Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The high level of support amongst Labour and Green voters does rather suggest that it could be a sound thing to suggest as Labour policy. OK, they might not get the swing voter that's bitter on pot. But they might pick up the swing voter that likes it. Seriously, when 80% of your support wants something, what's the damned hold-up?
-
Hard News: UMR: Medpot and the public, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Since 58% of Wellingtonians support legal weed, can't we have it just for us, with some sort of pass system to stop people from other areas coming to buy it?
I'd go for that, even though it's unfair. Obviously, it would work like a trial.
-
Also, I've considered ONLY personal income tax as the source of ALL the new revenue. That's obviously unrealistic. Company tax could also be increased, or GST, the two of those generating together about as much revenue as personal income tax. If the core tax income of around 65 billion were increased by 4.6/65 = 7% all around, then the 4.6 could be afforded. So GST goes up to to 16%. Anyone paying 30% income tax pays 32%. Etc...
It's also possible that growth would do the job all by itself. The increased economic churn from 4.6 billion in the hands of people who pretty much spend every cent is not likely to be insignificant.
-
I hope it should be clear from my graph that the red area represents a tremendous improvement in quality of life for the impoverished, and the blue area represents virtually no change for those on high incomes.
-
Here’s a better pic, done with R. The red area is increased cost, and roughly corresponds to all the people who would benefit by being dragged out of the worst kind of poverty. The blue area is increased revenue. I made it exactly the same size just by working out how big the red area is and adding a flat tax rate increase for all brackets so that the revenue would be the same. The green area is the same size again and just shows a bit more clearly where that tax would be coming from.
This simple increase is about 17% on the total income tax take, so means each group pays 17% more tax. Note: This does not mean their rate increases by 17%. It means that if they’re on, say, 30%, then that goes up by 17% to about 35%. If they’re paying 10%, it only goes up by 1.7% to 11.7%.
I hope it’s a little clearer from this graph how small the cost of a UBI could be, if a neutral swap like this could be achieved. It would cost about 4.6 billion, which could be paid for by everyone having a 17% higher income tax bill. Again, this is NOT saying that everyone’s rate goes up 17%, so that they’re paying Current Rate + 17. It’s Current Rate * 1.17.
I’m not fixed on this particular tax change. Just demonstrating it can be done. Nor have I gone into detail about how benefits could be adjusted to ensure that the distribution looks like these curves. That’s a shitload more work. This is just an idealized model of what I think we’re aiming for.
ETA: Forgot to note, the income figures are real, taken from the IRD’s spreadsheets on income distribution, in 2014. Yes, it really does hockey stick like that at the end. Yes, the 1% really are real.
ETA2: The dashed line is the UBI. I hoped that was obviously, but I guess I should say.
-
Polity: Eleventy billion dollars!, in reply to Deborah,
Some interesting stuff. Obviously it's a lot of work to detail a model, and there is no limit on the number of possible models.
Hence the discussion really needs to specify objectives at the outset. I'm kind of trying to do that with my graph above, to show what the idealized aim is. Essentially, I see it first and foremost making total poverty a thing of the past. No one at all should make less than the UBI (well OK, maybe children). Secondly, it removes the EMTR problem Matthew rightly points out as a very major problem with our current benefit system.
Thirdly, at least in my picture, and I'm by no means set on this, the small total increase in overall spending could come from increases in income taxation. Exactly how that could be done is open for debate, and it's not the only possible source. I'm just trying to show in proportion how small a problem that really is. If the aim is, for the most part, to neutrally switch out other benefits, then only the bit shaded with diagonal red is actually new cost. So it only needs a piece with the same area taken as increased taxation to balance it out.
I drew that area much bigger than it is proportionally, just so it could easily be seen.
-
Polity: Eleventy billion dollars!, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
At the last minute it was pulled, for fear it might be seen as official National Party policy, and it was not. Seven years’ work and, even if I do say so myself, some pretty good ideas that could have perhaps gained me another PhD had it been done in a university environment—now no more than spam. I cannot even claim it made it to the trash bin of political history.
No wonder I'd never heard of this. In Lockwood's own words, the problem was National killed it outright.
-
Polity: The Taxpayers' Union rides again!, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
If someone makes a calculation on these assumptions you can’t say they are acting in bad faith, let alone that they are lying, especially if you then refuse to rule out any of these assumptions by saying “hey, $200 a week is just an idea, not a policy”.
The bit where it turns into bad faith is when it's claimed that these assumptions are Labour's policy, and then broadcasting that with a megaphone.
Yes, I understand why you'd do that, from a completely partisan perspective. If partisan is the perspective you want here, then is it any surprise to be called for lying? If you didn't want to be accused of lying, then perhaps a less partisan approach would have been advisable.
Instead of "Why the Labour's UBI is unaffordable", the framing could have been "A UBI with these assumptions is unaffordable. Without some of them, it's perfectly doable, and I believe it should be done". You can then chip your partisan bit in with "And National are looking at doing that". If it's true. I think it probably isn't true, which is why you wouldn't say that, because that would actually be lying. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
-
@Matthew Hooton
It's good to hear you support a UBI on principle. I don't really agree, however, that engaging with the debate the way you did is helpful, if this principle is genuine. It looks and sounds like you want to kill the idea stone dead, when you make wild claims of it's extreme cost.
If you really do support the idea, then help us out on costing it so it works. Even better, convince people in National to do so with the huge resources that government can bring to bear. Hell, if National proposed a workable UBI, I might even vote for them, and that's currently a long way from my position. Your claim that Lockwood Smith was working on it is literally the first I've heard about that. I don't subscribe to the NBR, nor will I, on principle that I don't intend to pay to discuss things with you. You could help out by summarizing what exactly it was that Smith did. Maybe it's a good starting point for a bipartisan effort.
It doesn't look that way when all the free publications with massive reach are just publishing articles from senior Nats and their advisors that are completely dismissive and non-engaging.
-
Nationalization is a possibility, but I think another possible model that achieves much the same end is for all people to eventually be the shareholders in the massive corporations of the world. A pathway to achieving this could be compulsory investment. Compulsory super schemes, in other words.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 102 103 104 105 106 … 1066 Older→ First