UBI is the concept of paying every citizen a certain amount of money regularly. They don't have to work or contribute in any way to get it, it just arrives in their bank account as a gift from the government. Or more correctly, the taxpaying public since governments don't have money.
In the European trials, it was found to be a disincentive for people to work. Why work when someone will provide sufficient to live on?
In the not-too-distant future, robots will take over many jobs now done by human operators. We've seen this in supermarkets where self-serve areas are provided. The days when young people washed your car window and filled your car with fuel are long gone. Robots have been used in manufacturing for decades already.
Now, robots are becoming more efficient with artificial intelligence and will progressively take over more and more jobs. This is expected to lead to greater unemployment.
Most governments in most countries don't have sufficient revenue via taxation to provide all the services people expect already; health, education, infrastructure and so on. How would they have sufficient to simply give everyone money?
I don't think it makes sense to give money to people who don't need it.
If our government addresses the UBI idea, I'd prefer to see it provide a Topup for people earning below a certain level.
That way, the lower-wage earners would get a boost to help them pass the poverty line. There would need to be some safeguard to ensure people didn't quit working to get the benefit.
Maybe at the end of a fiscal year when we submit our tax returns to the Australian Taxation Office, anyone with an income below a specific level would be given sufficient funds to bring them up to the predetermined level.
That approach would cost far less than simply giving everyone money.
It would be lovely for some kind government to simply give us an amount of money weekly, but it's not really feasible.
Robin
