Should a natural wealth stipend go to all people?

Even to the wealthy?

A lot of people with high incomes or much wealth give to worthy causes out of a sense of civic duty.

IF we charge fees proportional to environmental degradation, we will be measuring economic value of that which belongs to all. If this money is not shared equally but is instead withheld from people who are wealthy, the feeling among some people that they have already paid a debt to society by NOT receiving that stipend may reduce their willingness to voluntarily contribute to worthy causes. That could mean a decrease in benefits to those who are less well-off that far exceeds whatever savings may come from not sharing the natural wealth stipend equally. We will have lost a chance to see what interesting projects might be funded voluntarily to make the world better.

The bureaucratic apparatus that conducts audits and surveils what people earn to discern who is eligible to receive the stipend would cost some money. The money spent to support this bureaucratic function cannot be used for other purposes. Besides the unquantified cost described above, there is this bureaucratic cost to consider.

Beyond these practical concerns, an equal sharing of (a monetary representation of) natural wealth is required by basic moral precepts. No person made this wealth and no person has any more or less right to benefit from it than does any other person.

When we make prices honest, people who are wealthy will not be those who promote the interests of individuals only (by making products that people want to buy). They will be those who promote the interests of individuals AND the community by making products that people want to buy without causing excessive harm to the environment. Higher profits for industry will go to businesses that minimize pollution and depletion of resources. We will no longer associate high profits with harmful practices and anti-social behavior. Interests of corporations will be aligned with interests of the larger society.


Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too

@TallPhilosopher

A message to the Churches:

Ancient texts tell us that truth is important.

Economists tell us that, when prices do not show true costs (because some costs are externalized, are not included on the profit and loss statement, due to the absence of any monetary cost incurred related to, for example, amount of pollution put), economic activity is skewed toward creation of more of that for which costs were externalized. More pollution is created because we do not charge appropriate fees to polluting industries.

We get more pollution and faster depletion of resources when prices do not show us the cost of harmful impacts on the environment.

Is truth important enough that we should insist on an economic system that tells us the truth about costs, including costs to the environment? If yes, who will say so? Who will say so in a public forum?

Who will ask economists what are the most efficient and fair proposals for taking account of economic externalities? (And what economist will answer?)

If we correct this defect in our economy that makes pollution and depletion of resources appear profitable to industry, we will promote sustainability. Profits of industry will align with societal interests and environmental health. Within the current (dishonest) system, pursuit of profit is at cross-purposes with pursuit of environmental health and the long-term stability of civilization.

If we charge fees proportional to how much pollution is put or natural resources are taken by industry in pursuit of profit, then share the proceeds of the fees to all people, we will have addressed the challenge of honest pricing AND we will be sharing (a monetary representation of) natural wealth to all people. No more poverty. Disparity of wealth will be a much smaller problem. We will have a more just society.

If we know that making an honest economy and sharing natural wealth would end poverty and promote sustainability, do we have a moral duty to do these things? 

Natural Law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too