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
Showing posts with label Guaranteed Minimum income. Poverty.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guaranteed Minimum income. Poverty.. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Thursday, December 12, 2013
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!"
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!"
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Why do "they" want our schools?
Kia-ora
Ever wondered why we have the push for charter schools when the evidence is so solidly in favour of State run unionised schools. The worlds top school systems are all State run and most are unionised.
Ever wondered why we are repeatedly told our State schools are failing, when they have been proven to be amongst the worlds best. PISA rankings at High school level.
Ever wondered why we are being pushed towards Charter/privatised schools when all the evidence shows they do not do as well as State schools. Stanford University Study. Despite all the extra funding charter schools have obtained, and the often extra effort and pupil selection poured in to make them work, all but a few demonstration schools, have done worse in the USA than State schools.
Sweden and UK's schools are also falling in standards since charter schools were introduced.
Ever wondered why State schools are being starved of funding while extra money is put into private schools.
Ever wondered why we are funding tests to tell us what we already know. Poor ,and hungry, kids do not do as well in school.
So they can claim the tests show State schools are failing.
Ever wondered why we are trying to imitate the USA, number 29 in school results, where poor kids are simply excluded from secondary education, and not Finland or even Korea, which are 1 and 2 respectively.
As always. Follow the money!
The finance industry has proven to be almost totally ineffectual in supporting entrepreneurial and productive business.
What they are good at is obtaining tax payer funding to add to their profits.
When tax payers are not bailing out their failures.
Education provides a certain source of tax and publicly funded wealth that, until recently, has been largely unavailable to the corporate pirates.
Education Profiteering Wall Streets Next Big Thing?page=0%2C0
"Education privatization would not, per se, create a net new stimulus for the economy. But by diverting large existing flows of money from the public to the private sector it would create new profit-making ventures that could be capitalized and transformed into stocks, derivatives and leveraged securities."
"The Chief Finance Officer of JP Morgan reports that some 75% of the net increase in corporate profits between 2000 and 2007 -- before the financial crash -- was a result of cuts in workers' wages and benefits. Given that unions are the only serious vehicles for resistance to the corporate low-wage strategy, ................"
A challenge
The attacks on State schools and their Teachers is entirely so that corporates can make money from the taxes we pay for education.
As usual the private sector are so poor at doing the thing they claim is their strength, starting viable businesses, that they want to steal "the socialists" successes. Ours!
Added. 17th.
New Zealand's Charter schools are to be exempted from the official information Act, so the public will not even be able to assess how they are performing. Charter, sorry, "partnership" schools exempted from OIA.
Ever wondered why we have the push for charter schools when the evidence is so solidly in favour of State run unionised schools. The worlds top school systems are all State run and most are unionised.
Ever wondered why we are repeatedly told our State schools are failing, when they have been proven to be amongst the worlds best. PISA rankings at High school level.
Ever wondered why we are being pushed towards Charter/privatised schools when all the evidence shows they do not do as well as State schools. Stanford University Study. Despite all the extra funding charter schools have obtained, and the often extra effort and pupil selection poured in to make them work, all but a few demonstration schools, have done worse in the USA than State schools.
Sweden and UK's schools are also falling in standards since charter schools were introduced.
Ever wondered why State schools are being starved of funding while extra money is put into private schools.
Ever wondered why we are funding tests to tell us what we already know. Poor ,and hungry, kids do not do as well in school.
So they can claim the tests show State schools are failing.
Ever wondered why we are trying to imitate the USA, number 29 in school results, where poor kids are simply excluded from secondary education, and not Finland or even Korea, which are 1 and 2 respectively.
As always. Follow the money!
The finance industry has proven to be almost totally ineffectual in supporting entrepreneurial and productive business.
What they are good at is obtaining tax payer funding to add to their profits.
When tax payers are not bailing out their failures.
Education provides a certain source of tax and publicly funded wealth that, until recently, has been largely unavailable to the corporate pirates.
Education Profiteering Wall Streets Next Big Thing?page=0%2C0
"Education privatization would not, per se, create a net new stimulus for the economy. But by diverting large existing flows of money from the public to the private sector it would create new profit-making ventures that could be capitalized and transformed into stocks, derivatives and leveraged securities."
"The Chief Finance Officer of JP Morgan reports that some 75% of the net increase in corporate profits between 2000 and 2007 -- before the financial crash -- was a result of cuts in workers' wages and benefits. Given that unions are the only serious vehicles for resistance to the corporate low-wage strategy, ................"
A challenge
The attacks on State schools and their Teachers is entirely so that corporates can make money from the taxes we pay for education.
As usual the private sector are so poor at doing the thing they claim is their strength, starting viable businesses, that they want to steal "the socialists" successes. Ours!
Added. 17th.
New Zealand's Charter schools are to be exempted from the official information Act, so the public will not even be able to assess how they are performing. Charter, sorry, "partnership" schools exempted from OIA.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
"Printing Money". Banking. Part Two.
Kia-ora
The Greens talk about Necessary Changes to Monetary Policy.
"Time to stop fighting Yesterday's war."
Gareth Morgan.
And why I do not agree with him this time.
