- CEO's play a lot of golf. Some of the most prolific golf aficionados of the nation's top companies play roughly 160 hours of golf per year.
- Many golf courses should not exist from an economic standpoint. Property taxes are calculated based on the best use of the land within the local zoning restrictions. As such, many golf courses in urban areas have extremely high calculations of "best use" given their massive size, and would be taxed into oblivion were property taxes applied.
- To get around this, Californian golfers lobbied their Assembly to amend the state Constitution to exclude golf courses from regular property taxation. Their favored amendment would tax properties on the price at which they were bought, meaning that property taxes would only change if the property was sold or changed ownership. As a result, golf courses would be able to keep paying low taxes so long as their owners stayed the same.
- This presents a problem: who owns these golf courses? Equity is held by the club's members, meaning that as members die or drop their membership and new individuals join, ownership changes hands. However, California tax assessors ruled that ownership doesn't actually change through this gradual process.
- In essence, California tax assessors adopted the spatial temporal continuity theory of identity, wherein the identity of an object stays the same so long as its basic essence and spatial integrity remains the same.
- Unbeknownst to the California tax authorities, they were wading into a contentious philosophical debate spurred by Plutarch's story of the ship of Theseus:
"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."
- By the tax assessors' logic, the ship of Theseus stays the same no matter how many boards the crew members replace. This theory contrasts with the mereological theory of identity, wherein the identity of an object is determined by the sum of its parts. By this theory, the ship of Theseus becomes a new ship as its parts are replaced.
- Malcolm Gladwell contends that the spatial temporal theory of identity is ominous for egalitarianism, because it can be used to perpetuate an aristocracy. By this theory, if a political class is thought of as a unit, that unit's identity stays the same so long as its membership changes slowly and smoothly. As such, an aristocracy could be thought of as static and unaltered so long as it changed gradually.
I think Gladwell's worries are well founded, and I would actually take them a step further.
The idea of inheritances essentially applies the spatial temporal theory of identity to property law. By extending the identity of wealth's ownership to lawful beneficiaries of wills and contracts, wealth is allowed to be transferred seamlessly across generations without its ownership being fundamentally altered.
The idea of inheritances essentially applies the spatial temporal theory of identity to property law. By extending the identity of wealth's ownership to lawful beneficiaries of wills and contracts, wealth is allowed to be transferred seamlessly across generations without its ownership being fundamentally altered.
As such, the unit of identity under property law is considered to be the web of legal ties laid out in wills and contracts.
However, this logic runs counter to basic meritocratic norms. If we think of wealth as legitimized by hard work and just compensation, then these bequests are obviously wrong: beneficiaries did nothing to "earn" their inheritances.
If these bequests are deemed appropriate, then the conversation stops there. However, many observers are troubled by inherited wealth. If these individuals think bequests are unjust, their logic extends to some really interesting places.
For example, what counts as a bequest? Are natural talent, propensity for hard work, intrinsic motivation, and intelligence considered biological bequests? Didn't your parents simply give you these abilities? At a minimum, IQ is extremely heritable. This is significant, because IQ is the an extremely important metric for predicting future financial and social outcomes. While hard work is important, an individual with an IQ of 90 simply cannot become an astrophysicist no matter how hard they work.
Furthermore, many other factors that determine success are not derived internally. A positive childhood environment and good schooling are largely determined by parents, giving an advantage to affluent families that live in more stable neighborhoods with better schools.
In essence, pure meritocracy is unattainable, because most of the factors that determine success are beyond an individual's control. Nonetheless, the myth persists, resulting in large swaths of poor and middle-class Americans that blame themselves for their poor and mediocre outcomes. As a society, we must begin to shift towards a more enlightened understanding of bequests, and recognize the power of genetics in determining success. While it may be unwise to change the spacial temporal theory of identity in property law due to legal and economic ramifications, there are other measures we could take to reduce wealth inequality. We could improve schools in low-income neighborhoods, institute universal pre-K schooling, boost welfare spending, boost the EITC, raise taxes, etc. We must consider these policy changes if we are to live up to our professed moral convictions shunning sliver-spooned rearing and inherited wealth.
It's really simple. Life isn't fair and it isn't up to 'society' to try and make it fair. Govt is in the business of providing basic public goods. The US has generally drawn this line at a lower level than other countries. That reflects our national character and also the heterogenous nature of the population. Wealth doesn't need to be 'legitimized' in your eyes or anyone's eyes, that's just language that implies that the 'collective's' views on anyone's property matters or somehow they have a vote. Generally they don't on both counts.
ReplyDeleteI agree that life isn't fair and that the government should not be intrinsically focused on social engineering. If society decides they want government to do that, then things may change. My larger point is that we should stop assigning so much moral acclaim to what are often natural abilities/biological bequests. I really don't think its right for smart people to think they're morally superior and stupid people to think they're morally inferior simply because of their genetically-determined IQ's. Moral acclaim should only be applied to areas where choices are available, such as in the areas of hard work and determination (though a predisposition to work hard may be somewhat genetic). However, American culture often confuses natural talent for hard work, leading to moral confusion and acclamation of people who have simply won the genetic lottery.
DeleteSo much of life's success depends on hard work, far far more than natural intelligence. I see it in work every day. The brilliant but lazy person than has great ideas and poor follow through versus the moderately smart person that works hard, follow through and consistently delivers. I will hire, promote and pay more for Person B EVERY DAY and ultimately they will be far more successful in life. As for whether the tendency to work hard or be lazy is genetic: well I have seen little evidence that it's not largely a factor of upbringing and choice and second I really don't care. I see a big variation just within our immediate and my extended family and these are people that largely were given pretty solid genetic endowments. People are responsible for their choices. So yes, I do hold them morally praiseworthy or worthy of some scorn depending on their choices. We need to elevate the concept of personal responsibility and personal improvement. I know that's become anathema to liberals. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteSo much of life is blocking and tackling and paying attention to the little things. The old saying - 'much of life is showing up' is so very true. Good habits breeds success.
ReplyDelete"While hard work is important, an individual with an IQ of 90 simply cannot become an astrophysicist no matter how hard they work." -- astrophysicist don't make much money and this is a silly strawman example. There are many many jobs that someone with an average IQ (100) to an above average IQ could do equally well and their success would be largely determined by their work ethic and self initiative.
ReplyDelete