The Emperor of Absurdia is a children’s book by Chris Riddell where, in the strange land of Absurdia, nothing is quite what it seems. Absurdiais a fitting allegory for the absurdities of socialist ideology of which “income redistribution” is a revered prince. |
|
To begin with, in Absurdia we are taught to look at the wrong income statistics. Yes, it is true that, in terms of statistical categories, the rich have seen greater gains in income, and a growing share of incomes. This has widened the income gap between the top and bottom income groups. But, as pointed out by economist and columnist Thomas Sowell, this confuses what happens in statistical categories with what actually happens with you and me as real people.
Incongruently, the income redistribution discussions in Absurdia are structured in human terms yet, the evidence offered is in statistical categories. These categories conceal what actually happens with people who, over time, move from one income category to another. When we look at data that tracks specific individuals, such as tax returns, the picture is quite different.
For example, in terms of people, and not statistical categories, the incomes of particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20 percent of income in 1996 rose 91 percent by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20 percent in that year rose only by 10 percent by 2005. These human data does not fit the “rich are getting richer and the poor poorer” narrative.
These seemingly conflicting statistics need not be a mystery. It is simply that, over time, people move between statistical categories. Taxpayers in the lowest income bracket in 2005 saw their income nearly double in 9 years. This moved many of them up, and out of that bottom quintile. Tax return data follows people, while Census Bureau data follows statistical categories, but it is not the same individuals in those categories.
What happens to income categories is not the same as what happens to people. Professor Sowell tells us what should be obvious. Most of us begin our working careers at entry-level salaries in the bottom statistical quintile, and younger workers are disproportionately represented in this lower income category. As we acquire more skills and experience, our income increases and we move into higher income brackets.
This is a common pattern, and I am sure every one of my readers can, from personal experience, attest to its validity. More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 had moved into the top 40 percent of income earners by 1991. Only 5 percent of those initially in the bottom 20 percent were still there in 1991. We need to be more concerned with the income of people than with statistical income categories.
Robert Nozick, in his 1974 book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia, makes the point that philosophies of income redistribution are incompatible with liberty. Our natural endowments of talent break no law, and do not violate anyone’s rights. In order to impose any income distribution pattern, Absurdia’s socialist government has to continually interfere with our freedoms.
Nozick notes that the very term “income distribution” is a prejudiced expression that implies that some force (Providence, government, the market system, etc.) made a mistake distributing income. If income is acquired by unjust means, clearly we are not entitled and a rectification is called for. But, if income is acquired justly, what exactly is the principle under which our justly acquired income is to be redistributed?
We all want to live in a just society, but a distribution of income mandated by government breaks the ethical connection between what we produce and what we consume. Justice is not served by some artificial distributive concept that disconnects income from productivity. Justice must underscore principles of how the income distribution comes about. The income redistribution of Absurdia can only be accomplished by continuously violating our liberties. And, as Immanuel Kant taught, individuals are ends, and not instruments to be used for the purposes of others.
Please let us know if you this article. |
|
We welcome your feedback. Abrazos, Lily & José (click on the name to email Lily or Jose) |
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment