What is “Politics of envy”?

[StevieBee]

otolith said:

northwick said:

Can someone explain to me the difference between "dole dossers'" perceived lack of work ethic and/or sense of entitlement in terms of the state looking after them and then the same for those who inherit a fortune and live off it with no effort? Why is it OK for some people to live off the work of someone else but not other people?

Consent.

And the fact that Welfare recipients draw their income from the public purse (i.e. you and me) and those that live off trust funds draw their income from private wealth that has been earned....which they then spend which is a way of repatriating some of that previously earned money back into the economy.

[otolith]

Integroo said:

amusingduck said:

"Imagine it was the case that a top tax rate of 50p did not bring in any extra money"


What are you struggling with here? Or is it just a poor attempt at deflection?

The implication is clear, this is a common nonsense on here.

The implication is that either you or those polled didn't understand the question.

[biggbn]

andy_s said:

biggbn said:

Conversely, is the politics of envy not a negative phrase used by the entitled few whenever a policy is suggested that threatens that entitlement? .

That's not 'envy' though really, that's a different brand of toxicity, and using the word 'entitlement' may give you problems with someone who has rolled his sleeves up and made a success of themselves seeing it all eroded away...

ETA - oh - re-read and see what you mean - yes, you have a point.

biggbn said:

If the left does not like something they label it far right, xenophobic, fascist, for the right it's Marxist, far left, now the politics of envy.

I could not give a damn about people's wealth or success, in fact I wish them well, I would however prefer a more inclusive society, and a more equitable one. I think one of the steps towards that is not necessarily immediate implementation of policy changes, but the cessation of usage of divisive language from both sides

You're right and it is something I've been discussing for years, but I would also say that where we stand at the moment in the West and UK in particular is actually better than we've ever been before - not perfect, and in some areas far from perfect, but rationally we are already inclusive, equitable, have a functional welfare system, free healthcare, free education to a point [Scotland has free admissions for further Ed.], we're cutting into our emissions, we're recycling to a good level, we have freedom of expression and freedom of press - a lot of these things of course are paid for by the taxes of the 'few', [top 10% contribute 40% of the revenue, top 1% contribute 28% of revenue...], something forgotten I feel in the 'politics of envy'. People will never be content of course, but we're in the realm of the 'spoilt child' to some degree I feel.

We should not let the gap between rich and poor get too big [guillotine] nor should we impose state equity [gulag], we should bear in mind the classical liberal tenets of Hume, Smith, Adams, Franklin, Hobbes et al - small government, individual above the group, make money but spend it wisely; but we should also be adaptive to an increasingly changing background of technological advances - [natural adaption is always a generation behind by definition...], societal changes, generational education needs and to have a mechanism for longer term planning without having a despot in charge.

Edited by andy_s on Friday 26th April 11:04

In lieu of a thanks button, thanks.. Good post.

[irocfan]

biggbn said:

Conversely, is the politics of envy not a negative phrase used by the entitled few whenever a policy is suggested that threatens that entitlement? If the left does not like something they label it far right, xenophobic, fascist, for the right it's Marxist, far left, now the politics of envy.

I could not give a damn about people's wealth or success, in fact I wish them well, I would however prefer a more inclusive society, and a more equitable one. I think one of the steps towards that is not necessarily immediate implementation of policy changes, but the cessation of usage of divisive language from both sides

we're different politically speaking, but (once again) I really can't disagree with this ^^^

[anonymous-user]

andy_s said:

Roman Rhodes said:

andy_s said:

Roman Rhodes said:

But it just falls into the 'cool story bro' category. You can make up any fairy story you like to support a point of view. It doesn't validate it though. You do realise that I hope?

Top 1% account for 28% of revenue, top 50% account for 90% of revenue. ['revenue' being proportion of income tax]

That wasn't the point of the fairy story. The point was the reaction to the change and the subsequent loss of beer money.

Gotcha. [I mean Got you, not 'ha gotcha', just for clarification]

Edited by andy_s on Friday 26th April 11:27

I found the cash

[oyster]

amusingduck said:

El stovey said:

amusingduck said:

What principled approach or different perception of fairness explains punishing people for the benefit of nobody? Unless the benefit is the punishment of those people?

Spite instead of Envy?

This comes up every few years on here.

The idea is that It is to reduce wealth inequality with the aim of creating a society with a smaller gap between the richest and the poorest.

Western democracies with more inequality like USA have more social problems than those with less inequality like Norway and Denmark etc.

Wealth inequality is linked to many problems we see today in the UK, disenfranchisement, lack of opportunity, drug abuse, violence, teenage pregnancy, mental health issues etc etc.

You can believe that rich create more wealth so we should tax them less and their wealth will trickle down and help everyone. The other side of the argument is that this inequality creates more social problems and is unhealthy for society.

I suppose that begs the question of "If America had Sweden's social system, would people care so much that a handful are obscenely wealthy?"

I'm not really bothered about inequality to be honest. I'd prefer an approach where we figure out what kind of society we want and then use the most efficient means of obtaining it. If that means charging the rich 1% tax, so be it. Equally, if that means charging them 99%, so be it.

