I am amazed at how the governments can come up with the cash when needed. We hear, of course, that money doesn't mean anything. But, of course, it does; and some people have it, lots of it, and other people have some, and a few have almost nothing. So, if that thing called 'money' can be found so rapidly and in such quantities, what is going on that it can't be so easily found in other times? I have no training in economics apart from running the household budget and developing some interest in investing. Let me suggest an answer, and I would love to hear a comment on it. Having money or not having money is all about who can get their hands on the levers to make sure they have more or lots more than others. As a result, some have more, or a lot more, than others. This can only be assured by the quickest and smartest writing rules around who can come near the levers and which levers. The quickest and the smartest include politicians and their friends and people who already have lots of money. Some rules will keep others comfortably (or uncomfortably) away from the levers.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

you don't really understand UBI. all the arguments against UBI you present are completely bogus. anyone that thinks UBI is a partisan policy doesn't understand UBI.

"high cost"

just increase taxes for mid- to high-earners to offset the UBI they get (as they don't actually need the UBI), and suddenly, the cost of UBI ends up simply being the cost of welfare, but in fact, it would cost EVEN LESS than welfare when you consider how administratively efficient UBI is compared to means-tested welfare, thus you'd acually end up saving money by gettng rid of all those public sector welfare administration jobs. 550,000 jobs are currently in welfare adminstation!! that's out of 13 million total people employed!! it's utterly ridiculous how bloated it is; we need UBI !!

"negative impact on work incentives"

literally every single study on UBI has concluded there is no effect whatsoever on employment rates.

"wastes financial resources on the rich who, aside from not needing it, have less of a propensity to spend it"

as i've aleady stated, UBI is about about making welfare more efficient. just raise taxes for mid- to high-earners to offset the UBI they get!!

watch this video by a havard economist if you want it explained better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Totally agree. The UBI is the way forward for many reasons, not least of which would be the elimination of the costly and inefficient Public Sector Welfare system. I'm hearing very little about UBI as a viable and equitable alternative, and can't undersatnd why it is not getting more traction or at least figure more prominently in the mix as we look at the future for Jobkeeper, Jobseeker, age pension, disability payments, housing supply and affordability, education and training etc . I am 100% sure that we would achieve a fairer and happier society with the security and dignity afforded by a UBI. The Idea that the UBI would have a negative impact on work incentives doesn't wash for me. I just look around and see the energy that is already out there. So many people contributing to their local communities and the wider society as volunteers, or working to develop small business ideas, with little or no support. How would UBI stymie that?

Cheers

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I think that everyone over the age of 60 should get $600 a week if they have less than $100,000 year income.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Angus, increasing taxes on the middle to high income earners won't work as the high income earners pay very little tax as they write off expenses and exploit loopholes leaving the middle income earners bearing the brunt of the tax burden. A flat tax with no depreciation/expenses/loophole is fairest. Those who want more income for whatever reason will be treated equally as those who don't want or can't work and the high income individuals. A UBI is attractive to all and I'm sure the middle class won't begrudge a flat FAIR tax on income earners on all levels.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.