Bam wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:


I'm only to a job guarantee, particularly as having the government as an 'employer of last resort' for skilled people who can't get jobs. Although, having such a scheme would require significant administrative costs as the government would ultimately need to vet job seekers, otherwise it becomes at risk of just taking on dead-beat people as employers.

Bam wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:


As part of the flat tax regime, all tax concessions would be abolished.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2019 at 1:06pm:


In reply #9, Minarchist opined that it would cost approx $245 billion, about $50 billion more than the current welfare budget. That's assuming that 75% of the population are above 18 years of age.

If we take that figure as correct, we also have to look at what the 'flow-on effects' of having such a policy. It would increase overall GDP because the middle-class would spend more money, thereby increasing demand of goods and services. This would result in more tax revenue overall in the long run.

If you're concerned about the extra $50 billion, I'd be happy to increase the age limit to 21 years or 25 years of age in order to reduce costs. Without having specific figures at hand, that would reduce the cost significantly.

Auggie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 2:50pm:



First define this 'middle class', then give us a clear rendition and accurate reporting of where their discretionary spending goes.. (trips to Bali, Europe, deadstock investments,etc).

Far better to improve GDP (if that were the be-all and end-all, which it is not, since the system requires balance throughout to be 'efficient - you don't get a motor running more efficiently by increasing its output of exhaust gases alone, or more interestingly, adding more fuel to an already good mixture will only increase fuel usage) by raising the income of the majority, who WILL spend any discretionary income within THIS economy, and directly so - and not into 'deadstock' such as a new pool, or car, or anything else... their money will go to the largest areas of spending - food, utilities and so forth and will remain within THIS economy until subverted by Offshorites or Hoarders, and will thus have a far greater impact in several ways on economic performance.

I've explained to you countless times that there are no 'black holes of budget' from improving the lot of the lowest paid, but there are black holes of revenue and thus of budget from giving too much to the wealthy and any with an already more than adequate level of discretionary spending.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 3:09pm:


So, giving everyone $1000 per month wouldn't result in incomes being raised on the lowest who WILL spend any disposable income within this economy?

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 7:06pm:


I suspect you were hoping to have a 'gotcha' moment by catching me out on how it would blow out the budget??

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 7:06pm:


By one group, do you mean 75% of the population instead of the remaining 25% who compromise of teenagers, kids and babies?

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 7:16pm:


$245 billion dollars.

Auggie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 7:51pm:


So now Minarchist's thoughts are your own?

Did someone else tell you that a UBI was a good idea? That a UBI would increase GDP? How much of this represents an actual thought process of your own?