The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Would an 'unconditional basic wage' work? > Comments

Would an 'unconditional basic wage' work? : Comments

By Mikayla Novak, published 3/12/2013

Milton Friedman liked the idea, as did Friedrich Hayek, but could guaranteeing everyone a basic wage, whether employed or not, work?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Such a system might just well work given suitable constraints and regulations.

For example very limited avenues for incurring debt viz. enforced credit card limits and the number of credit cards, shop cards etc. not being allowed to take out secured loans as there should be an assets test. Government income is not to be included for the purpose of borrowing cash.

Limit the benefit based on the number of recipients at a given address.

Perhaps the benefit of work will become apparent.
Posted by Kilmouski, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 10:13:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting idea, and I think the worst risks are the moral hazard. Kilmouski's ideas are charming, and maybe in past Switzerland with very strong social norms this would work. Unfortunately those norms might not survive a generation of computer gamers and Facebook timewasters offered a living subsidy for their habit. Its already too late in Australia, where we ought to engage the people smugglers to take the welfare class the other way.
Posted by ChrisPer, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 12:11:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am all in support.

I advocated such a system long ago, including over these pages, without being aware that it was already implemented anywhere or even previously suggested by anyone else. Later on, I was excited to find this same idea among the policies of the LDP (sadly, this policy was dropped since), where I learnt that it even had a name - "Negative Income Tax".

Among my reasons for having an unconditional negative-income-tax are:

* It isn't a free gift, but a just compensation for forcing people to live in society and use its currency, given all other avenues were practically shut by that society.

* It removes the middleman bureaucrats.

* It removes the extreme humiliation and culture of fraud/lying of Centerlink.

* Forcing people to work is not on - another word for it is 'slavery'.

* It removes the need of people to work in occupations they deem unethical, or for unethical bosses, only because they need to survive.

* The reduction in the formal work-force will direct the remaining workers to useful and essential services, closing down harmful and unnecessary industries such as advertising and gambling.

* It removes the need for IR laws.

* It will reduce crime.

* It will increase involvement in voluntary charitable activities.

* It will reduce anxiety, providing a basic level of safety and security to all.

For all these and more, I warmly welcome this article.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 12:33:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems not dissimilar to C.H.Douglas' "social credit" concept.

Yuyutsu, you might like it, Robert A Heinlein adumbrated a simplified version in his early-but-posthumously-published novel "for us the living".

Considering the number of public servants employed to determine eligibility for the dole or pension, to mediate redistribution of piddling amounts such as the "child support" owed by a centrelink "client", the large amounts spent subsidising big "business", or even the bizarre arguments for "trickle down" economics and tax exemptions for private schools capable of buying inner-city real estate, ...considering these things it seems that maybe we should be reconsidering the "common-wealth" and how to distribute the "dividend".

Just the raising of this issue is a good shake-up, long overdue.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 9:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes ! And somebody, who was actually working, could be planting acres and acres of money trees for some other working person to come along and harvest, so that other working people could mail out money to all of the others who aren't working and will never feel any need to.

We could even employ scientists in a research institute to develop more efficient money trees, in more marginal parts of Australia, using water more efficiently.

Of course, the handful of people actually working would probably have to be on twelve-hour days, seven days a week.

But why should that worry the rest of us ?

A fruit-ful idea indeed.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 9:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie Novak "Dampening labour supply"

In the not-too-distant future virtually all "work" will be done by robots, machines and computers.
An automatic living allowance for human citizens will be a *necessity*, not an option.

But I suggest along with that, that all other government-funded projects be ceased, where they can be supplied by the private market (e.g. housing, medicine, education).

"aggravate tax pressures borne by those who remain in the workforce"

Well, have a flat tax rate.
And don't exempt the allowance.
Therefore, no bias against extra/earned income.

"charitable services?"

Would anyone need them?
Don't forget the family and friends of "needy" people are now also receiving this payment.
Charity could begin at home once again.

Kilmouski "Limit the benefit based on the number of recipients at a given address."

What of boarding houses, nursing homes, students in sharehouses?
You're presuming a shared address means shared finances (a "family").
Not necessarily so.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 10:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
re: You're presuming a shared address means shared finances (a "family").

Yes.

In SA lessees of housing trust accommodation are obliged to inform the authority of additional , money earning, residents so that they may contribute to the rent.
Posted by Kilmouski, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 10:32:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rusty,

At first glance, Douglas's concept seems too extreme and unworkable to me. My idea is to provide unconditional subsistence-level income to all - not to make (or hope that) some people work for the luxuries of others.

Otherwise thanks for your contribution - I agree.

Dear Joe,

There are not enough among us who are willing to voluntarily live frugally, more-or-less at current dole-levels which is all that the unconditional allowance will provide. The majority, desiring comforts and luxuries would still choose to work for their comforts and luxuries (provided they are able to find an ethical job which they feel is actually contributing authentic benefits to others) while the minority will blessedly reduce their environmental footprint. Many people will also be likely to rotate, without anxiety, between periods of work for their luxuries and periods of frugal rest.

No one should have to work 12/7 (unless they fancy this lifestyle). Instead, unethical and useless jobs will disappear, which currently only exist because people desperately scramble for jobs.

Dear Shockadelic,

Personally, I totally agree with your suggestions to eliminate government projects, have a flat tax-rate and remove exemptions. However, others do not agree, so I wouldn't want to tie together the negative-income-tax with the issues you mentioned. Negative-income-tax can be implemented separately ASAP with wider community acceptance, to replace the current corrupt welfare system, without the need to wait longer until people come to also appreciate your other suggestions.

"charitable services?"

Even if all material needs are ever provided by robots (which I doubt), I believe that there will always be a need for services that cannot be measured in money or done mechanically.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 11:31:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great essay! I thought the comments section would be full of hard right-wingers screaming about entitlement and laziness and taking responsibility and all the usual stuff. But virtually all the comments so far have been excellent - especially Yuyutsu's.

Perhaps that's the beauty of an idea whose time has come - shouting it down is futile.

The great obstacle of course is to overturn a few thousand years of conditioning that the greater mass of the population was put on this earth to work their butts off all their lives for the benefit of a very small few and that poverty and wealth are moral consequences of one's own choices.

I notice the Swiss voted down a recent referendum to put a cap on executive salaries. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 11:41:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
where base wages SHOULD/be
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/where-the-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-the-earnings-of-the-1/
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 5:59:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

Your interesting point, that " .... the greater mass of the population was put on this earth to work their butts off all their lives for the benefit of a very small few .... "

sounds like a paraphrase of this proposal. Why should any able-bodied person NOT work ? If they are skilled, then they get some training. They study towards the sorts of jobs that an economy might be crying out for, not for study for its own sake, and not (Yuyutsu's slightly irrelevant point) for jobs which are unethical.

