The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income: To reduce government spending and intrusion.

The Atlantic ^ | 08/06/2014 | NOAH GORDON

[ctdonath2]

I understand what it is.

_IF_ you’re going to have a welfare state, that’s the way to do it: take a percentage from each, give it to each as an average.

There are, however, two HUGE problems with it:
1. The “take” is not yours to decide. What you’re taking is NOT YOURS TO TAKE. What you’re taking is NOT YOURS TO GIVE.
2. The bureaucrats and takers will NEVER rescind their activities, and will forever demand involvement, decision-making, special cases, and fight to take more.

Remember, taxes started as simple & small.
Remember, welfare started as a “safety net” for the truly abject destitute.
And now both are voracious beasts, far beyond what any then-proponents would have tolerated.

Your “income guarantee” imposes the survival of one upon the efforts of another - at the choice of the recipient, not the giver. Of course Paul will agree to you robbing Peter to pay him. The income was not earned by you; the guarantee is not yours to make.

And your proposition has no inherent limit; the nature of its implementation leads to “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs” ... where have we heard THAT before?

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - For even when we were with you, we laid down this rule for you: “If a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat.”
Exodus 20:15 - Thou shalt not steal.

[ctdonath2]

“An income guarantee is pro freedom and pro work.”

Uh-huh.

“We’re from the government, and we’re here to take 30% of your income and give it to people who don’t _want_ to work - even if they’re entirely capable of doing so.”
Now...what were you saying?