Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Dec 29, 2016 10:26:18 GMT
Michael,
Firstly can we use the correct terminology? which is a Universal Basic Income. As I have previously said, currently is it not universal and isn't guaranteed. Secondly I can't support a JG or nothing policy. You can't force people to work but you can incentivise people to work by paying then a higher wage, it's the main reason why most of us work. A UBI would be hyper inflationary, you don't see a problem with giving someone earning $100,000 the same as someone earning $20,000? How is that fair? why would someone earning $100,000 require any assistance from the federal government? Do you have credible sources to back up the claim that Central Australia has been destroy by unproductive free money? My assumption is, that more likely the problem is due to an over reliance on the private sector to solve unemployment. Also, who decides what activity is meaningfully productive? would a Youtube channel qualify?
In regards to the tax system, there has been suggestions to increase the tax free threshold to $40,000. So if a BI paid $20,000 and a JG paid $40,000 tax free what percentage of the population would you say would pass up the chance to earn $40,000 and pay no tax?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Dec 29, 2016 11:53:48 GMT
Edwin
I gather you are referring to the benefit termed Newstart?
With respect to a Job Guarantee, what is the something or things you would support as well as?
Can you please point to the where it was suggested that an individual is being forced?
Please explain the incentive of a higher wage to someone who does not have a job and is unlikely to obtain one?
Can you please explain how income that rises and falls with productivity can be inflationary?
With regard to the $100,000 and $20,000 figures you have lost me. I have no problem with any income difference providing there is proportionality with productivity and time.
Clearly you are not familiar as I am with settlements such as Docker River, Papunya, Areyonga and Yuendumu. It is not easy to convey the combination that isolation, lack of purpose and sit down money has on these communities. This is not a reflection of the people, as I believe the result would be the same for whoever lives in those conditions. Unemployment is definitely a factor, isolation, dispossession, and exploitation by both the private and public sector all figure in the mix.
I have no understanding of your reference to YouTube channel, please explain.
I am not qualified to comment on the implications of tax policy, and quite frankly I believe it would more likely be a consideration that would apply to circumstance post, not pre and would take into account contemporary issues of the period.
Edwin I participate here to learn and discuss, not confront and I do not have all or any of the answers. I would like to participate in the development of a simple and clear narrative that explains clearly the concept of UGI and a JG and their relationship to each other.
I value your input.
|
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Dec 30, 2016 7:02:38 GMT
Michael Sanderson , The term is Universal Basic Income. Currently Newstart isn't universal and it's not guaranteed, it is conditional. I don't understand the question. " MMT would enable the federal government to introduce a floating productivity linked universal entitlement to a reasonable living minimum national wage (UGI) in return for participation (JG) for a predetermined time in a meaningful productive community enterprise that is designed and operated within defined parameters by the community. " If a person chooses not to participate in the JG, they would not receive any payment from the federal government correct? that sounds like coercion to me. I thought that I had previously explained this, I assume that you have a job? The higher wage is why you work, it's the main reason why anyone works, As for explaining to someone that doesn't have a job and is unlikely to obtain one. A choice could be presented to that person, they can either live on $20,000 or that can participate in a JG and receive $40,000. How many people would refuse the higher amount? It's not a matter of income differences, it's a question of why should someone earning $100,000 be entitled to receive an additional income from the federal government? I am not familiar with those areas, the JG aims to solve these problems. What I am saying is, not to abolish welfare and replace it with forced participation in a JG. The JG is voluntary. Define what community work is? Why couldn't a YouTube be considered as community work? Iain Dooley previously posted in this thread a link to the UBI vs JG discussion in the Australian Employment Party's facebook group: www.facebook.com/groups/520023444868205/permalink/573112169559332/ you may wish to join the group, if you aren't already a member and express your concerns about this topic there.
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 31, 2016 5:18:51 GMT
Edwin Michael started off by saying that a basic income and JG are not, nor should be mutually exclusive. You started your initial response by asking why they can't co-exist. Things not being mutually exclusive means they are co-existing so I think this conversation between you and Michael started off from a misunderstanding. Michael Sanderson I think your initial statement is basically spot on and very much in line with how Bill Mitchell views a Job Guarantee, and why he basically thinks we don't need an additional unemployment benefit. Edwin has been thinking for a while on the idea that someone could create a YouTube channel and have that considered of benefit to the community. I agree and I can imagine many things that could be produced that were valuable, but it wouldn't be something that someone would come up with an execute with no input from their community. I think the key to the JG is that it is federally funded but locally administered. So you have a situation where communities have the ability to self determine and organise to their own benefit, but under the umbrella of government funding which would bring with it certain conditions. The problem with discussions about "basic income" (often referred to as universal or unconditional basic income but which in reality is nothing more than a means tested transfer payment in all cases I've seen proposed or trialled) is that they don't stem from a solid economic basis; they are philosophical ideals masquerading as economics being discussed in a thoroughly neoliberal context. Until people disabuse themselves of the neoliberal mindset they have a hard time articulating how guaranteed community work actually achieves what the UBI wants to (but would not) achieve. We have a different thread with discussion about specific Job Guarantee proposals with papers written by Bill Mitchell: aep.freeforums.net/thread/30/job-guaranteeThanks for getting involved!
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 31, 2016 7:24:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 31, 2016 7:34:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Jan 1, 2017 0:29:31 GMT
Iain Dooley, thank you for your comments and clarifying those points.
Issues of equity, proportionality and productivity bought me to where I am today. I have to meet this Bill Mitchel bloke; he seems to have a very pragmatic and a real world approach. I first heard of him in a YouTube recording of talk the Steven Hails gave to the Mayo branch of the greens, but have yet to read any of his work, clearly that will have to change.
I did read your initial post of the thread aep.freeforums.net/thread/30/job-guarantee and found that it did not mention “time” as a consideration at all. It seems that most if not all of the discussions, I have read to date, do not factor in or consider this core and fundamental aspect.
Time is the one thing that an individual contributes when that individual does anything. The individual can only spend that time in the moment and in the space that they are. I believe that any schemes, prime component should be the requirement to spend a specific amount of time.
I believe that any JG/UBI must be floating and be linked to productivity. In the unlikely event individuals chose to spend their time being non-productive this would have a negative impact and vice versa, choices and actions should have consequences.
I have a bit on in January but after that I hope to be free to be fully involved. The way I see it the AEP has the potential as a single issue party to change everything. Full employment can only be achieved by embracing MMT.
Providing MMT is implemented in a way that supports equity and sustainable productivity it will change everything.
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jan 1, 2017 8:32:42 GMT
Michael Sanderson the issue of time is discussed in the policy papers written by Bill Mitchell and the CoFFEE team but not discussed much in our forum thread yet. When you are ready to get involved we have some stuff in the works. Look at the pinned post in the Facebook group and email me on iain.dooley@australianemploymentparty.org At the moment we are using this forum to discuss policy but not really focused on producing final or detailed policy as I see it as being secondary to the task of promoting the approach and doing grass roots outreach. There's a lot to be done on the area of promotions and PR, writing articles, emails etc as well as an organising committee for the Right2work conference which, incidentally, Bill will be attending. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Jan 5, 2017 23:59:10 GMT
Emailed you on the 02/01/17, look forward to your response!
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Feb 11, 2017 10:35:48 GMT
|
|
Senexx
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Senexx on Feb 22, 2017 4:05:31 GMT
A Basic Income Resource from 2005 Reform 30/30: Rebuilding Australia’s Tax and Welfare Systems www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm70.pdfThe table that explains this system is the reason I am against this particular proposal (and against a standalone Basic Income). Now and even at the time, the 'gifted' welfare was under the current social security job search entitlement without rent start. That does not mean it is not a useful tool or building block.
|
|