What is “Politics of envy”?

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

[otolith]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

I didn't miss it, it's bks. It doesn't say "IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT THE EXTRA MONEY FROM A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p WAS USED TO REDUCE OTHER TAXES", it says "DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY". If it doesn't bring in any extra money, how can you cut rates elsewhere?

[R Mutt]

fblm said:

Firstly I was not talking about ''the poor'', but Labour voters; as I think you were at pains to point out, that's a ''broad church''. I certainly didn't say it was jealousy either which makes no sense. I made my case for envy, stupidity (not understanding the question), a misplaced but otherwise well meaning sense of empathy but mostly spite. Not as pithy a political slogan as politics of envy though.

Yes the debate has moved on from that. It's not the poor I'm concentrating on, it's the middle income left-wing who when they see the poor (when I say 'see' I mean think about, or read about going to food banks in the Guardian) they think about those better off who must rectify the situation.

[Dr Jekyll]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY]"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

Does not follow.

The scenario is the RATE on higher earners being increased, not the AMOUNT they pay between them,

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Not sure that your "no redistribution" claim can be substantiated....

No extra money is raised; nothing to distribute. Simple enough interpretation.

Roman Rhodes said:

...as well as being greedy, feckless and lazy. The better off accusing the less well off that their circumstances are all their own fault is not a pleasant trait.

Glad I neither think, nor said, anything of the sort then.

Edited by fblm on Thursday 2nd May 14:03

You do understand the difference between "distribute" (i.e. sharing out "extra money) and "redistribute" (i.e. sharing out existing money) don't you? There is rather a fundamental difference.

In very simple terms - if I pay £2 into the kitty and you pay £3 the kitty gets £5. We change that to me paying in £1 and you paying in £4. The kitty still only gets £5 but I am £1 better off. It really isn't difficult...

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

Stretching much? The subject of the question is a top tax rate of 50p, it's got nothing to do with lower tax bands. In any event if the question did mean what you claim why did Lib Dem voters read it wrong too?

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

You do understand the difference between "distribute" (i.e. sharing out "extra money) and "redistribute" (i.e. sharing out existing money) don't you? There is rather a fundamental difference.

In very simple terms - if I pay £2 into the kitty and you pay £3 the kitty gets £5. We change that to me paying in £1 and you paying in £4. The kitty still only gets £5 but I am £1 better off. It really isn't difficult...

Dear god. Ok whatever, the question was too complicated. Got it.

[otolith]

Roman Rhodes said:

You do understand the difference between "distribute" (i.e. sharing out "extra money) and "redistribute" (i.e. sharing out existing money) don't you? There is rather a fundamental difference.

In very simple terms - if I pay £2 into the kitty and you pay £3 the kitty gets £5. We change that to me paying in £1 and you paying in £4. The kitty still only gets £5 but I am £1 better off. It really isn't difficult...

I think you are missing the context and the point here.

There is an argument that higher marginal rates don't generate any more income because people avoid them. They increase their legal tax avoidance, they retire earlier, don't chase that extra business, cut their working hours, whatever.

Some people dispute that happens, others don't.

This question cut through that argument by asking people "even if it doesn't raise any more money, should it be implemented on moral grounds".

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

I didn't miss it, it's bks. It doesn't say "IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT THE EXTRA MONEY FROM A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p WAS USED TO REDUCE OTHER TAXES", it says "DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY". If it doesn't bring in any extra money, how can you cut rates elsewhere?

But you're quite happy to post bks yourself - the question certainly didn't include:

otolith said:

It's testing the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else.

If you'd remove your blinkers you'd understand that this is about interpreting the result of a poll.

With regard to "If it doesn't bring in any extra money, how can you cut rates elsewhere?" you either can't read, can't do simple maths or both

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

Does not follow.

The scenario is the RATE on higher earners being increased, not the AMOUNT they pay between them,

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

The subject of the question is the 50p rate, so yes it did. I'll ask again, if the question means what you claim, why did Lib Dem voters all misunderstand it too?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd May 15:15

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

You do understand the difference between "distribute" (i.e. sharing out "extra money) and "redistribute" (i.e. sharing out existing money) don't you? There is rather a fundamental difference.

In very simple terms - if I pay £2 into the kitty and you pay £3 the kitty gets £5. We change that to me paying in £1 and you paying in £4. The kitty still only gets £5 but I am £1 better off. It really isn't difficult...

I think you are missing the context and the point here.

There is an argument that higher marginal rates don't generate any more income because people avoid them. They increase their legal tax avoidance, they retire earlier, don't chase that extra business, cut their working hours, whatever.

Some people dispute that happens, others don't.

This question cut through that argument by asking people "even if it doesn't raise any more money, should it be implemented on moral grounds".

I'd disagree that the question "cut through" anything. The premise is simple but the motivation as why one might say 'yes' could have many permutations. Putting "morally" in the question doesn't mean that everyone who said 'yes' is motivated by spite and envy. Many will simply be guided by the commonly held principle that it is "morally right" that the wealthy pay more tax than the poor - hence there being substantial support for the 50% tax across voters from all parties. No-one can claim that those supporting it are only motivated by punishing the wealthy when there is clearly a case that the poorer could benefit even if the total tax take isn't increased.

[amusingduck]

Roman Rhodes said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Does not follow.

The scenario is the RATE on higher earners being increased, not the AMOUNT they pay between them,

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

The question was

YouGov said:

Imagine it was the case that a top tax rate of 50p did not bring in any extra money. Which of the following would best reflect your view?

1. If a 50p top tax rate would not bring in any extra money then it should not be introduced
2. A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes

and the questions that preceded it were

YouGov said:

Would you support or oppose increasing the top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 to 50p in the pound?

YouGov said:

Do you think a 50p tax rate on people earning more than £150,000 would help or damage the economy, or would it make no difference?

YouGov said:

Some people think that increasing the top rate of tax to 50p would not actually bring in much extra money, as it would hinder growth and some very wealthy people would move abroad to escape tax. Other people think that this is exaggerated, and that a higher tax rate would bring in more money. From what you have seen or heard, do you think the 50p tax rate would or would not bring in more money?

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c1rz7jiy8q/YG-Archive-140127-50p-Tax.pdf

So yes, in context it does say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

[otolith]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

It's written on the graphic.

What other interpretation of "on moral grounds" do you have in mind?

It's as simple as can be.

A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit. It isn’t difficult if you remove your blinkers.

"IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY"

How exactly do the less well off benefit? What are they going to be benefited with?

You must have missed this:

Roman Rhodes said:

If there is no extra money raised but the highest earners are paying more tax then someone else (lower earners) will be paying less tax. That is very much a redistribution - lower earners are paying less and moving up because higher earners are paying more.

I didn't miss it, it's bks. It doesn't say "IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT THE EXTRA MONEY FROM A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p WAS USED TO REDUCE OTHER TAXES", it says "DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY". If it doesn't bring in any extra money, how can you cut rates elsewhere?

But you're quite happy to post bks yourself - the question certainly didn't include:

otolith said:

It's testing the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else.

If you'd remove your blinkers you'd understand that this is about interpreting the result of a poll.

With regard to "If it doesn't bring in any extra money, how can you cut rates elsewhere?" you either can't read, can't do simple maths or both

Here are the actual questions.

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploa...

Currently the top rate of income tax is 45p in
the pound for earnings over £150,000

Would you support or oppose increasing the top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 to 50p in the pound?

• Support increasing the top rate of tax to 50p
• Oppose increasing the top rate of tax to 50p
• Don't know

Do you think a 50p tax rate on people earning more than £150,000 would help or damage the economy, or would it make no difference?

• Would help the economy
• Would damage the economy
• Would make no difference to the economy
• Not sure

Some people think that increasing the top rate of tax to 50p would not actually bring in much extra money, as it would hinder growth and some very wealthy people would move abroad to escape tax. Other people think that this is exaggerated, and that a higher tax rate would bring in more money. From what you have seen or heard, do you think the 50p tax rate would or would not bring in more money?

• Would bring in more money
• Would not bring in more money
• Don't know

Imagine it was the case that a top tax rate of 50p did not bring in any extra money. Which of the following would best reflect your view?

• If a 50p top tax rate would not bring in any extra money then it should not be introduced
• A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes
• Neither
• Don't know

Interpret and spin away, I think the meaning is pretty obvious and explicit.

Edited by otolith on Thursday 2nd May 15:18

[Dr Jekyll]

Roman Rhodes said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Does not follow.

The scenario is the RATE on higher earners being increased, not the AMOUNT they pay between them,

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

IMAGINE IT WAS THE CASE THAT A TOP TAX RATE OF 50p DID NOT BRING IN ANY EXTRA MONEY

That's exactly what it says. If it said 'imagine that changes to the tax system including a 50p rate didn't bring in extra money' then it might be possible to interpret it as keeping the possibility of changing other rates open. But it's talking purely about money coming in FROM A 50p RATE.

[anonymous-user]

The problem is of course that posters supporting the narrative that people wanting a more equitable society are jealous or envious only have some rubbish bar chart as evidence.

The bar chart doesn’t tell you why people voted the way they did so they assume it’s jealous or envy or spite.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

The subject of the question is the 50p rate, so yes it did.

The question being debated categorically did NOT say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Interpret and spin away, I think the meaning is pretty obvious and explicit.

It is.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

otolith said:

Interpret and spin away, I think the meaning is pretty obvious and explicit.

It is.

It’s not obvious or explicit at all.

If your whole argument that people arguing for equality are jealous is based on a yougov chart lacking in information then I’m afraid it’s not very robust.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Why? Simply because you've chosen the scenario? The question did not say that the amount raised from higher earners would not increase.

The subject of the question is the 50p rate, so yes it did. I'll ask again, if the question means what you claim, why did Lib Dem voters all misunderstand it too?

Edited by fblm on Thursday 2nd May 15:15

No, the question does not say "did not bring in any extra money from those who would have to pay it" it is clearly referencing total tax take. Why would anyone support a tax increase on people that doesn't mean they would be paying more - there is neither a financial or "moral" angle to that. It would be pointless.

You'll have to clarify what you mean about the Lib Dems if you want an answer.