What is “Politics of envy”?

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

[TeamD]

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

At which point the person that wants to work harder to have a better life becomes a slave to the bone idle who can't be bothered.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Keep wriggling!

Dear God. Is this the drivel they teach you in momentum social media workshops? Trash any thread in which you've had your arse handed to you. Too transparent troll.

Still no word on how the lib dems managed to understand the question I see.

Does it make it easier for you to post if you pigeon-hole people with characteristics that suit your position? I think the only thread trashing and arse handing exists in your head. Maybe turn the anger level down a notch?

[otolith]

Roman Rhodes said:

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

I didn't mention spite or envy. I 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".

The belief that it is immoral for some people to be much richer than others might well be motivated by spite or envy, or it might not be. It might, for example, be based on a utilitarian belief that more people will be happier if there is less inequality of wealth, even if that means there is less wealth in total, or upon a political view of what is just. Or, you know, spite and envy. The survey doesn't ask whether they have a well argued rationale for why they think it would be moral to do this, just whether they think so.

[anonymous-user]

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

At which point the person that wants to work harder to have a better life becomes a slave to the bone idle who can't be bothered.

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

[98elise]

Integroo said:

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.

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.

It's not just the hospital costs of the poor though is it? It's everything from overseas aid, to arts council grants.

Meanwhile poor people pay the same for food, water, heating etc as rich people.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

I didn't mention spite or envy. I 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".

The belief that it is immoral for some people to be much richer than others might well be motivated by spite or envy, or it might not be. It might, for example, be based on a utilitarian belief that more people will be happier if there is less inequality of wealth, even if that means there is less wealth in total, or upon a political view of what is just. Or, you know, spite and envy. The survey doesn't ask whether they have a well argued rationale for why they think it would be moral to do this, just whether they think so.

Which is fine - but the survey doesn't mention "the belief that it is immoral for some people to be much richer than others" (just as it doesn't mention that "some people earn too much"). I'm sure some people do believe that and some may well be motivated by spite, envy, jealousy or they may have more principled reasons. However, in the context of what the survey does mention I'm simply saying that there can be motivation to respond 'Yes' that isn't just envy, jealousy or spite.

[Integroo]

98elise said:

It's not just the hospital costs of the poor though is it? It's everything from overseas aid, to arts council grants.

Meanwhile poor people pay the same for food, water, heating etc as rich people.

I'm not sure what your point is. That we shouldn't provide overseas aid and arts council grants and subsequently cut taxes?

[R Mutt]

My mate went on holiday and hired a driver for the whole fortnight.

Now this extravagance, while it cost virtually nothing compared to what it might in the UK, would not have been something I would have considered, partially due to the expense and partially because it would seem odd to me to pay someone peanuts to be at my beck and call for 2 weeks. Now personally I don't really care about my mate's choice of holiday add-ons (pretty much the only option with 2 kids anyway) but were I more left wing I'd likely be quite jealous of that luxury while bemoaning the inequity. It's the first thing you hear about India from many, the poverty.

[Integroo]

R Mutt said:

My mate went on holiday and hired a driver for the whole fortnight.

Now this extravagance, while it cost virtually nothing compared to what it might in the UK, would not have been something I would have considered, partially due to the expense and partially because it would seem odd to me to pay someone peanuts to be at my beck and call for 2 weeks. Now personally I don't really care about my mate's choice of holiday add-ons (pretty much the only option with 2 kids anyway) but were I more left wing I'd likely be quite jealous of that luxury while bemoaning the inequity. It's the first thing you hear about India from many, the poverty.

Thanks for that completely irrelevant anecdote.

[anonymous-user]

R Mutt said:

My mate went on holiday and hired a driver for the whole fortnight.

Now this extravagance, while it cost virtually nothing compared to what it might in the UK, would not have been something I would have considered, partially due to the expense and partially because it would seem odd to me to pay someone peanuts to be at my beck and call for 2 weeks. Now personally I don't really care about my mate's choice of holiday add-ons (pretty much the only option with 2 kids anyway) but were I more left wing I'd likely be quite jealous of that luxury while bemoaning the inequity. It's the first thing you hear about India from many, the poverty.

I was with you up to "but were I more left wing.." when I lost the thread of what the point was. You wouldn't do it because "odd" but a more left wing person would or wouldn't and why? Just trying to clarify.

[TeamD]

Roman Rhodes said:

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

At which point the person that wants to work harder to have a better life becomes a slave to the bone idle who can't be bothered.

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

And your point is?

Why should it be my fault if people can't or won't get off of their arse and earn a living?

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

troll

[Nickgnome]

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

At which point the person that wants to work harder to have a better life becomes a slave to the bone idle who can't be bothered.

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

And your point is?

Why should it be my fault if people can't or won't get off of their arse and earn a living?

Are you of the opinion that the services you receive through life from birth to death are only those that you can personally pay for?

[R Mutt]

Roman Rhodes said:

I was with you up to "but were I more left wing.." when I lost the thread of what the point was. You wouldn't do it because "odd" but a more left wing person would or wouldn't and why? Just trying to clarify.

I would find it odd/ uncomfortable having someone sitting around waiting on me. Others unable to afford such a service might present this as a moral choice. Not the politics of envy, but politicisation of their envy or at best their financial situation.

[TeamD]

Nickgnome said:

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

TeamD said:

Roman Rhodes said:

otolith said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.

You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3.

It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.

You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.

I'm simply giving you a motivation as to why someone could agree that it was right to tax the rich more even if the total amount of tax raised didn't increase. You first sentence simply illustrates that you are incapable of understanding a simple proposition - I'm not "getting £4 from" you or anyone else - the tax pot is, I've never paid £3, I was paying £2 into the tax pot and now I'm paying £1 into the tax pot because you're paying more. Fred is irrelevant as I've said before.

You believe the people responding 'Yes' to the question are motivated solely by spite, envy and jealously. I'm simply saying that that doesn't have to be the case. You clearly don't agree! Rather a shame that you live with such bitter feelings towards your fellow man but it takes all sorts.

At which point the person that wants to work harder to have a better life becomes a slave to the bone idle who can't be bothered.

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

And your point is?

Why should it be my fault if people can't or won't get off of their arse and earn a living?

Are you of the opinion that the services you receive through life from birth to death are only those that you can personally pay for?

Much of it was paid for by my parents in early life, subsequently, I have to pay my own way, Yes.

[anonymous-user]

R Mutt said:

Roman Rhodes said:

I was with you up to "but were I more left wing.." when I lost the thread of what the point was. You wouldn't do it because "odd" but a more left wing person would or wouldn't and why? Just trying to clarify.

I would find it odd/ uncomfortable having someone sitting around waiting on me. Others unable to afford such a service might present this as a moral choice. Not the politics of envy, but politicisation of their envy or at best their financial situation.

I understood your position but didn't understand the left wing bit and still don't. Are you talking about a left wing person who can't or can afford a driver? How would they differ from a right wing person who could or couldn't afford a driver?

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

troll

sweet!

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Roman Rhodes said:

At which point you have neatly summarised the position of the many on this thread - lower earners are lower earners because they are "bone idle". Nice!

troll

sweet!

[R Mutt]

Roman Rhodes said:

I understood your position but didn't understand the left wing bit and still don't. Are you talking about a left wing person who can't or can afford a driver? How would they differ from a right wing person who could or couldn't afford a driver?

Someone on the right probably wouldn't care about the plight of the driver but the other side might present that as their justification for not taking a driver despite financially not having the option. Now those who bemoan workers rights and Capitalism who will happily use such a service, or when at home have someone on a zero hours contract at minimum wage cycle to them with their dinner on their back (I'm referring of course to Deliveroo) are just hypocrites.