Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AdamP88

Well-known member
Recently an idea has become rather fashionable among certain socialist politicians and economists that the state should provide for all it’s citizens basic needs by paying each person enough money to survive and have all the necessities of life. (Universal Basic Income).

Besides the obvious practical issues with such a scheme, what would be the Catholic arguments against it? I have a certain friend who has “latched on” to this idea and other “redistribution of wealth” style ideas and seems to believe that the state should take much more control over these things than it does already.

My own attitude would be an extreme distrust of such a scheme, especially since it resembles communism so much.
 
St. John Chrysostom pointed out that confiscating the wealth of the rich and giving it to the poor will a) cause the rich to become bitter and resentful of their stolen goods, and b) the poor will not appreciate the gift, since it comes from bureaucratic demands instead of loving, voluntary giving.

Also, anyone who has studied economics knows that the minimum wage does not lift anyone out of poverty. In fact, all it does is artificially increase the cost of employment, leading to a labor surplus (aka unemployment).
 
AdamPeter said:
Recently an idea has become rather fashionable among certain socialist politicians and economists that the state should provide for all it’s citizens basic needs by paying each person enough money to survive and have all the necessities of life. (Universal Basic Income).

Besides the obvious practical issues with such a scheme, what would be the Catholic arguments against it? I have a certain friend who has “latched on” to this idea and other “redistribution of wealth” style ideas and seems to believe that the state should take much more control over these things than it does already.

My own attitude would be an extreme distrust of such a scheme, especially since it resembles communism so much.
Click to expand...
A few ideas come to mind:


  1. *]Although the state can require its citizens to pay a reasonable amount of taxes, at a certain level it stops being reasonable and becomes excessively burdensome.
    *]When money is unjustifiably taken from someone, or is taken in excess, this confiscation is no longer taxation but theft, no matter what its object is.
    *]If the idea, on the other hand, is simply to “print” money and give it away, such a course of action would produce catastrophic hyper-inflation. (Think of what happened in the Weimar Republic in Germany.)
    *]Unless there is a grave and urgent need, simply giving money to someone who has not earned it is not just, especially when it is taken from someone who has earned it.
    *]The whole economy depends on remuneration as a reward for work. If you take that incentive away, productivity, and hence real wealth, will go down very quickly. (There is empirical evidence for this in the ex-Communist countries.)
    *]Confiscating people’s money and redistributing it is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity (which states that goods, including money, should be managed by the group of people closest to the ground). The state is simply not capable of knowing what needs people have—it is too remote, and giving it that much power is a dangerous thing.
    *]When people receive money without working for it, the tendency is to be irresponsible with that money. (E.g., the state might give away $20,000 to each person, only to find that he has spent it all on cigarettes and alcohol.)
 
AdamPeter said:
Recently an idea has become rather fashionable among certain socialist politicians and economists that the state should provide for all it’s citizens basic needs by paying each person enough money to survive and have all the necessities of life. (Universal Basic Income).

Besides the obvious practical issues with such a scheme, what would be the Catholic arguments against it? I have a certain friend who has “latched on” to this idea and other “redistribution of wealth” style ideas and seems to believe that the state should take much more control over these things than it does already.

My own attitude would be an extreme distrust of such a scheme, especially since it resembles communism so much.
Click to expand...
Depends how you define basic needs. I believe it is a right for every American to have health care and assistance to higher education in a global economy not just those who can afford it. Other then these two needs every able adult American should work for their own housing, food, and clothing. There are many jobs people on Assistance can do like picking up trash on road sides, helping out in Nursing Homes, babysitting the elderly, helping out military families, helping out day care centers, cleaning up graffiti, and working food banks. Assistance credits can be earned to pay your way forward on many needed work jobs.
Our Congress is too busy bashing the other party to care about every day people and to make people feel useful.
 
PassingSoul said:
Depends how you define basic needs. I believe it is a right for every American to have health care and assistance to higher education in a global economy not just those who can afford it. Other then these two needs every able adult American should work for their own housing, food, and clothing. There are many jobs people on Assistance can do like picking up trash on road sides, helping out in Nursing Homes, babysitting the elderly, helping out military families, helping out day care centers, cleaning up graffiti, and working food banks. Assistance credits can be earned to pay your way forward on many needed work jobs.
Our Congress is too busy bashing the other party to care about every day people and to make people feel useful.
Click to expand...
The 99 Percent in America are the One Percent to the rest of the world
 
AdamPeter said:
Recently an idea has become rather fashionable among certain socialist politicians and economists that the state should provide for all it’s citizens basic needs by paying each person enough money to survive and have all the necessities of life. (Universal Basic Income).

Besides the obvious practical issues with such a scheme, what would be the Catholic arguments against it? I have a certain friend who has “latched on” to this idea and other “redistribution of wealth” style ideas and seems to believe that the state should take much more control over these things than it does already.

My own attitude would be an extreme distrust of such a scheme, especially since it resembles communism so much.
Click to expand...
Communist/Socialist theories are fine and good on paper, in practice people are greedy and money goes missing. In addition, where are the borders of this scheme? Should Canada/W Europe/USA and other currently ‘well-off’ nation subsidize ‘lesser off’ nations with this scheme; or is each nation self-universal inside its borders? Who will be the authority to make sure that once money is collected into the “collective”, it won’t be siphoned off at any point from collection to distribution for the individual? How can a bureaucracy in - say Switzerland or Denmark - catch a corruption or skimming scheme in time to fix it. How will the money be prevented from being used for terrorism or violence?

Ideas are only ideas - academics are full of them.
 
I think you could make a decent argument against UBI on the grounds that it would be difficult to pay for and implement, or that it would cause unwanted civil strife, but I can’t see how one could possibly argue against it on doctrinal grounds. Cæsar has the right to (reasonable amounts of) tax money, and once he has that money, he has just as much right to give to the poor as you or I do.
 
I know my comment will pale in comparison to that of others, especially being so short, but, as Christians, we must be responsible for ourselves. Even for the basics of life like food or shelter, we are to provide for ourselves inasmuch as it is our ability.

Yes, charity and care are important, but that does not mean that the State provides for our needs. Also, this can be easily abused… 🤷
 
It’s not a certitude that UBI is in violation of Catholic moral teaching. It’s definitely not an imperative or something Catholics must support, and there may be practical reasons against it, but it’s not inherently an immoral concept. It makes more sense than case-by-case basis welfare, unemployment, rent ceilings, etc . . . And would be a market-based solution, as opposed to centrally planning housing, food distribution, employment, etc . . .
 
PassingSoul said:
Depends how you define basic needs. I believe it is a right for every American to have health care and assistance to higher education in a global economy not just those who can afford it. Other then these two needs every able adult American should work for their own housing, food, and clothing. There are many jobs people on Assistance can do like picking up trash on road sides, helping out in Nursing Homes, babysitting the elderly, helping out military families, helping out day care centers, cleaning up graffiti, and working food banks. Assistance credits can be earned to pay your way forward on many needed work jobs.
Our Congress is too busy bashing the other party to care about every day people and to make people feel useful.
Click to expand...
Of course health care is a right. So is freedom of the press, and the right to arms. That doesn’t mean the government provides them. If government provides one person health care at the involuntary expense of another, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.

OTOH, if these things are earned by labor, then they are no longer privileges, but government has no constitutional mandate to be the employer of last resort, at least in the U.S.
What Congress should do is dramatically lower taxes and spending and allow the principle of subsidiarity take hold.

Jon
 
SyroMalankara said:
Communist/Socialist theories are fine and good on paper, in practice people are greedy and money goes missing. In addition, where are the borders of this scheme? Should Canada/W Europe/USA and other currently ‘well-off’ nation subsidize ‘lesser off’ nations with this scheme; or is each nation self-universal inside its borders? Who will be the authority to make sure that once money is collected into the “collective”, it won’t be siphoned off at any point from collection to distribution for the individual? How can a bureaucracy in - say Switzerland or Denmark - catch a corruption or skimming scheme in time to fix it. How will the money be prevented from being used for terrorism or violence?

Ideas are only ideas - academics are full of them.
Click to expand...
Communist theories are hardly fine on paper. The abolishment of private ownership of means of production, central planning for labor and distribution of goods, the lack of any human rights that are off limits to the state most importantly, the unjust application of extreme violence in order to accomplish this. None of those things are pretty on paper, and they are all central to the communist ideal.
 
Wesrock said:
Communist theories are hardly fine on paper. The abolishment of private ownership of means of production, central planning for labor and distribution of goods, the lack of any human rights that are off limits to the state most importantly, the unjust application of extreme violence in order to accomplish this. None of those things are pretty on paper, and they are all central to the communist ideal.
Click to expand...
It looks fine when you phrase it prettily: “Everyone is equal and all are one under our powerful and prosperous state. Patriotism thrives while all work towards a better tomorrow.”

But we know, from many examples, that communism or its socialistic variations cannot work en masse as a nation. An American example is the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana in 1978 where 909 people died there and more in nearby areas. It was a church project, too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
 
JackVk said:
St. John Chrysostom pointed out that confiscating the wealth of the rich and giving it to the poor will a) cause the rich to become bitter and resentful of their stolen goods, and b) the poor will not appreciate the gift, since it comes from bureaucratic demands instead of loving, voluntary giving.

Also, anyone who has studied economics knows that the minimum wage does not lift anyone out of poverty. In fact, all it does is artificially increase the cost of employment, leading to a labor surplus (aka unemployment).
Click to expand...
Minimum wage is not the same as universal basic income. Minimum wage is a matter of justice and setting a basic fair minimum that employers must pay to workers.

UBI is the state basically paying it’s citizens regardless of whether they’re in employment or not. A form of redistribution of wealth.

My objections would be rooted in the idea that there is a certain dignity involved in work. A person should be trying to make their way in the world. I do think there should be a social welfare system for people who are genuinely struggling. But the state handing out money with no strings attached doesn’t sit right with me.
 
So to be clear, the objections levied thus far are:

  1. *]It would be difficult
    *]People are principally driven to work by the desire to accumulate wealth
    *]Building on 2, People would not work as hard if they knew a significant part of their income went to helping the poor

    This just makes me sad.
 
UBI, universal healthcare, and public education would be intended as basic security to support everyone in society and the economy as a whole, which would still operate on market principles, private ownership, entrepreneurship, etc . . .

UBI would not only allow us to do away with social security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc . . . for the most part, but it would apply to all citizens, rich and poor, as basic security. Payments would not be targeted to just the poor or people without jobs. If it keeps people from falling to the streets, they may very well be able to maintain better heatlh, be less of a drag on the health care system, and be able to more quickly get back on their feet and find employment.
 
Wesrock said:
It’s not a certitude that UBI is in violation of Catholic moral teaching. It’s definitely not an imperative or something Catholics must support, and there may be practical reasons against it, but it’s not inherently an immoral concept. It makes more sense than case-by-case basis welfare, unemployment, rent ceilings, etc . . . And would be a market-based solution, as opposed to centrally planning housing, food distribution, employment, etc . . .
Click to expand...
It might not be a direct violation of moral teaching, but I really don’t think there are many arguments for UBI that could be found in Catholic doctrine.

I don’t see how it would make more sense than a case-by-case system. In order to implement it you’d have to have a system that penalises people for being wealthy.

It’s a double disincentive to work and innovation as well.
Those who might work otherwise will be tempted to live off UBI and basically end up as moochers.
Those who might have started businesses or created jobs will be discouraged because if they make any extra they will be penalised for doing so.
 
AdamPeter said:
Minimum wage is not the same as universal basic income. Minimum wage is a matter of justice and setting a basic fair minimum that employers must pay to workers.

UBI is the state basically paying it’s citizens regardless of whether they’re in employment or not. A form of redistribution of wealth.

My objections would be rooted in the idea that there is a certain dignity involved in work. A person should be trying to make their way in the world. I do think there should be a social welfare system for people who are genuinely struggling. But the state handing out money with no strings attached doesn’t sit right with me.
Click to expand...
Minimum wage is not a matter of justice. It is a matter of interference by government with the contractual arrangements between free citizens. What is worse, minimum wages act as much as a ceiling as they do a floor, and systematically eliminate youth employment.

Jon
 
jesucated said:
So to be clear, the objections levied thus far are:

  1. *]It would be difficult
    *]People are principally driven to work by the desire to accumulate wealth
    *]Building on 2, People would not work as hard if they knew a significant part of their income went to helping the poor

    This just makes me sad.
Click to expand...

  1. Perhaps rephrase no 2 to read: People who create jobs and innovate are primarily driven by the idea that they will be rewarded for their efforts, which is perfectly fine.

    And No. 3 to read: People would not bother working hard if they knew the government would give them money anyway and that if they earned over a certain threshold the government would penalise them for being richer and redistribute their money to people (rich and poor) who didn’t earn it.
 
Wesrock said:
UBI, universal healthcare, and public education would be intended as basic security to support everyone in society and the economy as a whole, which would still operate on market principles, private ownership, entrepreneurship, etc . . .

UBI would not only allow us to do away with social security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc . . . for the most part, but it would apply to all citizens, rich and poor, as basic security. Payments would not be targeted to just the poor or people without jobs. If it keeps people from falling to the streets, they may very well be able to maintain better heatlh, be less of a drag on the health care system, and be able to more quickly get back on their feet and find employment.
Click to expand...
Who’s we and us?
 
Taxation and social support is not a penalty to the wealthy. Public education is not a penalty to the wealthy. Public roads are not a penalty to the wealthy. Supporting the military is not a penalty to the wealthy. Taxation is not some penal system, and public goods and services are not robbery. The USA essentially stands completely alone in the world in considering universal healthcare to be some unthinkable violation, and is supported by wealthy alike in nations that have these systems, not to mention many business owners in the USA, for example, would love to see this, as it could lower costs for them.

This does not mean the nation has a moral imperative to provide it, or that it’s an essential human right to the dignity of a person. But the state has the just authority to tax and spend accordingly. Taxation and public goods and services are not a violation of any human dignity. It is not robbery or a penalty. And as a society’s wealth grows, there’s no law stating that the ability of that nation to provide social support cannot grow as well.

And before someone decides to brush this all under the rug of communism, that’s a black and white mentality. You may as well call all theists, hindus, and muslims Catholic if you’re seeking that level of accuracy simply because they believe in God, as if creed and specific doctrines on the ideas of implementation and human rights is irrelevant. You may as well call “public roads” communism under such a large brush.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top