On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce it.
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce it. >>
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate >pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >investigating, it won't happen.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:44:33 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate >>pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >>disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>investigating, it won't happen.
Here's a different take on the effect a distorted tax system has
produced - not directly relevant to UBI though.
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638 >>>>
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth investigating, it won't happen.
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having. http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Fred wrote:
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>> it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these desirable conditions.
On 24/03/2016 4:10 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Fred wrote:I waqs intrigued with this basic wage for all concept a few years ago
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>>> it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare >> payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower
than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these >> desirable conditions.
when I first heard of it. I played round with some numbers but couldn't
come up with anything workable that could be sold to the electorate
other than those who simply chose not to earn. Then Morgan came out with
his Big Kahuna book which added in taxing capital assets such as the
home. That stops it being a flat tax. I decided after that, that it
could never fly, and will remain something for the academics to play
with and that Morgan should get on with hunting cats. I will be
interested to see how the Finnish test run goes.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:47:06 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 4:10 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Fred wrote:I waqs intrigued with this basic wage for all concept a few years ago
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>>>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>>>> it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare >>> payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower >>> than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these
desirable conditions.
when I first heard of it. I played round with some numbers but couldn't
come up with anything workable that could be sold to the electorate
other than those who simply chose not to earn. Then Morgan came out with
his Big Kahuna book which added in taxing capital assets such as the
home. That stops it being a flat tax. I decided after that, that it
could never fly, and will remain something for the academics to play
with and that Morgan should get on with hunting cats. I will be
interested to see how the Finnish test run goes.
A flat tax would tax all income wouldn't it?
Why would you want to exempt some income. The current government moved towards that position with propoerty last year - why do you think they
were wrong?
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth investigating, it won't happen.
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having. http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:33:34 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:44:33 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what >>>>>> is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what
any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is
properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about >>>>> it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the
concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to
introduce it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate >>>pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >>>disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>investigating, it won't happen.
Here's a different take on the effect a distorted tax system has
produced - not directly relevant to UBI though.
Oops, missed the url:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/bubble-and-pop
Its a good site - Andrew Geddis and Brian Easton are always worth
reading, and I have come to appreciate Tim Watkin as well. Ganesh Nana
hasn't posted for quite a while, but his most recent post is well
worth reading again.
On 25/03/2016 5:47 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:47:06 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The key to the whole scheme is the universal grant being exempt. It
On 24/03/2016 4:10 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Fred wrote:I waqs intrigued with this basic wage for all concept a few years ago
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those >>>>>>>> struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>>>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>>>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>>>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>>>>> it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept, >>>>>> and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work - >>>>>> including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist. >>>>>> Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>>> already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a >>>>> big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>>> investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare
payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower >>>> than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these
desirable conditions.
when I first heard of it. I played round with some numbers but couldn't
come up with anything workable that could be sold to the electorate
other than those who simply chose not to earn. Then Morgan came out with >>> his Big Kahuna book which added in taxing capital assets such as the
home. That stops it being a flat tax. I decided after that, that it
could never fly, and will remain something for the academics to play
with and that Morgan should get on with hunting cats. I will be
interested to see how the Finnish test run goes.
A flat tax would tax all income wouldn't it?
Why would you want to exempt some income. The current government moved
towards that position with propoerty last year - why do you think they
were wrong?
abates to income earners and effectively only becomes a benefit to the
low paid and current beneficiaries. Alternatively the scheme could pay a >higher amount to all and include the lot as taxable. That's more complex
for administration. If you are talking about the govt. disallowing >depreciation as a cost - yes they were wrong, because it is a cost and
should be reinstated as deductible which hopefully a Greens led govt
govt will do - but I can't see it.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:06:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2016 5:47 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:47:06 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The key to the whole scheme is the universal grant being exempt. It
On 24/03/2016 4:10 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Fred wrote:I waqs intrigued with this basic wage for all concept a few years ago
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those >>>>>>>>> struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for >>>>>>>>> Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept, >>>>>>> and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work - >>>>>>> including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist. >>>>>>> Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>>>> already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>>>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a >>>>>> big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >>>>>> disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>>>> investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare
payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower >>>>> than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these
desirable conditions.
