Do you support a universal basic income program?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 moreblems capitalism causes is like putting a bandaid on a broken bone... i.e. it doesn't help, it doesn't solve the root problem. UBI does not solve the problems capitalism causes, it merely 'puts a bandaid on them' and nothing more. This is because the means of production and essential tenets of human survival like food, water, housing, electricity, transport, etc. will still be privatised, run for profit, and controlled by the ruling class who only seek to exploit [for their monetary gain] the proletariat who use and rely on these things every single day. Instead of a Universal Basic Income, I believe in a Universal Basic Needs Guarantee that as the name suggests, guarantees basic human needs like food, water, access to adequate healthcare, adequate housing, adequate education, to meaningful and safe work, to public transport (when interpreted through the lense of freedom of movement), etc. That way, the ruling class cannot exploit these basic elements of human survival for their own financial gain. Furthermore, it ensures that these basic human rights and necessities to live are guaranteed to everyone, so that they need not worry about not being able to afford groceries, stress about the cost of rent/housing, the cost of healthcare, education. That way, people lives with meaning, purpose and passion, free from the worrying about what should be guaranteed to them by right of being a human being.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Only for those not on high incomes.

Yes, but this should not be in lieu of public services

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

Yes but for people struggling

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

To an extent fags and trannies and women do not get more than men

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

Centre Link, improve that lol

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

Annual Government vouchers

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

Yes, but only if the individual can't work for health reasons

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

isn't that communism?

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.

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.

Only if employed

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

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

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.

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

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

Only if there is a need for the individual

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

Yes, but it should be low

I would like to see a trial of the idea first

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.

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!

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

Yes, as a substitute to the welfare system.

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

No, support negative income tax

Yes, but not until majority of jobs have been replaced by robots

No, support negative income tax instead

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.

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.

Only for people unable to work or find work due to age or disability.

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.

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

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

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

Yes, but only if they earn below a certain amount AFTER tax

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

Yes, it is preferable to welfare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, but build a Universal Basic Needs Ensured-type program.

Yes, but only for people in a certain income bracket.

Yes but only for those on low incomes

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

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

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)

For retirees only, proportionate to their assets.

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

No, we should have a universal basic services program.

yes, but should rely on the circumstances of people

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

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

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

For low income earners, and those earning below a set amount.

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

No, the policy is too expensive

Depends. How would it work?

Yes, but as a replacement for contemporary welfare models

No, because it entrenches capitalism.

No, not until AI is more advanced.

Yes for people at certain disadvantages

No, support Negative Income Tax instead.

Possibly, but it depends on the nitty-gritty because I've seen versions of this idea floated that wouldn't benefit the low-income earners who'd need it the most. It also needs a lot of other legislation to go along with it to make it feasible (e.g. rent caps so landlords couldn't say, "Oh, your UBI payment is $900 a fortnight? Guess what your rent's gonna be going forward"), and I'm not really convinced UBI would be needed if that plus a higher minimum wage existed.

No, but we should implement a flat negative tax rate, by which persons earning (lets say, $30,000, the poverty line in Australia) would have income supplemented to reach this figure, and persons earning over $30,000 would be taxed at regular progressive brackets.

Everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing, but increase the amount to a higher value.

Yes, but only in as far as providing the basic human needs of shelter, safety, food and water.