Just Desserts

No, this is not a blog about cooking. What I thought I might do today is discuss ethics, specifically ethics in the material world.

What do we mean  when we  say we have earned something? (It's a rhetorical question, I'm about to suggest an answer.) Why, I think it means some work went into the acquisition of the money or property and perhaps that the amount of work is in some way commensurate with  the value of the reward obtained.

Let's start with an easy example of earned versus unearned income. If I pull a gun on you and demand that you give me your wallet, you'll probably hand it over. (I only hope  this doesn't happen just before election day in a state where photo id is now required for voting.) Surely no one would argue that I earned the money I just extorted from you. I did have to make a minimal effort to take your  money - I had to get out of bed, get dressed,  brush my teeth, load my gun and find you - but only a truly twisted person would think  that qualifies as earning the cash I heisted.

Now let's blur things a little bit. Instead of using a gun, let's say I just notice that you've dropped your wallet and I pick it up and keep it. I'm a little less culpable, in the sense that I haven't put you in fear of your life, but again, no reasonable person could argue that I deserve to keep your property.

How about if I find your wallet after you've already left the area, and I make an effort to find you but can't locate where you live. Then I think most folks would say I'm entitled to keep the cash. A truly ethical person would declare it as income on his tax return, but frankly I doubt most people would do that either.

Okay, now instead of  finding your wallet I'm  somehow in Beverly Hills, and strolling along Rodeo Drive I find Paris Hilton's wallet. Again, I try  to find her, but without success. Do I have the same obligation to return the money  of someone who will never miss it as I have to return the lost money of someone of modest means?

Let's talk some more about Paris Hilton. Her grandfather (I think it was) made a huge fortune in the hotel business, and now she'll never have to work a day in her  life - and she hasn't as far as anyone can tell. Does she deserve the rewards being heaped on her? According to the law of the land, yes, she does, at least in that she hasn't held anyone up, but I guess most people feel a mixture of envy and resentment when we hear of her escapades.

Poor Paris' money is made from investments which she apparently didn't even decide on herself.  Accountants, economists and revenue agents refer to such income as "unearned." Should we let her keep it? She didn't earn it, either in the language of the tax code or in the ethical traditions most Americans espouse. But how would we ever get it away from her, and even if we did, how would we decide how to divvy it up?

Is it good for our democracy to have what amounts to a permanent leisure class, a scattering of Paris Hilton act-alikes across our landscape?  Our country has answered with a definite "maybe." We believe that a person who has worked hard or shown initiative and profited from it should be able to pass along his  property to his (or her) progeny. On the other hand, we don't agree that we want all those Parises cluttering up our nation, so we exact inheritance taxes on truly large fortunes.

Where am I going with all this? I don't really know, except that I'm home sick, and strange thoughts occur in the wee hours of the morning when sleep won't come. I do think our society distributes rewards on a willy-nilly basis. I'd be curious to hear what readers think.