The Acton Institute remembered that I wrote about Alabama and Susan Pace Hamill’s tax crusade in The End of Secularism. In the book, I didn’t express agreement or disagreement with her argument. Instead, I used the politics of the episode to show something about the flexible barriers between church and state. Now, thanks to a prompt from the Acton Commentary series, I have written an article on contentions made about income inequality in a PBS program in which Hamill and others appeared. Here it is (reprinted with attribution to Acton):
A recent episode of the PBS program Religion & Ethics Newsweekly addressed the issue of income inequality. Predictably, the conversation centered on the question of whether redistribution of wealth is a suitable way to remedy the purported problem.
Harvard professor Michael Sandel (who teaches a famous course on justice) suggested that redistribution is warranted because lots of different kinds of people work hard, but achieve vastly different results in terms of income. Why should a school bus driver work hard and make a low income, while a high level business manager works hard and makes a much higher income? Now, perhaps Dr. Sandel was limited by the constraints of television, but this framework for evaluating income inequality seems unsatisfying.
If effort is the key indicator, then why not give a superior claim to a man who sets a most arduous task for himself in the form of tearing down and rebuilding his house? Of course, it seems silly to reward him because his work doesn’t achieve anything. So, effort is not the key point. How about useful effort? A line operator in a factory might contribute something to thousands of pieces of work each day, but the engineer who designed the process made a far larger contribution because he enabled the entire production run. Even though it is true that we can distinguish levels of work as hard or easy, there are other things that matter, too. Effectiveness and impact come into play.
The Federalist Papers recognized that even if we could arrest the economic progress of all citizens and pull them back to the starting line, it would only be a matter of time before differences in motivation, virtue, practice, creativity, preparation, delayed gratification, and any number of other factors would lead to some substantially outpacing others. In Common Sense, Tom Paine identified the difference between rich and poor as one that could be accounted for with justice while royal status could not. Does this mean that the rich always deserve to be rich and the poor always deserve their relative lack of wealth? No, but very often it is possible to explain why some people’s efforts warrant their large incomes in a way that others’ efforts do not.
Sandel went on to single out the estate tax as a way to remedy the unfair head start given to some citizens that allows them to enjoy more wealth than others. This view of what is fair and unfair echoes the one we just examined. It pays little attention to the question of what is a just cause and/or effect. If, for example, a woman rises from no great circumstance to become a medical doctor with a surgical practice, the income she earns is well-justified. She has to cultivate her mind through education, train extensively, experience substantial delayed gratification financially, endure long hours, give up family time, tolerate a very high level of technical risk and difficulty in her work, and be prepared to drop anything at inconvenient hours to meet a crisis. At the same time, the results (or the effects) or her work can be truly life-changing for patients. How can it be unjust for this woman to want her hard-earned capital to benefit her child? Should a very wise person be prevented from passing on life lessons to his child? Should a very healthy or beautiful person be forbidden to pass on outstanding genes? Why should money be different? Does Sandel’s notion of leveling out advantages through the estate tax actually result in more justice than allowing the natural effect of a lifetime of highly skilled and technically difficult work to take place?
Also in the episode, University of Alabama law professor and progressive tax crusader Susan Pace Hamill argued that Alabama’s low property taxes, high sales taxes (applying even to food), and income tax that applies even to low levels of income constitute a sub-Biblical ethic of revenue collection. Her reasoning is that the highest taxes apply to consumption, while the taxes that target wealth, like the property tax, are relatively low. Her proposal is that the tax system be made more progressive and the greater revenues (if realized) would go to finance public efforts like the educational system to improve equality of opportunity.
Hamill’s method of applying a Biblical ethic to taxation is highly laudable in that it avoids the pietistic impulse that individualizes Bible teaching to the point of social irrelevance. In addition, one can see how Hamill was able to move Alabama’s Reaganite governor, Bob Riley, to support her efforts to change the system. Conservatives have long focused on achieving equality of opportunity rather than equality of results. To the extent Hamill’s proposal does that, it is morally and rationally superior to Sandel’s case for redistribution. But the question remains whether progressivity of taxation (especially in the form of rising marginal tax rates) achieves justice.
Hadley Arkes, author of First Things (the book, not the magazine) approached the issue in the following way. We are all free agents responsible for our own actions. If one man injures another man, the responsibility is clear and the one who did wrong must pay. If a man is injured because of his own mistake in judgment or because of recklessness, he should bear the cost of his own error. But if a man is injured in an accident that is no one’s fault, then the community should seek to help him. And how might we help this man? Should we simply find a rich man, grab him by the collar and demand he pay for medical care and income supplements? Not according to Arkes, because there is no rich man who bears the blame for the injury. No, if we wish to come to the aid of the injured man, then we should take on the burden in a proportionate way, as a community. If one percent from each person is needed to help make him whole, then we will all pay one percent each. On that basis, the rich man will still pay far more than a poor one, but the same rule will have applied to each man. And is that not the very definition of justice?
Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism and the winner of the 2011 Michael Novak Award.
February 23rd, 2011 | 12:24 pm | #1
While some might think it serves Sandel right to be dismissed with a straw man argument, maybe Mr. Hunter takes this strategy too far. Surely Sandel isn’t arguing that differences in effort are the only factor to consider in questions of distributive justice. And, since not, it’s hard to see how Mr. Hunter’s objections get much traction. As for Mr. Hunter’s own assertions about what is “well-justified,” they leave a bit too much to be desired.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:39 pm | #2
Yawn. Neither did Hunter, nor does his argument depend on that assumption.
Hunter, while Ehrlich completely misses the point, your argument does depend on the extent to which current wealth levels are a result of just desert as opposed to, for example, political subsidy.
It is true that a more productive (I accept your criteria of hard work, impact, effectiveness, etc.) man should receive more wealth, but what if the level of inequality in society is not due to legitimate factors but due to direct and indirect subsidies. A small example is how the interstate highway system subsidizes big box stores in that, unlike many state highways, the interstate highways are not paid for through fees accounting for weight-distance of travel. So big box stores do not pay the full costs of transportation, but are subsidized through federal taxes at the expense of local businesses that do not use interstate highways. More significant examples abound, including the Farm Bill, telecommunications, etc. And this State subsidy of “free-market” capitalism is not something new, but is historically well-documented. Here’s a crucial essay for conservatives who think “free-market” = “capitalism” and for liberals who think the State is the solution (rather than the cause) of income inequality. I don’t agree with the author about many things, but he is spot on with the history.
The level of income and wealth inequality we have today is not mostly a function of desert. The events of the last few years should lay that myth to rest. Nor is the solution to give the State more power to redistribute wealth, since it is the State that has protected and subsidized capitalism from its early modern beginnings. We need a more truly free market, one that subsidizes neither capital nor labor.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:44 pm | #3
While some might think it serves Sandel right to be dismissed with a straw man argument, maybe Mr. Hunter takes this strategy too far. Surely Sandel isn’t arguing that differences in effort are the only factor to consider in questions of distributive justice. And, since not, it’s hard to see how Mr. Hunter’s objections get much traction. As for Mr. Hunter’s own assertions about what is “well-justified,” they leave a bit too much to be desired.
This is so vague I can’t even see what your criticism is.
Could you be specific?
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:29 pm | #4
I can’t tell, either, Blake. And the piece contains a link to the transcript from the show so Ehrlich is free to determine whether I’ve been unfair.
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:55 pm | #5
Let’s put it more simply then. To be effective, Mr. Hunter’s criticism rests on the charge that Sandel’s views on distributive justice are insensitive to the factors he mentions. Now, while there may be plenty of good reasons to criticize Sandel’s views, attributions of such naivete just isn’t one of them. This makes it especially hard to take Hunter’s review seriously.
February 23rd, 2011 | 3:12 pm | #6
However, they are the views he set forth in the program and that are featured therein. And which require an answer. I would hope that you are right that such views would be considered naive. I think it is actually the case that many people are convinced by them.
February 23rd, 2011 | 3:30 pm | #7
Mr. Baker, I take it that this means you don’t know much about Sandel’s views beyond what you’ve seen in this incredibly brief interview. While this would partially explain your comments, I don’t see how it really excuses them. Something of a disclaimer probably would have been in order.
February 23rd, 2011 | 4:31 pm | #8
C. Ehrlich,
Maybe you’re looking for something like:
“Now, perhaps Dr. Sandel was limited by the constraints of television…”
Oh, wait…
February 23rd, 2011 | 4:37 pm | #9
:-)
February 23rd, 2011 | 4:47 pm | #10
Well, if in fact true, it’d be more honest to have said something like this: “These three short and impromptu comments are actually all I know about Sandel’s views on distributive justice.”
But, then again, that would still leave one to wonder about the appropriateness of his “article,” not to mention the charity of his interpretations.
February 23rd, 2011 | 7:46 pm | #11
“This makes it especially hard to take Hunter’s review seriously.”
If the only criticism or constructive discussion you can provide is that his disclaimer wasn’t spelled out for you, than the above statement is rather ironic.
I thought it was made very clear (correct me if I am wrong Mr. Baker) that the review was on the contents of the episode. I’m sure that if Mr. Baker’s review was meant for the worldview and extensive philosophies of Sandel than he would be more than able to write a comprehensive review.
Mr. Baker,
Very good article in my opinion. There are a few things that Albert pointed out that I would say I agree with, but on the whole the review was very informative and a good read. Thank you!
February 23rd, 2011 | 9:44 pm | #12
Livingston, yes, I think I was pretty clear that the entire column was a response to the presentation made in the episode. Indeed, the lead paragraph of the column indicates as much and links to a transcript of the program. In addition, I think Mr. Ehrlich makes too much of the fact that Sandel’s entire corpus is not addressed. Clearly, he felt the argument was worth advancing in the form he advanced it, as did the people who made the program. That’s more than enough for me to take it upon myself to address the argument AS PRESENTED.
To the extent that Mr. Ehrlich is aware of a much better argument made by Professor Sandel that would destroy the critique I have offered, I would like to see it and benefit from it. Perhaps I can come up with something better than that! :-)
February 23rd, 2011 | 11:00 pm | #13
The problem is obviously not that Hunter Baker fails to address “Sandel’s entire corpus.” I suppose, however, that this is the easier charge to defend himself against–much as it is easier to attack Sandel’s brief spoken comments by ascribing to him the ridiculous assumption that effort is essentially all that matters (as if that’s entailed by anything Sandel says in his short comments!).
Whether or not Mr. Baker realizes he’s attacking straw men is almost irrelevant. It’s disappointing either way.
February 24th, 2011 | 9:17 am | #14
C. Ehrlich, the natural thing for you to do here would be to offer a rebuttal.
February 24th, 2011 | 10:09 am | #15
Albert, I just saw your comment. And I agree with you. There is little doubt that certain structures of government and corporate affairs lead to non-market (non-merit) types of distribution. That’s why I tried to use examples that didn’t dwell on that sort of thing. For example, I suspect that some executive compensation bears little relation to the actual value of the individual’s contribution.
February 24th, 2011 | 10:43 am | #16
Mr. Baker apparently still fails to see the problem: there is nothing in the interview (much less in “Sandel’s entire corpus”) that excuses Mr. Baker’s simplistic characterization and dismissal of “Sandel’s case for redistribution.”
Look at it this way. If someone points out that X is a factor to consider in one’s arguments about fairness, it’s entirely inappropriate to ascribe to that person the view that X is essentially the only factor to consider in questions about redistribution. It’s especially inappropriate if all you’ve heard of this person are these three short and impromptu spoken responses!
As I said at the beginning, “while some might think it serves Sandel right to be dismissed with a straw man argument, maybe Mr. Hunter takes this strategy too far.”
February 24th, 2011 | 4:13 pm | #17
No, there is no problem here. If I go on television and say that the reason we must have school choice is because public school teachers are all unionized secularists and someone shoots my argument down, all that has happened is that a particular argument is shot down. It doesn’t mean that everyone should assume that I have no other arguments.
February 24th, 2011 | 4:24 pm | #18
Mr. Baker, it looks like you just need to re-read my last comment. The relevant differences with the case you’ve just described are obvious enough.
February 24th, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #19
Mr. Ehrlich, you have essentially used the entire thread to complain rather than to set forth any real counterargument. First off, it is not clear that everyone should regard the argument Sandel put forth on the show as a strawman. I think it is a reasonable argument deserving of a response and thus responded. Second, you have confined your efforts on this thread to saying that Sandel would have more to say about this. Well, then say it or leave off with the objection.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact