Universal Income.

lionking said:
No we really haven’t. Taxing the rich and large multi-nationals is not a plan on its own.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. That's why you're also eliminating most other forms of welfare and dissolving a large and bloated government department. It's why you're also reallocating wasteful budgets.

lionking said:
If a UBI system is going to be self-funding, show how. If you come up with figures I can guarantee it would be politically impossible. Labor lost an election over cutting franking credits enjoyed by wealthy retirees, which was not even a tax rise. Taxing large multi-nationals looks good on paper - until they close their Australian operations.

We are facing a $A1trillion deficit as it is. Without (impossible) tax rises, this will balloon.
Click to expand...
Oh no! If only someone had thought of that.

Oh wait, they have.

There are two major sources of funds for a UBI: savings from cuts to other programs and increases in taxation. Libertarians like Charles Murray and Matt Zwolinski propose using a UBI as a replacement for the welfare state. They argue most or all of the funding could come from abolishing existing programs.[21] The Economist estimates the United States could pay each person $6,300 a year if it cashed out all non-health transfer payments (the figure is $6,100 for Australia).[22] However, The Economist suggests that it is unlikely any political leader would be prepared to deny the full range of existing benefits that go to groups such as age pensioners.

Basic income advocates who want to combine a UBI with existing programs have suggested a number of ways to increase tax revenue. For example, in Challenge magazine, Luke Whitington (a member of the NSW Labor Left) suggests ‘a broad based progressive land tax’ and taxes on multinational corporations.[23] American writer Scott Santens makes a number of suggestions including a carbon tax, a financial transaction tax and a new top income-tax bracket.[24] Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig suggest cuts to tax expenditures that benefit high-income earners and cuts to the defence budget.[25]
Click to expand...
Smarter people than me have run the numbers, and they reckon it's fundable.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, it's not. That's why you're also eliminating most other forms of welfare and dissolving a large and bloated government department. It's why you're also reallocating wasteful budgets.

Oh no! If only someone had thought of that.

Oh wait, they have.

Smarter people than me have run the numbers, and they reckon it's fundable.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph proposes to cut all existing programs, including aged pensions, in exchange for $6100 per year. Do you really think this will work?

The second proposes tax increases and spending cuts to keep pensions, including a carbon tax, which also lost Labor an election.

Any party which adopted this as policy would be destroyed.

Yes the UBI can be funded, but only in a way that would lead to certain defeat at an election, and a change of government between elections.

Do you think a UBI would be politically possible?
 
smartcooky said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

And you have not even remotely shown how a UBI would work, apart from invoking an impossible benefactor.

When you are willing to show how a UBI would work economically and politically you may add something to this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lionking said:
Yes the UBI can be funded, but only in a way that would lead to certain defeat at an election, and a change of government between elections.

Do you think a UBI would be politically possible?
Click to expand...

Does it matter if whatever party loses if the UBI stays?

We've already discussed how UBI will improve society and the economy.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Does it matter if whatever party loses if the UBI stays?

We've already discussed how UBI will improve society and the economy.
Click to expand...

Who will bring in the UBI when the party sees polling go through the floor? In Australia, no major party will put this forward. Look what happened with the relatively minor franking credit cut.
 
lionking said:
Who will bring in the UBI when the party sees polling go through the floor? In Australia, no major party will put this forward. Look what happened with the relatively minor franking credit cut.
Click to expand...

Who will bring it in when they see polling go through the roof?

You do realise you're in a minority?
 
lionking said:
The first paragraph proposes to cut all existing programs, including aged pensions, in exchange for $6100 per year. Do you really think this will work?
Click to expand...
Some pretty smart people do. They're cited in the paper.

lionking said:
The second proposes tax increases and spending cuts to keep pensions, including a carbon tax, which also lost Labor an election.

Any party which adopted this as policy would be destroyed.

Yes the UBI can be funded, but only in a way that would lead to certain defeat at an election, and a change of government between elections.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 2013 election? That was quite a while ago.

lionking said:
Do you think a UBI would be politically possible?
Click to expand...
I refer my friend to my earlier answer. But this is from the Executive Summary of the paper - which I found in the Parliamentary Library, by Googling "how will a ubi be funded":

Even if there little prospect of a UBI being introduced in the near future, debating UBI proposals helps draw out and clarify the differences in values and vision that shape social and economic policy.
Click to expand...

I actually recommend reading at least some of the rest of the paper. It basically provides some detail on pretty much everything that's been said in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the only objection to UBI that hasn't already been addressed is "I don't believe we should be giving money to people who haven't earned it". Everything else is a smokescreen.
 
UBI seems to be favoured in the UK and Canada, according to this Gallup poll, but not in the US:

These findings come from a Gallup/Northeastern survey of over 10,000 adults in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. conducted from April to June 2019. By some estimates, up to 50% of jobs are expected to be automated within the next decade. An OECD study across 21 countries suggests that while only 9% of jobs are currently at high risk of automation, low-skilled workers are most vulnerable to job displacement.
Click to expand...

Also, in Australia apparently, but by a narrower margin than in UK and Canada:

Nearly two-thirds of Australians say they would support the introduction of a universal basic income (UBI), according to a new poll.

The finding comes after millions of Australians were forced to rely on some kind of regular welfare payment this year to survive the COVID recession.
Click to expand...

  1. 58 per cent of Australians support a universal basic income
  • The COVID lockdowns may have increased sympathy for UBI

  • A large number of Australians would spend more time with family and friends, and doing physical activities, if they received UBI

That said, you cannot always assume that voters are only going to vote on a single issue. And there are a couple of other important confounding factors. When something becomes a live election issue, then people's views on them can shift and harden depending on whether or not their party supports or opposes it. This is even more the case when a policy might have knock-on effects on other aspects of their lives.

Like universal healthcare in the US, people support Medicare for All, but many don't realize it would end their private insurance (those who find out often end up opposing Medicare for all as we have seen on this forum). People in Ireland support the idea of a united Ireland, but don't want to pay for it or associate with many of the people who would become their countrymen. Etc...
 
Orphia Nay said:
Who will bring it in when they see polling go through the roof?

You do realise you're in a minority?
Click to expand...

Maybe here, but if you think the electorate will accept a UBI at least partly funded by tax increases, you are wrong. Neither party will ever have it as policy.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
UBI seems to be favoured in the UK and Canada, according to this Gallup poll, but not in the US:



Also, in Australia apparently, but by a narrower margin than in UK and Canada:



  1. 58 per cent of Australians support a universal basic income
  • The COVID lockdowns may have increased sympathy for UBI

  • A large number of Australians would spend more time with family and friends, and doing physical activities, if they received UBI

That said, you cannot always assume that voters are only going to vote on a single issue. And there are a couple of other important confounding factors. When something becomes a live election issue, then people's views on them can shift and harden depending on whether or not their party supports or opposes it. This is even more the case when a policy might have knock-on effects on other aspects of their lives.

Like universal healthcare in the US, people support Medicare for All, but many don't realize it would end their private insurance (those who find out often end up opposing Medicare for all as we have seen on this forum). People in Ireland support the idea of a united Ireland, but don't want to pay for it or associate with many of the people who would become their countrymen. Etc...
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t people be happy with more handouts? It’s only when the costs and consequences of the handouts become apparent that public opinion changes.
 
lionking said:
Why wouldn’t people be happy with more handouts? It’s only when the costs and consequences of the handouts become apparent that public opinion changes.
Click to expand...

That's why I think we don't really know what people would think of UBI unless it became an electoral issue.
 
lionking said:
Why wouldn’t people be happy with more handouts? It’s only when the costs and consequences of the handouts become apparent that public opinion changes.
Click to expand...

I had another look at that survey. It was commissioned by the Australian Greens. And it made no mention of the amount the UBI would be and how it was to be funded, which are important issues if you are after an informed opinion. So all we have is “do you want more money from the government?”. Not terribly convincing.
 
smartcooky said:
I may not control you, but I do control the question I want to ask. You can either answer the question or not, that's up to you and I don't give a damn either way.

However, if you try to alter or change my question I will tell you that "you don't control me or the thread". Capisce?
Click to expand...

He did answer your question. That's what "yes" means.

He also went on to explain how to relate your hypothetical to the topic of the thread, which seems quite reasonable. I agree that it's good to address a hypothetical on it's own terms. He did that. I also think it's good to address any ways that the hypothetical could lead one's reasoning astray, which he also did.
 
arthwollipot said:
As I said previously, "ever" is a long time.
Click to expand...

Not that long if you are expecting your average worker to pay even more for others to sit on their arse all day.

I think I am one of many who thinks helping out those in the **** temporarily is sweet as, but there is a limit to it, and a UBI means massive more taxes.
 
lionking said:
Why wouldn’t people be happy with more handouts? It’s only when the costs and consequences of the handouts become apparent that public opinion changes.
Click to expand...

"Handouts" implies something that is free, so it's contradictory to complain of the cost to the recipients. The universality of both distribution and expense makes these purchases, not handouts. If I spend money to get myself something I want I am making a purchase, not receiving a gift and also paying for a gift.
 
Goodness me.

This idea of UBI is not new. it literally derives from Thomas More.

It was stupid then. It is stupid now. People who advocate now are, well work it out...
 
lionking said:
Goodness me.

This idea of UBI is not new. it literally derives from Thomas More.

It was stupid then. It is stupid now. People who advocate now are, well work it out...
Click to expand...

If something were actually that stupid then surely it could be demonstrated to be so in less than eleven pages. I'm certain you'll understand why just declaring something to be stupid doesn't make it so, nor does it make a convincing argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom