Source: Composite by G_marius based on Department of Energy’s and Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s images
Often used as snub against those who believe we should tax the rich more, take their second homes, and get the wealthy to contribute more to public life, the "politics of envy" is making its way back into contemporary political discourse. In our age of growing inequality and the growing chasm between rich and poor around the world, there is a resurgent belief in the need for a redistribution of wealth. Recently, Ed Milliband's proposed mansion tax on homes worth over £2million was blasted by Myleene Klass who told him: "you can't just point at things and tax them". Furthermore, Angelina Jolie has said this proposed mansion tax by the Labour Leader "could put me off" buying a home in the UK. The intervention of Klass and Jolie illustrates something of the backlash against the so-called "politics of envy".
However, some say that is not so much the politics of envy but rather just a statement of values in society and a belief that those who benefit more from society should have a legal obligation to contribute more to society. So are those who want to redistribute wealth in society motivated by justice, or by envy?
Are the new proposals for taxing wealth, such taxes on mansions, marking the return of the politics of envy or simply an expression of social values and justice? Vote and share your views about these political proposals.
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
1651 xp
475 posts
I agree, when a majority imposes its rules to a minority, it could be wrong. But not when the minority is powerful. Money is power. Rich people find multiple ways to escape their financial duties because they can influence people who make the rules, sometimes even they are the one who make the rules... Honestly I find it hilarious to use the word tyranny when we are speaking about the general population to decide how much rich people should pay taxes. Especially when the main argument is that rich people pay less taxes proportionally compared to middle class people and things should be made so they at least pay what they owe. I don't believe that wealth taxation will redistribute wealth, but it will allow to pay for social programs (health, education etc...) that will improve the quality of life and the future for most.
1360 xp
344 posts
When decisions are made by a majority that place their interests above those of a minority then, you're really talking about a tyranny. For 'standard rights'we have bills of rights and constitutions however somehow fair taxation is not one of them. A flat tax rate is already a bit of a travesty (if we assume we all use the same roads and hospitals) but most of us can live with paying a given proportion of income- so the more you earn, the more you pay. If the majority decide that above a certain income level 'rich people' also have to pay more in proportion then you're entering the realm of tyranny. Your assertion of wealth creation underpins the notion wealth taxation is based on a skewered notion of wealth redistribution.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
