Sumputuary Laws and Inequity in Early America

From the Wikipedia:

Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate habits of consumption. Black's Law Dictionary defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc."^[1]. Traditionally, they were laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures. In most times and places they were ineffectual.^[2]
Throughout history, societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety of purposes. They attempted to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They were also an easy way to identify social rank and privilege, and often were used for social discrimination. This frequently meant preventing commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats, and sometimes also to stigmatize disfavored groups. In the Late Middle Ages sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the seventeenth century.

In the Scarlet Letter, Hester sews fancy clothing like wedding veils, linings for coffins, and outfits for the magistrates and the ministers for religious an government ceremony.

Is there a contradiction here? Hypocrisy?

That Hester should be an outcast by the town, but provide finery for their most important citizens and civil and religious ceremony?

In fact, why is that the ordinary citizens should be subject to sumptuary laws, but the wealthy and powerful should not?

What are the belief systems that justify this?

Do the poor create valor for their sacrifice?
How do the wealthy justify their privilege?

Is this an issue today?

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total assets.

In the United States

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.^[15]
In 2003, the 1% with the highest salaries paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest salaries paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% of paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue, primarily because, as stated above, the bottom 40% had comparatively no wealth (less than 1%) to be taxed in the first place. ^[16] The US has a progressive tax structure which taxes less for smaller incomes; correlating income taxation to wealth is misleading. Also, wealth is not taxed in the United States except with estate taxes upon death, so a small amount of wealth has nothing to do with who bears the most income tax.

One-Percenter

A one percenter or 1%er is an individual that lies in top 1% of the American Tax bracket. These are the top earners in American society. It has been noted that the richest 1% of the American population owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. Typical 1%er's include top-level executives, high-rung politicians, professional athletes, celebrities and wealthy heirs. Ivy League educations are common amongst these individuals. Famous 1%er's include Bill Gates, George Bush, Tiger Woods, Stephen Spielberg and Paris Hilton.

Debt in inches  =  11 trillion

189, 393, 936 in Miles

distance to Sun

93,000,000 Miles

debt= 11, 959, 391, 588, 204.

$38,937.72. per citizen

$3.92 billion per day

With this in mind, is there a reason the wealthy would prefer that we focus on moral and privacy issues and sin rather than wealth and sumptuary laws? 


Why did the leadership allow Hester to be made an outcast? 
Does it focus attention away from the social financial inequities? 
What are the belief systems that enable this scapegoating?

Is there irony in her producing the finery that decorates weddings, funerals, civil, and religious functions?
How do the townspeople feel about her living a more charitable and plain life than most of the other townspeople?