My blog on fining the rich more for repeat driving offences has provoked some thoughtful contributions, but also some angry ones, like this email I received.
It’s titled “Socialists are clowns” and the person writes :
“I have always despised socialists and their politics of envy, however you take the cake with your suggestion of fining those on higher incomes more than those on lower incomes. First of all those who are on higher incomes tend to be more honest, higher achievers, more responsible and actually contribute to rather than take from society. I happen to be a person who through hard work and effort have managed to get myself into a position where I am one of the 3% who contribute 26% of the tax take to this ridiculous socialist state that NZ has been turned into. I am sick and tired of having this money stolen from me every fortnight and given to useless, irresponsible individuals who have been given every chance in life, however, have decided to take the easy bludging way out.”
There’s more I won’t share, because it’s pretty abusive, but you get the drift.
On the whole, I find Kiwis pretty generous and caring, so I am always taken aback to hear these kind of opinions. However, everyone has the right to express their point of view – and that’s why I like Red Alert, because anyone can say (pretty much) what they think.
Let me be clear. This view of the world is not confined to those on higher incomes and nor do I want to imply that all those better off support this attitude – because I know that isn’t true. I’ve heard similar refrains from people from a range of economic circumstances and backgrounds.
Some describe this as “downward envy”- in other words, battlers who feel they are missing out on something given to others who aren’t as deserving or hard-working, or as one analyst put it “the unhealthy desires of some people to ensure that anyone they deem to be lower on the social and economic scale than themselves stays there.”
In the book I referred to recently, called “How to argue with an economist” author Lindy Edwards writes that the (Australian) economic reform agenda of the 1980s taught Aussies that they live in a “dog eat dog” world, where they had to struggle against one another to survive.
“In the national rhetoric quality of life was replaced with economic efficiency, security became a competitive edge and a fair go became a knock-down drag-out affair.”
The economic reform programme undermined Australia’s commitment to equality and the gap between the haves and the have-nots widened. The Labor government tried to cushion the blow by increasing the social wage, which included government funded family assistance, targeted at the least well-off and those who lost their jobs.
But Edwards says this changed the culture of equality. A social stigma was attached to “dole bludgers” and middle income earners began to resent the “handouts” as they lost ground because they were excluded from the support targeted at the lowest income groups.
This was the downward envy that Pauline Hanson was able to capture so effectively in her One Nation Party and in New Zealand, Don Brash captured downward envy in his Orewa speech in a way that took many of us by surprise. The National government is mining this vein again with Paula Bennett’s moves on making the unemployed reapply for the dole every 12 months and forcing mothers to work.
Will this satisfy people like my emailer and what would make him feel less begrudging of those who are not doing as well as he is?
One of the reasons I’m in Labour is a belief in fairness, security and dignity for everyone, not just a few.
I suppose it depends on what you think that means.
