Drove through steadily falling snow into Wellington yesterday to pre-record a Close Up interview. It was about National's welfare reforms for youth. Sitting next to me was Gareth Morgan who was against the reform. I was for but only as a first step. Gareth was also launching his new book about the benefit system yesterday and was taking the opportunity to push his Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Minimum Income scheme - not sure what label he is using. It involves scrapping all benefits in favour of everyone getting a yearly income from the state.
I am against these schemes. They naturally grate with me because require even greater forced wealth redistribution. They require very high taxation (Gareth wants to use tax on capital gain). They disincentivise however in more ways than one. Labour productivity, savings, investment. And some of the worst off, lifetime invalids with high health costs reliant on the state, are ...even worse off. Strangely some of the Libz want these schemes and so does well-known American writer and libertarian, Charles Murray.
Sue Bradford is also all for a GMI. Her and Gareth shared a platform at the initial WWG conference and agreed this idea as a way to solve many of the welfare problems. Consequently the WWG asked Treasury to model a GMI which gave every New Zealander 16 and over $300 a week. Here's their response.
In the event the weather news overtook other items and the producer rang to tell me they had run out of time to use it but want me back on another day.
General Debate 23 November 2024
43 minutes ago
5 comments:
It involves scrapping all benefits
Hurrah!!!
Well at least they're halfway there.
I am against these schemes.
I'm half against these schemes. Like anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics, morality, politics and sociology, I'm very much in favour of scrapping all benefits. Just stop there and you're done.
I would have thought MORGAN would have been busy pointing out the progress of Global Warming.
Change of Kiwisaver account form posted today. Not sure why it's taken me this long. Anything that Sue Bradford supports must be incorrect. A GMI is about the closest you could get to Communism without a dictatorship of the proletariat. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The next step is surely a Guaranteed Maximum Income, where everyone is only allowed, say, $300 pw. Then the maximum and the minimum will be the same and everyone will be equal! Hurrah, Comrade!
The introduction of sex education into schools was heralded as the ultimate solution to preventing teen births--a policy failure. The introduction of effective contraception to the young heralded as the cure of unwanted teen births-- another policy failure. See where this going? Policies actioned as answers that bypass direct intervention only work with the full cooperation of those it is aimed at.
Spending power for all is what society needs. Of course that,s the bone of contention who gets enough of it and who doesn,t. NZ will always be in recession until most have better spending power.Putting the boot into the workforce and those on welfare endlessly is just majoring in the distracted minor. The working capital verses workforcelabour battle is going nowhere long term. That,s the difference in mentality between us and Auzzie.The results are obvious.
Post a Comment