Borrowing money, "printed money" from foreign banks, and paying 14 billion extra a year for the privilege, is sensible?
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2...
Do I detect a bit of self interest here?
In fact "printing money" worked very effectively for NZ in the 30's. So well it was copied by other countries.
All the howls about Zimbabwe and the Weimer
republic forget that their productive sectors were first destroyed,
before they started printing money, When there was nothing to buy with
it.
Not a lot different from Nationals present efforts!
A lot different from lending to ourselves to invest in paying our
under-utilised and capable construction industry to rebuild
Christchurch.
Vital infrastructure which will return the investment many times in future.
Also we did exactly the same thing from 1935 until the 60?s. Called the
Development finance corporation for a long time.
Worked well for us. Got us out of the depression before the US and UK for a start.
We are still using a lot of those assets. Apart from the ones our idiot
Governments sold, so someone else could profit from them.
National still seems to want to follow the USA, UK, Ireland and Greece down the tubes.
The Greens talk about Necessary Changes to Monetary Policy.
"Time to stop fighting Yesterday's war."
Gareth Morgan.
And why I do not agree with him this time.
Borrowing money, "printed money" from foreign banks, and paying 14 billion extra a year for the privilege, is sensible?
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2...
Do I detect a bit of self interest here?
In fact "printing money" worked very effectively for NZ in the 30's. So well it was copied by other countries.
All the howls about Zimbabwe and the Weimer
republic forget that their productive sectors were first destroyed,
before they started printing money, When there was nothing to buy with
it.
Not a lot different from Nationals present efforts!
A lot different from lending to ourselves to invest in paying our
under-utilised and capable construction industry to rebuild
Christchurch.
Vital infrastructure which will return the investment many times in future.
Also we did exactly the same thing from 1935 until the 60?s. Called the
Development finance corporation for a long time.
Worked well for us. Got us out of the depression before the US and UK for a start.
We are still using a lot of those assets. Apart from the ones our idiot
Governments sold, so someone else could profit from them.
National still seems to want to follow the USA, UK, Ireland and Greece down the tubes.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
Welfare Myth Busting.
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.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Charter Schools. Or More Privatisation of the Commons.
Kia-ora
New Zealand's National Government has legislated yesterday to follow the USA with the failed Charter School experiment.
Charter schools are simply a means to break the last vestige of trade union rights and to give the private sector access to tax dollars spent on education.
The private sector that is so good at education that most private schools had to be bailed out by tax payers.
Note; that despite all the tax payer dollars and effort poured into charter schools in the USA, 83% do not do any better than State schools. The majority do worse. Given the poor performance of State schooling in the USA generally that is not a recommendation. (Stanford University Study)
Why follow the disaster that is schooling and health in the USA.
We will see a few initial Potemkin charter schools do well, then the poor results of others will be buried.
They will not have any better results than resourcing State schools properly, to use already proven programs to reduce the tail. Successful programs such as remedial reading and Teacher aids in every classroom are being starved of funds so the Government can fund ideological nightmares such as charter schools.
If NACT was serious about bringing up educational achievement they would be working on reducing child poverty and funding extra help at early primary level for those falling behind, instead of gifting the private sector money out of education funding.
If the private sector are so good at education why don't they start their own schools. Wait! they did. We are paying to bail them out right now!
New Zealand's National Government has legislated yesterday to follow the USA with the failed Charter School experiment.
Charter schools are simply a means to break the last vestige of trade union rights and to give the private sector access to tax dollars spent on education.
The private sector that is so good at education that most private schools had to be bailed out by tax payers.
Note; that despite all the tax payer dollars and effort poured into charter schools in the USA, 83% do not do any better than State schools. The majority do worse. Given the poor performance of State schooling in the USA generally that is not a recommendation. (Stanford University Study)
Why follow the disaster that is schooling and health in the USA.
We will see a few initial Potemkin charter schools do well, then the poor results of others will be buried.
They will not have any better results than resourcing State schools properly, to use already proven programs to reduce the tail. Successful programs such as remedial reading and Teacher aids in every classroom are being starved of funds so the Government can fund ideological nightmares such as charter schools.
If NACT was serious about bringing up educational achievement they would be working on reducing child poverty and funding extra help at early primary level for those falling behind, instead of gifting the private sector money out of education funding.
If the private sector are so good at education why don't they start their own schools. Wait! they did. We are paying to bail them out right now!
Monday, June 18, 2012
On New Zealand's Retirement Income. Pension.
Kia-ora
The finance industry have been creaming their pants, for a return to the halcyon days, before the tax rebates were removed from superannuation savings. When they got to play with our money for free, and the negative returns and high charges were ignored, because of tax payer subsidies.
Egged on by the neo-liberals who prefer the elderly, the unemployed and the sick to starve in the streets, as an incentive to scare working people into accepting starvation wages, while they continue to get 17% increases in wealth, the finance industry is dreaming of getting more of their sticky hands on our wealth, with private super funds.
Since the 70's they have been constant in the meme that we cannot afford super. A meme that has been driven entirely by the self interest of those, who are too wealthy to need super and too mean to pay taxes, and a greedy finance industry.