when I first heard of it. I played round with some numbers but couldn't >>>> come up with anything workable that could be sold to the electorate
other than those who simply chose not to earn. Then Morgan came out with >>>> his Big Kahuna book which added in taxing capital assets such as the
home. That stops it being a flat tax. I decided after that, that it
could never fly, and will remain something for the academics to play
with and that Morgan should get on with hunting cats. I will be
interested to see how the Finnish test run goes.
A flat tax would tax all income wouldn't it?
Why would you want to exempt some income. The current government moved
towards that position with propoerty last year - why do you think they
were wrong?
abates to income earners and effectively only becomes a benefit to the
low paid and current beneficiaries. Alternatively the scheme could pay a
higher amount to all and include the lot as taxable. That's more complex
for administration. If you are talking about the govt. disallowing
depreciation as a cost - yes they were wrong, because it is a cost and
should be reinstated as deductible which hopefully a Greens led govt
govt will do - but I can't see it.
The tax change I was referring to was National changing the law so
that a sale within 2 years (3?) is automatically deemed to give
liability for tax on capital gains. It was a very small change that
has not made much difference if any to the Auckland market, but it was
a step towards a more universal tax on capital gains.
We are a long way from deciding levels of UBI, but you are correct
that payments could be made taxable - not too difficult really, but
with a flat rate of tax what difference would it make?
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ncv9jm$fd8$2@dont-email.me...
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>> economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>> designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>> until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>> but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>> it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a big
advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
I doubt it would replace the benefits you mention Fred. But the bright side is many collecting thoe benefits arn't going to vote Labour because it'll mean they'll all take a pretty comprehensive cut in their income if the idea is implemented by Labour.
Pooh
On 26/03/2016 12:51 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:06:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2016 5:47 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:47:06 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:The key to the whole scheme is the universal grant being exempt. It
On 24/03/2016 4:10 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Fred wrote:I waqs intrigued with this basic wage for all concept a few years ago >>>>> when I first heard of it. I played round with some numbers but couldn't >>>>> come up with anything workable that could be sold to the electorate
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those >>>>>>>>>> struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for >>>>>>>>>> Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept, >>>>>>>> and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work - >>>>>>>> including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist. >>>>>>>> Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has >>>>>>>> without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>>>>> already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a >>>>>>> big advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >>>>>>> disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>>>>> investigating, it won't happen.
Agreed. It's only worthwhile compare to the current system if:
- the amount pay is truly universal and there are no other forms of welfare
payments from the state (including pensions).
- we have a true flat tax, and the top rate of that is considerably lower
than the current top tax rate.
Looking at the numbers though I don't see how it can be afforded given these
desirable conditions.
other than those who simply chose not to earn. Then Morgan came out with >>>>> his Big Kahuna book which added in taxing capital assets such as the >>>>> home. That stops it being a flat tax. I decided after that, that it
could never fly, and will remain something for the academics to play >>>>> with and that Morgan should get on with hunting cats. I will be
interested to see how the Finnish test run goes.
A flat tax would tax all income wouldn't it?
Why would you want to exempt some income. The current government moved >>>> towards that position with propoerty last year - why do you think they >>>> were wrong?
abates to income earners and effectively only becomes a benefit to the
low paid and current beneficiaries. Alternatively the scheme could pay a >>> higher amount to all and include the lot as taxable. That's more complex >>> for administration. If you are talking about the govt. disallowing
depreciation as a cost - yes they were wrong, because it is a cost and
should be reinstated as deductible which hopefully a Greens led govt
govt will do - but I can't see it.
