View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
I didn't forget anything.
A minimum income would benefit the society at a cost that is comparable to the hodge podge of programs that already exist. I'd be happy if this meant fewer vagrants in my city and am willing to pay taxes to improve my nightly strolls.
Other posters have pointed out that this would require immigration restriction. Very true. |
mises, I love your work but I think this just the opposite of what would result.
Example, social welfare has been nothing but a disaster for Australia's Aboriginal population.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/when-welfarism-takes-over-disaster-will-follow/story-e6frg6zo-1225824862838
When welfarism takes over, disaster will follow
by Noel Pearson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Pearson_(Australian_lawyer)
Quote: |
The dysfunctional communities that I have seen in Aboriginal Australia and among disadvantaged white Australians are characterised by the dominance of the public sphere in the lives of people. Government almost monopolises the field, with its endless programs and service deliverers.
The private sphere in these communities is stunted. To the extent that people have the freedom to choose, it is in relation to lifestyle choices. Whereas for highly privileged people libertarianism may be the apex of liberalism, for the underprivileged it ends up being the very definition of dysfunction. Not only is the private sphere small in such communities, the voluntary sphere is also shrivelled.
It is in such places where the leviathan of the welfare state has spread its tentacles into almost every corner of people's lives. And no matter how many service deliverers and programs and budgets have been mobilised in pursuit of development, it has not happened. And it will not happen.
Development in such disadvantaged communities will only take place when the public sphere retreats to its appropriate size and governments perform only their subsidiary functions. Development requires an expansion of private life.
The liberals are probably correct when they say that a strong and healthy private sphere will occasion an expanded voluntary sphere: people who have secured their own interests will contribute to their wider communities. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the premise behind this idea, but wasn't there just a thread about generations of Britons on welfare?? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Captain Corea wrote: |
I like the premise behind this idea, but wasn't there just a thread about generations of Britons on welfare?? |
Yes. I accept that there will always be some form of welfare for the bottom. I'd like the assistance that exists to maximize benefit and minimize cost. The minimum income is sensible.
Quote: |
social welfare has been nothing but a disaster for Australia's Aboriginal population. |
Similar in Canada. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010 Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think our attitudes are a bit premature. I doubt the government is willing to entertain the idea. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure what sergio meant by "low-paid'' work "for the state'', in regards to liberal arts grads. In Canada, at least, a lot of useless liberal arts grads(esp. non-white, non-male, non-Anglophone, etc., ones)get civil service jobs that pay far too much for far too little.
The GAI idea has been around for a long time. It really opened a lot of eyes decades ago when the late, great Milton Friedman proposed his own version of it via the NIT(negative income tax). A lot of his erstwhile allies on the "right" were aghast.
And the "right" is still aghast at such an idea. But let's remember that many on the "left" are aghast at the GAI notion. In Canada, this is manifested by powerful public sector unions, consisting mainly of "workers" who are middle-class, white-collar, university-educated types. They spew a lot of '70s university sociology Marxist kind of notions objecting to the GAI, but really, what they fear is the loss of their cushy gov. jobs in administering pogey, welfare, worker's comp., etc., etc, .... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jeonmunka
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
|
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
You will also find prices for everything will rise in line with the extra cash people have. NZ has the same basic income - it helps people with children but then rents in poorer locations rise and rest assured, prices increase in order to take the pound of flesh off the people. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
liveinkorea316
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Location: South Korea
|
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
The idea of a Univeral basic income is a good one. Prices of basic goods would rise because there would be more people able to afford them its true.
I think that $20,000 is particularly generous though. It should be set just above the poverty line. This means a single living alone would be on basic food and no holidays. That would give anyone a motivation to get out their and earn a living and get a better life no?
It would be however terribly expensive. Taking away free healthcare and making people pay into an insurance scheme is a start. Also making people pay for all education would be good too. That might save enough money. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile
|
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, why stop at 20 grand? How about a million? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
madoka

Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blm
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Axiom wrote: |
Example, social welfare has been nothing but a disaster for Australia's Aboriginal population.
|
Social welfare is not the reason Aboriginals have a poorer quality of life in Australia.
They tend to have few assets, live in isolated communities and suffered discrimination for a long time.
Without welfare there situation would be even worse. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blm
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
liveinkorea316 wrote: |
The idea of a Univeral basic income is a good one. Prices of basic goods would rise because there would be more people able to afford them its true.
I think that $20,000 is particularly generous though. It should be set just above the poverty line. This means a single living alone would be on basic food and no holidays. That would give anyone a motivation to get out their and earn a living and get a better life no?
It would be however terribly expensive. Taking away free healthcare and making people pay into an insurance scheme is a start. Also making people pay for all education would be good too. That might save enough money. |
Australia has free health care, free education and the dole/welfare. It's also quite isolated form the rest of the world geographicaly which I would think would be an ecconomic hindrence (for trade).
the level it is set at has pretty much become the poverty line though. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blm wrote: |
Axiom wrote: |
Example, social welfare has been nothing but a disaster for Australia's Aboriginal population.
|
Social welfare is not the reason Aboriginals have a poorer quality of life in Australia.
They tend to have few assets, live in isolated communities and suffered discrimination for a long time.
Without welfare there situation would be even worse. |
Exactly so. It's easy to blame social welfare programs for the situation of the people who are on them, but it's also totally unrealistic. One need only look at history to see what the lives of the impoverished are like without these programs. They aren't suddenly filled with both the incentive and skills required to make a decent living. They barely scrape by, suffer immensely, and often even die.
These programs weren't created for no reason. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do like the Quebec idea of every resident getting $12,000. It isn't much, but enough to barely cover rent. And if you have a few people living in one home then you can pool the money and hopefully someone in the household is able to work.
Also with that small amount you can start to experiment with cuts to bloated social programs and see if the idea is actually feasible. Maybe even start off with a lower amount of money, say $6000. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mmstyle
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Location: wherever
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blm wrote: |
free education |
I wish, but no.....that said, it is MUCH more reasonable than in the US, especially if you can pay up front (20% less). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blm
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mmstyle wrote: |
blm wrote: |
free education |
I wish, but no.....that said, it is MUCH more reasonable than in the US, especially if you can pay up front (20% less). |
I guess saying it's "free" is misleading but it's free until University/College and for University/College you don't have to pay it back until your earning over the threshold. I was just lazy in how I explained it, if that's not proof I'm Australian then what is .
It also doesn''t go against your credit rating (i.e. you can get a home loan and such) it's purely between you and the government.
I paid $500 upfront once to take advantage of the 20% before I realised how it works and haven't really noticed it since and it only makes a minor impact at tax time. I was able to buy a unit at 25 rather than be locked into paying back my student debt so I'm thankful for the system.
The decision to go to university or not is down to wether that's the best use of your time (and if your good enough), which I think is great and HECS is one of the few bits of government policy that should be exported.... though it might not work in other countries where people ar keen to emmigrate from (you don't want to pay for someone who leaves the country and doesn't contribute back). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|