1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

"The Politics of Envy"

Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Dec 27, 2018.

  1. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    A socialist speciality:cool:
  2. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Not just them, most multinationals, the ones who own the companies that produce nearly everything we buy... Do we want them? I don't want all but I value the choice and low prices their size facilitates and there are a fair few folk who can't live without their Cadburys drinking chocolate, and any number of products in their fridge and bathroom cabinets.

    Edit - if you don't like it don't buy it and if everyone who feels the same does the same they will move on to the next market... Not sure if that helps the tax situation or distribution of wealth though it might get make folk feel better.
  3. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    Amazon actually makes little money on many of its operations I am told. Wealth, taxed at source means for some firms leaving an area because not enough profit is made to facilitate change and development in that area.
    These arguments have been made many times on here, The presumption is that the poor will be thankful if the rich give them more of their wealth,However, you need to define the difference between economic wealth, gained and used for the benefit of a person, company or country and wealth which exists due to legacy or dividends. Even here hitting this wealth can result in unforeseen changes.. eg death taxes in which the prudent who buy a house are then penalised and taxed on its value, on death. The house might be sold but is it of benefit to the poor? or simply a gross tax on unearned wealth.
    The action of a government or society to penalise another section can have huge ramifications down the line, Brown's raid on the pension pots of investors is an example. Folks saving for their pensions prudently were suddenly cut off from dividends due to his actions, highly applauded by the socialist side of our population. Down the line, instead of having a better pension lifestyle they had less economic wealth to spend.
    needabreak likes this.
  4. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Yes the loss of incentive on an individual or small/medium sized firm to be more economically productive would potentially be huge, as would loss of tax revenue if companies closed or indeed left, we should remember that not everyone can live off other people's taxes so priority should be given to those in greatest need not just those who think they deserve it because it they are relatively poor.

    Dare I use the alleged quote from the late MT on the trouble with socialism? Thus as was already mentioned a balanced progressive tax regime is all that is required not imbalance in either direction.
  5. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    You are using the wrong "e" word. The one you should be using is "exploitation" which is what equality (lack thereof) and capitalism is based on. The terms "politics of envy" and "caring capitalism" are used to try to make ripping people off, exploiting them, and deliberately keeping them poor and as underdogs, sound a bit nicer. It isn't; all capitalists are b*stards. I saw Branson on some daytime tripe today sayinge he had been "lucky". My ***e. He has ripped off this country for 50 bloody years.
  6. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Exploitation can be managed with legislation and regulation... It's also relative since we don't as far as I am aware have child labour and slavery in the UK to the extent that has been evident even recently in other countries along the supply chain of goods that we all purchase here.

    Even if you disagree what is your better alternative to Capitalism?
  7. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    We've tried that... it hasn't worked.

    Maybe we need a hefty tax on poverty, to encourage people out of being poor. A kick up the behind so to speak.

    [I wonder how many will assume I'm serious]
  8. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    So its ok that families in this country cannot survive on the "living wage" ( a misnomer if ever there was one) and have to go cap in hand to HMG for Universal Credit, thus holding them in a cycle of poverty they will never get out of? The "regulation" such as it is is one of the things the Brexiteers want to drop as soon as we fall out of the EU, and the economy being stuffed by leaving is the excuse they are looking for. Look at history and what the capitalists did in the nineteenth and early 20th centuries every time there was an economic downturn. They still did it in 2010 when pig lover Cameron and his cronies took over.
    monicabilongame likes this.
  9. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Where did I say that was ok?

    You and others seem to blame Capitalism for all societies ills and then blame the successful people, no wonder they are leaving... Who would strive to be successful here only to become a scapegoat for societies failure to look after the needy ... and the apparently increasing numbers of people who cannot look after themselves? It appears to be a cycle of failure.

    What will you do when the successful tax payers have left, leaving shrinking tax revenues to prop up the welfare of those less successful? Who will be left to blame?

    I asked what your alternative is?
    peter12171 likes this.
  10. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    This is what baffles me... people look at failings of the State and blame capitalism for it. Capitalism provides the funds we need to ensure the State can provide to the most needy. If the State is failing, why blame capitalism? Blame the State and the utterly useless politicians [of whichever party] that are running it.

    Thing is, if Corbyn was running the show, I suspect the voices of the concerned left on here would be silent about the failings of the State. They aren't really interested in the poor and the impact of poverty. They just want to knock the government. It's like people raising the homeless on threads... mostly it's just an excuse to knock the Tories.
    Oscillatingass and needabreak like this.
  11. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Inequality is about more than wastery. It ia also about access to better transport, better health care, better education, better food, better clothes, better housing...
    MAGAorMIGA likes this.
  12. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Not necessarily.
  13. Photo51

    Photo51 Established commenter

    Capitalism has provided all of those.
  14. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    There is a lower limit to that below which you die.
  15. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Regulation. If there is a profit to be made someone will step in. If someone can't get used to other drinking chocolates they will pay tax to import the one they want rather than moving to the country that makes it. Project Fear is really about people taking their money out of the country rather than pay more.
    Mangleworzle likes this.
  16. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    It is unfettered capitalism that is the issue, not the simplistic description of just capitalism. As time goes on, so technology in particular has provided the means to earn more by some for doing less, and to make others work more to get less.

    The depiction of a rich-poor divide is part of the problem. While some are certainly kept down by rules and systems devised by and for the benefit of the rich, the main reason to mention the "poor" by the rich is by way of describing their problems as being self-inflicted and not deserving of pity or help.

    Thereby a greater number of people consider themselves to be "not poor", not like them-over-there who are thick or lazy or just enjoy living in shop doorways or enjoy food-bank shopping as a lifestyle choice.

    The result is that most people who should be doing better aren't. The divides are getting wider thanks to the excesses of capitalism. Telling people to shop elsewhere is a just a sop designed to shift the blame.
    monicabilongame and MAGAorMIGA like this.
  17. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I know several people who refuse to buy from Amazon on principle tell that to them... Otherwise having your cake and wanting to eat it comes to mind.

    I ask again other than Capitalism of which a mixed economy is part, what is the alternative and how do those of you who see it as the cause of all social ills propose it be implemented?
  18. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    This is about people complaining about the MNC's they want to nay choose to patronise.

    There Is a distinct lack of will to do anything but blame I fear.
  19. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    Consumers can sometimes make a difference by changing their shopping habits, but mainly it's about making themselves feel better.

    When I was a student, filling your supermarket trolley with South African goods was a bit of thing, then asking to see the manager or going through the checkout and saying how intolerable it is to have so many SA goods, not paying and then walking off. I'm pretty sure it wasn't this sort of behaviour that ended apartheid.
    And I say again, that it is not capitalism that the problem in a simple black and white manner but unfettered capitalism, so it needs more fettering. Also companies need to be made socially responsible, paying their taxes in full in the country where the profit is made would be a start rather than pretending to be based in some low-tax regime with layers of shell companies and other dodgy dealings.
  20. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    racroesus likes this.

Share This Page