Government & Politics

Universal Basic Income

Government & Politics

Posted by: TaylorCS

18th Jan 2021 01:15pm

Following the pandemic, a new poll by the Green Institute showed 58 per cent of Australians now support a Universal Basic Income (UBI). This new research indicates the lockdowns and widespread reliance on various welfare payments last year has increased support for UBI.

Stanford University's Basic Income Lab define's a Universal Basic Income as a cash payment given to all members of a community on a regular basis regardless of income level and with no strings attached. However, there are various interpretations with differing levels of support dependent on income being tested around the world.

Are you in favour of a Universal Basic Income in Australia? If so, do you think it should be for everyone, regardless of personal or household income? And if not, at what level of personal income do you think it should be stopped?

This competition is now closed, winners will be notified soon. Keep an eye out for more great opportunities to earn rewards!

Comments 61

PGS
  • 8th Apr 2021 06:32pm

Hmmm
Unemployed numbers would increase. Why work if $$$$$ is given for nothing?
Of course, those with real incomes would have to pay more tax to cover this.
Upper classes (& LIB) won't allow extra taxes, so it won't happen.

Debbie
  • 30th Mar 2021 11:12pm

There has been so much fraudulent clink activity this year with companies claiming govt payment for their employees even though their employees are still working the same hours. I am sure all those people would be happy for the UBI, I dont really think it is fair for those who are hard working to have to be paid the same as someone who just doesnt :(

dubbo
  • 7th Mar 2021 12:36pm

Universal basic income is only a good idea if it prevents extreme poverty, at the moment Newstart or Jobseeker or whatever the Tories call it, is extremely mean at half the Henderson Poverty line.

Scott31656835
  • 27th Feb 2021 02:53pm

Yes I think everyone should get it who earns less then 250k per year.

Moongold
  • 3rd Feb 2021 07:15am

Not all that it appears to be, I'm afraid. The ultimate goal of this 'solution' will be to place us under global Socialism - anyone who knows history should be on their tiptoes to protest against it. It will reduce us all to a poverty situation, and as the Pope himself admits, (in I think his latest encyclical) we won't even be able to own individual property. We will actually have NOTHING and, he claims, 'be happy without it'. THAT is the aim of this very covert plan. It all sounds great, but further examination needed. Try watching Walter Veith's "What's up, Prof" series on YouTube. He deals intelligently with this very subject and reveals information not known to the majority of us.

Moongold
  • 3rd Feb 2021 01:22pm
I'll be sure to watch that particular video

Hi KittiCat - Walter Veith is a very educated man, having been a worldwide university lecturer some years ago. I hope you won't be put off by Walter and the other person, Martin, being Christian and having a platform of interest in Bible prophecy: Walter has discovered amazing evidence for all he puts forward on these videos. They are all about an hour long, but they're dealing with very up to the minute issues. You can write and ask any questions of them also, but it may take a little while to get a reply - they're apparently snowed under with queries! As I recall the discussion on this universal plan for 'equality' in earnings (having much more behind it however) was in one discussion posted 2 or 3 two weeks ago. Walter speaks a lot on the Papacy plans and how the Pope is actually the one proposing many of the things happening today.
Regards,

KittiCat
  • 3rd Feb 2021 12:20pm
Not all that it appears to be, I'm afraid. The ultimate goal of this 'solution' will be to place us under global Socialism - anyone who knows history should be on their tiptoes to protest against...

I'll be sure to watch that particular video

furtherseemsforever
  • 2nd Feb 2021 11:04pm

Would love me some free money without having to be on welfare.

furtherseemsforever
  • 2nd Feb 2021 11:04pm

Would love me some free money without having to be on welfare.

chocogirl
  • 2nd Feb 2021 10:40pm

I think a Universal Basic income is a great idea. As a single income family, I know how difficult it is to pay for basic necessities. We cannot afford a holiday or renovations and if it is a struggle for us, how difficult it must be for those with no income.

Julie-Anne30524122
  • 2nd Feb 2021 08:10pm

Well, it sounds good as do a lot of ‘initiatives’ but your forgetting one major thing. Will this prohibit the farmer or the small businesses from flourishing and if so will that lead to total government reliance ?
Something important to think about indeed

Charles1
  • 2nd Feb 2021 06:04pm

I am strongly in favour of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in Australia. While I acknowledge that there are various political and economic complications that arise from the payment of UBI, I believe the positive benefits that a UBI would bring to the welfare of members of the Australian community outweighs the negative effects; it is also worth mentioning that these negative effects could be minimised through careful planning of the UBI and other economic policies.

