Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

100 Replies

 @B2RJZLTanswered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only for the low-income citizens. Those who live upper-class and are rich in the millions and above must be exempt.

 @B3RGQJ3answered…4wks4W

Yes to people with disabilities, the elderly, retires who rent and families on low incomes. Housing should be a right.

 @B3QQD3Ranswered…4wks4W

It should be universal basic NEEDS rather than income, as ubi will just lead to private companies increasing prices on basic items to account for this guaranteed income

 @B3CX6WY answered…1mo1MO

Yes, the program should be universal but the amount should be based on the tax bracket individuals and families fall in

 @B3CKLNKanswered…1mo1MO

Yes, but only if you are contributing to society, by join the work force, are studying in order to join the workforce, or contributing in such a way that it is meaningful to society such as engaging in volunteer work

 @B2WGS2Xanswered…2mos2MO

Yes, but we need to start taxing big corporations appropriately, and demanding adequate royalties for our natural resources, as well as taxing the rich and implementing wealth caps for individuals.

 @B3G9H5HLaboranswered…1mo1MO

Yes, as a gateway to employment and higher earnings, in a way to avoid encouraging people to not work.

 @9ZNMKQBNew Liberalanswered…5mos5MO

Yes, such that there should be enough to keep people out of poverty yet not enough to allow people to stop or limit the extent of their work.

 @9X3YRHRanswered…5mos5MO

if we don't raise the minimum wage, yes. or at least some form of UBI. I do believe wage benefits are more beneficial but UBI is good at providing a security net or consider freidman's negative income tax

 @9WNJ2H2from Virginia  answered…5mos5MO

I really don't have a strong view on this. I'd have to read studies from where it's already been implemented and see how it went. I like the idea of a safety net for everyone, but I'm really unsure of how much it would cost and whether we'd see low income earners quit their jobs in droves as it wouldn't be worth it for them to work 40 odd hours per week for what may end up very little difference in income.

 @9V79F4WLaboranswered…6mos6MO

Trial UBI in areas with a below average income, and monitor its effects on poverty and employment, if it reduces poverty and doesn't have a significant negative impact on employment, try to introduce it elsewhere

 @9V4RPLJLiberalanswered…6mos6MO

Yes but only if the money was required to be spent on food or australian resources, to support the current economy.

 @9TQPHWXanswered…7mos7MO

The repairs do you support covering foods supply any economic necessary as said government feedback admins

 @9TQ6P2Fanswered…7mos7MO

Trial UBI in certain locations, like those with a low average income, and see its effect on poverty and employment rates

 @9T6575Janswered…7mos7MO

Test the program in particular areas (such as areas with lower income) and if it has a positive effect, try to introduce it more widely

 @9SXQY5Ganswered…7mos7MO

Yes but it should be determined by situation and thus should differ based on the needs of the people.

 @9SBFDT7answered…8mos8MO

yes, however, it should only cover housing and only should be provided to those who need it the most

 @9P7R2WVanswered…10mos10MO

It isn't a sustainable solution to economic changes, as it will only encourage businesses to pay people less and raise prices.

 @9MYFHGPanswered…10mos10MO

I do not support the idea as UBI will only be a comparatively small amount compared to the ruling class' exorbitant and frightfully large amount of wealth that gives them power and influence that they should not possess. Moreover, UBI will not solve the endemic and systemic failings and contradictions of the capitalist system so prevalent in today's society that relegates the proleteriat to meaningless lives to facilitate comodity consumption that only enrich the ruling class whilst poisoning our planet with all the waste that comes as a result. To say UBI is the solution to the pro…  Read more

 @9LGNMBR answered…12mos12MO

Yes, if it is protected against a response by private businesses and individuals to increase prices for basic necessities such as food and housing.

 @9JMNKFRanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, though this should be instead a Universal Basic Goods, where food, water, electricity, housing, and other such human rights are free and guaranteed.

 @9HWQ8DLLaboranswered…1yr1Y

Generally yes, to cover basic needs but should be put into an mass employment program where they are working regularly, like freelance but employed by the government to do paperwork, build or something so they can be eligible for income.

 @9GCGPFWanswered…1yr1Y

No, jobs should be more sustainable, cost of living should be reduced or wages should increase at an equal rate

 @9G23JBFanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, however the establishing of a Universal Basic Services program addresses inequality better, and should be instituted first.

 @9FVS3ZQGreenanswered…1yr1Y

It is still in its experimental state and heavily debated so I am still neutral on the topic, but if it shows signs of improving lives and actually encouraging better productivity, then we should definitely support it.

 @9FR639Ganswered…2yrs2Y

No but i beleive that we should give more money in support payments to people to get them above the poverty line

 @9FFPD89answered…2yrs2Y

No, but this is mainly because Australia can't afford to do this without significant issues.

 @9DNJPSJanswered…2yrs2Y

who pays it and who decides how much ? what happens when no body wants to do the jobs that are low paid because they can get paid more not to work

 @9DDBFK5answered…2yrs2Y

It would depend on level of privatisation of utilities and healthcare, as well as how this would change welfare system

 @9DC728Janswered…2yrs2Y

Use the UBIP to support the people who need it (homeless, physical and mental disabilities etc.)

 @B2GPGNCfrom Guam  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, but only for the low-income citizens. Those who have high wealth and rich in millions and above must be exempt.

 @9ZPK338answered…4mos4MO

We should trial UBI in poorer areas, than see it’s effect on employment and poverty, if successful try to introduce UBI further

 @99Z9CQGfrom California  answered…2yrs2Y

 @96NGDG7answered…2yrs2Y

I support a federal land dividend, which is similar to a universal basic income.

 @96KT6HSanswered…2yrs2Y

I think this should only be for people on the minimum wage and those on the lower-earning side

 @96KQRRPanswered…2yrs2Y

 @96BGMF3answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, if they are currently working. This will increase the median income of households, without the additional stresses of food and bills.

 @9672VX9Greenanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, for people who are struggling on the poverty line due to disability or misfortune but no to people who choose to exploit the government system rather than attempting to own their own money

 @96246FFanswered…3yrs3Y

Ideally would be great, but within reason. People who are in a high income house hold wouldn’t need it but low income and homeless people could find it helpful

 @95YTRR4answered…3yrs3Y

 @95KW56Nanswered…3yrs3Y

Support should be provided to those who cannot work, and to those that can and do work but require additional support

 @935R8KWanswered…3yrs3Y

If technology makes jobs obsolete on a wide spread basis then a universal basic income would be need to stop the mass extinction or rise in crime levels that would arise from people merely trying to survive, then yes Universal basic income should exist and be funded by the oligopoly tech companies.

 @9353BBFanswered…3yrs3Y

Income support should be provided to all those in need, and at a level that enables them to seek to improve their quality of living/set of circumstances.

 @934ML98Laboranswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however there needs to be a clear guideline for people meeting a requirement of working or volunteering contributing to the community

 @933P6XWanswered…3yrs3Y

No, it will only be used to justify the removal of other social supports

 @93372QKanswered…3yrs3Y

This would be a perfect way to fund people in the 55 to 70 age bracket when they are in the type of employment that is unsustainable into the Oss ages.

 @932SBTXanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the government needs to be doing more to benefit the economy overall so these basic necessities are affordable for all

 @932MZ4Zanswered…3yrs3Y

No, but as a modern society we have an obligation to assist our less fortunate citizens via food stamps or food kitchens, basic shelter, free medical & the opportunity to be a useful member of that society

 @92WZLF6answered…3yrs3Y

If this was the case, a far better screening would need to be in place to prevent people from abusing the system and not working and/or using the money for drug use

 @92TP7CJanswered…3yrs3Y

while it is a yes from me, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing, but something must be put in place so people do not abuse the system.

 @92SZ42Janswered…3yrs3Y

No, the introduction of the Welfare State has created successive generations of people who think the world owes them a living but that there is no requirement to work and earn that income. Get them off the sofa!

 @92PD6YVanswered…3yrs3Y

Universal Basic Income is only a concession the true solution should be worker ownership of companies

 @92LD28Vanswered…3yrs3Y

Only when automation is putting human workers out of work at a significant rate.

 @92GG95Canswered…3yrs3Y

 @92DKHTJLiberal Democratanswered…3yrs3Y

In Australia we had a Superior Version of Universal Basic Income (U.B.I.), Superannuation but as a Libertarian living in Australia i think we should have more of a Voluntary-Superannuation.

 @92C9PYHanswered…3yrs3Y

After a certain age, when a person is made redundant from permanent skilled employment, and they are unsuccessful in finding new employment to utilise their skillset, they should be able to choose a basic income rather than retrain.

 @92C8NLZanswered…3yrs3Y

 @92C6F54answered…3yrs3Y

No. I'm pretty sure studies have shown that it is a very inefficient way to provide money to those who need it as lots of money is given to people who do not require support.

 @92BLYZBanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, if it's proven to be a cost-effective alternative to all other forms of welfare

 @929XVV5answered…3yrs3Y

Yes but it should be structured in a way that allows individuals to allocate resources to cover food, basic Medicare and other necessities.

 @9296LDManswered…3yrs3Y

It should be means tested, and for those below a certain amount of money

 @928973Hanswered…3yrs3Y

 @926PXWLanswered…3yrs3Y

Food vouchers + more shelters, but not luxury and money to blow on drugs

 @924QZ6XGreenanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only enough to have a filling and nutritious diet and a small amount of spending money.

 @923BSSVCentre Allianceanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, on principle. I believe it should be universal for low/middle income earners, not high.

 @8ZYB2F2Laboranswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but it should be income tested, and only for those under a certain amount.

 @8ZLMKPHanswered…3yrs3Y

That sounds a bit like Communist thinking. Everyone equal but some are more equal than others. So no. Anyone is entitled to make a profit

 @8ZC8LCVGreenanswered…3yrs3Y

in this case, having a UBI might potentially impede on individuals' level of productivity as they are aware that they have a substantial amount of money in order to actually survive, and thus feel no need to work harder and more productively, thus impeding on overall economic growth. Although from the opposing perspective a UBI could potentially help decrease the ever-growing poverty and homelessness in Australia, thus helping alleviate lower standards of living amongst Australian society

 @8Z9W2R5Greenanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but basic requirements for living, such as Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical/Sanitary Supplies and Water should be free for everyone.

 @8Z8KQLGanswered…3yrs3Y

 @8Z55C7SLiberalanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and shelter, but not as a replacement to not work

 @8Z34FX9Independentanswered…3yrs3Y

No, not at this point in time but this will be inevitable in future due to technological advances in all jobs

 @8YRDTC4Independentanswered…3yrs3Y

I'm an economist, this is like looking into a crystal ball (there is not nearly enough research on this topic, evidence/'data or enough context for this question to be relevant)

 @8TK9B4XScienceanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes, as long as the people receiving the basic income aren't able to work due to medical or mental reasons and/or reasons involving not being able to find work

 @8PD787Janswered…4yrs4Y

Yes and no, those who cannot comfortably afford basic necessities on their own should have access to such a program, but those are not able to shouldn't receive these payments, particularly high earners

 @8KMP87Zanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes. As long as there are supports in place to get people into further study or employment

 @8KMLNN2answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and regulate bills and necessities from being raised by the same amount

 @8KMGD5Yanswered…4yrs4Y

 @8JML97Wanswered…4yrs4Y

an employment guarantee is a much better approach over a UBI that will just give right wing Governments the power to remove services .

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...