Social Welfare

One viewpoint on this (not necessarily mine):
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/
But take this quote from Hayek:
"
It is unfortunate that the endeavor to secure a uniform minimum for all who cannot provide for themselves has become connected with the wholly different aims of securing a ‘just’ distribution of incomes (55).
"

booooring... 1962 ... soooo old school.
Let's bring on some actual numbers that are about our millenium. Gareth has been doing some serious work in ‘The Big Kahuna’ and offers a calculator to get the numbers
right for aotearoa today. Have a play:

http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/calculator/finance-minister.aspx

@Davidpeterson Thanks for the references. I will read them and get back to you. As for UBI replacing all welfare benefits - that is the idea in most UBI proposals. It not only is more efficient, reducing a huge amount of bureaucracy and surveillance, it has the added benefit of shrinking the state.

I have read the article and don't find that he has rejected the idea of a minimum income Rather he is objecting to the concept being hijacked by some as a way to ensure a just income. This does not mean that Hayek thought that UBI was unworkable, as you claim,

In Volume 2 of Law, Legislation and Liberty he states
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organized community, those who cannot help themselves."

There can be no doubt that he wanted a bare minimum for subsistence, which in line with his moral ambivalence to the poor and disadvantaged
“there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody.”.

I also read the articles from the Ludwig von Mise Institute and the main one is a straw man fallacy. I have a problem with the Institute and that is its adherence to the wonderfully named "paleoliberalsim". Then again the Koch brothers and the Cato Institute seem to be against it so it must have some redeeming features :)
Von Mise is much more interesting auf Deutsch als Englisch ;)

Being able to become a student and not have to go through hoops and jumps is appealing to me. IE student benefit, sickness and unemployment would be covered. The have that is ACC might also be addressed by some of this. I would support dropping the minimum wage under a UBI scheme. Dropping the minimum wage might be a good idea anyway if WINZ powers to punish those who refuse work was removed and benefits were raised to a live able standard.

1. The UBI is reasonable to have set @ $500 per week for all citizens 18 years or older.
2. The DPB can be replaced by having children's UBI paid to the parents/caregiver in full to age 15, then 50/50 to age 18.
3. I would prefer that the minimum wage be negotiable down to $5 per hour by UBI recipients and non-negotiable by non-citizens, as that would effectively allow increased employment while maintaining basic conditions.
4. Redeploy WINZ budget to Kiwi business and research funds, which will redefine "corporate welfare" as "you are free to draw a UBI and startup a business and let it grow without worrying about personal finances." - something my former employer always worried about, no chance to setup a small business without having to rely on the cash float for personal expenses.
5. complete forgiveness and abolishment of student loans and student fees, no more forcing our unfortunate students to live overseas after studying.
6. Decent fully funded restoration of CHCH for earthquake and flood prone buildings. If that means shifting some centres to new areas nearby, then fine.