There are multiple issues in Australia that UBI would help to address, and would reduce the negative impact that these issues have on the lives of Australians. These include:

• 116,427 people in Australia are currently homeless. Homelessness in Australia has increased 13.7% in the past 5 years.
• 13.6% of Australians (1 in 8 Australians; and 1 in 6 Australian children) are living in poverty. This is equivalent to 3.24 million people.
• 1,614,412 Australians are currently competing for 104,880 job vacancies. This is a ratio of job seekers to job vacancies of 1:15. (So even if all job vacancies are filled, heaps of Australians have to remain unemployed).
• Nearly 75% of claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) are rejected, leaving thousands of disabled people without an income.

UBI would help to address all these social issues. Homeless people should not be made to beg on the streets in order to get food to eat for that day, especially when 20% of Australia's food production is wasted. In a 'first-world' country like Australia, people should not be living in poverty. And those who have their application for DSP rejected (the majority of applicants) should not be left in financial limbo by the government with zero assistance from Centrelink and zero employment income.

The only way to address these issues is to give Australians a UBI that ensures they can afford to sleep somewhere safe and warm, as well as be able to eat basic food and access clean drinking water.

In a country like Australia, our government should not be literally telling people that their only choice is to 'work or starve'. Such a notion is abhorrent and is akin to wage slavery. As an Australian citizen we should be guaranteed upon birth that we will not be left in poverty unable to meet our basic needs.

I fully acknowledge the concern that some opponents of UBI have, that a UBI might disincentive work and productive economic activity. However, I do not propose such a high level of UBI that people would have the money to buy a flashy car, Uber meals, expensive watches or branded clothing or video games. I merely propose a level of UBI that allows basic needs to be met. For any goods/services that are wants and NOT necessities, it makes perfect sense to expect people to continue to work in jobs to afford those things. In other words, we should not be in a situation of 'work or starve', but instead 'work to be able to afford all the nice things in life'. This is the "basic" part of Universal Basic Income.

There is also an issue as to how UBI would be funded. For instance, is it fair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill? While a legitimate concern, when you consider the things that the government currently spend on, it is not unreasonable to ask for there to be an allocation to ensure all Australians can afford the basics to survive. For instance, the government wastes lots of taxpayers money on things like excessive government salaries, tearing down perfectly functional public infrastructure, etc. How about the government cuts the spending on everything unnecessary, and allocate it to UBI?

A lot of opponents of UBI also complain that those who are on UBI are just lazy and that they should "get a job". But again, even if all job vacancies in Australia were filled, there will still be hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work, and thus unable to afford the basics (in such a situation JobSeeker would be useless as there'd be no more jobs to seek!). A UBI would provide a safety net for all those Australians.

Should UBI be for everyone? No - it should be means tested based on income and assets the same way as any other government payment, but WITHOUT "mutual obligations". Of course, it makes no sense for someone with assets worth $1 million on an income of $100k p.a. to receiving UBI. In that case, they can clearly afford survival basics plus luxuries. UBI should only be for those who need it.

I don't think I am qualified enough to suggest a personal income level at which UBI should stopped. Perhaps one method we could use is to think of what the full UBI is if someone's income is $0 p.a. Maybe in that case UBI could be the amount that the JobSeeker payment currently is - $250 a week (i.e. $13k p.a.). (To also incentivise work, perhaps the JobSeeker payment could still be an option for job seekers, and they could receive a higher rate of pay for participating in "mutual obligations").

What could then happen is that the more income from employment a recipient makes, the lower UBI they get. This is the same way that current government welfare payments work, and it makes sense. Maybe a recipient could earn under $10k p.a. from employment income before they UBI starts to be reduced - any higher than $10k and their payment would be gradually reduced. I believe a good level of personal income at which UBI should completely be stopped is $28k. At that level of income the recipient would be earning enough to afford necessities and some luxuries, and would no longer be in need of a UBI.

I have thus addressed the benefits of UBI while also acknowledging and suggesting remedies for potential arguments against it. Both politicians and economists should sit down and work out the feasibility of a UBI in Australia, as it is an absolute priority that the social issues that I have identified are addressed. I strongly believe that a modest, means-tested UBI could be the answer.

Sources:
https://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/about/homelessness-statistics
http://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty/
https://unemployedworkersunion.com/job-seekers-v-job-vacancy-data/
https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2018/02/sharp-decline-people-accessing-disability-support-pension/

Angieg
  • 9th Mar 2021 12:22am
I am strongly in favour of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in Australia. While I acknowledge that there are various political and economic complications that arise from the payment of UBI, I believe...

Thanks for your information, which has cleared up some questions. Very interesting indeed and it has made me even more positive towards the idea. The gap between the rich and poor is widening fast and nobody in our country should be made to sleep rough and go without food, clothing and basics just to survive.

yrag
  • 2nd Feb 2021 05:21pm

Should be for everyone, regardless of personal or household income but be added to taxable income.

Alioxy63
  • 2nd Feb 2021 04:18pm

We’re a first world country. If we can’t provide food and housing to people in 2021 then what are we doing? Of course we need a universal basic income. People deserve to at the very least have their basic needs met. It’s just human decency.

Shusan
  • 2nd Feb 2021 03:12pm

I think it would be great, so many struggle to even afford the basics and even to travel and present well to seek jobs. Mentally such people find it hard to be motivated and positive to seek a job. I believe in Finland Many people
Now are free and able to start their own businesses and also raise their education level. A very forward thinking and caring society.

Tinacalc
  • 2nd Feb 2021 03:09pm

I believe it should be for everyone. During lockdown my husband still had to work, I haven't worked for 4 years now and do not get any benefits. But during this lockdown friends who both do not work but were getting benefits were getting extra benefits and were able to renovate, go on a holiday and now have savings. As much as I don't begrudge them their windfall during lockdown how fair was that, nothing changed for us, no holiday, no savings and certainly no renovations but the chance to get convid.

feralrecords
  • 2nd Feb 2021 12:44pm

UBI should be for everyone earning less than 50k after tax

Julie-Anne30524122
  • 2nd Feb 2021 08:14pm
UBI should be for everyone earning less than 50k after tax

I agree. Put a Definately cap on it for sure

fovean
  • 2nd Feb 2021 12:42pm

I think there are places where UBI can feasibly work in the best interests of the general population. Australia as it stands today is definitely not one of those places. Giving people thousands of dollars a year in perpetuity is not something that can ever occur in a vacuum. You might have more money as a result of it, but so does everybody else. And if everybody has more money, the price of anything that we compete against each other to buy (or rent) goes up. House prices go up. Rents go up. The increase in land prices hits retailers too, as their rents go up as well. Lucky for them they can pass some of this on to their consumers in the form of higher prices, because after all, they can afford to pay a little more right?

Historically, rampant inflation like this is where central banks step in and raise interest rates to curb demand, but that lever broke off a while ago. Every time rates have gone down over the past decade people have responded by taking on even more debt to the point where their total repayments are the same as what they were under the higher interest rate. Hence, any increase in interest rates would lead to mass defaults from a populace that is already maxed out repayment-wise. The RBA has no appetite to do this, so inflation would remain unchecked.

UBI in Australia in 2021 would just lead to a wealth transfer to those who already own significant assets. For it to do any real good for the people that need it most we would need substantial increases in public housing capacity to head off hyperinflation in rents, strong and diligently enforced regulations preventing UBI being included in calculations for borrowing capacity or debt serviceability, and better consumer protections in place to prevent price gouging, particularly in areas like utilities. The issue is likely to remain moot however, as there is zero chance Australia is the first cab off the ranks in terms of implementing UBI, so by the time it actually gets serious political consideration there will be ample evidence of the pitfalls and perks.

maxAU
  • 2nd Feb 2021 11:32am

Yes. The official stats as of August 2020, sourced from the AUWU, are as follows:
1,614,412 competing for 104,880 job vacancies
Ratio of job seekers to job vacancies: 1 to 15.39

So even if the "dole bludger" rhetoric that boomers and cashed up rednecks love to carry on with was true for say, 50% of the unemployed, that still leaves over 7 job seekers for each available job.

Pulling people out of poverty improves things for everyone. For most people, having more disposable income means it gets spent - in the local economy, on a house, on some land to build, etc. Small businesses struggle because many people resort to buying cheaper products online simply out of necessity. Would I love to buy local clothes? Absolutely! Can I afford $100 for a pair of jeans? Absolutely not.

hools
  • 2nd Feb 2021 10:29am

All a great idea in theory but question where is this huge pool of money coming from, I for one as a regular tax payer am sick of having being taken for granted. There are thousands of wortwhile jobs in this lucky country, that noone wants to do

Charles1
  • 2nd Feb 2021 06:15pm
All a great idea in theory but question where is this huge pool of money coming from, I for one as a regular tax payer am sick of having being taken for granted. There are thousands of wortwhile...

Not true - stop the "dole bludger" rhetoric:

1,614,412 competing for 104,880 job vacancies
Ratio of job seekers to job vacancies: 1 to 15.39

dvdlcs
  • 2nd Feb 2021 09:32am

On the surface this seems like a good idea, but is it really?

I would wonder if everybody was given a certain level of income then would the cost of (essential) goods and services rise to offset this? Much like the "help to buy" scheme in the UK for houses inevitably pushed the price of houses that little bit higher, or the "guaranteed $1000 trade in" at the car dealership means that you are less likely to be able to negotiate on the price of the replacement car when you hand in your $500 clunker.

If everybody was given, for example, $1000 per month UBI would the cost of living rise by that amount thus cancelling out the benefit and essentially devaluing the currency?

musicmum
  • 1st Feb 2021 08:12pm

There was a study done last year that said a Universal Basic Income would lift half a million people above the poverty line. Unemployment is going to remain high for some time, and many many people are on casual, temporary, contract and underemployed, this puts people at a lot of risk of being homeless and not getting food and medications they need. Kids are the most effected and are not getting a good start in life, missing out on so much, even 3 meals a day in some circumstances. Just because you have work does not mean you are making ends meet because rent has risen, and cost of living in general has risen. Wages have been stagnated for a long time.
But do we need those who have high incomes to have a basic income as well? I don't think so. If it was universal it would mean everyone would get it but how will that work? One thing we know though if unemployed, pensioners and others on low income would be able to still look for work and pay tax on what they earn above the basic income rather than have to go through all the rigmarole to report income and then get sent a debt letter years later if there were mistakes made. The current system for welfare and pensions are far too complicated and costing a lot of money to run. One thing a lot of people talk about is why don't the unemployed go and do fruit picking? Because it is so damn hard to get back on unemployment benefits after seasonal work and you are not allowed to have more than $5000 in savings, if you do you are made to wait weeks which means why save when you have to spend it all to live. I vote yes for a Universal basic income which restrictions on those over a certain income. Lets get everyone in Australia out of poverty, it will be better for everyone, it will help people be healthier, and it will be great for the economy, but especially for children.

musicmum
  • 2nd Feb 2021 08:25pm
Great comment - good work :)

Thanks maxAU :)

maxAU
  • 2nd Feb 2021 11:27am
There was a study done last year that said a Universal Basic Income would lift half a million people above the poverty line. Unemployment is going to remain high for some time, and many many people...

Great comment - good work :)

erogenius
  • 1st Feb 2021 06:51pm

In the past I probably would have resisted implementing a UBI, but since the world has been hit by Covid, and many people find themselves out of work as a result, maybe the time has come, and is perfect timing to introduce a UBI. Apart from securing everybody's personal financial wellbeing, it might even rejuvenate the economy.
So yes, I think it could produce major benefits.

bluey42
  • 1st Feb 2021 05:23pm

In a way sounds good in another no because might not get right a mount

dee
  • 1st Feb 2021 05:06pm

I am in favour for everyone.

Yqsymnx
  • 1st Feb 2021 04:50pm

Think about the welfare payments the Governments around the world just handed out. That would have been more than adequate to provide UBI across the board. All the while people are not doing anything anyway, so only those that want to contribute to society are doing any more work (other than those who didn't lose their jobs).
I think this concept is an interesting one due to the following:
1. If you give people free money, how many of them will stop working?
2. What would be the minimum UBI and what would this afford a single/couple/couple with kids/mature/retired person?
3. Would all other welfare situations still apply or would many be scrapped? If yes, which ones? If no, why not?
4. There would be little to no un(der)employment, as there would be a high demand for workers, and likely lesser supply of them.
5. How would certain sectors regulate this, consider banking and insurance. They would need to vastly update their policies.
6. Would crime reduce by a significant degree? Not only because basic needs are met, but there will be less people with 'more'
7. Providing for the basics, would leave more time for creativity. Perhaps it would cause a boon for the entrepreneurial spirit.

I'm sure there are more and likely more important questions, but this is a good start

momi
  • 1st Feb 2021 04:21pm

I think it is the responsibility of any form of governing body to ensure that its citizenry has a minimum, acceptable, standard of living. This means no homelessness or poverty and ensures that people are free to study and work in fields they are passionate about, which will lead to great advances in all fields of human endeavour. It will also lead to the reduction of crimes as many crimes are a direct result of poverty. The governing body has duties and obligations towards its people. Free education, free healthcare and a minimum universal base income are three of those duties and obligations.

momi
  • 1st Feb 2021 04:24pm
Submitted before I replied to all the questions.

It should be given to all regardless of personal income, but there should also be a tax in place on savings so that people are unable to...

It should be capped at 30,000 which is sufficient for one person to live off if they are not working as well.

momi
  • 1st Feb 2021 04:23pm
I think it is the responsibility of any form of governing body to ensure that its citizenry has a minimum, acceptable, standard of living. This means no homelessness or poverty and ensures that...

Submitted before I replied to all the questions.

It should be given to all regardless of personal income, but there should also be a tax in place on savings so that people are unable to hoard wealth.

roger0987
  • 1st Feb 2021 12:50pm

This will work a bit like Jobkeeper does now. It allows people to live and send their kids to school, weekend sport and school excursions as long as the rate is sufficient. It would also be better for our economy as people would be able to afford healthy foods, which are usually more expensive than less healthy ones. People would not have to choose between breakfast and sending the kid on that excursion with everyone else in their class.

KittiCat
  • 31st Jan 2021 12:10pm

I thought this was a good thing - initially, however it is far from good. This "Universal Basic Income" will be basic. Just enough for everyone to live. Every other thing you own will be taken from you

Dina7
  • 29th Jan 2021 09:18pm

Yes, I think it's a good idea but needs to have a cut off of say around $50,000. People need to learn to live within their means as the previous generations did. Everything today is too easy for families to have. People want everything now and aren't prepared to wait and save for something.

hipp_ette
  • 28th Jan 2021 05:21pm

I am in favour of a universal basic income. Everyone in our society should be able to access the essentials of life. In
times of poverty some people have to make the choice between food and medication, eg.

I think it should be like other government payments and begin to phase out from say, $40k per year. Completely phased out at $60k.

ab
  • 23rd Jan 2021 05:09pm

Are you in favour of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in Australia?
I don’t know if I’m in favour of or against a UBI until I see the details of how it will be funded or get a chance to see its effects on other countries/economies. I understand that Finland has just recently implemented a UBI in their economy…I’d like to see what their experience is like in 12 months.
It seems like an interesting concept that may solve a whole host of problems, but it may also create a new set of issues. I’d need more details, like:
How much is the UBI is going to be and what criteria will be used in its determination?
How will it be funded? On this, I’m led to believe that it currently costs us $3 billion a year just to administer our current convoluted and cumbersome social welfare systems. Could a simpler UBI be funded by the money saved?
Will tax increases be necessary? If so, which taxes - income, GST?
I’d need to know the answers to the above before I can answer if I’m in favour, however at first glance I’d say yes, it seems to have merit.

If so, do you think it should be for everyone, regardless of personal or household income?
What do you mean by ‘everyone’?
- man, woman and child
- everyone of working age regardless of whether they are working, looking for work or studying
- everyone with a tax file number
- everyone who is not legally a minor
- every Australian Citizen
- every permanent resident
- prisoners doing time in jail?
For the sake of this discussion, I would apply it to every permanent resident 18 yrs. and above excluding prisoners (until they are released). Once we establish what ‘everyone’ is, yes, in all fairness, everyone should get the same UBI regardless of whether they’re a mining magnate or Joe Citizen. All the people that have jobs aren’t suddenly going to down tools just because they’ve been given enough money to survive on. They’ll continue to work for the little luxuries that only a paying job can provide. This is also true for all the wealthy. The UBI might be spent on the insurance on for their Maserati or fuel for the mega-yacht. They’ll continue to make their millions.
For the sake of discussion, let’s say the UBI is $40K each year. Where do we draw the line? Do you say everyone earning more than $1M a year don’t qualify? How much does that save? How many corporate or bank executives, media or mining magnates are there? Do you set the bar lower to $200K a year? You might reduce the overall cost of a UBI a little more, but would it really be significant? And here’s another question? Do you apply the cut-off point to individuals or household incomes? For simplicity I would suggest the personal rather than the household income. By going with household income, you only complicate things when there’s a separation or divorce. I have a friend who shakes his head about how much it’s costing to raise two children (like it’s a real struggle for him), when he and his partner have a combined salary well in excess of $300K a year. And then I watch the news and see a woman on job keeper feeding a husband and family of six children! Where do you draw the line? It’s probably more costly to administer a set cut-off point, rather than just apply it to everyone. No forms, no red tape, no proof requirements, no hours spent waiting on a phone to discuss your case.

That's my two cents. :)

capfantastic
  • 20th Jan 2021 09:50pm

I think the UBI is an absolutely fantastic idea. I think it should be mandatory. It would make people more compassionate because it IS a compassionate act and the benefits to humanity would be worldwide. Obviously I don’t think very wealthy individuals need it, but it would be difficult to say where the line would be drawn. I think anyone earning less than 60000 plus anyone without any assets other than the 1 residential property and Super.

Tars
  • 20th Jan 2021 10:19am

I think this is an interesting concept, and would love to see results from other countries who have done it. Has it made them want to do more for themselves, their country and productivity, or has it made them less likely to want to work hard?

Maybe that could also help with whether there should be a cut-off. I can't imagine it being more than a drop in the ocean for the mega wealthy, so not sure what the benefit is for them to receive.

K13
  • 20th Jan 2021 08:58am

I think it depends on people's circumstances and their attitude.
For example if someone is earning $100k a year and has no children, that is a lot of money and they should not get UBI because they don't need it.

I noticed with the pandemic that the newstart covid payment was being abused. My cousin lives in government housing, she was not working before the pandemic so nothing changed for her. When the government starting giving her an extra $550 a fortnight, she stopped looking for work and has no plans to start again until the covid payment stops. Also her neighbour is 18 years old, on youth allowance and has never worked a day in his life. He lives with his mother who works casually as a bar attendant. They had about $2000 between them coming in from centrelink and their fortnightly rent for their government housing stayed at $125 for the mother and $60 for the son Both of them take drugs and the mother is an alcoholic. Anyone in government housing were not at risk of homelessness and unless they lost a job they should not have received the extra payment.

We did not look after our pensioners during covid. They were advised to stay at home and not catch public transport so their costs went up with extra delivery fees for groceries (due to extra deliveries because of purchasing limits) and they had to catch taxis instead of buses and trains. There is a disabled lady who lives in my street who manages her disabilities with thai massage which is cheap and affordable but Thai massage was closed during covid so she had to pay more moneymore often for a lesser service with a physiotherapist. What the government gave our pensioners was nowhere near sufficient and is embarassing

I have 5 kids but I can afford to have 5 kids as hubby and I both have great jobs in the higher income bracket. We worked hard to get our university degrees (plus many instances of further training which we paid for ourself) and we both worked hard to fight our way up the ladder at work. I don't like to be punished financially for working hard and it is already happening when we are forced to have private health insurance that we don't have time to use because we are always working.

Then you have someone who has 5 children that they know they cannot afford and the government supports them. My sister falls into this category, every 6 years she has another child and she has not worked for years and has a better lifestyle than we do even though we work so hard. Her government housing means low rent and so they can afford all the luxuries including several holidays a year. There is no incentive for them to work if the money they receive is enough for them to live well on. I think the government needs to do what China did but with modifications. The government will support your first two children but any further children you pay for yourself. This will weed out the welfare career people.

There are so many things to consider with UBI.
If someone is making a career out of welfare then they should in no way be encouraged.
If someone is elderly or disabled then we should be looking after them as no one chooses to get old or sick.
For people in my situation with a higher income bracket, we should not be receiving extra money from the government but we also should not be punished by higher taxes and forced private health insurance (especially if we don't have time to use it!) because we chose to work hard and be successful.
For someone in a lower paid job, they should at least be getting paid enough to pay rent/mortgage, food, electricity etc.
They should abolish maternity leave because having a child is a lifestyle choice and being handed hundreds of dollars each fortnight is unfair to those who choose not to have kids or for gay people or for those who are unable to have kids.

I think if more people lived within their means then there would be less need for UBI.
I have a second hand iphone 6 and i pay $10 a month for my credit. When someone is on welfare but has a plan for $80 a month which includes the latest iphone (thereby putting them into debt) then there is something wrong. The only people who should be living comfortably on welfare are the elderly and disabled and what they currently get is shameful.


2020
  • 19th Jan 2021 08:36pm

It should be capped at a rate so pensioners and workers on a fixed rate get it but once over the capped rate nothing , as some self funded retirees and people on big super have heaps of money some which is hidden in shares and houses should be allowed to get this as they are very well off anyway. and they rort the system so they get a age pension as well not one.

dee
  • 19th Jan 2021 08:32pm

Yes it should , for everyone.

jodie737
  • 19th Jan 2021 08:04pm

Ah nooo! It sounds like a great idea BUT it’s just the first step to a cashless society and then the govt will think we are obliged to do whatever it commands because it will cut off our income if we don’t. Of course ethically, every human on earth has a right to not struggle financially, but universal income is not the answer. Super taxing the rich and spreading their money out fairly via welfare so everyone not in the 1% elite , can live a comfortable life. And I don’t mean a frivolous life.

KittiCat
  • 31st Jan 2021 12:26pm
Ah nooo! It sounds like a great idea BUT it’s just the first step to a cashless society and then the govt will think we are obliged to do whatever it commands because it will cut off our income if...

I agree. It's not what it seems. Just another form of control

AEC
  • 19th Jan 2021 07:42pm

HELP FOR THE NEEDY IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT, INTRO OF UBI WILL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR FRAUD AND MISDIRECTION OF FUNDS CURRENTLY MANY HELP SCHEMES ARE SCAMMED . CONSIDERABLE EFFORT, CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF USE OF SUCH AID WILL STRONGLY NEED TO APPLY.

beavis
  • 19th Jan 2021 07:15pm

This is an interesting concept and I do think it would be fair for everyone to be eligible as those on higher incomes also contribute higher taxes. Having said that I do believe it would be fair to have some sort of sliding scale so that those on lower incomes and pensions should receive more. Not everyone has had the opportunity to have enough in superannuation to be totally self-reliant in retirement for various reasons but it does not mean they have not been hard working members of the community and still deserving of some assistance for the many years they have paid taxes.

JRR
  • 19th Jan 2021 06:53pm

I think no. Only those that need it should get it.

gobbytart
  • 19th Jan 2021 06:38pm

Having been a nurse in an acute setting for many years, I definitely have not been paid my worth. I have managed to give myself a modest income for my retirement. No thanks to successive Governments. I was promised I could retire at 60. Now 66..I had an expectation to receive a small pension from the UK, which I will now receive. Because I live in a Commonwealth country this pension will not be index linked and will remain the same until I die. The reason being the expectation that the Australian Government will supplement it. I am not entitled to this. I went to work in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, to make some money for myself. In Australia after I emigrated I salary sacrificed what I could.
There is a basic minimum wage. People on the dole can get a similar amount or more depending on how the system can be utiilised. This is a dissentive to go into the work force, therefore no taxes paid so no money for the government to fund this Universal Basic Income.

jtmorri
  • 19th Jan 2021 04:56pm

It is hard work by around 30% of the population to fund income for an entire population. Personally I would not support Universal Basic Income in Australia as socialist policies have flaws. I think it would be the reason the government needs to both broaden and increase the GST rate, which again I am not in favour of as I dislike taxes. Like all systems some people would take advantage of the structure and contribute nothing.
If the Australian economy is well managed and we always have a strong emergency fund then in times of crisis that is what should be drawn upon.

no name
  • 19th Jan 2021 04:38pm

This is a good idea BUT it is also a disincentive for people to seek work. The current situation where so many people are being paid by JobKeeper but businesses in Western Australia cannot get staff indicates that this wont work.

I also sympathize with those who pay crippling taxes as big earners and feel they deserve the same benefits as anyone else.

The current swing towards simpler lives, less rubbish and plastic, preparing meals from scratch and limiting expenditure on clothing and fashion items in general results in less money needed. The time is ripe for us to assess what makes us happy and make changes for the better. Spending money wisely is very economical.

UBI is a very generous scheme relying on the hard workers to make sacrifices and keep working to support others. Is that a fair society?

no name
  • 2nd Feb 2021 11:26pm
Remember though, the B in UBI stands for "basic". It would be basic enough to not disincentivise work. Under UBI, if you want a nice iPhone or PS4 or Nike shoes, you're still going to have to work...

Thankyou for your imput. My concern is that there are SO MANY jobs unfilled in WA, many with $100 000 starting pay, so the government payouts, which I imagine will be a similar amount is a disincentive. I have friends, with their kids in their 20's living with them, on government payouts and they have cars, new phones and cocktail nights. I am proud of our system of universal medical care and education but people who can work should work and not rely on the hard work of others for an income.

Charles1
  • 2nd Feb 2021 06:27pm
This is a good idea BUT it is also a disincentive for people to seek work. The current situation where so many people are being paid by JobKeeper but businesses in Western Australia cannot get...

Remember though, the B in UBI stands for "basic". It would be basic enough to not disincentivise work. Under UBI, if you want a nice iPhone or PS4 or Nike shoes, you're still going to have to work for it.

And given that we live in a very materialistic society with a lot of consumption, I'm sure people would still work to satisfy all their many 'wants'.

nana
  • 19th Jan 2021 04:35pm

All socialist ideas sound good, BUT, who is going to fund this.? Keep in mind, that the Government can only distribute what is receives from taxpayers, be they individuals, businesses, or excise. I think this is a stupid idealistic concept. Yes, I worked and paid taxes for more than 45 years, much of that time was before the superannuation laws of today. I receive a part pension (OA), for which I am very grateful. I manage very well, I have a budget and, in the main stick to it.

Wise Woman
  • 19th Jan 2021 04:19pm

The concept of a Universal Basic Income has been around for a long time and is very relevant as part of an attempt to bring about equal distribution of wealth. While I find it difficult to accpet the idea of millionaires receiving having a UBI means that everyone gets it otherwise it would not be a UBI. As the decades have passed wages have stagnated but company profits have increased and the wealthest in socity have become richer to the detriment of those of us with less. Either some kind of BMI is adopted or those who are in the top income brackets pay higher taxes so that more social policies, such as child care, eduation, health can be improved for the betterment of all. At the moment inequality is obscene ( I can't rember the exact amount - check on line) but it'ss omething like 70% of the world's wealth is held by 5% of the population with the remaining 30% is dividend amongst the rest of us and its getting worse. During the pandemic the rich have even gotten richer

D_D
  • 19th Jan 2021 03:59pm

What's the catch? If this goes ahead then it'll be because it benefits the law makers, not the general public nor greater good.

barbiedoll99
  • 19th Jan 2021 03:01pm

As a pensioner I do not think that people on huge salaries should get the UBI they would be greedy doing this.

D_D
  • 19th Jan 2021 06:39pm
Not always. They have accountants and schemes to minimise the taxes they do pay

And the rich people pay for those accountants and those accountants pay taxes :) Companies pay 25% tax on income, their employees pay tax on wages, and they pay GST on purchases....

If a person is to receive a pension, it is because they have not made enough money to be self funded at retirement, which means that throughout the course of their life, they have likely not paid as much tax because they were a low income earner.

So for this reason, I think it is more than fair that either everyone gets it, or no one gets it. I also strongly believe there should be a flat tax % for everyone regardless of income, and that everyone, men included, are entitled to one block of paid leave that an individual is able to use however they see fit - choose it for maternity, study, injury, etc. Not fair to only reward the people having kids.

I am all for everyone getting the same benefits - that is fair.

FYI....I am someone who grew up in a Sydney ghetto of bogans, worked hard, saved hard, and is happily (semi) retired at 41 through sheer hard work and good choices. I'm someone who has lived experience on both sides of the fence. We all deserve equal.

:)

gobbytart
  • 19th Jan 2021 06:25pm
Huge salaries pay huge taxes so they deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Not always. They have accountants and schemes to minimise the taxes they do pay

D_D
  • 19th Jan 2021 04:09pm
As a pensioner I do not think that people on huge salaries should get the UBI they would be greedy doing this.

Huge salaries pay huge taxes so they deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.

AMCS
Australian Marine Conservation Society are an independent charity, staffed by a committed group of scientists, educators and passionate advocates who have defended Australia’s oceans for over 50 years.
Reach Out
ReachOut is the most accessed online mental health service for young people and their parents in Australia. Their trusted self-help information, peer-support program and referral tools save lives by helping young people be well and stay well. The information they offer parents makes it easier for them to help their teenagers, too.