A "Culture of Entitlement"?

Kia-ora


With the current dialog about welfare, It is time to look at the people who are the real  beneficiaries, of the welfare system.
Who use the educated and healthy  workforce, the safe environment and the functioning infrastructure, our taxes and work, provides.
The people who say "everyone should stand on their own two feet", "you don't work you don't eat",  and "take personal responsibility",
The business sector.
What Business wants.

1. Staff fully educated and trained. "Job ready".
2. Low wages.
3. Tertiary education.
4. Better infrastructure, including power, roads, transport links and other services.
5. Better Government services.
6. Protection from crime.
7. Help with research.
8. Help with exporting.
9. Help with business development.
10. More immigration to keep wages and training costs down.
11. A pool of casual labour/unemployed, available when and where wanted.
12. Welfare benefits at starvation level, so people will take any low paid irregular hour job offered.

All supplied by tax payers and/or  employees, at great cost to the rest of us, that pay our taxes......
Now get this.
Not happy with being able to use, tax rebates, PAYE earners cannot, and the numerous accounting loopholes to minimise tax, as well as outright tax fraud, they also want.............
TAX CUTS for business!

What business wants, is a lot of benefits supplied by tax payers, and the unemployed.
But.
They want someone else to pay for it.
"Socialism for Business".
Where is the outrage from the "Tax Payers Union" and the "bene bashers"

The myth of "Retirement Savings"

Kia-ora


Advocates of Kiwisaver and other funded retirement savings schemes perpetuate the fundamental misunderstanding that "conventional" in New Zealand's case "neo-liberal" economists, speculators, finance companies, politicians and those with a lot of share holding wealth in non-productive enterprises like to perpetuate.

In other words all those who gain from wealth transfer from workers to non-productive wealthy parasites.

The myth is that, if we give our wealth to any of the above they will magically increase it due to the "miracle" of compounding interest from investment. Then give it back to us with extra when we retire.
US retirees are already finding out how that works.
The wealthy are keeping the retirement funds. Thanks very much!

"Saving" for retirement relies on three assumptions.

One. That an ever increasing amount of money equals a similar supply of real wealth and real capital.
Two. That an exponentially increasing wealth per person is possible in a finite world reaching resource limits.
Three. That putting money into increasing land prices and increasing derivative prices in the USA, a failing State, will somehow, "magically" mean more money (Healthcare, food, Housing etc) to support you or me in our retirement.

Retirement income, real income as opposed to monetary income, as does schooling healthcare, infrastructure supply and food, always comes from current production. If I do not eat my dinner today, it does not mean there is someone who can give me my dinner in my eighties.

If however, I ensure our young people have enough to eat, good health, training in skilled jobs, functioning and effective infrastructure and good jobs, or if these are not available, at least enough to live on, then New Zealand will be prosperous enough to support me in my old age.

The best investment for my old age then, is not giving my money away for financial wizards to lose, but to pay taxes to make sure that the next generation are happy, healthy, educated, employed and comfortable.

Also published in "The Standard".

UBI (3). Taxes, income and Welfare.

Kia-ora

An often repeated argument against increases in welfare, including UBI, minimum wages or payments to alleviate poverty, is that it will fuel inflation and most will end up no better off. (More market advocates don't seem to have the same faith in "the market" to hold prices down for the poor, as they do for the rich).
We never see that argument made against the 17 to 20% increases at the top end, which are already fuelling inflation, in food and housing, making prices too high for poorer people.

The answer is, to make the rich less wealthy.

The Laffer curve theory, the idea that Government share of the economy displaces private share, is often cited as a reason for not expanding the size of Government spending.
The theory is generally given as an argument against higher taxes along with the idea that higher taxes will simply be avoided.
 The evidence shows, however, up to a certain point, Government spending on infrastructure, education, health, services, welfare and social policy helps the private sector as well.
The worlds most successful economies generally have a Government share of the economy greater than ours. We have a lot of room to move in this direction.
However, a UBI is a change in distribution of incomes, not an increase in the size of Government.
WINZ will shrink, for a start. So will tax compliance costs for small business.

Higher progressive taxes are inevitable. As Obama said "it is math". We cannot have a viable economy/society while reducing Government services below a minimum and continuing to borrow, so a few wealthy people can pay less tax.
We cannot afford the compounding interest, on the billions required over time, for National's unaffordable tax cuts.

Middle to upper middle income PAYE earners claim, with some justification, they are paying a disproportionate share of taxes.
They are in the middle, between the better off, who can use tax dodges, and the poor, who do not have enough to pay tax.
A more even distribution of taxes, maybe, with capital gains taxes, financial transaction taxes, wealth taxes, which share costs more fairly around all sources of income/wealth, will  allow us to reduce PAYE income taxes share..
Broader definitions of income, for tax, makes the system fairer.

