Greens leader Richard Di Natale has proposed a radical overhaul of Australia’s welfare system through the introduction of a universal basic income scheme, but critics believe this would only increase inequality.

“We need a universal basic income. We need a UBI that ensures everyone has access to an adequate level of income, as well as access to universal social services, health, education and housing,” he said.

“A UBI is a bold move towards equality. It epitomises a government which looks after its citizens, in contrast to the old parties, who say ‘look out for yourselves’. It’s about an increased role for government in our rapidly changing world.

“The Greens are the only party proudly arguing for a much stronger role for government. Today’s problems require government to be more active and more interventionist, not less.”
http://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2018/04/greens-call-universal-basic-income/

From whence the money?

di Natale is probably the main reason very few people take the 6% Greens seriously. There are others of course, but there have been Greens leaders in the past who were almost human. This on one is a fruit loop of the first order.

They have finally admitted they are more communist than the comunists

It sounds like he is proposing a miminum wage system. And potentially to have a living wage be the minimum standard. What I don't get is if he is arguing to do this just for the employed or also the unemployed. The article mentioned the unemployed as well, and that sounds disasterous.

If all he's proposing is a minimum wage system (which usually is put on the shoulders of employers not tax payers) then there are countries that have that system and within it actively debate if it's worth it or if it needs to be pushed to increased the minimum. Poverty exists even with a minimum wage. The question is does it help reduce poverty, or contribute to a lack of jobs?

An excellent speech by Richard Di Natale, articulating the progressive green agenda that Australia should be following if we wants a worthwhile society for today and into the future.

A Peoples Bank is something I have been in favor of for many years.

Here's what I'm thinking:
- Marketed to an increasingly dependent welfare class as this: "Universal Basic Income - A Step Forward"
Where the less fortunate or less informed people in our society might be tricked into thinking its a good deal and support it.
- But the real truth to it all is that this is actually:
"Universal Basic Income - A Step Forward (And Two Steps Back)"

This will plunge the nation further into debt, benefitting not the Australian people, but private central banks.

I see this whole debate as being stupid and pointless and a demonstation of lunacy logic in absense of good policy.

Why do we pay politicians anything if they fail to develop good policy?

To me the answer is simple, stop giving money as a welfare solution and give people the option of a job and helping themselves instead - double dole doing meaningful work that helps the government save money.

Don't force people but use peer pressure of 'creating a culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed'.

No, NNS, it doesn't sound like a living wage system, it sounds like a giving-people-money-for-nothing system, which is typical of Green policy. Only a nutter like di Nasty could come up with a scheme whereby some people worked to provide taxes to ensure that others who didn't want to work could live as well as taxpayers - the usual bludgers, immigrants who never had a work ethic, tricksters claiming to be refugees etc. - could live as well as a lot of the taxpayers providing for them. I believe even children would be bunged a couple of grand a year. As for further fouling up our safe, excellent banking system with a 'people's bank' - pure communism, which describes the Green party perfectly.

Armchair,
Double dole wouldn't be enough, though apart from that I agree with your conclusions.
But what will it take to cure you of the delusion that private central banks exist?

___________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Just because something's a bad idea doesn't mean it should be misrepresented! Nobody's proposing a UBI so high that bludgers could live as well as taxpayers. Indeed that would be extremely difficult, as the main thing that distinguishes a UBI from a conventional welfare system is that the taxpayers would also be UBI recipients.

And our banking system may be safe, but excellent it is not! Lack of real competition enables the banks to act in a parasitic way, skimming billions in profits from their customers instead of passing on more of the savings from low interest rates. The government starting another big bank would be a good policy, as it would address the lack of competition.

Aidan,

I not sure how I 'misrepresented' this totally bad idea. And I didn't think I needed to say 'some' taxpayers. I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about low income workers who also contribute to bludgers who would not be getting much less than they do. Already, many bludgers are better off the than low-income workers, with all the allowances and perks they get for not working.

Compared with other countries, our banking system IS excellent, in my opinion. You will have to explain the form of competition you think should prevail. There are several banks, and there are also credit unions in the market place. I cannot believe that you go along with this 'people's bank' idea. Banks are actually there to make a profit, Aidan; self-interest is one of the keys of the private enterprise system.

Ah well. Even our ridiculous main stream politicians are not going to countenance such a potty scheme, so there's not much point in getting het up about it.

ttbn,
Under the UBI system, the low income workers would get their wages plus UBI. Whereas the bludgers (and, importantly, those who want to work but are unable to) would only get UBI. So the low income workers would always be much better off than the bludgers.

I agree that our banking system is a lot better than those of many other countries. But that doesn't change the fact that it is inefficient. The banks generally make huge profits from high markups, knowing that it's a far more profitable strategy than competing aggressively.

Do you understand yet? Banks are there to provide a service to their customers. Of course they are profit motivated, just like any other businesses. But the big banks making bigger profits at the expense of their customers is not a desirable situation - indeed it amounts to a market failure. And credit unions and other small financial institutions are unable to correct this market failure. But a big new government owned bank could.

Ok, for those who don't understand what a bad idea this is,

imagine a teacher with a class of students, some get As, others Bs, most get Cs and a few get Ds and Fs.

So, the Teacher is a Greens supporter and says all students who failed or got a D now get a C, all A students now only get a B and B students get a C.

The D anf F students love the idea as they don't have to do anything and still pass, the A and B students think, why should I study and try hard if I'm penalised for doing well. The C students think likewise, why study as I'm guaranteed a pass mark anyway.

So at the end of the year, everyone gets a C and no one has studied or worked hard, the students are now 12 months behind their peers and would all fail passing high school. We now have 20-30 children guaranteed to be on the dole.

A universal basic income would lower the standard of living for all, reduce education standards and increase crime.

kirby483,
Your analogy is complete garbage. A UBI would not put anyone in a position where they wouldn't gain a significant advantage from working more.

A UBI would not reduce education standards.
A UBI would not increase crime.
Nor would it lower the standard of living for all, though it would for some. And the proportion of people using it as a reason not to work would be small (though still significant).

But UBI proponents fail to realise how quickly the gains from UBI could be swallowed up by a housing bubble. And worst of all, they tend to use it as a way of dealing with the problem of insufficient available work, instead of solving the problem.

Adian,
you fail to see basic human traits, if we have no incentive to work, why work? If you penalise people who do work (higher tax bracket of 70+ percent) they will simply leave and live in a low tax country

you said "Your analogy is complete garbage. A UBI would not put anyone in a position where they wouldn't gain a significant advantage from working more."
Yes it will, if I can live on a basic wage, why work? all the low paid jobs would not be done, cleaners, waiters, child care workers etc, why would they work, if someone who doesn't earns the same amount. There is no incentive

"A UBI would not reduce education standards". Yes it would as many children would simply stop studying if they are guaranteed a regular income. Teachers earning $70k a year would think , why should I teach and have all the stress when I can earn $50k for doing nothing.

"A UBI would not increase crime." Yes it would, idle leads to boredom, which leads to vandalism , drugs and crime.

If it is going to cost $450 billion a year to fund this, who pays? The tax payer, so any clever person will go and live in a low tax country, leaving a small minority to pay more taxes. Look at Zimbabwe or even South Australia, higher taxes to fund socialist schemes has led to mass exodus of young people to other states and countries

"Nor would it lower the standard of living for all", again yes it would . see above, less tax payers means something has to give and that means less services (health, education, roads) and a lower standard of living for all.

Basic wage would have to keep up with inflation, which means taxes would also, which would cause more inflation, which would cause more demand on basic wages etc etc, so we get hyper inflation and lower living standards

we have seen what pouring billions of dollars of tax payer money into Indigeneous communities have produced!

Hi Aiden,
I think double dole is simple and reasonable.
Surely better that the $20 they currently give to WFTD recipients for travel allowance (that doesn't even cover travel - so I'm told)
It gives incentive to work, and makes people productive that were previously doing nothing.

In a greater context, I also see it as an offset to 'humans becoming obselete'.
If we take the 5% of workers capitalism requires to prtevent wage growth and create a socialist base level employment scheme within that 5% - use the socialist workers to create more private sector opportunities - then we're always going to have a 'people power' resource that finds the most efficient jobs for people to do.

Regards: Private Central Banks - I don't know, speak to me like a four year old and use very small words maybe...
What can you tell me about this Comer Lawsuit, and Bank of Nth Dakota type banking as opposed to normal types of banking?

- And well argued Kirby -

Good point, runner.
The Hippie communities flourished on the Nth Coast of NSW because a guaranteed income + good climate + co-operative living gave plenty of time for surfing and exploring the alternative lifestyle in general.

There was/is no need to be employed when physical or other labour can be exchanged for food and a living space.

Oh God!

How often do we have to make the same damn fool mistakes.

When Russia & China tried the collective farming system, & gave to each according to their needs, what the hell happened?

Yep, starvation. They produced stuff all, when they personally could not profit from that production. Millions died.

As soon as they gave the peasants an interest in their production, they became food exporters.

The definition of insanity is to expect different results from the same action.

When these idiot greens in their previous incarnation as Communists tried this they killed millions. Now disguised as Greens they want to run it again.

Are they insane, or pure evil, wanting to harm as many of their fellow human beings as possible? Probably both, as well as being totally disgusting.

kirby483,

Before falsely accusing me of failing to see basic human traits, try actually reading what I've written!

Is money not an incentive to work?

Do you imagine that if everyone had the option to work part time, nobody would work full time because they'd have no incentive?

Or did you, as I suspect, simply fail to comprehend that the UBI would be in addition to wages, not instead of them.

And certainly nobody's suggesting a UBI anywhere near $50k/y, nor anything that pushes our tax rate up to 70+%.

The UBI would be a slight disincentive, and that alone may be sufficient reason to oppose it. But it would not be the enormous disincentive to work that you imagine it to be.

BTW nobody has left South Australia due to high taxes. People have left because of lack of opportunity, but that had very little to do with state taxes. As for Zimbabwe, people left because the economy collapsed - not because of high taxes, but because their government held their currency's official value far above its real value while discouraging foreign investment and declaring war on their main export industry. If you want an example of the effects of high taxes, you should look at South Africa.

_____________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
As bad as the UBI proposal is, it has nothing to do with collective farming, and does not make the same mistakes.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
The US Federal Reserve is the only central bank in the world that's not 100% government owned.

The Bank of North Dakota is neither private nor central.

The COMER Lawsuit alleged that control of the Bank of Canada had been given over to private interests. It was thrown out. I suspect it would have done better had it not made that accusation.

I have no suggestions to make as to a 'better' system, because I, like the rest of you are not privy to the true facts that the pollies have at hand on a day-to-day basis, so we cannot make informed comments. What we can discuss is the arrogance of a 'gardener', 'tree hugger', etc. who has conned his way into becoming a polly with no notable political experience. He has never made a policy suggestion worth listening to. C'mon, for crying out loud. A political party called 'The Greens'? Really? That alone should have sent alarm bells ringing to any thinking, reasonably intelligent person. Oh wait, I forgot. The greens voters are all pre-pubesent children. We must not take this guy or anything to do with him seriously. The man, the party, the followers are a few apples short of a crop. So by all means carry on speculating what we should and should not do, but if we do not have the govt info, our discussions will be moot.

What an arrogant opinion ALTRAV. You a supporter of the likes of Pauline Hanson, Corey Bernardi and George Christensen, three of the extremists of Australian politics who are incapable of offering anything intelligent in the way of useful policy. What they do offer, and is appealing to the bottom feeders in society is hate speak based on cornball logic. You refer to "reasonably intelligent person" and I can only assume you count yourself among that group.

P1405, who the hell said I support ANY of these nobodies? The best I'll go is if anyone of them actually said something worth hearing, I'll go with that, but I certainly don't follow them blindly. Heck I don't even know of most of them. Now you dare to call ME arrogant. No I would reserve that privilege for the greens, starting with that uber con who has the gall to call himself a minister of the crown. His true title should be 'administer of a clown'. Paul, even you, must pull up short at the thought that some idiots dare to promote themselves as a political party when their platform is all about the environment and nothing to do with the economy or even people. They belong in some hippy camp smelling flowers and mind bending drugs not getting involved in something as vital and important as running a large corporation/business like a country. I don't like any of the pollies today. They are all self-serving greedy and yes, arrogant scum, with only one thing on their minds; how they can further their personal wealth. By attacking me you display a clear support for the people I denigrate. Maybe your a greens supporter? Oh, and BTW, I AM in that 'reasonably intelligent' group.

ALTRAVE, you hold a totally blinkered and distorted view of the Greens, if they are the one you are referring to, but like all, you are entitled to your opinion. Given your total irrationality of thought, which comes through in your posts, there is little point in debating the facts. However I will ask you one question; Did you tune into Greens leader Richard Di Natale National Press Club address?

Who is this "uber con who has the gall to call himself a minister of the crown." you refer to?

Maybe your a greens supporter? No a fully paid up member.

I had assumed ALTRAV's Friday post was an attempt at satire.

Well mine wasn't Aidan, it was straight fact.

Why have you & Paul not had a go at that, cat got your tongue?

Hasbeen,

Yes, I know yours wasn't.
I did reply to it, but I misdirected it to ttbn.
My apologies to both of you.

P1405, HAH, yeh, sure, fully paid up member? I thought I made myself clear. Not only am I, NOT a fully paid up member of the greens. I'm also not a fully paid up member of any other colour poly party. I hate them all for what they stand for and what they are doing to us, all in our name, would you believe. The line I really love is; 'for the greater good'. This is supposed to appease me in the continuing event of them stuffing up again and again. Every decision these mongrels have made, for decades, has not been for our good, but to our detriment. If I suggest voting for the fringes, it's because they are the cat's that get thrown amongst the pidgeons. The club has been getting better and better at sticking it to us. By voting for outsiders it will at the very least stop them from making any more crappy laws, which further hinder our very lives on a day-to-day basis. Paul, not only did I not tune into the 'gardener' as he shmoozed his well rehearsed BS, but I might remind all that he is just another con-man like all the rest of them 'on the hill'. I see such an event as, one example comes to mind; The un-informed preaching to the mis-informed. These events are a non-event, and therefore of absolutely no use to man or beast.

Hi Paul,

Speaking of bottom-feeders: Lenin seemed to have one solution to that 'problem': "He who does not work, neither shall he not eat." In the early days in SA, the Protector provided rations for all aborigines in the Adelaide area. But he soon realised that they should not be provided to the able-bodied men, they still had all the rights to hunt and fish - gathering was more of a women's responsibility, and I suspect they benefited most from the daily issue of flour, a pound per person, enough for a two-pound (1 kg) loaf, rather than scouring the bush all day for grass seed and processing it, lugging around basic equipment and a couple of kids. Of course, Noel Pearson has explored the difficulties of encouraging people to step down from the 'welfare pedestal' and taking on actual work.

I wonder how a proposal might work out if we assumed that it was cost-neutral, if it could be initiated by redistribution rather than incurring extra costs which would have to found from somewhere. Or someone. Providing for bludgers may be much more expensive than di Natale's thought bubble might suggest, and a roughly-equitable 'redistribution' might dip into low-paid workers' wages as well as the vast incomes of the cigar-smoking bloated capitalists. One problem with this is that many low-paid workers might perceive that their weekly income is not much more than - or maybe be even less than - this UBI for bludgers, and decide to chuck their jobs in, and become lifelong bludgers too.

On the other hand, if some progressive party were to propose that, come hell or high water, we had to have effectively full employment, with all able-bodied people contributing to society and the economy, that might be initially expensive, trying to motivate bludgers to work, or to train for available jobs, but sooner or later, once the bludgers have been given every opportunity to find work, and cast into utter destitution once they have knocked them back, the increased working population would be earning and contributing to a more equitable society.

Joe

Has this UBI proposal been tested against the apparent (because it's just something I heard and cannot swear to) phenomenon of about 50% of the population taking out more in welfare and benefits than they are actually paying in taxes. Would slinging more free money at people alter this situation - make it worse, make it better?

Everyone has an opinion about how good an idea is.
There's nothing wrong with ideas....the wrong is when you get morons to implement the best of them.
Has everyone forgotten the Rudds and Gillards not to mention Turnbull's fiasco with the NBN
Politicians who have not studied science have no idea of structure and it's importance.
So you take Di Natale's idea....give it to a few public servants and you're back to where it all began, given that you have a society who struggles with the English language and the comprehensible abilities required to implement the finites of any concept

The cynicism expressed by many on here towards politicians is to some degree justified. However, having worked with, and known many politicians personally over the years the reality is somewhat different, most are not greedy self service indulgent power hounds at all. Just the opposite, most I have known, do have a sense of the community, and are out to make a difference and do some good. In that I include politicians of all political persuasions.

The cynics can carry on all they like, but in the end even they will have to admit we need leaders and lawmakers, otherwise where would we be.

Anyway, Moneybags Malcolm is coming up to his thirtieth tomorrow, it could be a day for celebration for some, maybe the Mad Monk will have backed a cake to make the occasion. Phony Tony is already asking the big question; What's to be done with a leader that loses 30 'Newspolls' in a row? For the last one it was used as the justification to give him the flick! What goes around comes around.

Nobody, including di Natale, has a clue how much this pie in the sky would cost; it just sounds good - to some people who do not have to take any responsibility for their ravings.

I do believe that some enter politics for the right reasons. They are naive. To succeed in politics you have to 'give and take'. You give away something someone else wants and you take something you want. Parliament House is a big negotiating chamber. Sometimes polys have to backtrack or give up some ideals to get a proposal passed because he needs the votes on the floor. It is at this moment when it first happens he has lost his innocence and virginity as a poly and he has left himself wide open for further deals, corrupt or otherwise. You cannot have principals in govt.It just does not happen.Sure when you meet them socially, they are the picture of perfection and you want to take them home. In reality, the truth is quite different. Of the polys I know and have known I can say 'this is the way of Jedi, my son'. So for those of us always bagging polys, don't despair, they are as thick as a brick and covered in Teflon so whatever we say and do will just bounce off. They will never challenge anyone for bagging them because they don't want to draw negative attention to themselves and risk being 'looked into'. So long live the bagging, may it continue.

ALTRAV, I have a very good friend who is a state MP, we socialize with a coffee, I can ask what's on the agenda for the day. Most of the time the agenda is rater mundane, committees, other meetings, office duties, correspondence, taking calls, there is also a fair bit of travel involved. It is a full day, leaving at 8am, drive or get to work by PT (yes some MP's use the bus, with no chauffeur to pick them up), and returning at 8pm, there is actually a lot in it. Not everyday is concerned with "world events", and the actual amount of time spent sitting in the parliament is a minimum. Like all workers, some polys are hardworking and consciences, other not so.
There is a human side to politicians as well, one duty might be to make sure the cat has a bowl of feed and water before you leave for work, that's important to.

My goodness,

So this is what it would have been like when the idea of a universal health system was proposed. Screams of 'reds under the bed' or people 'getting money for nothing'. Just look at the language in the US decrying a Medicare style system for themselves. Communism! Death Squads!

It took men and women of vision to give us what we now take for granted. Now I'm not sure De Natalie quite fits that bill but there sure as hell very little of it from the Coalition.

