澳大利亚的基本收入:探索

S. Nghiem, X. Vu
{"title":"澳大利亚的基本收入:探索","authors":"S. Nghiem, X. Vu","doi":"10.1108/jed-07-2022-0119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeBasic income (BI) is predicted to be the major economic intervention in response to raising income inequality and accelerating technological progress. Financing is often the first question that arises when discussing a BI. A thorough answer to this question will determine the sustainability of any BI program. However, BI experiments implemented worldwide have not answered this question. This paper explores two options for a BI program in Australia: (1) BI and (2) top-up basic income (TBI).Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ “back-of-the-envelope” calculations with the latest publicly available data on income distribution, the poverty line and the share of income tax in the government revenue to estimate the costs of implementing BI in Australia.FindingsEven without any change in the current tax regulations, the TBI option, which requires a contribution of 2–3% disposable income from net contributors, will guarantee that no Australian family lives under the current national poverty line. The BI for all options is not financially feasible under the current tax and transfer regulations because it requires an additional tax rate of at least 42% of disposable income from net contributors.Practical implicationsThe results of this study can serve as inputs for the design and implementation of BI options in Australia and similar countries.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that examines the macroeconomic effects of BI options in Australia.","PeriodicalId":34568,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economics and Development","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basic income in Australia: an exploration\",\"authors\":\"S. Nghiem, X. Vu\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jed-07-2022-0119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeBasic income (BI) is predicted to be the major economic intervention in response to raising income inequality and accelerating technological progress. Financing is often the first question that arises when discussing a BI. A thorough answer to this question will determine the sustainability of any BI program. However, BI experiments implemented worldwide have not answered this question. This paper explores two options for a BI program in Australia: (1) BI and (2) top-up basic income (TBI).Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ “back-of-the-envelope” calculations with the latest publicly available data on income distribution, the poverty line and the share of income tax in the government revenue to estimate the costs of implementing BI in Australia.FindingsEven without any change in the current tax regulations, the TBI option, which requires a contribution of 2–3% disposable income from net contributors, will guarantee that no Australian family lives under the current national poverty line. The BI for all options is not financially feasible under the current tax and transfer regulations because it requires an additional tax rate of at least 42% of disposable income from net contributors.Practical implicationsThe results of this study can serve as inputs for the design and implementation of BI options in Australia and similar countries.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that examines the macroeconomic effects of BI options in Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economics and Development\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economics and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jed-07-2022-0119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economics and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jed-07-2022-0119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的基本收入(BI)预计将成为应对收入不平等加剧和加速技术进步的主要经济干预措施。融资通常是讨论BI时出现的第一个问题。对这个问题的彻底回答将决定任何BI计划的可持续性。然而,在世界范围内实施的BI实验并没有回答这个问题。本文探讨了澳大利亚BI计划的两种选择:(1)BI和(2)基本收入充值(TBI)。设计/方法/方法作者采用了“粗略的”计算方法,使用了有关收入分配、贫困线和所得税在政府收入中所占份额的最新公开数据,以估计在澳大利亚实施商业智能的成本。在不改变现行税收法规的情况下,TBI方案(要求净缴款者缴纳可支配收入的2-3%)将保证没有澳大利亚家庭生活在目前的国家贫困线以下。在目前的税收和转让法规下,所有选择的BI在财务上是不可行的,因为它需要对净缴款者的可支配收入征收至少42%的额外税率。实际意义本研究的结果可以为澳大利亚和类似国家的商业智能方案的设计和实施提供参考。原创性/价值这是第一篇研究澳大利亚商业智能期权宏观经济影响的论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Basic income in Australia: an exploration
PurposeBasic income (BI) is predicted to be the major economic intervention in response to raising income inequality and accelerating technological progress. Financing is often the first question that arises when discussing a BI. A thorough answer to this question will determine the sustainability of any BI program. However, BI experiments implemented worldwide have not answered this question. This paper explores two options for a BI program in Australia: (1) BI and (2) top-up basic income (TBI).Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ “back-of-the-envelope” calculations with the latest publicly available data on income distribution, the poverty line and the share of income tax in the government revenue to estimate the costs of implementing BI in Australia.FindingsEven without any change in the current tax regulations, the TBI option, which requires a contribution of 2–3% disposable income from net contributors, will guarantee that no Australian family lives under the current national poverty line. The BI for all options is not financially feasible under the current tax and transfer regulations because it requires an additional tax rate of at least 42% of disposable income from net contributors.Practical implicationsThe results of this study can serve as inputs for the design and implementation of BI options in Australia and similar countries.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that examines the macroeconomic effects of BI options in Australia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
The impact of technical change on income inequality in Vietnam Asymmetric thresholds of macroeconomic volatility's impact on stock volatility in developing economies: a study in Vietnam Mobile money, food security and coping strategies in a post-conflict and fragile context: evidence from Burundi The effect of financial inclusion and economic integration on green growth in ASEAN Optimum firm size in Vietnam: does subcontracting matter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1