I read recently that rich people give less as a percentage of their income towards charity than poor people do. We often hear stories of rich people giving huge sums or performing massive acts of philanthrophy, but in aggregate they are a lot more interested in yachts than in helping the poor.
I think I know why.
The key reason is that people want to know that there is a clear end to their generosity. It is easy for me to devote a day to helping a friend move, because I know they aren't going to demand I show up every day. It is not a problem if someone in the same economic situation as me asks to borrow $20 for something, because I will not be expected to give them $20 every day. My generosity has a clear end to it, so it is easy to be generous. I believe that I have a moral imperative to help people with lifting things, or with sums that are relatively small for either of us.
Whereas if I look at a homeless person and think that I have a moral imperative to help them, where does it end? Should I spend a day trying to help them build a home of boards and tarps? Give them $20? The next day they are still so much worse off than me that I should keep on helping, and I shouldn't stop at $20, I should give them $2000. But why stop at $2000? I would still have money in the bank, and they would still need it far more than me. If I admit that there is a moral imperative to step in and assist, I don't see an end.
If I was a billionaire, that would be true of nearly everyone I pass by. I should be giving them all $10,000 apiece. They need it more than me. But even after I do, they still need it. The moral imperative doesn't have an obvious stopping point until I have given away 99.99% of my wealth, and maybe not even then. I can't accept that... so I refuse to believe that I have a moral imperative to help, and I do nothing.
I am not saying this is the right way to behave. It isn't. But I do think it is the way people do behave.
People are far more generous when they can see a defined contribution that will have a significant outcome, and which doesn't force them to admit that they should be giving more and more without pause. That sort of thing happens a lot among people in similar situations, and is extremely hard to achieve with massive wealth disparities.
This is, to my mind, another good argument for policies that reduce wealth inequality. I know it would be hard to manage, but a wealth tax aimed at eliminating wealth accumulation beyond, say, 100 years of work for the median wage earner, would be fine with me. In Canada that would be something like 5 million dollars. Now we don't have to take away every dollar over 5 million, of course. But if we had a wealth tax starting on all amounts over 5 million, and it climbed substantially over 10 million, and went up to 20% yearly on all amounts over 25 million, that would really help with our problems.
When there are people that are absurdly wealthy, they will always look at the poor and see endless need, a need they cannot meet. Some will do something, but most will do nothing. Tax the hell out of their wealth and use it to help the poor, and they will definitely be doing something, albeit without their input or approval.
What we need is a system where everyone has their basic needs met, so that moral imperative doesn't feel so overwhelming. We also need a system where nobody has the wealth to lift an entire city out of poverty because them simply having that wealth creates all kinds of extra problems. I am sure we would find that in a world where people are all a lot closer together in terms of what they have, they would be far more generous in helping those that need a helping hand up at the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment