Universal Income.

lionking said:
But we are talking $20k+ UBI.

There will be winners and losers with a fully funded UBI. And many of the losers will be big losers. Try selling that to the electorate.

I have problems with the practicality of a UBI. I also believe it is politically impossible. Such large transfers of wealth will not happen here in my view.
Click to expand...


Who are the losers with UBI?
 
psionl0 said:
Already explained. It will give something to those who currently get nothing because they can't jump through the bureaucratic hoops set for them.

If a dictionary is your best argument against such a scheme then you are not really trying.
Click to expand...

Who can’t get Newstart? Who, apart from the well off, can’t get the age pension? Are you talking about people on visas? Should people on visas get Newstart?

I’m really struggling to see large numbers of citizens or permanent residents who get nothing.
 
psionl0 said:
Already explained. It will give something to those who currently get nothing because they can't jump through the bureaucratic hoops set for them.

If a dictionary is your best argument against such a scheme then you are not really trying.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what your countries proposals are for a UBI.

Here it is universal.

Every single person over 16 no matter their wealth gets the same amount.

And the unemployed and penshioners still get the benefit and Super
 
That is just the propsals here though, and yours might not be so incredibly stupid
 
lionking said:
I’m really struggling to see large numbers of citizens or permanent residents who get nothing.
Click to expand...
Then your eyes must be closed. Your own numbers give lie to this claim. If every unemployed person was getting newstart then replacing it with UBI would be cost neutral.
 
psionl0 said:
Then your eyes must be closed. Your own numbers give lie to this claim. If every unemployed person was getting newstart then replacing it with UBI would be cost neutral.
Click to expand...

I see. You can’t answer my question about who is missing out. Unsurprising.
 
lionking said:
The Age pension costs about $70b a year and unemployment benefit is $10b. To replace that and give every adult Australian $2000 a month would be a net cost of over $300b ($400b minus $80b) per year. This is about a quarter of Australia’s GDP.

In other words, a utopian dream.
Click to expand...

The net cost of UBI is not the population size times UBI minus cost of benefits replaced. This ignores the additional taxes from simply treating UBI as income, even before adjustments of actual tax thresholds and rates. Not to mention the financial benefits of reduced crime, reduced use of health services etc.

The BIG misunderstanding about the cost of Universal Basic Income
 
Elaedith said:
The net cost of UBI is not the population size times UBI minus cost of benefits replaced. This ignores the additional taxes from simply treating UBI as income, even before adjustments of actual tax thresholds and rates. Not to mention the financial benefits of reduced crime, reduced use of health services etc.

The BIG misunderstanding about the cost of Universal Basic Income
Click to expand...

Taxing the UBI as income has not been a consensus opinion in this thread.
 
Belz... said:
Er... yes it was. Increase taxes for certain brackets and the elimination of redundant services was the original argument. From post #9 onward.
Click to expand...

All we have seen is calls to tax “the wealthy” and multinationals. And which “redundant services” are proposed for elimination?

I really think you should go back through this thread, as I have.

In little backwater Australia we are looking at hundreds of billions to fund a UBI. How would you fund it? Be specific. I’m looking for more than “tax the rich”.
 
lionking said:
In little backwater Australia we are looking at hundreds of billions to fund a UBI.
Click to expand...
According to you we are not. You say that every adult Australian is either employed or on some government handout. It that is the case then any UBI proposal could easily be made cost neutral.
 
psionl0 said:
According to you we are not. You say that every adult Australian is either employed or on some government handout. It that is the case then any UBI proposal could easily be made cost neutral.
Click to expand...

Oh that’s it. If you can’t grasp basic arithmetics there’s no point responding to you.

The only way a UBI can be funded without impossible deficits is impossible tax rises.

I would no doubt be better off with a UBI (provided it doesn’t confiscate my superannuation), but I don’t support it because it’s bad policy involving damaging wealth redistribution.

And I note you still haven’t disclosed those who “get nothing”.
 
lionking said:
Taxing the UBI as income has not been a consensus opinion in this thread.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said it would not be taxable income. Obviously people receiving only UBI would not pay tax because their income would be below the tax threshold.
 
Elaedith said:
Nobody has said it would not be taxable income. Obviously people receiving only UBI would not pay tax because their income would be below the tax threshold.
Click to expand...
Plenty of peope have said it will be a taxable inome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom