[gnerd]

Just because you say welfare is the same as an unconditional basic income system, doesn't mean it is. Did it ever occur to you this movement started in some of the safest welfare based nation states on earth?

The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety the dole does not.

Here[1] are a couple reasons people are supporting these movements from an Anglo perspective, I assume you have more or less the same type of welfare and obviously we have shared culture, so perhaps some of these apply to Australia and how this differs from what we have now.

[1] http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/

[grecy]

> The difference is this. It isn't completely different, just different in this one way, UNCONDITIONAL. Your dole is anything but. Unconditional income gives options that the dole does not. It gives extra safety the dole does not.

The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn. If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic income.

If you earn less than the basic income (~12k/yr) you do get it, to top you up to that amount.

It's cash deposited into your bank account, you can spend it on whatever you want.

[dragonwriter]

> The dole in Australia is only conditional on one thing - how much money you earn.

Every article I can find about the Australian dole references other exclusion and participation requirements like a "mutual obligation requirement" that has various ways that it can be satisfied, one of which is "Work for the Dole", and indicates that if those requirements are not met, you don't get anything. [1]

> If you already earn more than the basic income, you don't get the dole, which is the definition of a basic income.

No, the definition of an unconditional basic income is that you get it -- with no direct reduction based on other income or wealth [2] -- no matter what your income level is, and without other participation requirements besides membership in the served population (usually defined by legal residency within the jurisdiction, but possibly by citizenship instead.)

[1] including the ones you cited upthread, but also, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/13/young-australia... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole

[2] this does not exclude the potential for a reduced effect through operation of, e.g., a progressive tax system, however.

[grecy]

> No, the definition of an unconditional basic income is that you get it -- with no direct reduction based on other income or wealth

Sorry, you're right, it's called Guaranteed Minimum Income which is what the original linked article is talking about.