Universal Basic Income: the UN’s Latest Wealth Redistribution Scheme
A recent wave of worldwide economic experiments called “universal basic income” seems to be ushering in a new era of wealth redistribution.
What is Universal Basic Income?
Universal basic income is an emerging plan to provide a guaranteed payment for living expenses to all people.
Under the plan, everyone would get a set amount of money, including children, workers, and non-workers. Those workers who earn more will be taxed proportionately to help fund the program.
Individuals are not tested to see if it is needed, and no one is required to work to earn it. The payments would be modest, but enough to enable recipients to live a frugal, yet decent lifestyle.
In other words, it is a massive wealth redistribution scheme.
Advocates claim a universal basic income would eliminate poverty and provide a safety net for workers who have recently lost their jobs. Others say it is needed in an era where machines are increasingly displacing human workers. In Finland, the program is hailed for reducing stress levels.
But critics are quick to point out that people would be encouraged to work less, thereby contributing less taxes into the new welfare program.
Where is it Today?
Universal basic income is already being tested in areas of Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, and even the United States. Next on the list is Scotland, where residents living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and North Ayrshire are slated to start receiving a regular sum of money.
Under the Scotland proposal, pensioners would get £150, working adults would get £100, and children would get £50 per week.
Who Promotes it?
In the US, universal basic income has a well-documented following in Silicon Valley. The idea has caught the admiration of Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg actually pitched the idea during Harvard’s spring 2017 commencement ceremony, saying:
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”[1]
However, the idea itself seems to be compatible with the UN’s 2015 resolution called Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
There, world leaders affirmed their commitment to “combat inequalities within and among countries,” and “create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth and shared prosperity.”[2]
Agenda 2030 insists that by 2030 “all people must enjoy a basic standard of living, including through social protection systems.”[3]
What You Need to Know That Proponents Won’t Tell You
The UN’s Agenda 2030 lays the framework for a worldwide socialist economic system. It insists that sustainable economic growth is essential for prosperity, and that “this will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”[4]
It is quite apparent that this progressive scheme is being pushed by the same progressive lawmakers and public figures that insist on inviting mass immigration. Imagine the drain on wealth that would occur.
A Biblical Perspective
Biblical wisdom indicates universal basic income, as a form of socialism, is a bad idea.
David Jones, an ethics professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary says, “In Scripture, Christians are not called to pursue economic equality. Rather, believers are called to promote economic justice.”[5]
Nevertheless, some people will argue that socialism was advocated in the Bible, specifically in Acts 4:32-35:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
However, notes Jones, in context Acts 4:32-35 refers to providing resources in an emergency. The sharing of resources in this context just talks about what happened for a unique period; it doesn’t give this as a model for living. Notice that it was from time to time that people sold things they had.[6]
Jesus’ parable of the talents is a great reminder that people are expected to multiply their talents and abilities for economic gain, not squander them.
Paul also reminded his audiences that he worked to support himself. He didn’t demand others share with him and he insisted that each should work for his own needs:
“If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat . . .” and “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread . . . and if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15
Let God bless those whom He wishes, and let us not steal rightfully-earned wages from others. Nor let us not encourage one another to eat the bread of idleness, but rather encourage one another to live wisely.
Despite the good intentions we read from its advocates, we must remember that the UN’s universal basic income wealth redistribution scheme inherently forsakes biblical wisdom.
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from Mark Zuckerberg’s spring 2017 commencement address at Harvard University.
[2] Agenda 2030: The 2030 Plan for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, 3,4.
[3] Ibid., 7.
[4] Ibid., 8.
[5] David W. Jones, “Socialism, Communism, and the Early Church”, available online at http://intersectproject.org/faith-and-economics/david-jones-socialism-communism-and-the-early-church/ Last accessed on 4 January 2018.
[6] Ibid.
Thank you for reading, and if you’d like, feel free to visit the links below:
My Links:
Steemit: @poimenpost
Twitter: @poimenpost
Web: poimenpost.com
Ah, yes, UBI is a socialist idea, as we can tell from the billionaire tech CEOs that endorse it.
Look, the point of UBI is that unlike existing welfare programs it doesn't disincentivise work, and once you have the policy in place, with a large enough allowance for people to actually live on, you can destroy all other social programs and privatise everything without objections. The policy is left-libertarian or neoliberal. Real socialists/communists hate it, for the same reason early 20th-century communists were against minimum wage laws - it'll only strengthen capitalism and weaken worker solidarity.
Hi phyg, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I like the intent of UBI to help people. I have been there myself and needed help- but only for a short time (months), and I was fortunate to have people who let me work for them to get me through those tough times. Thus, I'm very empathetic towards those who struggle to make ends meet. What really scares me is that the UN pushes both socialism (equally distributing the fruits of human labor) and UBI, which also distributes the fruits of human labor in addition to our normal taxes.
Long-term predictions (by 2050 or so) indicate that the US will have the fastest declining economy in the world, followed by Europe. US residents are predicted to have less wealth at that time than they have today (see "2052" by Jorgen Randers). What's driving this is Sustainable Development, which aims to reduce mankind's impact on the environment by reducing our standards of living. Unemployment will go up as GDP falls, and everyone will need a safety net. UBI appears to be a prototype of that safety net. I'd much rather see prudent deregulation of businesses and policies which enable small business owners to flourish and hopefully decrease unemployment.
I can't imagine anything short of a nuclear war causing US GDP in 2050 to be lower than it is today. Maybe some of the more hysteric predictions of climate scientists would put climate change in that category too, but it looks to me like that 2052 prediction is for declining GDP by that year, not that it'll have plummeted back to present-day levels. Personally I think we'll be very lucky if climate change is the worst thing we have to worry about thirty years from now.
What has people in the tech sector worried about unemployment and advocating for UBI is technological unemployment - as new advances in AI and robotics come along and displace workers, there's a hotly debated question of whether those workers will be reabsorbed into the economy like in previous waves of automation, or whether this time is different. When self-driving trucks replace regular ones and all truckers are now unemployed, for instance, where do all those people go?
If those fears come true, and there's no UBI, the lucky people whose jobs haven't been automated away yet won't feel the pinch, since GDP will be rising faster than ever. But a permanent underclass will be created, and as technology advances more people will be dropped into that underclass every year while the capitalist class gets richer and richer.
With UBI, all the jobs disappearing while GDP just keeps growing is good news, it means people live more and more comfortably while nobody has to work who doesn't want to work.
I agree, I don't think climate will be our biggest issue by then, either. And you are correct, my information did come from a major climate scientist (Jorgan Randers). Let's add alarmist to that, shall we?
I'm also concerned about the tech sector, and again, you're spot on with the concern about AI displacing workers. I think it'll be more widespread and come upon us more quickly than people realize at this point.
Again, I share your concerns about the creation of a permanent underclass, as well as the pulling away of very successful capitalists. While I applaud hard-earned or even wise success, I disdain ill-gotten gains.
Thanks for your input. I looked into this further today, and I'm intrigued by talk that China recognizes that since most people have cell phones, UBI could be efficiently sent to their electronic wallets. That has the potential to be good news for everyone on here in the next few years.
Well, there's one entity that will encourage this wealth distribution model, the Vatican. But don't ask them to share any of their wealth.
Pius XI tells us this in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:
Redistribution of Wealth
John Paul II wrote this in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern) in 1987:
[1] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931): 58.
[2] John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, On Social Concern (1987) 42.