No, your other comment just mentioned the dole, which is NOT the same thing at all. Other countries have the dole, in fact, every country listed above in the comment that states they don't have guaranteed basic income, all have wide spread social protections including welfare (and often, quite a bit more wide spread than Australia, whether you see that as a good or a bad thing is up to you).
Sometimes definitions vary from place to place, for instance in Australia you have to vote, it isn't a right you choose to exorcize like the world right is used elsewhere, it is a government mandated obligation, well similarly, in other places, welfare is not considered unconditional income, because well, it isn't. There are barriers to qualification and there are certainly strings attached (some places like the UK, the ASBO system coupled with the welfare system is used like a carrot on a stick with a donkey).
TLDR: This is not about welfare, that exists even in 3rd world countries (although not always to the same degree) it is about unconditional basic income.
Its not because it is conditional -- both means-tested and conditioned on meeting specific other participation requirements (which are, apparently, both age-dependent and in many cases time-limited after which the participation requirements change.)
Its a pretty standard example of the kinds of conditional welfare programs in opposition to which UBI is offered.
UBI is neither:
1) means-tested: because this creates perverse incentives against work (reduces the marginal value of outside income) and increases administrative costs (because you need to take information on means, verify it, and determine benefits based on it, all of which changes over time.), nor
2) conditioned on participation requirements (for much the same administrative reasons as apply to means-testing).
In the unconditional part? Some implementations might have a mean test for who gets what (so a lot like welfare in Anglo and/or European countries) but there is an unconditional part that means in the UK, an ASBO isn't going to be used as a custom law against people needing help or in the US, instead of giving rules about what people can or can't buy with food stamps. For me, that is the interesting part. That is the game changer.
> If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional.
No, its not, even per the official-source article you cited in your other post describing it [1]. In addition to "earning enough money" (income test), you must:
1) Also meet an "assets test", and
2) Be "looking for paid work", and
3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work".
And that's just the short version: the linked "Eligibility Requirements" page [2] has a longer list.
Yep. If you have lots of assets, you don't get this money. I'll bet any Guaranteed basic income would work the same - i.e. you don't want to pay it to people that have a $300k house.
>2) Be "looking for paid work"
You fill in a form every 2 weeks that takes 5 minutes.
> 3) Be "prepared to meet the activity test while you are looking for work".
Again, it takes 5 minutes every two weeks.
It's hilarious to see so many people debate Minimum Basic Income as financially not viable or that it would destroy the economy because nobody would be motivated to work. Here I am pointing out that Australia already essentially has it, and those two problems are not real. And here you are nit-picking the fine details. Look at the big picture here. It works, Australia has it.
> ll bet any Guaranteed basic income would work the same - i.e. you don't want to pay it to people that have a $300k house.
An unconditional basic income would, by definition have neither an assets nor an income test.
A guaranteed minimum income would only actually be a guaranteed minimum income if it had an income test, but not asset test.
> You fill in a form every 2 weeks that takes 5 minutes.
The amount of time spent is not the issue. The fact is that you have to be looking for work, prove that you are looking for work, and not turn down work. Its essentially an program to protect against involuntary unemployment, not either a basic income or a guaranteed minimum income. Its essentially a guaranteed employment program with some other conditions.
> Here I am pointing out that Australia already essentially has it,
Australia has neither a guaranteed minimum income nor an unconditional basic income. It has a fairly generous means/asset/behavior-tested welfare program, which is not the same thing at all.
No, your other comment just mentioned the dole, which is NOT the same thing at all. Other countries have the dole, in fact, every country listed above in the comment that states they don't have guaranteed basic income, all have wide spread social protections including welfare (and often, quite a bit more wide spread than Australia, whether you see that as a good or a bad thing is up to you).
Sometimes definitions vary from place to place, for instance in Australia you have to vote, it isn't a right you choose to exorcize like the world right is used elsewhere, it is a government mandated obligation, well similarly, in other places, welfare is not considered unconditional income, because well, it isn't. There are barriers to qualification and there are certainly strings attached (some places like the UK, the ASBO system coupled with the welfare system is used like a carrot on a stick with a donkey).
TLDR: This is not about welfare, that exists even in 3rd world countries (although not always to the same degree) it is about unconditional basic income.