Otherwise, yes, we are positing a society where there might as well be money trees for some, who don't have to do anything but put their feet up all day and watch DVDs. while others do the work for them.

And a flat tax ? I'm beginning to suspect this thread is having a lend of us. But let's look at a flat tax which Shockadelic says is so equitable. I'm not so sure: imagine for argument's sake, a hypothetical two-person economy in which one works and the other doesn't, but gets an allowance. The first pays a flat tax on income she has earned, and the second person pays the same tax on income that the first person has earned, NOT the second person. In a sense, the working person not only pays her own tax and supports the second person but pays his tax as well as her own.

And probably the second person would get all aggrieved if he had to pay any more tax, for which he has been getting paid anyway for free, by the first person.

Nice work if you can get it :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 7:02:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

<<Why should any able-bodied person NOT work ?>>

First, I believe the question to be inaccurate. Did you mean to ask "why should any able-bodied person not undertake formal work for money?"?

People's reasons are too many to list. Just a few examples, one could be a carer, another a free-thinking inventor, another in order to punish an unethical boss, another because they cannot stand a boss, another because they cannot stand the smell at work, another is growing vegetables in their back-yard then invite others to eat for free, another undertakes informal studies, another plays music for free, another because they are chronically tired, another because their kids need special-attention, another is a saint, a Buddha meditating under a tree and teaching people how to overcome their existential pain, while another is the student of that saint.

<<They study towards the sorts of jobs that an economy might be crying out for>>

- Which they often do out of fear rather than out of love. Is that what you want to encourage, Joe?

I care for the crying of real people, not for the crying of an inanimate mechanism such as "economy". The pursuit of economy is full with cruel and unethical situations. While we need to eat, the least we can do is allowing people some respite from having to be 'economical' come what may. That by itself should weed out many of the flaws and excesses of economy.

<<who don't have to do anything but put their feet up all day and watch DVDs.>>

Hopefully no one is ever forced to watch DVDs!

With the frugal income from negative-income-tax, those who do like watching DVDs, will soon run out of them, so they may choose to work to earn them.

I rather discuss the issue of flat-tax independently, because negative-income-tax can be implemented with or without a flat-tax.
In combination, it means a tax-system with only two numbers: a threshold (T), and a percentage (P). Those with income (I) above the threshold pay (I-T)*P as tax while those below receive (T-I)*P as negative-tax.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 9:10:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is surprising to me that this proposition gets an airing at all.

Despite Yuyutsu's protests that we are basically a bunch of spirits yearning to be free, fundamentally we are but a step-and-a-half away from the straightforward subsistence-focussed, hunter-gatherer status of our immediate forbears. To extend Loudmouth's parable a little, imagine for a moment the likely fate of a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, if he decided to wait for others to kill his breakfast for him?

At base, we are all in this together, whether we like it or not.

To allow people to be able to choose whether or not they contribute to the process of feeding and clothing themselves, and instead give them the option to let others labour on their behalf, would be the most significant contribution to total destruction of our society imaginable.

From another angle, it would reduce our standard of living to a point where we would be forced to return to hunter-gatherer status anyway, so making the entire project self-defeating.

By the way, comparing our society to the Swiss, whose entire late twentieth century economy was built on the leftovers of Nazi larceny, is hardly a parallel that can shed any light at all on our current situation.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 9:31:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm certainly not suggesting that anybody should be forced to do anything, not even to watch DVDs, although they could feast themselves on some of your red herrings while they are doing that :)

So how are all those loafers, Buddhas, vegetable-growers, etc. going to be paid ? Old question: where is the money supposed to come from ?

But a fair question. But I suppose those acres of money-trees might help, as long as there are people around who, out of love, are happy to work their 12-hour days for the good of their fellow man, bludger as he or she may be.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 9:38:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear pericles,

<<if he decided to wait for others to kill his breakfast for him?>>

Isn't this the current case already?

Few are doing productive work that actually feeds while the many shuffle paper (or computer bits), driving public-funded cars to sit in air-conditioned offices in attempt to control the few who feed them.

<<At base, we are all in this together, whether we like it or not.>>

Those who like the advantages of a modern economy outnumber those who do not. They made any other lifestyle practically illegal (just see what happens if you try to kill your own breakfast).

The least decent thing then is to expect those who like it and are advantaged by it, to compensate those who don't, allowing them more-or-less the equivalent of that basic subsistence they could have if it wasn't illegal.

<<From another angle, it would reduce our standard of living to a point where we would be forced to return to hunter-gatherer status anyway>>

It may technically reduce the economic standard of living somewhat, but increase the quality of living instead. A return to hunter-gatherer status is exaggerated and out of the question because most people still want their luxuries. It may however return us to a more balanced lifestyle.

Dear Joe,

<<Old question: where is the money supposed to come from?>>

the few who are willing to live frugally will be supported by a fraction of the income of the majority who are not willing to give up their comforts and luxuries.

Mind you, the savings by eliminating the associated bureaucracy will be greater than the expenses. How do we now pay for all those public-servants anyway? Hmmm... we actually get into debt even in the midst of a mining-boom!

Don't we not already feed people who don't work?
Is anyone hungry in the streets of Australia?
The only difference is that we now teach them to cheat and pretend they're desperately looking for work, meanwhile paying all that other staff generously as useless inquisitors!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 11:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two words, DREAM ON!

I say this because our first hurdle will be to pay down the massive debt we have been handed and, chances are, if and when this is achieved, most of us viewing this site will either be dead, or on a pension.

Put simply, you can't pay money to people you don't have.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 12:20:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

You have every right to be upset about Gillard's wasting-spree, but Japan had an even worse and more costly earthquake and tsunami, yet they are recovering well (financially, I'm not referring to the possible impending nuclear meltdown) - and so could we, I believe.

One way to quickly recover from our debt, is to close down unnecessary government departments and sell off their buildings - and the first in line is Centerlink!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 1:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your convoluted thought processes are fascinating to follow, Yuyutsu. But sometimes they trip you up...

>>The least decent thing then is to expect those who like it and are advantaged by it, to compensate those who don't...<<

I'm not entirely sure - because of said convoluted reasoning - but I don't think you actually meant to say "least decent" in this sentence. Mainly because a) it would make the concept one that I might agree with and b) it seems to be contrary to everything else you advocate.

It doesn't help that you start from a fundamentally questionable proposition:

>>Few are doing productive work that actually feeds while the many shuffle paper (or computer bits), driving public-funded cars to sit in air-conditioned offices in attempt to control the few who feed them.<<

If you are describing the mass of public "servants" that we support, volens nolens, with our taxes, then some of that mud definitely sticks. But if you want to avoid compounding errors, you should not allow it to translate into a way of life for all of us. Just because some citizens have found themselves with their snouts firmly in the trough of taxpayer funds, it doesn't make it an acceptable way of life. It is something of a miracle that we survive at all with the dead weight of gravy-trainers hanging off our coat-tails, without turning it into business-as-usual.

>>It may technically reduce the economic standard of living somewhat, but increase the quality of living instead<<

And how would that work, do you think? As the standard of living decreases, fewer people could be bothered to do anything except collect their handouts. Which would necessarily get lower and lower, until...

Nup. The whole idea is just the wishful thinking of the terminally lazy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 2:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm in a singing group and this being the interminable Xmas season, we do gigs for many old people's homes. Today, while we singing 'Joy to the world' or some such, I was watching the social worker at the back, sitting there for the whole hour. 'There's thirty bucks easily earnt,' I thought.

I remembered working at Balfour's bakery as a dough-presser forty odd-years ago [Balfour's was a huge enterprise for Adelaide, they had more than four workers], a exciting challenge in which, every minute, you carve off a forty-pound block of dough from a half-ton pile, press it into a wooden square, lift off the square, throw the block, now nicely flattened, onto a trolley, throw flour on the table, put the square back, cut off another block .... and so on. That way, you get through about ten tonnes of dough on a winter shift, starting at five am. My window faced due south, so I never saw the sun directly on some winter's days.

So yes, there do seem to be some people who do and some don't discernibly work for their salaries, and if they in the right business - just throw the word 'community' in front of whatever BS you are doing - they may be able to wangle it for life.

So no, I have no problem if the lifelong loafers wish to take some of their salaries, they haven't actually worked for it after all.

But some people do work for their living. Not too many Anglos these days, admittedly, but it's been that way now for fifty years. Perhaps all those time-servers could volunteer part of their pay to go to the loafers. It will probably be part of the policy of the Greens pretty soon anyway - maybe not, they will lose the vital support of public servants over-night. Certainly of social workers.

I'm still enough of a Leninist to believe that, if you can, you work (or study) or you starve. Fair enough.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 4:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got a better idea. Why don't we just abolish the need to work, since it's all just "slavery", abolish private property since it's just a means by which "the rich" rip off everyone else, and then everyone could live out of the common storehouse without anyone having to work? Think what a paradise it would be.

This is the level of infantile imbecilic twaddle of anyone who supports this idea - that the mere fact we exist gives us a right to attack and steal from innocent people.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 8:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kilmouski "housing trust accommodation". Public housing?

That doesn't include boarding houses, nursing homes, students in sharehouses.
Sharing the rent doesn't mean sharing other liabilities (debt, medications, alimony/child support).

I want public housing sold anyway.

Yuyutsu, yes you don't need to implement all reforms at once.

However, I wasn't suggesting a negative income tax, but a cash payment.
You couldn't pay everyone while still funding these other projects.

I don't like negative income tax because it doesn't account for changing circumstances.

If the tax office evaluates you on last's years income, you eat out of dumpsters if you lose your job.

"there will always be a need for services that cannot be measured in money or done mechanically."

The author despaired that charities would vanish.
Of course, people could still volunteer and donate if they wish.

Many jobs once common have vanished due to tech developments.
Of course, people may still *choose* to do all kinds of "work" the old way, but not out of financial desperation.

Loudmouth "First person... second person"

The first person is also entitled to the payment.
There's no way the taxes of these two people alone would pay for both payments.

"Multiple" taxation already occurs all the time, right now.
Your employer pays tax, then pays you a salary (you pay tax), which you spend at the shops (which pay tax), who pay the cashier's salary (who pays tax).

You cannot escape this, without having one and only one tax at *one* point in the cycle (e.g. GST only. Would this be more "equitable"?)

Pericles "the likely fate of a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, if he decided to wait for others to kill his breakfast for him"

We're nowhere near the living conditions of Early Man.
People hardly make anything for their own use nowadays.

Soon the robots will make everything, without complaining.
We will do nothing to "earn" the food on our plates or the roof over our head, so how will we pay for them?

"we are all in this together, whether we like it or not."

Exactly the justification for a universal payment.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 4 December 2013 11:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Sorry, indeed my grammar was ambiguous.

What I meant was that since the majority disadvantaged minorities, then the least they should do is be decent and compensate them.

<<you should not allow it to translate into a way of life for all of us>>

But public-servants are generally quite wealthy and do NOT lead a frugal lifestyle - which is an essential part of the deal!

<<fewer people could be bothered to do anything except collect their handouts.>>

Then they'll not be able to afford a car, a nice house, flat-TV, adequate heating-and-cooling, restaurant-meals, internet, overseas-travel, etc. etc.

Dear Joe,

How much does a baker's assistant earn nowadays?

Suppose for example the tax-threshold is $45000, the tax-rate is 30% and as a baker's assistant you earn only $35000 p.a., then instead of paying tax you will RECEIVE $3000 from the tax-office as negative-income-tax.

Dear Jardine,

<<a right to attack and steal from innocent people>>

A right to receive compensation from a society which forced you into a situation where living without money is practically illegal - who would lock you up if you tried, as well as its not-so-innocent members who benefit from this arrangement.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<If the tax office evaluates you on last's years income, you eat out of dumpsters if you lose your job.>>

Anyone who finds themselves in financial difficulty should be able to request to convert their current-year's negative-income-tax into weekly cash payments. By the end of the financial-year the balance is calculated (but if the request was excessive, you will need to repay with interest).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 December 2013 12:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings Jardine K. Jardine,

Yes in SA the Housing Trust does provide public housing. I have considered that this housing is to be taken into account when considering the issue of "reverse income tax". At the risk of going off topic the issue of housing, those who cannot house themselves, is a problem. Whether or not the state should provide this housing is a vexed question. But, certainly, people do need to be housed and it is only a matter as to what the standard will be and how this housing will be funded.

My solutions are logical, rational and some would say brutal ... Best not discussed here, lol.
Posted by Kilmouski, Thursday, 5 December 2013 6:43:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies to jardine K. Jardine.

I got the salutation wrong. It should be addressed to Mr/Ms Shockadelic.
Posted by Kilmouski, Thursday, 5 December 2013 6:50:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still doesn't make sense, Yuyutsu.

>>What I meant was that since the majority disadvantaged minorities, then the least they should do is be decent and compensate them.<<

In what fashion does your majority disadvantage minorities? Whom do you imagine belongs to each category? Whom will you authorize to make that distinction?

This does not make it any clearer:

>>Those who like the advantages of a modern economy outnumber those who do not.<<

How do you determine who falls into the category of "liking"? It would seem to be a somewhat arbitrary judgment call, presuming to tell the difference between people who feel obliged to support their family through earning a wage, and those who who "like" doing so. I would suggest there are more in the former category than the latter, and it is these who would happily stay at home and sponge off their fellow citizens, in your unconditional welfare scenario.

You must also accept that the acceptance of unearned welfare payments can be hugely corrupting to the individuals concerned. They rapidly lose touch with the relationship between effort and reward, and suddenly, fraud becomes the norm.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/government-cracks-down-on-welfare-fraud/story-e6frg6n6-1226619846555

To legitimize the concept of providing free money as a reward for doing precisely nothing is a recipe for decadence, and the total destruction of society.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 5 December 2013 8:35:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kilmouski, one problem with public housing is just that, it's a house.

Just because some drop kick chick and her equally drop kick mate have a baby, then he takes off,then the chick often with two or three drop kick guys, has even more kids, does not give that drop kick chick the right to live in a state provided 3 or 4 bedroom house.

What is needed is public accommodation, not housing.

I know one such chick, one child, partner fed, she got booted out of her 3 bedroom house ($80 per week) because despite the fact that she earned almost a grand a week, couldn't meet the rent of $80 per week.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 5 December 2013 9:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correct rehctub there is a difference between housing being a house only or the generic term accommodation. I could have used the word : accommodation, but it did not enter my mind.

Well the state to provide accommodation at a basic level - high rise or medium rise is good - but 3 bed rooms with a cottage garden is going a bit too far. Certainly the arguments that housing people in high rise or low rise accommodation breeds even more misfits and crime ... Well sorry that's a basic problem with society that cannot be fixed by dishing out free standing houses. If their kids don't attend a perfectly good school what does one do? If they want to trash their houses well let them live like that if they like squalor who am I to complain.
Posted by Kilmouski, Thursday, 5 December 2013 10:19:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

I make no presumption to solve the issue of fraud.
But then I make no presumption to find a cure for AIDS either.

Fraud is criminal, it's a matter for the police, but it's been with us ever since. The fraud of the poor, as you pointed, costs 1.8 billion a year, but the fraud of the wealthy costs much more. Regardless, nobody should fraudulently hide their income and those who do should be punished. With unconditional negative-income-tax at least, people who are generally honest in nature will no longer need to resort to fraud because they are truly, physically hungry or cold.

As I explained, this is not "free money", but a just compensation.
It is (unlike the current system!) not a 'reward for doing nothing' because you receive it regardless whether you work or whether you don't. If you choose to work on top of it, then you end up with more money in your pocket (something most people want).

The matter of 'liking' is relative: some like the system more, some less. Generally, those who have more money like the modern economy more than those who don't. Some may indeed not like having to support their family with money, but still like it better than having to support their family without money.

Regardless of liking or otherwise, the existing laws practically prevent people from living money-free, implying that one MUST have money to survive. Thus everyone is being restricted, so for that forceful restriction, everyone needs to be compensated using the only remaining means of survival - money. This is all that negative-income-tax does, nothing less, nothing more. Those who benefit more from the modern money-economy contribute more towards this compensation and those who benefit less, contribute less.

I really like Sockadelic's explanation:

{{
"we are all in this together, whether we like it or not."

Exactly the justification for a universal payment.
}}
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 December 2013 12:54:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

Let's go back to first principles:

Why should anyone get anything if they are able-bodied and they don't work ?

Conversely, why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't ?

Nobody should be forced to work, that's true. But neither does anybody, or any agency, have any obligation to ensure they don't starve.

One way of not starving is to work, either to get money wages to buy the wherewithall or to work at raising one's own food. Out of love. Either way, as Pericles implies, you put the effort in, you get the outcome out.

I used to be a very dedicated Marxist and Aboriginal-self-determinationist, but both those ideologies collapsed at the first obstacle: that not everybody is going pull their weight, as the model absolutely requires.

In places like the USSR, bludgers would quickly learn to get around those social and 'community' obligations by joining the Party and becoming a fervent apparatchik. In Aboriginal communities, people just took what they wanted, and if you wanted to do more 'for the community', they saw that as a clear sign that (a) here was a mug, and (b) they could do correspondingly, less.

Work or starve. Or bugger off. I hope I never lift a finger for a bludger ever again. Send them out past Oodnadatta tree-planting for life, who cares.

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 5 December 2013 2:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good questions, Joe,

<<Why should anyone get anything if they are able-bodied and they don't work?>>

As a general question, there are many possible reasons, such as "because their parents love them", but the reason relevant to this thread is, because they deserve compensation. If someone broke your window or falsely arrested you, then they would have to pay reparations and it has nothing to do with whether you work or not, able-bodied or not.

Modern society has taken away your freedom to survive out in nature without money. You may not have had as much if you did, but you would likely have had something, for which you need to be compensated.

<<Conversely, why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't?>>

A person with grievances against you is not a bludger, but a creditor.
In any case, this particular grievance is shared by all of us, not just by those who happen to be bludgers. We all should be equally compensated.

No one is asked to pay a cent because they work - only because they earn money.

People who earn money, to that extent, benefit from modern society, hence they may not enjoy society's assets while avoiding its liabilities.

<<But neither does anybody, or any agency, have any obligation to ensure they don't starve.>>

Unless of course it is the agency which told you "live my way or starve", which would have locked you up if you tried to survive in any other way.

<<I used to be a very dedicated Marxist>>

This resembles Marxism only up to a very basic subsistence level - everything on top of that is free-market, including no bureaucracy, regulations, IR laws or apparatchiks.

People who choose not to work will survive, but not on a comfortable level. Most people will therefore want to work in order to supplement their income.

Now think of all the advantages I listed in my first post. Even if you don't find this sufficiently ideologically-pure to your standards, you must admit that it's much better than what we have now.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 December 2013 4:34:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Yuyutsu, you lost me: who deserves compensation, and for what ? For just existing ? Paid for by whom, who surely by virtue of actually working, is worthy of more 'compensation', not less ?

And why should someone have grievances against me, just because I work (hypothetically speaking)?

People who work enjoy the benefits of society ? Yes, maybe, precisely because they have earnt them. Drones and blow-flies don't really earn very much at all in comparison. Those who work, CREATE precisely those benefits - what do the drones do for society ?

Sorry, Yuyutsu, you lay down so many red herrings that one doesn't know where to begin. But I suppose they could feed your drones :)

Ideology or reality: which prevails ? Reality is 'there', ideology is 'somewhere else'. Build your ideology on reality, not fantasies. And the reality is, I suspect, that there have always been 'free riders', loafers, ever-ready to bott off other people, in all societies, even hunter-gatherer societies, although there, they would have had to use their wits (perhaps become 'elders' as quickly as possible) to avoid effort and share in what the women gathered and the men occasionally hunted for. And the reality has been also, that they have everywhere and always been a drain on society.

So why shouldn't all able-bodied people work, preferably at what they liked doing, but really at whatever was necessary for their society to continue ? Contribution and benefits should roughly match.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 5 December 2013 5:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Each one of us deserves compensation for having a particular lifestyle imposed on us by modern society whether we like it or not.

