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.