sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Matt Nolan takes a detailed look at the concept of a universal basic income

Matt Nolan takes a detailed look at the concept of a universal basic income

Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Matt Nolan, an economist at Infometrics, and an author at the blog site TVHE.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comment stream below or via email to

And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact

See all previous Top 10s here.

I’ve always found a universal basic income (UBI) an interesting concept. Although we already have a tax-benefit system, having a universal basic income differs in three specific ways:

1) The removal of work testing for beneficiaries.
2) The removal of targeting individuals based on a view that individuals' needs differ.
3) The removal of “poverty traps” – situations where someone can’t earn much more if they significantly increased their hours of work due to the abatement of their benefit. 

The increase in universality increases the cost of the welfare state, implying that for the same level of transfers tax rates need to be higher. However, this does not mean it is right or wrong – instead this is a question of redistribution and whether the type of redistribution government is performing is “fair” or “just”.

How all this works in practice is complicated, and the devil is in the detail. Since I want to make an informed decision when I vote next year, I thought I’d do a bit of reading about the issue – and share with you 10 links that discuss some of the ideas and evidence behind a UBI.  

Note I am not trying to judge respective schemes or to tell you how to think in any of this – I am just keen to look at the issue myself, and thought I would share my journey with you. My conclusion is that I wish people discussing this around the world would outline how they would change the current welfare system so we could evaluate the changes, rather than hiding behind terms like “basic income”!

1) The current rumbling NZ debate.

Although it is not Labour Party policy, they have said they are considering the policy here. If we go back even further, Social Credit used to talk about the idea – and Labour was contemplating introducing it in the late 1980s. And all of these schemes are completely different!  

I have seen this has moved over to the Taxpayers Union and Gareth Morgan also. Again, their schemes and criticisms involve looking at a specific view of what such a scheme constitutes. Gareth Morgan is discussing his design of a Guaranteed Minimum Income, but he also pins this strongly to a revenue gathering device – a tax on capital. Now making sure the scheme adds up is important and should be applauded, but if we are going to discuss the merits of a UBI alone Morgan is making the same mistake that Milton Friedman and Roger Douglas made – they are making it all one giant package instead of allowing us to discuss the points independently. 

We can agree with a UBI/GMI without agreeing with a capital tax as the way to fund it, and we can agree with a capital tax without agreeing with a UBI – ultimately if the UBI does increase the size of government spending then that is something we should be willing to discuss directly. And if a capital tax is the best way to raise revenue we can discuss that directly. 

Now that we have an outline of what the sides in NZ are arguing, let us step back and to try to understand the trade-offs involved – first using some history, then some theory, then using some evidence.

2) History of a basic/minimum income.

The principle of a basic income scheme has existed for a long time – under a large number of different names (negative income tax, basic income, guaranteed minimum income, citizens wage, social dividend). 

Ensuring that people get a guaranteed minimum that meets the necessities of life is actually a core principle of the welfare state in most OECD countries – including New Zealand. The existence of a universal welfare state is – in part – a minimum income scheme! 

Anyone that says a basic income is a “radical rethinking of the welfare state” without giving details is either naive or trying to trick you – the only way to understand any basic income scheme is with reference to the changes it makes to the current welfare system.

When these policies were discussed through the 19th and early 20th centuries the current welfare system did not exist – and so the discussion was around what sort of system could be introduced to provide a minimum level of income adequacy. Anyone who quotes literature from this period talking about the inevitability of such a scheme is right without realising it – as the type of scheme they dreamed of is already in place! 

When authors discussed minimum income schemes through the 1950-70s it was with respect to how the newly founded welfare states in many countries would evolve in the future – this period is well known for the growth of welfare states around the world. By the early 1980s, the minimum income focused Swedish model (focused on redistribution through tax and transfers) was seen as preferable to the Australasian model (focused on predistribution through direct intervention in industry and labour markets). Note that over the following two decades, both Sweden and Australasia saw a rapid change in their welfare states – but the changes were all based on the minimum income idea. This is why the minimum family tax credit has its name, why the Guaranteed Minimum Family Income was introduced by Roger Douglas, and why superannuation briefly had its name changed to Guaranteed Retirement Income

In this way, when people often talk about a minimum income scheme they are actually saying that we should change the welfare state in one or all of the following ways.

• Change eligibility criteria – namely remove work testing on all people.
• Change the minimum income to the level they are discussing rather than the current level paid
• Change who bears the burden of paying for such a scheme
• Change the language around welfare to change social attitudes about it. 

Given that this is actually what is being argued, we need to think about how these ideas are motivated, and what evidence there is for what will happen if we were to change our current welfare policies in such a way.

Motivation links

Let’s have a look at some of the key issues that crop up when we consider a UBI.

3) Why should people get a minimum income for no reason?

Well I wouldn’t say there is no reason for the state, and thereby society at large, to ensure that everyone receives a certain minimum living standard.

Many people complain about benefits as they are frustrated that they work, while other people can not work and be given money. But we need to think a little more clearly about this. 

People complain that they work, and thereby are selling their labour input to create value, and then they have to surrender some of this for other people who are not working/creating things. In such a way if you are not contributing, or at least willing to contribute, society has no obligation to you. I find this view a bit harsh – but if it is your view a minimum income would not make sense. 

However, why is this the framework we would use to understand society? One of the oldest motivations for the idea of providing a minimum income is the concept of a social dividend payment. Simply put, as a citizen of a nation you can be seen as having signed up to some social contract with everyone else in society – and as part of that contract you get paid a retainer for being part of it! Technology, land, social knowledge are – in some ways – shared. As a result, we may ask why the benefit from them isn’t shared equally? 

If this is how we view society then having the social dividend paid out makes sense. If this isn’t how we view society, then such a universal payment seems understandably strange.

4) Minimum income as a security net in a changing world.

One of the key criticisms of New Zealand’s economic reforms through the 1980s and early 1990s was the fact that, once trade tariffs and export subsidies were removed a lot of people found that the skills they had invested their life into now seemed worthless. This issue, and its long-run impact, is discussed by Steve Stillman here

The New Zealand model prior to the reforms had been one that did not allow economic adjustment, but it did so in order to convince individuals that it was possible to have a job for life – and thereby to get them to invest in business specific skills. In a world where technology constantly changes this model didn’t make sense. 

The redistributionary policies in countries like Sweden were motivated very differently. Firms were far more able to respond to market signals, and creative destruction was allowed to take place – with no longer valuable industries falling by the wayside while new industries cropped up. Because of this, the payment of a minimum income was seen as a form of insurance for those who lost out due to changes in a fast moving world. 

Of course this is not the only way to offer such insurance – but the principle of socially insuring individuals from bad luck stemming from technological and policy changes seems to be one that many in society agree upon, and a welfare system with a minimum income is one way of achieving this.

5) Targeting and need.

Although the idea of a social dividend, and having social buy-in through universality, sounds nice we have been here before. Between 1938 and the 1970s universality was a core principle of the New Zealand welfare state – albeit with some provisos that excluded people who were not white and male. Or to be more generous, the welfare state was predicated on the idea of a male breadwinner, with other social arrangements actively discouraged through policy. 

Once racism and sexism started to be pulled out of the structure of New Zealand’s welfare state, and once the recognition of the variety of need outside of the elderly and miners started to be recognised, the cost of the welfare state increased markedly putting it into question. This led to a shift towards targeted benefits, increased work testing, and once the systems were in place properly in the second half of the 1990s, there was arguably better treatment of those with specific needs through the provision of special/emergency benefits. 

A minimum income scheme will, by its nature, remove targeting. If the minimum income scheme was introduced and targeting was kept in place we would arguably have the same welfare state we have now – all that will have happened is the names of the benefits would have changed. Which might work as political marketing, but isn’t relevant when we actually want to discuss the efficacy of such a scheme.

An article in the Independent described this relatively well: 

Hang on, advocates of the universal basic income will say: our system can deal with all of that. We’ll taper away the universal basic income for those who don’t need it. We’ll top up for those who have special needs. Okay, brilliant. Welcome to the welfare system we already have. 

In other words, when a sensible proponent of the universal basic income starts to get into detailed issues of design, their deceptively simple concept collapses into the usual messiness of government policy. 

As a result, either a policy recommendation about a “minimum income” involves a view that we should target the disparate needs of individuals less, and instead spread spending more widely. Such a policy switch will, by design, lower measures of poverty and potentially inequality – but whether it is “fair” is a different question. 

As I said at the start, ensuring that everyone gets a set minimum is one of the core principles of a welfare state. However, what constitutes this minimum differs depending on both our definition of what a need is, and on the basis of the needs of individuals (which are very different). A scheme that does not target need will, by design, either fail to provide enough to those most vulnerable or will provide too much to those who society is not targeting relative to a targeted scheme.

To use economics speak, when needs differ then horizontal equity is about providing different payments to those with different needs – not about giving everyone the same payment. Furthermore, as the needs we often care about can change rapidly due to misfortune, a system that takes account of this (and that is thereby expensive) can be seen as necessary. The current tax-benefit system is complex and expensive to administer as it is trying to tackle these issues – not simply because it is inefficient! Those who try to put it all down to inefficiency are being a tad cheeky.

6) Work and tax.

I have left this issue to last because it already receives more attention than it deserves. Although the incentive to work following a change in tax-benefit structures is important, for many writers this tends to become the entire issue they look at when considering a minimum income – which involves missing the important reasons for and against such a scheme which we’ve discussed above. 

By removing poverty traps in the tax-transfer system (lowering abatement rates on benefits) a minimum income scheme can make it more attractive for individuals to work – as they can earn more by increasing their hours of work. Sometimes you will hear people say that this is about lowering EMTR’s (effective marginal tax rates). 

However, by removing work testing, essentially adding benefit payments to some people who would not have received them before (which increases their EMTR and increases income – both factors that would reduce the incentive to work), and increasing tax rates somewhere further up the income distribution (in order to pay for the lower abatement rates), this policy change would reduce labour supply. So the key points are:

• How have tax rates changed (both the marginal rate – the rate faced if the person was to work more – and the average rate).
• How have abatement rates changed.
• How has work testing changed.

Whether people end up working more or less following the tax changes is an empirical question. One we’ll think about later.

7) Who bears the load?

Who bears the load of this policy change depends on understanding how the tax-transfer system is different from how it is now. If a minimum income is introduced at a level below the current unemployment benefit without any targeting, then the fiscal cost would be a lot lower and tax rate would also be cut. 

In this case, the main people to lose out from the change are the people who are currently poorest. 

This is where the devil is in the detail of the scheme. Treasury states that introducing a scheme that leads to lower payments to those on targeted assistance and superannuation would require higher tax rates. In this specific case, those with specific needs, those who work significant hours, and those who have retired, are losing out for a scheme that increases payments to those who do not work and who work very little. 

Such a scheme is unlikely to be the type of tax-benefit change that would be designed – which Gareth Morgan is keen to point out in his response. In his example a degree of targeting is maintained and it is paid for with a tax on capital owners. 

However, I think it is a key point. There will be winners and losers from a tax-benefit change, and we actually have to investigate who they are and whether the changes are fair – instead of simply saying that we want the changes because we prefer the shiny new names involved in the benefit system!

Evidence links

Although we don’t know exactly what will happen when such a policy is introduced, there is some evidence out there. Let’s take a quick look at that.  

8) How do these policy change influence people’s incentive to work?

As we’ve established earlier, how policy changes influence the incentive to work depends on what the policy change is! Simply saying “it is a minimum income scheme” is pretty much meaningless. For a general scheme there are two countervailing influences on labour supply in this case: 

Increasing labour supply: Lower EMTR’s on beneficiaries who currently see their benefit abated sharply when they go into work. 

Reducing labour supply: Higher EMTR’s for other earners, higher incomes for low earners, less stringent work testing for payments. 

What does this labour supply business matter for? Although I think we can sometimes overstate its importance, people’s willingness to work, and the goods and services that are created when people are involved in the labour market, are things that do matter. As a result, understanding how the incentive to work would change and the impact that has GDP is important information. 