We are just so used to it, but we shouldn't really take it for granted.

If you tried to live out in nature, either individually or in groups/tribes/packs, picking and using its resources as you please, as our forefathers did for 100,000s of years, you would be charged with 1001 offences, arrested and thrown in a small cell. These offences would include trespassing, breaking fences, contaminating water-reservoirs, lighting fires, stealing, hunting and fishing protected animals, use of weapons, endangering traffic and rail, indecent exposure, entering reserved military/security zones, improper disposal of garbage, building and mining without permit, breaking quarantine regulations, failing to register children and pets, having illegal pets, failing to pay council-rates and for water and sewerage, breaking health-and-safety regulations, etc.

The scientific inventions of modern society allowed it to reduce mortality, expand in numbers and fill the earth, not leaving space for other modes of life. The only remaining mode of life that is now legal, is to have your needs met through the use of money - and that money can normally be only obtained by working in a formal and acceptable capacity.

In summary, modern society tells us: "work and play the money-game our way; or starve; or be locked up (and if you try to resist, we'll shoot you down)". In fact even starving is not a real option because sooner one is declared insane and locked up in another room where they are force-fed.

While no amount of compensation can be truly adequate for the loss of freedom, as our freedom to pursue a different mode of life which doesn't involve modern-society was forcibly taken away, we at least deserve compensation, which is to be paid with the only remaining legal means of survival - money. Any demand to work for that subsistence-level money, the rough equivalent of what we could earn while pursuing other modes of life, would amount to slavery.

(to be continued when my quota allows...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 December 2013 7:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu "Anyone who finds themselves in financial difficulty should be able to request to convert their current-year's negative-income-tax into weekly cash payments"

So we're back to an army of paper-shuffling bureaucrats.
And cash payments for many people anyway.

I say, ditch the paper-shufflers and pay cash. Then nobody ever needs reevaluating.

Kilmouski, "people do need to be housed and it is only a matter as to what the standard will be and how this housing will be funded."

The market will decide.
Some people want mansions, some would be satisfied with cheap Japanese-style "capsules".
Public housing has created as many problems as it solved.

Pericles "suddenly, fraud becomes the norm."

How can there be fraud if it's an automatic payment for everyone?
Only if some get it and some can't, can there be fraud.

"providing free money as a reward for doing precisely nothing"

Consider it a reward for "not robbing people", which would require greater expense on police, courts and prisons and make our streets far more dangerous.

Loudmouth "Work or starve"

You're presuming full employment is actually possible.
If not, then there'll always be people who can't get work, no matter how hard they try.

Increasing mechanisation/computerisation is making more and more human labour redundant.
And with an additional 100,000+ immigrants every year, we are *never* going to catch up.

"why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't"

The majority of wealth is in the hands of a few persons (the 1%) and corporations. They will pay for this.
Joe Blow will pay little tax and also get the payment himself. Not a bad deal.

And what of people who cannot work, even though they'd like to, because of temporary or permanent disability?
Why should the able-bodied compensate such "bludgers" in your dog-eat-dog world?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 December 2013 10:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

What don't you understand about 'able-bodied ' ?

I'll tell you one thing: if I had my life over again, I would never, never voluntarily contribute towards the income, no matter how frugal, of a person who was able-bodied, and who was making no effort to either study or train or find work. That goes for your 1 %, the extremely wealthy, as well as the bludgers and swivers at the other end of the spectrum. And most of the time-serving public servants in between as well. Christ, who IS working in this society apart from non-Anglos ?

I was asking where the money is supposed to come from, but the only fatuous answer is: from the wealthy. Good luck with that.

I've heard of some dumb ideas but this one comes close to taking the cake.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 5 December 2013 10:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not just close, Joe.

>>I've heard of some dumb ideas but this one comes close to taking the cake.<<

It not only takes it, it wolfs it down and hoovers up the crumbs.

What I find really fascinating, is the mindset behind such a proposition - that there should be a division of society between those who work, and those who bludge. What mental processes can lead a person to the conclusion that, somehow, it is the right of the individual to secede from contributing to society, but at the same time feel that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with allowing others to maintain them.

Yuyutsu's complaint that "it is the fault of society, anyway", is the classic drop-out mantra from the sixties. Interestingly, many of those sixties hippies grew up to mastermind the "greed is good" eighties, while the rest settled down to bring up 2.3 children and work in an insurance company. Hippiedom simply was not a sustainable lifestyle.

There is a cost associated with living. What is missing from the provider/bludger equation is the contribution the bludger intends to make to keep the world turning.

Incidentally, Yuyutsu...

>>If you tried to live out in nature, either individually or in groups/tribes/packs, picking and using its resources as you please, as our forefathers did for 100,000s of years, you would be charged with 1001 offences<<

Correct. The problem being the idea of "using its resources as you please". If you were to find yourself an unoccupied space, that no-one has previously invested in, you can do as you please.

It is a big country. And an even bigger world. If that is the life you prefer, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you indulging in it. There are plenty of examples of drop-out societies around, making their own rules and living by them.

The fact that you can't indulge yourself the same way in Pymble or Toorak does not validate your position.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 December 2013 8:15:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: ... If you were to find yourself an unoccupied space, that no-one has previously invested in, you can do as you please.

Yes, and I have a further suggestion:

Get a DVD player and Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" and run it backwards this could be most instructional.

Kilmouski ( my Russian Blue Cat).
Posted by Kilmouski, Friday, 6 December 2013 10:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Finally I can write again, probably my last post till Sunday:

Dear Pericles,

"A. Hippies suggested something similar; B. Hippies are not serious people; therefore C. This cannot be serious", is logically flawed. I could counter it with: "This idea is supported by Milton Friedman, a prominent economist and a libertarian par-excellence who saved many countries from economic collapse; therefore this is good."

The fact is that today, not only do you pay bludgers, but you also train them to lie and cheat and you pay even more to their inquisitors: you are currently financing their cat-and-mouse game with your tax-money.

<<If you were to find yourself an unoccupied space>>

You know that there isn't any, at least not with reasonable natural resources. All reasonable places are taken by one monolithic culture at gun-point. The fact of investment is irrelevant: was I even consulted over that investment? Sure it's something you enjoy, but what's in there for me? likely even a negative outcome due to depletion of natural resources.

Dear Shockadelic,

No bureaucrats are needed, all it takes is visiting ATO's website and clicking on "I rather receive a weekly amount of XXX dollars to my bank account BSB/acct-number". If you requested too much because you also received other income, then at the end of the financial year the ATO's computer will ask you to refund the excess plus interest.

Dear Joe,

Nobody has grievances against you personally, but against the society you partake in. The fact that you work is irrelevant, only the fact that you receive money, which could also come from rent, share-trading, etc. If you don't like paying tax, then all you need is to reduce your income to the tax-threshold (or below), but if you want more money (as most people do), then please understand that this money comes with strings attached because it is printed and backed by a society who owes certain compensation for prohibiting other modes of life. If you inherit someone, you must pay their debts first before pocketing the rest: this is similar.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 December 2013 1:52:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

i don't work for money, but doing just what I like doing, and what I think is worth doing. But I have no interest in getting paid for it.

Which is the reverse of what you are demanding :)

All humans deserve a minimum of respect, but that doesn't give them rent-seeking rights. Contribution and effort go a long way to increasing the extra respect that people deserve.

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 6 December 2013 3:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Misrepresenting my position only shows up the poverty of your argument, Yuyutsu:

>>"A. Hippies suggested something similar; B. Hippies are not serious people; therefore C. This cannot be serious", is logically flawed.<<

You clearly weren't around in the sixties, so you won't understand the significance of the term "hippies", and what it stands for. They were extremely serious people, and shared your pseudo-spiritual views on the human condition. This led to the formation of communes, back-to-nature groupings of like-minded folk, whose ambition was to live in harmony with nature, as distinct from what they regarded as the perversions of civilization.

Sounding familiar?

>>The fact is that today, not only do you pay bludgers, but you also train them to lie and cheat and you pay even more to their inquisitors: you are currently financing their cat-and-mouse game with your tax-money.<<

This sounds a tad pejorative. Yet you still advocate the extension of these liberties to an even wider group of people. How logical is that?

Seriously, I can't take you seriously.

>>You know that there isn't any [unoccupied space], at least not with reasonable natural resources.<<

You're kidding.

Perhaps not in Pymble or Toorak, but there's massive stretches of it, all over Africa.

I'm beginning to suspect you are just an armchair hippie, expecting the world to provide the resources to support your indolent spiritual lifestyle,but unwilling to get up and make an effort to find them for yourself.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 December 2013 4:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this is the problem

Darryl Robert Schoon explains the world’s most successful card trick. By printing coupons and loaning them as money, banks have indebted the world beyond its ability to repay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a86DfIfNSd8

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/darryl-robert-schoon-by-printing-coupons-loaning-them-as-money-banks-have-indebted-the-world-beyond-its-ability-to-repay/#cFVwPslHl8rF4kp0.99

how/they THINK...to/fix it is/by hyper inflation
for that they need to blame it upon/the greedy workers

one cent[buying value]..in1930-two dollar cost today
in other words..the bankers..stole..the value/by hyperinflation

wwe can take it back..by revaluing..the face values..of the coin
[bailing out those poor people using the ONLY..LAWFUL-tender..paper money..isnt..lawful tender..ONLY COIN IS*

but hrh..face on/the debased coin..is treason
anyhow blame the workers..[inflation..only..hurts them]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 6 December 2013 8:58:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "a division of society between those who work, and those who bludge"

There is no division.
Everyone gets the payment.

"the contribution the bludger intends to make to keep the world turning."

The money paid doesn't just vanish into the ether.
It is *spent* on goods and services, which pays your blessed workers' salaries.

"there's massive stretches of [unoccupied space], all over Africa."

Where? In desert or tropical jungle?
I wonder why nobody lives there?

Every inch of Africa is ruled by one government or another.
There's just going to let us move in, eh?
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 6 December 2013 10:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cloud Cuckoo-land people !

Shockaholic,

FROM WHERE ?! Where does this bucket of money come from, if not from workers somewhere ?! It has to be generated somewhere, not just spent and circulated.

This is the philosophy of people who are oblivious to where it all comes from, probably public servants and their lifelong clients.

Here we are, mourning the passing of a great man, who spent 27 years in jail, breaking rocks, and didn't retire from active working life until he was past eighty, and we are supposed to worry about some bludgers who never intend to work a day in their lives ?!

Despicable.

Let's honor Mr Mandela the best sway we can by finding ways to contribute to our societies, by working and paying our way if we are able-bodied, by making a difference, and by leaving the world a little bit richer and happier.

Let's try to find ways to 'encourage' the loafers in our midst to study, train, and otherwise find ways to work and make their proper contribution.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 7 December 2013 7:31:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the only..error..i see..is the name[not the concept]
http://healthydebates.com/21-images-children-sleep-around-world/
it simply..needs a new name..[common/shareholder..payout]
to every-one..born/here.

each/cuntry..pays for its own
[by debt accruing..if necessary]

see little known..is that
EVERY..'country..is...BY treaty/..under maritime-law..
thus each..cuntry..IS..[legally],,operating as a cooperation
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=countries+are+corperations&

thus..ALL..the states children..get a shareholder dividend
[like canadians..get cash..from the money..THEIR/corporate/govt collects]..of course those rich/fat-cat..public servants will never admit..WE DONT..NEED..THEM...telling the living what they canand cant do

THEY ARE ONLY THERE..to serve you
not serve..themselves and their elite mates

if you reap in..the harvest..[of our common-wealth
you must pay us all..for our fair share]

se TOGETHER..we are the joint..LIVING heirs
of the immortal/unseen..BETWEEN us god gave it TO..ALL OF US

yu tells the truth
<<..If you tried to live out in nature, either individually or in groups/tribes/packs, picking and using its resources as you please, as our forefathers did for 100,000s of years, you would be charged with 1001 offences, arrested and thrown in a small cell.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/oregon-girl-barred-from-selling-mistletoe-but-told-its-okay-to-beg/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/americanization-leading-the-way-to-gutting-worker-protections/
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/electric-car-owner-arrested-%E2%80%98stealing%E2%80%99-5-cents-power

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517898/Hunger-Britain-public-health-emergency-number-people-turning-food-banks-feed-families-soars.html

These offences would include trespassing, breaking fences, contaminating water-reservoirs, lighting fires, stealing, hunting and fishing protected animals, use of weapons, endangering traffic and rail, indecent exposure, entering reserved military/security zones, improper disposal of garbage, building and mining without permit, breaking quarantine regulations, failing to register children and pets, having illegal pets, failing to pay council-rates and for water and sewerage, breaking health-and-safety regulations, etc.>>
http://investmentwatchblog.com/flashback-never-forget-who-stole-your-future/
http://12160.info/page/incredible-minutes-from-a-1974-henry-kissinger-staff-meeting-on-g

http://investmentwatchblog.com/hyperreport-pensions-vaporized/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517858/RBS-NatWest-blame-DECADES-scrimping-IT-Cyber-Monday-fiasco.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=005_1386131628
http://whatreallyhappened.com/node?page=1

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/federal-government-assumes-control-of-arizona-forests/
http://investmentwatchblog.com/wall-st-banks-hire-children-of-chinese-leaders-to-make-big-dollars-some-never-work/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-economic-and-political-context-of-student-debt/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rMYLmNT8oY
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/genetic-fallacy-how-monsanto-silences-scientific-dissent/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 7 December 2013 8:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
there are 3 giffs..ona too fast rotation
but allow what they are SAYING..to seep in
for now skip past them..to the words..*[not quoted]
http://truth-now.net/

related/words..
from..an..other link
Accountability in Government… in the Words of JFK

So what happened to accountability in government? Surely questions related to the lawful validity of Government are not simply vexatious? Rather, isn’t a “Government” official who declines scrutiny into the lawful validity of their office claiming to be above the law?

In 1961 US President John F Kennedy made a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association that everyone in Government – and those who believe Government do not have to answer to the people - should listen to.

He stated: “Government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security…. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them” said Kennedy. Those are powerful words.

So if this is the case, does real government simply shut up when its validity is challenged? Or does it attempt to address the concerns of those it is supposed to serve, especially as public pressure to do so continues to mount?

And if they don’t serve us…. who ARE they serving?? What would happen if the “Government” started to act as the Executor of a trust – dictating rules, codes and statutes to you?

What happens if “Government” started demanding that benefits be returned to them..?

How could this happen..?
http://truth-now.net/corporations-masquerading-as-government-part-ii-which-government-can-we-trust/

ASK>>NOT*..what..EXTRA YOU MUST*_DO..for govt
but DARE ASK..what does govt do..for you?
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 7 December 2013 9:17:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth "Where does this bucket of money come from, if not from workers somewhere?! It has to be generated somewhere, not just spent and circulated."

Where does the bucket of money paying for all the currently active publicly funded projects come from?

I want most of those projects privatised or abolished.
So that's where much of the money will come from.

You answered yourself: spent and circulated.
A tax on bank transactions would collect a small amount from each transaction.
Since Joe Blow doesn't have a lot of these, compared to Coca Cola or Georgina Rinehart, he won't pay much tax and will also receive the payment.

A tax on *all* bank transactions (no deductions/exemptions) would tax many things not currently taxed (e.g. "deducted" executive mega-salaries and chauffeured limousine expenses, no-gain stock trades and house sales, charities, religious organisations).

Wow, all that public money just appeared out of thin air!
Just by changing the tax law.
And dropping the superfluous government projects.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 7 December 2013 9:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few respondents believe that the ones to benefit from negative-income-tax are no-gooders who do not deserve it, that taking revenge against them is even more important than saving tax-payer's money (by allowing them that meagre income and eliminating the middleman that costs so much more).

So I would like to pause here and give examples of some other people who will benefit from unconditional negative-income-tax:

* Tom works for a private-investigation company which trades under two different names. A customer walks to what-he-believes-are two different companies and asks each to investigate a certain matter. The boss calls Tom and asks him to carry the investigation, then prepare two separate reports with somewhat different wordings, for that same customer, so the company is paid twice for the same job. Tom understands that this is immoral, so he can now tell his boss that he won't do it because he knows that if fired, he has negative-income-tax to fall on if necessary.

* Young Mary is unable to work because she has severe morning-sickness. She is horrified at the idea of pregnancy and is not ready to see a doctor who may hand her that verdict. Under the current system, 3 people are to be paid with tax-money: Mary, some Centerlink inquisitor and a doctor. Now it is only Mary, who can take her time to see a doctor only if/when she wants.

* Dick wants to be a farmer because he believes a certain new crop can do wonders. He bought farm-land with all his savings and started cultivating that crop. However, it takes a few years for it to grow and meanwhile he needs a little money to get by.

* Dorothy is a devout Christian who spends her life as she believes Christ would: helping old and frail people around her neighbourhood. She does their shopping, cooking and cleaning, washes their feet and a few other chores. Because she is independent and works on faith alone, she refuses to operate under any formal charity or supervision or even to waste time on making records of her services.

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 December 2013 12:05:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...continued)

* Harry is a potter. He spends his days making nice pots and places his decorative art-work in public parks. People young-and-old enjoy his work, but he wouldn't commit to work under contract because he believes that would compromise the artistic value.

* Jane worked at the same place for 35 years. She doesn't feel that she could work anywhere else at her age, so she has nightmares about being sacked or the workplace closing-down. She visits doctors for her anxiety, who prescribe her medication that doesn't do much. With the introduction of negative-income-tax, Jane is no longer worried. She sleeps well, no-longer sees doctors, chucks her medicine in the bin and her productivity at work increases.

* The baker asks Joe, his assistant, to add sugar to the dough. Joe finds out that the baker discovered a legal-loophole to write some obscure word in the ingredient-list instead of 'sugar' in order to avoid informing the customers that there is sugar in the bread. Joe is now unafraid to tell the baker to stop that practice and the baker agrees, telling him "OK, no more sugar".

* Later, Joe discovers that the baker still comes at night and adds sugar to the dough, so he quits. He then talks with another baker that tells him: "You're a good guy, I'd be happy to employ you Mate, but I can only afford to pay you $10/hour to be competitive with cheap Chinese markets". "No worries", says Joe, it's better than nothing and together with my negative-income-tax I can get by.

* A true story (name changed): Melissa (60) had physical issues preventing her from doing many jobs, but Centerlink told her that she is still able to walk and distribute pamphlets to letter-boxes for a big supermarket. While she hated the immorality of the idea, she would go hungry without it, so she did. Who suffers other than Melissa? EVERYONE! We are all victims to the tyranny of junk-mail. Even placing signs on our letter-boxes doesn't help. The ones to gain from negative-income-tax in this case are ALL OF US!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 December 2013 12:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. yuyutsu, Greetings.

I have been following the arguments presented here with great interest but I must take issue with your last sentence:

The ones to gain from negative-income-tax in this case are ALL OF US!

My answer s definitely not. There are people, my 3 sons, who work very long hours and pay an inordinate amount of income tax and as they tell me ... " for a bunch of bludgers". In times of difficulty we ( their parents ) support them, still. They have been taught to look after themselves for the main thing that was provided was a good education and instilled in them the value of work. " a fair days pay for a fair days work" not to have the fruits of their labor " ripped off" them to be distributed to all and sundry.

Sorry but that is how working people seei it.
Posted by Kilmouski, Sunday, 8 December 2013 7:58:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings Kilmouski,

The "ALL OF US" was in the context of the last example, i.e. all of us will benefit from not having junk-mail.

Your sons don't like paying tax, but they already do and with this reform they'll pay less. At the end of the day, no one goes hungry in Australia and those that insist on not-working, do not anyway, only they currently learn to cheat on that road and in the worse case, also to break-in and do other crime (then we also have to feed them in jail, and their guards).

As you go through the examples, you can see that many of those who gain are working people. Not all gain is financial - integrity and peace of mind are no less important.

Note also that the good of others and the good of the economy are two distinctly separate things. While there is some overlap, not all who work for much money contribute to the good of others and many who do not work for money contribute even more. Perhaps your sons work too hard and should relax a bit.

Dear Pericles,

You are partially correct about my lack of knowledge of hippies: it's just that there were no hippies in my country of origin, so all I knew about them at the time is that they have long hair, never wash, do drugs, make much noise, have orgies all day and hate their parents and in fact all old people over 30.

So I don't consider myself a hippy, never did, because I don't answer to any of the above description. I do recall though dancing to the tune of "shake it to the left, shake it to the right, shake it to the hippy hippy shake", not that I could understand at the time either the words or the concepts of that song.

As I just explained to Kilmouski, I'm going to stop the cat-and-mouse game, not extend it. As I remove the cat, the mouse will have nobody to cheat. Feeding cats is more expensive than feeding mice. It's simple logic!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 December 2013 11:23:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
clearly austerity..has failed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG4bwMiMJb8
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 8 December 2013 4:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
steve keen
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 8 December 2013 4:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

Imagine living in a society where every adult Australian received the dole - you, me, and James Packer, with a reduced amount for children. Where all income was taxed at a flat rate, with no exceptions allowed, and no loopholes.

Consider a $10,000 dole, and a 40% tax rate, initially.

With this system, those earning under $25,000, where the tax equals the dole, will be supported by those earning more, automatically. We actually do this now, very inefficiently and unfairly, through a very complex system handled by thousands of employees of the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink, almost all of whom would now be redundant.

You have very eloquently advocated a similar system, much better than I could possibly do, but take it further. This "dole" is not charity, but is better viewed as dividends on investments - infrastructure - made by our forefathers in Australia. We don't consider James Packer a bludger for his unearned income!

We have been inventing labour-saving devices ever since we could think, and should by now be working 20-hour weeks. We could be working on that unfinished novel, learning about quantum physics, laying on the beach, or just spending more time with the family.

To your list of benefits, I would add the huge simplification possible. With a fixed tax rate, I lose the incentive to move income to other family members - they're all on the same rate. If Holden does pull out of Australia - no big deal - the newly unemployed are already on the dole.
Posted by Beaucoupbob, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, Beaucoupbob, it won't work the way you think it will.

>>Consider a $10,000 dole, and a 40% tax rate, initially.<<

The assumptions that you make are the same as Yuyutsu's. That when you implement these changes, all the other variables remain the same. Making a change that alters the outcome for everyone, will cause everyone to adjust their behaviours to maximise their personal outcomes from the new regime.

First problem: on what value will the 40% tax be levied? Earnings? Consumption? Transactions?

From the context, I'm pretty sure you meant income. So, the next issue will be what you determine to be the definition of "income"? Easy for the standard PAYG taxpayer. But that won't attract any additional revenue from James Packer. Rely on that. His tax lawyer will institute the necessary changes to accommodate your definition, and that will be that. If you'd like some evidence as to how this happens, take a look at the behaviours of the high-earners in the UK when the top rate of tax hit 98% in the early seventies.

You can also see that behaviours would change in the face of an increased consumption tax, or the imposition of a transaction tax. In the former case, more old people and those on fixed incomes would go without, and in the latter, the market would simply avoid transacting in Australia if there were alternatives. Which, of course, there always will be.

All I'm saying is that there is no simplistic solution that will enable the sort of universal bludger-support that Yuyustu is advocating.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 9:19:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Of course I agree that there is no simplistic solution to all the problems of the world. What is proposed is an improvement on what we now have, hopefully one of many. There will still be murders and rapists and tax-avoiders, but if a flat tax rate is also implemented and unfair tax-deductions removed, then it will be harder for Packer's lawyers to find legal avoidance tricks.

We cannot base our life on the worst-of-the-worst. If your sole goal is to punish Packer and squeeze the last cent out of his pockets, then may I suggest that water-boarding is a more effective method - but do we want to live in a society where water-boarding is the norm?

I do not support transaction-tax. The main tax should be levied on income as it currently is, but with less exemptions. I believe that it doesn't need to be quite as high as 40% and the dole not quite as low as $10,000, but as Beaucoupbob commented, this is just "initially" and with other reductions in government expenditure the tax-rate should be somewhat lower and the dole slightly higher.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:25:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

>>Consider a $9,000 dole, and a 30% tax rate, initially, on all income.

(Graham Young advised me about a year ago that 30%, not 40%, is necessary so as to include payroll tax in the system)

I've obviously misled you! I'm not seeking to get more out of James Packer. I'm looking at a tax system where all income is taxed the same; where the only possible way of reducing one's tax is to reduce one's income. Where tax-consultancy is obsolete. Packer would gain too, he's on a higher incremental tax now, than the 30% I'm proposing.

Peter Costello once commented that we need a complex tax system because we live in a complex society. He had it precisely arse about - we live in a complex society because of the complexity of our tax laws, laws that almost invariably consist of loopholes that favour the rich. If there are a few to help the poor among the 500,000 odd pages, the poor can't afford the legal advice to find them.

Imagine the simplicity! If I have a business that makes $1,000,000 before paying my staff, I need merely pay the tax-witheld salary agreed on, and send $300,000 to the taxman. I don't need an accountant, and as far as the ATO is concerned, I need not even know the names of my workers. Unless my workers have capital gains or some other unusual windfall, they need not submit a tax return. With the present system, if I have more than six or seven workers, I must spend half a day a week on tax stuff. And it's a reasonable assumption that Australians spend approximately $20Billion on tax compliance costs.

Of course people will still try to avoid tax, and of course we may still have a consumption tax. And we'll still need a (much smaller) Centrelink for people with special needs. I'm only interested in simplifying the tax and welfare system, with a system much fairer, and so simple that all transactions could be done on your typical home computer.
Posted by Beaucoupbob, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 4:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "His tax lawyer will institute the necessary changes to accommodate your definition"

Not if there are *no* loopholes to exploit.
With a transaction tax, his lawyer will be out of a job.

A bank transaction tax cannot be avoided.
And a higher rate for foreign transactions discourages attempting to offshore your finances.

Packer will pay *more* to transfer money to the Cayman Islands than he would to bank it here.

"the market would simply avoid transacting in Australia if there were alternatives"

There won't be.
It would be made illegal to conduct *domestic* purchases/sales/payments of any kind using foreign accounts.
The money must come from and be paid into an Australian account.

If Packer offshores, when he needs to buy a new Ferrari, he'll then have to transfer (at a higher rate again) money *back* to Australia to pay the dealer.
There is no benefit to using foreign accounts. You just end up paying more tax.

Simple solutions are possible.
It's *perfect* solutions that are impossible.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 8:53:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must be missing something here, Beaucoupbob.

>>Imagine the simplicity! If I have a business that makes $1,000,000 before paying my staff, I need merely pay the tax-witheld salary agreed on, and send $300,000 to the taxman.<<

How does that differ from the present PAYG set-up?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 12 December 2013 5:48:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy