Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[Rau]

A death tax has one purpose: to take money from the family of the deceased. That’s all. Its sole purpose is wealth redistribution.
Taxation’s only purpose should be to fund the legitimate function of the level of government levying the tax. Not to redistribute wealth. Not to encourage or discourage behaviors. -]Not to be a weapon to bash unfairly particular income levels/-]

The last sentence is just strange…

But taxes do all the things you list, though not sure the “family” can consider dad’s money “theirs” and thus feel the death tax is an unjustified impost on them. And death tax is not solely wealth distribution - they too fuel all the work of government.

If illegitimate functions are being performed by government (contrary to government powers) - this is typically taken to courts to strike down. Lawyers love to do this if there is a case to be made. No cases on-foot suggests no case to be made.

Society by and large does not oppose progressive (that is, not flat rate) taxing structures, which take a larger slice from those better able to part with the money, and this is a redistribution of wealth either implicitly or explicitly (depending on what is done with the money).

Death taxes are not special in this regard.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14164063]The last sentence is just strange…

But taxes do all the things you list, though not sure the “family” can consider dad’s money “theirs” and thus feel the death tax is an unjustified impost on them. And death tax is not solely wealth distribution - they too fuel all the work of government.

Of course the family should consider dad’s money theirs. They have a far better claim to it than government. Let’s assume Dad paid his taxes throughout his life, played by the rules, took care of wife and family. Then when he dies, his family has to pay taxes again on previously taxed family income.

If illegitimate functions are being performed by government (contrary to government powers) - this is typically taken to courts to strike down. Lawyers love to do this if there is a case to be made. No cases on-foot suggests no case to be made.

Ot that the courts are packed with those who support the policy more than the constitution, but be that as it may…

Society by and large does not oppose progressive (that is, not flat rate) taxing structures, which take a larger slice from those better able to part with the money, and this is a redistribution of wealth either implicitly or explicitly (depending on what is done with the money).

I, too, would expect those who are wealthier to pay more taxes. They make a grerater income, and if we were on a sales tax system, they would spend the most money, therefore pay the most in taxes. But it isn’t wealth redistribution if it is used for common purposes: the enumerated powers set out in the constitution, for example, at the federal level - courts, defense, etc. It becomes wealth redistribution when it is used for transfer of wealth from one individual to another. It is not wealth redistribution simply because the wealthy pay more in, commensurate to their income, or in the better sales tax model, commensurate to the expenditures.

Death taxes are not special in this regard.

They are unique (and odious) in a number of regards, as I have mentioned.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A death tax has one purpose: to take money from the family of the deceased.

But you could just as truthfully say a sales tax has one purpose: to take money away from someone who just bought something.

That’s all. Its sole purpose is wealth redistribution.
Taxation’s only purpose should be to fund the legitimate function of the level of government levying the tax.

The means by which a tax is collected (sales, income, inheritance) has no inherent affect on how the taxes are used. They just as well might be to fund legitimate functions of government.

Not to encourage or discourage behaviors.

Then, I guess you must be opposed to tax deductions for charitable contributions, but that’s exactly what they are for - to encourage a particular behavior.

 

[Rau]

Taxes address societal wants as a whole. The conflict is with individuals who prefer nothing to occur to which they do not personally consent. A traditional Left vs Right perspective.

There is considerable arbitrariness in all tax systems. The government targets a total tax take and a socially acceptable way of sourcing the take across economic participants and transactions. Pay a death tax after death, and you can pay a little less tax while you live. Increase the progressiveness of the tax scales and lower the blunt instrument of regressive sales taxes. Give a deduction for charitable donations, thereby encouraging them, and lessen the call on government to address need.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

If UBI means a basic income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement then St. Paul would not be an advocate:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat (2 Thess 3:10).

 

[Rau]

If UBI means a basic income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement then St. Paul would not be an advocate:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat (2 Thess 3:10).

And fair enough too!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If UBI means a basic income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement then St. Paul would not be an advocate:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat (2 Thess 3:10).

Note the use of the word “unwilling”. This is an important distinction between what St. Paul was talking about and the UBI idea.

 

[BCole]

I recall Warren Buffet remarked how he payed a smaller share of his income in tax than did his secretary and found that perplexing.

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).

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.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14164135]Taxes address societal wants as a whole. The conflict is with individuals who prefer nothing to occur to which they do not personally consent. A traditional Left vs Right perspective.

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.

There is considerable arbitrariness in all tax systems. The government targets a total tax take and a socially acceptable way of sourcing the take across economic participants and transactions.

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.

Pay a death tax after death, and you can pay a little less tax while you live.

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

Increase the progressiveness of the tax scales and lower the blunt instrument of regressive sales taxes.

Sales taxes, properly done are far more progressive than income or property taxes. We saw the Warren Buffet complaint a bit ago, regarding tax deductions.

Give a deduction for charitable donations, thereby encouraging them, and lessen the call on government to address need.

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.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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).

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.

Sounds to me like we should lower his secretary’s marginal tax rate.
It is never a case of someone not paying enough taxes, but someone else paying too much.

 

[JonNC]

Note the use of the word “unwilling”. This is an important distinction between what St. Paul was talking about and the UBI idea.

And it is the job of the Church to care for those who are incapable of working.

 

[JonNC]

Depends what one means by “progressive”. Sales Tax is a “flat tax” (or “regressive”) as opposed to a “progressive” tax (income taxes are usually progressive - the rate paid grows with income). But Jon may be using the p-word in the socio-political sense (better avoided in my view, as I find that word potentially nebulous and defined by whomever is using it).

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.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14164075]But you could just as truthfully say a sales tax has one purpose: to take money away from someone who just bought something.

Except that there is an individual choice driving the sales tax - a purchase. The government gets money at the end of the transaction. It doesn’t take it off the top.

The means by which a tax is collected (sales, income, inheritance) has no inherent affect on how the taxes are used. They just as well might be to fund legitimate functions of government.

No, but the motivation for the imposition can be found in political intentions, such as “sin” taxes, and taxes intended to undermine gun rights.

Then, I guess you must be opposed to tax deductions for charitable contributions, but that’s exactly what they are for - to encourage a particular behavior.

I am, in the sense that I am opposed to income taxes. End the income tax and deductions for charitable contributions become unnecessary.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And it is the job of the Church to care for those who are incapable of working.

Not “exclusively” the job of the Church, certainly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Except that there is an individual choice driving the sales tax - a purchase.

And as I pointed out before, you have the very same choice with income taxes. Just choose to earn less and you will pay less tax.

The government gets money at the end of the transaction. It doesn’t take it off the top.

That is an artificial distinction, since the tax is paid before you leave the store. You can think of it as coming “off the top”, or the middle, or the sides, or the bottom. It is still a tax.

No, but the motivation for the imposition can be found in political intentions, such as “sin” taxes.

Do you think that sticking the nasty word “political” in front of something you can automatically turn it into a bad thing? Extra taxes on cigarettes has the dual function of funding the government and discouraging smoking.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Double taxation refers to taxes that are applied to income twice on their way to the same person. When money is transferred to someone else, that is a separate transaction, and taxes from that transaction do not count as double taxation of the money from the first earner. And keep in mind that the estate tax only applies to “estates”. That is, assets worth more than 3.5 million dollars.

 

[o_mlly]

Note the use of the word “unwilling”. This is an important distinction between what St. Paul was talking about and the UBI idea.

I do not think so based on the source of the definition I posted from basicincome.org/basic-income/

The full definition follows:
A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

.

 

[JonNC]

Not “exclusively” the job of the Church, certainly.

Agreed. Other charitable groups can do great work, as well. And even government, close to the people in need, at the most local levels, may at times fill in gaps. Subsidiarity

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14164423]And as I pointed out before, you have the very same choice with income taxes. Just choose to earn less and you will pay less tax.

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 an artificial distinction, since the tax is paid before you leave the store. You can think of it as coming “off the top”, or the middle, or the sides, or the bottom. It is still a tax.

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, the government takes my money first.

Do you think that sticking the nasty word “political” in front of something you can automatically turn it into a bad thing? Extra taxes on cigarettes has the dual function of funding the government and discouraging smoking.

Why are we using the tax code to discourage smoking? That’s not the job of taxation. Funding the government’s proper purposes is.
This becomes politicized, and the politician in office decides to tax what he doesn’t like, or tax the people he doesn’t like.
Think further of how regressive cigarette taxes are, as cigarette smoking tends to be higher per capita among lower income people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Agreed. Other charitable groups can do great work, as well. And even government, close to the people in need, at the most local levels, may at times fill in gaps. Subsidiarity

When local government can handle those needs, then by subsidiarity it should, in preference to centralized government. But when things like Katrina happen, the entire local area is devastated, and only a centralized governmental response will meet those needs.