Australian Politics Forum - Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90228
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #15 - Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:10pm

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:34pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 20^th, 2019 at 1:59am:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

Recently, I have become more in favour of the universal basic income. I think the welfare state is bloated, bureaucratic and often soul-destroying, particularly for the poor.

Everyone adult over the age of 18 (could be 21 or 25 years) would receive a $1000 per month without condition.

UBI is actually liberating, since no one goes through the whole rigmarole of declaring income, speaking with a case officer or having anxiety over losing the payment.

The $1000 per month would eventually replace all welfare payments, with the possible exception of disability or aged-care supplemental payments.

Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent.

"Gonner!" You got him.... cold and clean... one shot...

I don't believe that the UBI should be a replacement for work; it's simply a supplement that provides relief for low-income earners.

What about the no-income earners? You reckon the best form of Social Security is a job, like Slomo? We don't do 'welfare' here...

So you reckon those who have no job - currently officially one in twenty (jeez - if one in twenty of the people who went to your school died at once....) should get by on $250 a week for all costs?

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #16 - Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:25pm

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:28pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

Recently, I have become more in favour of the universal basic income. I think the welfare state is bloated, bureaucratic and often soul-destroying, particularly for the poor.

Everyone adult over the age of 18 (could be 21 or 25 years) would receive a $1000 per month without condition.

UBI is actually liberating, since no one goes through the whole rigmarole of declaring income, speaking with a case officer or having anxiety over losing the payment.

The $1000 per month would eventually replace all welfare payments, with the possible exception of disability or aged-care supplemental payments.

Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent.

The idea isn't is to provide a monetary amount that a person could live off - that's why people need to work. The idea of the basic income is that it provides at least some relief for low-income people.

Not everyone is able to work. Elderly people, for example.

So you would only provide "SOME" relief? Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent. As long as you do not answer this, your argument cannot convince anyone.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #17 - Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:50pm

Bam wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:28pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

Recently, I have become more in favour of the universal basic income. I think the welfare state is bloated, bureaucratic and often soul-destroying, particularly for the poor.

Everyone adult over the age of 18 (could be 21 or 25 years) would receive a $1000 per month without condition.

UBI is actually liberating, since no one goes through the whole rigmarole of declaring income, speaking with a case officer or having anxiety over losing the payment.

The $1000 per month would eventually replace all welfare payments, with the possible exception of disability or aged-care supplemental payments.

Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent.

The idea isn't is to provide a monetary amount that a person could live off - that's why people need to work. The idea of the basic income is that it provides at least some relief for low-income people.

Not everyone is able to work. Elderly people, for example.

So you would only provide "SOME" relief? Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent. As long as you do not answer this, your argument cannot convince anyone.

I can't budget for $1000 per month. I concede that point. What I've said is that it's not designed to be a replacement for work.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #18 - Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:52pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:34pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 20^th, 2019 at 1:59am:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

[quote author=augcaesarustus link=1576575505/0#0 date=1576575505]Recently, I have become more in favour of the universal basic income. I think the welfare state is bloated, bureaucratic and often soul-destroying, particularly for the poor.

Everyone adult over the age of 18 (could be 21 or 25 years) would receive a $1000 per month without condition.

UBI is actually liberating, since no one goes through the whole rigmarole of declaring income, speaking with a case officer or having anxiety over losing the payment.

The $1000 per month would eventually replace all welfare payments, with the possible exception of disability or aged-care supplemental payments.

Please show us how you would budget $1000 a month. Make sure you include rent.

"Gonner!" You got him.... cold and clean... one shot...

I don't believe that the UBI should be a replacement for work; it's simply a supplement that provides relief for low-income earners.

Quote:

What about the no-income earners? You reckon the best form of Social Security is a job, like Slomo? We don't do 'welfare' here...

So you reckon those who have no job - currently officially one in twenty (jeez - if one in twenty of the people who went to your school died at once....) should get by on $250 a week for all costs?

$1000 per month is slightly less than what they're getting now on Newstart but without the soul-destroying that Centrelink puts you through.

With regard to unemployment that's a different matter that can be addressed in a variety of ways.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

juliar Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 22966	Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI? Reply #19 - Dec 29^th, 2019 at 12:45pm Just another bit of Socialist armchair arm waving that would not work in real life just like Socialism does not work in real life. But tell that to the Lefties!!! The Lefties Lament Give us a handout Give us a handout Come on ScoMo Give us a handout again.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #20 - Dec 29^th, 2019 at 5:00pm

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:50pm:

I can't budget for $1000 per month. I concede that point. What I've said is that it's not designed to be a replacement for work.

$1000 a month is not enough. It should definitely be higher. The aged pension is about $1600 a month and even that's too low.

To find additional funds, remember that the Federal Budget includes a wide range of wealthfare measures that can be abolished to pay for it. Some examples that can be cut, this is not a complete list:
* Capital gains tax concessions
* Negative gearing
* Dividend imputation
* Child care subsidies
* Family tax benefits
* Private health insurance rebates
* Fossil fuel subsidies
* Employment services
* Indue cards

The average household on $200,000 a year receivers more money from the government than a single unemployed worker. The money is definitely available.

However, the question that really needs to be asked is why there are not enough jobs. Making 90% of the workforce do 100% of the work with up to 10% of that labour being extorted for free is something that needs to be looked at.

We can cut the cost of the measure by the following means:
* Introduce a Job Guarantee so everyone can have a job, not just most people
* Abolish unpaid overtime

Just these two measures alone could save billions and raise more billions in additional taxation revenue.

Additional measures to consider:
* Introduce a turnover tax on companies and give the states the proceeds per capita
* Abolish payroll taxes (state taxes)

The turnover tax pays for the scrapping of payroll taxes.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

minarchist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 529
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #21 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 10:44am

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

So, based on your numbers, it's pretty much on par in terms of cost, with the UBI costing slightly more. However, much of this money would be spent back into the economy, so in this regard it would pay for itself in GDP terms.

They will lose out on other benefits, but the idea is based on the libertarian principle of personal responsibility without having people and children starve to death.

The main benefit of UBI is that it's unconditional - there's no need to apply to Centrelink and report your income, or be under the worry that you may lose your payment. It's guaranteed and it's unconditional.

I'd prefer a Negative Income Tax (NIT) over a UBI if we were to eliminate all welfare. An example of such a scheme would be a Tax Free Threshold (TFT) of $50,000 and a tax rate of 40%. Under a NIT, for those who earn under the TFT you'd receive the tax rate multiplied by the difference between the TFT minus what you earned. In layman terms:

If you earned $0, you'd receive $20,000.
If you earned $20,000, you'd received $12,000 on top of what you earned.
If you earned $40,000, you'd received $4,000 on top of what you earned.

Any amount earned over $50,000 would be taxed at 40%. However, receiving any amount through an NIT relies on lodging a tax return. While you could manage when people receive their NIT, it can get complicated if earning some level of income one year then nothing the next. For example, if for Year 0 you lodged a return and earned $0 for Year 0, you'd received $20,000 for Year 1. If you earned $20,000 during Year 1 and state this on your return, you'd receive $12,000 for Year 2. However, if you lost your source of income shortly after lodging your return, and couldn't find another source of income for Year 2, you'd only have the $12,000 to live on.

Possibly the simplest solution would be to tax any amount of income earned at 40%. In the example above, you'd receive the $20,000 you earned minus 40%, or $8,000. Once you lodged your tax return, you'd receive $12,000 plus the $8,000 held as tax as you earned less than $50,000. Therefore, if you did lose your source of income you'd at least be receiving $20,000 for the year.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2019 at 11:21am by minarchist »

People accuse Capitalism of being a "dog eat dog" system, yet it was the Communists who ate each other when they were starving!

IP Logged

juliar Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 22966	Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI? Reply #22 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 11:55am The Lefties' Lament Give us a handout Give us a handout Come on ScoMo Give us a handout again.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #23 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:06pm

Bam wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 5:00pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:50pm:

I can't budget for $1000 per month. I concede that point. What I've said is that it's not designed to be a replacement for work.

$1000 a month is not enough. It should definitely be higher. The aged pension is about $1600 a month and even that's too low.

To find additional funds, remember that the Federal Budget includes a wide range of wealthfare measures that can be abolished to pay for it. Some examples that can be cut, this is not a complete list:
* Capital gains tax concessions
* Negative gearing
* Dividend imputation
* Child care subsidies
* Family tax benefits
* Private health insurance rebates
* Fossil fuel subsidies
* Employment services
* Indue cards

The average household on $200,000 a year receivers more money from the government than a single unemployed worker. The money is definitely available.

However, the question that really needs to be asked is why there are not enough jobs. Making 90% of the workforce do 100% of the work with up to 10% of that labour being extorted for free is something that needs to be looked at.

We can cut the cost of the measure by the following means:
* Introduce a Job Guarantee so everyone can have a job, not just most people
* Abolish unpaid overtime

Just these two measures alone could save billions and raise more billions in additional taxation revenue.

Additional measures to consider:
* Introduce a turnover tax on companies and give the states the proceeds per capita
* Abolish payroll taxes (state taxes)

The turnover tax pays for the scrapping of payroll taxes.

I don't think the answer is always increasing government revenue. Giving people more disposable income is better for the economy because it increases demand (the middle-class will spend more). In addition, implementing a flat tax of 25% on incomes over $40k would make 'work pay'. Even low income earners would benefit from this scheme because they wouldn't be paying any tax on their incomes, plus they'd be getting the UBI on top. Along with reduced cost of living pressures, this would provide a massive boon for the economy.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #24 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:09pm

minarchist wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 10:44am:

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

So, based on your numbers, it's pretty much on par in terms of cost, with the UBI costing slightly more. However, much of this money would be spent back into the economy, so in this regard it would pay for itself in GDP terms.

They will lose out on other benefits, but the idea is based on the libertarian principle of personal responsibility without having people and children starve to death.

The main benefit of UBI is that it's unconditional - there's no need to apply to Centrelink and report your income, or be under the worry that you may lose your payment. It's guaranteed and it's unconditional.

I'd prefer a Negative Income Tax (NIT) over a UBI if we were to eliminate all welfare. An example of such a scheme would be a Tax Free Threshold (TFT) of $50,000 and a tax rate of 40%. Under a NIT, for those who earn under the TFT you'd receive the tax rate multiplied by the difference between the TFT minus what you earned. In layman terms:

If you earned $0, you'd receive $20,000.
If you earned $20,000, you'd received $12,000 on top of what you earned.
If you earned $40,000, you'd received $4,000 on top of what you earned.

Any amount earned over $50,000 would be taxed at 40%. However, receiving any amount through an NIT relies on lodging a tax return. While you could manage when people receive their NIT, it can get complicated if earning some level of income one year then nothing the next. For example, if for Year 0 you lodged a return and earned $0 for Year 0, you'd received $20,000 for Year 1. If you earned $20,000 during Year 1 and state this on your return, you'd receive $12,000 for Year 2. However, if you lost your source of income shortly after lodging your return, and couldn't find another source of income for Year 2, you'd only have the $12,000 to live on.

Possibly the simplest solution would be to tax any amount of income earned at 40%. In the example above, you'd receive the $20,000 you earned minus 40%, or $8,000. Once you lodged your tax return, you'd receive $12,000 plus the $8,000 held as tax as you earned less than $50,000. Therefore, if you did lose your source of income you'd at least be receiving $20,000 for the year.

The negative income tax would be too expensive to administer and monitor, that's why many libertarians scrapped it. I would implement a flat tax of 25% on incomes over $40k and implement land and consumption taxes which are fairer.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #25 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:12pm

juliar wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 12:45pm:

Just another bit of Socialist armchair arm waving that would not work in real life just like Socialism does not work in real life.

But tell that to the Lefties!!!

The Lefties Lament
Give us a handout
Give us a handout
Come on ScoMo
Give us a handout again.

Think of the UBI as a dividend from the economy of which we are all shareholders. The Republicans in Alaska voted and implemented a UBI. When voters were asked: "would you rather have the government get the oil revenue or the people?" The people voted for themselves.

At the end of the day, the UBI is the best way to foster of society of personal responsibility whilst ensuring that children don't starve to death. We can agree that the government should do at least that.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #26 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 8:11pm

Auggie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

juliar wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 12:45pm:

Just another bit of Socialist armchair arm waving that would not work in real life just like Socialism does not work in real life.

But tell that to the Lefties!!!

The Lefties Lament
Give us a handout
Give us a handout
Come on ScoMo
Give us a handout again.

Think of the UBI as a dividend from the economy of which we are all shareholders. The Republicans in Alaska voted and implemented a UBI. When voters were asked: "would you rather have the government get the oil revenue or the people?" The people voted for themselves.

At the end of the day, the UBI is the best way to foster of society of personal responsibility whilst ensuring that children don't starve to death. We can agree that the government should do at least that.

You're assuming this juliar person is trying to contribute to rational debate. This is not a sound assumption. This poster's attempt at "debating" has more in common with an ape throwing poo in the zoo than a rational attempt at contributing to the discussion.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #27 - Dec 30^th, 2019 at 8:19pm

Auggie wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:06pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 5:00pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:50pm:

I can't budget for $1000 per month. I concede that point. What I've said is that it's not designed to be a replacement for work.

$1000 a month is not enough. It should definitely be higher. The aged pension is about $1600 a month and even that's too low.

To find additional funds, remember that the Federal Budget includes a wide range of wealthfare measures that can be abolished to pay for it. Some examples that can be cut, this is not a complete list:
* Capital gains tax concessions
* Negative gearing
* Dividend imputation
* Child care subsidies
* Family tax benefits
* Private health insurance rebates
* Fossil fuel subsidies
* Employment services
* Indue cards

The average household on $200,000 a year receivers more money from the government than a single unemployed worker. The money is definitely available.

However, the question that really needs to be asked is why there are not enough jobs. Making 90% of the workforce do 100% of the work with up to 10% of that labour being extorted for free is something that needs to be looked at.

We can cut the cost of the measure by the following means:
* Introduce a Job Guarantee so everyone can have a job, not just most people
* Abolish unpaid overtime

Just these two measures alone could save billions and raise more billions in additional taxation revenue.

Additional measures to consider:
* Introduce a turnover tax on companies and give the states the proceeds per capita
* Abolish payroll taxes (state taxes)

The turnover tax pays for the scrapping of payroll taxes.

I don't think the answer is always increasing government revenue. Giving people more disposable income is better for the economy because it increases demand (the middle-class will spend more). In addition, implementing a flat tax of 25% on incomes over $40k would make 'work pay'. Even low income earners would benefit from this scheme because they wouldn't be paying any tax on their incomes, plus they'd be getting the UBI on top. Along with reduced cost of living pressures, this would provide a massive boon for the economy.

The most important point in my previous post is the Job Guarantee proposal. The reason why so many people can't find jobs is the artificial scarcity of employment, not a lack of effort. Address the job scarcity by providing jobs for everyone, abolish unpaid overtime, and any UBI proposal can work from that base.

Another thing to consider is the massive amounts of money that the mendicant rich take out of the Federal Budget. That has to be on the chopping block in any credible UBI proposal. Otherwise we have a half-baked proposal where the wealthy get to keep all of their generous tax breaks and concessions, receive UBI on top, while the poor have to make do with a lot less. Such a proposal must not be considered because it is grossly inequitable.

And a flat tax? Really? Sorry, I'm not going to open the gates for that Trojan horse.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

juliar Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 22966	Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI? Reply #28 - Dec 31^st, 2019 at 8:09am Another armchair arm waving not very bright idea bites the dust. Basically just Socialist raving.
Back to top	IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11067
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Should we reduce welfare in favour of UBI?
Reply #29 - Dec 31^st, 2019 at 10:11am

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

Recently, I have become more in favour of the universal basic income. I think the welfare state is bloated, bureaucratic and often soul-destroying, particularly for the poor.

Everyone adult over the age of 18 (could be 21 or 25 years) would receive a $1000 per month without condition.

UBI is actually liberating, since no one goes through the whole rigmarole of declaring income, speaking with a case officer or having anxiety over losing the payment.

The $1000 per month would eventually replace all welfare payments, with the possible exception of disability or aged-care supplemental payments.

Do you think you can live on $250 a week.....???

Do that and our streets will become jungles.

Might have to start carrying guns for self defence.

When people are desperate they will do desperate things.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged