of 30% and a CCT (Comprehensive Capital Tax) that had a simple formula relating to Minimum rates of return on all assets. Under this detailed proposal almost everyone was going to be better off except for some people who're asset rich and cash poor. There was even simple mechanisms to mitigate the impact on them.
But even this was only one possible version, there are any number of ways a UBI/Tax Reform package can be put together that do not involve 55% overall tax rates. But of course having read extensively you already know this … so bullshit.
Besides when transitioning from a benefit under the current system the effective marginal tax rate is well in excess of 55% . But this doesn’t seem to worry you much does it?
55% was quoted above in the link I provided. Of course Treasury could be wrong and Gareth Morgan, who admitted to analysing the issue on the back of an envelope, could be right. Readers can draw their own conclusions. 🙂
This document from Treasury is heavily redacted but you get the flavour of their position on the issue.
“The disadvantages of a UBI is that it will likely increase poverty rates, in the absence of large increases in tax revenues. Spreading existing working age benefits to the entire working age population will materially reduce the level of payment to those who already receive benefits. At current spending levels, a UBI would be substantially below the poverty line in most OECD economies (OECD, 2017).
…
While concerns around impact on poverty rates could be addressed with a higher payment rate, this could not be budget neutral. It would require a significant increase in tax revenues, and therefore average tax rates would rise. This could materially weaken work incentives and reduce employment levels.“
https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-07/oia-20180164.pdf
That's Treasury's problem right there – who asked them to ignore that side of the equation? Of course other tax revenues need to be increased at the same time. Wealth tax seems a useful focus if equity is the aim.
I don't think any of the current proponents of a UBI are contemplating a weekly payout of $300.00. Nor are they expecting that a tax rate of 55% will be needed as a consequence.
For someone who claims to have read 'extensively' on the issue your notions about Morgan's proposal are woefully short of the mark. Both the Morgan Foundation and TOP costed variations in detail. It’s entirely possible to get the numbers to balance if that’s what’s important to you. If you want to be a little more radical, letting the RB do some M2 money creation via the UBI is an idea worth looking at. Hell if China and the USA can print trillions of whatever currency without apparent constraint, exactly why can’t we do it at a modest regulated scale?
The big problem is that everyone looks that the idea through the lens of the existing system and whenever they see some aspect that's different they discard the whole system. It doesn't work that way.
For instance if I'm earning … say $80k pa and I pay say a flat 40% PAYE on this. That's $32k 'positive tax' but this is also offset by say a $12k pa UBI which is the 'negative tax' portion. The net tax is now only $20k which overall amounts to a modest 25% rate.
In this simple 'toy' example the marginal tax rate may be 40% but the effective rate for the vast majority of people is far lower than this. And this is what counts. Treating the PAYE and the UBI portions separately as if they had nothing to do with each other is a misdirection, and is why talking about UBI's in isolation from wider tax and fiscal reform never makes sense.
Plus what mike says.
only problem with that argument is that TOP's proposal wasnt a UBI at all…it was targeted welfare….meh
?
At the last election TOP didn't go with a full UBI. They seemed to be following a strategy of introducing it in bits and pieces, starting with Superannuitants and 18 to 24 year olds.
https://www.top.org.nz/the_full_ubi
“The first 2 groups to enter the UBI regime will be
all families with very young children (under 3, or under 6 if adopted or fostered) – $200 per family per week. This replaces paid parental leave
elders – all those citizens over 65 years of age – $200 each per week. In addition elders who satisfy a means test will be able to top up to the current NZ Superannuation level by a further $7,500 pa. We will index the top-up to elders’ costs not to average incomes.”
Precisely the kind of transitional arrangement I was advocating above. There is no need to be all purist about it, start with something achievable and see what happens.
So those advocating UBI will now stick the label on anything if it suits their position eh?….good grief.
You may as well advocate communism with private property rights and ownership
Why do you find it so hard to keep two ideas in your head at the same time?
Why talk about "labels"? It's ideas themselves that count, not the labels we put on them.
Try placing this idea in your head (someone who berates others for their supposed lack of reading on the subject)….TOP proposed a targeted welfare policy because by their own admission a true UBI is unworkable.
"The major constraints on how high that a UBI can be set includes its cost to the taxpayer and its relativity to the rewards for paid work.[i] If fiscal overload is to be avoided then the taxpayer cannot be expected to foot the bill for whatever level of UBI proponents dream of. Likewise, the incentive to seek paid work cannot be undermined by the level of the UBI otherwise the resultant lack of labour available and the rising costs of production faced by New Zealand firms, would impart serious consequences to our economy."
“It is unlikely that a UBI will ever totally replace targeted social assistance but it certainly will markedly reduce our reliance on targeting, with its stigma-laden selection criteria and its perverse impact on behaviour.”
It's pretty obvious what the acceptable range for a full noise UBI will be. The lower limit will be no less than the current single unemployment rate and the upper limit the rate for NZSuper. That's a number between about $12k to $20k which is a pretty tight range really.
I can't be arsed typing out all the arguments I've already made, I get the sense you don't really have a point and are just parsing words for the sake of it. The real advantage of a UBI has less to do with what level it's set at, or how it interacts with tax reform … but the fact that it is a right. It's not something you have to sit up and beg for, you don't have to play games with endless bureaucratic rules, you don't get sneered at by everyone else for being a 'bludging bene', you get some control back over your life and choices. It respects your agency rather than shitting over it.
But I've come to the conclusion many so called lefties here are more interested in perpetuating a beneficiary class than creating pathways that might give people a way out.
That's a number between about $12k to $20k which is a pretty tight range really.
New Zealand’s working-age population is estimated at 3,915,000 (Sept 2019). If each person is paid a UBI of $20,000:
3.915 million x $20,000 = $78.3 billion.
“Total core Crown revenue for the 2018/19 financial year was $93.6 billion. Tax revenue is the major source of core Crown revenue; this totalled $86.5 billion in the 2018/19 financial year.”
Welfare currently accounts for about a quarter of all spending. That would change dramatically with a UBI of $20,000. Indeed, a UBI would consume the entire welfare budget and then some.
If we take your lowest UBI figure of $12,000, that is equivalent to $231 a week (before tax). As at April 2019, the single, living alone rate for superannuitants is $475 a week (before tax). So you can see why Treasury have said that a UBI would increase poverty numbers or would require a significant increase in tax. Given that both Labour and National have ruled out a CGT, it is difficult to see a large tax increase being politically palatable.
One of the main problems with a UBI is its universality. That's the same problem with the current Super scheme. Only yesterday it was revealed that more than 31,000 superannuitants are receiving Super in addition to receiving an income of $100,000 or more. Is that fair?
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/labour-market-statistics-september-2019-quarter
https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-and-expenditure
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/100030/budget-2019-summary-all-spending-plans
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12311990
We might have to change to a higher-wage economy! True, given the current lack of talent in management and leadership that transition could be tricky – unless we can persuade them all to retire or resign to be artists.
"I can't be arsed typing out all the arguments I've already made, I get the sense you don't really have a point and are just parsing words for the sake of it."
Then you havnt been reading….or thinking
@ Sacha
"We might have to change to a higher-wage economy! True, given the current lack of talent in management and leadership that could be tricky – unless we can persuade them all to retire or resign to be artists."
Considering we are struggling to fill basic roles without importing copious labour I dont see much opportunity to upgrade our workforce anytime soon.
The original question was what was a UBI good for….what is its purpose?….most of the comment has ignored that question, and I suspect in the main because it cannot resolve the issues people want resolved…but hey, people like free stuff.
The original question was what was a UBI good for….what is its purpose?
I've explained what I see as the primary point repeatedly, but I can't help if you refuse to read.
On top of this wherever a UBI has been trialed the social outcomes have proven to be more effective at helping people than welfare. Seeing as how you appear to have trouble using a search engine, I'll do some homework for you:
http://reasonedutopia.com/for-against-universal-basic-income/?i=1
https://www.basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/
https://www.fastcompany.com/40463533/a-universal-basic-income-would-do-wonders-for-the-u-s-economy
Mod note for you Ross.
Yes, I see. I know I said something which apparently you didn’t agree with. But when people disagree with me, I welcome it. It's not a problem.
That’s nice. What you don’t seem to realise is that when something creates a problem for an author or moderator, things tend to escalate if a commenter doesn’t pay heed to what the moderator says. This isn’t about disagreeing with something you said, it’s me saying my patience is running out for you derailing a conversation under my thread. I took the time to explain some of that in the hope of a change, we will see.
Two of the John Key government's Roads Of National Significance.
The significant part evidently being National can't build Roads, so insistent are they on ensuring the lowest tender gets the job.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/410682/nzta-refuses-to-release-information-about-damaged-highways
Have to say the bolded bit is somewhat alarming. Why do National governments leave so much crappy legacy?
Legend