Source: Quotation of the day….. – AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas.
Walter Block defends multinational corporations in developing countries
18 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, growth disasters, growth miracles, industrial organisation, international economics, labour economics, labour supply Tags: foreign direct investment, foreign investment, multinational corporations, Walter Bloch
@FairnessNZ NZ leads world in closing the gender pay gap #equalpayday @greencatherine
13 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in discrimination, economic history, gender, human capital, labour economics, labour supply, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality Tags: Australia, British economy, gender wage gap
4 Lessons for Morgan Foundation on How to Sell the #UBI @JordNZ
13 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, labour economics, labour supply, politics - New Zealand, welfare reform Tags: expressive voting, rational irrationality, universal basic income
![clip_image002[4]](https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/clip_image0024.gif "clip_image002[4]")
Source: Morgan Foundation (12 April 2016) Four Lessons for Labour on How to Sell the UBI.
I will contract out to Geoff Simmons of the Morgan Foundation my reply to the claim yesterday by the Morgan Foundation’s Susan Guthrie that there are no negatives from a Universal Basic income. Simmons said:
With an unconditional basic income, most beneficiaries would be no better off than they are now (in fact sole parents would almost certainly receive a lower benefit).
Single parents are $150 a week worse off and retirees are $50 worse off per week if their current income support were replaced by a Universal Basic Income of $11,000 per adult.
Both were entitled to much more under the current welfare benefit system and New Zealand Superannuation respectively. Unemployment, sickness and invalid beneficiaries are about 5% better off under a Universal Basic Income.
Labour’s background paper described a Universal Basic Income of $11,000 as not enough. Guthrie is even franker yesterday about how inadequate a Universal Basic Income is for the poor:
A basic income policy would provide everyone aged 18 and over with an unconditional, tax free survival-level of income each and every year.
I will contract out to Gareth Morgan (2011) why a Universal Basic Income that provides a “survival-level of income” is not good enough:
Rather than decreeing a minimum wage and discovering the consequences for jobs and top-up payments, let’s agree on what is a minimum income every adult should have in order to live a dignified life and then see what flows from that.
We begin by specifying the income level below which we are not prepared to see anyone having to live.
A survival-level of income and a minimum income on which every adult can live a dignified life are not the same thing.
Gareth Morgan’s universal basic income of $11,000 for adults makes most better off except those for whom the modern welfare state was established to protect.
Most of the evidence against the Universal Basic Income comes from examining the numbers put forward by its proponents such as the Morgan Foundation and its excellent online tool. Brian Easton (2015) put it well when he said:
Many advocates put the UMI forward without doing the sums.
Those who do, find that the required tax rates are horrendous or the minimum income is so low that it is not a viable means of eliminating poverty. Among the latter are New Zealanders Douglas, Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin.
What undergrads and @stevenljoyce need to know about trade @GreenCatherine
12 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, development economics, international economics, job search and matching, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand Tags: antiforeign bias, free trade, makework bias, Paul Krugman, protectionism, tariffs, trade policy
Minister for everything Stephen Joyce wrote some nonsense in the paper today about how trade agreements and more exports will mean more jobs:
I would like to make the point that trade access is hugely important for a small country like New Zealand.
Without fair and equal trade access we can’t sell as much of our goods and we get less for them. And that means fewer jobs.
This make-work bias is as bad as those who oppose trade agreements on the grounds of an anti-foreign bias. Trade affects the composition of employment, not the number of jobs. Paul Krugman spent a good part of the 1990s trying to explain that to the general public and public intellectuals.
@BernieSanders just wants to build a different type of wall to @realdonaldtrump’s
09 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, development economics, growth disasters, growth miracles, industrial organisation, international economics, labour economics, labour supply, politics - USA Tags: 2016 presidential election, antiforeign bias, economics of immigration, left-wing popularism, Mexico, NAFTA, right-wing popularism, The Great Escape, trade agreements
@BernieSanders @GrantRobertson1 why does anyone bother to work in #Denmark?
06 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
Do minimum wages stimulate productivity? @BernieSanders @livingwageNZ
06 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in econometerics, labour economics, labour supply, minimum wage, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality Tags: living wage, The fatal conceit, The pretence the knowledge
@jeremycorbyn @realdonaldtrump @BernieSanders would want to save these jobs
05 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
@garethmorgannz’s @grantrobertson1’s #UBI is worse than I thought @JordNZ
03 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, labour economics, labour supply, politics - New Zealand, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: expressive voting, New Zealand Labour Party, rational irrationality, universal basic income
The Universal Basic Income of $11,000 per adult proposed by the Morgan Foundation and floated as a idea to consider by the New Zealand Labour Party leaves the poor way below even that the stingy as the poverty line switch is that 50% relative poverty line. Little wonder that the Labour Party said that increasing the Universal Basic Income to avoid leaving current beneficiaries worth off would lead to a very high tax rate.
Source: A Universal Basic Income may be a good idea – but we will still need social security that works.
@JordNZ best way to talk yourself out of #UBI is listen to advocate list new taxes required
01 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in economics, income redistribution, labour economics, labour supply, politics - New Zealand, poverty and inequality, Public Choice, public economics, welfare reform Tags: universal basic income
Questions for @grantrobertson1 on the #UBI @JordNZ
30 Mar 2016 1 Comment
in labour economics, labour supply, politics - New Zealand, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: flat rate tax, New Zealand Labour Party, top tax rate, universal basic income
Labor Party finance spokesman Grant Robertson yesterday ruled out an income rate tax of 50% to fund a Universal Basic Income. Labour is considering a Universal Basic Income. It released a background paper for that purpose as part of its Future of Work Commission.
Source: Taxpayers’ Union rubbishes Universal Basic Income idea | Stuff.co.nz.
Questions arise as to how the Labour Party will fund its Universal Basic Income after ruling out a tax rate of 50%. As Brain Easton said:
Many advocates put the UMI forward without doing the sums. Those who do find that the required tax rates are horrendous or the minimum income is so low that it is not a viable means of eliminating poverty. Among the latter are New Zealanders Douglas, Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin.
The Labour Party’s background paper already has said that the Universal Basic Income proposed by the Morgan Foundation is insufficient because many beneficiaries and all retirees will be much worse off. They receive much more in income support under the existing welfare state and they would under a Universal Basic Income of $11,000 per adult as proposed by the Morgan Foundation.
The solution proposed by the Labour Party is a supplemental income transfers to ensure no one is worse under a Universal Basic Income. This will greatly increase the cost of a Universal Basic income in comparison to the Morgan Foundation proposals.
https://twitter.com/grantrobertson1/status/711758860659240960
A series of questions come to mind that the Labour Party and its finance spokesman Grant Robinson must answer if they are to go anywhere with a Universal Basic Income;
- Is not the point of a Universal Basic Income to replace the welfare state, not supplement it?
- How will the Labour Party fund its Universal Basic Income plus the supplemental income transfers without introducing a $8 billion tax on capital income (including the family home) as in the Morgan Foundation’s proposals?
- The Universal Basic Income proposed by the Morgan Foundation requires $13 billion in extra taxes ($8 billion from taxing capital and $5 billion from a 30% flat-rate income tax) so how much more to that will Labour need for a Universal Basic Income plus supplemental income transfers?
- What is the maximum top marginal income tax rate that Labour will consider to fund a Universal Basic Income?
- Will the Labour Party’s Universal Basic Income be funded by a flat rate income tax or a progressive income tax system?
Source: How we pay for a universal basic income – Whiteboard Wednesday.It would have been my first point
Recent Comments