A1 should read AI of course.

The World Economic Forum and it's Great Reset proposes a universal basic income as part of its global plan.

A variant of UBI is called "negative income tax (NIT)", and yes, a few slight modifications can make it workable in Australia:

1) While UBI is automatically available to everyone, only those with no income or very-low income earners receive NIT. The others receive it on paper only.

2) NIT itself is not taxable, but everyone's income becomes technically taxable from the first dollar. In practice, for almost all existing taxpayers (excluding non-residents who already pay tax from the first dollar), NIT and the extra tax cancel each other, so the net effect is zero (thus the lower tax-rates may need to be adjusted according to the desired amount of NIT).

3) NIT will replace the whole welfare system, not just unemployment benefits, simplifying all payments and letting go of 10,000s non-productive government jobs.

4) People can elect to receive NIT either through their tax-return, or by claiming online at any time that they have no (or very little) income. Why they have no (or very little) income is no one's business, provided they tell the truth. In that case they will automatically receive weekly/fortnightly payments, then have their accounts balanced at tax time.

The benefits have already been described in the article, so I need not repeat.

One thing that was omitted in the article is the rationale, or what is it that makes UBI/NIT morally justified:

I suggest that UBI/NIT can be justified as a form of a compensation payment.
Modern society created such conditions where survival is no longer possible without money, effectively outlawing traditional and natural lifestyles which did not use money.

That is very sad and while most people are happy with that arrangement, there are those who do not, who are devastated by it, and it is only fair that modern societies compensate their victims by handing them the only remaining means still allowed for their survival - money!

Getting rid of negative gearing would sort the whole money circus !
Of course, a lot of hangers-on would need to swallow some humble tablets until they can muster the integrity for getting merit based employment !

The elephant in the room when it comes to the direct payment of welfare is the very generous aged welfare in the form of pensions being paid to too many old folk with millions in assets, and money in their kids bank accounts. These non contributors, their numbers are growing rapidly as they live longer, and they are demanding more and more of the taxpayer dollar be spent on them in the form of direct payments and services. This situation is unsustainable in the long term, what is need is a 'Seniors National Service' where old folk can work 20 hours a week up to their 80th birthday, then have that reduced by 1 hours a week for every year above, until they reach 100, at which time they will then be given a nice letter from Charles, and a government funded birthday cake with 100 candles, a win win situation.

Here I am agreeing with 14.05klm from Nimbin!

A means based welfare system would be an ideal innovation to reduce the burden of taxation on the wealthy that they continually whine about.

The savings could be invested into Government social housing, an added benefit towards the genuinely needy in society: IE welfare dollars directed towards a genuine need.

With the demise of the LNP, effectively the accumulation of the top end of well off, now might be an ideal moment in political history to achieve it.