The Gaping Hole in the Gap Argument

    Much ado has been made about the growing gap between the so-called “rich” and the “poor”. Whether this gap is growing is itself a matter of debate. But let’s accept, for a moment, that it is indeed increasing. What does this mean?

    First, is the gap increasing because the rich are getting richer? Or is it because the poor are getting poorer? Or both? The answer is that both the rich and poor are getting richer in real terms. The U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov) data on household income clearly shows an upward trend for both, indeed all, groups. And aside from this increase in monetary income, real wealth has been increasing in other ways as well. For instance more “poor” households have things like cell phones, computers, internet access, and Playstations than they did several years ago. Any sensible person would say that’s an increase in wealth – not a decrease!

    So if the “poor” are getting “richer”, what’s with the growing gap? The answer is that the “rich” are getting “richer” too. Arguably, they are getting richer at a faster rate. But what problems does this pose? None that I can see. Unless, of course, you are the sort that begrudges your neighbor’s success. If you received a pay a raise and a new car, would you have a right to be outraged because your neighbor got a similar raise, car, and also a swimming pool? Do you have a fundamental right to have a swimming pool too? Could it possibly be that your neighbor earned his swimming pool? Now let’s say that after some time, you too get a swimming pool. But by now your neighbor has his own private jet. Do you get upset at this difference in wealth? If so, what specifically entitles you to what your neighbor has?

    A good friend of mine who is very astute once said that in the future the “poor” would eventually live in ten-bedroom mansions and the “rich” would own space stations. Nevertheless, there would still be some moaning about the vast material disparity between the two groups. As outrageous as this comparison may seem, in comparison to previous times, this is precisely the case today. Just compare present-day average material affluence to that of just about any time in the past. If the “wealth gap” argument were valid, it would mean that a poor person in the Middle Ages was better off than a “poor” person today. The truth is that a “poor” person today has more and is better off than even the nobility of that day!

    On June 26th, the New York Times wrote, “The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service.” This report has made many green with envy. Many in various internet forums have been seen complaining about this and proposing that this wealth be confiscated and redistributed to others (or themselves). They have somehow adopted the notion that this wealth somehow belongs to them. If it didn’t, why else would they lay claim to it? And what claim can they lay to it? What did they do to deserve it?

    Apparently some of their idea that it belongs to them derives from the fact that they assume out of hand that these rich 400 obtained their wealth by stealing and cheating, or else inherited it. They pass these bold judgments and condemnations without even knowing who these 400 are. How would these same master judges of character react to someone judgmentally attributing their comparative poverty to laziness and stupidity?

    The interesting thing these people took no time to seek out themselves, and that the New York Times article failed to point out was that these 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 2000 were not the same ones as in 1992. In fact, more than three-quarters of the 400 were not in the top group more than once during that time. According to the Joint Economic Committee less than one percent of the 400 “were among this group every year from 1992 to 2000.” Incidentally, the lower 50 percent of American earners paid less than 4 percent of total federal income taxes in 2000. In the same year, the top 25 percent – those earning $55,000 or above – paid 84 percent of the total!

    If homogeneity of income and wealth is our goal, let us consider two things:

    1 – Considering the fact that individuals do not produce (or contribute to society) in the same degree, how does it make sense to reward all the same? Some people are highly motivated, creative, inventive, productive, and hard-working. Others would prefer to drift through life just getting by. How is it equitable to reward both types of people the same?

    2 – Where in the world have we seen a society where wealth and income were uniform? If we have seen such a society, it has been uniformly destitute. It would have to be because it is impossible to raise all people – productive and unproductive – to a high level without their cooperation. So the only way for them to have the same wealth is to have very little wealth at all. In a society where people are allowed to pursue their own potential, we will invariably have a large gap between some individuals. It is inevitable because some are productive and motivated, while others are not productive at all. So unless you reward lack of productivity, you cannot reach equilibrium without bringing the productive individuals down.

    I once heard a man piously declare that he, and all people, should be able to make a living, a good living, without any “job skills”. He said that people should not have to have “job skills” to make a living. Let us analyze this statement.

    What are “job skills”? I would have to assume that they are skills or abilities that allow one to productively contribute to society. If a person is without these, it is impossible for him/her to fully contribute. So what this man was saying, in effect, was that nobody should have to be able to contribute to society. Put another way, everybody should be able to get by comfortably without contributing anything.

    Now we begin to see the utter absurdity in this statement. If nobody could contribute to society, society would collapse under its own weight. Who would provide the necessities? The government? But what is the government? Isn’t it just a collection of people? Isn’t it just a product of society? Is it a god? Is it some mysterious, all-powerful force in the universe from which all blessings flow? While the obvious answer is “no”, it is surprising how many people will tell you that all these things can simply be provided by the government. But how does the government get these things to begin with? People have to produce them. And without the ability to produce, nobody – not even the government – can obtain them. That is, not without coercive force and slavery.

    So what of the gap between rich and poor? We have seen from the above and if we try to “harmonize” wealth among individuals, we will only succeed in rewarding lack of productivity, and will tear down and discourage productivity. And without this productivity among individuals, the entire society will suffer. We also have seen that this gap is a natural occurrence as sure as the Grand Canyon is a result of natural processes. But we’ve also seen that the level at which the “poor” live today is much higher than it has been anywhere in the past. It is nothing more than jealousy that prompts one whose life has improved to still covet, envy, and begrudge the success of his neighbor.

    If those at the bottom are content with their contribution to society, and their lives are not falling into decline, then I say, let the gap grow! Let it widen! And let me be at the top of it! Were this the aspiration of most individuals, we could raise the floor yet more. But instead we find an abundance of people who would, rather than aspiring to prosperity and greatness, actually accept and embrace failure. One of the harshest (yet ignorant) critics of the top 400 I saw once stated quite confidently that he was poor and would surely remain such. With an attitude like this, how can he expect anything else? If only he could see beyond his prejudice and bias that the rich, who he hates and loathes so rabidly without cause, are where they are largely, if not entirely, because they hold the very opposite attitude.

Universal Suffering?

The present debacle we’re witnessing in California raises interesting questions. At least it does to me. Namely, that if a voter is too incompetent to vote using a simple system, what does this mean for the quality of our elections? Now for those who suffer physical disabilities of one sort or another that may prevent them from voting accurately with a particular type of machine, I cast no blame. But for those who are so intellectually lazy that they don’t pay close enough attention to where their vote is going, what does it mean for us that they are voting in the first place?

I would hope that all Americans view voting as a very solemn and weighty duty. I realize this is not the case, but it should be. Voting is not something to take lightly. I have a friend who once decided not to vote because he said that he honestly didn’t know enough about the candidates and issues to form an educated opinion. I was quite impressed by this. Of course there are few excuses for not educating one’s self, but if one does find himself in a situation where he doesn’t know enough to make an educated choice, then I at least admire his honesty to not simply cast some random vote. Indeed, our Founding Fathers saw an educated electorate as a vital element to preserving freedom.

I have to wonder if by masses of voters turning out at the polls solely at the urging of MTV’s “Rock the Vote” campaign and various other similar advisements to “Just go vote” we aren’t getting results scarcely more meaningful than if we elected on the roll of the dice? No, I’m sure this isn’t the case. With dice, we would at least get a statistically even distribution of results. I tend to think that people ignorant of the issues will, statistically, fall into one group more than another, so we will more likely get weighted results. But even so, these weighted results are no more meaningful since they are the result of people voting out of ignorance. Or worse, voting based largely upon superficial characteristics such as attractiveness, or “coolness”.

Perhaps it is because the prevailing view is that voting, in itself, is some fundamental “good” that voting from ignorance is not frowned upon? But voting is not a virtue in itself. Only voting from a position of being informed and educated regarding the issues and candidates can be considered virtuous. If someone doesn’t care enough to inform themselves of the issues, why should they care enough to dilute the informed votes of their fellow citizens?

Perhaps voting is not the real duty? Perhaps the real duty is being informed, and then, and only then, voting. Voting is the only way in which citizens may exercise their power, and it is a great power indeed. But since it is power, shouldn’t this power be exercised responsibly? We would scoff at the notion of allowing people to perform surgery without any sort of qualification, and yet we entrust the fate of our nation to people who do not even know the purpose of the Constitution, the function of Congress, and are generally lacking an awareness of the most basic aspects of our system of government.

Is it any wonder, then, that we have an abundance of elected officials who don’t know the Constitution from a roll of Charmin? Should we be surprised? Now that we agree (I hope) that there is a problem, what is the solution? I don’t pretend to have it. But many ideas have been put on the table. Let us examine some of them below:

Voter tests / Accreditation
The theory: Some have suggested that voters be given tests they must pass to demonstrate that they are sufficiently educated to make an educated choice.

The rub: Any government-mandated and standardized means of verifying someone’s aptitude can be abused and this opens up a wide range of possible ways to taint minds and/or keep one’s ideological opponents from the polls.

Poll taxes
The theory: Apparently the idea with this system is that only people willing to give something up (money) will vote. So therefore someone must feel strongly enough to forfeit a fee to be able to vote. If the individual feels this strongly, they are very likely to have educated themselves on the issues.

The rub: This system would effectively disenfranchise people who, despite their political astuteness, do not find themselves with the financial means to pay such a tax.

Earned / Elective Citizenship
The theory: The idea here is that citizenship (which entails franchise, among other rights) is either earned through something such as public service (such as service in the military) or that it must be voluntarily chosen (elective) because citizenship entails certain duties and obligations that cannot or should not be demanded of every resident.
In Earned Citizenship, the individual qualifies himself for franchise by responsibly contributing to society. In Elective Citizenship, the individual demonstrates his willingness to responsibly contribute to society while simultaneously giving consent to abide by the duties and obligations citizenship entails.

In both cases, similar to the Poll tax system, the individual must be willing to sacrifice something to gain franchise. These systems also often involve the idea that non-citizens (or residents) do not have the same duties or obligations as citizens.

The rub: In Earned Citizenship, the individual does not gain franchise until after fulfilling a duty. This duty, depending on its nature, may itself be a means by which the individual could be indoctrinated thus leading to a degree of homogeneity in the voting populace. In both systems, depending on their specifics, some people may simply be unable to do what is required to become a citizen and thereby gain franchise. For instance, handicapped individuals would be unable to serve in the military.

Landed franchise
The theory: This concept was widespread around the time of the founding of the United States and states that only land owners have franchise. The idea was, once again, to find a criterion that would yield a degree of assurance that the voter is educated.

The rub: This should be pretty obvious. Today it is difficult to fathom how such a system could be thought to be just since there are plenty of people fully capable of making educated decisions but who may not own any land. Franchise must not be tied to one’s economic or social status.

It is interesting to note that a common notion in several of the above mentioned systems is that of sacrifice. If something must be sacrificed to vote, even if it is just a minor inconvenience, then many of the less dedicated will be dissuaded from voting.

I must admit that when I started writing this article I thought the Poll Tax idea was the most absurd second only to Landed franchise. But consider it for a moment: what if you had to pay, say, a dollar to vote? How many of the “Rock the Vote” crowd could we expect to see at the polls then? Or what if the inconvenience wasn’t monetary? What if it was something simple that anyone could do but was inconvenient enough so that only those serious about their views would follow through? This thread of thought warrants further exploration.

One thing is certain, however. If voters are required to sacrifice something for the ability to vote, very few voters will be of the sort who only wants government to give them a handout. And that, I think, would be a vast improvement by itself.