Of course, if the lower labour supply is because there are a large number of people on low incomes who would prefer not to work if the basics were provided to them, then it is not clear that the lower GDP is actually a bad thing – but this is a discussion for another time. Instead, what has research shown? 

There are two types of research – field trials and simulations.

• Field trials, primarily in the US and Canada have shown only modest drops in hours of work – and those were primarily concentrated among people who are looking after children. However, the shortcoming with the vast majority of these trials is that they were known to be – or could reasonably be expected to be – only temporary. If you will need a job again in a year or two, the incentive to leave the labour market now is a lot lower than if you could conceivably be paid to never work again! 

• The most reliable simulations tend to show a mild decline in hours of work, but relatively strong declines among the second-earner in a couple. However, these simulation usually involve a flat tax scheme as well – if the structure of the tax system remains as it is the declines in labour supply tend to be larger. 

I would be cautious about saying that these results can be generalised sufficiently to capture what would happen over the long-term in a modern economy, but they give us some evidence to help evaluate claims about such a policy change.

9) With a typical scheme, who tends to be the average winners and losers?

There has been a lot of work around the world at considering how a negative income tax (Milton Friedman’s version of a minimum income scheme) would influence the distribution of income, and lead to varying winners and losers. 

However, as noted at the start this type of policy change has BOTH a change in the tax system (a flat income tax) and a change in the delivery of welfare (minimum income instead of targeted assistance). As a result, the winners and losers identified stem from both changes – not just the introduction of this type of scheme. 

But who were the winners and losers in the cases we discussed above?  

• Not all field trials did not tend to cover off the question of “who pays” particularly clearly – instead largely focusing the level of the basic income provided. The large Canadian study (Mincome) did involve a targeted tax rate (50%) – however it isn’t clear whether it was fully self-financed and every paper I can find on the issue only talks about the payments made to groups, not how those payments compared to what they received previously. As a result, the literature I could find sheds no light on who the actual winners and losers from these experiments were. It could be that I can’t find the right literature – but this should be front and centre of reported results. 

• Simulations have shown that a negative income tax scheme tends to, by design, redistribute from those with higher incomes to those with lower incomes. However, needs based benefits (special or emergency benefits) are often not modelled here – and so these simulation assume they remain in place. With targeted assistance still in place, the tax rates involved remain high – which is a key driving force behind the redistribution in the simulation!  

Again, I would be cautious with these results.

10) Is there any work on this that looks at New Zealand?

New Zealand is a small country, with a small pool of trained analysts, with good quality, but small, datasets. As a result, it can be tough for us to get the country specific analysis of all the policy issues we would really like. However, when it comes to looking at the broad idea recently we have had the Big Kahuna by Gareth Morgan, Treasury work for the Welfare Working Group, and blogging from Offsetting Behaviour. 

Eric Crampton has a good post from 2011 that summarises the trade-offs involved when thinking about such a scheme – including the ways we fund it.

However, looking through all of this there is no discussion of how a significant change in the tax-benefit system will lead to changes in behaviour by individuals and families – as a result, without New Zealand analysts undertaking work, the best we can do when trying to work out what will happen is to rely on the international experience discussed above! 

*After submitting this Top 10, I saw this discussion of UBI's by Eric Crampton and thought it was incredibly useful.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


Some very good discussion here that raises some more questions;
"having signed up to some social contract with everyone else in society" poses the question that what if you breach that "social contract" by committing crimes. do you then invalidate your eligibility for such a UBI?

I still don't like Gareth Morgan's desire to tax people on their capital. Someone can be asset rich, but cash poor but still be seen as having a lot of capital. Take elderly in their own homes in AK for example, should they be forced out of their homes because they could not afford the tax bill on a high value asset, that is only high in value because of a market blip?

Also I would make my point from last week's discussion that the UBI, or what ever you would call it, is a last gasp flailing of right wing economists to save a system that is designed to protect the wealth, power and privilege of the rich and powerful and is in the process of proving that it doesn't work and has become society's enemy. The only way I could support this was if it was strongly linked to strong regulation that was designed to create jobs, curtail rampant greed and actually provide protection for ordinary people on the street rather than cow towing to the rich.

The issues you have raised in relation to a capital tax is actually what it is intended to solve. Instead of people accumulating large amounts of tax free capital gains they would need to move their investments into something more productive. This would reduce house values and the associated 1% tax on capital.

Elderly in general do tend to be asset rich and cash poor. Everyone needs to have income generating investments or they are just gambling with their financial stability.

Does UBI protect the rich at the expense of the poor? If you give money to the poor to improve their living conditions some companies may profit from it but the government would get a big boost in income from increased consumerism. I don't think UBI would do much for those who are already in the top 10% of net worth in this country but the increased spending would increase jobs.

So you would have people forced out of their homes because they were becoming too valuable? Sounds fascist to me. I'd rather see regulation that put some brakes on the market. I didn't buy my home as an investment, irrespective of which way it's value has gone, see no benefit or penalty, other than the usual costs of owning it. why should some bureaucrat be able to rock up and tell me that I need to pay tax on it because he has decided it is worth something? I already pay tax on - it's called rates! Gareth Morgan is worth $50 mil +, let him fund a UBI I am already over taxed through rates, GST, PAYE and all the other little claw backs the Govt has in place.

And again the UBI is only a point in discussion because successive Govts have bought into economic theories that have created a situation that has allowed jobs, especially low skilled ones to be exported, permitted multinational conglomerates to make it almost impossible to create new jobs and so on. Hence the mess we are seeing today.

Worse its paper value, ie its only real value is a place to live so you pay tax on something that is worthless in terms of $s.

This effect of "forcing out" though already looks to bite with the present rates rises of typically 4~5% per annum. That means rates double every 17 years, how are OAPs going to pay such horrendous rates? 17 years ago my rates were <$600, today $2400+. When I retire $5000 per annum looks quite possible and my pension(s)? if they still exists they will be paying little out. If I live to say 80 the rates will be $10000? how do I pay that? I cannot can I and I am not alone.

I'd be very happy to take your house off your hands for $100, steven. Since it's worthless in terms of $s you get the better of the bargain. What's not to like?

Unless the Government makes changes today all pensions will be small amounts or decreasing by the time you retire, my retirement is much further away but I have no plans to depend on the Government at all to survive.

It would actually drive down housing prices.

Stop with the nonsense about people being forced out of their homes as that is happening right now. With superannuation frozen and prices creeping up a lot of retirees are facing starvation as they cut back food costs to pay the bills.

Asset rich but cash poor put people in a situation where they have a fixed or decreasing income and they need to borrow to get by during their retirement. The situation is already grim.

Regulation doesn't put brakes on the market as it doesn't take away the driving forces. Tax free capital gains put the pressure on housing as an investment and steers the money away from more useful investments.

Agree t the situation is already grim. Tax the capital gains of the investors, the law already exists and needs to be enforced. As for regulation, depends and what and how it is applied, currently there is none that is effective.

My answer is yes, they should, in extreme cases. Otherwise there are options like reverse mortgages to free up capital. It's a nice fluffy thought, but living in the same house for life isn't a god-given right. One must adapt according to one's means.

The rest of your post isn't really coherent - a capital tax actually "punishes" the rich (i.e. the owners of capital) most, and favours the workers and entrepreneurs through lower required income taxes.

UBI makes the most sense with a low income tax (to encourage work) and a high capital tax (to redistribute accumulated wealth).

Reverse mortgages are just a way for banks or finance companies to profit of the older home owner. And why shouldn't someone expect to live in their own home for life. The bureaucrats of this world are supposed to work for their communities, not be leeches off them.

As for your UBI and jobs - there have to be the jobs there in the first place. Our Governments have allowed most to be exported!

Reverse mortgages are a product which consumers can choose either to buy or not buy, depending on whether they think they will be better off as a result of buying it or not. You could say the same of of any good or service offered in a market - is a haircut "just a way for hairdressers to profit off shaggy-haired people"? is a kilo of apples "just a way for apple farmers to profit off hungry people"? - and in each case you would be missing the point that a product will not be bought or sold in a market unless both parties expect to be better off as a result of the trade.

Why shouldn't someone expect to live in their own home for life - anybody can expect, and have, anything that they can afford and are prepared to pay for. If they can't or won't pay the price for something, then somebody else has to pay the price of them having it. Why should they?

