Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[LeafByNiggle]

It is not the same choice, because the income tax empowers government to take what it wants off the top. It provides that government gets the first 15%, or whatever the amount is.

That is just an accounting trick. Suppose that sales tax was included in the posted price of an item, rather than being added on later. A $10 item with 60 cents of sales tax would be priced at 10.60, from which 0.60 would be taken “off the top” before you got your item. The outcome is same as now. The only difference is that merchants have decided, somewhat arbitrarily, and perhaps for good marketing reasons, to post their prices without sales tax. Similarly, you might strike a deal with an employer to pay you $80,000 a year after income tax instead of before income tax (provided the employer knew your tax rate). Then the income tax would appear to be paid by the employer, and not be “off the top” from your wages. And the outcome would be the same as now. It is just an arbitrary way of looking at things and does not represent anything inherent in the tax structure.

No, because I had to walk into the store to begin with. It is my choice to take my money and spend it.

With income tax it was your choice to take that job with that salary.

Why are we using the tax code to discourage smoking?

Why not? The constitution does not prohibit it.

Think further of how regressive cigarette taxes are, as cigarette smoking tends to be higher per capita among lower income people.

Yes, that particular tax is regressive. However it does discourage smoking, even among those lower income people, and to that extent it benefits their health - especially the health of their children who would be most sensitive to increased cost of smoking.

 

[Rau]

No, I recognize how “progressive” is used here, and I am not opposed to it. Poor and lower middle class citizens can least afford tax burdens. I do believe that sales tax, however, can be properly designed to be progressive, such as the Fair Tax.

I do not know what the “Fair Tax” is. But a Sales Tax applied to say a pound of potatoes is unlikely to pay any heed to the financial capacity of the purchaser.

I have seen sales taxes which adapt according to the “Luxury” level of the item. Eg. for a car. Perhaps it is 10% on sedans under $35,000 and 15% on those over $35,000. Some of course would say this unfairly hammers those who like nice cars.

 

[Rau]

That’s because of where Buffet gets his money from. His secretary gets almost all of her money from wages. Buffet gets all of his money from assets (dividends and capital gains).

I fully understand the tax and accounting policies at work. Step back and consider the bottom line: The person constrained to a limited income in the form of wages incurs the worst tax position. [Well - the progressiveness of the tax scales may of course bring their average tax rate down.]

Wages are taxed at a far higher rate than dividends and capital gains. The reason for this is that the vast majority of people who earn most of their money from assets are retired people who are no longer capable of labor.

I very much doubt that that is the rationale.

 

[Rau]

In some sense, you are correct, though for me it is more a matter of avoiding a reality of government assuming it owns all property, and benevolently allows the citizen to keep some.

Fear of government appears to be constant concern for you.

Not entirely. That is not the goal of, for example, cigarette taxes. They have the specific intention of punitive measures against those who smoke. Another example is Seattle’s determination to raise exorbitant taxes on fire arms and ammunition is a tyrannical attempt to undermine the right to keep and bear arms.

This does not change my point which still stands. Foremost, governments need to raise an envelope of tax funds, and they need to decide how to distribute the sourcing of that money. And I have no difficultly with the tax system being applied to incent certain behaviours. Favouring more fuel efficient vehicles, discouraging smoking and fatty foods, discouraging behaviours that lead to higher medical expenses etc - all reasonable policies and the people can express their support or not at the ballot box.

Families pay the death tax on money already taxed. Its double taxation.

Or the original owners/earners can pay it on some other transaction or condition well in advance of death. And note that the same dollar is taxed many times as it moves through an economy, including in some places, through inheritance.

Get the government out of the “charity” business, dramatically lower taxes, and there will be far more money for charitable endeavors that actually work better, and are substantially more cost effective than government, particularly at the central government level.

It is speculative to claim that all will be well if government exited from tax funded social services.

 

[starshiptrooper]

No, but the government does.

It is a non sequitur to think that because a mob gives itself a fancy title, that they are entitled to dispose of my life, liberty, and property as they see fit.

The government is legitimate not because of the numbers of people that make it up, but by being given by God the authority to act on behalf of the people for the common good.

This is true in the abstract but meaningless in the concrete since you still have to prove how the “common good” is served by acts of theft and extortion. The end does not justify the means and that is something the Catholic Church teaches.

This is true of any debt - not just taxes.

The difference is that your debts are the result of free contract, not a bureaucrat arbitrarily making the decision for you.

Fear of government appears to be constant concern for you.

That fear is justified by both events in the past and present.

This does not change my point which still stands. Foremost, governments need to raise an envelope of tax funds, and they need to decide how to distribute the sourcing of that money.

Their job is to protect life, liberty and property, not to assuage your sense of guilt or fairness.

And I have no difficultly with the tax system being applied to incent certain behaviours. Favouring more fuel efficient vehicles, discouraging smoking and fatty foods, discouraging behaviours that lead to higher medical expenses etc - all reasonable policies and the people can express their support or not at the ballot box.

If these behaviors are as reasonable as you claim they are, the free market (which is the ultimate appeal to reason) should be sufficient and guns superfluous. For someone who thinks guns are destructive devices that be restricted from civilian ownership, you show a disturbing propensity to have a government drawn from those civilians, use them to implement your utopia.

 

[Rau]

That fear is justified by both events in the past and present.

Each to his own.

Their job is to protect life, liberty and property.

I suggest the vast bulk of society anticipate and expect a great deal more to be done by their government(s) than might be expected of the military or police force. If you want nothing more, perhaps a different form of “society” is for you? If you can equip yourself with sufficient weaponry, perhaps no society at all would be the best fit?

If these behaviors are as reasonable as you claim they are, the free market (which is the ultimate appeal to reason) should be sufficient and guns superfluous.

Is there cause to deem them unreasonable? It would seem the overwhelming numbers in our society (I believe you often refer to the vast majority as a “mob” ) are comfortable with the Government attending to more than the protection of life, liberty and property. The Constitution does not say “go no further”. There are not Supreme Court challenges to oppose all activities outside that scope. And the “free market” is useful but hardly effective at self-regulation. Review the history of the tobacco industry.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14165270]That is just an accounting trick. Suppose that sales tax was included in the posted price of an item, rather than being added on later. A $10 item with 60 cents of sales tax would be priced at 10.60, from which 0.60 would be taken “off the top” before you got your item. The outcome is same as now. The only difference is that merchants have decided, somewhat arbitrarily, and perhaps for good marketing reasons, to post their prices without sales tax. Similarly, you might strike a deal with an employer to pay you $80,000 a year after income tax instead of before income tax (provided the employer knew your tax rate). Then the income tax would appear to be paid by the employer, and not be “off the top” from your wages. And the outcome would be the same as now. It is just an arbitrary way of looking at things and does not represent anything inherent in the tax structure.

I’ve never thought of the taking of my property as a trick. Whether the sales tax is “included” or transacted at the end, it is still added on to the end. even in your scenario, your state it is a $10 item with 60 cents. Let me know when going into the store costs you 60 cents in tax, then you pay $10 if you buy the item.

With income tax it was your choice to take that job with that salary.

Again, with the income tax, the government takes the first percentage, whether or not it is collected as withholding.

Why not? The constitution does not prohibit it.

Where does the constitution grant government the power to coerce people with taxes?
Remember, the constitution was set up to limit government to certain enumerated powers.

Yes, that particular tax is regressive. However it does discourage smoking, even among those lower income people, and to that extent it benefits their health - especially the health of their children who would be most sensitive to increased cost of smoking.

So, regressive taxes are okay if one believes in a cause. What would be the reaction if a state instituted a $3,000 tax on every abortion?
That’s not the purpose of taxes. If cigarettes are that bad, government has the obligation to ban them, as they’ve done numerous weight loss products that harmed far far fewer.
the fact is the biggest addiction to tobacco is government’s addiction to the tax revenue.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14165567]Each to his own.

…said central and eastern Europeans 80 to 100 years ago.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14165299]Fear of government appears to be constant concern for you.

Not fear, distrust. Government over the history of human existence has never proved to be entirely trustworthy. Even King David proved untrustworthy at times.

This does not change my point which still stands. Foremost, governments need to raise an envelope of tax funds, and they need to decide how to distribute the sourcing of that money. And I have no difficultly with the tax system being applied to incent certain behaviours. Favouring more fuel efficient vehicles, discouraging smoking and fatty foods, discouraging behaviours that lead to higher medical expenses etc - all reasonable policies and the people can express their support or not at the ballot box.

As I responded to Leaf, if regressive taxation is okay based on a cause, then perhaps a huge tax on abortion, or maybe a huge tax on organic foods (I don’t like how they co-opted the word organic, so I want it taxed).
Behaviors that lead to medical expenses should not be a concern of taxation, or government for that matter. It should be the concern of the consumer who participates in those behaviors.

Or the original owners/earners can pay it on some other transaction or condition well in advance of death. And note that the same dollar is taxed many times as it moves through an economy, including in some places, through inheritance.

The original’s money us not moving through the economy when he/she dies.
It is in private hands.

It is speculative to claim that all will be well if government exited from tax funded social services.

It is not speculative to note that administrative costs are far higher in government run welfare programs than in private charities. It is not speculative to note that poverty in our inner cities here in America is no better now, maybe worse, than when the Great Society programs started, after spending tens of trillions of dollars. It is not speculative to state that, factually, by any objective measure, government run social programs have failed.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Jon, if governments act beyond authority in levying taxes, or in incenting, by regulation, taxation or otherwise, economic behaviours for the common good - could some independent evidence of this be identified? Has any court found so? Which leading jurists have made a case and lead a new groundswell for change? Your assertions are utterly unpersuasive, revealing more a personal leaning about your preferred model for society rather than any objective basis for the claim.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is a non sequitur to think that because a mob gives itself a fancy title, that they are entitled to dispose of my life, liberty, and property as they see fit.

It is well established in Catholic doctrine that legitimate governments with authority do exit, so calling a government a mob is the non sequitur.

…you still have to prove how the “common good” is served by acts of theft and extortion. The end does not justify the means and that is something the Catholic Church teaches.

No one is trying justify the acts of government by the ends it accomplishes. So that does not apply. And it is well established in Catholic doctrine that governments may levy taxes, and calling them acts of theft and extortion does not change that teaching.

The difference is that your debts are the result of free contract, not a bureaucrat arbitrarily making the decision for you.

The difference Jon and I were discussing was between sales tax and income tax, not between taxes and civil debts. But you are wrong to think that all civil debts are the result of a freely made contract. If you accidentally destroy some property of your neighbor’s, you have incurred a debt without intending to do so.

Their job is to protect life, liberty and property, not to assuage your sense of guilt or fairness.

…in your opinion. And maybe the opinion of the men who wrote the US Constitution. But that’s all.

If these behaviors are as reasonable as you claim they are, the free market (which is the ultimate appeal to reason) should be sufficient and guns superfluous.

Everyone knows it is not reasonable to murder your neighbor. So why doesn’t the free market take care of that too, making prosecution for murder superfluous?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Where does the constitution grant government the power to coerce people with taxes?

I thought you had already agreed that levying taxes in general is a legitimate function of government. If you agree to that, on what basis do you object (other than personal opinion) when taxes are levied differently for different products? For example, in most places, food is not taxed at all, while cars are taxed. So where on this spectrum should cigarettes be? If you admit the legitimacy of taxing differentially based on product type, you have to admit the legitimacy of taxing cigarettes more than cars.

Remember, the constitution was set up to limit government to certain enumerated powers.

And now that you have reminded me I will promptly forget it, since I am speaking of general principles, not of particular countries.

So, regressive taxes are okay if one believes in a cause. What would be the reaction if a state instituted a $3,000 tax on every abortion?

Some would love it. Others would hate it. But that is the nature of public decision making. Those that believe in a cause lobby their neighbors, gather support, and make it so.

That’s not the purpose of taxes.

The purpose of taxes is to serve the common good. If the common good is served by taxing differentially by product, then that is a legitimate purpose of taxes.

If cigarettes are that bad, government has the obligation to ban them, as they’ve done numerous weight loss products that harmed far far fewer.

I agree. I would support such a ban.

the fact is the biggest addiction to tobacco is government’s addiction to the tax revenue.

I don’t pretend to have that kind of insight into the minds of lawmakers. But it does seem a little uncharitable toward them without solid evidence, doesn’t it?

 

[BCole]

…

 

[Thursday1]

I was against UBI, but have changed my mind over the last couple of years.

It is becoming increasingly clear that most of the labor market is going to be replaced by automation and AI in the near future. When (not if) that happens, we have the choice of letting a vast majority of the population starve on the streets, or providing the basic income necessary to have food and shelter.

We can wait to make this decision until people are starving on the streets, and it will probably be a bloody revolution, or we can make the decision now, and transition peacefully to a “post scarcity” economy.

I suppose we could also become luddites and ban any development of AI, but that didn’t work too well for the 19th weavers protesting the first mechanical looms.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14165743]Jon, if governments act beyond authority in levying taxes, or in incenting, by regulation, taxation or otherwise, economic behaviours for the common good - could some independent evidence of this be identified?

Where did I say they’ve acted beyond authority in taxes? Income tax, and inheritance tax as a subset of it, are legal under the 16th amendment. There’s a difference between legal and common good. It also stands that we seem, in some areas, to have differing views of the common good.
My view: anytime the government positions itself as the first taker of someone’s legally earned property, that isn’t in the common good.

Has any court found so? Which leading jurists have made a case and lead a new groundswell for change? Your assertions are utterly unpersuasive, revealing more a personal leaning about your preferred model for society rather than any objective basis for the claim.

I think there’s no doubt that, particularly following the last 7 1/2 years, the courts in the US are not populated with individuals who particularly care what the original intent of the
constitution was. Of that there is no doubt. And they of the same mindset (progressive) that believes it is okay to take the lives of countless soon to be born humans, the same ones that think government schools should permit high school boys to shower and change with high school girls.
Rau, I disagree with that political, philosophical POV. I think the their general POV is contrary to orthodox Christian teaching, basic and simple decency, and the right to life. So, of course my personal leaning doesn’t appear to quite match what to me is clearly a precipitous decline in western culture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14165937]I thought you had already agreed that levying taxes in general is a legitimate function of government. If you agree to that, on what basis do you object (other than personal opinion) when taxes are levied differently for different products? For example, in most places, food is not taxed at all, while cars are taxed. So where on this spectrum should cigarettes be? If you admit the legitimacy of taxing differentially based on product type, you have to admit the legitimacy of taxing cigarettes more than cars.

Of course I believe taxation is legitimate. What I consider illegitimate is using the tax code to try and coerce beliefs or actions. And that is what one is talking about with punitive taxes on legal consumer products.
I have no problem with not taxing staples - food, clothing, etc. Cigarettes are not staples, but they are legal consumer products. If the government thinks they are dangerous, treat them like Phen Phen. And cars kill as many as tobacco. So, no, I do not have to admit that taxing cigarettes more than cars is defendable. It isn’t illegal, but cigarette taxers are remarkably regressive.

And now that you have reminded me I will promptly forget it, since I am speaking of general principles, not of particular countries.

A lot of Americans seem to be forgetting that principle.

Some would love it. Others would hate it. But that is the nature of public decision making. Those that believe in a cause lobby their neighbors, gather support, and make it so.

More and more, progressive courts seem to be overruling your principle here. I would venture to guess that were a state to try and tax abortions in that way, a court would step in so fast to stop it that speedy trial would have a new meaning.

The purpose of taxes is to serve the common good. If the common good is served by taxing differentially by product, then that is a legitimate purpose of taxes.

No. that’s not what taxes are for. Taxes are for funding the legitimate functions of government.

I agree. I would support such a ban.

I don’t pretend to have that kind of insight into the minds of lawmakers. But it does seem a little uncharitable toward them without solid evidence, doesn’t it?

No one is pretending to have insight into any one person’s particular mind, but the evidence is clear that governments are unwilling to ban them, knowing full well the health issues, and therefore continue to rake in tax dollars on them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I was against UBI, but have changed my mind over the last couple of years.

It is becoming increasingly clear that most of the labor market is going to be replaced by automation and AI in the near future. When (not if) that happens, we have the choice of letting a vast majority of the population starve on the streets, or providing the basic income necessary to have food and shelter.

