"There is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes. If the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else, that is unfair. If you save your money but retire with the same pension as a free-spending neighbor, that is also unfair"
About this Quote
Fairness is the bait word here, and Brooks knows it. He takes a moral term with wide appeal and narrows it to a particular kind of justice: merit rewarded, effort recognized, thrift protected. The line does two things at once. It argues against income equalization on policy grounds, but it also reframes the debate so redistribution is no longer about solidarity or risk-sharing; it becomes a story about rule-breaking, where the state plays enforcer against the virtuous.
The intent is strategic: move the conversation from outcomes to conduct. By centering “working harder” and “saving your money,” Brooks chooses behaviors that most people want to see as character signals. The “free-spending neighbor” isn’t just an economic counterexample; it’s a cultural archetype, a little morality play about self-control versus indulgence. That neighbor is doing heavy lifting: he turns structural questions (wages, inheritance, bargaining power, luck) into an interpersonal grievance you can picture on your street.
The subtext is an appeal to resentment that sounds like principle. It’s not the cheap kind of resentment, either; it’s the respectable kind, the feeling that someone is gaming the system while you follow the rules. In the post-2008, inequality-soaked era where Brooks became a major public voice, that framing matters. He’s answering a rising demand for egalitarian correction by insisting the real scandal isn’t disparity, it’s the moral insult of treating unequal choices as if they were equal merits.
The intent is strategic: move the conversation from outcomes to conduct. By centering “working harder” and “saving your money,” Brooks chooses behaviors that most people want to see as character signals. The “free-spending neighbor” isn’t just an economic counterexample; it’s a cultural archetype, a little morality play about self-control versus indulgence. That neighbor is doing heavy lifting: he turns structural questions (wages, inheritance, bargaining power, luck) into an interpersonal grievance you can picture on your street.
The subtext is an appeal to resentment that sounds like principle. It’s not the cheap kind of resentment, either; it’s the respectable kind, the feeling that someone is gaming the system while you follow the rules. In the post-2008, inequality-soaked era where Brooks became a major public voice, that framing matters. He’s answering a rising demand for egalitarian correction by insisting the real scandal isn’t disparity, it’s the moral insult of treating unequal choices as if they were equal merits.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Arthur
Add to List



