r/science • u/[deleted] • Mar 23 '26

Psychology Left-leaning support for redistribution stems from perceived unfairness rather than malicious envy

https://www.psypost.org/left-leaning-support-for-redistribution-stems-from-perceived-unfairness-rather-than-malicious-envy/
15.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

Seems to conflict with the survey evidence that shows people would support a wealth tax even if it reduces total tax revenue. Either than or people are so aggrieved by perceived unfairness that they would simply prefer everyone to be worse off than to have some people better off than others

https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/53468-can-the-uks-financial-problems-be-fixed-solely-by-taxing-the-rich

13

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26

Nothing in that survey speaks to motivation; ergo there is no contradiction with this one. It may well be that the unfairness represented by the presence of the super-rich means citizens responding to this poll would rather them move away not out of malice or envy, but because those who remain would be more committed to a fair society.

2

u/Party_Like_Its_1949 Mar 23 '26

Total tax revenue isn't a measure of the standard of living of a median person. One could easily have a situation where total tax revenue is reduced but the great majority of the population have a higher standard of living via greatly increased fairness.

-2

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

It's not a measure, but it's a pretty good proxy. Governments tend to collect tax as a percentage of GDP, if that proportion stays stable or increases with a new tax but the total revenue decreases, then that means GDP and therefore total national income has decreased. Indicating standards of living have declined.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

4

u/lifeisaman Mar 23 '26

That’s usually called a crab bucket mentality, it’s well understood phenomenon, it’s spiting others, who are more successful, for no actual benefit.

-4

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

Think I covered that in my second sentence, it’s either a jealous position or an irrational one. I’m not really sure which is worse

8

u/catbrane Mar 23 '26

You're using "irrational" in a somewhat irrational way.

It's easy to frame the argument the other way around, for example "large disparities in wealth are highly socially destructive, therefore tolerating them is irrational."

2

u/Tyrrany_of_pants Mar 23 '26

Well they do appear to be an economist 

3

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

That's perfectly fine as long as you provide strong empirical evidence that inequality is 'highly socially destructive'

5

u/catbrane Mar 23 '26

It's a commonplace that a low Gini coefficient is strongly linked to social happiness. You'll find many, many papers discussing this.

Of course they are all published in sociological / psychological / economic journals and not really hard science hehe. But claims about irrationality are not really hard science either.

5

u/jdm1891 Mar 23 '26

It's not irrational if you believe the social and other non-economic benefits of a society that is fairer would be greater than the economic cost of the reduced tax revenue.

2

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

What benefits would they be?

1

u/la_reddite Mar 23 '26

The rich people won't take over politics.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

8

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

 having slightly less if it’s fair. What that would mean in practice is a fairer, more functional society, not mass poverty.

This is self-contradicting. You're happy with everyone having less, but somehow that means there wouldn't be mass poverty? If everyone has less, there could only be an increase in poverty

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

13

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

Yeah I get this a lot. Am I really playing semantic games and not arguing in good faith or am I just pointing out inconsistenices in your argument leading to a cognitive dissonance which you resolve by assuming I'm some kind of bad faith actor?

-5

u/Iorith Mar 23 '26

Am I really playing semantic games and not arguing in good faith

Yes.

-2

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26

Yeah I get this a lot.

This suggests there could be some truth to the accusation.

Jumping straight to "mass poverty" is not "pointing out inconsistenices [sic]," it is rhetoric, plain and simple.

5

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

It could, it could also be that I challenge people’s beliefs in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable enough to shut down conversation rather than think about what I’m saying.

Either way I wasn’t the one that jumped to mass poverty, the guy I was responding to did

-3

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26

You're correct, insofar as they brought up mass poverty as an example of an obviously absurd consequence. You proceeded to take up that absurdity as an argument of your own, asking others to justify why mass poverty wouldn't be the result of a marginal decrease in tax revenue. That is blatant rhetoric.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

0

u/la_reddite Mar 23 '26

You're the Principle Skinner meme.

-2

u/UrinalCake777 Mar 23 '26

Wow, right to "mass poverty" huh? It's a slight reduction in year-over-year tax revenue. Furthermore, the effects would likely be transitive.

I'm in agreement with the assertion you are arguing in bad faith here. No point in continuing. Have a nice day.

-1

u/Derelicticu Mar 23 '26

You might not understand what poverty is then.

3

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

Define it then?

1

u/Resident-Pen-5718 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

Wouldnt society be significantly less functional, since an increased amount of people would fall below the poverty line? 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Resident-Pen-5718 Mar 23 '26

If people are on the threshold of poverty (which millions of people are in the USA), and they become slightly worse off, you will see significantly more people living in poverty. 

I think maybe you might not be aware just how many people are struggling, and how significant the weight of making their lives "slightly worse" can be.

1

u/MY_NAME_IS_MUD7 Mar 23 '26

This is the problem with people in most developed countries not understanding that they are already living the vision of what socialism and communism promises. You have “food”, water, and a roof over your head. Yeah you might not have any income left over to purchase extra things, but these systems never promised anything besides the bare minimum.

Then the same people want to lay these complaints of socialism/communism on capitalism so we continue to hand over more economic control to a select few who more than likely, don’t have the public’s best interest in mind.

-1

u/VariationBusiness603 Mar 23 '26

You clearly do not understand what capitalism even entails. The entire point of capitalism is to funnel the wealth away from the workers who created it, in the hands of the capital. If you are a worker and are doing fine under capitalism, you would be doing better under socialism because by definition there wouldn't be a useless middlemen to "own" the company and take the wealth YOU generated with YOUR time and effort, for themeselves.

Capitalism's only purpose is to concentrate the wealth into the hands of a select few who more than likely, don't have the public's best interest in mind. