Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Robbing Pietro to pay Paolo? The zero-sum game in Italy’s welfare state
Robbing Pietro to pay Paolo? The zero-sum game in Italy’s welfare state
Dec 11, 2025 1:49 PM

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is an idiomatic expression about bad – or at least disappointing – economics.

Curiously, it was born within the context of the Church’s supposedly poor financial administration of its properties. While there are many sources to the origin of the idiom, there is a famous story from 17th C. England when a bishop was said to have ordered funds transferred from one old church (St. Peter’s Abbey) to another in disrepair (St. Paul’s Cathedral). Thus St. Paul’s was helped but not without St. Peter’s suffering greatly financially.

To play by this “economic switch-a-roo” essentially means to dispose of one debt by simply incurring a similar one – and usually within a shared bad balance sheet, as may have been the case in the same poorly financed English diocese while managing its troubled assets.

Implied in the expression, most importantly, is the close relationship the two apostles Peter and Paul had and that, therefore, should never be strictly disassociated from one another. Both Peter and Paul should be helped together, and not one at the expense of the other.

In economic terms Peter and Paul should be in a win-win, not a win-lose relationship.

Therefore, robbing Peter to pay Paul is often used pejoratively to speak of situations when the economic winners are a direct consequence of the economic losers: a zero-sum game. As Paul celebrates, Peter kicks and screams.

In Rome, where Peter and Paul are co-patron saints and both venerated on the same municipal holiday (June 29), ironically the idiomatic expression is not so well known as it is practiced by locals. Roman politicians and public administrators are especially good at Peter-and-Paul theft!

The latest robbing of Peter to pay Paul was announced earlier this week, making national headlines. It was reported that Roman welfare bureaucrats “stole” from one part of a public entitlement budget, known as INPS, to “pay” for another of its popular benefits – an unemployment program just passed under the current legislature and promoted by the Five Star Movement, Italy’s populist party.

In this specific case, Rome’s INPS managers will be taking away a percentage of retirement benefits worth 250 million euros – especially from “golden pensioners” earning over €100,000 – in order to make promised back payments for “citizens’ wages”, a monthly stipend of €780 now guaranteed to all non-working Italian adults.

In a May 22 La Stampa article Pensioni tagliate a 5,6 milioni d’italiani per ripagare il reddito di cittadinanza (“Pensions cut to 5.6 million Italians pensate owed citizens’ wages”), we learn:

The financial move will hit 5.6 million Italians. This will affect pensions exceeding three times the minimum (1,522 euros gross per month) and applied starting in April. Also, cuts will be made to “golden pensions”, [that is,]… for pensions exceeding 100,000 euros gross per year starting [retroactively] from January 1, 2019 and for five years. In a maneuver from the intervention on pensions exceeding 100 thousand euros, a savings of 76 million euros is foreseen in 2019, 80 million in 2020 and 83 million in 2021.

What else could anyone in Italy expect when the peting welfare programs are promised to citizens yet share the same sickly public finances and without any private means to increase INPS’s overall portfolio? INPS can only redistribute its limited funds “fairly”, by taking from the so-called “less deserving” Italian Pietros and giving to the “more deserving” Paolos.

Where there is no engine for wealth creation within public welfare (the exact opposite of what private panies can do by creatively earning and raising new funds), finances eventually dry up. Even with all the switching and shifting of monies from Peter to Paul and from Paul back to Peter, the state’s welfare pie never really actually grows and cannot ever promise bigger or even equal slices for all.

As famously said by the late Margaret Thatcher when blasting the false hopes of European socialist welfare states: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

(Photo Credit: mons)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Explainer: The Hobby Lobby Amicus Briefs
Last week, over 80 amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court on both sides of Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the HHS contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. Here’s what you need to know about amicus briefs and their role in this case. What is an amicus brief? An amicus brief is a learned treatise submitted by an amicus curiae (Latin for “friend of the court”), someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but...
Hobby Lobby Owners Speak Out on HHS Mandate
In a new video from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Green Family, owners of the embattled retail chain, Hobby Lobby, discusses the religious foundation of their business and the threat the federal government now poses to those who share their beliefs. “What’s at stake here is whether you’re able to keep your religious freedom when you open a family business,” says Lori Windham, Senior Council at The Becket Fund, “whether you can continue to live out your faith...
What Liberal Evangelicals Should Know About the Economic Views of Conservative Evangelicals
We read the same Bible and follow the same Jesus. We go to the same churches and even agree on the same social issues. So why then do liberal and conservative evangelicals tend to disagree so often about economic issues? The answer most frequently given is that both sides simply baptize whatever political and economic views they already believe. While this is likely to be partially true, I don’t think it is a sufficient explanation for the views of more...
‘Breeders:’ A Cautionary Tale
The Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC) is an mitted to “bioethical issues” such as surrogacy, stem cell research and human cloning, amongst other issues. They have recently produced a documentary entitled “Breeders: a subclass of women?” It is a cautionary tale, and a very sad one. The film focuses on women who chose to be surrogates (one chose surrogacy several times), and the turmoil that arose. The issue of es down to the buying and selling of children, one...
Post-Super Bowl Thoughts on Theology and America
How ’bout them Seahawks? As a Chicago Bears fan the answer to that question means very little to me, but I did enjoy the annual ritual of binge-eating and loudly talking over friends and loved ones who gathered together around the TV for Super Bowl 48. One thing that stood out was the tradition of having various NFL players and civil servants recite the Declaration of Independence before the game. Some of the powerful (and unmistakably religious) lines from our...
A Wesleyan Approach to Faith, Work, and Economic Transformation
“[Wealth] is an excellent gift of God, answering the noblest ends. In the hands of his children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked: It gives to the traveller and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of an husband to the widow, and of a father to the fatherless. We may be a defence for the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of...
What Does Religious Liberty Stand Upon?
With everything from the HHS mandate to Duck Dynasty to Sister Wives, there is much in the news regarding religious liberty. What are we to make of it? Is religious liberty simply being tolerant of others’ religious choices? Michael Therrien, at First Things, wants to clear up the discussion, from the Catholic point of view. He starts by looking at an article quoting Camille Paglia, atheist, lesbian and university professor. In it, Paglia rushes to the defense of Phil Robertson,...
Business and the Option for the Poor
There is no reason to assume that the preferential option for the poor is somehow a preferential option for big government, says Acton research director Samuel Gregg. Gregg writes that lifting people out of poverty — and not just material poverty but also moral and spiritual poverty — does not necessarily mean that the most effective action is to implement yet another welfare program: What does living out the option for the poor mean in practice? We must engage in...
Video & Audio: Why Libertarians Need God
The 2014Acton Lecture Seriesgot underway last week with an address from Jay Richards on the topic of “Why Libertarians Need God.” In his address, Richards argued that core libertarian principles of individual rights, freedom and responsibility, reason, moral truth, and limited government make little sense in an atheistic and materialist context, but make far more sense when grounded in a theistic belief system. The video of the full lecture is available below; I’ve embedded the audio after the jump. ...
Audio: Samuel Gregg Discusses ‘Tea Party Catholic’
Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg joined host Mike Murray on his show “Faith, Culture and Politics” on the Guadalupe Radio Network to discuss his latest book, Tea Party Catholic. The interview lasted nearly a half an hour, and you can listen to it via the audio player below. ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved