Dear Diver Dan,

The word universal in the title means just that, for everyone over the age of 18, rich or poor.

It is just like Medicare. All should be able to access it. The moves now to say the better off are obligated to get private health insurance and use private hospitals is just another insidious way of dismantling it.

Yang calls it a "freedom dividend".

From his website;

"Andrew would implement the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year, for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future.

Other than regular increases to keep up the cost of living, any change to the Freedom Dividend would require a constitutional amendment.

It will be illegal to lend or borrow against one’s Dividend.

A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people. Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy."
http://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

UBI = utterly bad idea.

Though small trials of it have ben successful, there would be very big problems scaling it up, and the benefits from it could quickly be wiped out by increasing land prices.

UBI is inefficient. It would cost the government a lot of money, but the government would get nothing in return.

And most importantly, UBI is not what's needed. Jobs are.

with Trump making an absolute mockery of his naysayers when it comes to employment, economy and trade deals you would think the marxist would at least ease off. Instead they love to destroy success.

While I'm not directly opposed to a UBI for Australia I think a negative income tax is the better way to go.

That there is a problem headed our way is beyond doubt although I remain sceptical as to the timeline some are talking about. For example Yang is suggesting, based on expert advice, that the apocalypse for the trucking industry is coming in the next ten years. That it is coming is beyond doubt but they were predicting it would happen 10 years from now ten years ago ie in 2010 driverless trucks and cars were predicted for 2020. So 2030? Maybe, maybe not. But sometime, definitely. Retail on the other hand will feel it first. Even Maccas, where they employ low paid kids, finds it cheaper to use automated ordering.

So timing unclear, but effect absolutely certain.

Based on Yang's number and extrapolating to Australia, a UBI of $1000 per month would cost us around $80 billion per year. (an NBN year in year out).
But $12000pa is hardly going to cut it. Once introduced the call to equate it to the pension would be immediate and ultimately irresistible. So perhaps $200b per year

Alaska pays for it with oil money. Let's start fracking and do likewise.

So a negative income tax? This would need to be combined with the removal of the minimum wage. The employee would get paid less from the employer but make it up through the tax system. The employer, paying lower wages, would find automation less attractive and therefore would delay the introduction of automation.

So for example, the truckie can't compete with a driverless truck if he's paid anything like a living wage. But if his wage was halved and the balance made up from negative tax, then he would be able to compete, at least for a while.

/cont

/cont

The advantage of the negative tax is that it is self-correcting. All previous employment disruptions eg computers were predicted to decimate jobs. They didn't. This time probably will be different but that's not certain. A UBI locks in payments irrespective of the jobs market. A negative tax responds to the rise and/or fall in the jobs market as it eventuates.

So I'd say UBI is a good solution but not the best solution.

mhaze,
We want MORE automation, not less!
'Tis stupid to pay people to do what a machine could when there's no shortage of more worthwhile things they could be doing instead.