The person in Detroit, America for example that goes without water to the home because they cannot afford the cost. The person in Cambodia without indoor plumbing. The person in Australia trapped in an overcrowded house.
Are Australians going to forgo a pay increase?
Would we change our minds based on who the worker was? A low paid worker in Australia versus in America or Africa? It is not the suffering we care about, but perhaps the nationality.
Advertisement
How the system worked, would that change our minds? It could be viewed as a basic income, which is currently a popular idea. Yet, like many popular things in society, not so popular if we must pay for it.
Tax increases are not popular, so collecting the money via tax may not be supported.
Charity is not that popular either. If you gave $3 a day to help people in need, you would be giving more to charity than most Australians.
For it to work, there would have to be a universalism to it. Not, means-tested, but more about agreeing to help all people in need, deemed deserving or not.
An irony is that we want charity to be effective, but our own approach to helping is usually not.
Many complain about government spending too much on those most in need, like the unemployed, but are happy for people, us, to receive help. In the form of things like negative gearing, (loss revenue to the government) and child-care rebates, where even people above $70,000 can get rebates.
Advertisement
The fact that the ask is to help the lowest paid workers, and not the lowest paid people may prove a point. There tends to be more support for helping workers than those that do not work, another ineffective approach.
We could argue, as many Australians do, that the government should help those in need. We should not be forgoing anything.
There is also the argument the poor should help themselves.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
21 posts so far.