Conclusion: Summary and Suggestion of Research Results

Abstract

Modern society is undergoing globalization with neoliberal economic ideas at its center, and ensuing evils of social polarization are at a very serious level. As a result of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, artificial intelligence technology is introduced, and it is urgent to prepare alternatives to the problems of job loss and wage labor. In addition to increasing productivity, thanks to technology collaborated with humans and artificial intelligence robots, an interdisciplinary review of the meaning and restructuring of labor is in dire need more than ever as well.

Survey Report on Christian Public Opinion on Basic Income

This part is translated from Korean into English by Hwang Hye-Jin.

1.1 Survey Overview

1.1.1 Survey Background

Basic income is a topic of rising significance that calls for the attention of Christians and theologians. If basic income becomes a key aspect of the lives of Christian believers and thereby affects the future of churches, it is the responsibility of theologians to meticulously evaluate the theory and practice of basic income and provide critical feedback. For this purpose, the Joint Research Team on Basic Income of Yonsei University (henceforth we) have prepared a theological and sociological interdisciplinary framework on the topic of basic income.

Sponsored by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the Korea Research Foundation in 2020, we conducted a survey of 1,000 Christians to find out about the Christian public opinion on the theory and implementation of basic income.

1.1.2 Survey Purpose

The modern society is at a major crossroads. Neoliberal globalization has led to the polarization and segregation of the labor market. The 4th Industrial Revolution and the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology are accelerating the replacement of human labor with technology, thus taking away job opportunities. As the outdated labor-based welfare system is clearly becoming unable to keep up with these rapidly changing environments, there are growing calls for a societal revolution. Under the current circumstances of intensified economic polarization, there have been growing interests in and demand for basic income, in which states unconditionally give out cash or local currencies to individuals without any screening or demanding labor in return. In the years 2020 and 2021, COVID-19 relief funds were distributed in Korea, which further increased the public awareness of and demand for basic income.

Drawing from interdisciplinary studies on the ideological basic, economic foundation, and the potential for institutionalization of basic income, we aim to promote basic income as the viable solution to realizing economic justice in the modern society. To achieve this goal, we have conducted a survey and public poll to analyze the public opinion on the concept and implementation of basic income. We have also shared the results with the academia, the Christian community, civil society, and those overseas by presenting at both domestic and international academic seminars.

To initiate an active discussion on basic income, we have conducted a survey on the different aspects of basic income—including concept awareness, practicality of implementation, and the expectation and receptivity of Christians and the general public.

Through conducting a survey that details the multidimensional aspects of basic income, we aimed to identify the factors of basic income that are commonly overlooked or exaggerated. To evaluate the practicality of implementing basic income, we collected and analyzed Christian responses on their perception of implementing basic income and the realistically acceptable level of basic income. To assess the expectation and receptivity levels of basic income, we analyzed the way in which individual respondents defined and presented the perceived acceptable level of basic income. With these results, we aim to clarify how ideologies and policies promoted in basic income movements can positively affect Christians and the general public.

1.1.3 Survey Structure

Commissioned by Hankook Research Co., Ltd., the survey took place for fifteen days from 15 to 30th of June, 2021. A total of 1,000 Christians, mainly consisting of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, participated in the survey. With a 95% confidence level, the maximum standard error of this survey is within ±3.1%. The sample allocation was based on the distribution of religious people across region, age, and sex according to the 2015 Population and Housing Census.

The survey was conducted online using Master Sample, a research tool developed by Hankook Research. The survey information and consent for participation were provided and collected via email, text messages, and mobile push notifications. The qualification of respondents was confirmed through screening questions that asked for the respondents’ sex, age, region of residence, and religion.

Using Master Sample, the survey was conducted online as a Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI). The 10-minute survey consisted of 40 questions asking for the respondent’s awareness of basic income, religious background, perception on implementing and financing the basic income, and the perception of implementing the basic income from a religious perspective. The online survey was programmed to be completed on computers and mobile devices, and only those that agreed to take the survey via email and text messages were considered in our survey.

1.1.4 Survey Content

The questionnaire consisted of 40 questions, which have been divided into the following six categories: (1) respondent selection (2) awareness of basic income (3) religious information (4) perception of implementation and financing of basic income (5) perception of implementation based on religious beliefs (6) demographic. The full questionnaire was provided to each respondent. The details of the questionnaire are presented in the chart below.

Respondent selection (4 questions)	1. Religion (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) 2. Sex 3. Age 4. Region of residence
Awareness of basic income (2 questions)	1. Awareness of the concept of basic income 2. Awareness of local governments and activist groups’ activities regarding basic income
Religious background (7 questions)	1. Date of conversion to Christianity (in age group) 2. Duration of faith (in years) 3. Frequency of participation in religious service 4. Denomination 5. Address of home church/cathedral 6. Religious orientation 7. Participation of debate on basic income with other Christians
Personal perspective on implementation and financing of basic income (12 questions)	1. Agree/disagree on basic income implementation 2. Reason for agreement on basic income implementation 3. Reason for disagreement on basic income implementation 4. Agree/disagree on raising taxes for basic income implementation 5. Definition of appropriate amount of basic income per person 6. Agree/disagree on levying land tax for financing basic income 7. Agree/disagree on levying carbon tax for financing basic income 8. Agree/disagree on levying income tax for financing basic income 9. Preference of adjustable or fixed basic income payment 10. Main category of expenditure if given basic income 11. Opinion on basic income reducing gender inequality in labor market 12. Opinion on basic income elevating social recognition of household activities
Religious perspective on implementation of basic income (3 questions)	1. Agree/disagree on implementing basic income based on religious beliefs 2. Religious reason for agreement 3. Religious reason for disagreement
Demographics (12 questions)	1. Educational attainment 2. Occupation 3. Income level (monthly income) 4. Marital status 5. Disability and health 6. Number of household members 7. Number of dependents 8. Eligibility for National Basic Living Security Act 9. Value of real estate assets 10. Occupancy type 11. Social class range in Korea 12. Political orientation

1.1.5 Survey Respondent Demographics

The distribution of responses to questions on respondent qualification (4 questions) and demographics (12 questions) are as the following:

Base = Total (1,000 respondents)		Case (respondent)	Ratio
			%
Religion	Protestant	(654)	65.4
	Catholic	(327)	32.7
	Orthodox	(19)	1.9
Sex	Male	(424)	42.4
	Female	(576)	57.6
Age group	20s	(137)	13.7
	30s	(180)	18.0
	40s	(211)	21.1
	50s	(205)	20.5
	60s	(147)	14.7
	Over 70	(120)	12.0
Educational attainment	High school diploma or below	(443)	44.3
	Bachelor’s degree or above	(557)	55.7
Occupation	Managers	(41)	4.1
	Professionals and related workers	(116)	11.6
	Clerks	(244)	24.4
	Service workers	(71)	7.1
	Sales workers	(39)	3.9
	Skilled agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers	(10)	1.0
	Craft and related trades workers	(26)	2.6
	Equipment, machine operating and assembling workers	(30)	3.0
	Elementary workers	(44)	4.4
	Retired/unemployed/homemaker/student	(369)	36.9
	Others	(10)	1.0
Income level (monthly salary)	Below 1,000,000 KRW	(202)	20.2
	1 M– below 2 M KRW	(201)	20.1
	2 M KRW–below 3 M KRW	(245)	24.5
	3 M–below 4 M KRW	(159)	15.9
	4 K– below 5 K	(94)	9.4
	5 K or above	(99)	9.9
Region of residency	Seoul	(251)	25.1
	Gyeonggi/Incheon	(345)	34.5
	Chungcheong/Daejeon/Sejong	(97)	9.7
	Busan/Ulsan/Gyeongsangnam-do	(91)	9.1
	Daegu/Gyeongsangbuk-do	(70)	7.0
	Jeolla/Gwangju	(113)	11.3
	Gangwon/Jeju	(33)	3.3
Marital status	Single/never married	(292)	29.2
	Married	(654)	65.4
	Divorced/bereaved	(54)	5.4

Base = Total (1,000 respondents)		Case (respondent)	Ratio
			%
Holder of disability certificate	Yes	(47)	4.7
	No	(953)	95.3
Household size	1-person household	(106)	10.6
	2-person household	(239)	23.9
	3–4-person household	(568)	56.8
	5 or more-person household	(87)	8.7
Number of dependents	1 or more	(250)	25.0
	None	(750)	75.0
Value of real estate assets	No property	(258)	25.8
	Less than 100 M KRW	(126)	12.6
	100 M–under 500 M KRW	(391)	39.1
	500 M–under 1,000 M KRW	(153)	15.3
	1B–3B KRW	(65)	6.5
	3B KRW or above	(7)	0.7
Form of residency	Own house	(607)	60.7
	Jeonse (lump-sum housing lease)	(232)	23.2
	Monthly rent	(143)	14.3
	Daily rent/free housing	(18)	1.8
Perceived social class range	Low-class	(522)	52.2
	Middle-class	(260)	26.0
	Upper-class	(218)	21.8
Political orientation	Conservative	(290)	29.0
	Moderate	(441)	44.1
	Liberal	(269)	26.9

1.2 Survey Results

1.2.1 Perception on Basic Income

Question 1 (Q1) asks for the respondents’ awareness of the concept of basic income. 88.1% of respondents answered that they had prior knowledge of basic income, of which 63.4% answered that they had “some knowledge” and 24.7% answered “strong knowledge” of the concept. On average, 9 out of 10 respondents had knowledge of basic income. In contrast, only 11.9% answered that they had “few” or “no knowledge” of basic income.

Question 2 asked respondents to select all cases of domestic activist groups and local governments advocating basic income. Of the 881 respondents who answered that they were slightly or fully aware of basic income, 72.4% answered that they were aware of the “Gyeonggi COVID-19 Basic Income Reliefs”; 57.0% answered that they were aware of the “Gyeonggi Youth Basic Income.”

These results indicate that there is a greater awareness of activities related to Gyeonggi-province compared to that of activist groups. In addition, 13.1% of respondents who previously answered that they were aware of basic income had no knowledge of relevant domestic activist groups or local governments.

1.2.2 Religious Background

Question 3 asked the respondents’ age when they first became Christian. There were higher responses the younger the age. Responses included below the age of 10 (45.0%), in their 10s (20.4%) and 20s (12.5%). In other words, 65.4% of respondents had become Christian in their childhood or adolescence; 24.0% in their young adulthood (20s and 30s); while only 16% in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. On average, 9 out of 10 Christian respondents had become Christian before their 30s.

Question 4 asked about the respondents’ duration of faith, excluding any period of time in between when they stopped practicing the religion. The response “35 years and above” received the highest response of 21.0%, followed by “10 to under 15 years” (13.8%), “5 to under 10 years” (13.5%). Over 74.1% of respondents had more than 10 years of religious experience, indicating that 3 out of 4 respondents had at least 10 years of experience as Christians.

Question 5 asked the frequency of regular participation in Sunday service (mass), including online service. 49.9% of respondents answered that they attended regularly. Including 25.0% of respondents that attended irregularly, 74.9% of all respondents had participated in Sunday services either regularly or irregularly. The remaining 25.1% responded that they rarely or did not attend Sunday service, indicating that 1 out of 4 respondents did not participate in any form of regular Sunday service.

In Question 6, which asked the respondent’s religion and denomination, Protestant accounted for the highest percentage of 65.4%, followed by Catholic (32.7%) and Orthodox (1.9%). In the case of Protestant, the questionnaire further asked the respondent’s denomination. Of the 44.6% who answered Presbyterianism, PCK and GAPCK (The Presbyterian Church of Korea and The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea) accounted for 32.6% and PROK (The Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea) accounted for the remaining 12%. Other denominations included Methodism (6%); Evangelical Holiness Church (3.8%); Baptist (3.3%); Assemblies of God (2.2%); Korea Association of Independent Churches and Missions (KAICAM), Evangelical Church, Anglican Church, and The Salvation Army together account for 2.8%; and other denominations include Shincheonji Church of Jesus, Churches of Christ, and Seventh-Day Adventist.

Because this survey was conducted based on the population distribution of denominations as recorded in the 2015 Population and Housing Census, there was a discrepancy between the distribution of denomination in the sample and that of official reports by Protestant institutions.

Question 7 asked the address of the respondent’s home church (cathedral). Gyeonggi/Incheon ranked the highest (30.3%), followed by Seoul (29.3%) and Gyeongsang/Busan/Daegu (16.1%). Seoul/Gyeonggi/Incheon accounted for more than half of the total responses (59.6%).

Question 8 regarded the respondent’s religious beliefs, in which respondents were asked to identify as a Christian liberal, conservative, or moderate. Christian moderate ranked the highest (48.2%), followed by Christian conservative (30.6%) and Christian liberal (21.2%). About half of the respondents identified as Christian moderates, and there were 9.4% more respondents in the Christian conservative group than those in the Christian liberal group.