Unfortunately, it is true, that if you repeat bullshit often enough, even those who should know better come to believe it.
We cannot afford super is code for, "we should leave our elderly to beg on the streets". So that wealthy people can pay less tax and the finance industry can again lose our savings for us.
In fact the idea that State super is unaffordable is crap from the same people that cry TINA and reckon that all social insurance is unaffordable.
If they win with super, they will just start on other social wages.
In reality it is much more affordable than the finance company bailouts, which would be necessary with private super.
.
"So, in 2050, we're projected to be paying only 1% of GDP more in superannuation than we were paying in 1990. Quelle horreur! This is not a difference to be terrified of, and it is easily manageable with a modest increase in taxation, either now or in the future (though that perhaps is exactly what those pushing for change are frightened of: higher taxes)".
Intergenerational theft is another piece of oft repeated stupidity.
"Do we really want to return to the days when most elderly people were totally impoverished when their working lives ended".
Super has always been paid for by current production. However you finingle it financially, whether through current taxation or savings, it still comes from the production of the current generation.
If we want to keep super affordable we should tax the current generation to invest in a sustainable future. Invest in energy, housing, education and other infrastructure so that we can keep all our people. Not in financial ponzi schemes which will fall over in the next GFC.
""Because our kids can’t afford to buy houses, we bought houses for them to live in using the equity from our house, and now all our money is tied up in mortgages. At the same time, we’re supporting our parents in their old age.
That’s how life is and always has been, for most of us. Our parents worked to give us a decent start in life, and we worked hard so our kids could have a fair go. We’re looking after our parents in their old age. We hope we’ll be looked after in our old age.
What about this is “intergenerational theft”?""
But. We can avoid the whole concept of retirement, intergenerational fairness and all the other sticking points by accepting that everyone in our society is entitled to a liveable share in the society they and their ancestors have built up.
Whether you call it a Universal income, Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) or a personal shareholder payment it is the same thing.
Replace all welfare, social insurance and pensions with a GMI.
We also get to solve many other problems such as child poverty, the unfairness of a present welfare system, and making our society more sustainable, at the same time.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235840-A-Town-Without-Poverty-Canada-s-Guaranteed-Income-Experiment
""Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work.
It turns out they did.
Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome - new mothers and teenagers. 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.
The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did"".
http://thestandard.org.nz/key-on-the-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-483385 The best way to deal with any problem is to eliminate it at root. The best way to deal with ‘retirement’ as a problem is to eliminate the entire concept. No I’m not being extreme.
The simple answer is a Universal Income""
""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"".
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Poverty in New Zealand.
Kia-ora
One of the biggest indictments of our current economic dogma is the number of people, in the worlds richest nations, living in poverty.
What comes first is POVERTY.
Poverty is what makes “breeding” for a living seem like a good option.
Poverty is what causes all the poor outcomes to the children of teenage mums.
Poverty is what causes people to be caught in a trap of continuing poverty.
We are never going to solve problems caused by poverty by making people poorer.
Social security and minimum wages that are so low, there is almost no chance of climbing out of the poverty trap, causes the problems.
Abatement rates for those earning a bit of money while on social security are higher than those for millionaires.
A two tier education system is going to make escape from poverty even harder.
Low wages are not even good capitalism. “Businesses that cannot meet the costs of the resources they use should be allowed to fail, so others can make better use of the resources/labour”.
Every business paying low wages means there is little demand. Hurting all business.
“You should pay your workers fairly because they are the source of your wealth” Adam Smith.
Three decades of Neo-Liberal meanness is coming back to bite us. And the right want to make the victims lives harder.
A guaranteed minimum income, national super, has succeeded in practically eliminating poverty in the over 65′s. Less than 3% live in poverty, and that most likely is self inflicted.
If we are serious in eliminating poverty amongst children, 20% living in poverty, we would extend the GMI idea, that has been so successful with the elderly, to young people.
One of the biggest indictments of our current economic dogma is the number of people, in the worlds richest nations, living in poverty.
What comes first is POVERTY.
Poverty is what makes “breeding” for a living seem like a good option.
Poverty is what causes all the poor outcomes to the children of teenage mums.
Poverty is what causes people to be caught in a trap of continuing poverty.
We are never going to solve problems caused by poverty by making people poorer.
Social security and minimum wages that are so low, there is almost no chance of climbing out of the poverty trap, causes the problems.
Abatement rates for those earning a bit of money while on social security are higher than those for millionaires.
A two tier education system is going to make escape from poverty even harder.
Low wages are not even good capitalism. “Businesses that cannot meet the costs of the resources they use should be allowed to fail, so others can make better use of the resources/labour”.
Every business paying low wages means there is little demand. Hurting all business.
“You should pay your workers fairly because they are the source of your wealth” Adam Smith.
Three decades of Neo-Liberal meanness is coming back to bite us. And the right want to make the victims lives harder.
A guaranteed minimum income, national super, has succeeded in practically eliminating poverty in the over 65′s. Less than 3% live in poverty, and that most likely is self inflicted.
If we are serious in eliminating poverty amongst children, 20% living in poverty, we would extend the GMI idea, that has been so successful with the elderly, to young people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)