Certainly, bureaucrats are supposed to work for their communities. They also expect to be paid for it.

In fact, the whole of your case appears to come down to wanting more free stuff.

Please show us the statistics of how the number of available jobs has been reducing under the present Government.

Agreed that they have to be able to afford it, but a couple buying their house in the 1980's for $100k and still living in it today, but being told they have to pay a tax on based on a current value of $1 mil. How is that fair? This is not about wanting free stuff, but expecting those who are making all the money and profiting off the current situation to pay tax for it, not some one who is making nothing from it.

jobs from just this Government? Get real! The current situation has been developing since at least the 70's. A short while back it was identified that in the 70's, 80% of the work force was employed in "low skilled" jobs. Where are those jobs today? Right wing, free market economics has seen most exported into low wage economies like China. How do we employ that majority today, tomorrow and next year? or we just build more prisons?

How is it fair that somebody sitting on an asset worth $1million does not make any more contribution than somebody who has the same income but no such asset?

How can somebody whose total wealth has increased by $900,000 be described as "making nothing from the current situation"?

So if 80% of the workforce is fit only for low-skilled jobs, and all of the low-skilled jobs have been exporter, are 80% of the workforce now unemployed?

What is unfair is having to pay tax on something that they are not deriving any income from? Why should they? What something is "worth" is only a purely academic exercise until that value is realised in some form such as selling to profit from a capital gain, re-mortgaging to benefit from the change in value (although this could be fraught as they may need to do some serious maintenance that can't be afforded without borrowing). Why should someone be penalised for having the foresight to buy their own home rather than choosing to pay rent?

As to Jobs, stop doing the all or nothing fit. I didn't say all were exported, but most were. A significant problem this country faces today is providing jobs for it's population, and historically the need is for the low skilled variety. Our schools and universities are not producing the high skilled, entrepreneurial set that we'd like to see, but we still need to create some form of occupation for them, or do you expect idle hands to sit in our prisons after they have turned to crime because their lifestyle and inequality sucks?

"having signed up to some social contract with everyone else in society"

A commitment to not drop litter and keep the street in front of your house tidy would be nice start. And a pledge of undying allegiance to the State.

No the state is not entitled to blind allegiance nor should it ask for it, it is earned not taken.

dp, sorry

The State might reasonably argue that it has earned it, by providing welfare support as its part of the bargain under the "social contract".

For the glory of the motherland....

A slippery road to where anything can be justified.....

Well, with a UBI , there is no longer any excuse for burglary or other related crimes. Taking from your fellow citizens or otherwise giving an "up yours" to wider society is even more deplorable when society has provided you with a no-strings attached income. Perhaps penalties should therefore be more severe.

I think the real problem is that Universities are just mass brain washing industries.
Economists go to school, then onto Univeristy. They have spent many years "Being Taught" and no real world experience.
The outcome is that they are unable to "Think Outside The Box"
Here is just one example, and there are many
In #3 you say "3) Why should people get a minimum income for no reason?"
But nowhere do you say
"Why do able bodies need welfare in the first place?"
When we analyze this question then we may say "Is Capitalism Failing?"
Which leads onto
"Is there a better system?"
But it apears Economist are not allowed to question capitalism because how could anything be better - End of story.
That is what is wrong.
You are trained "How to think"

Did you know that anyone can now enjoy Genetically modifying plants and insects in their own kitchen
How does that and the future of Technology fit into your topic?
Or did you forget to mention it?

Inside the garage labs of DIY gene hackers, whose hobby may terrify you

DIY CRISPR Genome Engineering

Genome editing is a weapon of mass destruction

No I think its many ppl fail to look outside the box.

a) A university degree should help you do so but some ppls minds are so closed they never will.
b) As the world becomes more and more complex, specialists and professionals have to focus on smaller and smaller areas of expertese to get the depth needed. As a result they are I think sadly failing to see bigger picture stuff or see it correctly because they lack the education (for want of a better term) to do so or think because they know one area very well this will apply to other areas equally.

Steven - As the world becomes more complex it also becomes less complex - It is a cycle we are going through.

