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.