There is a case for looking at a basic universal income in a measured fashion. There are many components that would help decrease inequality and help take people out of welfare traps. I have some concerns but feel a proper, non-partisan debate of the issue is well warranted.

WhAT DOES this Universal thing entail Oh, they want a world government? Well Greens will never be in power, as a government, they are for robbing the rich to give to the poor, universally I can imagine what a Saudi Arabian prince or sheik might say They push alternative energy will save the planet. Well radiation and oil are a health hazard, but it won't change the climate. Pollution yes, but it won't change the climate. Anyway, this government ignored my request for an increase in single pensioner home owners amount. If I rented my house the government would pay me the rent assistance. But maintaining a home, rates, maintenance, insurance cost a lot. We do get some concession rebates on rates of land rates but not for sewerage and garbage disposal. I pay $160.00 a month out of my pension for rates, water and house. I am paying back a loan to cover $1000 for a sewer repair. And 95 dollars a fortnight for electricity. Plus a funeral insurance of 104.00 a fortnight, House and car insurance, and by the time all this comes out, oh, $50.00 a week, car repairs and $40.00 a fortnight car petrol and oil. And someone has to pay, it is just single pensioners are the worst off if they happen to own their own home.

One figure for the cost of this bodgie scheme is $270 plus billion per year. It has been described as a scam which could be used by governments to dodge their commitments to full employment. It has also been suggested that, as people in work would receive the free money also, they would possibly work less and productivity would drop. I haven't seen anything positive said about it apart from the usual big government free-loaders.

Hi Steele, the predictable chorus from the conservative peanut gallery whenever anyone floats a progressive idea is, it is a ridiculous idea, too expensive, immoral even. The Conservatives do not want ideas put forward for discussion. Discussion can lead to implementation, and we don't want implementation.

The Conservatives opposed universal healthcare when it was first put forward. They lampooned it with all their usual gusto. Given the chance the Conservatives would abolish 'Medicare' tomorrow if they could. The only problem is overcoming the 80% of Australians who support it.

Valiant effort, Paul, but have you noticed all the money that has been thrown at the Aboriginal communities and the effect that that has had?

//Valiant effort, Paul, but have you noticed all the money that has been thrown at the Aboriginal communities//

That's not a UBI. The closest thing to an established UBI I could find is the Alaska Permanent Fund:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Readers may be interested to note that the APF has not led to the collapse of Alaskan society.

The closest thing was communism in Russia & China, & it led to major starvation & the collapse of both societies.

What the hell is "progressive" about trying to give the communist system another run under a different name.

More & more we see the greens displaying their old communist past. I guess they think there are enough kids now who have no idea of the catastrophe that it brought to those under it.

Dear Hasbeen,

And when you combine communism/socialism with a decent democratic structure you get a mechanism for securing better futures for emerging countries.

The Kibbutz movement in Israel was a formative bedrock for that country, producing several prime ministers, and it was soundly grounded in communistic ideals. Its rigidity understandably abated as the country developed but its role was formative.

The success of the Scandinavian countries is also driven by strong socialist measures. Their future compared to that of the most hyper-capitalist nation the US is looking far more positive.

A universal basic income is a perfect policy for the lunatic fringe greens as it promises money for everyone but completely fails to account for where the money comes from.

Given that the entire government expenditure is roughly $450bn, (25% of GDP) whacking an additional $250bn on top would require increasing taxes by nearly 60% which in turn would wipe out investment, incentives for working etc.

Something only idiots could seriously consider.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing & expect a different outcome.

Only a bureaucrat & perhaps the bludgers, could believe government control of the majority of a countries cash flow would be a good thing.

Hasbeen,
"The closest thing was communism in Russia & China"
That sounds very much like you're lazily viewing things through a 1960s cold war prism - you regard communism as "the enemy" and so oppose anything that bears even the slightest resemblance to any form of communism, regardless of the effects it would have.

Your claim is also objectively false, as Toni Lavis has identified something much closer.
There have also been small scale UBI trials which (according to what I've heard on ABC RN) worked well.

There are many good reasons to oppose a UBI. Indeed I oppose it because I regard it as inefficient, expensive, and an excuse for governments to neglect their duty of ensuring sufficient jobs are created. I also think that the reduced incentive to work would, though slight, still be a problem.

But the suggestion that it's akin to collective farming is laughable. And nobody is claiming it would be the majority of a country's cashflow.

The trials mentioned by Aidan were actually one very small one in an part of Finland, and it was too small to extrapolate over an entire country. The people getting money for nothing certainly thought it was 'successful', but like all Reds, they didn't give thought to where the money was coming from. It is a two year trial that hasn't come up with any results yet.

UBI is a leftist dream. In our capitalistic, individually driven society I believe it would not work. Trying to accommodate everyone has never worked. Heck, how many times have I said, democracy sucks. Why because 51% of the population get what they want. The other half can go and get stuffed. It infuriates me to see moron pollies throwing out all these lollies and the other morons catching them saying how wonderful they are and what they're going to do for us. Once they get in, it's all forgotten. So before you all go espousing the virtues of d!ckheads like duh nutterie, and the like think about why their suggestions won't work. These people are not pollies so they have worse than no idea what they're talking about. They are on about the same level as Hanson, and I've got much more time for her than this idiot. UBI's don't work, end of. It's the thing of warm fuzzy feelings, long walks along the beach at sunset, sipping double latte's at some idyllic little cafe setting by the river. Now snap out of it and keep your dreams to yourself because in the real world it is nothing like that. There are still thieves ,cheats, con-men and so on. We do not aspire to communes and the like so UBI's remain a taboo topic.

$23,000 to everyone over 18, including multi millionaires, no means test. Plus a government-owned bank for low cost mortgages. There is no doubt whatever Green is now synonymous with communism.

http://thecorrespondent.com/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

Quote;

London, May 2009. A small experiment involving thirteen homeless men takes off. They are street veterans. Some of them have been sleeping on the cold tiles of The Square Mile, the financial center of Europe, for more than forty years. Their presence is far from cheap. Police, legal services, healthcare: the thirteen cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Every year.

That spring, a local charity takes a radical decision. The street veterans are to become the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays for them. The men will get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. They’ll each receive 3,000 pounds, cash, with no strings attached. The men are free to decide what to spend it on; counseling services are completely optional. No requirements, no hard questions. The only question they have to answer is:

What do you think is good for you?

A year after the experiment had started, eleven out of thirteen had a roof above their heads. They accepted accommodation, enrolled in education, learnt how to cook, got treatment for drug use, visited their families and made plans for the future. ‘I loved the cold weather,’ one of them remembers. ‘Now I hate it.’ After decades of authorities’ fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, eleven notorious vagrants finally moved off the streets.

Costs? 50,000 pounds a year, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving eleven individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of at least 7. Even The Economist concluded:

‘The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.’

End quote

SteeleRedux, great story and I'm sure it happened the way it was described. What it doesn't say is the terms of reference or the schedule of assessment. We don't have any standards or parameters to gauge the results from or about. When I see these types of surveys, well any survey actually, I am reminded of a time when the surveys were tilted towards the desired results thereby ensuring the outcome of the result before hand. Now I'm not saying this is what went on here, but, to a skeptic, like myself, I must look at the data and the terms of reference to fully appreciate the findings or end result. Never-the-less, I was pleased to see the result.

SR,

To explode some of your false facts:

1 The kibbutz while socialist in nature was not the bedrock of modern Israel and at its peak employed about 80 000 people or less than 4% of the population.

2 The USA has roughly 3x the growth rate of any Scandinavian country and a lower unemployment rate.

3 The last country that was "democratic socialist" was Venusuala which was an unmitigated disaster, and all socialism in 3rd world countries was simply an excuse to loot.

4 An experiment with 13 hand-picked homeless men is not representative of even what will happen with homeless men generally. The most effective treatment so far is to quarantine drug addicts' welfare payments.

Steele, good result. I can say from my experience the majority of the poor are not poor because of bad money management. For example most aged pensioners with a very limited income, are very good at managing their finances. Most likely they have a pre-pension history of good money management. The people who have a problem, are the mentally ill, those on drugs and/or alcohol, those with a gambling problem, those with substantial debt. There is a poverty trap, where people live hand to mouth, week in, week out, and can't break out of the cycle. Maybe for some a boost from a cash handout is all they need. Interesting.

di Natale is proof that obscurity, mediocrity and sheer silliness is no barrier to being elected to the senate.

And I'll Trump (a bit of a pun there) your Di Natale with the fruit loop from the fish shop, the Lovely Pauline, and the ace in the hole, Corny Banana.

Shadow,
2. How do you draw that conclusion? The graph at https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/sweden-gdp-growth.png?s=swgdpaqq&v=201802280853v&url2=/united-states/gdp-growth tells a rather different story. As for unemployment, I think it would make more sense to compare the employment rate, as the US economy was depressed for so long that many people there gave up looking for work.

3. You're forgetting Bolivia. But of course that doesn't fit your narrative so well: there capitalism was an excuse to loot. Socialism was a reaction against that, and so far it seems to be doing OK.

Please understand that not all socialism shares the anti business characteristics of Venezuelan socialism!

4. What evidence do you have that quarantining addicts' welfare payments is the most effective solution? Indeed what evidence do you have that it's more effective than doing nothing?

Social Welfare assists a Country to wind down production and increase unemployment. The accepted Government holds the power over the people rather than the People are the governing power.

Aidan,

2 https://tradingeconomics.com/countries Sweden's growth rate is presently 0.9% and the US is presently 2.9%. US unemployment 4.1% and Sweden's 6.3%. Remember that the SR's statement referred to the current state of affairs.

3 Only a few years ago socialists were trumpeting Venusuala as the utopia that all governments should aim for, and now citizens are using the currency to wipe their bottoms.

Bolivia is hardly a shining example either and its economy has been all over the map.

https://tradingeconomics.com/bolivia/gdp-growth

4 The trials of quarantining income for addicts has been a great success in Aus compared the vast majority of addicts spending their welfare money on drugs.

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“The trials of quarantining income for addicts has been a great success in Aus compared the vast majority of addicts spending their welfare money on drugs.”

Oh bunkum.

Can you at least wait until some decent data comes in before spouting off.

The cashless welfare card used during the intervention had very mixed results;

“… little evidence to date that income management is resulting in widespread behaviour change, either with respect to building an ability to effectively manage money or in building ‘socially responsible behaviour’ beyond the direct impact of limiting the amount that can be spent on some items.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/IncomeManagement

Are you really trying to say this is a superior system/solution to the life changing impacts UBI had on the group of long term homeless in London?

The term heartless ideologue comes to mind. Come on mate think for your bloody self or does the notion of keeping a certain section of people down fit with your world view.

Shadow,
2. I stand corrected; I'd failed to notice the two lines on the graph I posted did not share the same scale.

3. Who exactly were these socialists who were trumpeting Venezuela as a utopia? If they were real, they should have known better; even when Venezuela appeared to be successful, it was obvious that there were things the government was doing wrong.

But though their antibusiness socialism did great damage to their economy,it was not what collapsed their currency. That was the result of their government maintaining a fixed official exchange rate to the US dollar even when the oil price collapsed. Had they let the market determine their currency's value, they could've exported their way out of trouble.

Regarding your Bolivia link, if you click on MAX you'll see there have long been big seasonal fluctuations. Indeed they used to be bigger than they are now, and the socialists coming to power in 2005 did not make much of a difference.

4. Claiming it to be a great success is insufficient. What evidence do you have that they're actually sending less on drugs?

[Sorry, that should say "actually spending less on drugs"]

Alternatively I'd accept evidence showing the addicts are actually working more.

SR,

Following your usual modus operandi of ignoring all the points you've lost and homing in on one where you think you have a chance.

So assuming that your claims being bollocks of
1) The kibbutzim being the cornerstones of Israel,
2) The Scandinavian countries outperforming the US
3) Democratic socialism being the panacea for 3rd world ills

Your heartwarming homily about the 11 homeless chosen from thousands who given a pile of dosh suddenly turned their lives around is wildly unrepresentative of real life. The quarantining of welfare had one purpose, and that was to stop people with drug habits spending their money on drugs and using it for housing, food etc, which it did.

I have no doubt that there are people for whom a hand out will change their lives, but for the other 99.9% of people, the money is simply a waste.

//The most effective treatment so far is to quarantine drug addicts' welfare payments.//

How does that help the unemployed who don't have drug problems, i.e. most of them?

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“Following your usual modus operandi of ignoring all the points you've lost and homing in on one where you think you have a chance.”

No you clown, I just stopped enabling your normal diversionary tactics and focused on the topic at hand which was UBI.

I could have shown how the Kibbutz movement started in the Ottoman era and continued to grow through British rule. I could have pointed out that at its peak the movement represented over 7% of the population at its peak and over 120,000 members. I could have gone on to say that over 15% of Israel's cabinet members were made up from those in the movement and to illustrate how important they were in the defense of Israel. But then you could have found this out yourself by a quick look at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Next I could have pointed out how shallow your notion of a country's success is., that to measure these things purely on blunt economic statistics shows little imagination and is quite revealing of your base beliefs, that the average GDP per capita of the Scandinavian countries combined outstrips that of the US, that you were quoting indicators not confirmed data.

Sweden GDP Growth rate = 3.3%
http://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp-growth-annual

USA GDP Growth rate = 2.6%
http://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

I could have mentioned that Sweden has a workforce participation rate of 72.9%
http://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/labor-force-participation-rate

While the US languishes at an abysimal 62.9%
http://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

I could have gone on to note that Sweden ranks 9th for the life expectancy of its citizens while the US ranks 31st, one above Cuba. That the US has the highest ratio of its citizenry incarcerated than any other country in the world.

Why do you think I no longer have the inclination got to this extent with you any longer? Because you have turned into a lightweight. You are not quite to runner's standard but the neo-con mantas that you spew out so regularly are so easily disassembled and shown for the nonsense they are that the challenge has gone out of the game.

SR,

Resorting to ad hominems again? The first sign of a feeble intellect.

As for lightweights, introducing targeted trial on a handful of people as representative of a nationwide policy is intellectually shoddy if not dishonest. What do you recommend next? Investment in Lotto tickets based on the experience of winners?

As for the kibbutzim, while important to Israel culturally, normally makes up a tiny fraction of the population, the rest of whom are strongly capitalist and even then have given up much of their pure socialist origins with many differentiating on pay and outsourcing teaching etc.

Similarly, employment/unemployment rates are based on those looking for work, and the US's unemployment is 4% which is pretty close to full employment. Participation rates are calculated differently in different countries, for example, Sweden's official retirement age when one is excluded from the calculation is 61 and in the US 67.

Similarly, average life expectancy is greatly affected by genetics and lifestyle, and Singapore which is rampantly capitalist has the same life expectancy as Sweden.

However, I do admit that the two graphs I pulled from trading economics appear to be using different scales:
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/sweden-gdp-growth.png?s=swgdpaqq&v=201802280853v&d1=20080101&d2=20181231
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&v=201803281234v&d1=20080101&d2=20181231

You still have yet to provide any evidence that a UBI is in any way superior to a decent welfare system.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Resorting to ad hominems again? The first sign of a feeble intellect.”

Oh my dear fellow, not withstanding my feeble intellect any ad hominems from me pale in comparison to calling someone anti-Semitic, something you never properly retracted. So get over them as they are likely to continue.

Well done on conceding you were wrong with your figures on the relative GDF growth rates between the USA and Sweden. You originally contended that they supported the merits of hard capitalism over democratic socialism. Now that they have been shown to be the other way around you will of course be conceding the opposite.

As to employment participation, since 2001 the trend for Sweden has been positive steadily rising from under 71% to over 72% while the US has fallen from nearly 68% to 63%.

What criteria for success are you now going to tout?

Meanwhile UBI is something worth having a look at. Nixon was actually seriously considering one for the US.

"The next year, Richard Nixon was on the verge of making these economists’ dream a reality by enacting an unconditional income for all poor families. It would have been a massive step forward in the War on Poverty, guaranteeing a family of four $1,600 a year, equivalent to roughly $10,000 in 2016."
http://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/

This from a republican president. Why won't you even give it the most basic consideration?

SR,

Well done on conceding your feeble intellect. Now I see why you struggle with the concept of unemployment vs participation rates.

In small words, the unemployment rate is the % of people willing to work who cannot find employment which is 4% (considered full employment) in the US and 6.3% in Sweden (worse than Aus in the GFC) So essentially if you want to work in the US, you can, but not necessarily so in Sweden.

The participation rate is the % of people either in work or looking for work within the employable age. If fewer people need to work in the US why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Having spent some time in both Sweden and the US, the costs of just living in Sweden is vastly higher than in the US, from food to cars to petrol, and as a result life in Sweden is generally far more modest than in the US even on nominally the same income.

Finally, giving money to poor families is called welfare, giving money to everyone is UBI.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think I conceded an enfeebled intellect for the both of us actually.

As to participation rate look at what happened to it after the GFC;

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191734/us-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-since-1990/

So 7% of the employed workforce just decided they didn't want to work any more? And then when things got “better” they decided to continue not working. Why do you think that was mate? Let's see your thinking cap for once.

SR,

Fair enough.

With regards the UBI, the whole concept of creating vast bureaucracies to tax people and give their money back seems patently ridiculous. If people need welfare then give it to them based on their needs.

As for the US participation rate, it has dropped 3% from 2008 to 2017 but seems to be picking up again as unemployment drops. As for the reasons I can only guess that with the GFC some people simply dropped out, took retrenchment packages, or retired.

It amused me how so many think a job and a basic income is a given.

Unless you create your own job, i.e business, then your job is the product of someone else's risk and you had better brace yourself as wages and conditions are about to go south very quickly.

The warning signs have been there for quite a while, however the likes of unions just don't see that what goes up, must also be allowed to come back down. It's the basic principle of supply V demand, and the demand for jobs is going to explode, but the supply of jobs is reducing meaning fierce competition for the fewer jobs.

You can't say you were not warned.

rechtub, finally someone having the stones to tell it like it is. You were short and sweet. I have tried to explain to some of these brainiacs that we have priced ourselves out of the market. I hope everyone had a good time while they were demanding more and more, now we see the results of that stupidity and greed. It amuses me that the govt and unions carry on about all these jobs and retraining and so on. The truth is quite different. With the thousands of jobs becoming vacant, there are not enough jobs to cater to all these retrenched workers. I will put it another way. Our labour cost is too expensive. We cannot compete. Anyone who suggests we make things to sell to ourselves, is a fool. It is clear to any thinking man that the only things that are making money and exports for Australia, involves little or no value added, or Aussie labour. Fortunately scale of economy takes care of the things we do export and lucky for us, we do. Dig stuff out of the ground, grow stuff on the ground. Crops, livestock etc; all with a minimum cost per unit product. I have cautioned many times, inflation is our enemy. Tell the govt to stop their push for higher inflation, it must be kept at a low and constant rate. If it is allowed to rise it helps create Ponzies, which every ten years or so is massaged into a GFC, by the powers that be so they scrape off billions at our expense. So the people must take stock by accepting that they are going to feel pain, even more than thus far. The property market MUST take, self imposed hit to the tune of minimum 20% to 30%. As should wages. I have warned that either we control the downgrading of our assets and incomes or it will be done for us by the banks and their malicious ,mal-vivant mongrels.