The Immorality of Universal Basic Income
Believe it or not, 16th-century policy ideas can still be found in 21st-century politics, and universal basic income is one of them.
I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money. —Thomas Sowell
Believe it or not, 16th-century policy ideas can still be found in 21st-century political discourse.1 In 1516, universal basic income (UBI) was suggested as a “cure for theft”; in 2019, it was the basis of former U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s platform.2 Other political figures, such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and former president Barack Obama, have also endorsed it.3 But what is UBI, and is it really as desirable as its advocates claim?
UBI’s supporters characterize it as a political policy whereby the government distributes a regular stipend to each and every citizen, unconditionally. Although, at first glance, this might seem ideal to some, the reality is that governments can’t actually distribute money, they can only _re_distribute it. That is, they must first forcibly take money from some people in order to give it to others.4 This policy is economically dubious, but the more fundamental issue is the moral status of UBI.5
UBI proponents such as Nate Singham hold that taking from those who earn more to give to those who earn less is decidedly ethical: “Basic humanitarian morality dictates that wealthier citizens should be held morally and legally accountable to pay for both their own basic income and a large portion of the guaranteed basic income of the working class.”6 But is this true? How is it morally acceptable to take from one person what he has earned in order to give to another person what he hasn’t? The answer is simple: It isn’t.
UBI advocates suggest different ways of funding this forced redistribution. A few proposals, such as Yang’s, suggest a value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases not deemed “essential.” Yet, UBI funded by a VAT would not even provide short-term benefits to those it supposedly aims to help; most would receive the same or less than they paid in taxes.7 As a study conducted by the Roosevelt Institute concludes, “It gives to households with one hand what it takes away with the other.”8
Others, such as Paul Buchheit, author of Disposable Americans: Extreme Capitalism and the Case for a Guaranteed Income, suggest a wealth tax—that is, a tax on accumulated wealth, even wealth that already has been taxed in prior years.9 Of course, the wealthiest among us tend to be the greatest producers—the owners and managers of companies that provide millions of jobs. This means that the most productive people would be “rewarded” for their hard work by being forced to hand over their earnings to be enjoyed by anyone and everyone but themselves. The ablest producers, by virtue of their ability, are deemed not to have any right to the product of their own effort. But why does one’s financial success justify the government in stealing from him? Taking a person’s earnings because they are above a certain amount is theft. And taking it because the law permits it just makes it legalized theft.
UBI proponents such as Simon Duffy (founder and director of the Center for Welfare Reform) claim that “all human beings have certain fundamental needs and having these needs met is a right.”10 But is it? Rights are moral principles that sanction people’s freedom to act on their own judgment without coercion, as long as they don’t infringe on the freedom of others to do the same.
Does anyone genuinely have a right to that which someone else must provide? Consider what having a “right” to basic necessities would mean. If people have a right to food, that means someone must provide them with food. Should we force some to produce food so others may eat? If people have a right to housing, someone must build that housing. Should we force some to build so that others may have a roof over their heads? In other words, should we compel people to use their time, effort, and abilities in complete disregard of their right to live their lives as they see fit?
Obviously not. Yet this is exactly what UBI proponents demand. The money that UBI proponents consider to be each individual’s “right” must first be earned or created by someone else. The government would then have to take that money using the threat of force. So, in which case are rights being violated: when people aren’t being handed money they have not earned, or when those who have earned it are forced to hand it over?
UBI proponents, however, seem unconcerned with the value of productive work. One supposed benefit of UBI, as Matt Zwolinski says in “A Moral Case for Universal Basic Income,” is that it would meet everyone’s basic needs, “regardless of whether they’re working or, for that matter, even trying to work.”11 But as even Obama acknowledges, “It’s not just money that a job provides. It provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose.” Obama, despite supporting UBI (in the same speech), correctly identifies that earning one’s living gives one a sense of dignity. It also provides a rational basis for self-esteem.
When people engage in productive work, they develop competence and confidence, as well as the pride that results from being independent. As one anonymous participant in a study on welfare explained, working earned her not only money but an independence she could not achieve while on welfare: “I don’t have to ask . . . for help. I can hold my head high. I did it.”12 UBI proponents would implement a system in which no one has to work for a living, which would severely disincentivize people from finding opportunities that would help them build and maintain self-esteem.
The fundamental issue at stake is not, as UBI proponents claim, the “rights to fundamental social and economic protections.”13 The key issue is that producers would be forced to sacrifice what they have earned. People who engage in productive work, on whatever scale, would see their efforts to improve their lives being wasted. The product of their thought and productivity—the earnings they had planned to save for retirement, a vacation, or their children’s education—would be taken from them to give to others who did not earn it.
In essence, UBI entails penalizing those who produce the goods that support human life because they produce those goods. Why should those who create the goods and services we rely on be forced to give up the rewards of their productivity? Why should we punish the innovators, the inventors, the managers, the investors, and all other ambitious go-getters for their success? Why should everyone have a right to a man’s effort but himself?
They shouldn’t.
Universal basic income would sacrifice the most productive to the least, wrenching the rewards of their productivity away from them. This perversion of justice violates the rights of those who provide the goods and services we all depend on and enjoy. As such, UBI cannot be moral, and rights-respecting individuals would do well to denounce it at every opportunity and to vote against candidates who would implement such immoral policies.