S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It was unclear, but it seemed more like public unemployment insurance for tough times that he was proposing for non-traditional wage earners or even the kind of emergency payments the US government is sending out now.
I don’t understand how a general UBI could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine on work, private property, justice, and the role of public authority and taxation. I’d like to see some arguments for and against, but I can’t seem to find any serious treatments of the subject either way. For what it’s worth, the bishops in Brazil have consistently opposed it there, despite being a pretty progressive lot overall.
I don’t understand how a general UBI could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine on work, private property, justice, and the role of public authority and taxation. I’d like to see some arguments for and against, but I can’t seem to find any serious treatments of the subject either way. For what it’s worth, the bishops in Brazil have consistently opposed it there, despite being a pretty progressive lot overall.
Last edited:
I
IanM
Guest
It was tried and failed in Finland in the recent past.
R
REPENT
Guest
Exactly this. UBI fails much like socialist policies in general fail.
My comments for OP:
The rest of his address can pretty much be summed up with “capitalism bad”. . . .
Pray for . . . Pope Francis. . . . .
My comments for OP:
Ironically, it was globalization that got us in this mess in the first place. When you put all your manufacturing in one country and than said country fails you get the supply chain shortages and a medical strangle hold we face today with China.“I know that you have been excluded from the benefits of globalization,”
Those are our only weapons? You seem to be missing prayer, . . . Pope Francis.“you are truly an invisible army, fighting in the most dangerous trenches; an army whose only weapons are solidarity, hope, and community spirit, all revitalizing at a time when no one can save themselves alone.”
The rest of his address can pretty much be summed up with “capitalism bad”. . . .
Pray for . . . Pope Francis. . . . .
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t see how it conflicts with any of those principles. I am not sure its a good idea; I think the data is mixed on that point. But I don’t see any conflict between UBI and Catholic doctrine.I don’t understand how a general UBI could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine on work, private property, justice, and the role of public authority and taxation.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Here are my not-very-organized initial thoughts (I am not fully convinced either way):
Where does the money come from? It could be produced by the state if the state owned the means of production. But this is one of the elements of socialism Catholic social doctrine rejects. There can be some special cases where some particular industry is run by the state for good reason, and in those cases distributing the income to the citizens like a dividend as if they were shareholders might make sense.
Generally though, UBI is to come from taxes. For it to work, the taxes paid by some people allotted to the UBI program would be greater than what they receive in UBI, while others would pay less taxes to the program than what they receive. From a net perspective, some would pay and some would receive. It amounts to a straight-up wealth transfer, which would be a violation of distributive justice.
As a side thought, it seems very much like usury to me, an exchange of things of unequal value. It’s like a straight-up exchange with the state of $10 for $5 or vice versa (sometimes the state is usurer, and sometimes the UBI recipient is, depending on how much tax toward it was paid in by the person).
I can see the analogy being made to social insurance for unemployment, old age, etc., but there all must contribute toward it if able and all have the potential to receive from them in a time of need when one is unable to work–but again, all have the potential take advantage of them if they suffer the same contingency and such benefits are contingent on someone desiring to work, but being unable to sufficiently. These are in accord with social justice by enabling man to fulfill his duties when he otherwise could not.
UBI, on the other hand, would be irrespective of someone’s ability or desire to work. It would be unearned. “If any man will not work, neither let him eat” as St. Paul says. It is essentially a gift from the state, but the state cannot use taxes to make gifts to some individuals, but not others (or even to all). Instead, it provides services to the common good in exchange for the taxes it receives.
Generally, man should derive his sustenance form his work and his property if he is able. UBI is an income divorced from both.
Where does the money come from? It could be produced by the state if the state owned the means of production. But this is one of the elements of socialism Catholic social doctrine rejects. There can be some special cases where some particular industry is run by the state for good reason, and in those cases distributing the income to the citizens like a dividend as if they were shareholders might make sense.
Generally though, UBI is to come from taxes. For it to work, the taxes paid by some people allotted to the UBI program would be greater than what they receive in UBI, while others would pay less taxes to the program than what they receive. From a net perspective, some would pay and some would receive. It amounts to a straight-up wealth transfer, which would be a violation of distributive justice.
As a side thought, it seems very much like usury to me, an exchange of things of unequal value. It’s like a straight-up exchange with the state of $10 for $5 or vice versa (sometimes the state is usurer, and sometimes the UBI recipient is, depending on how much tax toward it was paid in by the person).
I can see the analogy being made to social insurance for unemployment, old age, etc., but there all must contribute toward it if able and all have the potential to receive from them in a time of need when one is unable to work–but again, all have the potential take advantage of them if they suffer the same contingency and such benefits are contingent on someone desiring to work, but being unable to sufficiently. These are in accord with social justice by enabling man to fulfill his duties when he otherwise could not.
UBI, on the other hand, would be irrespective of someone’s ability or desire to work. It would be unearned. “If any man will not work, neither let him eat” as St. Paul says. It is essentially a gift from the state, but the state cannot use taxes to make gifts to some individuals, but not others (or even to all). Instead, it provides services to the common good in exchange for the taxes it receives.
Generally, man should derive his sustenance form his work and his property if he is able. UBI is an income divorced from both.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
It can serve as a wealth transfer (but would not necessarily be a net transfer over time), but that does not violate any Catholic teaching I am aware of.From a net perspective, some would pay and some would receive. It amounts to a straight-up wealth transfer, which would be a violation of distributive justice.
Your usury argument is off-base, in my opinion.
I also don’t understand why you don’t think it would be similar to other forms of social insurance. Presumably all would contribute, if able, and all would benefit, if needed.
This seems like the core issue. Many believe that UBI does not significantly disincentivize work, others disagree. Alaska had what was essentially a UBI for years (not anymore), and I don’t think it resulted in widespread voluntary unemployment. Some countries have also experimented with it, and I think the data is not clear right now. But I find this a bit of an odd argument, at least over against the current economic policy in the US, in which many people live on income they did not earn. If that is somehow immoral, we would need to change a lot about our current system to make it moral.UBI, on the other hand, would be irrespective of someone’s ability or desire to work. It would be unearned.
Again, our current system already has this feature. I would also point out that if you are relying on Paul, you are adding “property.” Paul talked about work, as I recall.Generally, man should derive his sustenance form his work and his property if he is able. UBI is an income divorced from both.
K
KMC
Guest
Perhaps starting this as a math problem:
- What is the desired amount of the UBI
- Are funds available in the current budget to provide a UBI
- If no, how much will you have to raise taxes to get the funds?
- Will that increase of taxes create an undue burden on those paying the increase in taxes?
- Is it sustainable?
- Does it violate the common good? (ex: borrowing money to pay a UBI is not sustainable, and bad finance…much like maxing out your credit cards to make a charitable donation)
T
TMC
Guest
These are all good questions that would need to be answered. I do think it would be affordable, but not without changing some priorities. I am not saying its a good idea. I am saying it is not against Church teachings (as one poster speculated), and I am saying it is worth consideration and additional study.
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
It’s always easy to spend others money. I’m more concerned about the spiritual poverty we have going on in the modern world.
G
Genesis315
Guest
You gave me some things to think about and read more on (my usury analogy was just that, not meant to literal). With regard to St. Paul, Rerum Novarum has some sections that address this, opposing those who said owners of capital could not make a living form it, but only laborers, and those socialists who said only work was necessary, not ownership. Income irrespective of work, property, need, or merit is at odds with all of it.
It does seem a strict redistribution could be allowed without violating distribute justice, but only in the case of basic need (according to the school of thought which sees the universal destination of goods as establishing a duty based in justice, rather than charity–both seem common in the Catholic tradition and the former seeming to have more emphasis in later times).
I think the one element you are not considering, and after reading more, seems to be the real sticking point to me, is that UBI is irrespective of merit or need, whereas distributive justice requires one or the other.
UBI therefore seems like a per se violation of distributive justice. A “universal basic tax,” irrespective of resources, would also violate distributive justice for the same reasons.
I guess theoretically, my thoughts on some being taxed more and some less, while all receive the same could be worked out at some level to account for this, but then the tax becomes unjust in most cases, since there is no benefit to the common good or even the individual’s good, for the government to forcibly to take some of one’s property only to give it right back later as is. The government must only take what is needed to serve the common good. What right does the government have to take your money with the sole intention of giving it back to you later? It should only take from you what can be used to serve the common good and the rest should be left in your possession.
It does seem a strict redistribution could be allowed without violating distribute justice, but only in the case of basic need (according to the school of thought which sees the universal destination of goods as establishing a duty based in justice, rather than charity–both seem common in the Catholic tradition and the former seeming to have more emphasis in later times).
I think the one element you are not considering, and after reading more, seems to be the real sticking point to me, is that UBI is irrespective of merit or need, whereas distributive justice requires one or the other.
UBI therefore seems like a per se violation of distributive justice. A “universal basic tax,” irrespective of resources, would also violate distributive justice for the same reasons.
I guess theoretically, my thoughts on some being taxed more and some less, while all receive the same could be worked out at some level to account for this, but then the tax becomes unjust in most cases, since there is no benefit to the common good or even the individual’s good, for the government to forcibly to take some of one’s property only to give it right back later as is. The government must only take what is needed to serve the common good. What right does the government have to take your money with the sole intention of giving it back to you later? It should only take from you what can be used to serve the common good and the rest should be left in your possession.
T
TMC
Guest
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and apologize in advance that my reply will be less thoughtful.
I agree with a lot of your thoughts conceptually. Again, I am neither for or against UBI as a public policy. Here are a few specific thoughts:
I agree with a lot of your thoughts conceptually. Again, I am neither for or against UBI as a public policy. Here are a few specific thoughts:
I don’t think I agree with this - that either merit or need is required. I don’t have a source or reference for you, but I can think about it. Another way to look at it would be that all merit basic support, so that takes merit out of it. I am mostly just thinking out loud on that last point.I think the one element you are not considering, and after reading more, seems to be the real sticking point to me, is that UBI is irrespective of merit or need, whereas distributive justice requires one or the other.
I mostly agree with this statement. The problem is defining “common good.” Is the fire department a common good? The answer is obvious today, but that was once controversial. Is guaranteeing everyone a basic income a common good? If yes, is UBI the way to do that? Good questions. I am not sure “yes” is the right answer to either, but I think “yes” would be acceptable under Catholic teaching.The government must only take what is needed to serve the common good.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.