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.
1360 xp
344 posts
Progressive tax rates are predatory in nature, unjustly punishing success and largely inefficient as they only result in driving the most productive members of an economy (entrepreneurs and the like) to more tax efficient jurisdictions. The collection system is also heavily inefficient as successive governments include tax loopholes and many deductible exemptions to please different groups of voters. So you need a larger bureaucracy, more expensive and easier for people to evade. The negative income tax portion allows deductions for a strictly defined bracket of income which effectively supports low earning families ie all families start with a tax credit of x and only get taxed the flat rate for income above this rate.
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.
