Two posts today struck me as worthy of further mention. One was Ben Cunningham’s commentary regarding the causes, solutions and anti-solutions, to poverty. The other is a comment that feeding government largess is, in fact, biblically dictated and moral. Cunningham writes

What, if anything, should be done about income disparity? Nothing. Income disparity is neither evil nor a sign of injustice; it causes neither unemployment nor poverty in the United States. Bad habits and poor life choices cause poverty, not rich people with expensive houses, luxury cars, and country club memberships.

If one examines disaggregated poverty figures carefully, several things jump out. First, most of the poor are unmarried women with children. Second, many are poorly educated, having left school without graduating. Again, poverty in the United States, like poor health, is most often a result of bad habits and poor choices.

Southern Beale believes that taxation is synonymous with Christian morality

This is where taxation comes in. For people of faith, a more equitable tax structure that asks the wealthy and corporations to contribute more fairly and create revenue for social programs is Biblical. Not this feel-good, conscience easing “tough love” taxation of the Reagan and Bush years. The poor should not pay 11 cents on every dollar while the rich pay just four cents. That is immoral and un-Christian.*

Indeed, it makes complete, coherent, indelible sense. Coercive charity is spiritually hollow - it’s not charity at all. Without delving into a deeper theological discussion, Christian charity comes from the heart, not from the cold, alabaster laden bureaucratic rectory of Washington, DC. No matter how many buzzwords (”fair”, “equitable”, etc.) you throw into the stew, one cannot justify taking care of one’s brother by forcefully taking from one’s neighbor, especially on a Christian basis - no blessing comes of that. Wealth redistribution is an entirely secular exercise.

On the contrary, convincing your neighbor to take care of his brother is an entirely legitimate course of action, because it interjects a component of free will. Alas, for the bulk of the Left, that appears to be too much work.**

Both Ben’s and Beale’s posts lie in a similar vein, as they are studies in contrast. Cunningham is correct. Poverty is not an effect of societal inequality, it is a sum of bad decisions. There is really not much argument as to what the causes of poverty are - if you complete your education, get married after the age of twenty-five, and then wait until after marriage to have children, you are practically guaranteed a life outside poverty. Some people don’t do that. I’m happy to help steady the ship - some. To compel help on a limitless basis, however, erodes society of its underpinnings. The key to increasing one’s standard of living is increasing one’s productivity. And despite forty years of utter failure in depending on that hamlet on the Potomac for a solution, there is a significant segment of the electorate that still does not realize there is no other way.

In closing, the term “inequality” is one of the Left’s most divisive electoral carrots, not different in any meaningful way from certain sand-laden dictatorships blaming certain minorities for their society’s ills. Liberals blame the wealthy and successful for the same purpose - solution deflection and political support. No one wants to make the children of irresponsible adults suffer, but what is the real solution? Personally, I find wealth distribution immoral, counterproductive, and constitutionally without merit. Further, wealth redistribution is pointless if incentives remain the same. And somehow, for some reason, every time a liberal discusses wealth distribution, the incentives of the beneficiaries are never expected to change, baiting individuals with false hope, and then never helping them be self-sufficient. Now that is an immorality of the highest order.

* The numbers cited are incorrect, least because there is no frame of reference. The top 10% carry the most burden. The top 25% carry nearly all the burden. Sure the poor pay some taxes, but no income tax, and besides, no one should be free of all taxation. Further, any tax on corporations functions as an inflationary tax. The increased costs are passed entirely onto the shareholders and consumers. To rub salt in this author’s wounds, if I could pay 11 cents on every dollar I’d be dancing in the streets, and that wouldn’t be pretty.

** it’s always easier to dictate a result than achieve it. This dovetails as well with the concept of “negative freedom”, which would really get me going, and is more suitable for a different post.