Politics Post your radical manifesto

[Pie eyed]

Cleary dont know about the basics of money!

leftism is an evolution. of a dumbed down society! we know society has been dumbed down to astonishing levels and leftism is the evolution of that as its principals have never worked! never only led to destruction of society

all you leftists were referred to as "useful idiots by Lenin as you were the dumbest of the dumbed down society. that dumb that you think your intelligent but to dumb to realise it! true read up on some Lenin or Trotsky
the mods that run this leftist clown show of a forum know this thats why they heavily sensor anything that may point this out on the chance that one of you may not be as stupid and work it out the evil that leftism is and the clowns that promote it!

all the best useful idiot as the mods or one of the other extreme lwnj useful idiots will be triggered and go in to a mashing fit reporting the post reciting history and quotes by one of the famous communist leaders!

Is that you Peter?
Yes you do look like a Potato and no you can't run the country.

 

[Number37]

I was actually referring to Albert Bandura's social learning theories, and his experiments which demonstrated violence - particularly societal violence - as being a result of experience, whether violence is committed towards the person or to someone else in the vicinity.

The amount of violence within society increases. It isn't who is doing the violence that is important, but that violence is occurring.

You are conflating or confusing a few things...erroneously.

When I recall who authored it, I will provide a link to the research paper.

What people think of the justice system is tied to how they think the justice system fared in handing out punishment.
Justice systems all around the world have leaned more and more towards a utilitarian approach to punishment ie it's not just punishment, but deterrence and other things.
When you look at how people respond to that, they lose faith in the justice system.
Why? People lose faith in the justice system because they're expecting punishment front & centre, not all that other stuff.

Retributive justice is what people like & want.

 

[Gethelred]

You are conflating or confusing a few things...erroneously.

I don't think I am, though I am open to being disproven.

 

[Number37]

I don't think I am, though I am open to being disproven.

You've conflated violence with punishment.
You started off with a spiel about the ills of capital punishment, which has been the closest thing you have to being on point.
If I may, I would suggest you look at how customary law operated.
It is extraordinary how a spear to the thigh ended many a dispute....just an example.

You may well want to argue that we've moved past that, and like I said, you started off down that track, but quickly your argument morphed into something else completely different.

 

[Gethelred]

You've conflated violence with punishment.
You started off with a spiel about the ills of capital punishment, which has been the closest thing you have to being on point.
If I may, I would suggest you look at how customary law operated.
It is extraordinary how a spear to the thigh ended many a dispute....just an example.

You may well want to argue that we've moved past that, and like I said, you started off down that track, but quickly your argument morphed into something else completely different.

... 37, I haven't done any such thing. You said this:

You don't have to personally carry out the punch. You can sub-contract.

How many people getting punched in the nose with a steel fist will it take before people start moderating what they say?
Remember, the standard isn't slander, it is whether the other person is offended or not. That is a very low bar.
On the other side, people will just get used to others s**t-posting and learn to ignore it.
It will all fizzle out in due course. IMO.

You are increasing the level of violence within society, via the idea that a punch is a legal consequence of libel or insult. I didn't mention punishment at any point, you did.

 

[Number37]

... 37, I haven't done any such thing. You said this:

You are increasing the level of violence within society, via the idea that a punch is a legal consequence of libel or insult. I didn't mention punishment at any point, you did.

What I said was punch in the nose as regulation of free speech...
You've taken punch in the nose...on its own....to disingenuously argue something else.
Even after I provided further context, multiple times. Context which you have now again conveniently ignored to focus on something, on its own...to have an argument about something else...
You're sounding like that peanut journalist repeatedly asking Albo "what about the 6 point plan".

 

[Gethelred]

What I said was punch in the nose as regulation of free speech...
You've taken punch in the nose...on its own....to disingenuously argue something else.
Even after I provided further context, multiple times. Context which you have now again conveniently ignored to focus on something, on its own...to have an argument about something else...
You're sounding like that peanut journalist repeatedly asking Albo "what about the 6 point plan".

What are you even talking about?

Are you saying a punch in the nose does not constitute violence?

 

[Number37]

What are you even talking about?

Are you saying a punch in the nose does not constitute violence?

Yes or No.
Can punch in the nose be punishment?

 

[Gethelred]

Yes or No.
Can punch in the nose be punishment?

This is where I get off; the bit where you genuinely ignore the entirety of a two sentence post.

 

[Number37]

This is where I get off; the bit where you genuinely ignore the entirety of a two sentence post.

Please accept my apologies for posting my radical idea in the radical ideas thread.

