Or, alternatively, “Why I Love Teaching”! First, teaching lets me grandstand a bit, if that help students really think about the world around us. Second, it lets me pretend to be an expert in fields other than economics, even fields such as philosophy (see below). Third, trying to teach about a topic forces me to think hard about that topic myself! A case in point is the standard lecture on “Justifications for Government Policy to Redistribute Income”, otherwise known as “Robin Hood”, otherwise known as government “theft” from the rich to give to the poor.
One thing currently happening in the world around us is a heightened political debate about whether the top income tax rate is too low or too high. See the diagram below. So this “lecture topic” is not just textbook irrelevance. It might even help YOU to think about what you read in the newspaper! Then please decide for yourself.
I see four possible justifications, any one of which may or may not ring true to you. If one or more justification is unconvincing, however, then perhaps a different justification is more appealing.
1.) As described below, some in the field of “moral philosophy” have found ethical justifications for extra help to the poor.
2.) Even if the poor are not deemed special in that way, and all individuals receive equal weight, it may still be that a dollar from a rich person is relatively unimportant to that rich person, while a dollar to a poor person is very important to that poor person (higher marginal utility). If so, then equal weights on everybody would still mean that total welfare could increase by taking from the rich in order to help the poor.
3.) If incomes are generally uncertain, so that any individual might do well in some years and not in other years, then government might actually make all of us happier by the provision of implicit “insurance” – taking premiums in good times in order to help any person who suffers bad times.
4.) A reduction in income equality could be a “public good”, like the classic example of a lighthouse that benefits all ships whether they have helped to pay for it or not. Everybody’s individual incentive is therefore not to pay (to “free ride”). The private market never exists. But government can raise welfare for all shippers by taxing all ships and using the funds to build and operate the lighthouse. Similarly, if many people would LIKE to have more income equality in society, they could “free ride” on others who do give voluntarily to help the underprivileged. If so, then government could fix that market failure by taxing everybody and using the funds to improve income equality.
Having used up several paragraphs already, I will miss the chance to explain all four of these important points adequately in this one blog, and so I’ll save a few for the next blog. Let’s just start with the first one.
In the field of moral philosophy, some libertarians such as Robert Nozick believe that theft itself is ethically wrong, that each person is morally entitled to the fruits of their own labor. No person is allowed to steal from a rich neighbor, even to give to the poor, so why would government be allowed to do so? If theft is morally wrong in itself, then government should not be redistributing from rich to poor, no matter how needy the poor nor how worthy the cause. On the other hand, by the way, government steals from individuals through taxes in order to build highways and provide for national defense, and so one may wonder why theft is justified for some purposes and not others. One way out of that problem is to decide that a tax for public purposes is not in fact “theft”.
In contrast, John Rawls argues that the moral choice is to help the poor. Actually he has two important ideas. One is that those who are already rich have no moral justification to argue for reducing taxes on the rich, just as those who are poor have no moral justification to argue for raising taxes on the rich. Such positions are merely self-interested. Therefore, a useful thought experiment is to put yourself in what Rawls calls the “Original Position”, at the beginning of the World, before places have been assigned in the wide distribution of incomes and well-being. That is, suppose resources are limited, and that the world will inevitably have a distribution of different human abilities and disabilities. You don’t yet know your IQ, or whether you will have any particular talents in music, sports, the arts, or management. Our job in this “original position” is to write a constitution, a set of rules for government and human interaction.
The purpose of this thought experiment is to try to strip away self-interest and think about how rules “ought” to be designed. And then, Rawls’ second idea is about what any of us would likely decide to do in such a position. He argues that the only natural choice, indeed the only logical choice, is to be extremely risk averse. We are not talking about twenty bucks you might lose at the Casino, where risk is fun. Instead, we are talking about your entire life’s prospects, where risk is not fun. It must be great to be Brad Pitt, but what if you end up with little talent or ability. You could end up homeless, or worse. Given that risk, he argues, one should design the rules such that society would take good care of those who are disadvantaged, unlucky, or disabled. You might well be the person on the bottom of the totem pole.
His treatise, called “A Theory of Justice” is 600 pages, so I haven’t even read it all! So I won’t try to explain all the reasoning, but the interesting point is the connection between risk aversion and redistribution. Rawls himself is extremely risk averse, saying we ought to maximize the welfare of the poorest person with the minimum income – the “maximin” strategy. That does not mean perfect equality, as he points out that the poorest person’s welfare might be improved by giving the most talented individuals plenty of incentive to work hard and invent new technology that generates plenty of profits, market success, and economic growth. But cutting the tax rate on the rich is only justified for Rawls if that really does improve the welfare of the poorest.
Well, out of space for today, so I’ll save the other justifications for next time. But in case you don’t like the justifications of Rawls, those other justifications (#2 through #4) are completely different!