Dear All
My name is David Mackey and I have been lurking on this site for some
time. I have been inspired by some of the comments made and enlightened
by the different points of views expressed.
I work for the Environment Protection Authority as part of the
Corporate Planning unit where , among other things, I assist in the
strategic scanning and analysis of future issues to for the
organisation's planning. Hopefully, in this unit, we are trying to move
the thinking in the executive management from today's issues to more
long-term focus (which you would think should be easy of an
environmental organisation but so much is driven by day-to-day
politics!).
I just wanted to comment on the issue that you have highlighted below.
You may not be aware that in Australia we have compulsory voting. This
exists for federal and state levels. Local elections are compulsory in
NSW but not so in Western Australia (where I once lived). I do not know
of the situation for local government in other States. Compulsory
voting is considered a duty of all citizens and is required by law. It
was though many years ago that because of our small population not
enough people would turn out to have a representative democracy if
voting was not compulsory. Certainly this is true for local government
in Western Australia.
A person is fined for not voting without a 'good' reason and the
Electoral Commission often has extensive campaigns to ensure people are
enrolled to vote. Those that object to the system usually invalidate
their voting form or simply don't register, however the majority of
eligible people are registered.
The argument for compulsory voting is that if people aren't made to vote
then the poor would be disadvantaged because they would be the ones who
would not vote (this argument is used by the Labor Party) while the
conservative party (Australian Liberal Party and the National Party)
argues that it is each individuals responsibility to take an interest
and vote.
An example here of what could happen without compulsory voting was shown
at the recent Constitutional Convention that debated whether Australia
should become a republic. The convention was established through
non-compulsory postal voting. The turn out was under 50 percent in
every state. Although not seen quite the same as a State or Federal
election, I guess it does illustrate the potential low turn out in this
country if we did not have compulsory voting.
Regarding the concept of a Basic Income, I remember discussing this
issue with a colleague of mine back in the 1980's when I worked in the
Department of Social Security. At the time all Australians were
entitled to an aged pension on reaching 60(women) and 65(men) (23% of
the basic wage) unemployment payments for those out of work, benefits
for the sick and pensions for sole parents and the disabled. People are
still entitled to these payments but there are more restrictions placed
on the how much is paid depending on a person's assets and other
income). the previous Federal government's aim was to increase pensions
and benefits to 25% of the basic wage over time.
My friend argued at the time the government could save the expense of
having a huge bureaucracy and needless paperwork of assessing welfare
by simply paying everyone a Basic Income (set at the minimum wage) and
then reducing this on a sliding scale depending on other work or income.
At the time I could not see how most people would support the idea.
We now have an extensive infrastructure for delivering such payments
and monitoring other income: every adult in Australia has a tax file
number used by the government to monitor personal transactions linking
payments of welfare, immigration movements, banking and finance
transactions and of course taxation. Every child has a Social Security
number, linked to their parents tax file number. But we don't and still
can't monitor the cash economy.
I am still not convinced a Basic Income would work. While the idea
sounds good there are too many unanswered questions:
For example: How would you sell the Basic Income to the public, who
still hold to the work ethic and condemn those who are unable to find
work, or who have simply given up looking, and to Governments who are
desperately trying to reduce deficits? The system would need to be
revenue neutral, be advantages to everybody, including businesses and
industry (how would industry staff boring menial jobs if people did not
depend on such work for a livelihood?).
How would you make the scheme account for regional differences, eg its
more costly to live in Sydney than in other cities because of property
speculation, food is dearer in outback Australia because of
transportation costs. I'm sure similar differences occur in USA and
Canada.
Would this create population shifts as people, no longer required to
live in large cities for work, move to smaller rural towns where life
is not as hectic? Would this have a bigger impact on some areas rather
than others, environmental, provision of services etc?
How would you control those who operate in the cash economy who would
get their Basic Income and not declare earnings even with all the
numbering systems governments try to link to control fraud?
Respectfully
David Mackey
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lunde [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 1998 11:20
>To: Future Work
>Cc: Hi Kathy & Robert &Chelsea & Bree; Gregory Roche
>Subject: Re FW - Some hard questions about basic income - 1
>
>This post is addressed to Elinor Mosher and Saul Silverman under the original
>thread. First let me thank you both for great answers and though I have read
>many of Galbraith's books and have found him excellent, I have not read this
>one - next trip to library. As to your answer Saul, great history lesson and
>I'm sure accurate without the criteria of research, anyway good enough for
>me.
>
>What strikes me in the two democratic systems in North America is why voting
>is considered a "right" to be invoked instead of an obligation to be
>fulfilled. Surely, as these ideas of parties and voting were discussed and
>it was decided who had the right to vote - which has been expanded from
>property owners to everyone over a certain age - the option was there to make
>it mandatory for everyone qualified to vote. It would have been a simple
>matter to make it into law, everyone who is a citizen must vote. There could
>have been penalties for not voting - fines and other disincentives. As
>everyone has to live under the rules that government make, it would seem to
>me a logical step to ask each individual as a matter of their citizenship to
>indicate their preferences.
>
>One of my arguments for this might be that the elite, knowing that they are
>always numerically outnumbered would have found it to their advantage to make
>voting a "right" to be invoked by the individual rather than a must as
>decreed by a law. In the cases you mentioned Saul about the different
>periods of history when a major effort was made to get the poor to vote, it
>would have been much simpler to lobby for mandatory voting.
>
>Now in regards to the concept of a Basic Income, it would seem reasonable to
>me to tie the "right" of a Basic Income to the "mandatory right to vote". In
>other words, if the state is going to pay you a dividend of citizenship, then
>it would seem logical that the state should demand that you assume the
>responsibility of choosing who will govern.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde << File: ATT00223.html >>
