Fri 23 Nov 2018 2:55AM

Universal Basic Income - New Thread

DG Daymond Goulder-Horobin Public Seen by 131

I believe in 2014 the Internet Party Membership voted on adopting a policy related to this idea of providing a safeguard in the means of a Universal Basic Income. I have been working on the Final Draft and for the most part, there seems to always be one thing up for debate.

The Million Dollar question is just how much to give. Do we want people to have enough to live comfortably on? Or just to survive on with an additional Jobseeker benefit. To some extent, I share the concerns of those that want people to be motivated to find work externally, but I understand the difficult situations people can be in so I am open-minded.

Where is the current membership at now in terms of this? I support the UBI as a means to provide effective safeguards and ensure us as a society take care of one another rather than putting someone through the rather ineffective WINZ systems during which many would have no support at all. The question would first be how much, then we would link it to current benefits in New Zealand and if they would change around it.

I also want to somehow overhaul the Social Security System in time but that will take a while for me and any other Policy Committee Volunteers to workout. I want to keep our tech in line and with New Technologies would come to a new type of system eventually. Keen to hear your thoughts!


Geoff Anderson Fri 23 Nov 2018 11:34PM

Daymond; is there a copy of the draft available somewhere? (To raise my awareness of subject)
Seems complicated, where it would benefit many but still be open to abuse and have a large social impact potential.
As a novice on the subject, it appears to encourage and make part time and contracting work simpler to manage, and would put a lot of income support workers out of a job. (Quasi joke)

The amount should probably be just enough to survive.
Its a safety system that is easier to manage than the Income support system.
…Providing part of an environment to more job access.
If there is a lot of employment available it has advantages, but if only limited work is available it will come under pressure.
Dynamics will change if we go cashless society… etc.
So, where is / what is, the internet parties approach?


Daymond Goulder-Horobin Sat 24 Nov 2018 4:29AM

Here is the old thread to it.


Let me know if you need the approval to see the thread. About 4 years worth of discussion in there. The Draft is what I am working on at the moment.


Geoff Anderson Sat 24 Nov 2018 6:44AM

The link worked & I’ve skimmed through. Yes a complicated subject.

The only thing I can offer is “a honest fresh perspective” as I’m new to this subject.
…I see common thought threads about funding it. The higher the UBI the greater the funding..
The threads are:
Tax the rich, stop banks and corporations from suckling on the country, print money.
So part of that is a fair play concept and the other is what I call mad economics.
The 2nd thought thread is ‘I need more money’ or ‘the things I could do if I had more money’.
The 3rd is a type of gripe that there aren’t enough jobs.

When you see the world like that it does seem complicated; but there are other ways… Geoff economics 101
Warning I may appear to go off subject but it is a thought line that cycles back.

Lets pretend that a countries wealth was based upon its assets and to stay in the black it needs to produce more than it spends. The more assets the more comfortable the living.
If the country says ‘we need more electricity’ (as an example) The Govt doesn’t get a loan from IMF but instead says 'the asset will be worth & cost x amount', then issues half that to get project going and other half when project is 1/2 finished.
The result is lots of jobs, less unemployed, more money in circulation and easier cheaper living when its done.

OK so I know the world doesn’t work that way.
Less jobs keep people hungry and ready to work for less, just happy to have a job.
Banks taking money out of the country has the same affect. It keeps us hungry.
The Income support system works a bit the same way. I’m told one is penalized in subtle ways for earning over $100 per week, where they are better off if they don’t work or don’t declare etc. (Hungry)
Importing people, so that there more people going after the same assets has the same affect.
The concept of the UBI makes it easier to work without penalty which is good for the country but it requires funding.
You are not going to be able to stop the banks from suckling nor the corporations Re TTPA. And to super tax the rich is going to have a negative outcome as they will also become more hungry.
Printing money or getting a loan from IMF is crazy economics and will require us to pay their interest as well.
Our exports must exceed our imports and we must self fund the making of internal assets.
We must create jobs. Even if they are subsidized, we need people working and feeling valued and paying taxes.
Other approaches seem to me, to be a fixed game.


Poll Created Fri 14 Dec 2018 11:17PM

Should the Internet Party advocate for a form of Universal Basic Income Closed Mon 17 Dec 2018 11:02PM

by Daymond Goulder-Horobin Mon 17 Dec 2018 11:54PM

Tax Neutral is very important for this type of policy which I hope we will be able to work in. Ideally this would work with current systems in which job-seeker components would still remain in effect but I am confident we can develop a draft of this in good time.


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 80.0% 4 JB MK SD BK
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 20.0% 1 GA
Block 0.0% 0  

5 of 657 people have participated (0%)


Jo Booth
Fri 14 Dec 2018 11:51PM



Stephen Dickson
Sat 15 Dec 2018 8:14PM

Automation dictates it has to happen.


Geoff Anderson Sun 16 Dec 2018 8:17PM

After doing due diligence on the subject I have to say NO.
There are no successful working versions- to model from.
Our Social welfare system admittedly has faults but at least it mostly functions.
The solution isn’t in handouts but rather in creating more jobs, streamlining the tax system, some tweaks to SW and firing 3/4 of the safety nasties … seems a far better option.

Govt over control & over regulation makes part time and contracting work many times more complicated & expensive than it should be, resulting in a stifled market.
MY OPINION: There are too many regulations and people telling you that you can’t do something… because of some BS reason that makes no sense.
We need to open up, not make a system that makes people more dependent on hand outs while doing nothing to create more work.


Bruce King Mon 17 Dec 2018 2:34AM

In my view all NZers deserve the basic necessities of life & UBI ensures that, at least to a first approximation, in a simple & effective way. It's not a complete solution can and should be the foundation for that. I've studied this topic & done a quantitative model for NZ that looks reasonable and much better than the current social welfare system. It's basically a redistributive taxation system - a huge improvement on the current regressive model where, for example, even the homeless poor are paying tax on their first dollars earned. It's similar to the proposal by the famous (neoliberal!) economist Milton Friedman. UBI has been supported by everyone from Friedman & Hayek (the 2 most influential economists of the past century); to billionaires Branson, Zuckerberg & Musk; to Martin Luther King. Alaska has a form of UBI & Pres. Nixon nearly implemented it for the whole US.

I've already posted the detailed study at the end of the old thread, referenced above by Daymond but here it is again: https://www.loomio.org/d/xAB9ThWv/universal-allowance-basic-income-

Here it is as a twitter thread as well: https://twitter.com/CrowdvBank/status/902358699456438272

It's basically tax revenue-neutral - just a whole lot fairer than the current system & without the intrinsic arbitrariness.

It's a proof by example that NZ can easily afford to set up a UBI that provides the foundation to providing all NZers with the necessities of life.

Corporations don't like UBI because it increases the bargaining power of NZers - but that's a good thing.

NZ should just do it.