There was a significant difference in religious orientation between Catholic and Protestant respondents. 23.9% of Catholics and 33.9% of Protestants identified as Christian conservatives, whereas 24.5% of Catholics and 19.7% of Protestants identified as Christian liberals. These statistics suggest that in comparison with the Protestants, Catholics are more likely to be religiously liberal than conservative.

There was a significant difference in religious orientation within Protestant respondents depending on one’s denomination. Among the three denominations with the largest sample sizes, those who identified as Christian liberals were accounted for 16.9% of Presbyterian (Yejang), 24.2% of Presbyterian (Kijang), and 25.0% of Methodist. Christian conservatives consisted of 39.6% in Presbyterian (Yejang), 26.7% in Presbyterian (Kijang), 23.3% in Methodist. Finally, Christian moderates accounted for 43.6% in Presbyterian (Yejang), 49.2% in Presbyterian (Kijang), and 51.7% in Methodist. It was noticed that the response rates between Presbyterian (Kijang) and Methodist respondents were particularly similar.

There was a significant positive correlation between the respondent’s religious orientation and attitude toward basic income. The respondent was more likely to agree with the concept of basic income in the order of strongly liberal, slightly liberal, moderate, slightly conservative, and strongly conservative in faith. For example, 65.7% of strongly liberal respondents agreed to the idea of basic income, compared to the equivalent of only 33.3% of strongly conservative respondents. Likewise, 40.3% of strong conservatives opposed the idea of basic income, compared to the equivalent of only 17.1% of strong liberal Christian respondents.

Question 9 asked whether respondents had former experience in discussing or hearing about basic income during sermons or from other church members. 86.2% of respondents said they had few or no experience, whereas only 13.8% said they had experience. Such results indicate that basic income was rarely discussed in most churches; on average, 9 out of 10 respondents had no opportunity to hear about the basic income. The results were similar for both Protestant and Catholic, as well as between progressive and conservative denominations within Protestantism.

The number of respondents that had heard about basic income in churches (cathedrals) were 15.0% in Yejang, 17.5% in Gijang, 8.3% in Methodism, and 10.7% in Catholicism. These low percentages indicate that religious leaders who contribute to and circulate the discourses within the church have not been actively engaged in constructing discourses on basic income. Although churches emphasize donation and volunteer as means of practicing love, they have nonetheless been passive in preaching and educating believers on reforming the existing social system should be changed like basic income.

1.2.3 Perception of Implementation and Financing of Basic Income

Question 10 asked whether or not to implement basic income that provides regular cash (or local currency) to all citizens. 40.5% of respondents were in favor of the idea, 14.1% higher than the 26.4% of respondents who opposed the idea. The number of respondents in favor of implementing basic income was relatively high among men (46.7%), those in their 30s (45.0%) and 40s (48.3%), residents of Jeolla/Gwangju (46.9%), and those who were politically liberal (57.6%).

Question 10-1 asked respondents in favor of implementing basic income to choose their reasons for approval. Of the 405 responses, “To guarantee one’s right to survival; to resolve inequality through income redistribution” (76.0%), “To eliminate blind spots or relative deprivation due to selective welfare” (55.6%), and “To account for negative impacts of COVID-19” (45.9%) ranked the highest.

Reason for agreement (n = 405)	%
To guarantee one’s right to survival; to resolve inequality through income redistribution	76.0
Universal basic income eliminated blind spots or relative deprivation due to selective welfare	55.6
To address the struggles of small business owners, self-employed, and non-regular employees affected by COVID-19	45.9
To accelerate the transition to a welfare society; to change the purpose of labor from survival to self-actualization	42.7
To elevate social recognition of household activities; to aid post-retirement life	36.0
To account for the reduction of income and job opportunities due to 4th Industrial Revolution	33.8
To redistribute profits made from Common Wealth (land, natural resources, big data, etc.)	15.6
Others	0.5

In Question 10-2, respondents selected multiple answers for their opposition to implementing basic income. Of the 264 responses, “Moral hazard; reduction in motivation to work” (75.4%), “Increase of tax burden” (69.7%), and “More important to create jobs and stabilize real estate prices” (54.5%) were among the highest-ranking responses.

Reason for opposition (n = 264)	%
Regular payment unconditional of labor will cause moral hazard and demotivate people from working	75.4
Increased tax burden due to financing basic income	69.7
More important to create jobs and stabilize real estate prices	54.5
Existing welfare programs such as National Basic Living Security and Social Security System are more effective than the basic income	37.5
Insufficient amount of basic income is ineffective in eliminating welfare blind spots	23.5
Should be provided selectively to those affected by COVID-19 such as small business owners, self-employed, and non-regular employees	17.4
Others	0.4

Question 11 asks whether respondents agree or disagree with increasing taxation for basic income implementation. 41.2% of respondents opposed, which is 10.2% higher than the 31.0% of respondents in favor. The reasons for opposition included “Not a Holder of Disability Certificate” (41.7%), “No dependent family members” (43.1%), “Have over 3 billion KRW in real estate assets” (42.9%), and “Politically conservative” (56.9%). On the other hand, 25.0% of those in favor of implementing basic income agreed to increasing the tax. In other words, only 1 out of 4 respondents in favor of implementing basic income agreed with increasing taxation, indicative of common aversion to increased tax burden.

Question 11-1 asked about the appropriate amount of monthly income in the case of implementing a basic income. Less than 300,000 KRW ranked highest (51.3%), followed by less than 600,000 KRW (26.0%). Respondents tended to consider a lower monthly income to be appropriate.

Questions 12 through 14 respectively asked respondents’ opinion on increasing land tax, carbon tax, and income tax to finance basic income. A higher percentage of respondents opposed increasing land tax and income tax, whereas a higher percentage of respondents were in favor of increasing carbon tax. The percentages of respondents in favor of increasing tax were as the following: income tax (31.2%), land tax (34.0%), and carbon tax (42.4%). Opposition to increasing the aforementioned taxes was relatively high among Daegu/Gyeongbuk residents, homeowners, middle and upper class, and conservative Christians. Those in favor were relatively high among respondents who were male, divorced/bereaved, single-person households, owned real estate assets of less than 100 million KRW, and liberal Christians. Of the respondents who agreed (7.5% who strongly agreed; 10.3% who agreed) to implementing basic income, only 17.8% were in favor of imposing higher land tax, carbon tax, and income tax to finance basic income.

Question 15 asked about the respondent’s preference for adjustable or fixed basic income. There was no significant difference between the two types. The response rates were as the following: “Fixed-rate” (34.6%), “Adjustable-rate” (34.5%), “Does not matter either way” (22.0%), and “Do not know” (8.9%). These results show that it is necessary to clarify the pros and cons of the different rates of basic income.

Question 16 asked to choose up to three categories of expenditure given a basic income. Respondents answered in the order of “living expenses” (81.8%), “utility bills” (55.7%), “leisure activities” (35.1%), and “housing expenses” (33.2%). As most expenditure regarded the three basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter, implementing the basic income is expected to positively affect the real economy by boosting consumption.

Question 17 asked whether or not a basic income is expected to resolve gender inequality in the labor market by providing new opportunities for women on career breaks due to childcare or housework. Question 18 asked whether or not a basic income would improve the social recognition of homemakers, who are not traditionally considered as workers. There were higher responses that considered basic income to be “ineffective in resolving gender labor inequality” (38.3%), while more agreed that it would be “effective in improving the social recognition of homemakers” (39.2%). 24.7% of respondents answered that basic income would be effective for both causes.

The opinion that regular payment of basic income would positively affect both gender inequality in the labor market and social recognition of homemakers was more likely to be found among respondents who were male, belonging to a lower social class, politically liberal, formerly aware of basic income, and in favor of implementing basic income.

1.2.4 Opinion on Implementing Basic Income Based on Religious Beliefs

Question 19 asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with implementing the basic income from a religious perspective of practicing love for God and others. 42.9% of respondents agreed, which is 15.8% higher than those who disagreed (27.1%). It is worth noting that the rate is higher than it was back in Question 10, in which 14.1% more respondents personally agreed with implementing the basic income, irrespective of a religious perspective. The rate of approval increased by 2.4% from 40.5% in Question 10 (personal perspective) to 42.9% in Question 19 (religious perspective). These results suggest that the rate of approval of basic income among Christians is likely to increase if they are given a clear Christian perspective on basic income.

Question 19-1 asked to choose the Christian reasons for being in favor of basic income. Responses ranked in the order of “Christianity’s fundamental principles involve protecting the weak” (56.9%); “State-level justice is necessary instead of relying only on charity and donations” (46.6%); and “Minimum right to survival should be guaranteed” (45.0%).

Reason for agreement (n = 429)	%
Christianity’s fundamental principles involve protecting the vulnerable such as the orphaned, widowed, strangers, ill, oppressed, homeless, and excluded	56.9
Christian faith should be practiced universally and sustainably through a national policy rather than relying on the goodwill of churches and individuals	46.6
In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the landowner generously gives a full day’s pay to eleventh-hour workers who only worked one hour. Likewise, everyone’s basic right to survival should be guaranteed	45.0
Love for one’s neighbors should not leave out anyone	42.0
During the Israelites’ forty years in the wilderness, God daily provided manna to everyone without discrimination	27.3

Question 19-2 asked to choose the Christian reasons for opposing basic income. Responses ranked in the order of “Basic income demotivates people from working by encouraging laziness” (62.4%), “Paying for the idle is a waste of money” (57.2%); and “The Bible emphasizes helping the weak, not everyone” (46.1%).

Reason for opposition (n = 271)	%
Basic income demotivates people from working by encouraging laziness	62.4
Paying for the idle is a waste of money	57.2
The Bible talks about helping the vulnerable such as orphans, widows, and strangers—not everyone in general	46.1
The Bible teaches that those who do not work should not eat	43.9

1.3 Survey Results Summary

In terms of Christians’ awareness of basic income, 88.1% of the respondents were aware of basic income. Respondents were more likely to be aware of activities regarding basic income by Gyeonggi-do’s local government (72.4%) than activist groups (57.0%).

The response rate for the age in which one converted to Christianity was higher as the age lowered, with the highest number of respondents (21.0%) having 35 or more years of experience in their Christian faith. 74.9% of respondents participated in Sunday service (mass); the respondents consisted mostly of Protestant (65.4%), Catholic (32.7%), and Orthodox (1.9%). A higher number of respondents were Christian conservatives, and 86.2% of respondents had no experience of hearing about basic income in churches (cathedrals).

40.5% of respondents were in favor of implementing basic income, which was 14.1% higher than those who opposed. The reasons for favoring the implementation of basic income included: “To guarantee one’s right to survival; to resolve inequality through income redistribution” (76.0%), and “To eliminate blind spots or relative deprivation due to selective welfare” (55.6%). In contrast, reasons for opposing the basic income included “Moral hazard; reduction in motivation to work” (75.4%) and “Increased tax burden” (69.7%). With regard to increasing taxation for financing basic income, 31.0% of respondents were in favor while 41.2% of respondents opposed.

51.3% of respondents considered the appropriate amount of basic income to be less than 300,000 KRW per month.

In terms of financing basic income, a greater proportion of respondents opposed increasing land tax and income tax, while a greater proportion were in favor of increasing the carbon tax. There was no significant difference between the respondents’ preference for fixed or adjustable-rate in distributing the basic income. The main purposes of expenditure if given basic income were as the following: “living expenses” (81.8%), “utility bills” (55.7%), “leisure activities” (35.1%). As a result, implementing the basic income is expected to positively affect the real economy by boosting consumption. Also, a high number of respondents considered basic income to be “ineffective in resolving gender labor inequality” (38.3%), while others agreed that it would be “effective in improving the social recognition of homemakers” (39.2%).

From a religious stance, 42.9% of respondents agreed to implementing the basic income, which is 15.8% higher than those in opposition. The rate of approval was higher from a religious stance in comparison to the personal stance. The leading Christian rationale for approving the basic income were “To protect the vulnerable” (56.9%) and “State-level justice is necessary instead of relying only on charity and donations” (46.6%); the Christian rationale for opposing the basic income included “Encourages laziness” (62.4%) and “Paying for the idle is a waste of money” (57.2%).

There was a significant positive correlation between the respondent’s religious orientation and attitude toward basic income. The respondent was more likely to agree with the concept of basic income in the order of strongly liberal, slightly liberal, moderate, slightly conservative, and strongly conservative in faith. For example, 65.7% of strong liberal Christians were in favor of basic income, compared to only 33.3% of strong conservatives. In contrast, 40.3% of strong conservative Christians opposed basic income, compared to only 17.1% of strong liberals.

In the case of strongly liberal Christians, the proportion of basic income approval was 65.7%, compared to only 33.3% of strongly conservative Christians. In contrast, 40.3% of strongly conservative Christians opposed basic income, compared to only 17.1% of strongly liberal Christians.

Finally, it is worth noting that up to 86.2% of the respondents had few to no experience of hearing about or discussing the topic of basic income within the church (cathedral), compared to only 13.8% who had experience.