I can't help thinking that some kind of reform that leads to all citizens having a living wage, would give everyone the safety net and peace of mind to ride out this kind of pandemic or other crisis's.

Im centrist but left leaning, and wondering if UBI is the answer. Probably all relies on proper taxation or huge corporates etc, but what if:
- everyone was paid x by the gov
- private employers paid you y on top of x, but then paid the x back to gov
- people pay a flat rate of say 15% of y to the gov as well

so you are incentivised to find good skilled employment to earn (y - 15%) above the ubi, but if you lose job, or need to study or retrain or become a hippie artist etc for a period, you can.

simplifies taxes etc, and seems like it would still keep consumers and spending on in the economy. The inputs to get the finances for the ubi, probably relies on a sovereign wealth fund, taxes on mining/resources or land (as per eppo threads) - and I don't know the realities of that, I'm sure it's possible.

here is another version with more radical overall changes.
newphysiocrats.org/platform/

I dont know the answer, so post up the version you've heard of or seen that resonates. Is there a version that the rabid capitalism at all costs, and the full leftards, could eventually agree to? given the extremes of bail outs and social services spending now occurring.

Maybe we find it and send a white paper it to scomo once this is all said and done...

I like this. I didn't read your post all the way to the end but it sounds a bit like the Danish model. Brilliant.

If you're really interested in whether this can work and how it can be financed, read Tim Dunlop's "The Future of Everything " a really balanced excellent book that explores this and many alternatives to the present rigged and unfair sort of capitalism that the Western world suffers from .

The Danish model doesn't exist in any practical form. In Finland they conducted a very small scale experiment (in a country that at the time had small culturally uniform population. It was abandoned.
If the UBI provides a 'comfortable' income, exactly what is the incentive for work for too large a percentage of the population to be acceptable.

What we might do in the current crisis is one thing.

But once it's all over,and the economy is working again, the essence of a successful welfare program is to make sure you can survive but not be satisfied with your existence living on it.

There are many people who don't need the UBI on top of what they already have, and if you give them a UBI then there is less to go to more deserving causes.

The idea of a flat tax means that a person who is paid $300,000 by their employer will do much better than someone paid $10,000 by their employer, when compared to the current progressive tax system. So if the UBI is $30k and the tax is 15%, the corporate tax lawyer will pay $45k tax and the struggling artist/Uber Eats rider/aged care aide will pay $1500. At the moment, the corporate tax lawyer pays $130k and the struggler pays $6172. So if the UBI is a fairly mean $30k the government loses money for those two examples, and that means less for schools and nurses.

Also, how well does a flat rate work when some people turn up to an office in their street clothes, and others may need tools, a vehicle, fuel money and a uniform? What about the person who runs a farm and needs a tractor, fertilizer, herbicide and stock? Do they pay the same flat rate on their earnings as the office worker?

So, onto the ideas in your link;

There's not much detail but it looks as if 450 acres of virgin forest or desert in the country (sold for about $80k) will therefore be taxed more than a nice inner-city housing block. So basically, country people will end up selling their properties or going bankrupt. Also, what is "vacant land"? Is a 2 acre country block with a shed "vacant"? Is a 5 acre country block with a house "vacant"? What about a 27 or 450 acre block with a house, or two acres with no house?

What are the "top 20 services/goods purchased by the top income bracket"???? How do you define them? Do you, for instance, classify them as "boats", "aquatic equipment", "cruisers", "yachts" or what? If you change the definition, a SUP could become a luxury item. If you adopt another definition, a 60 year old 16 foot trailer sailer can become a luxury item but a new 20 foot fishing boat complete with electronics is not.

Lots of guys in the top income bracket buy cars, houses and bicycles. A cheap flat in Bourke, a kid's bike and a Hyundai therefore will become "luxuries". Are they?

I see there's a tax on waterways - does that mean that swimmers have to pay to go swimming at the beach?

Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
I like this. I didn't read your post all the way to the end but it sounds a bit like the Danish model. Brilliant.

The Danish model is low corporate taxes, high consumption taxes and even higher income taxes, kicking in at low incomes at a high rate and getting higher as income rises.

Why not just get those with no idea with heads buried in the sand and there noses in the trough to retire with the same pension as us

George Orwell would love your idea.

Select to expand quote

sudsy said..
If you're really interested in whether this can work and how it can be financed, read Tim Dunlop's "The Future of Everything " a really balanced excellent book that explores this and many alternatives to the present rigged and unfair sort of capitalism that the Western world suffers from .

Thanks - will do

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

If the UBI provides a 'comfortable' income, exactly what is the incentive for work for too large a percentage of the population to be acceptable.

That is a really interesting question that I battle with. But I do think that there is something inherent in humans to seek purpose and to contribute to the community, so I think with a shift such as this there might be "bludging " for a period, even for a period of people's lives, but that eventually people gravitate to areas of employment they have an affinity for.
teachers want to teach
carers care
carpenters want to build stuff
engineers work out how to make things work
lawyers... well... hopefully won't need them
and they all do this for that supplemental income above x

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

Good point - probably needs to kick in after you are no longer deemed a dependent? 18? Later if living at home? Maybe earlier if you are out independently earlier?


Not or sure if I was clear enough, but my premise was that businesses employing people pay that x back to the gov ( as part of doing business, so they are still just paying your "real" wage" ), so gov is only paying the bill for all that population that is unemployed, on pension, or under employed below the ubi rate - but your point is valid if we had mass unemployment

maybe they can can reduce or simplify other business taxes as a result?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
There are many people who don't need the UBI on top of what they already have, and if you give them a UBI then there is less to go to more deserving causes.

The idea of a flat tax means that a person who is paid $300,000 by their employer will do much better than someone paid $10,000 by their employer, when compared to the current progressive tax system. So if the UBI is $30k and the tax is 15%, the corporate tax lawyer will pay $45k tax and the struggling artist/Uber Eats rider/aged care aide will pay $1500. At the moment, the corporate tax lawyer pays $130k and the struggler pays $6172. So if the UBI is a fairly mean $30k the government loses money for those two examples, and that means less for schools and nurses.

Also, how well does a flat rate work when some people turn up to an office in their street clothes, and others may need tools, a vehicle, fuel money and a uniform? What about the person who runs a farm and needs a tractor, fertilizer, herbicide and stock? Do they pay the same flat rate on their earnings as the office worker?

So, onto the ideas in your link;

There's not much detail but it looks as if 450 acres of virgin forest or desert in the country (sold for about $80k) will therefore be taxed more than a nice inner-city housing block. So basically, country people will end up selling their properties or going bankrupt. Also, what is "vacant land"? Is a 2 acre country block with a shed "vacant"? Is a 5 acre country block with a house "vacant"? What about a 27 or 450 acre block with a house, or two acres with no house?

What are the "top 20 services/goods purchased by the top income bracket"???? How do you define them? Do you, for instance, classify them as "boats", "aquatic equipment", "cruisers", "yachts" or what? If you change the definition, a SUP could become a luxury item. If you adopt another definition, a 60 year old 16 foot trailer sailer can become a luxury item but a new 20 foot fishing boat complete with electronics is not.

Lots of guys in the top income bracket buy cars, houses and bicycles. A cheap flat in Bourke, a kid's bike and a Hyundai therefore will become "luxuries". Are they?

I see there's a tax on waterways - does that mean that swimmers have to pay to go swimming at the beach?

You have a lot of points and questions- I'll try to think about them some more over iso, but initially:

good point about people having more than enough, maybe if you are say a self funded retiree, your ubi gets left in the pool? You'd still be stoked having more than the ubi per fortnight, but if it ever dipped etc, you'd have that safety net?
Who decides what is more deserving?

good point re: flat tax. I was just trying to think of ways to make it more appealing to the masses.
Maybe people won't care about the rich getting even richer, if they have that basic ability to veg out for no effort? I've no idea about the other queries.

the link was just the 2nd or 3rd ubi utopia site I looked at, and then thought stuff it, I might share to spark convo. Good questions, I have no opinion on them yet.


got any thoughts on what an alternative to current might look like? Or is this agaig in your opinion?

Select to expand quote

eppo said..
George Orwell would love your idea.

Ha!
Orwell is rolling over in his grave based on the advances in technologies enabling monitoring and newspeak

Select to expand quote

LastSupper said..
Why not just get those with no idea with heads buried in the sand and there noses in the trough to retire with the same pension as us

The bell curve must certainly be allowed for!!

www.citylab.com/equity/2019/10/stockton-universal-basic-income-pilot-economic-empowerment/599152/

The bigger issue we have is the middle class divided classes of the clerical and the yeoman. These classes have diametrically opposed interests.

The clerical class is one that directs and consumes. It is one promoting and expanding the State. The State is it's instrument of prosperity and power. The yeoman class is directed and produces. It flourishes when given freedom and suffers under regulations.

Above the middle classes is the upper class. It's interests are in line with the clerical class as it too prospers when society is directed and regulated. Regulations concentrate wealth and create barriers to making a living.

A UBI would crush the yeoman productive class and push them into serfdom, working for a dole as hired hands. Thus we will move back to feudalism, directed by the clerics and owned by the oligarchs.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

You are forgetting about GST , fuel , alcohol and tobacco taxes as well for government income. Also, the 10 million workers would have a big chunk of their UBI taken off them.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..

Mobydisc said..
Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

You are forgetting about GST , fuel , alcohol and tobacco taxes as well for government income. Also, the 10 million workers would have a big chunk of their UBI taken off them.

The ten million workers would have their UBI along with those not working. This is the point of a UBI, it's universal. An individual would receive the same stipend from the State whether they are otherwise destitute or they are a multi billionaire.

In regards to other taxes there are a myriad of taxes, duties, levies, licences and so forth out there collecting tons of wealth. However income tax is the greatest source of income for the State by a wide margin.

Another way to look at a UBI is a negative income tax.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

psychomub said..

Mobydisc said..
Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

You are forgetting about GST , fuel , alcohol and tobacco taxes as well for government income. Also, the 10 million workers would have a big chunk of their UBI taken off them.

The ten million workers would have their UBI along with those not working. This is the point of a UBI, it's universal. An individual would receive the same stipend from the State whether they are otherwise destitute or they are a multi billionaire.

In regards to other taxes there are a myriad of taxes, duties, levies, licences and so forth out there collecting tons of wealth. However income tax is the greatest source of income for the State by a wide margin.

Another way to look at a UBI is a negative income tax.

For the sake of the thought exercise- stop calling it universal then. As per my example, and psychos point, if you are gainfully employed and earning above BI level, there could be a mechanism to return your share to the state pool. So millionaires won't drain it - and it would be irrelevant to them anyway, if people can just get past their greed mentality.

i will have a look into taxes in Aus for that breakdown

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..


A UBI would crush the yeoman productive class and push them into serfdom, working for a dole as hired hands. Thus we will move back to feudalism, directed by the clerics and owned by the oligarchs.

Workers directed by clerics and owned by the oligarchs... pretty thin veil to where we are already at in a lot of ways? Feels a bit like now is just wizard of oz like, versus a more transparent version

but I agree, the two positions / goals are diametrically opposed.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
The bigger issue we have is the middle class divided classes of the clerical and the yeoman. These classes have diametrically opposed interests.

The clerical class is one that directs and consumes. It is one promoting and expanding the State. The State is it's instrument of prosperity and power. The yeoman class is directed and produces. It flourishes when given freedom and suffers under regulations.

Above the middle classes is the upper class. It's interests are in line with the clerical class as it too prospers when society is directed and regulated. Regulations concentrate wealth and create barriers to making a living.

A UBI would crush the yeoman productive class and push them into serfdom, working for a dole as hired hands. Thus we will move back to feudalism, directed by the clerics and owned by the oligarchs.

That sounds very simplistic. It seems to mean that the ER doctor working in a state hospital - the person who may save your life if another driver falls asleep at the wheel and hits you - is "a consumer". Meanwhile the surgeon who runs their own plastic surgery clinic, injecting botox into the face of the partners of merchant bankers, is a stout "yeoman", apparently.

The guy who rips off confused little old ladies by fixing their leaking roof poorly is apparently a stout "yeoman", while the nurse who will care for the LOL when she has a heart attack after getting the bill is apparently a cleric - and the inference is that they are therefore a bludger, perhaps. The person at Consumer Affairs who chases the rip-off merchant and gets the LOL a refund is apparently a bad "cleric" while the tradie who fixes the roof properly is a yeoman, because one uses a computer and the other uses a hammer.

A billionaire cigarette manufacturer or importer and the owner of their PR company and political lobbyist would apparently be "yeoman" because they "produce" death sticks. Meanwhile, the staff from the local weed-control body who are giving me advice on how to keep weeds washing downstream to your farm and stuffing it up are mere "consumers", like the guys who check unsafe trucks, the teachers and the cops.

The claim that the upper class prospers when society is directed and regulated is simply wrong. The Gini index. for example, shows that highly regulated societies (Austria, Australia etc) have LESS financial inequality than less regulated societies such as the USA. Adjusted for inflation, the American robber barons of about 100 years ago - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Astor, Vanderbilts etc - are the richest group of non-royals in history and they amassed their vast fortunes in a time of far less regulation.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

psychomub said..

Mobydisc said..
Think about how a UBI can work here. Firstly it must be universal meaning everyone gets it, including children. If it's not universal then it's not a UBI. Secondly the UBI would need to be at a rate so no one on income support right now would be worse off. Right now the highest paid income support is probably the Age Pension. It pays around $600 a week when including the allowances added to it.

If there are around 25 million people here and they each get $600 a week UBI this is a total cost of $15,000,000,000 a week or fifteen billion dollars. So this would cost around seven hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.

There are probably around ten million income tax payers in Australia. So each would have to be taxed around $78k a year to pay for it. Of course they would receive roughly half this back in their UBI. However many workers would struggle paying this amount of tax and many would probably give up paid employment & go on the UBI. If the answer to this was to tax big companies this would result in companies who were able to, to leave Australia. The incentive to do so, the high taxes, would be big.

You are forgetting about GST , fuel , alcohol and tobacco taxes as well for government income. Also, the 10 million workers would have a big chunk of their UBI taken off them.

The ten million workers would have their UBI along with those not working. This is the point of a UBI, it's universal. An individual would receive the same stipend from the State whether they are otherwise destitute or they are a multi billionaire.

In regards to other taxes there are a myriad of taxes, duties, levies, licences and so forth out there collecting tons of wealth. However income tax is the greatest source of income for the State by a wide margin.

Another way to look at a UBI is a negative income tax.

"Income taxes levied on individuals and enterprises by the Commonwealth Government continues to provide well over half of taxation receipts collected by all levels of government in Australia.

In 2017-18, taxes on income, profits and capital gains represented 59.1% of total taxation revenue for all levels of government and taxes on provision of goods and services, including the goods and services tax (GST), represented 26.8%."

and from abs site, of the the 59% figure, about 40% is income taxes, and 19% is taxes levied on enterprises etc.

lots of other more minor taxes to make up the final 10 or so % of federal tax revenue, so yes, a huge dip in income tax revenue is a massive hit to the fed pockets. So have to understand how or where this could be balanced?

obviously state and local taxes are separate also.

Select to expand quote

mazdon said..
I can't help thinking that some kind of reform that leads to all citizens having a living wage, would give everyone the safety net and peace of mind to ride out this kind of pandemic or other crisis's.

Im centrist but left leaning, and wondering if UBI is the answer. Probably all relies on proper taxation or huge corporates etc, but what if:
- everyone was paid x by the gov
- private employers paid you y on top of x, but then paid the x back to gov
- people pay a flat rate of say 15% of y to the gov as well

so you are incentivised to find good skilled employment to earn (y - 15%) above the ubi, but if you lose job, or need to study or retrain or become a hippie artist etc for a period, you can.

simplifies taxes etc, and seems like it would still keep consumers and spending on in the economy. The inputs to get the finances for the ubi, probably relies on a sovereign wealth fund, taxes on mining/resources or land (as per eppo threads) - and I don't know the realities of that, I'm sure it's possible.

here is another version with more radical overall changes.
newphysiocrats.org/platform/

I dont know the answer, so post up the version you've heard of or seen that resonates. Is there a version that the rabid capitalism at all costs, and the full leftards, could eventually agree to? given the extremes of bail outs and social services spending now occurring.

Maybe we find it and send a white paper it to scomo once this is all said and done...

How about getting a work ethic and a job and live within your means.

Don't worry about what anyone else has, donate if it is within your means.

Select to expand quote

Surfer62 said..

mazdon said..

How about getting a work ethic and a job and live within your means.

This is certainly how I was raised, so it could be a generational mind set.

but I think the problem in that thinking arises when either circumstances eliminate jobs from the market, even for skilled and hard working types of people (like now, or as technology rapidly changes and eliminates menial tasks).

On a personal front, would most of us "work" to try to better your circumstances and achieve whatever your goals are that may require additional income, or just accept a living wage and cruise through life?

could also see a surge in arts, music and other creative industries that some don't consider as "hard work" or at least not traditional jobs, if people with those talents could dedicate even more time to them.

My parents are self funded retirees . Rent from two places and no pension. But now with moratorium on rent payments what will they live on ?
$O income and will they still be expected to pay rates, land tax etc ? This will kill far quicker than the virus .
My parents sacrificed a lot to be self funded . Right now it doesn't seem worth it and the only live very humbly

My parents are self funded retirees . Rent from two places and no pension. But now with moratorium on rent payments what will they live on ?
$O income and will they still be expected to pay rates, land tax etc ? This will kill far quicker than the virus .
My parents sacrificed a lot to be self funded . Right now it doesn't seem worth it and the only live very humbly . FFS my mum would make me board shorts so that they could save for their future . No fancy holidays or restaurants . A humble family to Burleigh Heads from Sydney every year . Dad worked away from home for 15 years and my mum sewed all through the night for a $1 a dress made.

That's heart breaking to hear gboots.

i thought it was just a moratorium on evicting though?
im sure more detail will come about what help there will be for people unable to pay rent, and conversely land lords reliant on that income.

It does support the argument for a basic income that kicks in automatically when other self funded means are in doubt or lost.
all the best for your folks.

As Mazdon says, it's NOT about letting people just stop paying rent. It's just that evictions are not permitted if the tenants are not paying because of financial stress. The rent will still be due. Obviously it may be harder to get it out of the tenants if they don't have it, but they will know that they can't just sit back there and amass a huge debt to your parents as your parents can eventually get it out of them.

There are still other details being sorted out.

Do your parents become eligible for the pension if the worst happens and the tenants stop paying the rent?

There are going to be a lot of people in similar scenarios where their income stops or reduces significantly.

The pension does not easily pay 3 lots of rates.

Funny how people as individuals and small businesses are being told to make sacrifices.

But local government steams ahead as though nothing has happened, snouts firmly in the trough.

All registrations and license fees still due and payable.

All utilities still due and payable.

And to make matters worse there is still talk of increasing these government charges in the next billing cycle, because they have plans "you know"

But the local bloke that just opened up a small bar and his landlord are told to suffer for the greater good, but don't forget to keep that licensee fee paid up and those rates paid.