Please excuse my ignorance as I'm not an economist, but wouldn't the proposal made by John have a very adverse effect on our economy? If we start paying everyone $500 a year above the single age pension rate with no questions asked then what motivation will people have to work? I would seriously reconsider whether it would be worth doing the 9-6 grind each day if I was guaranteed that kind of income and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that.

We already here about people complaining about the lack of skilled workers, and I can only see this proposal making the situation worse. To attract people to work, you would have to pay them significant amounts of money just to get them in - and that's just the menial work! Why take on a job you hate if you are being looked after so well by the government? Business costs would increase significantly which would surely damage our international competitiveness?

If a significant portion of the population decides not too work, then where will all the tax come from to pay for these payments? I believe the Australian companies and the rich would flee the country as they would be taxed to the hilt. Then our economy would be totally destroyed.

Maybe I am seeing this proposal from the wrong angle, but I see this proposal as being very bad for our economy. Don't get me wrong, I would love to receive $500++ from the government, but it just doesn't seem sustainable.

BIC: Yeah, it sounds lovely doesn't it, but your objections are pretty glaring oversights by the author. I have to wonder how many academics out there still can't admit that they were wrong about Communism and want to keep redressing it up. The phrase "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind...

Yet they wonder why most people take them with a grain of salt.

The Howard IR laws will go to the high court today. The most important legal case in 50-100yrs and you selfish Howard voters only care about dancing with the stars. your kids will thankyou.

Standing on this BI level playing field it all looks very good but in reality the civil, political and economic rights of the most disadvantaged - all who live and travel on a road full of very deep potholes - would confound the idealistic intention of the BI proponents. Utopian ideals are one thing, facing the actual realities of the everyday for the most disadvantaged is quite another.

I see no evidence of support for a BI from these people.

And who and what determines what a “livable wage” should be - and for whom and where?

Yes means testing is dysfunctional but so too is an egalitarian system of wealth distribution that is blind to the large holes that the existing system has already created.

I think it's offensive to call someone a "selfish Howard voter" simply for questioning the authors proposal. First of all I'm not a Howard voter and secondly I do care about these IR laws and how they will affect my job. I don't see the relevance of either of these things to my original post.

Communism seems like a more sustainable system than the one proposed by the author. At least people would have to do some form of work which would support the economy thereby generating more money for the state to collect and redistribute.

I'd be interested to know how the author of this article would:
a) Fund the system without affecting the economy. After all it is only the result of a successful economy that we can afford decent education, welfare and health.
b) How to keep people motivated enough to want to contribute to the economy.

I do agree with the author that we need fundamental change to the tax system and a better way of distributing the wealth, but I'm not sure this proposal is the best option.

I for one don't feel that calling someone a selfish Howard voter offensive. If the shoe fits.