Pope Francis backs the universal basic income

[dochawk]

But it seems like everyone in Europe hates the VAT tax?

That’s because they see it being paid! Income tax deducted from people’s paychecks never asses through their hands, and the psychological effect is different.

If people paid their annual income tax in April by check, they would be just as angry at US tax rates.

The Fairtax version you mention is the honest one

The cost of corporate compliance with income tax rules and accounting has been estimated to be twice as much as the tax raises (not counting paying the tax, too!)

At the end of the month, a percentage equal to (average? median?) spending on essentials such as food and medicine would be returned to each person. Voila! Instant UBI.

This could do it–but the size of the transfer is likely more than the economy could currently handle.

And we wouldn’t want average or median, but “sustenance”. Over time it could increase as the economy grows.

 

[AlNg]

the one I was talking about eliminated income tax by constitutional amendment and replaced it with a federal sales tax at point of sale.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Genesis315]

I am undecided if UBI can actually be considered just. It doesn’t seem so. There is a form of justice called distributive, which the Catholic Encyclopedia describes as follows:

When it imposes taxes, military service, or other burdens; when it distributes rewards, offices, and honours; when it metes out condign punishment for offenses, it is bound to do so according to the various merits and resources of the persons concerned; otherwise the State will sin against that special kind of justice which is called distributive.

Paying all the same amount from tax revenue regardless of merit or need seems to violate this. Some distributions would necessarily be unjust. It seems to me a social insurance program based on need is more just in that regard.

St. Thomas says the following on distributive justice:

On the second place there is the order of the whole towards the parts, to which corresponds the order of that which belongs to the community in relation to each single person. This order is directed by distributive justice, which distributes common goods proportionately.

Again, UBI does not seem proportionate. I could see a situation, like certain middle eastern countries, where it makes sense for say, the oil industry to be owned and operated communally by public authority (cf. Quadragesimo Anno 114 which notes situations where this is rightly done) and the income from it is paid to the members of the community. Even then though an equal distribution is not a proportionate distribution necessarily, as it does not seem to take into account either merit or resources.

Plus, there is the principle in Scripture that if a man not work, neither let him eat. This of course does not apply to those who cannot work or mean that labor is the sole title to income, but rather someone should be denied if they refuse to work (cf. QA 57). UBI would not take this into account, not to mention paying someone with plenty of resources who refused to work. UBI would not serve the common good in such a case.

It seems regulating wages at a certain level and improving social insurance programs would achieve the same or better desired result for the less well-off, without the inefficiencies and injustices of making payments to the rich and/or idle.

 

[AlNg]

Plus, there is the principle in Scripture that if a man not work, neither let him eat. This of course does not apply to those who cannot work or mean that labor is the sole title to income, but rather someone should be denied if they refuse to work (cf. QA 57). UBI would not take this into account, not to mention paying someone with plenty of resources who refused to work.

Yes. And the UBI in Mexico would be much less than the UBI in the USA creating more pressure for illegal immigration to the USA.

 

[YADA]

There are many poor parishes around the globe that find it hard to cover even the basics of electricity and building maintenance. The Vatican and Dioceses all take a percentage of the parish collections - I believe the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon is 4% or something close its like a tax and that is how many administrative council members refer to it.

Is a flat [tax] percentage against each parish fair - NO Not all parishes are affluent - though arguably there are those that are. Not every parish has the same number of families from which to draw financial support … it is just not fair.

We should tax those parishes that have higher income parishioners and that have higher numbers of parishioners at a higher rate. A progressive parish tax.

Also, the Vatican and Dioceses should provide for and redistribute from their coffers a basic amount of support to every parish around the world… you can refer to it as UPS - Universal Parish Support. It is only fair … every parish and its parishioners deserves to have a livable parish - the essentials covered.

 

[Irishmom2]

Do you really think parishes should be taxed?

 

[Feanor2]

If you’re rich and pay a lot of taxes you are still rich.

Maybe not “rich enough” for some people’s taste.

 

[YADA]

They already are taxed … not by the government - by their Diocese and the Vatican perhaps indirectly - but I am sure that every Diocese sends a portion of their collection to the Vatican … - as noted I am not sure about that but it makes sense. I know in the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon - every parish is required to send a percentage of their regular collections to the Diocese … that is a tax and what I was speaking of …

If the Holy Father believes in what he says about basic income then I believe the same standard should be used in support of poor parishes serving people with less income … a basic income for every parish -

However, I imagine that like most people - they are really for taxes that they “Believe” someone else pays and does not like or want the taxes they pay …

That is why the “Tax the Rich” is popular …
That is why renters dont care about property tax increases - even though they pay for those increases in higher rents …
Non-smokers vote for increased cigarette taxes …
Non-drinkers vote for increased alcohol taxes …

And since about 50% of the population dont pay income taxes but get refunds based upon the “Earned Income Credit” people can complain about tax cuts that only help “the Rich” …

 

[pnewton]

The article I read does not have the Pope backing anything, except having an open mind.

 

[dochawk]

If you’re rich and pay a lot of taxes you are still rich.

Of course.

But taxing them at a rate that discourages them from generating wealth even more wealth to tax is counterproductive . . .

Thre is probably a level at which most people would be “satiated” by wealth and either produce or not produce because of interest or “keeping score”–but that level is well above the level we tend to consider hitting with heavy taxes.

 

[MikeInVA]

But taxing them at a rate that discourages them from generating wealth even more wealth to tax is counterproductive . . .

I think it will encourage them to find ways to generate wealth that isn’t taxable, like through offshore corporations. If you live in a port town, look to see how many cargo ships are US flagged. You will see a lot of Liberian and Panamanian flagged ships - the only ships that I have seen that are registered in the US are Navy ships.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

The Pope is entitled to his opinion, but I do not share it.

This is really all that needs to be said. We’re not obligated to share the Popes opinion on everything. He’s entitled to his thoughts and people are free to agree or not.

 

[dochawk]

I think it will encourage them to find ways to generate wealth that isn’t taxable,

yes.

People’s Exhibit A is the yacht tax under the first Bush.

It collected a grand total of something like $75,000–and completely eliminated the US yacht industry, whose former workers had been paying $30,000,000 in personal income tax . . .

[so long to all. I doubt I’ll be back after today. The walls are crumbling, it takes forever to load, and I’m not turning security down on my machine far enough to deal with the intrusive tracking and ad pushing. Plus, my password has stopped working, and I can’t log in in a private window.]

 

[RobertAdams]

I really don’t think any rational person with knowledge of economics thinks this is a good idea. The only people I know who would like it are the chronically jobless and broke who think of it as “hey wow free money.” Of course if it were put into practice, they’d whine because the rich doctor up the road was getting it too.

On the contrary, universal benefits are more widely accepted and popular than means tested benefits. Social Security and Medicare enjoy such support precisely because the rich doctor up the road gets them too. When they’re entitled as well, chief of surgery and managing law partner suddenly see a safety net, even if they don’t need it now, as reasonable. As opposed to means tested programs, which they are happy to eliminate; or create massive bureaucracies, to ensure that no poor person is misusing their tax dollars.

UBI isn’t really much farther out than these largely successful programs, and is likely to have a similar impact; i.e major reductions to poverty, but not without issues like inflation and significantly increased tax burden which will be understated by some and overstated by others.

 

[Motherwit]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

My copy has just arrived and hopefully I’ll get through it and offer a review before the site closes.