Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday Reflection: Income Inequality
I do know that there is an argument to be made for maintaining those institutions that create and sustain income inequality in this country (low estate taxes, income tax policies that allow some of the wealthiest to pay little, etc.). It creates an incentive to invest, some argue, or encourages people to innovate.
But how do people of faith justify those policies? It seems that in the realm of government, their ideas about economics trump what their faith directs-- though they would probably tell you that God is the God of all.
But… is that right? Or is there a Christian argument for those institutions which create and enhance income inequality? I have an open mind on this...
But how do people of faith justify those policies? It seems that in the realm of government, their ideas about economics trump what their faith directs-- though they would probably tell you that God is the God of all.
But… is that right? Or is there a Christian argument for those institutions which create and enhance income inequality? I have an open mind on this...
Comments:
<< Home
A Quick Thought:
Surely, a Christian possesses a duty (a sacred obligation) to be a good steward of his wealth and blessings and engage his neighbors in the model of our perfect exemplar, Jesus. On the other hand, Christians who attempt to extend that individual model to government (and a perceived duty of Christians to be good stewards of other people's wealth and blessings) has always struck me as problematic.
Without making a particular macro economic argument (which would be a very shallow argument based on my expertise), I would just say it makes sense to me to endorse the system that creates the most wealth for the most people--with lots of room for discussions of fairness, interest, and ethics. Subsequent to that economic consensus among a whole society (not all of whom are Christians), I would encourage individual Christians to do their Christian duty in their neighborhoods (where there are lots of good to be done and where my sense is one generous Christian could get a lot of bang for his buck).
Surely, a Christian possesses a duty (a sacred obligation) to be a good steward of his wealth and blessings and engage his neighbors in the model of our perfect exemplar, Jesus. On the other hand, Christians who attempt to extend that individual model to government (and a perceived duty of Christians to be good stewards of other people's wealth and blessings) has always struck me as problematic.
Without making a particular macro economic argument (which would be a very shallow argument based on my expertise), I would just say it makes sense to me to endorse the system that creates the most wealth for the most people--with lots of room for discussions of fairness, interest, and ethics. Subsequent to that economic consensus among a whole society (not all of whom are Christians), I would encourage individual Christians to do their Christian duty in their neighborhoods (where there are lots of good to be done and where my sense is one generous Christian could get a lot of bang for his buck).
I have given this some thought, though like you I have an open mind when it comes to the details and what to do about it. But I am less open minded on the larger themes.
I think that some amount of income inequality is acceptable based on generally deductible principles of justice, which I will explain momentarily. My question is, at what point does it become unjust? Or to put it another way, while it may be hard to pin down when it becomes unjust, (at what amount of money) there is an amount of inequality that is unjust, and we have reached that amount in the United States today.
Here is why, among the many definitions of justice is a simple one that I like, treat likes alike, and that which is not alike differently. Catholic social thought gives us another one, a deeper one that I like as well: Justice is living in right relationship with one another.
In the context of income inequality, I think that it is reasonable for different kinds, or amounts of work, to garner different amounts of money. If the work is different in length, expertise, or difficulty, it is reasonable that the pay be different. That is just. It is reasonable to pay the under-water welder and her attorney, more than their gardner, and him, more than someone who works part-time at a record store. I am also comfortable with allowing for a fair amount of market force in all of this. If a whole lot of people go to law school, that just might depress wages for lawyers. Such is life, clearly a planned economy does not work, so I am ok with SOME amount of market control. But unlike many, I do not see "the market" as all knowing or all controlling, and I think that no one should be a fundamentalist about such things, though many are.
So that is the brief case for some amount of market inequality.
So how do we prove that there is is also some point at which inequality becomes unjust.
I think the the examples above still hold, and it then becomes fundamentally a matter of proportionality. One can imagine a starting point, a starting wage for unskilled labor, and then imagine multipliers of that for various tasks that are either more difficult, more technical, or in more demand. However the pay becomes unjust when the wages becomes disproportionate to the work. That is, likes are not being treated alike.
Continued...
Post a Comment
I think that some amount of income inequality is acceptable based on generally deductible principles of justice, which I will explain momentarily. My question is, at what point does it become unjust? Or to put it another way, while it may be hard to pin down when it becomes unjust, (at what amount of money) there is an amount of inequality that is unjust, and we have reached that amount in the United States today.
Here is why, among the many definitions of justice is a simple one that I like, treat likes alike, and that which is not alike differently. Catholic social thought gives us another one, a deeper one that I like as well: Justice is living in right relationship with one another.
In the context of income inequality, I think that it is reasonable for different kinds, or amounts of work, to garner different amounts of money. If the work is different in length, expertise, or difficulty, it is reasonable that the pay be different. That is just. It is reasonable to pay the under-water welder and her attorney, more than their gardner, and him, more than someone who works part-time at a record store. I am also comfortable with allowing for a fair amount of market force in all of this. If a whole lot of people go to law school, that just might depress wages for lawyers. Such is life, clearly a planned economy does not work, so I am ok with SOME amount of market control. But unlike many, I do not see "the market" as all knowing or all controlling, and I think that no one should be a fundamentalist about such things, though many are.
So that is the brief case for some amount of market inequality.
So how do we prove that there is is also some point at which inequality becomes unjust.
I think the the examples above still hold, and it then becomes fundamentally a matter of proportionality. One can imagine a starting point, a starting wage for unskilled labor, and then imagine multipliers of that for various tasks that are either more difficult, more technical, or in more demand. However the pay becomes unjust when the wages becomes disproportionate to the work. That is, likes are not being treated alike.
Continued...
<< Home
