Universal Income.

[smartcooky]

I got where I am through education, available to everyone, and a work ethic. No inheritances, no patronage, no free rides.

I got where I am through education, available to everyone, and a work ethic. No inheritances, no patronage, no free rides.... and on top of that, I served my country for 20 years, both here and overseas. In fact, I have never been unemployed, ever. I have never been on or received any kind of a benefit.

And yet I still support the a UBI; the concept that EVERY citizen deserves to have minimum, MINIMUM basic living expenses, paid to them by a government that has a DUTY to look after its people and to ensure that no-one falls through the cracks.

And I have said that Newstart is too low. But the other elements of our safety net are good, particularly superannuation and the Age Pension.

It is very disturbing to hear someone describe "superannuation and the Age Pension" as a "benefit" or "safety net". That is an elitist viewpoint.

Superannuation and the Age Pension are not benefits, they are RIGHTS that have been earned through a lifetime of working and paying taxes. Part of everyone's taxes go towards receiving a minimum living wage when they retire from working life.

My belief is that a UBI is unnecessary in Australia, and horribly expensive when compared to targeted welfare.

By a very stupid amount.

No! No! No!

Every single person who says this is utterly wrong! They are wrong because they totally ignorant of the facts, and have no actual understanding of what UBI does and how it works.

It is not horribly expensive for a few reasons...

1. Those who are on high incomes pay a huge amount of that UBI back to the government directly in income tax.

2. Having everyone on a higher amount of take home pay means they can now afford things they might otherwise not be able to afford, or that they have been putting off. The extra money in their pockets boosts spending, which boosts the economy, which results extra money being paid to the government indirectly in sales taxes (GST/VAT).

3. The resulting boost to the economy means that small and medium sized businesses, and therefore, large businesses do better economically. When businesses do better, they order more goods, employ more staff. Manufacturers have to manufacture more, contractor have additional work. This all results in a bigger direct and indirect tax take for the government.

In the end, the government gets paid back for the investment it makes in its people, and these people live better, happier and more productive lives through an overall raise in the standard of living... its win-win all around.

 

[cullennz]

I got where I am through education, available to everyone, and a work ethic. No inheritances, no patronage, no free rides.... and on top of that, I served my country for 20 years, both here and overseas. In fact, I have never been unemployed, ever. I have never been on or received any kind of a benefit.

And yet I still support the a UBI; the concept that EVERY citizen deserves to have minimum, MINIMUM basic living expenses, paid to them by a government that has a DUTY to look after its people and to ensure that no-one falls through the cracks.



It is very disturbing to hear someone describe "superannuation and the Age Pension" as a "benefit" or "safety net". That is an elitist viewpoint.

Superannuation and the Age Pension are not benefits, they are RIGHTS that have been earned through a lifetime of working and paying taxes. Part of everyone's taxes go towards receiving a minimum living wage when they retire from working life.





No! No! No!

Every single person who says this is utterly wrong! They are wrong because they totally ignorant of the facts, and have no actual understanding of what UBI does and how it works.

It is not horribly expensive for a few reasons...

1. Those who are on high incomes pay a huge amount of that UBI back to the government directly in income tax.

2. Having everyone on a higher amount of take home pay means they can now afford things they might otherwise not be able to afford, or that they have been putting off. The extra money in their pockets boosts spending, which boosts the economy, which results extra money being paid to the government indirectly in sales taxes (GST/VAT).

3. The resulting boost to the economy means that small and medium sized businesses, and therefore, large businesses do better economically. When businesses do better, they order more goods, employ more staff. Manufacturers have to manufacture more, contractor have additional work. This all results in a bigger direct and indirect tax take for the government.

In the end, the government gets paid back for the investment it makes in its people, and these people live better, happier and more productive lives through an overall raise in the standard of living... its win-win all around.

I think most middle income people with a brain and not in the **** financially would just keep it in a bank account to try to buy a house which without it would have been a pipe dream these days.

 

[lionking]

I got where I am through education, available to everyone, and a work ethic. No inheritances, no patronage, no free rides.... and on top of that, I served my country for 20 years, both here and overseas. In fact, I have never been unemployed, ever. I have never been on or received any kind of a benefit.

And yet I still support the a UBI; the concept that EVERY citizen deserves to have minimum, MINIMUM basic living expenses, paid to them by a government that has a DUTY to look after its people and to ensure that no-one falls through the cracks.



It is very disturbing to hear someone describe "superannuation and the Age Pension" as a "benefit" or "safety net". That is an elitist viewpoint.

Superannuation and the Age Pension are not benefits, they are RIGHTS that have been earned through a lifetime of working and paying taxes. Part of everyone's taxes go towards receiving a minimum living wage when they retire from working life.





No! No! No!

Every single person who says this is utterly wrong! They are wrong because they totally ignorant of the facts, and have no actual understanding of what UBI does and how it works.

It is not horribly expensive for a few reasons...

1. Those who are on high incomes pay a huge amount of that UBI back to the government directly in income tax.

2. Having everyone on a higher amount of take home pay means they can now afford things they might otherwise not be able to afford, or that they have been putting off. The extra money in their pockets boosts spending, which boosts the economy, which results extra money being paid to the government indirectly in sales taxes (GST/VAT).

3. The resulting boost to the economy means that small and medium sized businesses, and therefore, large businesses do better economically. When businesses do better, they order more goods, employ more staff. Manufacturers have to manufacture more, contractor have additional work. This all results in a bigger direct and indirect tax take for the government.

In the end, the government gets paid back for the investment it makes in its people, and these people live better, happier and more productive lives through an overall raise in the standard of living... its win-win all around.

Oh wow. This is obviously a no brainer. I wonder why it hasn’t been implemented.....

Oh, no I don’t. It hasn’t because it is utopian, economically irresponsible and stupid. Even the Scandinavian socialists haven’t implemented this. Wonder why.......

 

[cullennz]

It is quite funny that people think giving rich people free money and then claim it back in tax is cost neutral.

 

[psionl0]

I think most middle income people with a brain and not in the **** financially would just keep it in a bank account to try to buy a house which without it would have been a pipe dream these days.

This is absolute ignorance. Middle and higher income earners would not be in front because of lower tax free thresholds. Only lower income earners and those unable to jump through the hoops imposed by a bureaucratic social security agency would be in front.

 

[cullennz]

This is absolute ignorance. Middle and higher income earners would not be in front because of lower tax free thresholds. Only lower income earners and those unable to jump through the hoops imposed by a bureaucratic social security agency would be in front.

No idea what you are on about sorry.

Here middle income people are struggling themselves.

The thought of a free piggy bank to get a house deposit isn't rocket science, when yould'nt get it otherwise.

They are hardly going to go on a spending spree.

Admittedly low income people might, but it is just giving money to corporates, as they don't end up paying any tax aprt from GST

 

[smartcooky]

I think most middle income people with a brain and not in the **** financially would just keep it in a bank account to try to buy a house which without it would have been a pipe dream these days.

Oh wow. This is obviously a no brainer. I wonder why it hasn’t been implemented.....

Oh, no I don’t. It hasn’t because it is utopian, economically irresponsible and stupid. Even the Scandinavian socialists haven’t implemented this. Wonder why.......

Well you both quoted my post.

What a pity it is neither of you understood it.

At this point, I think I'll just take George Carlin's advice...

 

[angrysoba]

Newstart is unemployment benefit and Centrelink is the agency that administers it and other welfare payments.

But, Christ, you can’t do a 10 second google? Simply lazy, nothing else.

He'll be wanting UBI next.

 

[lionking]

Well you both quoted my post.

What a pity it is neither of you understood it.

At this point, I think I'll just take George Carlin's advice...

I think you misunderstand the difference between understanding your post and agreeing with it

 

[smartcooky]

I think you misunderstand the difference between understanding your post and agreeing with it

Nope, you comments clear indcate that you don't understand the concept

Never mind, I'll just defer to George Carlin in future

 

[psionl0]

No idea what you are on about sorry.

