Duly noted, Grim.

>>getting to the moon... the Harbour Bridge? The Sydney Opera House, the Snowy River Scheme?...<<

These took place between 1961-69, 1912-32, 1954-73, and 1949-74 respectively.

No politician would even suggest any such scheme today. As John Button unwittingly proved, the machinery of government is now firmly focused on doing the very minimum, and avoiding responsibility at all costs.

That's why there are so many "consultants" sucking on the public teat. Public servants would rather sell their grandmother into slavery than actually do anything "courageous".

Incidentally, Justice Higgins' ruling in ex parte H V Mackay was overturned on appeal. And determined to be constitutionally invalid in R v Barger. Even his vision suffered from being trampled underfoot by the system.

Are you serious, Thinker 2?

"The solution is simple Otonoko. Just don't let people who abandon Australia for riches, live here, invest here or retain the benefits of citizenship, own property etc, here again. We make them ultimately choose to live somewhere else as well. We could still make this place, the place too be, making most smart people want to be here, by providing opportunities for development, other than relying on commercial processes to do so."

To actually enforce such a policy would require us to revoke the citizenship of anyone who went to work overseas for a couple of years if they happened to earn more there than they do here. I have a good friend who worked as an engineer in the Emirates for four years. He learnt a lot over there (and brought home a fat wallet as well) and is now applying his learning back home in Australia. Your policy would have him stuck overseas for life, denied citizenship of his home country (I can see the headlines now, as he is aboriginal). You would also ban every Australian musician who tries to break into the US market, every Australian actor who tries to make it big in Hollywood and every Australian scholar who tries to earn his stripes at Oxford.

If we want to be competitive on the international stage, we can't become insular and ban our citizens from seeking opportunities overseas.

Divergence,

One important difference between the Speenhamland System and what Rehctub and I suggest, is that subsistence will be assured by the government, not by the parish. Another difference is that one needs not become destitute to receive negative income-tax.

The idea is simple: if you earn $X/year and X is less than a given threshold (T), then you receive a negative tax of (T-X)*30% (which you can apply to receive in weekly installments if under cash hardship). This way, you retain an incentive not only to work, but also to bargain for better pay conditions. If you are unhappy with your job, either because it is too hard, because it pays too little or because the employer makes unethical demands on you, then you can stay home without starving (living on 0.3T), and that places pressure on the employer to improve your conditions. The power to set the minimum-wage and conditions is therefore in the hands of every worker. Because you can now take your time to find a decent employment and are not obliged to accept the first job offered, you (or your union if you choose to belong to one) may just as well bargain for a higher wage than is currently being fixed as minimum by the government uniformly across all occupations and all circumstances.

This comes in place of the already-existing unemployment-benefit hoax, which treats the unemployed (and under-employed) as scum, encourages them to cheat (as most unemployed people do), to play cat-and-mouse with Centrelink pretending to be seeking employment where in fact they have no incentive, or even a negative incentive, to do so.

So far I presented our idea from a practical/financial perspective, but the primary incentive for it is not financial, but moral:

1. If two people agree on a deal between them, then who the hell is the government to tell them they are not allowed to?

2. Forcing people to work has an ugly name: Slavery! and that's simply not on. The current system allows Centrelink to force people onto unethical jobs (or else starve). The proposed system prevents that.

Hi Yuyutsu, while I share some sympathy for your views I find the concept of paying people to sit on their bums doing nothing while others work rather unappealing (even if they are called 'investors').
In an age when so many 'work' in offices, I think it's about time we acknowledge that learning is work. Indeed, surely it must be harder to acquire knowledge, than to apply knowledge already gained? I know my 2 children worked hard at school (although somehow managing to learn less than I did, who hardly worked at all; very strange).
I would like to see an hourly rate of pay offered for education. If you find yourself unemployed for more than a few weeks, go back to school -or technical college- and pick up more skills/knowledge.
The more hours you apply to your education the faster you can be employed and the more you get paid.
The hourly rate would provide a safety net, which employers would have to compete against, while the higher rate of pay by employers would provide a real incentive, as the options would be between work (education) and work (applying the education); rather than sit at home and spend as little as possible, or take on work that only pays marginally more, and inevitably increases expenditure.

I think your onto something there Grim.

And now we are drilling down to the social fabric, the place where this discussion should be had. Thanks Grim.

I'm not entirely serious Otonoko, but you get the idea. I suspect however, that some incentives or deterrence wouldn't go astray, when it comes to the brain drain this country is experiencing and businesses are not the only consideration or recipients of a smarter or more informed population, we are as well.

For a long time business in Australia has reaped the benefit of our better than average Public Education system, now in decline at the hands of ideological loonies and wreckers.

Business is never going to give something back unless compelled by legislation
(not when there is a buck to be made), instead.

Hi Grim,

...Just started courses in ancient-mongolian philosophy, advanced numerology and Ph.D about the drinking habits of OLO users... my children also teach me patience...

Seriously, someone sitting on their bums is better than someone breaking into your home because they are hungry, or even than someone begging in the streets, or even than someone who cheats Centrelink (we pay many of the later anyway).

Unless you're OK with slavery, some leakage is unavoidable, but lets face it, living on a subsitence pension is not a reason to celebrate, so why not work a bit on top and retain 70% of your income?

The moral justification for that leakage is that:
1) Everyone receives it, not just those who do not work or study (if you work, you receive it by not paying any tax on your first $T).
2) It is a rightful compensation for the fact that modern society has created an environment where it impossible to subsist without money. Anyone for example who attempts to go around hunting and gathering in nature, will face such a wall of laws and by-laws that very soon they will find themselves in prison (and keeping them there would cost society much more!). It is only fair that those who enjoy the use of money should give back just a little bit to those who are victims of its use, whom they wrecklessly denied the opportunity to feed themselves in other ways.

Besides, most unemployed who do not study either are not sitting on their bums, but are likely to be helping their community and families in informal ways. Those who do just sit on the bums, are either saints that meditate, radiate peace and bless us; or more likely ill/disabled people. Yes of course, the later could get disability-pension, but for some it is an unfairly humiliating process. To receive the pension they are forced to see doctors and beaurocrats and to admit to the world, to their families and often even to themselves, that they are unhealthy. It is simply wrong to force them into it against their will.