Catholic social teaching supports basic income’s aim

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What the rich make does not affect what the poor or middle income people make.
Similar to something I always say.

You hire a dishwasher or a house cleaner, you offer what it takes to get somebody with that skill set. That skill set might be two arms and two legs. That person might not have to know English or even know how to read or write.

You hire a CEO for a big company, you have to pay more. This person’s going to make
multimillion-dollar decisions that could make or break a company. That person’s going to have to have a lot of knowledge of a lot of business subjects. Few people will have that skill set, and that person will be in demand elsewhere, so you have to pay that person appropriately.

So it’s not as though the CEO was stealing money from the dishwasher.
 
Are you familiar with inflation?
Doesn’t apply here but yes.
How much would taxes increase to cover such a program?
Considering the rich never get taxed properly maybe its time they should be.
Are you familiar with the Laffer curve? What happens when people who are being taxed give up because they’re being overtaxed in their opinion, and either move to another country or just close up shop entirely?
Again you are talking about taxes like its a middle-class issue which up to this point is true so maybe we should tax the rich instead.

Sounds like you are looking through a crack in the door of what could be and assuming the worst.
Open the door.
 
Say you’re a company, and you’re required to pay employees a significantly larger amount of money because of a universal basic income act than before with the state or federal minimum wage. You need to sell stuff but can’t charge a huge amount for your products that you would need to support all of your employees with the new basic income requirement. So you lay most of them off and almost all other companies downsize the same way and these poor people are now also unemployed. Basic economics…
 
Thinking he’s talking about taxes “as a middle class issue” when he discussed the Laffer curve shows that you have no understanding of economics or his point.
 
That IS how it works. Pray tell me, what do you think would happen?
 
It would be costly at first but after a while it pays for itself. you don’t get inflation because you aren’t ‘printing money’ you are moving and changing the rules of existing services not adding on another bill to the government structure.
 
Last edited:
You hire a CEO for a big company, you have to pay more. This person’s going to make
multimillion-dollar decisions that could make or break a company. That person’s going to have to have a lot of knowledge of a lot of business subjects. Few people will have that skill set, and that person will be in demand elsewhere, so you have to pay that person appropriately.
I have known people like that. It takes them a lifetime of extremely hard work to get to those pinnacle positions. The Board, then, “exploits” every bit of expertise they gained, but pays them a lot for it. But then they’re “used up” and somebody else gets their position. It happens a lot.
 
Giving away free money pays for itself…
what is welfare for and employment insurance?
I’m not opposed to a negative income tax (like a UBI but instead of giving it to every citizen, only those below a certain threshold get any funds) but it would be a very difficult process to enact and you seem to think it can just be done by taking money from some people and giving it to others.
You mean like welfare which in its current form doesn’t work.
I’d have to look up the numbers to be exact but even if you seized the wealth of all the top 10% and divided it evenly among the other 90% it breaks out like $150 per person.
Irrelevant and your math is wrong.

Heres the problem:

You have Joe, he works in a paper mill. Some downsizing happens or whatever and he gets laid off. He has a few options, welfare, employment insurance, maybe some savings but at the end of the day, his options will limit as time goes on.

Say it been over four months for poor joe, he’s on welfare now and takes home a nice even number to make this example simple for you. Say $1000 a month. Assuming he lives in a reasonable location and it takes care of his needs (which in reality isn’t always the case but for the sake of argument) let’s say he’s floating nicely. Nicely being he pays his bills and maybe has enough to treat himself to the movies once in a while.

Now Joe finds a job, not a great one but lest its full time. (Again in reality that isn’t always the case but the best example here.) It pays him $1100. One could get excited and argue ‘hurrah he’s free’ but we are forgetting welfare is tax-free. What he brought home before was protected in a sense by his status, now that’s he’s back in the system he losses a portion to covering benefits, taxes and other deductions.

Now he’s only bringing home say $750. Those bills he had before don’t shrink with his income now hes in danger, its almost better if he never worked at all.
How in the world is UBI going to “pay for itself”?
Welfare creates a ceiling for many people. If you don’t have the right job you can in effect make your problem worse by working harder to better yourself. It promotes passive behavior.

UBI creates a floor, you don’t lose it because you make money so you don’t hurt yourself by trying to better your lot in life. That allows you the breathing room to go back to school to upgrade yourself to those better jobs or to look and maybe relocate to one.

Not just take any job available no matter how bad the fit because your welfare worker demands it.
Universal basic income is a sweet idea, but it’s crummy economics.
Actually, the data collected both in the 70s trial in Manitoba Canada and the resent test (while cut short in Ontario) revealed some surprising finds.
 
Last edited:
Your problem here is that you are using logic, reasoning, economic principles and past human experience. You need to make decisions based on how you feel and how you think the world should work in order to be fair. Just because Marx’s principles have failed everywhere they have been tried and caused untold human suffering and genocide does not mean that would happen here. We will be the ones to finally make it tenable.

In all seriousness, free market capitalism is not perfect but it is the most perfect of the imperfect. The modern poor in America live better than 99% of people in human history and better than much of the current world population.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what a “basic income” is. It would be one thing in New York City. It would be altogether different in Nixa, Missouri, and different still in Tchula, Mississippi.
 
You know where there is a Universal Basic Income in place? Native American reservations.

That works well, right?
 
Last edited:
Just because Marx’s principles have failed everywhere they have been tried
No one is talking about Marx’s anything. Leave your strawman at the door. The whole point of UBI is to leave the capitalistic market intact.
I’m not sure what a “basic income” is. It would be one thing in New York City. It would be altogether different in Nixa, Missouri, and different still in Tchula, Mississippi.
this is the first point that’s made sense in a while. It’s true, what works for one person in a low rent area the amount won’t translate elsewhere. It’s best to assume we need to work on a case by case basis for different locations.
You know where there is a Universal Basic Income in place? Native American reservations.

That works well, right?
I don’t think a near genocided and vastly marginalized people is going to help your case. There is so much wrong with native interactions it goes without saying your example can’t address them well enough to be relevant.
 
40.png
Loud-living-dogma:
You know where there is a Universal Basic Income in place? Native American reservations.

That works well, right?
I don’t think a near genocided and vastly marginalized people is going to help your case. There is so much wrong with native interactions it goes without saying your example can’t address them well enough to be relevant.
Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t UBI supposed to solve a lot of problems?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top