The tax change I was referring to was National changing the law so
that a sale within 2 years (3?) is automatically deemed to give
liability for tax on capital gains. It was a very small change that
has not made much difference if any to the Auckland market, but it was
a step towards a more universal tax on capital gains.
That is simply income tax and gives clarity to a rule that was always
there but a bit fuzzy. It's fair enough because those flick over
merchants could get away with tax by spinning a story to IRD. It's
income and subject to income tax.
We are a long way from deciding levels of UBI, but you are correctNone. Just seems less complicated to make it exempt - everyone would be
that payments could be made taxable - not too difficult really, but
with a flat rate of tax what difference would it make?
in the same boat. Maybe it's just as simple to pay it then take it back
- it's not a major point of the whole scheme.
On 26/03/2016 11:53 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageWe don't know the levels Labour are considering yet. There is merit in the scheme in theory, so it's worth considering. The various theoretical
news:ncv9jm$fd8$2@dont-email.me...
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what >>>>>> is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what
any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is
properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about >>>>> it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the
concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to
introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big
advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
I doubt it would replace the benefits you mention Fred. But the bright
side
is many collecting thoe benefits arn't going to vote Labour because it'll
mean they'll all take a pretty comprehensive cut in their income if the
idea
is implemented by Labour.
Pooh
versions I have seen are not workable or could not be sold to the masses, particularly Morgan's. I'm not sure the time has come for this type of arrangement but in a decade or two it's inevitable that the tax system
will be overhauled and a UBI will almost certainly replace all other benefits. So good on Labour - at long last they're being constructive, although I don't trust this current lot to advance it much.
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nd4nq5$3mh$2@dont-email.me...
On 26/03/2016 11:53 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageWe don't know the levels Labour are considering yet. There is merit in the >> scheme in theory, so it's worth considering. The various theoretical
news:ncv9jm$fd8$2@dont-email.me...
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what >>>>>>> is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what >>>>>> any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is
properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about >>>>>> it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the
concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to
introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out
already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a
big
advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth
investigating, it won't happen.
I doubt it would replace the benefits you mention Fred. But the bright
side
is many collecting thoe benefits arn't going to vote Labour because it'll >>> mean they'll all take a pretty comprehensive cut in their income if the
idea
is implemented by Labour.
Pooh
versions I have seen are not workable or could not be sold to the masses,
particularly Morgan's. I'm not sure the time has come for this type of
arrangement but in a decade or two it's inevitable that the tax system
will be overhauled and a UBI will almost certainly replace all other
benefits. So good on Labour - at long last they're being constructive,
although I don't trust this current lot to advance it much.
Your right about there being merit in the scheme. However like the capital gains tax which Labour suggested a few years ago nobody wants Labour implimenting it. The whole UBI thing seems to be something little Andy spouted off the top of his head without having given it any thought. Much like most if not all of Rich's posts.
Pooh
On 28/03/2016 11:37 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageI'm sure some govt. will introduce a UBI one day, but not yet. It's high
news:nd4nq5$3mh$2@dont-email.me...
On 26/03/2016 11:53 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageWe don't know the levels Labour are considering yet. There is merit in the >>> scheme in theory, so it's worth considering. The various theoretical
news:ncv9jm$fd8$2@dont-email.me...
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change, >>>>>>>> with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those >>>>>>>> struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both >>>>>>>> normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will >>>>>>>> only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their >>>>>>>> idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party >>>>>>>> has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what >>>>>>>> is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what >>>>>>> any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is
properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>>>>> won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about >>>>>>> it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the >>>>>>> concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help >>>>>>> is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to
introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept, >>>>>> and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work - >>>>>> including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist. >>>>>> Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn >>>>>> is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>>> already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on capital/houses/assetts >>>>> that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a >>>>> big
advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the
disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>>> investigating, it won't happen.
I doubt it would replace the benefits you mention Fred. But the bright >>>> side
is many collecting thoe benefits arn't going to vote Labour because it'll >>>> mean they'll all take a pretty comprehensive cut in their income if the >>>> idea
is implemented by Labour.
