Sister Emmanuelle of France
posted by Frank Pasquale
There appears to be growing terror on the right that the upcoming presidential election may lead to policies that reduce the fortunes of multimillionaires in order to provide basic necessities for the poor and health security for all. I don’t have it in me to argue for the moral necessity of such redistribution–check out Thomas Pogge’s website for an encyclopedic and compelling collection of works on the topic. But I do find some inspiration in the parable of Lazarus and Dives. And I find consolation in the story of the recently departed Sister Emmanuelle of France, who counseled herself with words that reflect that great Christian teaching:
In [her] book, mischievously titled “Confessions of a Nun,” Sister Emmanuelle wrote seriously of a life of faith and service. “Remember the simple soul of your brothers and sisters in rags,” she counseled herself. “Do not turn yourself to the ‘beautiful world’ unless it is useful for the slums; do not let your original vanity carry you off to the heights.” . . . [She was] an outspoken advocate for the rights of the poor.
The whole obituary is beautifully written, and a nice respite from the bizarre posturing and vapid rhetoric that so many anti-Obama scare tactics have degenerated into. Though now is an occasion for political struggle, she is a vivid reminder of what a person brimming with kindness and good will can achieve regardless of the political environment.
October 28, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Posted in: Culture
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Aaron Williams - October 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“[T]error among [sic] on the right [of] policies that reduce the fortunes of multimillionaires in order to provide basic necessities for the poor and health security for all.”
If you think that Obama’s redistributivism involves simply the “fortunes of millionaires” and “basic necessities” then I suggest you do less posting, and more reading. Specifically something you haven’t written yourself.
Frank - October 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Aaron–error corrected, thanks. But as for the rest–did I say that “fortunes of millionaires” and “basic necessities” were ALL the plan involved? I just focused on the weakest aspect of the right’s indiscriminate cries of “socialism” against Obama’s plan. Articles like Calabresi’s suggest that they’re deeply upset about *any* redistribution–including this indisputably just kind.
Once people on the right start getting precise about exactly what they oppose in Obama’s plan, I’ll be able to respond in a manner you might find more fair. And if some Limbaugh-loving Dittoheads really think that a person with $100 million in the bank shouldn’t have to contribute a penny towards SCHIP coverage to meet poor kids’ health needs, or toward our crumbling infrastructure, that’s a kind of ideological blindness to human suffering and national security that no rational argument can address.
It is utterly bizarre to me that redistribution itself can be seen as a dirty word automatically, abstracted from the size of any human good particular redistributive policies might do (and the smallness of harm particular redistributive policies might inflict). And no, I don’t just solipsistically read myself to support that point–read our Law & Inequality archives to see my extensive documentation of the harms caused by inequality, and the mutual reinforcement of relative inequality and absolute deprivation.
Aaron Williams - October 29, 2008 at 10:40 am
Frank,
Fair enough. I would consider myself on the right, at least in terms of income-redistribution. And here’s what I believe: we already have far enough wealth distribution. In fact, I think we should probably cut it back a few pegs to properly incentivize the many highly-productive Americans that have been able to become ‘millionaires’.
Based on 2006 figures, 1% of Americans paid 40% of our nation’s income taxes.
The top 5% paid 60% of our taxes.
The top half pays 97% of our taxes.
Today, 40% of Americans pay no tax.
I’ll admit that there are many worthy programs out there. Basically, anytime ‘Children’ and ‘Healthcare’ are combined to form a sentence, it’s politically popular. But we should fund it more evenly among the population. Perhaps even among those who are having the children (gasp!). Or we could try and use the budget we’ve already got.
Aaron Williams - October 29, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sorry, that second sentence should read “wealth RE-distribution.”
Airs - October 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm
this comments page is perhaps not the place to ventilate these issues fully. I would simply note that Mr Williams’s figures, by themselves, communicate little. in 2006, what proportion of national income did the top 1% 5%, 50%, and 60% make? what was the distribution of income among the 40% who paid no tax?
as to the gasp enunciated in response to the thought that those who are having children should help to pay for them, one might add two additional gasps because (1) not all of those children are wanted, and yet many are fighting with vapid rhetoric and inflammatory placards to oppose *all* methods of decreasing reproduction except for abstinence; and (2) the thought that people might be given reasons for concluding that they oughtn’t to have children, though eminently sensible, would be so unpopular in this country as to justify the tarring and feathering of anyone who would dare voice it aloud.
Airs - October 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm
pursuing further the questions above as to distribution of income, it appears from this page
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
that Mr Williams’s figures on taxpayers correlate well with the taxpayers’ wealth (which I recognize is not identical to income, but one may guess that wealth and income at least bear a good resemblance).
again, there may be reasons for questioning the distribution spelled out there. but if the bottom 80% of US households have slightly less than 9% of wealth in the country, the part that surprises me is that the deciles between 50% and 95% evidently pay 37% of taxes (following the figures on Mr Williams’s post), and it is not very surprising that the deciles between 0 and 40% pay no tax. (or am I misunderstanding the figures? To say that 40% paid no tax isn’t the same as saying that the bottom 40% paid no tax, as there may be households above the 40th percentile that also paid no tax, and households below the 40th percentile that paid some tax).
Aaron Williams - October 30, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Airs,
It would seem to me that the only way to equalize percentage of tax payments with taxpayers’ wealth would be to enact a flat-tax. Not that such is a bad idea per se, but I think our Congress would encounter problems based on their current budgetary spending.
As to your second point re: children, surely you’re not suggesting that a taxpayer should bear the cost of another citizen’s child if the child is unwanted? How does the desirability of the child to the parent affect the determination of who should bear the cost of the child?
Leave a Reply