What is “Politics of envy”?

[amusingduck]

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.

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?

[andy_s]

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

[oyster]

amusingduck said:

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.

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?

Only because you perceive it to be meant as punishment. I think many people genuinely believe so strongly in the principle of 'ability to pay'. PS. I don't, by the way - before you shoot me!

In any case, I think there's some huge flaws in that graph that keeps getting bandied around. The main flaw being that most people who desire higher taxes on the wealthy simply don't believe that they will raise less tax as a result. So despite the hypothetical caveat in the question, I suspect most respondents are dismissing the caveat in their answer.

[andy_s]

^ foxey sake, don't listen to me, I can't even post properly

[otolith]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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?

Maybe.

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”?

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?

[jshell]

loafer123 said:

If it reassures you, I know a few very wealthy people and they are no happier than you and I, and often a lot less so.

Yeah, me too.

[wisbech]

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

If as a society we pass social security laws, then it is no longer a moral duty- don’t pay tax = go to gaol...

[andy_s]

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]

[anonymous-user]

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.

[andy_s]

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

[amusingduck]

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?

[otolith]

El stovey said:

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

It's arguable that the difference in wealth inequality and the difference in social problems are both due to a difference in attitudes and culture. You may not be able to tax Americans into thinking like Scandinavians.

[grumbledoak]

The are a lot of differences between America and Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. The socialists focus only on the one they believe they can use to justify their goal of taking all the money from those who have it.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

El stovey said:

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

It's arguable that the difference in wealth inequality and the difference in social problems are both due to a difference in attitudes and culture. You may not be able to tax Americans into thinking like Scandinavians.

Quite. The population have to buy into it obviously for it to work.

The USA is all about the American dream and celebrating ‘success’ (wealth) and emphasis on the individual. Scandinavia is more about cooperative behaviour and collectivism and the wellbeing of the group.

People have to also have to imagine their tax is doing good and improving society rather than thinking it’s being wasted or going to causes they’re unhappy about.

In Norway for instance people might imagine their tax was being used to build schools and hospitals and improve society, on this thread posters appear to think their tax contributions are going to things that upset them like the lazy and “envious”

[grumbledoak]

El stovey said:

The USA is all about the American dream and celebrating ‘success’ (wealth) and emphasis on the individual. Scandinavia is more about cooperative behaviour and collectivism and the wellbeing of the group.

The Scandinavian countries were historically pretty isolated with basically zero immigration. As a result they have formed natural “groups” at country scale. Japan is similar. America is not.

Sweden, at least, seems determined to experiment. That will test some social and socialist theories.

[jfire]

El stovey said:

Quite. The population have to buy into it obviously for it to work.

The USA is all about the American dream and celebrating ‘success’ (wealth) and emphasis on the individual. Scandinavia is more about cooperative behaviour and collectivism and the wellbeing of the group.

People have to also have to imagine their tax is doing good and improving society rather than thinking it’s being wasted or going to causes they’re unhappy about.

In Norway for instance people might imagine their tax was being used to build schools and hospitals and improve society, on this thread posters appear to think their tax contributions are going to things that upset them like the lazy and “envious”

We're told our tax isn't going to schools and it's the comfortable left wing middle class who want anyone wealthier than them to contribute more. The rest are too busy being poor.

It's the same politics of Extinction Rebellion that removes responsibility from the individuas. If large corporations are paying 100% tax and emitting 0% carbon, those at the bottom can spend their benefits on McDonalds milkshakes and use 20 straws and the NHS can comfortably afford to treat their diabetes.

[Rivenink]

"Politics of envy" is usually a lazy ad-hominem aimed at anyone who suggests that income or tax is unbalanced.

It's used to stifle conversations about what is the best and fairest balance when it comes to income, tax and government spending.

It's "politics of envy" to suggest that the wealthy shareholders or owners of a company should pay more tax, when that company earns so much profit by employing workers who receive working tax credits to supplement their wages to something nearing the level required to not be classed as in poverty.

Or its "politics of envy" to suggest that maybe the banks should have been taxed more to pay back the massive national debt taken on to bail them out and save the economy.

It's a bit like how in America they could probabaly save billions in tax dollars by implementing some kind of universal healthcare, but its very politically charged because the American public have largely been convinced it's a communist plot by those who benefit from the massive profits the pharmaceutical industry gets from selling a $5 dollar bottle of pills for $500.

[amusingduck]

Rivenink said:

It's "politics of envy" to suggest that the wealthy shareholders or owners of a company should pay more tax, when that company earns so much profit by employing workers who receive working tax credits to supplement their wages to something nearing the level required to not be classed as in poverty.

How does charging them more tax reduce the need for working tax credits?