I thought that was implied in the first bullets where I completely removed the tax/benefit systems – so yes I am removing all minimum wages.

What is the point of a minimum wage when people already have a living wage?  People can’t be “taken advantage of” anymore, and so the decision to sell labour can be seen as truly “voluntary”.

All about prices and the incentives that stem from them – all about that for sure.

A minimum income with a flat tax is both a staple of the left and right – which is why it will never happen.

I wouldn’t put this post down to Infometrics – we all have different judgments on what would constitute good policy.  I know that the majority of my colleagues would not support my view of a land tax 😉

The dreaded visible hand at work? 

Ok well you could easily drop point 1) but keep point 2) as an unofficial indicator that 3 might be a good place to stop!!

And hopefully education and better social outcomes will provide right incentives to have less children. 

That’s why I like the idea of a citizen’s contract..not so much a willingness to work but a willingness to participate (i.e.not doss on the sofa all day, though to be fair this can be fun occasionally!). 

In terms of immigration this may change things slightly but i think the same criteria we have now would still be in play (demand may be higher though).

I’d also argue that a properly constituted GMI would limit political parties ability to screw around as there would be fewer policy levers and therefore less opportunity to raid the treasury.  

This proposal has come from the right as well by the way. I dug out this post from almost 4 years ago…..guess the Infometrics crew are a bunch of closet UBI supporters 🙂

“How would the GMI affect peoples attitudes to immigration? There are some now who dislike taking poor immigrants because “they come here and just go straight on the dole”. With the GMI, every immigrant who comes here would go straight on the “dole”, from a certain point of view.”

Ahh you’ve caught one of the issues I blatantly avoided on purpose 😉

I’d keep immigration policy the same as it is now, and then once policies are set up so that we know what the “GMI” constitutes I’d review migration policies.  Having a GMI definitely makes the free movement of labour more problematic – until countries overseas are doing the same.

“People would SEE families arriving as a big drain on taxpayers. But they wouldnt see the benefits of that immigration.”

For that issue, I would fund research to make the full costs and benefits of policy more transparent.

“Would there be a stigma attached to (being 100% reliant) on the GMI, like there is the dole? I dont think there would be, as everyone is getting it. So wont the removal of that stigma provide upward pressure on the number of people voluntarily leaving the workforce? Meaning fewer productive people are left to fund the ‘bludgers’ lifestyles.”

Yup, all good.  That is why society needs to vote regarding whether it is a universal income, or is subject to a “willingness to work” clause.  In either case, whatever society votes on it gets.

“Also, arent you worried that when Labour gains powers again, and have to be supported by The Greens, Mana, Maori, and Peter Dunne, that they will use the mechanism of the GMI to piss a fire hose stream of money down the drain?”

Hopefully, the party can make the costs and benefits of policy transparent – if that is the case (such as with an independent tax setting body) then there is some defacto limit on other parties ability to screw around.

If people elect in a party that does explicitly screw them around, then that is their own fault – I’m not going to deviate from optimal policies just to prevent it 😉

How would the GMI affect peoples attitudes to immigration? There are some now who dislike taking poor immigrants because “they come here and just go straight on the dole”. With the GMI, every immigrant who comes here would go straight on the “dole”, from a certain point of view.

People would SEE families arriving as a big drain on taxpayers. But they wouldnt see the benefits of that immigration. The same is true now, of course, but the problem would be much greater under a GMI.

Would there be a stigma attached to (being 100% reliant) on the GMI, like there is the dole? I dont think there would be, as everyone is getting it. So wont the removal of that stigma provide upward pressure on the number of people voluntarily leaving the workforce? Meaning fewer productive people are left to fund the ‘bludgers’ lifestyles.

Also, arent you worried that when Labour gains powers again, and have to be supported by The Greens, Mana, Maori, and Peter Dunne, that they will use the mechanism of the GMI to piss a fire hose stream of money down the drain?

How can you trust the party that instituted an idiotic policy like interest free student loans, and would do/promise anything to stay in power, with something as powerful as the GMI?