What is “Politics of envy”?
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
You don't get paid for being a human being, but for providing goods and services people want. If you tamper with that principle shortages and poverty follow.
But in many countries you do. A severely disabled person will get paid for being a human being for example - or their carers get paid. Those countries haven’t yet seen poverty and shortages. Normally it is the other way round - countries with poverty & shortages don’t make these payments. However, what we see almost universally is that when countries hit ‘middle income’ status these payments start being made.
The politics of envy (on the right) is to say that these payments are over generous/ go to the undeserving poor etc
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　
popegregory said:
Hol said:
the pub analogy
Isn’t the key point here that the pub took £20 less in the first place and therefore had to close - fortunately the richest guy was in a private members club so could go and use that instead?But they were all entitled (the word of the day) to an equally sized beer whilst it was still open.
In the version I copied from, the strapline was that he went abroad and took his income with him.
Irrespective of the strapline the point it makes is that things only went wrong when the people paying less or no tax, became envious of the savings made by people who still supporting them and others, by paying more tax overall.
The thread title is:
What is “Politics of envy”?
Teddy Lop said:
fouronthefloor said:
Yes , but we all live on this earth and should be equally entitled within reason.
the problem is what but a tyranny can implement your equality?OP look up "zero sum thinking", the idea that anothers loss is automatically your gain, it's a corrosive mindset the permeates deeper than economics.
He never worked a day in the entire time I knew him!
wisbech said:
But in many countries you do. A severely disabled person will get paid for being a human being for example - or their carers get paid. Those countries haven’t yet seen poverty and shortages.
Choosing to provide assistance is not the same as saying someone is 'entitled'. If those who didn't work, for any reason, got the same as those who did then you would get poverty and shortages. There is no point in paying someone who is severely disabled unless they have something to spend it on, if there is no advantage to selling them stuff the whole system breaks down.Hol said:
popegregory said:
Hol said:
the pub analogy
Isn’t the key point here that the pub took £20 less in the first place and therefore had to close - fortunately the richest guy was in a private members club so could go and use that instead?But they were all entitled (the word of the day) to an equally sized beer whilst it was still open.
In the version I copied from, the strapline was that he went abroad and took his income with him.
Irrespective of the strapline the point it makes is that things only went wrong when the people paying less or no tax, became envious of the savings made by people who still supporting them and others, by paying more tax overall.
The thread title is:
What is “Politics of envy”?
Integroo said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I guess it's encapsulated in that great bar chart (someone help me out please) that showed Labour voters wanted a 50p top rate of tax brought in, even if it didn't actually raise any extra revenue.
Except the evidence you are claiming exists doesn't actually exist.''I would keep the 50p rate permanently. It’s not just about reducing the deficit, it’s about fairness in our society and that’s why I’d keep the 50p tax rate, not just for a parliament.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/labo...
and
[i]“The best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the election,” it said.
However, the economists noted that even if the 50p tax did not raise money, it might help to address economic inequality. [/i]
There's a lot of 'politics of envy' but most of what I see and despise is similar but I don't think falls in to that bracket.
Demonisation of wealth or money for one, is not coming from those who want it but largely those who never needed it. I'm quite happy for the poor to demand more, but many from good backgrounds have decided not to earn it.
One element that does betray the envy though is that people only look to those better off than them to contribute more, when in fact they're more comfortable than the majority of the population.
Demonisation of wealth or money for one, is not coming from those who want it but largely those who never needed it. I'm quite happy for the poor to demand more, but many from good backgrounds have decided not to earn it.
One element that does betray the envy though is that people only look to those better off than them to contribute more, when in fact they're more comfortable than the majority of the population.
Johnnytheboy said:
I guess it's encapsulated in that great bar chart (someone help me out please) that showed Labour voters wanted a 50p top rate of tax brought in, even if it didn't actually raise any extra revenue.
That doesn't prove or disprove 'politics of envy' at all. That just shows that some people have a more principled approach or different perception of fairness. It may or may not be misplaced - personally I think it is misplaced albeit well-intentioned.'Politics of envy' as a phrase gets used a lot on PH but I see it referred to very little elsewhere, including by low-tax supporting politicians. Whilst there are no doubt some people for whom envy plays a part, I think that's a tiny minority and as a phrase, it's over-used.
Justayellowbadge said:
Integroo said:
Precisely. Surely true capitalists would have 100% inheritance tax, no private education, put as much effort in as possible so that everyone had exactly the same opportunities? Then the hardest working and brightest will succeed and become wealthy and the lazy feckless and unfortunate will not.
True capitalists would not favour being dictated to as to what they can and cannot do with their money. fouronthefloor said:
It's interesting to see how people feel as though they're 'entitled' when everyone is born and everyone dies.
Everyone is equal until money comes into the equation.
Well I don't have the brain of Steven Hawking, the looks of George Clooney and the athleticism of Usain Bolt. I'm not getting my fair share, who do I complain to?Everyone is equal until money comes into the equation.
cb31 said:
fouronthefloor said:
It's interesting to see how people feel as though they're 'entitled' when everyone is born and everyone dies.
Everyone is equal until money comes into the equation.
Well I don't have the brain of Steven Hawking, the looks of George Clooney and the athleticism of Usain Bolt. I'm not getting my fair share, who do I complain to?Everyone is equal until money comes into the equation.
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
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
Dr Jekyll said:
Choosing to provide assistance is not the same as saying someone is 'entitled'. If those who didn't work, for any reason, got the same as those who did then you would get poverty and shortages. There is no point in paying someone who is severely disabled unless they have something to spend it on, if there is no advantage to selling them stuff the whole system breaks down.
not sure what the difference is between saying a disabled person is entitled, vs saying that as a society we choose to pass laws saying they should be paidIf I chose to stop working, I would still get a lot more than many who do work from my savings and investments, yet I don’t expect poverty & shortages due to my retirement (though I don’t think this is what you mean)
I saw (20 years ago) in Indonesia a policy of giving people money ‘for nothing’ that was amazingly successful. During the financial crisis, the government, almost in panic, decided to pay poor families to keep kids in school rather than risk a generation without education (it was 15 quid a month if the kid was regularly going to school)
It had a multiplier effect that was unexpected. Suddenly there was cash in rural villages. People set up small tuck shops. Others borrowed money to buy a motorbike to be able to buy supplies from wholesalers to resell. And the kids stayed in school.
Sure, some cash was wasted on cigarettes. But people, in general, want what’s good for their family so not much
So, yes, there is no point paying disabled people if there is nothing to spend their money on. But the flip side - no one is going to sell them stuff unless they have money to spend. Will they spend stuff on things we maybe don’t want them too? Sure. But saying that someone disabled shouldn’t subscribe to (say) a porn channel or Sky with benefits money is also the politics of envy.
(When my dad was in early dementia, one of the few things he was still interested in watching was hard core porn. It was cheap, and my mum didn’t mind as she knew where he was, and it made him happy)
wisbech said:
not sure what the difference is between saying a disabled person is entitled, vs saying that as a society we choose to pass laws saying they should be paid
If I chose to stop working, I would still get a lot more than many who do work from my savings and investments, yet I don’t expect poverty & shortages due to my retirement (though I don’t think this is what you mean)
I saw (20 years ago) in Indonesia a policy of giving people money ‘for nothing’ that was amazingly successful. During the financial crisis, the government, almost in panic, decided to pay poor families to keep kids in school rather than risk a generation without education (it was 15 quid a month if the kid was regularly going to school)
It had a multiplier effect that was unexpected. Suddenly there was cash in rural villages. People set up small tuck shops. Others borrowed money to buy a motorbike to be able to buy supplies from wholesalers to resell. And the kids stayed in school.
Sure, some cash was wasted on cigarettes. But people, in general, want what’s good for their family so not much
So, yes, there is no point paying disabled people if there is nothing to spend their money on. But the flip side - no one is going to sell them stuff unless they have money to spend. Will they spend stuff on things we maybe don’t want them too? Sure. But saying that someone disabled shouldn’t subscribe to (say) a porn channel or Sky with benefits money is also the politics of envy.
(When my dad was in early dementia, one of the few things he was still interested in watching was hard core porn. It was cheap, and my mum didn’t mind as she knew where he was, and it made him happy)
That anecdote got weird quite quickly. If I chose to stop working, I would still get a lot more than many who do work from my savings and investments, yet I don’t expect poverty & shortages due to my retirement (though I don’t think this is what you mean)
I saw (20 years ago) in Indonesia a policy of giving people money ‘for nothing’ that was amazingly successful. During the financial crisis, the government, almost in panic, decided to pay poor families to keep kids in school rather than risk a generation without education (it was 15 quid a month if the kid was regularly going to school)
It had a multiplier effect that was unexpected. Suddenly there was cash in rural villages. People set up small tuck shops. Others borrowed money to buy a motorbike to be able to buy supplies from wholesalers to resell. And the kids stayed in school.
Sure, some cash was wasted on cigarettes. But people, in general, want what’s good for their family so not much
So, yes, there is no point paying disabled people if there is nothing to spend their money on. But the flip side - no one is going to sell them stuff unless they have money to spend. Will they spend stuff on things we maybe don’t want them too? Sure. But saying that someone disabled shouldn’t subscribe to (say) a porn channel or Sky with benefits money is also the politics of envy.
(When my dad was in early dementia, one of the few things he was still interested in watching was hard core porn. It was cheap, and my mum didn’t mind as she knew where he was, and it made him happy)
Though you make an excellent point.
'Politics of envy' is a phrase used by the privileged to maintain their privilege. There is a vast chasm between socialism and wanting a less unequal, more inclusive society.
Not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. In capitalism, there will always be winners and losers. Sadly, as it stands, being the winner is only a small part down to how hard you work.
wisbech said:
not sure what the difference is between saying a disabled person is entitled, vs saying that as a society we choose to pass laws saying they should be paid
The difference is between you deciding to put some of the money you've earned into a charity of your choice, and me saying you have a moral duty to put it into a charity of my choice.oyster said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I guess it's encapsulated in that great bar chart (someone help me out please) that showed Labour voters wanted a 50p top rate of tax brought in, even if it didn't actually raise any extra revenue.
That doesn't prove or disprove 'politics of envy' at all. That just shows that some people have a more principled approach or different perception of fairness. It may or may not be misplaced - personally I think it is misplaced albeit well-intentioned.'Politics of envy' as a phrase gets used a lot on PH but I see it referred to very little elsewhere, including by low-tax supporting politicians. Whilst there are no doubt some people for whom envy plays a part, I think that's a tiny minority and as a phrase, it's over-used.
Because it's just a phrase used to have a go at other people rather than a principle that anyone claims to support.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff