UCA News: Why Pope Francis is pushing for a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

[diaduit]

The concept is that those owning the giant robot factories like Amazon and Google will fund all of this.

Like the movie Soyent Green.

Well with 500,000,000 people left on the planet, its more affordable for them and it will be regurgitated from the taxes imposed on the peoples purchases, utilities, carbon taxes etc.

[Xavier]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. MG, I'm happy to know Indians are constructively contributing to the UK economy. We still have some British families living in India as well, all nice people, some of whom who come to our Church are Anglo-Indians, as we call them. Britishers who remained in India after 1947, and some who married into the Indian population. Many Indians today appreciate some of the good things the British did while in India. Of course, not all of it was pleasant, but some of it was good.

So, going back to Mike's suggestion, yes, I'm all for tying the "Social/National Dividend" to GDP Growth, as was proposed by Clifford Douglas, the British-Canadian pioneer of Social Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit ["Not to be confused with Social Credit System", which is a form of Communistic government over-reach.] See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Douglas#Social_credit

Social Credit according to Major Douglas comes under capitalism itself. It does not propose oppressive taxation nor any form of State Control over the affairs and lives of good citizens; quite the contrary, in fact, it gives everyone the potential to be assured at least of a bare minimum basic income such as would suffice to eat and live. To explain it briefly, it proposes that, when the economy grows by a certain percentage, new money should be created equivalent to that percentage. This new money doesn't belong to banks, nor should it be created, as is often done currently, as "debt" owed by the government, and thus the people, to the banks. Rather, this new money, justified by the growth of the economy, should be distributed directly to the people, as a just dividend from the collective national growth.

Social Credit makes sense and could alleviate real problems in the long run. Canada came close to implementing it once, I believe - Mike may know about that - but other than that it hasn't been generally tried. Douglas' proposal has been called "distributism" by some. Far from dis-incentivising work, it would create an additional incentive to work harder for the nation's progress - so that the collective dividend would be larger next time. Unfortunately, the idea is not widely known yet.

So let's take the US Economy as an example. GDP is approximately $20 Trillion, let's take it as such for ease of calculation. Let's say the Economy grows 5% in a year. i.e. to $21 Trillion. Now, according to Social Credit, this $1 Trillion in growth belongs to the people. There are $1 Trillion of new value or fresh wealth created in goods and services - that's what GDP means - so why shouldn't there be precisely $1 Trillion, no more or no less, in units of currency? If adhered to strictly, this would also limit inflation, which of course in the correct economy is affected by other factors as well, including the interest rate set by banks.

So this $1 Trillion would be distributed to the people. There are about 350 million people in the US, so that comes to about $3000 per person per year. Or, if we take it as around 85 million households, around $12,000 per household. Not a large amount, but not a pittance either. Supposing a family earns, let's say, $48,000, 80% of their income would come from their work, and 20% from the BI. If they were to be earning $88,000, it would be 12% from the BI, and the rest from their ordinary income. And so on.

Now, what is expected is that, if it were implemented like this, then as time goes on, the BI's contribution to total income would increase. This is especially so if automation is successful etc, and the total output of the economy remains same or increases, but fewer jobs are available for humans. This is just theory at this point, but it may become practical soon, and was foreseen by Douglas.

All that aside, and coming back to India for illustration, Gandhi's proposal - of Rs 6000 a month for the poorest 20%, 250 million people - would be completely covered by about 3 months of an already existing GST Tax. So it's certainly doable imho. Other social programs could also be wrapped up if it is implemented. It would end extreme poverty in India, as no one's income would be below that Rs 6000 at least. Rs 6000 is barely $100 p.m., but it is sufficient to live a life with basic necessities in India.

According to this site, "Some 220 million Indians sustained on an expenditure level of less than Rs 32 / day [$0.5] — the poverty line for rural India — going by the last headcount of the poor in India in 2013." https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/how-india-remains-poor-it-will-take-7-generations-for-india-s-poor-to-reach-mean-income--68898 Gandhi's proposal would be a godsend and a huge win for these 220 million. Gandhi is running for election in 2024. Please pray for him. It would be good for India if he wins.

[mikemac]

The Social Credit Party was a populist political party in Canada.  They were stronger provincially than they were federally.  The Alberta Social Credit Party won the 1935 provincial election and went on to win nine subsequent elections, and governed until 1971.  The Socreds did well in British Columbia for a while, and held seats in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  I believe they had to be stronger federally to attempt the Social Dividend idea.  Clifford Hugh Douglas' full financial system has not been applied anywhere to date.

From the Michael Journal "It [the Social Dividend] would be issued by the Central Bank, the property of the people."  This shows that the central bank of the country needs to be publically own, or be a crown corporation for Clifford Douglas' system.  This system could happen in Canada because Canada's central bank, the Bank of Canada is a federal Crown corporation and its shares are owned by the Canadian government.  Canada should not be in debt.  Stupid Canadian politicians borrowed from commercial banks rather than the Bank of Canada to put the country in debt.

There has been talk in Canada about a universal basic income too.  But knowing Trudeau and hearing him use Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum catch phrases like 'Build Back Bitter' (like China Joe) I'm afraid the moron is not talking about a Social Credit Social Dividend, but rather a World Economic Forum communist universal basic income.

Xavier do you realize that article linked in the last paragraph of your last post is referring to the World Economic Forum's latest report?  I also noticed that Rahul Gandhi is the President of the Indian National Congress, a center to center-left political party that is affiliated with the Socialist International, which is a worldwide organization of political parties which seek to establish democratic socialism.  Something tells me that Mr. Gandhi is not talking about Social Credit Social Dividend either.  That said I think India needs to share it's wealth a little better.  A few years ago I was looking at the list of the world's wealthiest people and that year India had more people on the top of the list than any other country.  I don't know if it still does but when you consider that India has some of the poorest people in the world I think things can be done better over there.

[ralfy]

One can also see this in light of the global economy. That is,

71 pct of human beings are able to spend less than $10 daily.

2,153 people (all billionaires) have more wealth than 4.6 billion people.

Earlier reports indicate that if the few richest people in the world give up a fraction of their wealth, then the amount might be enough to provide initial capital, such as housing and education, to decrease poverty considerably on a global scale.

How small is that number of people? 2,153 out of almost 7.5 billion people.

How insignificant is that fraction to be given up? It's recovered in two years or so because of stock appreciation, etc. What is that wealth? Believe it or not, literally numbers in hard drives.

What are the implications of that decrease in poverty? Major decreases in conflict, illness, etc. And the punch line is that because the components needed for basic needs come from large corporations owned by the rich, then the money they donate returns to them through higher sales. That might be one consequence of a UBI that's often not mentioned.

What's the catch? What's talked about are numbers in hard drives. The underlying material resources and energy that will be exploited through those numbers remains the same because of gravity and a physically limited biosphere.

[Xavier]

Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

[Melkor]

Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next. 

[MaximGun]

I'd give up some of my wealth on the cast iron promise guarantee that I would be left the hell alone after that.

But they never do leave you alone.  Always meddling.

[mikemac]

Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Yeah, that's the major concern.  What comes next after a universal basic income.

If these ultra wealthy creatures like Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor and the like truly want to help the poor then let them give a portion of their wealth.  Period.  Their Great Reset idea is just a scheme to capture the entire wealth of the world for their own benefit.

[Miriam_M]

I believe it's been demonstrated in history that merely "guaranteeing" everyone a basic income destroys the incentive to labor beyond the minimum.  Low levels of motivation rob human beings of the full development of their talents and also steal from them their sense of accomplishment in providing for themselves and their families.  It really is opposed to Catholic social teaching.  Please someone show me where in papal encyclicals or other official documents, the Church, pre-Francis, has a history of teaching that GBI accords with Church doctrine as derived from Scripture.

Jesus Christ did not preach socialism. He preached generosity to the indigent, and he preached against greed within all economic classes. He did not preach that a guaranteed income gives people dignity, but that being sons and daughters of God gives all people dignity, and that the poor, conscious of how destitute they are, have greater opportunities to become close to God than your average rich person, since poverty tends to encourage humility.

Neither did he preach keeping the poor down. He commanded His followers to themselves assist the poor. The poor, in the ancient Mediterranean, were those so disabled or otherwise impaired by circumstances, that there was no opportunity for relief outside of material charity. They were the equivalent of today's chronically homeless, without resources. The poor did not mean simply people who earned low wages or were not from the merchant class. We would describe them as permanently needy, despite whatever efforts they had made to earn a secure living.

The Pope's definition of poverty is quite different.  It's what the Dems describe as poor, which is really lower-middle-class and would have been the equivalent of merely average in Jesus's day.

UBI in the USA would make us a certified socialist country overnight.

[MaximGun]

If governments wanted they could stop corrupt practices in business.  This would prevent billionaires from getting ever richer.

Amazon with enough financial backing from investors can sell diapers at a loss until it bleeds its competition white and they are acquired or go bankrupt.

This is the essence of the problem.  The largest player has a huge advantage if they wish to use it.  These businesses tend to be started, grown and run by power hungry greedy psychopaths.  Who else would run them? Most normal people want a life.

The only solution appears to be to steal back the billions from billionaires every 100 years, through violent revolution, and start the cycle over with new psychopaths.

[mikemac]

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

[Melkor]

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

Perhaps I am just repeating the talk of the Great Reset, although I am no conspiracy freak. So I guess the answer is no.

[mikemac]

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

Perhaps I am just repeating the talk of the Great Reset, although I am no conspiracy freak. So I guess the answer is no.

Thanks.  That's what I was hoping you'd say.

[ralfy]

I believe it's been demonstrated in history that merely "guaranteeing" everyone a basic income destroys the incentive to labor beyond the minimum.  Low levels of motivation rob human beings of the full development of their talents and also steal from them their sense of accomplishment in providing for themselves and their families.  It really is opposed to Catholic social teaching.  Please someone show me where in papal encyclicals or other official documents, the Church, pre-Francis, has a history of teaching that GBI accords with Church doctrine as derived from Scripture.

The "incentive to labor beyond the minimum" in this case isn't necessarily "providing for themselves and their families" but greed. That is, if a worker earns enough to provide for himself and his family, then he does not have to go beyond the minimum, except to meet extraordinary costs. Otherwise, his reason is to maximize earnings for this other than provisions, which is also similar to maximization of profits for capitalists. The rationale for that is greed.

Jesus Christ did not preach socialism. He preached generosity to the indigent, and he preached against greed within all economic classes. He did not preach that a guaranteed income gives people dignity, but that being sons and daughters of God gives all people dignity, and that the poor, conscious of how destitute they are, have greater opportunities to become close to God than your average rich person, since poverty tends to encourage humility.

He also said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. As for generosity, he also went beyond that by telling a rich man that in order to attain eternal life he must sell all of his possessions, give all of his money to the poor, and follow Him.

Neither did he preach keeping the poor down. He commanded His followers to themselves assist the poor. The poor, in the ancient Mediterranean, were those so disabled or otherwise impaired by circumstances, that there was no opportunity for relief outside of material charity. They were the equivalent of today's chronically homeless, without resources. The poor did not mean simply people who earned low wages or were not from the merchant class. We would describe them as permanently needy, despite whatever efforts they had made to earn a secure living.

Not only that, He even dined with tax collectors, harlots, and other members of society who were considered undesirable by most.

The Pope's definition of poverty is quite different.  It's what the Dems describe as poor, which is really lower-middle-class and would have been the equivalent of merely average in Jesus's day.

UBI in the USA would make us a certified socialist country overnight.

My understanding is that the Pope is referring to the world population and not just to the U.S. There is actually a way to determine poverty across the board, and even connect it to your first point, which refers to providing for oneself and one's family.

According to the UN, poverty refers to the lack of what's needed for one to attain optimal health, and optimal health refers to the ability to live as long as one naturally can and with the least amount of suffering.

Scientifically, one needs the ff. in order to achieve that:

1. food that ensures a balanced diet or what's required by doctors or one's doctors;

2. the means to produce, store, and prepare that food safely, e.g., mechanized agriculture, storage facilities, appliances, potable water, etc., all following safety standards;

3. a shelter that follows safety standards and that safely houses people, that food, and more, which means shelters with proper lighting, inspected electrical systems, sanitation systems, etc;

4. medical personnel, medicine, equipment, and facilities to deal with life-threatening diseases, pain, etc. (what's reasonable is likely what you think is good enough for you, which is very likely what's available in many developed economies);

5. clothing to protect from the elements and from disease;

6. the infrastructure, utilities, and material resources to support all of that: road networks with cement, gravel, etc., electricity with electric grids, plastics, steel, and more, mining and manufacturing plants, gasoline, diesel, coal, and others, and so on, all needed to extract resources from the ground, manufacture machines and goods plus produce from mechanized agriculture, delivery systems across extensive supply chains, and more.

Nitpickers can argue that one should not forget this or that, but the point remains.

The question is how much would a family of five (oneself and one's family) need daily in order to pay for all of that. The usual number given is $10 daily, which is related to the World Bank poverty threshold of $2 daily per person ($2 daily per person times five family members equals $10 daily). Meanwhile, cost of living and purchasing power parity indicators reveal that costs are fairly the same across countries, with some poorer ones experiencing ironically higher costs due to lack of demand (e.g., with high poverty rates come low purchasing and even borrowing power, which means higher prices and even interest rates due to lack of sales). That's why in contrast to the $10 min. daily threshold for a family of five, some argue that the living wage is $20. That means a family of five needs to earn at least $20 daily in order to attain the basic needs mentioned above plus hopefully set aside additional in the event of extraordinary costs, such as loss of employment or the house burning down.

And it won't surprise me if forum members even argue that $20 a day for a family won't be enough.

Wat are the conditions faced worldwide? According to the WB and others, something like 71 pct of people worldwide earn less than $10 daily. That's likely the world poverty rate.

Meanwhile, if other indicators are right, around 2,000 people have more wealth than 4.6 billion, and that only a fraction from the former will be enough to at least partly counter poverty. That fraction to be sacrificed, which is made up of numbers in hard drives and gained through stock appreciation and similar, is so small that it is easily recovered in two years or so, as seen in increases (some of them, terrific) in the wealth of billionaires reported at the end of each year.

With that, a UBI might not even be needed.

[Xavier]

I'm not arguing $20 a day, but barely $90 per month to be precise. Less than $3 per day, for the 20% poorest in my particular country. We shouldn't rely too much on the UN imo and a one-size-fits-all solution is bad. Let countries be free to do what they deem best for their people.

I appreciate some of the concerns from the others, about whether the UN or other globalist organizations will use this to impose socialist dictatorships that rob us of our freedom and private property etc, but I think there's no danger of that in Gandhi's proposal. Gandhi is very freedom-loving and a humanitarian and I have no doubts that he will never impose any kind of freedom-restricting dictatorship in India.

Each country should decide on its own. Since the US was brought up, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending , the US is very high on the list already in Total Net Social Spending, and per capita social spending. India doesn't even appear in the list of the first 35 odd countries. It even may be the case that the US should reduce some social spending, I am not sure about that. But I and many other Indians feel India could do more. Some may wish to implement full-UBI and propose possible ways to do it. I think Q-UBI, for 20% people only, would work well in India.

6000 Rs, less than 90$ a month, is still a very small amount, objectively speaking. I don't believe it would take away the incentive to work, but it may help villagers etc better fund their children's education, and increase their potential to work. So there are different challenges here than in the west. The Church does great work to help the poor here in India, but cannot take care of everything. I think there is a Christian case for a basic income to be given to the poorest sections of society, so no one falls below a bare minimum line. With Rs. 6,000, you could buy very little. Farmers etc would still need to sell provisions to make a living. But instead of having almost nothing post-expenses, if they earn, say, Rs. 10000 on their own, they may have more than almost nothing for themselves and their children. Rent itself would be Rs. 10,000 in most places and maybe Rs 5,000 in a few. So they have very little left over in the end.

There has to be growth in the economy no doubt, and Church and private charitable initiatives, to end poverty, but a Q-UBI could help too.