Show simple record

dc.contributor.authorRankin, Keith
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T19:08:25Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T19:08:25Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-06
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10652/4176
dc.description.abstractIn 1991 I wrote advocating ‘a universal tax credit available to every adult – the Universal Basic Income (UBI) – and a moderately high flat tax rate’. In 1996 I started to develop these ideas into a “social accounting framework”. It was only after my 1996 presentation – in Vienna, Austria – that the name ‘Universal Basic Income’ became a popular choice, among a number of other names, for the concept of a universal publicly sourced income payable equally to all citizens. In particular, the name ‘Universal Basic Income’ was popularised through the 2000 Boston Review forum A Basic Income for All by Philippe van Parijs, the leading intellectual in the 1990s of the Basic Income movement. My principal academic output from this project was A New Fiscal Contract? Constructing a Universal Basic Income and a Social Wage, published in 1997 in the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. In his Boston Review leader, van Parijs suggested “that everyone should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient for subsistence”. Thus he was advocating a UBI at a specified minimum level. Since then, the meaning of universal basic income has narrowed to mean ‘a universal credit available to every adult, at a level sufficient for subsistence’. It is this final qualifier that compromises the original meaning, and fosters the common criticisms that a UBI is necessarily expensive, and is an invitation to a lifestyle of indolence. I now choose to de-emphasise the name Universal Basic Income; a name that, in the present debate, has come, to too many people, to represent an unaffordable utopian benefit that undermines the work-thrift ethos that they believe underpins economic growth. Indeed, in this context, a universal basic income is sometimes presented as a benefit to replace all other benefits – a maximum as well as a minimum benefit – meaning that people with unusually high needs may be denied public help in meeting those needs. Instead of universal basic income, I now advocate a public equity dividend. I have written a report for the Policy Observatory that details the idea of public equity, and provides a model for how, with minimal transition costs, it might work in New Zealand.en_NZ
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherAuckland University of Technology, Policy Observatoryen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://briefingpapers.co.nz/from-universal-basic-income-to-public-equity-dividends/en_NZ
dc.subjectNew Zealanden_NZ
dc.subjectPublic Equity Dividenden_NZ
dc.subjectUniversal Basic Income (UBI)en_NZ
dc.subjectincome taxen_NZ
dc.subjectflat taxen_NZ
dc.subjecttax reformen_NZ
dc.subjectpolicy developmenten_NZ
dc.titleFrom universal basic income to public equity dividendsen_NZ
dc.typeOtheren_NZ
dc.date.updated2018-03-24T13:30:11Z
dc.rights.holderAuthoren_NZ
dc.subject.marsden40212 Macroeconomics (incl. Monetary and Fiscal Theory)en_NZ
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationRankin, K. (2018). From universal basic income to public equity dividends. Briefing Papers. Auckland, New Zealand: AUT University, Policy Observatory. http://briefingpapers.co.nz/from-universal-basic-income-to-public-equity-dividends/.en_NZ
unitec.publication.titleBriefing Papersen_NZ
unitec.peerreviewedyesen_NZ
unitec.identifier.roms61297en_NZ
unitec.publication.placeAuckland, New Zealanden_NZ


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in

Show simple record