Universal Basic Income

Treasurer Scott Morrison has been so kind as to remind us that 86% of personal income tax is currently funding Australia's welfare system.

Once Universal Basic Income is understood in full context, this argument could easily be reversed to suggest, without welfare, personal income tax could be reduced by 86%.

It doesn't really matter if one swings left or right or upside-down, nobody in their right mind is going to pass up paying 86% less tax, while at the same time taking more income.

The truth of the matter is, of those states around the world who are implementing UBI (and there are many, Norway and Alaska are the exemplars) none are funded by tax-payers. They are funded entirely by natural resources.

Just to bring this into perspective, only 1.9 percent of Australia's natural resources (last valued at around $22 trillion per year) could easily fund UBI for every single citizen of Australia (based on $2,000/mth for adults and $800/mth for children).

Many of the UBI models being implemented across the globe are nowhere near as generous. Most are only paying citizens a few thousand per year because they aren't as fortunate as Australia, being the eighth largest producer of natural resources in the world.

Alaska and Norway, for example, are only funding UBI from oil and both still have a welfare system. Goa's natural resources (India), on the other hand, are protected by their constitution - based on the premise that every citizen, present and future, inherits the natural resources - they put 100% back into the people of Goa.

All the arguments presented by our government to date invite us to view UBI as "Us vs Them" because a divided Australia is necessary for elections. Where-as the premise of UBI is totally inclusive of all citizens irrespective of age, race, gender or wealth.

There is no reason vulnerable families who mismanage funds and deprive their families can't still be Income Managed under UBI. Nor is there any reason employment agencies can't manage jobs, just as they have been.

Alaska, who has been implementing UBI since the late 70s, recently reported insignificant change in work-ethic compared to the conditional/punitive welfare approach, as well as up to 90% less use of food stamps and other charity facilities.

Another report based on empirical UBI data from some 50 permanent funds around the world noted increased mental health, increased education, decreased homelessness and poverty, surges in jobs and general economic stimulus.

One of the most reported features of UBI is the ability to take a job without effecting basic income. Conversely, most welfare systems create disincentive by reducing or removing income support irrespective of the stability of employment. And the best feature of all, UBI would do away with welfare-cheats, welfare dependence and robo-debt.

Under the natural resources UBI system, the welfare bill could be reduced from $160 billion to $20 billion, since approx 2.5 million non-citizens are paid around $15 billion in welfare payments and the disabled also receive around $5 billion in benefits and supplements.

Australia's work vs life balance is currently under threat by automation and one of the largest industry supporters of automation is the natural resources sector. The more it is automated, the fewer Australians it will employ and the more profits it will pocket.

It makes sense for the very industry driving the push for automation and destabilising Australian jobs and putting our lives at risk is responsible for putting something back into the country.

But what about our Work Ethic? [Click here to read more]

How does it work? [Click here to read more]

Sources:

Physical health compromised: Coal Ash and Mercury: why coal is a health hazard Why won't Australia ratify an international deal to cut mercury pollution? Toxic and terminal: How the regulation of coal-fired power stations fails Australian communities CSIRO scientist discusses health impacts of CSG Chief Scientist CSG report leaves health concerns unanswered