It's the "moral" argument I can't get behind, at all. I suppose I just don't buy the concept that other people being vastly better off is detrimental to your life. Their actions might be detrimental to your life, but simply having lots of money in and of itself?

But you can't only have efficiency, you need to have fairness too. (in order to get elected anyway).

Ultimately I suppose the most efficient method to collect tax is VAT. Raise that to 50%, scrap all other taxes, ban cash. There you go. Super efficient.

Is it fair though?

[anonymous-user]

El stovey said:

Western democracies with more inequality like USA have more social problems than those with less inequality like Norway and Denmark etc.

Correlation =/= causation but if we're playing that game I'd suggest the social attitudes and homogeneity of Scandinavian societies allow a more distributive tax system. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Social-Ident...

El stovey said:

Wealth inequality is linked to many problems we see today in the UK, disenfranchisement, lack of opportunity, drug abuse, violence, teenage pregnancy, mental health issues etc etc.

It probably is linked I agree. Certainly in a society where we encourage, even celebrate, stupidity and the self destructive behavior you mention we can probably expect considerable wealth inequality.

[amusingduck]

oyster said:

amusingduck said:

El stovey said:

amusingduck said:

What principled approach or different perception of fairness explains punishing people for the benefit of nobody? Unless the benefit is the punishment of those people?

Spite instead of Envy?

This comes up every few years on here.

The idea is that It is to reduce wealth inequality with the aim of creating a society with a smaller gap between the richest and the poorest.

Western democracies with more inequality like USA have more social problems than those with less inequality like Norway and Denmark etc.

Wealth inequality is linked to many problems we see today in the UK, disenfranchisement, lack of opportunity, drug abuse, violence, teenage pregnancy, mental health issues etc etc.

You can believe that rich create more wealth so we should tax them less and their wealth will trickle down and help everyone. The other side of the argument is that this inequality creates more social problems and is unhealthy for society.

I suppose that begs the question of "If America had Sweden's social system, would people care so much that a handful are obscenely wealthy?"

I'm not really bothered about inequality to be honest. I'd prefer an approach where we figure out what kind of society we want and then use the most efficient means of obtaining it. If that means charging the rich 1% tax, so be it. Equally, if that means charging them 99%, so be it.

It's the "moral" argument I can't get behind, at all. I suppose I just don't buy the concept that other people being vastly better off is detrimental to your life. Their actions might be detrimental to your life, but simply having lots of money in and of itself?

But you can't only have efficiency, you need to have fairness too. (in order to get elected anyway).

Ultimately I suppose the most efficient method to collect tax is VAT. Raise that to 50%, scrap all other taxes, ban cash. There you go. Super efficient.

Is it fair though?

Is it even efficient? By efficient I mean maximising tax revenue without disincentivising income increases (which I imagine reduces tax revenue). I imagine having hefty VAT and nothing else would demoralise the lowest earners substantially, and they're the ones on the first rung of the ladder WRT income progression

[avinalarf]

A few generalisations on this complex and divisive subject.....
It is failure of government that encourages the politics of envy.
The failure to provide a reasonably level playing field that allows the populace a reason to strive,to work hard and play by the rules, and provide for themselves and their family.
Most grown ups recognise that money,even loadsa money, does not buy the most important things in life, the health and well being of themselves and their loved ones.
However they want to be able to realise goals in life.....a quality of life.
It is when one feels that one is pushing against a closed door and that the odds are unfairly stacked against one that the politics of envy takes a hold.
Most people accept or at least acquiesce to the fact that others, by luck or virtue, will have materially more than them but it is only when others have an advantage not available to themselves that they are temped by the politics of envy.
We are living through a difficult economic cycle where people are running hard and fast and still are unable to earn enough to provide a quality of life.

[loafer123]

A lot of time and effort would be saved by charging average tax rates and spending average amounts on each department, so the only job of government is how to make the most of your budget.

[NJH]

avinalarf said:

A few generalisations on this complex and divisive subject.....
It is failure of government that encourages the politics of envy.
The failure to provide a reasonably level playing field that allows the populace a reason to strive,to work hard and play by the rules, and provide for themselves and their family.
Most grown ups recognise that money,even loadsa money, does not buy the most important things in life, the health and well being of themselves and their loved ones.
However they want to be able to realise goals in life.....a quality of life.
It is when one feels that one is pushing against a closed door and that the odds are unfairly stacked against one that the politics of envy takes a hold.
Most people accept or at least acquiesce to the fact that others, by luck or virtue, will have materially more than them but it is only when others have an advantage not available to themselves that they are temped by the politics of envy.
We are living through a difficult economic cycle where people are running hard and fast and still are unable to earn enough to provide a quality of life.

Only flaw in your argument is that 'politics of envy' or shall we say eat the rich radical socialism stuff is strongest amongst those working in academia and other government funded organisations. These are well educated people with degrees and reasonable mid level income, but they end up despising the fact that self employed tradesmen, business people, sports stars etc. earn much more money. Its pure ressentiment at the end of the day driving this corrosive discourse, and certainly not poor working class people whom are frankly just plain ignored these days (hence Brexit and the complete failure to address any of the causes).

[avinalarf]

NJH said:

avinalarf said:

A few generalisations on this complex and divisive subject.....
It is failure of government that encourages the politics of envy.
The failure to provide a reasonably level playing field that allows the populace a reason to strive,to work hard and play by the rules, and provide for themselves and their family.
Most grown ups recognise that money,even loadsa money, does not buy the most important things in life, the health and well being of themselves and their loved ones.
However they want to be able to realise goals in life.....a quality of life.
It is when one feels that one is pushing against a closed door and that the odds are unfairly stacked against one that the politics of envy takes a hold.
Most people accept or at least acquiesce to the fact that others, by luck or virtue, will have materially more than them but it is only when others have an advantage not available to themselves that they are temped by the politics of envy.
We are living through a difficult economic cycle where people are running hard and fast and still are unable to earn enough to provide a quality of life.

Only flaw in your argument is that 'politics of envy' or shall we say eat the rich radical socialism stuff is strongest amongst those working in academia and other government funded organisations. These are well educated people with degrees and reasonable mid level income, but they end up despising the fact that self employed tradesmen, business people, sports stars etc. earn much more money. Its pure ressentiment at the end of the day driving this corrosive discourse, and certainly not poor working class people whom are frankly just plain ignored these days (hence Brexit and the complete failure to address any of the causes).

Money, fame ,celebrity ....one can be envious of others for different reasons.
Just because an academic is well educated does not, in itself, confer wisdom on him.
Envy is corrosive and self defeating , it eats away at your very soul.
If one can be content within one's own skin, to "know" oneself, to understand and accept one's limitations, then one may find a kind of contentment.
In almost all societies that have ever existed there have always been those that have achieved more, more materially, intellectually or physically and it is just human nature that we aspire to wish to have those attributes.
However there is a difference between admiring others and wanting to better oneself and being envious of those that have more.
I have said in a previous topic that our society is broken.
Broken in the sense that it is giving more to those that have and less to those striving to better themselves.
This is the politics which encourages the politics of envy to flourish.

[andy_s]

Envy should be embraced, it identifies what you really want and fuels the vigour to achieve it.

[grumbledoak]

andy_s said:

Envy should be embraced, it identifies what you really want and fuels the vigour to achieve it.

You are thinking of jealousy. Quite different.

Jealousy = I'm going to get one of those for myself.
Envy = Take that off him!

[popegregory]

Isn’t the underlying issue true though that a lot of the envy stems not from some having things that others do not, but from some having opportunities provided that others did not; thus making it impossible for them to get these things?

[SOL111]

popegregory said:

Isn’t the underlying issue true though that a lot of the envy stems not from some having things that others do not, but from some having opportunities provided that others did not; thus making it impossible for them to get these things?

This.

I think you're right.

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

andy_s said:

Envy should be embraced, it identifies what you really want and fuels the vigour to achieve it.

You are thinking of jealousy. Quite different.

Jealousy = I'm going to get one of those for myself.
Envy = Take that off him!

I think that if you correct another poster you should at least get it right.

Envy is a feeling that you lack a personal quality or possession. For instance you see someone who is better looking than you, can run faster or has a nicer house. Jealousy is a reaction to the threat of losing something special. Usually, but not always, a person.

[PorkRind]

fouronthefloor said:

Guybrush said:

fouronthefloor said:

Dr Jekyll said:

fouronthefloor said:

Yes , but we all live on this earth and should be equally entitled within reason.

How is anyone but me 'entitled' to the money I've earned? The difference between choosing to give some of my money to someone else either now or as a bequest, and the HMRC demanding I give that person my money or get prosecuted is pretty clear.

Why should anyone be 'entitled' to anything?

People should be "entitled" to give their (taxed) money to whomever they please, usually their children. Their children should be "entitled" to receive it. That would appear moral and reasonable in a free society. Anything else is a far left dictatorship, with designs on keeping everyone down and on a treadmill in the false name of "fairness".

What I'm saying is 'Why should anyone be 'entitled' to amassed wealth and the power that goes with it, when we are all equal as human beings?'.

We are not all fair and equal human beings though, iq, physical ability, et. Etc

[northwick]

StevieBee said:

And the fact that Welfare recipients draw their income from the public purse (i.e. you and me) and those that live off trust funds draw their income from private wealth that has been earned....which they then spend which is a way of repatriating some of that previously earned money back into the economy.

Fair points, granted. Should anything be done about the latter though?

[NJH]

It's off topic perhaps but there is an economic case to be made for inheritance tax along the same lines as land value tax, effectively one shifts the tax burden from taxes closer to economic activity and money cycles onto capital and transactions a long way from when the money was earned. Simply put one would reduce VAT and income tax to compensate for inheritance tax and LVT. At least if that was done such policies may carry people, however its hard not to be cynical because when was the last time we experienced a new tax, or a tax increase that was offset by the reduction of another.

The argument that one is taxed twice is a bit of a silly argument, we are taxed multiple times over all through our lives every time we purchase something with VAT on it, taxed on your pension etc. etc.. If this was the argument against inheritance tax it would be best placed on reducing or abolishing VAT.