[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.