What is “Politics of envy”?

[amusingduck]

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

First two questions:

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

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?

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

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.

Of course it doesn't say that. The final question introduces the suggestion that higher earners could seek to avoid the higher rate - but 50% thought it would bring in more money, 21% didn't know and only 29% thought it would not bring in more money. That is the context if any is needed.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

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

I've read it and it clearly demonstrates how much you are indeed spinning!

[amusingduck]

Roman Rhodes said:

Of course it doesn't say that. The final question introduces the suggestion that higher earners could seek to avoid the higher rate

No it doesn't!

Literally the question that precedes THE question:

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?

[anonymous-user]

El stovey said:

It’s not obvious or explicit at all.

Oh come on. Funny how Lib Dem voters interpreted it differently to Labour voters huh? Fascists!

El stovey said:

If your whole argument that people arguing for equality are jealous...

I didn't say that. That makes no sense. Jealousy is the fear of losing what you already have. If anyone it's the Torys, Lib Dems and kippers jealously guarding their fortunes. Missed a trick there.

fblm said:

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.

I thought we were having a sensible conversation, don't jump on romans desperate diversion, it's really lame. Besides, Labour voters didn't understand the question isn't the best defence.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

Nonsense. That would make no sense at all within the context of the survey which is about "the economy" (not just the economy of those that would be affected by a 50% tax rate) and how much money is raised for "the economy".

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

First two questions:

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

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?

Is there a point you're trying to make there?

[amusingduck]

Roman Rhodes said:

amusingduck said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

First two questions:

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

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?

Is there a point you're trying to make there?

It's pretty self-evident what the general thrust of the poll is, to most at least

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

Nonsense. That would make no sense at all within the context of the survey which is about "the economy" (not just the economy of those that would be affected by a 50% tax rate) and how much money is raised for "the economy".

I guess you concede the point that libdems must have all interpreted the question wrong then.

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

It's pretty self-evident what the general thrust of the poll is, to most at least

How do you know? have you done a poll?

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Nonsense. That would make no sense at all within the context of the survey which is about "the economy" (not just the economy of those that would be affected by a 50% tax rate) and how much money is raised for "the economy".

I guess you concede the point that libdems must have all interpreted the question wrong then.

By that logic you’re saying that labour supporters are envious of the well off but Lib Dem’s aren’t?

I think you’re attaching way too much importance to one question in a single poll which is vague in the first place.

Perhaps there’s actually real examples of policies or “politics of envy” that are obviously just motivated by envy.

K’now like the thread is actually about?

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Of course it doesn't say that. The final question introduces the suggestion that higher earners could seek to avoid the higher rate

No it doesn't!

Literally the question that precedes THE question:

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?

Are you actually trying to make a point contrary to me - because you actually seem to be supporting what I'm saying - there was no question about how an increase in the top rate of tax would solely affect top rate tax payers - it was about the economy as a whole - and 50% of respondents believed it would bring in more tax whilst only 29% thought it wouldn't.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Nonsense. That would make no sense at all within the context of the survey which is about "the economy" (not just the economy of those that would be affected by a 50% tax rate) and how much money is raised for "the economy".

I guess you concede the point that libdems must have all interpreted the question wrong then.

Squirrels? You can guess away.

[otolith]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith 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?

• 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

I've read it and it clearly demonstrates how much you are indeed spinning!

I said that "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".

You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."

The statement they agreed to was "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"

Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".

[TeamD]

How is it that people cannot understand that higher tax rates for higher earners are nothing less than punitive actions based on "envy"?

If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.

[anonymous-user]

TeamD said:

How is it that people cannot understand that higher tax rates for higher earners are nothing less than punitive actions based on "envy"?

If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.

So the whole entire UK tax banding system is just based on envy?

The government are envious of higher earners?

It’s just so that some people can work less and get more money?

[otolith]

El stovey said:

otolith said:

"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?

They’ll benefit from feeling that they are living in a more equitable society. It’s not about getting more money or punishing the more well off it’s about improving social cohesion and reducing the social problems that arise from large gaps between the richest and poorest.

What do we call that feeling of being unhappy because someone else has more than you?

[R Mutt]

TeamD said:

How is it that people cannot understand that higher tax rates for higher earners are nothing less than punitive actions based on "envy"?

If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.

And you'd also pay about 10x more tax than Bob even though only earning 7x more, but that's unfair to Bob apparently!

[TeamD]

El stovey said:

TeamD said:

How is it that people cannot understand that higher tax rates for higher earners are nothing less than punitive actions based on "envy"?

If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.

So the whole entire UK tax banding system is just based on envy?

The government are envious of higher earners?

It’s just so that some people can work less and get more money?

The government don't give a monkeys about what I think, they just want to bribe the folk that consider they deserve more in return for their votes (Corbyn.)

[anonymous-user]

El stovey said:

By that logic you’re saying that labour supporters are envious of the well off but Lib Dem’s aren’t?

Maybe they just understood the question.

El stovey said:

I think you’re attaching way too much importance to one question in a single poll which is vague in the first place.

Perhaps there’s actually real examples of policies or “politics of envy” that are obviously just motivated by envy.

K’now like the thread is actually about?

Fair enough. Let's forget the poll. You assert that social problems are caused by wealth inequality not the other way round and not absolute wealth either, furthermore, that making the wealthy less so will improve the social health of the country. Is that a fair summary and can you support any of it?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd May 17:50