Then you should have stopped there.

 

[Belz...]

Most pilot studies don't support the claim that cash transfer recipients spend the money on 'temptation goods' such as alcohol.

Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods

Yeah, that claim was just smearing the poor, again.

 

[Belz...]

My belief is that a UBI is unnecessary in Australia, and horribly expensive when compared to targeted welfare.

That's certainly a normal first thought about this, but do we have actual numbers to support either claim?

 

[Belz...]

No! No! No!

Every single person who says this is utterly wrong! They are wrong because they totally ignorant of the facts, and have no actual understanding of what UBI does and how it works.

It is not horribly expensive for a few reasons...

1. Those who are on high incomes pay a huge amount of that UBI back to the government directly in income tax.

2. Having everyone on a higher amount of take home pay means they can now afford things they might otherwise not be able to afford, or that they have been putting off. The extra money in their pockets boosts spending, which boosts the economy, which results extra money being paid to the government indirectly in sales taxes (GST/VAT).

3. The resulting boost to the economy means that small and medium sized businesses, and therefore, large businesses do better economically. When businesses do better, they order more goods, employ more staff. Manufacturers have to manufacture more, contractor have additional work. This all results in a bigger direct and indirect tax take for the government.

In the end, the government gets paid back for the investment it makes in its people, and these people live better, happier and more productive lives through an overall raise in the standard of living... its win-win all around.

You've got me really close to agreeing here.

I think most middle income people with a brain and not in the **** financially would just keep it in a bank account to try to buy a house which without it would have been a pipe dream these days.

As a middle-class person I would probably spend a good deal of it the first time around, but yeah, I would invest it in retirement funds mostly, or to clear up my mortgage.

 

[Belz...]

Oh wow. This is obviously a no brainer. I wonder why it hasn’t been implemented.....

Oh, no I don’t. It hasn’t because it is utopian, economically irresponsible and stupid. Even the Scandinavian socialists haven’t implemented this. Wonder why.......

Lionking, smartcooky has at least made a good effort to explain why it would work. Could you perhaps muster a bit of effort yourself to counter his points that doesn't involve you just saying "nuh-huh"?

 

[Belz...]

It is quite funny that people think giving rich people free money and then claim it back in tax is cost neutral.

Why? Let's assume you give them 2000$ and then increase their income taxes so that they pay 10,000 more. You're right. It isn't neutral. Of course UBI has to be offset in part with higher taxes on the top earners.

 

[smartcooky]

Lionking, smartcooky has at least made a good effort to explain why it would work. Could you perhaps muster a bit of effort yourself to counter his points that doesn't involve you just saying "nuh-huh"?

Not a chance. Elitists who think poverty is funny and the poor are only sneer-worthy, have "nuh-uh" as their only answer. They can say "I don't agree" but they can never tell you why.

 

[Belz...]

Not a chance. Elitists who think poverty is funny and the poor are only sneer-worthy, have "nuh-uh" as their only answer. They can say "I don't agree" but they can never tell you why.

On the other hand I don't know why you call him an elitist. I've not seen any indication that he sneers at the poor.

 

[smartcooky]

On the other hand I don't know why you call him an elitist. I've not seen any indication that he sneers at the poor.

Here...

Poverty in Australia is being able to afford only one widescreen TV.

Oh come off it. Most countries in the world would laugh at Australia’s “relative” poverty.

Making jokes about poverty and the plight of the poor is in very bad taste in my book. Only elitists think its funny

ETA: By elitist I mean middle class who think they're upper class

 

[Belz...]

Here...





Making jokes about poverty and the plight of the poor is in very bad taste in my book. Only elitists think its funny

ETA: By elitist I mean middle class who think they're upper class

I don't interpret those the way you do. I think what he's saying is that what is considered by the government to be under the poverty line in Australia is WAY above that of many other countries. Lionking is saying that if you have a flatscreen TV, and presumably all the other luxuries of modern life such as a smartphone and a vehicle, but not necessarily any spare cash, you're not really "poor". I can certainly understand that.