Kia-ora
The concept of UBI has a long history in New Zealand.
Of course, we already have a UBI for
those over 65. Which has been extremely successful at eliminating
poverty amongst the elderly, at a very moderate cost by international
standards.
“In fact super has been so
effective in removing poverty amongst the elderly it should be extended
to everyone in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. There is no
excuse for having people with inadequate food and housing in a country
which is capable of supplying an excess of both internally”. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/on-retirement-pensions-and-age-of.html
It has been a policy plank of various minor political parties, such as Social Credit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Democratic_Party_for_Social_Credit
Currently, the Greens have discussed a UBI as part of welfare and economic policy development.
Many organisations, and individuals
both left and right wing, have discussed the idea. Including the
darling of the extreme right, Roger Douglas.
Recently Gareth Morgan has been an advocate. He puts the case rather well. http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/universal-basic-income.aspx
“Paying universal
transfers acknowledges that every individual has the same unconditional
right – to a basic income sufficient for them to live in dignity. The
Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) provides this.
With this basic protection in
place people are then free to add to that income through paid work if
they choose. Equally, they can live on the UBI and pursue other
activities – doing the unpaid work of caring for children or others in
their community for example, or studying full time, or pursuing new
business ventures. The UBI offers the prospect of ensuring everyone has
the means to live while giving them the freedom to live their lives as
they choose.”
However David Preston from the MSD
exemplifies what seems to be the main concern and almost the only real
objection to a UBI. People may chose to go surfing instead of working.
Horrors! http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj10/universal-basic-income-cure-or-disease.html
The vision, of 80 year old pensioners surfing, this engenders, caused me a great deal of mirth.
In fact the only real experiment with a universal basic income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
,showed that the overwhelming majority, even with guaranteed income,
chose to do something constructive. Work, study or raising children. In
the 70′s in New Zealand, with a much more generous unemployment benefit
than we have now, almost everyone still chose to work.
The biggest advantage of a UBI, of
course, is the almost total elimination of poverty, with all the savings
in the accompanying economic and social costs. There is also the not
inconsiderable savings in administration of welfare, simplified tax
systems and the hit or miss nature of targeted welfare. Because it is
universal, there is less incentive for the wealthy to try and destroy
it, to cut taxes.
The main objection, apart from the
horror of some people that recipients may simply go surfing, A horror
they do not seem to extend to the inheritors of unearned extreme wealth, is cost!
It is not, however, a given, that the overall cost of a UBI would be more than that of a fair targeted welfare system.
Of course those same people throw up
their hands object to the cost of current welfare. They cannot
understand why the poor are not made to live in cardboard boxes and
starve quietly as they do in their ideal economies, just so those on
high incomes can pay a few dollars less taxes.
Universal superannuation in New Zealand has been considerably cheaper and more effective than targeted schemes elsewhere.
Don’t see why a UBI should not pay for
itself in the savings in administration, the decreased costs of poverty
and the extra tax take from extra income within the economy. Flat taxes
over the UBI rate, are possible, which should cheer up the right wing.
The removal of abatement rates for
working and the removal of the penalty of extreme poverty for business
failure, for those not already millionaires, can only help more people
into work, study and entrepreneurship. For others, it frees them up for
socially useful unpaid work, such as sport coaching, teaching and the
myriads of other unpaid and unrecognized work which makes for a
functional society.
Lastly. In an era where resources are
running out, being able to survive without having to find ever more
creative ways of using up resources, and ripping off your fellow
citizens, is an essential step towards a steady state sustainable
society.
Also published in The Standard
