The concept of a universal basic income (UBI) was first proposed at the end of the 18th century, and now, over a quarter of the way through the 21st century, around a quarter of a millennia later, with just over three years to go to realise pledges made in 2015 by the worlds governments to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals, 1–2 of which are no poverty, no hunger, there’s still no global consensus on what a UBI should be, and it appears that in many parts of the world these goals that are essential to human survival, peace, unity, sustainability and collective prosperity will not be realised as pledged. During this period, the economic doctrine of capitalism quite successfully produced countless millionaires, billionaires, and even a trillionaire, however, according to data from the World Bank, almost 700 million people, or 8.5 percent of the global population, live in extreme poverty, and around 3.5 billion people, or 44 percent of the global population, remain poor by a standard that is more relevant for upper middle-income countries (USD $6.85 per day) the number of people living on less than this standard has barely changed since the 1990s due to population growth, and improvement in shared prosperity has stalled. Government has deliberately failed the people.

Poverty in Australia and New Zealand hasn’t been formally defined, however income poverty in both nations is roughly considered as being in a household with an income of less than 50% of the median income. In Australia, income support for pensioners hovers around this level and income support for unemployed persons is maintained substantially below this level. In New Zealand income support for unemployed persons and persons with disabilities is substantially below this level.

As providing income support at or slightly above 50% of the median income keeps recipients within the jaws of poverty, and as the price of goods and services inflate, there remains an intolerable prospect that income support at this level will inevitably force persons reliant upon income support below the income poverty line during the period between adjustments to the rate, it’s proposed that a global definition for a UBI could be net 60% of the net median income, or net 50% of the gross median income. It’s further proposed that global consensus on the definition of a UBI must be reached by the end of 2027, and that a UBI must be available and accessible to all persons throughout the world by or before 2030.

There’s no question whatsoever that poverty is a political choice. In rich and developed nations, it’s the policies of government that induce and perpetuate poverty and hunger, and policy can eradicate poverty and hunger quite rapidly. Absence of political will to end poverty and hunger is the primary barrier to realising sustainable development goals 1–2. On this basis, crime that's attributable to poverty and hunger is attributable to government. There’s simple and obvious solutions to eradicating poverty, hunger and homelessness. Politicians and political parties absent policies that’ll permanently eradicate poverty, hunger and homelessness by or before 2030 must be dispensed with worldwide, as they’re maintaining a world in which violence and crime flourishes. The question for governments in purportedly developed countries, and in particular rich nations, throughout the world is: How can a nation purport to be developed and civilised when poverty and hunger remains prevalent in society. According to Homelessness Australia, during the period 2021–25 the number of people sleeping rough when they first presented for help surged from about 23,500 to 34,800. Homelessness is generally not an accident, an outcome of misfortune, or a natural phenomenon, it is a deliberately engineered outcome of the policies of politicians. The system is broken and the divisive representative politics experiment is a failure, which, like the present day participants, must be abandoned with haste.