Luck and Merit
Among the many culture clashes on show in this election is the one between luck and merit. To what extent should we reward those who work hard and contribute to society over those who, through accidents of birth or being in the right place at the right time, got the breaks over better people?
It is most apparent in the debate around inheritance tax — a tax that, clearly, rewards accidents of birth. Imagine two coworkers, A and B: A works hard and makes his money through work. B does not work hard, yet happens upon an inheritance, giving him a far better lifestyle than A. Whilst it is never possible to ensure a totally level playing field of opportunities, certain things can be ameliorated and it makes sense to increase the inheritance tax B has to pay — as this income is unearned.
One can go further and apply to B’s windfall all the language typically reserved for welfare and public services: ‘freebies’, ‘something for nothing’, ‘free stuff’ and many other derogatory names. I mean, unearned income is unearned income, right? Those who live off their parents and then also inherit their wealth are worthy of contempt, right? Wrong! Some freebies, clearly, are more equal than others and those same people who begrudge a low-paid working family some extra money to make ends meet violently rail against the idea of ‘the Death Tax’.
The reasons given for this typically present the family as a single unit and the parent’s natural wish to pass their life’s earnings to their children, whether deserving or not, to be sacrosanct. Also mentioned is the case of families which are cash-poor but property-rich, usually because of a family home that has risen in price considerably: having to pay inheritance tax would then force them to sell up and move. Both of those reasons are hard to argue with, however it is the rejection of the argument in the previous paragraph, the refusal to see the unfairness of a large inheritance from the point of view of the child that is surprising. My pleas about meritocracy and getting just rewards for one’s own achievements in life fell on deaf ears.
That got me thinking: perhaps this is a part of a general trend. Perhaps it is really a conflict between merit and chance. I care deeply if somebody who has the talents and the work ethic is not able, through lack of opportunity, through poor family background or education, through stress and mental health problems, to make good of what they have. It is not just unfair to them. It is unfair to all of us to be denied the contribution they could have made. It is unfair to our businesses that they might not have as skilled a pool of domestic talent as they could have. (I find myself saying ‘but what about business’ far too often of late.) But mainly it’s about having as many people as possible get what they deserve in life. Hence the eagerness to maximise equality of opportunity for everybody.
Yet, against that, there is an unspoken glorification of luck. The luck of being born into a wealthy family. The luck of being given a hand-up by Mom and Dad. The luck of, eventually, getting an inheritance. Lucky people are to be celebrated, cherished, looked up to — but certainly not taxed. Because, as that narrative goes, one has to just try hard enough in order to be lucky. If you haven’t been lucky, you must not have tried hard enough.
One can apply the luck principle to other points of difference. The immigration question is all about permanently allowing some of those unlucky enough to not be born in a liberal first world democracy into our society. Those who worship Fortune do not see any reason to sympathise with the less fortunate. Those whose main god is Merit have a firm stereotype of a ‘deserving’ immigrant who flees poverty and makes good in Britain. Of course, neither side puts it quite like that: the worshippers of Luck go on about ‘foreign criminals and scroungers’ whilst the defenders of Merit protest that they are all decent people unfairly held down by their humble origins.
Or, let’s take global warming. The supporters of Merit turn into prudent, pessimistic naysayers and demand that we do something. But how can that sway those who believe in Chance? They will always hope that it will pass, think that they should just enjoy life and hope it will be alright, that Planet Earth will get its big break out of the CO2 trap eventually just like any sufficiently aspiring human being is supposed to eventually get that big break.
This principle applies elsewhere: from the health service (so what that you can’t afford your US health insurance: you just have to be lucky) to trans rights (so what that you were born in the wrong gender, you just had to be lucky). The only curious reversal that bucks the trend is on the issue of terrorism — a vastly unlikely event to occur to any given person. Now, those who treat cuts to the NHS in a cavalier fashion (‘it won’t affect me’) and happy to take their chances with chlorinated chickens, rat hair and other delights of the US food industry take this tiny source of risk to their livelihoods and magnify it to massive proportions, demanding tougher and tougher security measures. It is the one, curious, outlier.