I'm going to
offer a proposition that will startle you at first, but one which you'll
probably then go on to see as intriguing. Imagine what the UK
In the UK
I've argued before
on this Blog that although we shouldn't assume the rich should
automatically pay more tax, it is good for society (and that includes good for rich
people) that they do, because rich households have a lot more of their income
that is not spent on basic necessities, and thus have more to spare in a way
that the poor do not.
But if we
consider what progressive taxation is - the rich doing favours for the poor by
having more privileges with which to help - we get into knottier territories,
because we can begin to ask why we don't go beyond financial favours into areas
like sex and exercise. For the purposes of fun, bear with me for a moment, and imagine this; realising that
money isn't the only way that the better off can help the worse off, the government
decides to introduce two other kinds of 'progressive' measures to accompany
progressive tax - progressive sex and
progressive exercise.
The
government's reasoning is that if it is intrinsically the right thing to do for
those better off to give a helping hand through taxation to those born without
the ability or background or circumstances (or all three) to climb up the
ladder, they can make additional laws to help out further in areas of sex and
exercise too.
The
progressive sex law makes those really good looking people give a helping hand
through sexual favours to those born without the looks or the confidence to
acquire a sexual partner. And the progressive exercise law makes people with
more energy go and do the shopping or mow the lawn for those unfit people in
society.
You may say
that such proposals would disincentivise unattractive people from sprucing up
their appearance and trying to meet partners on merit, and that it would
disincentivise people unfit people to get off their bums, get fit and mow their
own lawn (and you'd be right), but that equally well applies to financial
helping hands too - as welfare inspires many to opt for not-working and instead live
a more modest life financially.
At this point
in the article your mind is probably racing with thoughts as to why progressive
sex based on looks and progressive exercise based on fitness are overwhelmingly
less desirable than progressive tax based on income. You've probably already
thought, as one example, that mandatory sexual favours would be detrimental to
marriages and relationships in a way that mandatory income tax is not. You've also probably
already thought that being legally compelled to do things with our bodies is an
entirely different intrusion on our lives than being legally compelled to do
things with the money we earn.
So feel free to relax a bit - although
I was only having a bit of fun with the idea of progressive sex and progressive
exercise, there is, in fact, a method for ascertaining your differing views on
these things. If you consider why it is you support compulsory helping hands in
the form of money but not all the other things, you'll find there is a good
short-cutting maxim that makes things clearer - it's the philosopher John
Rawls' famous veil of ignorance theory of justice, in which ideal moral and
ethical systems are implemented through conditions under which "No one knows his place in society, his
class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the
distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength,
and the like."
So
if we pretend that prior to being born we could all partake in a committee
meeting to decide upon the fairest and most just society, not knowing where
we'd be in that society in terms of environment, background, and natural
talents, we'd (try to) pick the most objectively good one, not the most
subjectively good.
In
other words, if we had the luxury of voting on a system before we were born,
and we didn't know how well off we would be in the gene pool of talent and in
the cultural pool of good and bad backgrounds (where good means high earning
potential), we'd all vote for a system to be in place whereby those at the
bottom are given a helping hand or a leg up by those at the top.
But
although we'd probably vote for this in the context of income tax, we wouldn't
vote for a system where good looking single people subsidise ugly single people
through sexual favours - not least because it would provide an unhelpful
incentive for good looking people to be in relationships to avoid this
obligation (and as we all know, relationships that are pressure-based and not
freely chosen because of love and compatibility are not good.
Perhaps if
we'd all been fortunate enough to have a Rawlsian pre-birth committee to decide
on the distribution of funds, talents and privileges we'd be able to reach a
fair and equitable system. But one thing we'd have to bring to bear is the fact
that for every benefit there is likely going to be a cost.
If you give some
of my earnings to broke Jack and skint Stephen then their benefit is my cost;
whereas if you force sexy Sadie to give sexual favours to ugly Pete and
short-on-confidence Dave then you impose a nasty cost on society by creating an
exchange of activities above the threshold of what the pre-birth committee
would choose. That I think is the best argument we have for picking some kinds
of helping hands and not others - some stay within the realms of
social-desirability and some don't.
The upshot is
that enforced sexual favours are abhorrent, but enforced redistribution of
wealth would also be abhorrent were it not for the fact that society benefits
overall from it. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of problems with the welfare system - not least the welfare trap and perverse incentives - but there are enough benefits to justify keeping it (even if people don't like it as much as they say they do). Although enforced redistribution of wealth is undesirable in the context of a
mugging, burglary or bank robbery, it is desirable in some cases when it is formalised by governmental
societal practices (even though politicians do often resemble the mafia.), especially as a safety net makes bold innovation less of a risk, and short-term unemployment welfare benefits gives us time to find a job that best matches our skills and talents to the new position.
Leaving
aside the bit of fun we had with the progressive sex and progressive exercise
propositions, I said a moment ago that if we pretend that prior to being born
we could all partake in a committee meeting to decide upon the fairest and most
just society, we'd try our hardest to pick the most objectively good one, not
the most subjectively good. To see why, suppose just ten people are in this
committee meeting.
Translating
environment, background, and natural talents into earnings, you learn that one
of you is going to take home £750,000 per year, and the other nine are going to
take home under £15,000 per year, with two of that nine taking home absolutely
nothing (for argument's sake, due to disability and a troubled background). The ten of you get
to vote on two systems: system 1 leaves things as they are, and system 2
incorporates redistributive policies that taxes a chunk of the £750,000 and
apportions it down the shallow end of the earnings pool. All ten of you are
almost certain to vote for system 2, because while you have a 1 in 10 chance of
being the high earner, you have a 9 in 10 chance of struggling by on under
£15,000 per year, so no individual would be wise to vote for system 1.
Extend
that to everyone in society, and regarding your own position you'll see why
from behind a veil of ignorance it's rational to desire an objectively fair and
just system to ensure those in the deep end of the earning pool help those in
the shallow end. Given that if it were possible we would all sign up to be on that
committee, there is a reasonable case for arguing that in the absence of such
an opportunity the next best alternative is democratically appointing a
government that enforces these systems.
Obviously
everyone disagrees on what that optimal governmental system looks like, but
apart from very extreme libertarians, most of us agree that the system of
political representatives is pretty much the next best thing to a Rawls-esque
veil of ignorance committee. Obviously a system built entirely on beneficence would
be susceptible to misuse and disincentive for the worse off to help themselves
up the ladder, but some kind of government controlled system could work well, even if it isn't this one.
What we have at present is a central
government that tries (sometimes well, often poorly) to put a simulation of
this in place on our behalf by redistributing money gathered from taxation. In
a perfect world everyone who has plenty would help everyone who has little - at
least to the extent of offering a helping hand related to hardships people
suffer that are not of their own making.