The psychological effect of universality. "I am getting something back for my taxes, even if I am paying more tax than I am getting back" should not be underestimated.
If New Zealand super was not universal, it would have been steeply reduced, or gone, 2 decades ago.

The highest marginal tax rates are paid by those on the lowest incomes. Then there are regressive taxes such as GST.  At the bottom end high marginal rates really are a disincentive to work. Abatement rates, plus work and transport costs means a welfare recipient that does some work is often worse off. At the other end I do not know of anyone who will turn down an extra million dollars in income becuase they may have to pay 600 thousand in tax.
Certainly didn't stop me from trying to work harder to raise my income, when marginal tax rates were 60%, in the early 80's..


I have no sympathy at all with those on high incomes who complain they use the same services as those on low incomes, but are paying a greater dollar amount of tax.
They are benefiting the most from the society NZ taxpayers and workers have built, and from Government services. That is how they became  wealthier! It is only fair that they pay the most. Chances are,  if they had been born in a country without our education, infrastructure, social and health systems, they would be the one in the cardboard box on the street.

Progressive taxation  is the price of living in a well resourced, pleasant, and cohesive society.

If you don't like it, move, to a tax free paradise, like Somalia!

But first, Please be consistent with your principles, and give back to New Zealanders all the proportion of your wealth that you earned because of our  efforts and support.

UBI (2) Why should we push for a UBI? (Universal basic income).

Why a UBI?

Firstly. To overturn some paradigms:
That a great many people should lead poor and constricted lives, so a very few can be rich.
That ordinary people are disposable economic production units.

The economy, and I use the word in its broadest sense, exists for people, not the other way around.

New Zealanders, apart from a few extremists, generally accept that some of the income/resources available to those in paid work is transferred to those who are too young, old, ill or incapable to undertake paid work and those who undertake work, such as childcare, which is essential to our society.

The debate is about the amount, and how to fund and distribute it.


So. Why should we use a UBI?

A UBI empowers everyone, especially those who are currently marginalised, with the principle, everyone should have enough of societies resources as of right, for, at least, the necessities of life. I would go further, and say that everyone deserves enough, to be a inclusive part of the community.

A UBI acknowledges, and enables a living, for the many people, such as those bringing up children, (Mostly women) who carry out essential, but currently poorly paid or unpaid, services for our society.

A UBI looks after those whose work is displaced by the necessary shift to a more energy efficient and environmentally sustainable economy.
We cannot expect the involved workers, for example, coal miners, to bear the whole costs of the shift.

A redistribution of income to those at the lower end, who have to spend all their income, will be “good for business”, especially local small and medium enterprises (SME’s).

A UBI and initial flat tax rates removes the high marginal rates on low income earners. Encouraging workforce participation, entrepreneurship and progress away from “welfare dependency”..

The simpler tax system possible with a UBI makes compliance easier, especially for SME’s, and avoidance harder.

Redistributing income to those who spend it locally, instead of on Maseratis, Hawaii holidays and imported electronic junk is good for our balance of payments.

It reverses the, economically and socially disastrous, re-distribution of income upwards of the last 3 decades.

Increases the money available for savings and investment locally.

Libertarians, the principled ones, can see a lot to like in giving people choices in how they spend income, rather than giving it to the Government to spend. Less Government involvement in income redistribution and allocation may well “shrink” some parts of Government. We see from the “mincome” experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome , that spending on welfare, health care, crime and other effects, of poverty and social dysfunction, will reduce over time.

A UBI allows time out; to study, get well, bring up children, carry out voluntary community work, teach, start a business, avoid burnout, add to community services/wealth.

We already have a UBI, for older people. NZ super.
It has been totally successful in removing poverty amongst the elderly, (less than 3% in poverty).

We can, at least, extend it to children.

Time we “made poverty, history!”

Also published in  The Standard

UBI (1). Memes and Paradigms.

This post is a follow up from.  http://thestandard.org.nz/ubi/


The way human beings process information means that  memes and slogans  are powerful ways of influencing people.
We are all aware of the persistence of memes like “we cannot afford super”, “bludging beneficiaries”,  “poverty is unsolvable”, people will only work if forced” etc……….

Propagandists know that if you repeat a meme or slogan often enough it becomes truth, even in the minds of those who should know better. The extreme right wing know this. Which is why they often just endlessly parrot the same mindless slogans.

More thoughtful people try and counter memes with facts and figures. Trying to persuade with reality.
In fact we  need to counter memes with our own.
“We cannot afford super/welfare”.
With;  We did in the 30’s to the 70’s when New Zealand was supposedly much poorer. Or, “We do very well out of the unpaid contributions of the elderly,  (and mothers,  carers, and all the other unpaid community workers). ”.
“Bludging beneficiaries”.
With;  “Those on welfare are you and me,  given a bit of bad luck or ill health”.
“People  are inherently lazy and need to be forced to work”. (I consider this a piece of projection from the greedy section of the right, who cannot conceive of anyone doing anything without reward).
With;  Most people contribute to society if they can.
“Poverty is unsolvable”.
With;  We solved it for the elderly in New Zealand.  (less than 3% in poverty).

A paradigm shift happens when someone challenges the accepted way of doing things.
When, for example, they ask.  “Why should electric vehicles be the same as fossil fuelled ones?”.

Those growing up after the 80’s will find it hard to imagine the paradigm shift, that was the rise of Neo-liberalism, in the 80’s, in New Zealand. The colossal untested experiment, it really was,  and the huge shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the richest of us.

Fairness, inclusiveness, equality, and the right of everyone to a decent life, was basically accepted by the left and right wing in New Zealand.  It wasn’t perfect, of course, but the existence of the ladder to a decent life, for everyone, was a large part of our national goals. Something we were, rightly, proud of.
The great neo-liberal experiment has succeeded in changing our social paradigm to a much more “dog eat dog”,  unequal and mean spirited society. The promised economic gains have only eventuated for a very few.

I don’t want to paint us into a corner and say that a UBI is the only answer.  (Thanks McFlock)  It is not,  it may not even be the right one.  (More on pros and cons next post).  Big changes  without deep thought,  examination, research, discussion and consensus,  is something we should leave to the other side.

But. In exploring ideas like this (Thanks Weka) we are, hopefully, starting a paradigm shift away from Neo-liberal acceptance of meanness and inequity  towards inclusiveness, equity, fairness and the right of all of us to a decent and hopeful life.
Why should we accept poverty in a country which has more than enough resources for everyone?
New Zealand once led the world in social policy. New Zealanders, of all political colours, are proud of our world leading human rights and social welfare initiatives.

Dauphin was the “town without poverty” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

New Zealand could be,

“The country without poverty” .

Also Published in The Standard

How to: Pick an Excuse for Not doing Anything About Poverty

Kia-ora

Right wing, excuses reasons, for not doing anything about children in poverty.

1. "It costs too much".
2. "Taxation is theft".
3. "They are not as poor as they are in (Insert a third world Nation with less than half our GDP, and a 10th of our resources per capita)".
4. "The statistics are wrong".
5. "It is not as many as they claim".
6. "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money".
7. "I was in a poor persons house and they had "Chocolate biscuits, a colour TV, or, horrors, a bottle of beer"!!
8. "It's all those solo mothers on the DPB breeding for a living".
9. "I know a person who.............."
10. "It is a choice they make".
11. "It is people who make poor choices".
12. "They shouldn't have had kids they couldn't afford".
13. "Why should "I" pay for other peoples kids".
14. "The centre will never vote for it".
15. "We will do something if finances allow".
16. "Giving them money made them poor".
17. "Those socialists made them poor by giving them benefits".
18. "I pay enough taxes".
19. "There are no poor in New Zealand".
20. "Not now, later!"

Universal Basic Income. UBI.

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

The Standard on Pay Rates.

Kia-ora

The New Zealand left wing newsletter/blog, "The Standard" has some interesting discussions on wage levels.

It appears only the already rich work harder when they are paid more. The poor have to work for love.

The idea that we are not competitive unless wages are low wears a bit thin when those at the very top can pay themselves 17 to 20% more each year.

 Zetetic in The Standard on pay rates.

"As you know, the Right says more money incentivises harder work. John Key felt he wasn’t working very hard when he first became PM on a net $250,000 a year, so he gave himself tax cuts and pay rises worth $100 a day. Just look at the results!
But I’m confused: why’s he cutting our pay with youth wages, higher Kiwisaver, and higher student loan repayments? Is it that rich people work harder when they get more money and poor people work harder when they get less?
I guess the elite really do see us as a different species – mules, I suppose. And I see them as a different species but for different reasons and as a different species – leeches.

Livable income.

Kia-ora

A liveable income should be a human right.

We accept that someone can inherit unearned millions, but we do not accept that someone else should inherit enough, from our society, to live on, as of right.

Who actually has the culture of unearned entitlement?
The Koch’s, Romney’s, Bennets, Shipley and Keys getting thousands a day for contributing very little.
Not a teenager who has been struggling unsuccessfully to find work for two years and is expected to live on $130 a week.

The days of constant growth and full employment are gone.

We can produce enough for everyone to live in comfort in NZ with fraction of our present activity/employment.

I do not have the figures for New Zealand, but, rather than a more equal distribution of income making everyone poorer, if the USA’s current production was shared equally, every family in the States would have an income of around 180k annually.

The right wing idea that a more equal distribution of income means equality in misery, is an obvious fallacy.

A surgeon, teacher or entrepreneur should earn more than an unqualified cleaner, but by cutting extreme wealth there is plenty of room to eradicate poverty in New Zealand. Or the US.

No one except for some rare exceptional entrepreneurs, “earns” millions.

Note that in both the USA and New Zealand when they were at their most prosperous the top progressive tax rate was much higher and inequalities in wealth much lower than they are now.
Trickle down does not work.  http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/blog-post.html

The "Culture of Entitlement".

Kia-ora

Welfare recipients “Culture of Entitlement”.

Unintentional irony from individuals who are sitting on 100 thousand dollar pay rises, while their company tanks in the recession, salt their income away offshore to avoid taxes, prefer to spend on bidding up prices with unproductive speculation, expect taxpayer bailouts when their gambling fails, and ask for tax cuts while the deficit increases.

National's race to the Third World.

Kia-ora

The-race-to-the-bottom

National has re-introduced youth rates.
At a level it is not possible for a youth to live on.


Pretending  that it will help unemployment.
In reality it is just another ploy in their attempt to satisfy their large corporate donors, by driving wages down to third world levels.

Young people being expected to subsidise their employers, even more than they are already, with the inadequate minimum wage, is not going to make for more employment.

There is a justification for a lower wage when the employer is contributing towards apprenticeship training for a valuable career. Not for, no future, McJobs.


National shuffling the deck chairs again while the ship heads for the icebergs.


Base-wage-for-youth-is-a-joke
 "The Government hasn't a clue about what to do about the job market, we can at least agree on that. The best they can do is play up to the most blinkered members of their congregation. They pulled the same stunt a while back with their 89-day sacking law, at the time spouting how much it would help youth into jobs. Result? Well, the youth unemployment rate is still a horror show and unprecedented numbers of youngsters are migrating to Aussie".


Wages are already too low. Enabling multinational employers to remove too much money from NZ.

Or Maybe Richard Boock has it right.
 "Slashing the minimum wage for teenage workers will create jobs? What nonsense, it's simply a case of the most vulnerable being sold off so the Government can keep its fat cats purring. It isn't a helping hand for the youth market, it's just a cheap and nasty sop to employers".

This will bite NZ business on the butt. Employees, especially young ones, are also paying customers.

NZ employers have already managed to shuffle off most of their training costs onto employees and tax payers. What more do they need.

Slaves!

Oh! I forgot. Slaves actually cost more, as you have to pay enough to feed and house them.

Welfare/Social Insurance, Myths Busted.

Kia-ora

Welfare Myth Busting.

 And a right wing job busting Government was elected.

More on welfare myths here. Ten Myths About Welfare/

Far from being bludgers, most social welfare recipients are receiving the social insurance they paid taxes for during the remainder of their working lives.

The few that are not are almost all people who have physical or mental disabilities, which prevent them from working. A decent society should be looking after them anyway.

Beneficiary Bashing. New Zealand.

Kia-ora

Social welfare recipients are commonly demonized by right wing Governments.

Usually for the same reasons the Nazis used Jews.
To distract from the failure of Neo-liberal Government.

Most of the memes they use are demonstrably false.

Ten myths about welfare
"Looking across all forms of benefits, 61.4 % of recipients are benefit dependent for four years or less. Only 14.3 % are on benefits for more than ten years – and since those figures include people with chronic physical and mental disabilities, the ratio of those staying on benefits because it is a “lifetime, lifestyle choice’ is lower again."

Note that over 35 years ago in New Zealand when social welfare payments were proportionately a lot higher than they are now, but there was near full employment, there were so few unemployed the Prime Minister, famously, stated he knew them all by name.

The Canadian mincome, minimum income experiment. 
Mincome "She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. In addition, Forget finds that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse^."

"We cannot afford social welfare"

Well. It seems we cannot afford social welfare for the rich and corporates.

Welfare fraud 0.1% of welfare payments. About 16 million.
Tax fraud 7 billion.
Tax avoidance by the rich. Half of the wealthiest people in NZ do not pay tax!
7 billion plus.
Profits and interest paid overseas 14 billion plus.

It is not social insurance that we cannot afford.

It is Neo-Liberal right wing Governments.