Pooh
versions I have seen are not workable or could not be sold to the masses, >>> particularly Morgan's. I'm not sure the time has come for this type of
arrangement but in a decade or two it's inevitable that the tax system
will be overhauled and a UBI will almost certainly replace all other
benefits. So good on Labour - at long last they're being constructive,
although I don't trust this current lot to advance it much.
Your right about there being merit in the scheme. However like the capital >> gains tax which Labour suggested a few years ago nobody wants Labour
implimenting it. The whole UBI thing seems to be something little Andy
spouted off the top of his head without having given it any thought. Much
like most if not all of Rich's posts.
Pooh
time the tax system was cleaned up. It's a nightmare with it's benefits
all over the place and working for families. It could be either National
or Labour who eventually goes for a UBI, governments of all colours are >considering similar schemes - but it won't be this Labour lot.
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qu86fbh8rkihm8fg0iddblodhbpuetoq8t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638 >>>>
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is >>>> happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what any >>>economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is properly >>>designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked socialists >>>won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking about it >>>until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the concept >>>but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to introduce >>>it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept,
and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work -
including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist.
Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Working for familys was a blatant bribe by Labour to secure another term
in parliament. It was a bit better than the current unaffordable brain
fart from little Andy and luckily not needing $900,000,000 a week
financing that will only increase as the population grows.
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having. http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...Probably both, but neither Labour or National would reduce income of
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours >mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite happy >to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool Rich >who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year
old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.Average earnings is rising largely because the very top earnings are increasing. Most people are getting very small or no increases, qand
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the pension >being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is >liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?The current government has driven a lot of costs down to local
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.It is certainly getting very hard for people to buy their first home,
And some grandparents are still raising children.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.National have fooled a lot of people this time - the last Labour
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:15:24 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours >mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite happy >to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool Rich >who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year >old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?Probably both, but neither Labour or National would reduce income of
current pensioners, or people nearing retirement age.
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.Average earnings is rising largely because the very top earnings are increasing. Most people are getting very small or no increases, qand
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the pension >being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
that is making life very difficult for local shops. .
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is >liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?The current government has driven a lot of costs down to local
government, and their scheme for Auckland has meant that a lot has
been moved to companies with a profit motive - by design more and more
costs are falling on houseowners.
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.It is certainly getting very hard for people to buy their first home,
And some grandparents are still raising children.
and raising a child is difficult for people that need two jobs to pay
the bills.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.National have fooled a lot of people this time - the last Labour
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
government lived within its means, lowered unemployment, and set aside
money for NZ Superannuation. The current government has made live
easier for the very wealthy, but harder for everyone else, and leaves
a huge debt to be paid by future generations. The interest cost alone
is becoming significant in budget terms, and we have nothing to show
for the sale of a lot of assets.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:12:01 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/03/2016 11:37 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageI'm sure some govt. will introduce a UBI one day, but not yet. It's high >>time the tax system was cleaned up. It's a nightmare with it's benefits
news:nd4nq5$3mh$2@dont-email.me...
On 26/03/2016 11:53 a.m., Pooh wrote:
"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in messageWe don't know the levels Labour are considering yet. There is merit in >>>> the
news:ncv9jm$fd8$2@dont-email.me...
On 24/03/2016 12:20 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:49:39 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is >>>>>>>>> worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall
change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net >>>>>>>>> benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those >>>>>>>>> struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, >>>>>>>>> both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for >>>>>>>>> Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it >>>>>>>>> will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was >>>>>>>>> their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no >>>>>>>>> party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with >>>>>>>>> what
is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
Until the details are known there's no point in worrying about what >>>>>>>> any
economist says. A UBI could indeed work if, and only if, it is >>>>>>>> properly
designed - but leaving the design to a bunch of half baked
socialists
won't provide anything constructive. No point in even thinking >>>>>>>> about
it
until the Finnish experiment has been run. Nothing new about the >>>>>>>> concept
but no country that has considered it has adopted it yet. And god >>>>>>>> help
is if the bunch of riff-raff that you support get a chance to
introduce
it.
