What is “Politics of envy”?
Discussion
fblm said:
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?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?
Edited by fblm on Thursday 2nd May 17:50
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.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? 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.
El stovey said:
So no examples of politics of envy then?
You want me to prove the motivation of a group of people who individually wouldn't admit it was envy even if it was, in order to defend a phrase and idea I haven't ever used or subscribe to? That's as absurd as me asking you for examples of the politics of greed. So no, I'll pass.fblm said:
El stovey said:
So no examples of politics of envy then?
You want me to prove the motivation of a group of people who individually wouldn't admit it was envy even if it was, in order to defend a phrase and idea I haven't ever used or subscribe to? That's as absurd as me asking you for examples of the politics of greed. So no, I'll pass.
It’s just the op asked what politics of envy was and loads of people talk about envy politics without really giving any examples of it. Saying things like blaming the rich or policies that punish the rich but looking through the thread I can’t really see any examples where this has actually been suggested or happened.
Just the graph obviously which we disagree on.
I’m taxed now more than ever before under the Conservatives and Theresa May is talking about taking away charitable status for private schools (is that envy politics?) and a fairer society. Sure Gordon Brown damaged my pension but I wasn’t taxed more under labour than I am now. I haven’t seen any obvious policies or politics from “the left” suggesting envy or jealousy.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd May 20:03
otolith said:
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".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “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” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! 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".
Integroo 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.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? 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.
A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
Mark Benson said:
You could quite easily set a flat rate of tax that takes the poorest out of taxation altogether - say a £27k tax-free allowance then a rate on anything above that will raise just as much tax as currently.
A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
What don you think the flat rate would need to be under that scenario to raise just as much tax as currently? A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
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".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “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” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! 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".
El stovey said:
Mark Benson said:
You could quite easily set a flat rate of tax that takes the poorest out of taxation altogether - say a £27k tax-free allowance then a rate on anything above that will raise just as much tax as currently.
A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
What don you think the flat rate would need to be under that scenario to raise just as much tax as currently? A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
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".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “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” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! 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".
Keep banging your head and your blinkers might fall off!
Mark Benson said:
No idea, I'm not an actuary.
If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
No I don’t know either. I used to work in a country with a flat rate and it was great but social provisions were done by charities and philanthropic organisations. If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
It raises much less money than tax bands but because it was a small country with little defence spending or welfare it worked. There was much more really poor people though.
I think a flat rate would need to be quite high in the uk with all the legacy costs the country has.
Integroo 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.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? 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.
Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
98elise said:
Integroo 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.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? 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.
Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
Roman Rhodes said:
98elise said:
Integroo 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.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? 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.
Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
Going back to 98elise's question, would it make more sense to you if instead of being a pub it were a hospital, does a rich persons operation cost any more than a poor persons? And why is it that supporters of unfair taxation regimes refuse the accept that the rich person has already paid more than the poor person and that having another pop at the wealthy by making them pay even more is just plain nasty.
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
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".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “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” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! 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".
Keep banging your head and your blinkers might fall off!
Mark Benson said:
You could quite easily set a flat rate of tax that takes the poorest out of taxation altogether - say a £27k tax-free allowance then a rate on anything above that will raise just as much tax as currently.
A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
Wherever you set the level, in order to take the same amount of tax at the moment the richest will pay less and those just above the tax free thresholds will pay more. A flat rate on all earnings regardless of how or where they came from (ie. salary, gains in property or land value, share dividends - the lot) would be simpler to administrate, offer less scope for avoidance or evasion and if the tax-free rate were set right, encourage far more people to work instead of claim benefits as they would be better off.
TeamD said:
Seems a perfectly reasonable analogy to me, but since it questions your position I can see why you are so quick to dismiss it. Which ever way you dress up the concept of setting tax rates based upon income as being "fair", it patently isn't, and as such is often supported by left leaning types who want to stick it to the more successful. The redistribution of wealth by arbitrary mechanisms like this can only be described as being based upon "envy" or "jealousy."
Going back to 98elise's question, would it make more sense to you if instead of being a pub it were a hospital, does a rich persons operation cost any more than a poor persons? And why is it that supporters of unfair taxation regimes refuse the accept that the rich person has already paid more than the poor person and that having another pop at the wealthy by making them pay even more is just plain nasty.
Yes, it is fairer that the rich subsidise the hospital treatment of the poor. Going back to 98elise's question, would it make more sense to you if instead of being a pub it were a hospital, does a rich persons operation cost any more than a poor persons? And why is it that supporters of unfair taxation regimes refuse the accept that the rich person has already paid more than the poor person and that having another pop at the wealthy by making them pay even more is just plain nasty.
The 'rich' are rich because of society, society that is built on the contributions of both the rich and the poor. How would the investment bankers survive without people cooking their meals, cleaning their offices, driving their taxis?
I pay more than the national average salary in tax each month, yet I would increase top rate tax so that more money can be spent on things like the NHS and education.
Mark Benson said:
No idea, I'm not an actuary.
If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
You realise this is effectively massive tax cuts for the uber-wealthy and massive tax increases for those near the bottom (or, if you have a large tax free allowance, the middle classes)?If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
98elise said:
When you and your mates go to the pub do you pay your way based on what you earn, or what you consume? Pretty much everything in life is based on what you consume and thats pretty fair.
Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
Flat rate is intrinsically regressive and unfair, and proposed solely by the selfish. Effectively, you want to pay less tax to buy more luxuries at the expense of those who rely upon social welfare to survive. Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
Integroo said:
Flat rate is intrinsically regressive and unfair, and proposed solely by the selfish. Effectively, you want to pay less tax to buy more luxuries at the expense of those who rely upon social welfare to survive.
And less tax levied on those luxuries to the detriment of the treasury. After all, the additional revenue goes to the poor, right?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff