Universal Basic Income (UBI) Will Soon Be Needed

Automation and AI is moving at breakneck speed. Within a few years, we will see lots of jobs disapear. Already there are McDonalds being trailed with no staff. There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation. Factory jobs are increasingly being replaced by robots. During Covid we saw changes to retail, education and business that are still having effects. Retailers now no longer need huge stores and staff, Universities can offer on-line education in many areas without needed huge investments in land and staff, and traditional books are replaced with online versions. Businesses can have staff work from home, or even replace them with AI, and no longer need huge inner city offices. All of these changes have flow on effects, like cafes that now have less customers, bookstores that arent needed etc. So there will be a lot less jobs, and more people out of work.

But this will be so massive, that it will affect business. If there are less people with money to spend, this will impact business, who will then need to cut back, reduce staff etc. And governments will need to spend more on welfare, while recieving less taxes from income and purchases. It could be the start of a downward spiral that could destroy economies worldwide.

So what is the answer?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a social welfare payment that is made to every working age person. It is not income tested, and applies to every person in the nation. It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend. It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

So why everyone?

Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed. People can decide to keep working full time, and have more money, cut back to part time, or not work at all. It gives people back a life. Humans did not always work. We work to enable ourselves to live. If we can work less, we can have time to persue other interests, like hobbies, gardening, education spending time with families etc. These can change over a lifetime, so people can decide when to work more and when to cut back. This will free up more casual and part time jobs. And yes, some people will decide that they want to sit around all day and watch TV. Thats fine. Its a choice.
Business will keep operating and have customers. So the economy keeps working.

How will we afford it? Aside from savings by not needing Centrelink etc, we only need to revise the way we tax. At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax. One idea might be to instead tax on turnover, which could be a very small rate on top of the GST, or replace the GST. Another option might be to put a base rate on products, for example 10% on all mining products etc, even those exported. Income tax could be removed, and businesses could reduce wages paid (without a reduction to the worker of the Nett ammount) as incentives etc. There are plenty of options and governments have already started looking at it.

The biggest obstacle will be the people themselves. There will be a group who will not want it just because it will mean that some people might decide to do nothing. This envy and jealousy will be a major reason for them to oppose it. It will bring about a better distribution of wealth, and a happier society, but some people would rather see others live in poverty. This is real, and is the reason why we still have a war on drugs. Our governmen is aware of research and trials in other nations where all drugs were legalised, as long as they were obtained through doctors. Initially drug use went up, then dropped massively. Drug deaths dropped, because people were seeing doctors, and drugs came from pharmacies so were safer. But the best part was that drug related crime disappeared, so much that prisons strted to empty. So better all round. But we wont see it here in a hurry, because if a party introduces this today, people would oppose it and would vote them out. The majority of people want others to suffer and be punished for what they dont agree with. Envy and jealousy. So this require governments to educate people over time.

Some people have estimated that we will hit a crisis point in 10 years. Others say that the recent advancements in AI might make it 5.
What do you think?

Comments

      • I’d also be spending much more time immersed in nature and exploring

        Good for you, not good for nature

    • Yes you can still work and earn more, but there would be a significant number of people who would be happy to stay on the UBI. Then boredom could take over and crime rises.

      Isn't that a bit contradicting? If people were bored they would happily work and get extra money.

      • I’m sure a lot of bored people would instead get into drugs and UBI won’t be enough to cover drugs so they would commit crimes to get the extra money, rather than work. Just like what happens already.

        • +3

          @iCandy

          I’m sure a lot of bored people would instead get into drugs

          Seriously? Is that your argument against a UBI?

          This discussion must have really triggered your pearl-clutching propensities.

          • @Roman Sandstorm: Sorry I have a different opinion to you as to how that will go. Deal with it.

    • +2

      A UBI doesn’t necessarily mean no incentive to do things, it’s typically at a low enough level most people would be unsatisfied with it. Trials showed people used the knowledge that failure wouldn’t mean starvation to start business, perform voluntary work etc.

      Imagine being a cop in a world with 30% unemployment and NO UBI? Ultimately it’s mass unemployment that will bring a UBI to democratic countries, not some sort of other ideology. The pandemic proved this out. Even a conservative government basically introduced a UBI for several months.

      • Yes but we were locked in our homes.

        • Who was locked in their homes?

    • lol. "Then boredom could take over and crime rises"

      "I'm bored might go Mug someone"
      Love that reasoning haha

      • Reading comprehension isn’t your thing.

        • Sorry bro, i got bored in class during reading comprehension so decided to commit crimes.

  • +3

    There seems to be plenty of comments here along the lines of "UBI won't work".
    But I can't see any specific reasons provided to back that assertion.

    • +1

      Because it cost too much and the money has to come from somewhere. How much do you think is needed per person when the OP says "It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend."

      • +3

        There would appear to be a bit of a trade-off as some expensive programmes, such as Jobseeker or whatever it is called now, and the associated administrative expenses, could be curtailed.
        If supported by a sensible taxation approach, it could be easily affordable.

        • +1

          Higher taxes, got it. Why are all you so coy about it, lol.

          If companies did actually pay 30% tax instead of using the law/loopholes to get out of it; then sure we'd have more money to spend.

          But why use it on ubi. That just encourages people to not work while punishing those that do with income tax. Should just lower income tax instead.

          • +2

            @ozhunter: Higher taxes on paper but the same income in your pocket because of the UBI.

            Lowering income tax means less money is available for population level initiatives, it means less investment into a healthy and happy society. It's a simplistic 'more money in my pocket, yay!" approach that fails to appreciate the bigger picture that is your wider community. America has marginally lower taxes, but lower minimum wage, and healthcare costs that if you get sick, vastly outstrip (by orders of magnitude) any savings you might have made through lower income tax. Things are cheaper if you can pay for them en masse, rather than as an individual. And if there is literally not difference to what you receive - why wouldn't you support something that is there for you and your community?

            It's a great idea, a long time away though.

            • @MessyG:

              Lowering income tax means less money is available for population level initiatives

              Same with ubi

              it means less investment into a healthy and happy society. It's a simplistic 'more money in my pocket, yay!" approach that fails to appreciate the bigger picture that is your wider community.

              Someone's happiness as the reason to give them free money is the dumbest metric to use. Let's take money from Person A because Person B is unhappy. B could just work 2 days a week to receive the same income he'd get from ubi. Their happiness is their own responsibility.

              why wouldn't you support something that is there for you and your community?

              Why wouldn't the dole bludgers support themselves and the community by simply going to work and not just be freeloaders. UBI would just incentivizes this behavior; lower taxes would incentivize people to go out and look for work.

          • +1

            @ozhunter: All the trials for UBI showed people worked more, not less. They started businesses, volunteered more etc. Because people can get a basic job that has no stress doesn’t mean people don’t want more money and take higher paying more stressful jobs.

            In the flip side, lower income taxes at the high end actually discourage work, because getting to keep more money means people need to work less to get the same income. Basically it doesn’t work the way you think it does, quite the opposite.

            The fact that we tax work at double the rate we tax investment seems to indicate we don’t care about disincentivising work.

            To fund a UBI ultimately would require taxes companies can’t avoid like consumption taxes. They won’t introduce a UBI to cause unemployment, they’ll end up introducing one because of unemployment to try and repair society.

            • @JumperC:

              All the trials for UBI showed people worked more, not less. They started businesses, volunteered more etc

              Lol, how many of those businesses would still be going. If they have no issue working, then they don't need ubi; unless they just want to "work" sitting in the comfort of their own home "starting their own business". They can do that during the other 5 days of the week.

              In the flip side, lower income taxes at the high end actually discourage work, because getting to keep more money means people need to work less to get the same income.

              More jobs for others…

              • @ozhunter: The problem is taking a risk to start a business is hard if the result of failure is starvation. It’s not a case of needing the UBI to keep running the business, but having it to support the start. You can get seriously wealthy by being able to take risks, end up employing more people, paying more taxes etc.

                • -1

                  @JumperC: Lol these are excuses are just getting more pathetic. They can still volunteer or start a business while working a couple days a week. Hey let's spend billions on ubi because someone might start a successful business /s.

                  Someone could now go on jobseeker for 6 months(might be 12) and start their business while doing their minimum requirements and then do an easy free course at tafe to get austudy.

                  • +1

                    @ozhunter:

                    Someone could now go on jobseeker for 6 months(might be 12) and start their business while doing their minimum requirements and then do an easy free course at tafe to get austudy.

                    Lol. So detached from reality. Good luck starting anything on an income that won't pay for both food and transport.

                    It doesn't matter what you think are 'excuses' they're actual outcomes based on trials.

                    https://www.quantumrun.com/prediction/universal-basic-income…

                    Regardless we're not going to be doing this because there are alternatives, we'll be doing this because there simply won't be jobs to offer people. When there's 20% unemployment it's going to seem like a cheap alternative to the social unrest. Especially when the recession flows to those who were still employed who have their hours cut because fewer and fewer people can afford to patronize their employers.

                    • @JumperC:

                      Good luck starting anything on an income that won't pay for both food and transport.

                      So how much are thinking each person should get?

    • +3

      Because people think higher taxes are the only way to fund UBI. Any other source in unfathomable, despite several models already being proposed. Models that they could easily research on google or even easier, just ask chatgpt to explain it to them in 5yo terms. But no, parroting a sky news retort is much easier.

      • +2

        Higher (but sensible) taxes could fund a UBI.
        The majority of taxation revenues in Australia come from employees / income tax. Flip that to focus on corporate tax, resources tax, etc., and it would probably be funded easily.

      • +1

        It's wilful misunderstanding at this stage. And very limited thinking.

    • Pandemic gives you a pretty damn good picture, farmer, cafe and a whole heap of low pay job they can't get worker
      everyone gets a hand out so they don't need to work and they use that money to speculates on mem stocks, crypto and all sort of collectables.

      as soon as the hand out stop
      speculative market collapses, don't see business having trouble getting workers any more

      • You seem to be copy-pasting this bit of misinformation when the reality was a lot more grim.

        Not everyone qualified for payments. People were unsure if they were even allowed to work with the back and forth misinformation and mis-managed lockdowns from governments. I've watched hardworking people breakdown in tears just because they couldn't work or get a payment and were being threatened to get kicked out of their apartments if they didn't have rent on time. Many people were pretty much forced to change occupations because of the uncertainty. Hence the shortage of workers(The other major reason being business owners in the fields you mentioned no longer having access to a steady stream of international workers they could underpay and overwork due to border closures)

        Also, what did you do during the pandemic so we can judge you as well and make assumptions. What the (profanity) was your occupation princess? I'm assuming you were unaffected whatsoever which is why you can make these goofy deluded assumptions that you pulled out of your arse.

      • +2

        People are currently having huge issues getting workers. How blind are you?

        Wasn’t any problems getting workers during the pandemic.

        You’ve got it backwards.

  • In most of Australia $600 per week would be no-where near enough 'to live and also have money left to spend', but let's start there….

    $600 * 21 million adults * 52 weeks = $655 billion

    Welfare currently costs about $200 billion a year, and only about half of that could realistically be replaced by the UBI. (mainly pension, job seeker & family tax benefit)

    So total welfare spend would increase from $200 billion to $755 billion - a 277% increase.

    Where does this money come from?

    • +1

      I wonder if we couldve actually funded this if we didnt sell all our natural resources

      • How would not selling something help us find an extra $655 billion a year?

        • I mean if you're balls enough you can eat coals for dinner

        • +1

          Well, the gas companies alone profit around 40-60 billion a year. UBI would reduce overheads like Centrelink which also run in the billions. I think UBI is supposed to be paired with VAT taxes.

          • +1

            @helpme: How much tax do those gas export companies currently pay?
            And those companies that export our other natural resources?

          • -1

            @helpme: So if we just left the gas in the ground, how much would that earn us?

            • @trapper: Nothing, but that doesn't mean the government couldn't have mined it themselves. I bet you pay a larger percentage of tax than they do

    • to live and also have money left to spend

      UBI is supposed to only cover for the basic of the basics so that you don't die from hunger and weather etc.

      Would it cost less if instead of money, the government provides free meals, accommodation, and basic clothing to everyone who wants it? I think it would, provided the whole supply chain is free from corruption.

      • +1

        Free meals, accommodation, and basic clothing would cost more than $600pw in most of Australia.

        It wouldn't even cover the average rent in some cities.

        • Jobseeker is currently less than $350 a week. Says something about that…

          • @JumperC: You're not supposed to live on job seeker, you're supposed to find a job asap.

            • +1

              @trapper: That’s all fine and good in an economy targeting actual full employment, with people briefly unemployed, that has actual jobs people can do.

              In reality people end up unable to afford to even look for work because they can’t afford transport, presentable clothes, internet access or enough food to avoid developing mental impairments.

              You can see how quickly that notion was abandoned during the height of the pandemic, and what do you know we now have record low unemployment, as people actually had the money to look for work seriously for the first time in years for some of them.

              Ultimately some people are unemployable and that % will increase eventually.

            • @trapper: Disability support pension isn't that much higher either…

        • That huge cost is because we assume that they all be provided by for-profit companies. The government could establish public kitchens, public housing, and outsource cheap clothing directly.
          The unaffordable rent is another problem too.

    • All the income businesses will pay in tax, since they aren't paying any human workers any more apparently…

  • +2

    The amount of overhead involved with centrelink compared with how much they actually pay out is astonishing… The welfare budget for 2021 was $227 billion (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…), the population is only 27 million. If we just split that up we could be getting $10,000 each a year. If you are actually on job seeker, you get $693 a fortnight or ~$18,000 a year.

    People with actual issues don't get a job because they fear losing that income, it would be be more motivating for them to know they will get $10,000 a year regardless and can try jobs without fear.

    To show the worst of it, the basics card was costing $10,000 a year per recipient, just in overhead: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/cashless-welfare-trial-costing-taxpayers-$10k-per-participant/8488268

    • It might be a bit of overhead but it is a drop in the ocean compared to how much the welfare budget is.

      If you split the current welfare budget evenly you’d be massively reducing it for people with high care needs etc. Problem solved when most of them end up dying in weeks I guess.

      A UBI has benefits and will eventually be a thing but it’s a fantasy to think the current welfare budget comes anywhere near covering it. As you point out even the unliveably low jobseeker would be reduced further, along with the loss of rent assistance etc.

      Despite the utter waste that is the basics card, the overhead in the welfare system is much smaller than people think given how few people are covered by things like basics card and how much of the spending is actually pensions with almost no overhead.

      • A bit less than half of welfare is used for NDIS and pension which is split pretty evenly. I doubt that the pension will be maintained once the older generation retire and we're done paying for them. As for the NDIS, I have a very low opinion of how well that money is spent. It is likely to get spent on toys, vacations and excursions for fun just as much as it is likely to spent on things like occupational therapy or speech therapy.

        NDIS should be a definitely thing but it seriously needs a clean up and I hope the pension will be around for when I retire but it will likely just be another hand out everyone else seems to get except those who actually work. I have more hope placed in equal distribution than trusting bureaurocrats whose main concern is their own job security and ability to funnel out tax dollars into their mates businesses.

        No easy solutions for sure.

        Edit: there are things they could do though such as increase taxes on capital gains (i.e. money working) and reduce taxes on wages (i.e. people working). Then at least if you're starting at the bottom, you don't need to spend as long living off beans in a van until you can save up enough capital to work for you.

        • I have a very low opinion of how well that money is spent. It is likely to get spent on toys, vacations and excursions for fun just as much as it is likely to spent on things like occupational therapy or speech therapy.

          It's mostly spent on provider fees actually. Simply people paying minimum award wages to staff or to provide a special 'bed' or whatever while making huge profits. And from what I've seen often services invoiced for that were never provided in the first place. Basically, massive fraud and over charging is the problem, more than frivolity.

          funnel out tax dollars into their mates businesses.

          This.

          But to the point, the government costs of running Centrelink, are still tiny compared to the payout. Just removing a tiny tiny fraction of fraud in the NDIS would pay for Centrelink many times over. Even the biggest waste with Centrelink which are the job provider networks that cost $$$ for almost no benefit compared to the previous CES are still not a huge line item.

  • Ok let's make OZ production increase dramatically. It quite simple but there is no way these policies would pass in this country .
    1) Let's be like some Arab countries and abuse the cheap labour that is readily available overseas . Of course the wages will be like 10% of Aust worker wages.
    2) Everything evolves around 1 but the benefit is somehow distributed in a fair way not to just those that are best at abusing the cheap labour .
    3) Congratulate me for making Australia's productivity advance crazily :)
    4) Oops I probably have made 100 of thousands low skilled workers lose their jobs or get major wage cuts . Sorry hopefully 2 helps.

  • +4

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) will never happen. Rich people(politicians) like to pay as little as possible who will clean their toilets if people can just get UBI

    • you can already see it during the pandemic, no one want to work in cafe or low pay service job. They get better pay staying home and get hand out and they speculate on meme stocks, crypto and football card collections and anything they fancy.

      There is some truth in the proverb
      "Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”

      • +1

        Except the pandemic was a political circus show of mixed messages and mismanagement. People were flat out told to stay at home and not come into work if they were sick. Not sure how this even remotely applies here unless you're suggesting people show up to work even if they test positive. The meme stock thing was in the US where EVERYONE got a payout and people with excess money to burn were the ones investing/many already working from home professionals (if you followed the wsb forums), who were doing this long before government payouts.

        Despite this, there was a boom of out work people starting their own side businesses and online gigs. Many invested in legitimate stocks. Some used the time off and left hospitality and similar onsite jobs, moving to wfh roles in other professions which also had shortages and higher pay. Very few people were 'idle' so to speak. If anything it proved that people were able to flourish and be more productive when they had their basic needs met and didn't have a 40-60hr per week under paying job holding them back.

      • +2

        you can already see it during the pandemic, no one want to work in cafe or low pay service job

        Because they get to deal with the worst-of-the-worst of society.

        • +5

          This is an underrated reason. Had a family member doing uni at the time working in a cafe. They had a bunch of crazies daily that would get irate over masks. Many people that straight up smashed property or attempted to spit in their faces(keep in mind these were just teenage workers). Many pro-mask people weren't any better and threatened to report the business if irate anti-maskers were allowed to go maskless. Another friend working in woolies that experienced the same. daily. This was happening in many places and police rarely did anything unless someone was injured. Incidents were so frequent that police sometimes wouldn't even show up when called.

          By the end of the pandemic almost every customer facing business had signs about abusive behaviour. Accusing people of leaving these jobs because 'they got free money' is just plain ignorant.

    • +1

      will never

      Never say never

    • +5

      Something will happen, because AI is inevitable, and it will result in mass job losses. We will have jobless society who most probably will riot unless we provide them means to live.

      • I just hope the very wealthy who own the AIs and are getting the benefits don't have AI killbots under their command when the shit hits the fan. History shows that it would be very easy for the privileged to decide screw those beneath me (it happens every day in every human grouping), and now they wouldn't even need basic leadership skills and to convince other humans to do the dirty work. It would be easier than ever to push a button to clear out the annoying poors (98% of humanity perhaps), and live in their robo abundance utopia.

        • +1

          Once we get to that stage odds are AI just wipes everyone out. Probably because someone tells it to make paper clips and forgets the halt condition.

    • Who will buy their goods if people have no money to do so?

  • +2

    They could just rename jobseeker to Centrelink basic income. Still have income tests etc so you don't get anything if you make over a certain threshold per fortnight.
    Scrap all the job seeker agencies, obligations that do nothing but siphon government money, remove asset tests and waiting periods.

    If you quit/ lost your job/ change jobs/ want a break between Jobs you log into the Centrelink app. Start your basic payments up and report your income. Employers report through the ATO which is linked to Centrelink already so they can see your income and adjust/ cut you off accordingly.

  • +4

    Fun fact! Australia spends roughly $200 billion on social welfrare each year. If you divide it by population and by number of months in year it is $646 per month, so UBI is not unthinkable when you think about how much is already being spent.

    • Fun fact! Australia spends roughly $200 billion on social welfrare each year.

      Do we scrap all that or is this ubi in addition to it?

      That's around $162/week. The gov already gives much more than that to those who need it. How much should they get?

      • +2

        Do we scrap all that or is this ubi in addition to it?

        UBI would replace all these systems. Simplifying everything. Sadly, govs employees supporting the existing systems would lose their jobs. Oh well… but they would get UBI!

        That's around $162/week. The gov already gives much more than that to those who need it. How much should they get?

        Currently, JobSeeker is $693.10 fortnightly, so we would have to double our social wellfare budget to be able to provide it for everyone. It would be easily doable with higher taxes. You could get more money if you exclude people younger than 18 years from UBI or lowering their UBI.

        • UBI would replace all these systems. Simplifying everything.

          So how much do you think each person needs if you scrap the current social welfare?

          Sadly, govs employees supporting the existing systems would lose their jobs. Oh well… but they would get UBI!

          Less income tax for the government too.

          Currently, JobSeeker is $693.10 fortnightly, so we would have to double our social wellfare budget to be able to provide it for everyone

          Around $770 with rent assistance. Double the welfare budget, it's so simple lol. They should just print more money and make everyone millionaires.

          • @ozhunter:

            So how much do you think each person needs if you scrap the current social welfare?

            Matching JobSeeker payments should be enough.

            Around $770 with rent assistance. Double the welfare budget, it's so simple lol. They should just print more money and make everyone millionaires.

            There is plenty of wealth already. It just needs to be distributed better. It is also wrong to assume the moment you have UBI everyone will quit their job. In some way, it is already possible have no job and get only JobKeeper payments and not everybody does it for obvious reasons.


            I understand UBI may seem far-fetched, but it is important to realize our society will be disrupted by AI. It is only a matter of time before most jobs will disappear. Everyone who uses their mind to do their work and not their hands will be affected. The question is what we will do. We might find new jobs for them that are mostly manual labor and cannot be done by AI or we will have a big part of society with no jobs with no income to survive.

            What do you think will happen?

            • +2

              @Mistredo:

              Matching JobSeeker payments should be enough.

              No it will not, that would leave people with serious disabilities and health issues with no-where near enough to pay for their needs.

              Some people need full time care, they aren't paying for that with $693 a fortnight.

    • +1

      fun fact, Australian tax revenue is only around 550-600b. to get UBI to a livable level would cost more than our annual tax revenue and leave zero for anything else the government does. We are already straining under the cost of welfare and you are looking to more than triple its cost

      • Our tax revenue base is falling because we have a continual run of governments and leaders who are self-interested in staying elected, or trying to please the entire population instead of making the hard decisions of reform in revenue.

        stares at the decision of Labor to stick stubbonly to stage 3 tax cuts

        • Tax revenue has been rising with exception of the covid period

          • @gromit: The underlying revenue base is shrinking as a trend - particularly when seen as a proportion of required expenditure on essential services.

            Its currently literal ponzi scheme of population growth via immigration. Without structural change of taxation revenue base, we'll end up the way of our American friends.

  • +1

    Yeah, we will get a UBI right after affordable housing.

  • +1

    The current trend of people not wanting to work, and companies struggling to find workers as a result, will only accelerate this. The lazy people will have themselves to blame.

    • +1

      Given we have record low unemployment I’m not sure what fictional universe you live in where people don’t want to work. They just have better jobs and the lazy companies unwilling to meet the market have themselves to blame.

  • Yeah nah

  • +1

    My issue with this idea is that surely the cost of basic necessities would rise to match whatever income level was being paid to everyone, putting everything back to square one.

    Unless you can control corporate greed (unlikely), I just cannot see this working.

    • As opposed to now, where the cost of basic necessities has been kept low…

      • Base level of income for people not working is lower than what is proposed. If it increases costs will increase with it, unless this can be controlled in some way.

        Not against the idea in principle, but just don't see how it would work well for people

        • Ultimately some costs would increase, it’s a mistake to think they increase enough to offset it though. The price is supply vs demand, only those things that have increased demand and are supply constrained would necessarily rise, and then by a % related to the increased demand. Ultimately the increased taxation required to fund it would be deflationary, as would any increased productivity that came from the automation that caused such a UBI to be demanded.

  • This belief is nothing new. The Luddites went around smashing textile machinery during the industrial revolution to prevent it from taking jobs and there have been similar reactions to every world-changing technology since. The people claiming that most jobs disappear have always been wrong in their beliefs, but right in that it generally does cause quite a bit of change and disruption in the short to medium term.

    As for the above post, the majority of it is factually incorrect. One of the most egregious examples is below:

    "At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax."

    In 10 seconds on Google you can pull up a graph confirming that GST is only about 14% of the government's tax take. The largest percentages actually come from company tax and income tax (which ultimately comes from companies too) and ironically GST mostly emanates from the same economic activity too. And therein lies the problem with this sort of nonsense. Let's strangle the golden goose. What could possibly go wrong. As Thatcher (who I personally despise) said you eventually "run out of other people's money.". With UBI that would happen surprisingly quickly. I suspect you may even have immediate effects like a run on the currency and government bonds, banking crisis etc. All you'd need is a few savvy businesses/people to see the writing on the wall and start pulling every cent they have out of the country.

    But we could bring in capital controls to counter that, might not be a bad idea to stop people physically leaving too, throw dissenters into some camps to be "re-educated" to the right way of thinking and Whap, Bam, we are a totalitarian dictatorship of the worst kind. The socialist kind that has a terrible track record of murdering millions of its own citizens and making life miserable for the rest.

    • +2

      The Luddites did have a point. Eventually the jobs market did catch up and provide new employment opportunities to replace the old ones taken by the machines. The only problem is it took decades to achieve. Imagine being told today 'well, this machine has replaced your job, and we don't really have any others, but don't worry, you'll find employment again in 20 years!' This was at a time where there was no social security system at all.

      • That's fair enough but I suspect in some ways this is less impactful (on employment) than those machines. A bit like how the internet was creating jobs as fast as it was destroying them. I'd be inclined to put it in that latter category. When you think of things like going from labour-intensive agriculture to mechanised it's a whole different category to this which I suspect may breed new industries and services.

        • +1

          Replacing human minds will do for humans what replacing animal labour did for horses. Humans had more complex work to fall back on last time. But this time? The reason living standards increased last time was unions etc ensuring productivity gains were more evenly distributed and those profiting were largely local. Now the world offshores a lot of the profits, the potential for mass civil disturbance is huge.

          Ultimately GST or similar will increase as companies offshore profits to avoid company taxes and employment drops gutting income taxes. Even without a UBI maintaining even current spending is going to be a challenge.

          • +1

            @JumperC: Enhancing is probably more likely than replacing, as most other similar technological leaps have done. Unions certainly deserve some credit for gains being more evenly distributed but it's obviously the gains themselves that are the core component, without which there can only ever be nothing.

            Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (basically all economic activity in any given year) is already nearly 30% in Australia, which is very high by global standards with the vast majority of it coming from companies through company tax or wages (income taxes). That activity is probably a huge chunk of GST too. Australia is only really surpassed by a handful of European states with some sort of making it work (Scandinavia), while the rest are in a multi-decade economic stagnation (much of continental Europe) at least partly as a result of such ridiculous policies. It's not a path you'd want to follow, nevermind vastly surpass it with UBI to the point you've cut off all oxygen to any economic activity.

            Most the claims here are factually incorrect and easy to disprove. The most obvious thing is looking at where the revenue is coming from, which has been stable as far back as I can see. So claims about all the profits being offshored and GST becoming the main source of revenue are nonsense.

            • @Ren0oo: If you enhance people’s productivity 50% you need 33% less workers for the same job. Sure some jobs will get created, but it’s not hard to see productivity gains, and thus job losses outpacing this. This is what people miss, it doesn’t have to replace everyone. You can have that one worker overseeing the edge cases the algorithm isn’t sure about replacing dozens of workers and the effect is the same.

              It’s that tax revenue from individual taxpayers that is most at risk. There’s massive tax cuts next year, and currently we’re sitting at record high employment. It’s a mistake to project that into a changing future. Just look at companies like Uber which are taking what was local spending on small businesses and funnelling that offshore as fees to an offshore subsidiary. Other services companies licensing software etc. These are relatively new almost monopolies of global scale.

              They don’t need to make a profit to be taxed in Australia, they don’t record that income as GDP. We’re stuck taxing companies that are wholly Australian owned or cannot offshore revenue. That % might be high and helped by the recent resources boom, but it’s not sustainable to base a developed economy off resources.

              No one is saying GST is the main source of revenue now. But in a world with massive underemployment and offshoring of profits it’s about the only sustainable source.

  • +7

    OzBargain is probably the most financially illiterate forum. Something like UBI is going to go way over their heads.

  • +3

    This is not the same as the luddites refusing change. This is an avalanching 4th and 5th industrial revolution that we have never seen before.

    The exponentially of it's impact will go over the heads of just about everyone. The Pace of change, the Intelligence and obsoletion of human need is unfathomable even for experts in the AI field.

    You would be incredibly naive to be so agnostic about absolute true non-means tested UBI.

    It may not be perfect, but it may be the best for humanity to survive and flourish

    Who pays for it? Input and/or consumption tax on corporations that cause the most labour replacement

    Some UBI intangibles are often overlooked:
    Students and Homemakers are supported, as per Maslow's hierarchy lifts society out of poverty, Less incarceration, Better preventative healthcare, Less petty crime, Less financial stress leading to stable family units to name a few

  • UBI so you can go skydiving with chimpanzees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzD7USVlgp4

  • Would I get the UBI if I was in jail for a week? For 10 years?

    Would I get the UBI if I am an Australian citizen living overseas?

    Do I still get rental assistance if there is a UBI?

    Do I still get money for having children if there is a UBI?

    Is the UBI income tax exempt?

    Is there bulk bulking by doctors when there is a UBI?

    Will there now by death duties to support the UBI?

    When I go into a nursing home will I still receive all the UBI ?

    • All reasonable questions to raise.
      What are your suggested answers?

      • +1

        The point I was making is that there are plenty of known unknowns.

        Any of which can be used to elicit fear; preventing change.

        • Fair enough. The devil is in the detail, but I think this forum discussion was intended to be at a higher level.
          Unless the concept is supported, the more detailed questions are irrelevant.

    • +1

      Yes to all.

      You're welcome.

  • these things came and stayed, steam engine, electricity, integrated circuit, personal computer, internet and now AI, yet we are still expecting UBI

  • Fun fact: UBI was proposed by Richard Nixon, hardly a screaming leftie, in 1969. Obviously it never went anywhere bit interesting that it was being proposed over 50 years ago.

  • Anyone remember Modern Monetary Theory MMT? Even Alan Kohler seemed on board.

    • +1

      Never considered Alan Kohler seriously tbh. Not sure why he is called an "economist".

    • ‘ According to MMT, governments create new money by using fiscal policy and that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is inflation’

      Seems to check out.

      • MMT simply means Govt can forever print money and spend, and not having to worry about having to borrow (so no fear of rising debts) and spend infinitely.

        It is basically a theory based on infinite spending without consequences. It is not new tbh and it sounds new because socialists like to term anything cool to make it sound new and progressive. Probably closer to Keynesian theory if I am not mistaken but it is still fundamentally different.

        Anyone who subscribed to this theory cannot simply be called a serious economist.

Login or Join to leave a comment