Good on you for seeing that there are possibilities in the concept, >>>>>>> and of course it would not be implemented without a lot more work - >>>>>>> including from Treasury, who are not usually regarded as socialist. >>>>>>> Working for families should never have lasted as long as it has
without adjustment, the do nothing approach of the current
governmetn
is becoming less and less supportable, but the possibility of
meaningful discussion before changes are thrust upon us.
Provided the income tax is a flat rate, which Robinson has ruled out >>>>>> already, and provided they drop that dopey tax on
capital/houses/assetts
that Morgan suggests then it's worth playing with numbers. There is a >>>>>> big
advantage in the simplicity as opposed to separate
pensions/uemployment/sickness benefits and so on. Then there's the >>>>>> disadvantage of destroying incentive. However even though it's worth >>>>>> investigating, it won't happen.
I doubt it would replace the benefits you mention Fred. But the bright >>>>> side
is many collecting thoe benefits arn't going to vote Labour because
it'll
mean they'll all take a pretty comprehensive cut in their income if
the
idea
is implemented by Labour.
Pooh
scheme in theory, so it's worth considering. The various theoretical
versions I have seen are not workable or could not be sold to the
masses,
particularly Morgan's. I'm not sure the time has come for this type of >>>> arrangement but in a decade or two it's inevitable that the tax system >>>> will be overhauled and a UBI will almost certainly replace all other
benefits. So good on Labour - at long last they're being constructive, >>>> although I don't trust this current lot to advance it much.
Your right about there being merit in the scheme. However like the
capital
gains tax which Labour suggested a few years ago nobody wants Labour
implimenting it. The whole UBI thing seems to be something little Andy
spouted off the top of his head without having given it any thought.
Much
like most if not all of Rich's posts.
Pooh
all over the place and working for families. It could be either National
or Labour who eventually goes for a UBI, governments of all colours are >>considering similar schemes - but it won't be this Labour lot.
It appears more likely that the next Labour government will at least
trial some changes than that the current government will do anything.
A fair tax system woul dneed to remove a majority of the capital gains
tax distortions - the recent changes were seen as sufficiently
ineffective to not get investors upset, but real change is likely to
bring significant opposition from vested interests. Let us hope that
the UBI discussions can be on principles first rather than detailed parameters so that misreperesentations can be minimised. The issues of
global tax avoidance by large companies, and of widespread tax
minimisation techniques by wealthy individuals also need to be
addressed.
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite
happy
to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool Rich who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year
old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the
pension being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.
And some grandparents are still raising children.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:15:24 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Probably both, but neither Labour or National would reduce income of
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours >>mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite
happy
to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool Rich >>who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year >>old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
current pensioners, or people nearing retirement age.
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.Average earnings is rising largely because the very top earnings are increasing. Most people are getting very small or no increases, qand
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the
pension
being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
that is making life very difficult for local shops. .
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is >>liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?The current government has driven a lot of costs down to local
government, and their scheme for Auckland has meant that a lot has
been moved to companies with a profit motive - by design more and more
costs are falling on houseowners.
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.It is certainly getting very hard for people to buy their first home,
And some grandparents are still raising children.
and raising a child is difficult for people that need two jobs to pay
the bills.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.National have fooled a lot of people this time - the last Labour
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
government lived within its means, lowered unemployment, and set aside
money for NZ Superannuation. The current government has made live
easier for the very wealthy, but harder for everyone else, and leaves
a huge debt to be paid by future generations. The interest cost alone
is becoming significant in budget terms, and we have nothing to show
for the sale of a lot of assets.
On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:10:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:15:24 +1300, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Probably both, but neither Labour or National would reduce income of
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours
mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite
happy
to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool
Rich
who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year
old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
current pensioners, or people nearing retirement age.
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.Average earnings is rising largely because the very top earnings are
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the
pension
being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
increasing. Most people are getting very small or no increases, qand
that is making life very difficult for local shops. .
Will you stop lying for once in your miserable little life? *Median*
earnings are steadily increasing: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Labour%20market/med-hourly-earnings.aspx
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/Income/NewZealandIncomeSurvey_MRJun15qtr.aspx
"Hourly earnings were up 3.8 percent - the largest increase in the last
six years,"
That's miles ahead of inflation.
The current government has increased benefits ahead of inflation - when
did Labour last do that... ever? And the current government is raising the minimum wage.
So *everybody* is better off. Not just the top earners. Sucks to be a
lying little shit like Dickbot, being exposed for what he is again and
again.
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension isThe current government has driven a lot of costs down to local
liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?
government, and their scheme for Auckland has meant that a lot has
been moved to companies with a profit motive - by design more and more
costs are falling on houseowners.
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.It is certainly getting very hard for people to buy their first home,
And some grandparents are still raising children.
and raising a child is difficult for people that need two jobs to pay
the bills.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.National have fooled a lot of people this time - the last Labour
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
government lived within its means, lowered unemployment, and set aside
money for NZ Superannuation. The current government has made live
easier for the very wealthy, but harder for everyone else, and leaves
a huge debt to be paid by future generations. The interest cost alone
is becoming significant in budget terms, and we have nothing to show
for the sale of a lot of assets.
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite
happy
to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool Rich who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year
old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the
pension being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.
And some grandparents are still raising children.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
"Pooh" wrote in message news:ndf1p3$cf4$1@dont-email.me...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ndd2rd$3u8$1@dont-email.me...
"Pooh" wrote in message news:nd4f1k$8ai$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ant5fble0q7vfflgfkrpkbhkkr8lncnt8b@4ax.com...
There is a long way to go, but its already clear the discussion is
worth having.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Universal-basic-income-is-worth-considering---economist/tabid/506/articleID/117161/Default.aspx
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610638
The economist says it may result result in not much overall change,
with those better off still paying roughly the same cost for net
benefits, but with lower marginal taxes - especially for those
struggling low and middle earning families who face higher GST, both
normal income tax, plus abatement of benefits and Working for
Families.
Naturally the right are claiming it won't work, but I suspect it will
only be a few more months before National are claiming it was their
idea - in the meantimelets hope the discusison continues - no party
has said they will do it, but as we have obvious problems with what is
happening now it makes sense to look at alternatives.
It'll cost $900,000,000 a week Rich. You bitch about the pitance Labours
mismanagement and bribes are costing the government now but are quite
happy
to go along with yet ANOTHER unaffordable election bribe. Your a fool
Rich
who can't comprehend shit and have the economic knowledge of a four year
old. So like the marxist muppets in your glorious Labour/Green party!
Pooh
Will this only be for workers, or are pensioners to be included?
The pension is a percentage of the average wage.
So if you work it out in real money, as the average wage rises, the
pension being a percentage means an increasing gap in real money.
The government probably hopes we don't notice!
What about assets? Some of us own our own homes. For us, the pension is
liveable, but for how long with ever rising rates?
But others are still paying off a mortgage, or renting.
And some grandparents are still raising children.
We older folks have seen plenty of elections, and election bribes.
We've also seen what happens when a certain party gets in.
Can they fool us this time?
Geo. Only little Andy and the politburough know this. Andy's floated this
in
the desperate hope it'll get him and Labour a lift in the polls.
Pooh
Labour seems to be finished. Unfortunately for them, some voters have long memories.
Perhaps somebody will start a new left wing party.
But who will vote for them?
Whoever is in power, we need a strong opposition in Parliament to point
out any drawbacks in Government policy.
Britain's House of Lords used to do a good job most of the time, in
finding flaws in legislation.
( We do that here, don't we? But who looks at the newsgroups these days).
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:27:00 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |