She highlights that in the US
(as in the UK) there are constant moves to ensure that those receiving
ever shrinking welfare payments are in fact working (or actively seeking work).
This is sometimes referred to as 'workfare'
Breunig points out that most of
the non-working poor are elderly, children, or care-givers, all of whom seem to
have some reason for not earning more in market employment.
What is particularly
interesting about this piece is comparison between the treatment of the poor and
rich non-workers.
Everyday libertarianism for
the idle rich vs. workfare for the undeserving poor
This comparison might strike
some as odd - the poor in question are receiving assistance from society via
government spending while the idle rich in question aren't. They receive their
money from dividends etc.
The author gives examples of
policies that benefit investors and capital-holders, which could be considered subsidies
for the idle rich. The point is that these subsidies do not come with a
work-requirement as do workfare programmes
I think its possible to go further than this. Even if there weren’t
such subsidies it would still be morally acceptable to insist that the idle
rich work, even if their income comes from a “private” rather than a “public” source.
This is because the idea that there is a difference between the
two is based upon a mistake, labelled everyday
libertarianism by philosophers Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel in their excellent
book The Myth of Ownership.
This is the idea that people are led to consider their gross
income to be ‘theirs’ and that the tax system takes some of it from them. If
you are a libertarian, then you might believe this to be the case. However, since
libertarianism
isn’t a very attractive political philosophy and since most people aren’t
in fact libertarians it is an unfortunate but common mistake to make.
It is more appropriate to consider the property distribution system
holistically, and consider each owner (individual, corporation, charity or
government) as the temporary holder of their property. There are strong reasons
to let the owner have power of the property while they own it, of course, and I
don’t draw the conclusion that the government should be able to seize property
unless there is an exceptional circumstance (such as a national emergency, where
the property is required for infrastructure development or where the property in
question is illegal). I don’t go as far as more radical leftists who would then
say that the above means that any private property can be seized by the
government at any time.
The point is that when property is transferred from one owner to another
it is an opportunity for society to consider whether to (in rare situations) block
or (more commonly) tax the transaction. It may appear as if the transaction is
just between the two parties involved, but in fact the whole of society is
involved. Firstly, society supports the system in which the property and the
transaction exists. Secondly, the value of the property exists because of the
rest of society.
Investors aren’t just sitting on their property, they are sending it
out into the world and getting more back. This is captured by my Comprehensive-Acquired-income
tax-base. A self-sufficient farmer who tends their own land and gains from
it wouldn’t have to pay tax on their gains. But no-one gets rich from being a
self-sufficient farmer who does not engage economically with anyone else.
The idle rich person is then a recipient of social wealth in just
the same way as the welfare/benefit recipient.
Why do we care whether
people work?
There are lots of possible reasons why we might want to ensure
that people work rather than receive money while being idle.
· Social Consequences: If someone who could
work doesn’t do so then this is a missed opportunity for society. Society could
have got the benefit of this labour but misses out.
· Paternalistic consequentialist: This is
the idea that it is in people’s interest to work (whether they realise or not).
This is because people who are idle will get into unhealthy habits, become slothful,
lose purpose and so on.
· Contributions are important: It is
important for people (where able) to contribute to society, and people should
only receive social wealth to the extent that they do contribute to society. Interestingly,
desert-based
(or meritocratic) theories of justice would be against all unearned wealth such
as gifts and inheritances since these are unearned.
What is interesting is that these three justifications apply to
the wealthy just as much as the poor.
An alternative justification is that people should do whatever
they are required to do by the correct theory of justice. Some of those
theories will require workfare, and they may or may not require wealthy
individuals to work too. My
preferred theory would require both. This is the correct way to think about
it, and I encourage people to engage with such theories.
However, what about those who want to support workfare but not force
the idle rich to work before they can receive unearned income?
To be consistent, anyone relying on any of the three arguments listed
above also will have to apply this to wealthy individuals who choose not to work.
What is a contribution?
In the article, Breunig makes the point that carers can contribute
to society without receiving market income. Furthermore, many clearly socially
useful activities aren’t well-rewarded in the market (such as most minimum wage
work), while some activities that aren’t as clearly socially useful are
well-remunerated. This is because remuneration follows from supply as well as demand.
On the other hand, someone who inherits a fortune and lives off
the returns from this obtains a market income without contributing. It would be
possible to insist that only those who work should be able to receive unearned income,
or that lifetime unearned income should be linked to the amount of work someone
has performed.
Market income is not a perfect indicator of contribution. However,
again, I don’t take the hard-left conclusion that market income is meaningless.
Nevertheless, there is often some
correlation between market income and social contribution, something
I mentioned in my blogs on desert-theories of justice. The point is that we
can look at a broad conception of contribution as participation in the labour
market or undertaking some socially useful
activity such as studying or caring.
Workfare for the rich?
So, do we need to insist on workfare for rich investors as well as
the poor?
I think so, on the basis that this would make for a fairer
society. My CLIPH-rate
tax system would link people’s net income to the hours they have worked (or
undertaken some equivalent or having been excused from doing so).
However, those who argue for workfare on more limited grounds,
such as the three arguments listed above, should also support workfare for the idle
rich on the same grounds. This would presumably mean taxing non-working but
able people from gaining unearned income through punitive taxation or by
blocking such benefits until the individual has undertaken the requisite about of
work.
How else could they avoid the inconsistency?
· They could stop insisting on workfare and
instead support a Universal Basic Income, i.e. to give up on workfare.
· They could advocate a theory of justice
which justifies workfare programmes for the poor but not the rich. This rules-out
desert or contribution-based theories. Furthermore, it probably also rules-out consequentialist
theories which emphasise economically strong outcomes.
