Results 26 to 50 of 519

  1. Post
    #26
    Yeah I would think so.

    I always thought if you break everything down, the root of a good economy, at least on a local level, has more to do with productivity than anything else. I don't see how a UBI would stop people wanting to be productive. i.e turning resources of lower value into products of higher value.

    Strange to me that people consider the UBI radical but are ok with speculative markets (i.e property) that don't actually provide any real productivity (rather they just encourage re-distribution of wealth - usually towards the top end).

    On a global level... how would a UBI effect our exports? I can't think of anything major.

  2. Post
    #27
    refused wrote:
    The price of nessecities would likely remain stable while luxuries increase in cost. Would that not encourage work and reduce waste?
    would that be regulated? I don't see how it would work otherwise. Housing / rent is currently a big cost for most people.
    It's also at the mercy of the market, supply and demand, etc. If someone with no job wants to live auckland, I doubt they'll be able to. (assuming accomodation allowances are now history.)

    I'm not advocating the current system as 'best possible' But assuming any change is only going to improve things is reckless, and foolhardy. changes should be adopted when their effectiveness can be demonstrated, or at the very least theoretically show some actual benefit. Not just "I think it will be better, lets try and see"

  3. Post
    #28
    Unsettled wrote:
    (assuming accomodation allowances are now history.)
    That would be the plan yes - almost one of the main reasons.

    Who knows... might even get people moving to the South Island to enjoy more spending power. Over time these new residents will create demand for more work, and also find work themselves. I think there will be an adjustment period where things look a bit scary... but over time the market will adjust I'm sure.


    Unsettled wrote:
    I'm not advocating the current system as 'best possible' But assuming any change is only going to improve things is reckless, and foolhardy. changes should be adopted when their effectiveness can be demonstrated, or at the very least theoretically show some actual benefit. Not just "I think it will be better, lets try and see"
    Well lots of countries have way higher taxes than us so we know that can work. Basically instead of all those taxes going into various departments that help the welfare of the populace, the money goes straight to the populace who then manage their own welfare (with exception to health care I would hope). It's not that radical economically at all imo. It's not even remotely close to changing the entire system to something like communism.

    You're talking like everything is working fine as it is. Things are getting worse for most people, the system is corrupted and unfair. What makes you think any great effectiveness is being demonstrated in the current setup?
    Last edited by silvereye; 22nd January 2016 at 12:12 pm.

  4. Post
    #29
    You have to think of how happy it could make us too. That surely counts for something.

    No sickness benefit, unemployment benefit or pension and all the headaches that come with welfare.

    I'd rather we only be fine tuning two factors: flat TAX and the UBI. Between tuning those two you could pretty much set things up with a very similar balance to what we have now. But changing or experimenting from there would be really easy - it just requires increasing or decreasing those two factors ever so slightly. Start on a really low UBI if it makes people more willing to adopt the system.

    I may be wrong about this, but I see a beauty in this approach being a programmer. I like reducing everything down to the minimal amount of inputs and functions while still retaining the ability to reach desired outcomes.
    Last edited by silvereye; 22nd January 2016 at 1:03 pm.

  5. Post
    #30
    Not sure about a flat tax, I still think tax should be progressive. I do like the idea of higher taxes + a UBI however. It would certainly increase social mobility for those struggling. Giving them an opportunity to seek further education/training.

  6. Post
    #31
    s0cks wrote:
    Not sure about a flat tax, I still think tax should be progressive. I do like the idea of higher taxes + a UBI however. It would certainly increase social mobility for those struggling. Giving them an opportunity to seek further education/training.
    I don't like a flat tax given our current system. But if tax was raised to 50% and beyond, then the rich will be paying MORE than they are now so I don't know what arguments would be left for progressive taxing. At the other end of the scale the poor are compensated with the UBI - for them the UBI makes a huge difference. In a sense it would naturally emerge as progressive anyway. Getting rid of all that bullshit around tax will make it much easier to police too.

  7. Post
    #32
    Unsettled wrote:
    doesn't seem like much more than relabelling existing, more complex systems. wouldn't it be smarter to identify people who need it, and just give it to them ? (ie what we're doing now) I wasn't aware the governments of the world had so much spare revenue that they could just hand out cash to everybody regardless of need. It would play havok with inflation and just make $0 income $20k (or whatever they give)
    Because we face a future of rising unemployment and informal work force, overhead of just tracking income as traditional employment breaks down would be huge.

  8. Post
    #33
    Would quit and move out of Auckland. Farm chickens or something.

  9. Post
    #34
    silvereye wrote:
    I don't like a flat tax given our current system. But if tax was raised to 50% and beyond, then the rich will be paying MORE than they are now so I don't know what arguments would be left for progressive taxing. At the other end of the scale the poor are compensated with the UBI - for them the UBI makes a huge difference. In a sense it would naturally emerge as progressive anyway. Getting rid of all that bullshit around tax will make it much easier to police too.
    Flat tax slows upward momentum for lower earners regardless of the UBI as they will receive less income for the same $ value pay rise (for example a $10k rise from $30k to $40k currently nets you $8250 a year, @ 50% flat it nets you just $5k, @ 65% just $3.5k).

    $30k @ current tax = $25.3k take home + $20K UBI = $45.3k
    $40k @ current tax = $34k take home + $20k UBI = $54k
    Net increase = $8.7k

    $30k @ 50% flat tax = $15k take home + $20k UBI = $35k
    $40k @ 50% flat tax = $20k take home + $20k UBI = $40k
    Net increase = $5k

    You can just ignore the $ value of the UBI, as it makes no difference.
    Last edited by s0cks; 22nd January 2016 at 5:47 pm.

  10. Post
    #35
    apricotear wrote:
    Would quit and move out of Auckland. Farm chickens or something.
    I would also probably do this as well. Sell up in Auckland, buy some land, grow vegetable, chickens etc

    I would still work though, but probably only 20 hours a week or something. And remotely.

    If someone can make this system work, I would vote for them.

  11. Post
    #36
    InvisibleShadow wrote:
    Sounds great to me. I've said it before, I 'll quit my job on the spot if they can equal what I'm earning currently or get close to it.
    Yep.
    Someone make this happen.

  12. Post
    #37
    s0cks wrote:
    You can just ignore the $ value of the UBI, as it makes no difference.
    Good point, I didn't think of that. Though like I said, a lot of countries get away with high taxes without the UBI. I'm aware things are different here though.

  13. Post
    #38
    silvereye wrote:
    That would be the plan yes - almost one of the main reasons.

    Who knows... might even get people moving to the South Island to enjoy more spending power. Over time these new residents will create demand for more work, and also find work themselves. I think there will be an adjustment period where things look a bit scary... but over time the market will adjust I'm sure.?
    lol, i can't help but think of my recent trip to spain, which is in dire times. Enormous EU debt, 25% unemployment and the areas that are comparitively productive are contemplating splitting off from the dead weight... I can see auckland doing this, it's already got an "I'm awesome just ask me" collective attitude, and aucklanders are always mentioning how much they are taxed (in their considered opinion unfairly) to support roading / the rest of the country.

  14. Post
    #39
    TD wrote:
    So what happens when this is introduced? Does everyone continue to pay the same amount of tax and people who need assistance still get the same amount of assistance? On the other hand if an 18 year old living at home suddenly gets a UBI of $20,000 a year, where is that coming from? Is it coming from someone who previously needed it?

    UBI has always struck me as something that left-wing people push with the idea that it will solve inequality.
    Milton Friedman advocated it as an alternative to the welfare state, a way for people to have access to basic services and necessities without massive government interventionism and highly beneficent state bureaucracies to oversee equally bad government monopolies.

    The idea is too then reduce the payment at some such percentage of earnings that is low enough not to dis-incentivize people from entering the workforce and gaining entry-level positions, until such a point where you are earning enough to begin paying taxes.

    Hamburglar wrote:
    Really? I thought it had only gotten traction lately because of the rapidly closing era of robotic mass production. Can't just let all the people who can't program robots starve.
    Nope the idea is quiet old, actually there are many interesting ways of taxation, may of which are much better than what we have, the prebate is the most interesting one lately, basically the idea is a classical consumption based tax (i.e. GST and no income tax) with an automatic premptive rebate on the consumption tax up until the poverty rate. In New Zealand this could be perhaps based on the working for families thresholds.

    And then everything is taxed at a flat and straightforward rate, there is no penalty to savings, only the consumption expenditure is taxed, and there is much, much less cost in overseeing this sort of system as opposed to the system we have now which collects many sorts of different sized taxes from many activities and organizations, requiring a great deal of government and private resources to oversee..

    s0cks wrote:
    Flat tax slows upward momentum for lower earners regardless of the UBI as they will receive less income for the same $ value pay rise (for example a $10k rise from $30k to $40k currently nets you $8250 a year, @ 50% flat it nets you just $5k, @ 65% just $3.5k).

    $30k @ current tax = $25.3k take home + $20K UBI = $45.3k
    $40k @ current tax = $34k take home + $20k UBI = $54k
    Net increase = $8.7k

    $30k @ 50% flat tax = $15k take home + $20k UBI = $35k
    $40k @ 50% flat tax = $20k take home + $20k UBI = $40k
    Net increase = $5k

    You can just ignore the $ value of the UBI, as it makes no difference.
    Actually the idea of UBI was not in addition to your income, it was a mimimum income that was deducted at some predetermined rate until the individual was receiving no UBI and actually paying taxes.

  15. Post
    #40
    Consumption taxes simply don't cut it in a globalized digital economy, GST is already damaging competitiveness of local firms over foreign ones, they are trying to plug the leaks with their amazon/netflix tax policies and VPN clamp downs but ultimately its a loosing battle, plus our national pass time of leveraged property flipping is all consumption tax free.

  16. Post
    #41
    HellToupee wrote:
    Consumption taxes simply don't cut it in a globalized digital economy, GST is already damaging competitiveness of local firms over foreign ones, they are trying to plug the leaks with their amazon/netflix tax policies and VPN clamp downs but ultimately its a loosing battle, plus our national pass time of leveraged property flipping is all consumption tax free.
    The competitive advantage of a local firm due to lower shipping costs as they import in bulk via cheap sea-freight and can individually freight items via couriers as opposed to relying on expensive air freight already significantly outweights any tax advantage that foreign companies have.

    Making your argument falicious, do you have any idea how expensive it is to ship things from overseas via air-freight compared to via Sea-container and courier driver? It is more than the 15% GST. Furthermore there are actually situations where you pay far more in tax for buying something overseas, for instance as soony as you are required to pay GST you need to pay a processing fee of ~$46, this is on a good that is $400, so that is $60GST + $50 = $110 which is >25% TAX, ontop of your expensive shipping costs.

    If stores like Whitcouls are so noncompetitive that is so much cheaper to buy something from half way around the world that people are willing to wait a month to recieve their book, then Whitcouls has no right for the government to impose taxes to ensure they stay in bushiness, good riddance to them is all I can say..

  17. Post
    #42
    You have almost no idea about the realities and economics of things. Without fisking your whole post, your comment about GST vs shipping costs isnt relative for any item which is value dense - I.e. Some high value technology only costs cents in the dollar to move around. If someone wants to grey import potatoes they can knock themselves the **** out.

    It's almost as if your credibility hinges on learning theory at school and really really really wanting to beieve in the meritocracy you think you're going to ascend.

  18. Post
    #43
    Really hoping this goes through, it would be fascinating.

    I'm definitely another one in the inflation camp: basic expenses such as housing will dramatically rise because suddenly every single person will easily be able to afford things that were previously beyond willingness to spend for many.

    And then the poor will complain that UBI isn't enough, etc etc.
    But still, it seems like a neat approach. Will be watching closely.

  19. Post
    #44
    lumpy custard wrote:
    Really hoping this goes through, it would be fascinating.

    I'm definitely another one in the inflation camp: basic expenses such as housing will dramatically rise because suddenly every single person will easily be able to afford things that were previously beyond willingness to spend for many.

    And then the poor will complain that UBI isn't enough, etc etc.
    But still, it seems like a neat approach. Will be watching closely.
    But isn't inflation when you increase the money supply and devalue the dollar? Isn't this different, as in it wouldn't just be printing of new money, but redistributing existing money collected through taxes?

  20. Post
    #45
    Janupur wrote:
    If stores like Whitcouls are so noncompetitive that is so much cheaper to buy something from half way around the world that people are willing to wait a month to recieve their book, then Whitcouls has no right for the government to impose taxes to ensure they stay in bushiness, good riddance to them is all I can say..
    Hilarious you choose physical book stores as your example given how many have been closing and how digital books (which have next to no shipping cost) are decimating the physical book industry.

  21. Post
    #46
    s0cks wrote:
    Flat tax slows upward momentum for lower earners regardless of the UBI as they will receive less income for the same $ value pay rise (for example a $10k rise from $30k to $40k currently nets you $8250 a year, @ 50% flat it nets you just $5k, @ 65% just $3.5k).
    A flat tax wouldn't be anywhere near 50% no way that would fly politically these days (this ain't the 70's), ideally it'd be around 20%-30%.

    There's that calculator on Gareth Morgans UBI book website, that's fun to play with...
    http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/calculat...-minister.aspx

    Also remember historically in NZ when higher tax brackets have been lowered the tax receipts actually increased because it was less beneficial for high earners to use creative accounting to work around them.

  22. Post
    #47
    50% was just a number thrown out there by someone else, so I used it. I'm not a fan of flat tax regardless.

  23. Post
    #48
    silvereye wrote:
    Well lots of countries have way higher taxes than us so we know that can work. Basically instead of all those taxes going into various departments that help the welfare of the populace, the money goes straight to the populace who then manage their own welfare
    More likely the money would go into booze and ciggies (and drugs). Sure my view is extremely pessimistic, but there is a tinge of reality in there.

  24. Post
    #49
    Vulcan wrote:
    More likely the money would go into booze and ciggies (and drugs). Sure my view is extremely pessimistic, but there is a tinge of reality in there.
    I really struggle with this attitude tbh. Is it ok to drink and do drugs with your own money?

    You've got to look at why people would feel the need to drink and do drugs in the first place. Drug use is a disease. It's a symptom of a problem (such as needing welfare). It's not a luxury but you guys seem to treat it like they're buying caviar and puffing Cuban cigars on the tax payers dime. How do you think demonizing welfare recipients is going to help them get off welfare? Guilt? It makes as much sense as picking on homeless people for not paying rent because you have to.

  25. Post
    #50
    I've said it in plenty of other places and I'll say it again here.

    I don't believe a UBI can work, not unless we start to rape the country for oil/minerals/something to make the country rich via means that are not personal income tax.

    If you intend to pay for the UBI via personal tax the country will come to a halt. I know plenty of people that are currently working in such a way that multiple jobs are created (whether they are a business owner, or someone in a skilled position creating a product that uses administration/sales/other staff as part of the overall product).

    For the sake of this argument, lets say they employ 15 staff in their business they run/own.

    Let's say they are earning 120k now, and working 50-60 hours with a high level of stress.

    Under what some people have said above, we will have a UBI of 25k . That means (if I understand what you are trying to say) that anything over the 25k would be taxed at some stupidly high rate, perhaps 50%.

    $95k "over", taxed at 50% means the government will earn $47.5k from the business owner's hard work, and the business owner will take home 47.5 + 25 = $72.5k.



    Now, people say (correctly) hat the wealth is tied up with the rich few, and they are only getting richer. That tends to show that the rich are hanging onto their money and using it to make more, NOT spending it on things.

    In the UBI situation more money will be in the hands of more people, and I believe that more of these people are likely to spend their money instead of hording it. This means more money flowing around so if anything the prices of things are going to increase. Things will _not_ get cheaper.


    So back to my business owner that is working hard, 50-60 hours a week, lots of stress for only * $72.5k a year. He gets tried of it, and says nah stuff it. I'm going to close the business and go work part time doing some contract work, perhaps some IT consulting. He can do that at home any make maybe gross 60k a year. After the tax he will take home 25 + ((60-25)/2) = 42.5k.


    So significantly less than the money before, but he packs up and moves to a regional town and now he's working 20 hours a week from home, no stress and surviving on the lower income due to lower costs in the regional town.


    See the problem? What happens to the jobs of the other 15 staff?
    The other problem? The government is earning $17.5k from the business owner, not $47.5k. The other 15 staff that have lost their job now are not working so the government's income drops again because they are not working. Even bigger hole in the government books.


    *Yes I said only. Deal with it. $72.5k per year is not a lot of money.