Catholic social teaching supports basic income’s aim

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with all of this. However, supplemental income should be prioritized to those in most need. Seniors, people with disabilities and children should be prioritized.

Poverty hits specially hard the above groups of people.
 
Wow! Three of the last five posts engage in name-calling.

Addressing income inequality, there are not records for the whole history of the country, but for that which does exist, it is getting greater. Nor is United States the worst. We are just the worst in the developed world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incom...#/media/File:Income_inequality_panel_-_v1.png

I am not saying this is good or bad, just what is. Is this an argument that our tax system is too regressive? The discrepancy of income after taxes may result in greater wealth over all. There are two sides to this issue.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Addressing income inequality, there are not records for the whole history of the country, but for that which does exist, it is getting greater. Nor is United States the worst. We are just the worst in the developed world.

I am not saying this is good or bad, just what is.
Click to expand...
You can hardly say that the US is the worst in the developed world without suggesting that it is in fact a bad thing. Personally I find the topic simply an attempt to make a good (or at least neutral) fact seem bad. If a poor man makes $10K a year while a rich one makes $1M, if each of them doubles his income the gap between them also (roughly) doubles. So, is that a bad thing? The poor man has doubled his income, but now someone will whine that the “gap” has grown. So what? Shouldn’t we really be concerned more that the poor are less poor rather than that the rich are even richer?

If one wants to judge the US it should be on how the poor are doing, and in this country the poor don’t become poorer just because the rich become richer. The focus on “inequality” is an attempt to turn success into failure. If one truly believed the “inequality gap” between rich and poor was a problem he should prefer to see both the rich and the poor lose half their incomes, as this would cut the gap in half. That the poor would be worse off is apparently irrelevant.
 
SeraficLeo said:
Full-employment should be a basic goal as it is one obvious way to maximize GDP,
Click to expand...
you are missing a key point… for some people they are better off staying on welfare and getting government assistance. If you are under a certain income to size of family ratio you get assistance with housing, utilities, food, medical care, and cash.

low paying jobs can’t compete with these subsidies so people have no incentive to take a full time job as they will actually end up poorer than if they don’t work.

The real poor in this country are the working poor.
 
Isn’t that an extreme picture (it’s not like there’s welfare that’ll complete pay your rent (okay there’s public housing and housing vouchers but those options aren’t available for all who could benefit and you still need to contribute some income if you have the latter (not to sure about public housing but I think there’s rent for that too); isn’t the reality of people on public aid more like people who may be working be don’t earn enough to pay the bills which is why things like SNAP and Medicaid help?
 
Last edited:
That, and the fact that the richer man is much less likely to increase his consumption to the same extent that his income/wealth increases. As consumption ability converges (even Jeff Bezos can only buy the latest iphone) you could argue that inequality is actually decreasing even as strict income/wealth inequality is increasing.
 
YourNameHere said:
Minimum wage needs to be increased to at least $15 per hour. This would allow for those who make the least in the USA to be able to live without resorting to welfare.
Click to expand...
The minimum wage needs to be increased to $400k per year. This would put everybody in the 1% and we’d all be rich.
 
Ridiculous. But you knew that before you posted it.
$15 per hour would be a nice increased for those who make the least amount in our society.
 
YourNameHere said:
$15 per hour would be a nice increased for those who make the least amount in our society.
Click to expand...
Seems kind of stingy to give them just enough to move the middle of the bottom 5th of income earners. Why not give them enough to be truly comfortable? It’s not like it’s your money…
 
RCIAGraduate said:
isn’t the reality of people on public aid more like people who may be working be don’t earn enough to pay the bills which is why things like SNAP and Medicaid help?
Click to expand...
the data is out there


This was interesting. Single moms need the most help, and they don’t get it from boyfriends

 
Last edited:
signit said:
We have a social safety net. We provide people with a basic minimum.
Click to expand...
But the present government administration is trying to cut all social programs. The poor, disabled, and also the impoverished elderly don’t have powerful groups to lobby for them. I’m concerned that people who *can’t work and their children will especially be hurt as well as single mothers. We need to make sure the safety net doesn’t become a form of punishment.
 
Last edited:
Shasta4737 said:
But the present government administration is trying to cut all social programs. T
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by “cut”

It’s very appropriate to expand a safety net program during a recession.
It’s also appropriate to then make cuts after the economy has shown significant recovery.

The current administration is not trying to eliminate these programs.
 
The problem: A corporatist and regulated economy.

The cure: Free enterprise and association.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top