Basic Income Is Forced Redistribution

There is ongoing controversy as calls to introduce a basic income continue. Advocates of basic income emphasize that regularly paying a fixed amount to every citizen would strengthen the economic safety net and reduce social inequality. While this may sound appealing, it must be clearly recognized that basic income is, in substance, nothing more than simple compulsory distribution.

Basic income undermines the welfare system. Existing welfare systems generally focus on providing tailored support based on individual needs and circumstances. This makes it possible to meet specific needs, target socially vulnerable groups, and make careful adjustments within a given budget. Basic income, by contrast, takes a universal approach by providing the same fixed amount equally to all citizens.

As a result, the careful support and adjustment pursued by the existing welfare system are disregarded, ultimately sacrificing the tailored assistance that was the very purpose of welfare policy and failing to adequately reflect diverse social demands and individual needs. This uniform approach will eventually create imbalances in the welfare system and diminish its effectiveness.

Basic income is merely compulsory allocation. A basic income system operates by having the state provide funds unconditionally to all citizens. In this process, individual choice and autonomy are restricted. Because basic income is not based on voluntary expression of individual intent, the system cannot help but be inefficient. History has already repeatedly proven the seriousness of the side effects produced by coercive systems that suppress freedom. In its compulsory distributive form, a basic income system poses a very high risk of causing social inefficiency.

Basic income imposes costs greater than the benefits returned to the public. Implementing basic income requires enormous fiscal resources, and this may necessitate tax increases or the diversion of other government financial resources. This not only places an additional economic burden on the public but also negatively affects the overall stability of the economy.

When one considers the cost of collecting taxes, the cost of redistributing them, and the cost of the administrative organizations responsible for such work, inefficiency in our society will grow even further. Moreover, given the government’s current situation of national debt and insufficient tax revenue, it is obvious that introducing basic income would run into fiscal burdens even greater than the benefits it might generate.

Uniform cash support policies risk undermining social trust and causing members of society to fall into complacency. Cases of abuse involving various welfare policies, such as unemployment benefits and basic livelihood assistance recipients, are not uncommon around us. Even policies that are operated by selecting recipients according to clear standards carry the risk of various problems; under such circumstances, a policy that seeks to provide uniform financial support to the entire population cannot but be irresponsible.

Indiscriminate support that does not take into account individuals’ circumstances, characteristics, and assets ultimately causes confusion in both the welfare system and the broader economy. As the saying goes, “There is no paradise in the place to which one flees,” and a populist policy such as basic income amounts to nothing more than evading real problems. What is needed is an attitude of deeply analyzing the actual causes and approaching them with caution. We must examine the true intent of the basic income system, and it is important to seek solutions that take into account both long-term social goals and economic stability.

Sung-no Choi

President, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 기본소득은 강제 배급이다

Author: Sung-no Choi

Date: 2024-09-13

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&idx=26897