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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.