Poverty is a System Problem Driving Anger - a UBI is the System Solution
This article offers a way to bring the temperature down in an increasingly fearful and angry world: through the phased introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Using a unique funding method that requires no increases in taxes or debt, and without disadvantaging anyone already reliant on government support.
It explains the system flaw that is at the heart of poverty in Australia, and shows how a UBI can fix it.
It is split into sections (showing reading time in minutes)
1. (1.0 min) Introduction
2. (4.0 min) Executive Summary
3. (1.0 min) Context and Call To Arms
4. (5.0 min) Need for and Definition of a Universal Basic Income
5. (5.5 min) Source of Money for UBI and Targeting
6. (4.0 min) Net Money Flows, Implementation and Administration
7. (1.5 min) Opportunity Costs, Negatives and Gaming the System
8. (1.0 min) The Complete Solution, Benefits and Spreading the Word
1. INTRODUCTION
There’s a lot of talk about AI, and how it will impact people’s lives at an alarming rate. Whether it will, or not, really does not matter at this point.
The message is just adding to the turmoil, in a world that is increasingly fearful and angry. While this anger and fear is often expressed as differences in ideology or religion, much stems from the financial insecurity that plagues mental health.
My daughter works in the charity sector and she is always telling me about the struggles people have living on welfare and dealing with ‘the system’. It drains any ounce of self-respect, while adding to their stress through having to negotiate hundreds of pages of guidelines and forms to get any benefits at all.
Could you live on A$54.50/day for food, medicine, rent and everything else? I know I couldn’t.
In Australia, 3.2 million people live in poverty. Including 17% of ALL children, as well as people who are sick or injured, disabled, aged, their unpaid carers, others on low pay/casual hours, and some between jobs. This is an ever-changing group of people who feel the sting of destitution at some point in their lives.
There are many millions more who live close to the edge, and every day fear tipping over. This fear can easily be turned into anger and hate by unscrupulous people for their own political ends. We are seeing it across the world, and it threatens to overwhelm us all.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper is written in the Australian context.
The System Flaw
Today, people need money to survive. Those who cannot earn it, and who pass a ‘means test’, get money from welfare.
The problem is that welfare must be set below the poverty line, to force those who can work to take the available jobs.
This has the terrible consequence of consigning 12–14% of the population into poverty: those who cannot do paid work, who also have no savings or family support, who are left to rely on inadequate welfare, charity… and crime.
The System Solution
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) offers a system solution by paying every adult a weekly amount of money, sufficient to meet their basic needs. No need to apply, no delay.
A UBI can also be a new tool to help balance the labour market.
As unemployment increases, the UBI can be raised. As it rises, some people will choose to cut back their hours, or drop out of paid work altogether, leaving room for those who want/need the extra money that paid work provides. At some point, the market will be brought back into balance.
Basic, in this context, just means the ‘base’.
As the UBI rises to keep the labour market in balance, this base will also continue to rise. With more and more automation, it will provide a higher and higher standard of living.
The initial target is $500/week/adult permanent resident, around the Henderson Poverty Line.
Funding
It would be funded the same way bank loans are funded: by creating the money.
When bank loans are made, they inject new money into the economy, while repayments withdraw money. Inflation is contained by limiting the net inflow (the difference between new loans and repayments). This is done by raising interest rates to curtail new borrowing.
We’d then have two ways of injecting new money into the economy:
a) via the UBI to meet basic needs (fixing the system flaw), and
b) via bank lending to meet the needs of all borrowers.
While it is a value judgement, we believe that money for basic needs should take precedence over all other needs.
Mitigating Inflation
To limit the inflationary impact of the UBI, we must take money out of the economy, at the same time as we pump it in (just as we do with bank lending and repayments).
First, existing welfare benefits would be reduced dollar for dollar by the UBI. In effect, replacing a ‘conditional’ payment with an ‘unconditional’ one. No recipient would be worse off, and over time all would be better off.
Secondly, UBI money would be withdrawn in a targeted way based on ‘taxable’ income — to ensure the net goes to those who need it the most.
Under the proposed system, everyone would receive two payslips:
- One would be their normal payslip, showing their normal income and normal tax (which would be unchanged).
- The other would be a new payslip showing their UBI income, less a UBI tax — based on their earned income for the week (or pay period).
To be clear, the UBI tax would be calculated using your earned income, but it would not come out of your income. It would come out of the UBI payment itself.
No Redistribution to Avoid Pushback
By leaving current taxes untouched, there is no ‘re-distribution’ from high to low income earners. While a UBI could be used to achieve redistribution, it is not necessary to fix the system flaw, and only creates unnecessary push-back from people who are negatively impacted.
This push-back has been the primary reason why the hundreds of UBI pilots, undertaken across the world over the last 50 years, have not led to full adoption — despite all the pilots demonstrating net positive outcomes for the participants, and the community.
However, there are opportunity costs, and these are discussed in the paper.
Paying and then Taxing the UBI Itself
The tax on the UBI would be 33.33% of earned income, up to a specified limit, currently $1,500/week (33.33% of $1,500 = $500 = UBI). Above that income, the full UBI would be recovered, but no more.
Any income below the cutoff would result in a net benefit. The lower the income, the greater the net.
Paying the full UBI to everyone, but then taxing it based on income earned, means that if you lose your earned income at any time, there would be no tax payable on the UBI for that period.
It would mean that you’d get the full $500/week UBI to see you through. Without delay, without any need to apply, or prove entitlement.
The UBI tax would recommence when you started earning again.
Reporting of your income would be done via the usual channels for income tax, so there would be no additional administration.
In this way, the money is targeted to those who need it, when they need it… providing a floor to stand on, not a ceiling to achievement.
Phasing
We recognise that an immediate lift to $500/week could be destabilizing, which is why we are recommending a 5–6 year phase-in to the full amount, starting at just $20/week per adult. This will give the supply chain time to adapt to the new pattern of demand, without causing shortages that drive inflation. Phasing has a range of other benefits too, discussed in the paper.
Net Inflow of New Money into the Real Economy
Assuming 21 million adults, and a UBI of $500/week/adult, the gross inflow would be around $546 billion p.a. After the UBI Tax, the welfare offset, and a range of other offsets (including savings on health and crime), the total net injection of new money into the ‘real’ economy is estimated to be around $60 billion pa, or around 2.25% of GDP.
A net inflow of this size would not need to be funded out of tax or debt, as it would simply fuel economic growth, as businesses respond to the new demand.
UBI Authority
A new UBI Authority would be established, with its own charter (like the Reserve Bank). It would be charged with setting the UBI, to keep it above the poverty line, and working with the Reserve Bank to help keep the labour market in balance.
Benefits
A UBI offers a wide range of benefits. Besides eliminating systemic poverty, the pilots show that a UBI will reduce fear, anger, and hate, while improving trust in other people, and in our institutions, as well as lowering crime, reducing domestic violence and homelessness, and improving health. Even improving learning in children, along with other benefits listed in the paper.
Can we afford it? Of course we can. Australia has the resources and the money to meet everyone’s basic needs.
The real question is: how can we not afford it?
3. CONTEXT and CALL TO ARMS
What has happened to our vision?
In Australia, just before Prime Minister Chifley approved the Snowy Mountains Scheme (a grand vision for the time), PM Curtin announced in 1943 that the government would create a national system of welfare, including unemployment and sickness benefits.
Since then, we’ve had Superannuation in 1992, and the NDIS in 2013.
The Need for a New Vision
Despite the advances of the last 80 years, 3.2 million Australians, including 17% of ALL children, continue to endure poverty.
Join in the Vision
We need to build support for another step-change in how our society operates to quell the desperation, fear, anger, and hate, we see around us.
Please join in at https://basicincomeaustralia.com/membership/, and circulate this post to family and friends.
4. NEED FOR and DEFINITION of a UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI)
What’s the Problem?
It’s not a lack of resources, or money. We have enough of both, to meet everyone’s basic needs.
Many people seem to think that ‘poverty’ is a ‘lifestyle choice’, or that receiving welfare somehow changes a person’s psyche, so they become ‘welfare dependent’.
When, in reality, it is a system problem.
We’ve created money, property rights and paid work that underpin the capitalist system. This system has delivered huge benefits… for those who have the money to express their needs in the market.
Without money, you are invisible to the market, so the market can never respond. This is bad for the individual, and bad for the businesses that miss out on the sales.
At any time, only around 50–55% of the population can do paid work to earn money.
The rest cannot do paid work as they are too young, sick or injured, disabled, aged, or their unpaid carers; while others are on low pay/casual hours, or between jobs. This is an ever-changing group: the young grow up, the sick and injured recover, the disabled age, and the aged die, while their carers, and those on low-pay/casual hours or between jobs, find other paid work… only to be replaced by a new group of people.
While in this group, if you don’t have savings or family support, you must rely on welfare, charity… and petty crime to survive.
The problem arises because of the way the welfare system is designed.
If welfare was to be set at or above the poverty line, it would be rational for people to take the benefit, in lieu of a low-paid job. This ‘forces’ the government to keep benefits below the poverty line — to ‘encourage’ those who can work, to take the available jobs. This is because it is an either/or approach. You either have a job, or you get the benefit. You can’t have both.
The terrible side effect of this approach is to consign around 12–14% of the population to poverty: those who cannot do paid work, who also have no savings or family support (to see them through, while they are in the unpaid group).
That this percentage has hardly budged, despite the ever-changing individuals in the group, and despite (prior to the pandemic) 30 years of continuous growth, further emphasizes that it is a system problem, not a lack of character that creates poverty.
The System Solution
Growing the economy to provide more jobs cannot help people who (for a time) cannot do paid work. Nor can a Job Guarantee. And, keeping the unemployment rate low only helps the 3–5% of people, who are between jobs, to find new employment a bit quicker. But that is all it can do.
The only way to eliminate systemic poverty, in a system that requires people to have money to survive… is to ensure that everyone has a ‘basic’ amount, at or above the poverty line: a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
This money could never be garnisheed, or subject to any legal debt recovery proceedings, to ensure no one is ever forced into poverty.
Then, leave everyone free to earn as much as they can above the base.
Hundreds of UBI pilot programs from around the world, over 50 years, have shown that when people are given the cash they need to survive, they spend both the money and their time wisely.
The pilots also show that, far from slacking off, people are incentivized to work to earn more money to better themselves and their family… when they can.
A UBI can also be a new tool to help balance the labour market.
As automation, virtualization, and AI, along with the shift from fossil fuels to green energy, change the job landscape, and put people out of work, the UBI can be raised.
As it rises, some people will choose to cut back their hours, or drop out of paid work altogether, leaving room for those who want/need the extra money that paid work provides. At some point, the market will be brought back into balance. At that point, most jobs will be filled within a reasonable time, while those doing paid work AND those not in paid work, will both be doing so by choice.
People can then move in and out of paid work over their entire life, as their needs and circumstances change, while the labour market remains in balance, ensuring maximum productivity AND a consumer base who can afford to buy what the system is capable of producing.
Goodhart’s Law can be mitigated by having two opposing measures:
a) ‘time for jobs to be filled’ (employers will want to extend this measure to indicate the labour market is tighter than it is), and
b) ‘time for people to find jobs’ (employees will want to extend it to indicate a slack market, requiring an increase in the UBI).
With the middle ground used to decide if the UBI needs to be increased.
Of course, it will never be perfect. While economic modelling claims to work like a scientist using a formula to predict a rocket’s trajectory, we cannot rely on its predictions. Which is why adjustment of the UBI will be like the Reserve Bank adjusts interest rates now, using the ‘rifleman’ approach. A rifleman constantly adjusts his aim as he sees where his last shot hit. Adjustments will inevitably overshoot, and undershoot.
Basic in this context, just means the ‘base’.
As the UBI rises to keep the labour market in balance, this base will also continue to rise. With more and more automation, it will provide a higher and higher standard of living.
Regardless, paying a rising UBI aimed at drawing people out of the labour market should offer a far more direct and immediate ‘fix’ for rising unemployment; than trying to stimulate employment, by stimulating production, through stimulating spending, through stimulating borrowing, by dropping interest rates!
The rising UBI will also have a stimulation effect, boosting demand as it is spent, speeding the return to full employment.
5. SOURCE of MONEY for UBI and TARGETING
Paying for the UBI with New Money
Basic Income Australia Ltd (BIA) has developed an approach that would enable a UBI of $500/week (current poverty line) to be paid to each adult permanent resident — without raising taxes or increasing debt; or causing undue inflation.
It can be done by creating the money to pay the UBI, just as we now create money through bank lending.
This gets a bit tricky, but it’s important to understand the bank lending process, to understand how we can pay for a UBI with new money, without creating inflation.
As this Bank of England paper explains: “whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money”. The money is destroyed when the loan is repaid, and the entries in the bank’s books are reversed.
For as long as the total of new loans exceeds total repayments, the money supply will continue to grow. Inflation then becomes a risk if it grows too quickly, beyond the capacity of the economy to respond to the extra demand generated by the new money. The Reserve Bank attempts to moderate this growth by raising interest rates to stem demand for new loans.
Money flows into and out of the economy via lending and repayments. The key point is that the outflow is important in preventing runaway inflation.
If the BIA proposal is adopted, it would mean that we’d then have two ways of injecting new money into the economy to sustain economic activity:
a) via the UBI to meet basic needs (fixing the system flaw), and
b) via bank lending to meet the needs of all borrowers.
Mitigating Inflation Impacts
If it comes to a choice between meeting the needs of bank-borrowers and basic needs, it is our contention that basic needs must take precedence. So that the first countermeasure to rising inflation would be to raise interest rates to curtail borrowings (as now).
The UBI should always be adjusted to keep pace with changes in the price of essentials.
That said, to limit the inflationary impact of the UBI, we must take money back out as we pump it in, just as we do with bank lending.
Welfare Offsets
The first way that we can limit the net inflow of new money via the UBI is to reduce existing welfare benefits dollar for dollar. In effect, replacing a ‘conditional’ payment with an ‘unconditional’ one. No recipient would be worse off, and over time all would be better off.
Though, there is an argument to continue some level of additional benefits for children and for people with disabilities due to the extra expenses they incur.
Using Tax to Take Some of the New Money Out of the Economy
We can do this in one of two ways. We can either increase taxes on existing income and/or assets, or we can set up a system to take money out of the UBI itself, at the time of payment.
Our preference it to take the second approach, and place responsibility for the UBI with a new Authority, for the reasons explained below.
Keeping Payment of the UBI Separate from the Tax and Welfare Systems
It’s important to recognise that the UBI is not a ‘tax benefit’ or a ‘welfare payment’. Rather, in a system that requires people to have money to survive, it reflects the basic right of everyone to have enough money to live on.
By keeping the UBI out of the tax and welfare systems, we remove it from the political arena, freeing politicians to focus on specific policy issues.
As well, this approach allows us to pay the UBI upfront to all adults on a weekly basis, whether they are earning an income or not.
And, by taxing the UBI payment itself, we can make it plain to everyone that the tax on the UBI is not impacting their normal income.
The purpose of the UBI Tax is to reduce the net inflow of new money into the economy, to avoid inflation. That is all.
Targeting the UBI Tax with Minimal Administration
The purpose of targeting the Tax, is to ensure the net UBI goes to those who need it.
Under the proposed system, everyone would receive two payslips:
- One would be their normal payslip, showing their normal income and normal tax.
- The other would be a new payslip showing their UBI income, less a UBI tax — based on their earned income for the week (or pay period).
The tax on the UBI would be 33.33% of earned income, up to a specified limit, currently $1,500/week (33.33% of $1,500 = $500 = UBI). Above that income, the full UBI would be recovered, but no more.
Again, the UBI tax would be calculated using your earned income, but it would not come out of earned income. It would come out of the UBI payment itself.
Based on a UBI of $500/week, it works out that anyone earning $78,000 (or more) would get no net benefit, but nor would they be any worse off. Below that, the lower the income, the greater the net.
People on the median salary of $65,000 ($52,108, after normal tax) would still net $83/week UBI ($4,333 pa)… an 8.3% lift in their NET income. A real boon for people trying to manage the increased interest cost on their housing loan, or higher rentals, as well as the last few years’ inflation on essentials.
Paying and Taxing the UBI
If people are already earning money above the base, then they have no immediate need for a UBI. What matters is that the money is immediately available when they do need it. Without delay, or any need to apply.
This can happen if the UBI is paid in full at the start of the week, with the UBI tax deducted at the end of the week (or pay period), based on actual earnings for the week (or pay period), at the time they are paid.
For people with variable earnings, an app can help them plan what UBI Tax is likely to be paid for the week, so they can budget.
Paying it to everyone, and then taxing back some or all of it, would mean that if you lose your ‘earned income’ at any time, there would be no recovery for that period, so you’d get the full UBI to see you through, without delay, without any need to apply, or prove entitlement.
Everyone would be required to report their income (including zero income) each week (or pay period), or the full UBI tax would be levied. This would be a very simple process.
There would be no extra administration, as your ‘earned income’ for calculating the UBI tax, would be your normal income that is reported via your employer using the Group Tax system, or via the GST system, or a special app for self-employed, or via the official UBI website. Or, via the Income Tax system for people who never expect to get any net benefit because their income is too high.
Ideally, your income would be paid into the same account as your UBI.
When you start earning again, the UBI tax would also start again, based on your reported earned income.
Some people may be concerned about the ‘self-reporting’ of income, but that is how the tax system already works; with checks and audits, and penalties for fraud. Managing this risk is discussed in section 7.
Paying the UBI to everyone, but taxing some or all of it back based on earned income, means that the UBI serves its purpose of providing a base for everyone, in the event they lose their earned income for any reason, at any time(s) in their life.
In this way too, the money is targeted to those who need it, when they need it. Providing a floor to stand on, not a ceiling to achievement.
No Need to Raise Taxes on Existing Incomes or Assets to Pay for a UBI
We are not against raising taxes to pay for the UBI. We just don’t think that it is necessary to achieve its purpose, namely: to eliminate systemic poverty, in a system that requires people to have money to survive.
We also believe that it is counterproductive.
All prior UBI proposals that require funding of the UBI in full (by raising new taxes) have been sunk due to the ‘self-interest’ factor.
By taking the ‘targeted new money’ approach, we avoid having arguments over what taxes, and how much tax, should be raised on existing wealth.
Also, by leaving current taxes untouched, there can be no argument about ‘re-distribution’.
In our view, redistribution and tax policy is a whole separate topic.
There are of course opportunity costs, which we discuss later.
6. NET MONEY FLOWS, IMPLEMENTATION and ADMINISTRATION
Net Inflow of New Money
Once fully implemented, assuming 21 million adults, and a UBI of $500/week/adult, the gross inflow would be around $546 billion p.a.
After the UBI Tax, and a range of ‘offsets’, the total net injection of new money into the ‘real’ economy is estimated to be around $60 billion pa, or around 2.25% of GDP.
It’s important to understand that the $60 billion is not the net ‘cost’ of a UBI. It is simply the net ‘inflow’ of new money into the ‘real’ economy (where goods and services are traded).
A net inflow of this size would not need to be funded out of tax or debt, as it would simply fuel economic growth, as businesses respond to the new demand.
The UBI Tax is estimated to reduce the gross by around $224 billion, while the welfare offsets could amount to around $161 billion.
Other secondary offsets that could diminish the inflationary impact of the UBI include: net outflows into the financial and international economies, extra GST, income and corporate taxes generated by the UBI spending, as well as savings on health, crime, and increased productivity (from automation and AI, etc). These are estimated to save a further $101 billion in total.
These are indicative numbers only.
As it is impossible to model the ‘flow through effects’ with any certainty, the actual amount of offsets can only be confirmed once the initial payments start.
For this reason, amongst others, we are recommending a phased implementation.
Phasing in the UBI
We recognise that an immediate lift to $500/week could be destabilizing, which is why we are recommending a 5–6 year phase-in to the full amount, starting at just $20/week per adult. This will give the supply chain time to adapt to the new pattern of demand, without causing shortages that drive inflation.
As importantly, none of us know for certain what the full effects of a UBI will be (good or bad) — when it is permanent and paid universally (as opposed to the pilots where the payment was temporary and restricted to a small group of participants)
With phasing, we can monitor impacts on behaviour and inflation.
If it appears that the bad begins to outweigh the good, we can halt any increase, until the effect(s) can be countermeasured.
If they cannot be mitigated, we can simply leave the UBI at whatever level it reaches, and allow time to wash out the impact(s).
However, all the pilots tell us that the UBI should be overwhelmingly a net positive, which is why it is worth taking the risk. Albeit, starting small to minimise the risk.
Phasing also gives time for businesses and people providing services within the current system to refocus their resources: to provide their ‘clients’ with the knowledge and skills to thrive, instead of merely survive. And, with less need for emergency relief, more charitable resources can be devoted to helping those who cannot look after themselves for reasons of mental health, addiction, or otherwise.
The gradual phase-in also gives people working in social services ample time to find other work… knowing they too will be underpinned in the future by a UBI set above the poverty line to balance the labour market. Giving them the choice in the hours they work, while ensuring all jobs are filled.
Lastly, a low starting-payment will also allow us to understand the ‘flow though’ effects, including potential savings in health and other social costs, with the least amount of risk.
New Authority
We are recommending a new Authority be established, with its own charter (like the Reserve Bank). It would be charged with setting the UBI, to keep it above the poverty line, and working with the Reserve Bank to help keep the labour market in balance. It would also administer payment of the UBI, welfare offsets (until welfare is phased out), and tax recoveries; linking with the various government departments, including: taxation and human services, as well as births, deaths, and migration to ensure all permanent residents are covered.
By having a separate Authority, we can also ensure that the money created to pay the UBI is not included as part of ‘government spending’, or as part of the tax or welfare systems — taking it out of political discourse.
UBI is Not Government Spending
We don’t treat the new money issued to bank-borrowers as ‘government spending’. Even though that money is underpinned by the Reserve Bank, and ultimately, the government.
Similarly, the money issued to pay the UBI would come directly from the Reserve Bank, not the government. The government would have no say in how much it is, or what it is spent on.
How much would be determined by the new Authority in order to keep the UBI above the poverty line, and the labour market in balance. These objectives would be built into its charter. Similar to how the Reserve Bank’s guidelines operate.
The money would not be spent by the government. It would be spent by the people who receive it.
Its sole purpose would be to fix the flaw in our current system of money, property rights, and paid work… by replacing conditional welfare with an unconditional right to a base standard of living.
7. OPPORTUNITY COSTS, NEGATIVES and GAMING THE SYSTEM
What are the Opportunity Costs?
Plainly, given we can create an extra $60 billion a year to provide a Net UBI, we could instead spend this money on all sorts of other things. Like infrastructure, or sports stadiums, or cancer research, or on any other of a million different projects.
This is a value judgement, and it is our contention that for the sake of human decency, social cohesion, and a vibrant economy, basic needs must take precedence.
The cost of not providing a Targeted UBI, is that basic needs go unmet, sales go unmade, and social cohesion is put at risk.
Who Will Lose?
In the first instance, it will be those who earn a living from the current system. Which is why we are suggesting people and businesses in that situation be given time, plus generous financial support, to adjust.
Secondly, if inflation did start to become a problem, the interest rate on new bank loans may have to be increased to curtail new borrowings. So, some new borrowers would miss out on having their wants met, in favour of the new money going into the economy via the UBI to meet basic needs, instead.
This hardly seems unfair.
Gaming the System
Some have expressed concern that landlords and others will just boost rent and prices to absorb the UBI. However, that same argument can be made against wage rises. If and when it did occur, we would need to deal with it the way we deal with all unconscionable conduct: via appropriate tribunals. Some government funding could be set aside to run early cases as a way of heading off abuse.
On the other hand, others fear that people will under-report income.
In the justice system, we prefer some guilty to go free, to limit the chances of punishing the innocent.
Similarly, we need to accept some level of fraud as an unavoidable cost to prevent people being consigned to poverty by the system.
Regardless, fraud remains a problem today across tax, welfare, and other government payments. But, with improved data tracking, AI analysis, and heavy penalties for fraud, it can be minimized to a ‘tolerable’ level. Also, as the cash economy continues to decline, this will make it easier to focus on those sectors where cash remains a temptation.
8. THE COMPLETE SOLUTION, BENEFITS and SPREADING THE WORD
A UBI is Only One Side of the Complete Solution
While a UBI will make a big difference to the demand side (by providing financial agency to all), the Government still has a major role to play on the supply side, by regulating and providing housing, health, education, and other services (in support of the market).
What are the Benefits?
Besides eliminating systemic poverty, the pilots show that a UBI will reduce fear, anger, and hate, while improving trust in other people, and in our institutions, as well as lowering crime, reducing domestic violence and homelessness, and improving health. Even improving learning in children.
It will also go a small way to recognising the huge value contributed by people (mainly women) who currently work in the home for no pay.
If we also use it to help balance the labour market, it will give people a choice, whether and when they do paid work, while ensuring that all jobs are filled within a reasonable time.
With a UBI in place, it can be easily increased temporarily in national or regional emergencies that impact incomes and/or give rise to extra costs.
It will mean that the economy does not contract as a result of automation, and other changes in the job market, which have the effect of reducing total incomes and spending. In fact, the UBI will boost business sales and profits, as the money is spent to signal previously unmet needs. It will also underpin start-ups, small businesses, and regional communities.
It will make apprenticeships and entry level jobs more attractive.
And, it can provide an immediate uplift in income for our low-paid, helping to offset the huge increase in housing and other costs over the last few years — without cost to employers, forestalling any ‘wage push’ inflation.
Fundamental Questions
1. Does our system require you to have money to survive?
2. Do people lack money because they cannot do paid work (for a time)?
3. Is money created by banks when they make loans?
4. Is the new money spent by borrowers to meet their needs?
5. Should we also create money to cover basic needs?
6. Should basic needs take precedence over all other needs?
Spreading the Word
If you answer yes to these questions, then join us at https://basicincomeaustralia.com/membership/, where we are working to have new money created to eliminate the system flaw that is at the heart of poverty in Australia.
It would be great if you could help to spread the message, by circulating this essay to family and friends, asking them to consider the possibility of a new vision, for how society can do better. And add the max ’50 claps’ by clicking the hand below 50 times!… to help the algorithm boost the message :)
If you are not a Medium member, the link requires you to subscribe before you can ‘clap’, and asks you to choose a fee! However, if you look below the ‘fee boxes’, you’ll see in tiny print that there is a ‘free’ option. If you click that, it will send a confirmation link to your email. Once you click on the email link, you’ll be directed back to the article, and can give any ‘claps’ at no charge.
