[gnerd]

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.

[grecy]

If you don't earn enough money, it is unconditional. So it's a guaranteed basic income.

The money goes into your bank account, you can spend it on beer and smokes if you want to.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[1] http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...

[2] http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink...

[grecy]

> 1) Also meet an "assets test"

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.