Matthew Hooton and paid Labour shill Rob Salmond have been going hammer and tongs on the UBI proposal from Labour.
For those who weren’t aware of the discussion Labour put up a proposal, un-costed, with scant detail that the state pays everyone over 18 a universal basic income. The suggested amount is around $200.
There is no other detail about how such a massive welfare grant could be afforded and in the absence of any meaningful information from Labour, others including myself, have tried to work it all out.
That in turn has sent Rob Salmond, and from his reaction it shows it much to be his idea, into a mad frothing spin full of vitriol, spite and ad hominem attack against anyone who dares speak ill of the UBI.
Matthew has written a column at NBR and Rob Salmond has responded to that with another ad hominem attack against Hooton at Public Address. Salmond objects to every suggestion of David Farrar, Jim Rose and Matthew Hooton and basically calls them liars. He doesn’t, of course, put up any number at all.
Matthew Hooton’s response to that attack is brilliant, and exposes yet again the lack of intelligence from the sole defender of the UBI, Rob Salmond.
Just a few brief(ish) points.
1) For those with a subscription or working for someone who has one (and I think students at some universities), the actual column is here:http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/ubi-just-cynical-ploy-increase-welfare-and-tax-mh
2) The column makes clear at the outset this is an idea not policy. The word policy appears only once, and in the sentence: “It’s difficult to think of a policy proposal with more going for it.” I don’t know why Rob claims I said it was Labour Party policy. The column also makes clear I support a UBI in principle and I outline the key policy benefits, especially around EMTRs, administrative savings and reducing indignity for beneficiaries. I mention the huge amount of work that Lockwood Smith did in opposition in the 2000s trying to make something like a UBI work. (In fact, and I don’t mention this, I first encouraged him to do so when he became National revenue spokesman after the 2005 election). Read more »