Steve Killelea

But anyway, you look at it, you're still probably going to need some form of social welfare, even if you don't implement it.

So let's say you brought in at 5000 a year, which is

probably affordable.

That's about 120 billion for Australia.

So it's probably affordable, but you'd still need the welfare systems.

And the attraction of it originally was it cuts out a whole range of different benefits which were expensive to administer.

and problematic in some ways in their implementation.

So it wouldn't necessarily get rid of that.

If we go to Switzerland, for example, in 2016, they did have a referendum there on introducing it there, but it got voted down by 77% of the population.

So it wasn't so popular there once people looked into it.

If you did brought it in, two political considerations from it.

One,

there's now an immense political incentive to keep on increasing it because political parties go to the poll, something most people get.

You offer to increase it, you're probably going to get a pretty strong grand swell of support.

I think the second thing is when you're looking at it also, public service.

So in theory, it's going to streamline the public service, it's going to get rid of a whole lot of departments and payments and with that comes a

fair number of people who wouldn't get not going to have jobs and have to be re-employed elsewhere so i think just quickly that's a rough uh summarization the way i see it anyway steve you you said a number in there you said with i don't know if you said with or without job keeper something like fifteen thousand dollars a year is what people would be on job seeker yeah something like that it's 285 dollars per week from memory

No, I haven't got those kind of figures available.

Mm-hmm.

Well, I guess that's the concept of MMT, isn't it?