 

[The Passenger]

UBI to replace the core welfare payments people receive now. Additional payments for having a child and rent assistance (and whatever else there is) can still be managed separately. Everyone gets an ABN at birth, at some point a bank account is attached to that ABN, and when you turn 18 you are start receiving UBI. There would be public spending savings on managing what is now a myriad of welfare payment options, not too mention the complete waste of time of following up on people looking for work and the outsourcing to job search providers.

That core payment needs to increase as well. Currently Newstart and most welfare recipients start at around $16K/yr - that figure should be at least $20K and preferably pushing $25K. I did a few short stints on the rock n roll between university and getting a proper job and it was tough enough to get by on at the time. Since then (late 2000's) cost of living must be up about 50% at least, whilst Newstart has only gone up about 15-20% - I was getting 550/fn plus rent assistance, which is now 650/fn.

Obviously taxes increase but given everyone also gets back their UBI (roughly 900-950/fn) those in the middle ranges of income the final result will effectively be the same. Those in the upper ranges come out slightly worse off (percentage wise) and those at the bottom come out much better off (percentage wise). Ultimately it will create a much stronger safety net, something Australia once had but sadly it is being eroded.

 

[Seeds]

A ubi set at the welfare payment for the unemployed or slightly above that is a much more workable proposition then one set at 70 thousand. It doesnt create a mass disincentive to work and in fact, at the unksilled labour level it actually increases the incentive to work because the unskilled worker doesnt lose his welfare payment as he keeps the ubi regardless of work.

 

[The Passenger]

A ubi set at the welfare payment for the unemployed or slightly above that is a much more workable proposition then one set at 70 thousand. It doesnt create a mass disincentive to work and in fact, at the unksilled labour level it actually increases the incentive to work because the unskilled worker doesnt lose his welfare payment as he keeps the ubi regardless of work.

I'm very left wing but a UBI at 70k is not a chance.

Low to mid 20s is fine. The current 16k is abysmal for a very advanced economy.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm very left wing but a UBI at 70k is not a chance.

Low to mid 20s is fine. The current 16k is abysmal for a very advanced economy.

It's an interesting idea. 70k a year at a 20% tax rate (or a portion of that money withheld to provide services) means that poverty is essentially gone, and that most of that money is going to be moving through the economy. Government has money in their coffers, the middle and lower classes are buying stuff, and there is still incentive to work; you cannot purchase a house in Australia in reasonable time on a wage of 70k, you need a combined income to really make it work. Services remain valuable, but arguably moreso; people also have more money to pay people for those services.

It would involve a recalibration of what product X or service Y would cost, what that service would look like, what business itself would look like. It means that co-ops could almost become a natural form of business, as workers have more financial wherewithall to invest in themselves and/or their workplace.

In such a system, desire to work becomes a real advantage, instead of the possessing of wealth as collateral for the obtainment of loans. You could also theoretically waive your right for your UBI to your bank as a means of obtain large sums of money.

 

[Seeds]

It's an interesting idea. 70k a year at a 20% tax rate (or a portion of that money withheld to provide services) means that poverty is essentially gone, and that most of that money is going to be moving through the economy. Government has money in their coffers, the middle and lower classes are buying stuff, and there is still incentive to work; you cannot purchase a house in Australia in reasonable time on a wage of 70k, you need a combined income to really make it work. Services remain valuable, but arguably moreso; people also have more money to pay people for those services.

It would involve a recalibration of what product X or service Y would cost, what that service would look like, what business itself would look like. It means that co-ops could almost become a natural form of business, as workers have more financial wherewithall to invest in themselves and/or their workplace.

In such a system, desire to work becomes a real advantage, instead of the possessing of wealth as collateral for the obtainment of loans. You could also theoretically waive your right for your UBI to your bank as a means of obtain large sums of money.

half the workforce would quit within the weeks if they could get 70 thousand a year for free for life.

most peoples retirement goal is to retire once they can guarantee a certain annual payment for the rest of their life. That payment for most people would be less then 70 thousand. Thus once that rate is guaranteed then why would anyone keep working? It would be irrational to do so. Plus for those who have a higher goal then 70 thousand they too will now retire decades earlier or cut back annual work hours significantly.

sounds great all this leisure time created out of thin air.

Except magic doesnt exist and the whole economy implodes because no one is producing goods or services anymore which forces prices to sky rocket. Not 10 or 20 percent. But thousands or percent. Its happened before in a number of countries. Its not fiction.

communism failed because there was no incentive to work hard and do well. But there still was an incentive to work under communism. I.e the gun to the head if you did not. a high UBI is even worse then communism regarding work incentives because it gets rid of the incentive to work all together.

if such a system was implemented it would fall apart within weeks. Not years or months. But Weeks.

a lower ubi set at the welfare rate or only modestly higher does, however, have the potential to work. Because the system wont implode with everyone retiring.

 

[Gethelred]

half the workforce would quit within the weeks if they could get 70 thousand a year for free for life.

most peoples retirement goal is to retire once they can guarantee a certain annual payment for the rest of their life. That payment for most people would be less then 70 thousand. Thus once that rate is guaranteed then why would anyone keep working? It would be irrational to do so. Plus for those who have a higher goal then 70 thousand they too will now retire decades earlier or cut back annual work hours significantly.

sounds great all this leisure time created out of thin air.

Except magic doesnt exist and the whole economy implodes because no one is producing goods or services anymore which forces prices to sky rocket. Not 10 or 20 percent. But thousands or percent. Its happened before in a number of countries. Its not fiction.

communism failed because there was no incentive to work hard and do well. But there still was an incentive to work under communism. I.e the gun to the head if you did not. a high UBI is even worse then communism regarding work incentives because it gets rid of the incentive to work all together.

if such a system was implemented it would fall apart within weeks. Not years or months. But Weeks.

a lower ubi set at the welfare rate or only modestly higher does, however, have the potential to work. Because the system wont implode with everyone retiring.

The question being, can we reach a gentler form of incentive than the desperation manifest at present?

In a lot of ways, we're not all that far away from the gun of communism. Sure, there's no actual gun to your head, but there's a hell of a lot of genuine poor people who have to choose between food, petrol and rent.

 

[Number37]

half the workforce would quit within the weeks if they could get 70 thousand a year for free for life.

most peoples retirement goal is to retire once they can guarantee a certain annual payment for the rest of their life. That payment for most people would be less then 70 thousand. Thus once that rate is guaranteed then why would anyone keep working? It would be irrational to do so. Plus for those who have a higher goal then 70 thousand they too will now retire decades earlier or cut back annual work hours significantly.

sounds great all this leisure time created out of thin air.

Except magic doesnt exist and the whole economy implodes because no one is producing goods or services anymore which forces prices to sky rocket. Not 10 or 20 percent. But thousands or percent. Its happened before in a number of countries. Its not fiction.

communism failed because there was no incentive to work hard and do well. But there still was an incentive to work under communism. I.e the gun to the head if you did not. a high UBI is even worse then communism regarding work incentives because it gets rid of the incentive to work all together.

if such a system was implemented it would fall apart within weeks. Not years or months. But Weeks.

a lower ubi set at the welfare rate or only modestly higher does, however, have the potential to work. Because the system wont implode with everyone retiring.

You're running with the assumption that it is $70k all in cash. I already made it clear that it isn't.


If so many people say F it, I'll just live on my UBI, wages will go up....that is basic supply & demand.
Basic supply and demand analysis should tell you that the average wage will have to at least equal the UBI.
What then does that lead to???
Something for you to think about...
Zero industrial action, zero need for industrial relations policy outside of OH & S.
If you don't want to work, you can tell the boss to stick it.
If the boss isn't happy with your work, she can tell you to stick it.

How many people do you think will end up doing what they enjoy or love or have an interest in?
We'll be sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya before you know it.


You're just triggered by the amount and have concluded it won't work because you're triggered by the amount.
I encourage you to really think about it.

 

[Number37]

I'm very left wing but a UBI at 70k is not a chance.

Low to mid 20s is fine. The current 16k is abysmal for a very advanced economy.

That 70K UBI includes to the value of XXXX for services (electricity/water/telecommunications/public transport)
Which means you're not giving people 70k in cash.
And it won't cost you 70K multiplied by the number of people you give it to.
You're giving them services at cost, ie without a markup for profit.
Services you can nationalise because they are a natural monopoly. ie it won't interfere with "the market".

The poverty line is about $1100 per week or $57000 per year

 

[Seeds]

The question being, can we reach a gentler form of incentive than the desperation manifest at present?

In a lot of ways, we're not all that far away from the gun of communism. Sure, there's no actual gun to your head, but there's a hell of a lot of genuine poor people who have to choose between food, petrol and rent.

True but the solution isnt simply giving people 70 thousand dollars. It would be great if that would work but it wont. It would actually lead to much greater levels of homeless problems as the whole system implodes.

a ubi with a much lower rate, say 25000 thousand, a switch from income to wealth taxes which would eliminate tax for those who have no wealth, universal free education from 6 months to university for all your children, significant reform of the housing market to effectively halve house prices and provide very cheap low quality housing that people would prefer over no housing, and a mass expansion of the health system to eliminate ridiculous waiting times to help people get healthy again quickly. All these policies would greatly help people at the bottom have a much better life.

the only thing i would make worse for them is to raise taxes on petrol. we dont want people using petrol. Its poisoning the planet.

 

[awaremind]

I think a campaign to plant trees, rurally and urban agriculture using the labour of the unemployed would be a great thing to implement on a large scale as soon as a good plan could be made.

 

[Gethelred]

I think a campaign to plant trees, rurally and urban agriculture using the labour of the unemployed would be a great thing to implement on a large scale as soon as a good plan could be made.

How do you deal with those who cannot work for medical reasons that - for whatever reason - are insufficient to obtain a disability pension but who cannot work a full day on rural aggriculture? How do you deal with transportation on the immense geographic spans necessary to take unemployed - and therefore poor, who may not have a car - to those locations to do this aggriculture, considering their dispersal?

How do you avoid the appearance of state mandated slavery?

 

[Evolved1]

How do you deal with those who cannot work for medical reasons that - for whatever reason - are insufficient to obtain a disability pension but who cannot work a full day on rural aggriculture?

If they're capable of working an admin role, put them to work there. If medical reasons stop them from working, pay them a livable wage with no conditions attached.

How do you deal with transportation on the immense geographic spans necessary to take unemployed - and therefore poor, who may not have a car - to those locations to do this aggriculture, considering their dispersal?

Find them work close to home.

How do you avoid the appearance of state mandated slavery?

Pay a livable salary. I'd increase the dole while expecting more from those who receive it. If you don't show up for work, you don't eat. Make it simple.

 

[Gethelred]

If they're capable of working an admin role, put them to work there. If medical reasons stop them from working, pay them a livable wage with no conditions attached.

... I take it you've not had overmuch to do with unemployed people, then?

It affects you mentally. You become less able to do work, less motivated, less able to be motivated. People of the kind I'm talking about are very frequently even less able to work, even as management.

My aunt does not qualify for a disability pension, despite spending - on average - about three months a year in a ward to prevent her from hurting herself. She cannot work more than an hour or two consecutively without being exhausted. This has its roots in her youth, when she worked as a nurse and badly hurt her back only to receive no compensation or support for it; since then, she's been only intermittently able to work.

Put her managing other people who have been unemployed - due to a myriad of factors - is a terrible idea. You're putting people who need assistance to get through the day in charge of people who need assistance to get through the day.

Find them work close to home.

That's kind of what we're already doing with WFTD, and that system does not function as intended. It doesn't teach employability, and it doesn't teach skills.

If the idea is to create lifelong unemployed, creating a second tier of workers who do so for a government wage is an effective way to do it. All you're left with is work that wouldn't get done very well by people reluctant to do it, away from where it needs to be done.

In short, the system as it currently stands.

Pay a livable salary. I'd increase the dole while expecting more from those who receive it. If you don't show up for work, you don't eat. Make it simple.

Then we get to the end of things.

In any society, there are around 1% or less of people who do not want to work or cannot work no matter the impetus. Food does not serve as an adequate impetus for these people; some of them will steal to avoid working, but the majority of them will just die or live off family and friends.

Some of them do not have family, and will not have friends for very long. This policy would definitely kill people. Are you comfortable with that?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Voting should have an upper age limit just as it has a lower age limit. Once you reach 60 your voting days should be done.

 

[Evolved1]

... I take it you've not had overmuch to do with unemployed people, then?

Next to none, but it's not all negative.

A dole payment of $46 per day isn't sufficient, so I'd support doubling or tripling that.

It affects you mentally. You become less able to do work, less motivated, less able to be motivated. People of the kind I'm talking about are very frequently even less able to work, even as management.

My aunt does not qualify for a disability pension, despite spending - on average - about three months a year in a ward to prevent her from hurting herself. She cannot work more than an hour or two consecutively without being exhausted. This has its roots in her youth, when she worked as a nurse and badly hurt her back only to receive no compensation or support for it; since then, she's been only intermittently able to work.

Put her managing other people who have been unemployed - due to a myriad of factors - is a terrible idea. You're putting people who need assistance to get through the day in charge of people who need assistance to get through the day.

I did say "medical reasons" negate the necessity of 'working for dole' in my idealised world, and that includes mental health.

That's kind of what we're already doing with WFTD, and that system does not function as intended. It doesn't teach employability, and it doesn't teach skills.

If the idea is to create lifelong unemployed, creating a second tier of workers who do so for a government wage is an effective way to do it. All you're left with is work that wouldn't get done very well by people reluctant to do it, away from where it needs to be done.

In short, the system as it currently stands.

Then we get to the end of things.

In any society, there are around 1% or less of people who do not want to work or cannot work no matter the impetus. Food does not serve as an adequate impetus for these people; some of them will steal to avoid working, but the majority of them will just die or live off family and friends.

Some of them do not have family, and will not have friends for very long. This policy would definitely kill people. Are you comfortable with that?

Fair points. I'd be comfortable if they're Carlton supporters. Sorry.