We can wait to make this decision until people are starving on the streets, and it will probably be a bloody revolution, or we can make the decision now, and transition peacefully to a “post scarcity” economy.

I suppose we could also become luddites and ban any development of AI, but that didn’t work too well for the 19th weavers protesting the first mechanical looms.

Why would you think these developments would lead to the vast majority of people starving in the streets? Take note that the industrial revolution did not lead to a vast majority of people starving in the streets.
And if you are right, where would government get money to redistribute in the way (UBI)?

Jon

 

[Rau]

Where did I say they’ve acted beyond authority in taxes? Income tax, and inheritance tax as a subset of it, are legal under the 16th amendment. There’s a difference between legal and common good.

Glad we got that cleared up! But you’ve not explained your earlier statement: *“What I consider illegitimate is using the tax code to try and coerce beliefs or actions.” *

I think there’s no doubt that, particularly following the last 7 1/2 years, the courts in the US are not populated with individuals who particularly care what the original intent of the constitution was.

And on another thread you reference the Supreme Court as a moral authority! These are just personal leanings Jon. Again, glad that’s been cleared up!

And they of the same mindset (progressive) that believes it is okay to take the lives of countless soon to be born humans, the same ones that think government schools should permit high school boys to shower and change with high school girls.
Rau, I disagree with that political, philosophical POV.

Me too, but nothing to do with the matters in discussion.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14167008]Glad we got that cleared up!

I didn’t know it wasn’t clear. G

And on another thread you reference the Supreme Court as a moral authority! These are just personal leanings Jon. Again, glad that’s been cleared up!

It was a far greater moral authority when it defended the constitution, though I’m not sure I actually said that.

Me too, but nothing to do with the matters in discussion.

Let’s clear that up. It is the same philosophical principle, all of these, including the idea that government should have the power to claim part of your property off the top. That government power trumps human rights, because it is government that grants rights.

Jon

 

[Thursday1]

Why would you think these developments would lead to the vast majority of people starving in the streets? Take note that the industrial revolution did not lead to a vast majority of people starving in the streets.
And if you are right, where would government get money to redistribute in the way (UBI)?

Jon

When you can replace a person with a machine, you don’t need to hire a person. That is one less job available. The only purpose of a company is to make a profit, so the large companies will replace as much of their expensive human workforce as possible with machines that work 24/7. Sure some new jobs get created: service technician, robotics engineer, etc, but those are specialized jobs that will take longer to replace (though with general AI, even they will be replaced, an AI will design and service it’s own robots).

I don’t know what your profession is, but I can almost guarantee you it will be replaced by either a machine with simple programing, a specific AI that only know how to do your job, but does it better than any human, or a general AI that can do anything we can do. Are you prepared to support a family when there is literally 1 job per 1,000 people?

What will happen first is that human labor will be eliminated from entire “blue collar” job market. There won’t be people in factories, it will all be automated.
Transportation won’t be far behind as autonomous vehicles become safer and cheaper to operate than human driven ones. Do you think a trucking company that hires human drivers that have to eat and sleep will be able to compete with a firm that has it’s AI controlled fleet moving 24/7?
Then will come the service industry. There won’t be people working at McDonalds or any other chain restaurant, or entertainment venue.
Lastly, the specialized fields will be replaced first by specific AI, and eventually by general AI. Why hire a fallible CPA or lawyer when you can get a 100% accurate computer to do the work for a fraction of the cost?

The industrial revolution was awful for the working class. Many did starve, which led to rioting and sabotage (see the luddites for an example). And, because we adapted slowly to this change, we ended up with the communist revolutions and the untold millions of deaths that came along with them.

As to where the money is going to come from, that is a good question. A change like this is probably going to usher us into a post scarcity economy. What does money mean when you have AI driven mines and factories running 24/7 producing everything the human race needs for less than we spend running 1 factory today? At this point capitalism won’t work, because it requires scarcity to assign value to labor and materials. AI will make labor “un-scarce”, and material scarcity will probably follow soon after as AI takes over mining and fabrication planning. In the end we probably will have a planned economy, but one planned by AI, optimally efficient, and lacking the shortcomings of any human attempts at planning.