What i am talking about by complexity becoming simpler is we now have technology to replace a lot of what our brains cannot do or takes too long to do
Technology is gradually running the world for us.

As we are all able to use this Technology equally so that empowers us.

The world is going through the biggest change in the history of mankind and people like Matt cannot see it. They are too focused on what they have been taught.

I have said, and say again - This is NOT a 4th or 5th or whatever Industrial revolution It is the beginning of the "Age Of Empowerment"

See my comment above - We can even do our own Genetic engineering in our kitchen - That is complexity becoming less complex because of technology.

We, the ordinary people, are able to do things that empowers us. Ultimately we will not need a lawyer or an accountant or a doctor and so on. And hopefully, one day, we wont need these self serving politicians.

Oh and PS - i hope you are not suggesting that economics is becoming more complex because it is not - It is just becoming more manipulated by those that can. More sneakier and corrupt ways to manipulate the system for themselves. This is not complex economics it is corruption caused by bad laws implemented by corrupt governments

Agreed MikeB All proposals adopt capitalistic positions but fail to see that as a possible impediment to desired outcomes.

How about a total reform of our Monetary sytem...??

At the moment we have about 8% credit growth... tthats $22 billion new money created as interest paying debt.....

How about if we changed things so Banks could not create credit..

Instead ...we introduced "new Money"... into the system in the form of a UBI.. ( paying for part of it.... )

This would be trickle up theory ...
The economy would still have plently of money to respond to "Capital formation " needs.

The UBI could become both a Monetary and fiscal tool...

I'm just throwing ideas out there...
I think The UBI might be a part of some larger structural changes....

Looking to the future ...with Robotics and AI.... the UBI seems to be congruent with the unfolding , somewhat, redundancy of manual labour.....????

I like the idea of a UBI...... just need to find a best way to fund it.... without it increasing the general level of tax..

Manual labour and skill manual labour will have a significantly reduced number of human jobs associated with them. There will also be a lot of office jobs that will rapidly disappear. In some cases they have disappeared and I know of a number of US companies that have rather human sounding AI for you to talk to.

Have a look at this list of jobs and their probability of being automated in the near future.

Reading the article, I realise that a UBI could easily be funded by a Modest Tax on exclamation marks!

That would just get people talking up? At the end of their sentences?

This just sounds like a modern day bread and circuses regime - i.e. a distraction for the people so they don't interfere with the status quo, or seek to have any real involvement in the political process.

If implemented I predict that a UBI will become a political football, much like the current welfare system is, but on a universal scale. Elections will be won or lost by how much a party plans to tinker with the idea. Any issues that have real consequence to the country and overall welfare of the people will be brushed aside for debates as to how much more, or little, everyone can get each week for doing nothing more than existing. The only thing that really surprises me is why this hasn't been adopted already.

Shanghai Pengxin withdraws application for judicial review Lochniver decision. At same time OIO grant retrospective approval for New Wish (Shanghai Pengxin) for its prior 2015 purchase of mortgages over Queenstown Hilton. Approval should have been sought originally because of issue of sensitive land. When New Zealand has distressed assets who are you going to call.

Winston, But unfortunately the the pointy-heads will put him in a wine box, and endeavour to archive him.

Dont think for one minute that the UBI is for the benefit of the people.
You will still be kept at survival level
It is for the benefit of the wealthy business owners
Businesses cannot survive if people do not spend so the UBI is to give you spending money to keep the business owners wealthy

Oh and the wealthy will not pay taxes to give you a UBI it will be borrowed money for future generations to pay

If you don't work, why should you expect anything more than to be kept at survival level?

Ms de Meanour - sadly this is the exact coment i expect from a person who cannot see outside the box. All they can see is the world they grew up in and everything else is a fantasy - so, so sad.

Have you ever asked "What is the purpose of an economy?"
For example should it fund never ending wars?
Should it suport inequality?
Should an economy be alowed to destroy the environment?
Is an economy based based upon corrupt government practices acceptable?
And many more questions
Or is it just "Everyone for themselves and bugger the environment and other people
Do you ever stop to ask or are you to busy looking after number one?
We are all doomed it we just think of number one