Fan of Chesterton and Belloc?

Well both of them wanted every person, ipso facto, to have three acres and a cow. From the get go. Without cost and without debt.

So good luck to those shaking in their boots about UBI while desperately trying to maintain their standing as Catholics.

Universal basic wage, citizen's income, social dividend, citizenship revenue, guaranteed revenue - whatever you want to call it, in whatever the form, these are not new and they are not theories and they are not about supplement. Check out the Social Credit history of Canada for starters.

It's an inclusive Primary Transaction. And there is always a Primary Transaction in every economy no matter what. The question is: who, what parties, is that Primary Transaction going to be between?

The point of the principle of UBI (or whatever you want to call it) is not so much wealth redistribution; the point of it is that it leads to an economy that is immanently maintainable. As many people owning as possible. It can take hits without cataclysmic seismic shifts and the upending of the country.

It's kinda sorta like the bottle deposit system. The problem that people have with UBI (or whatever form of social dividend) is that it is not sexy. And that's always why people reject an answer and solution that is actually proportionate to reality - because it is simple and not sexy.

It's like buying an older Chevy truck pre-2000 instead of buying the latest model with all the new electronics and planned obsolescence built into the transmission, literally planned to the kilometer: the old truck is repairable, servicable, maintainable, will last not only a lifetime, but multiple lifetimes, while the other? The repairs are so expensive you may just as well switch over your lease to next latest model. And to the next latest after that. And none of those trucks will you ever actually own.

Everything, everything, everything on this good green earth needs at some point to be maintained, serviced, repaired, restored, kept in check, re-balanced, etc. The economy most certainly included. And there's something to be said how the emphasis is as much on basic as on universal.

And it's not sexy.

And just admit it, you champs of subsidiarity don't actually believe in subsidiarity.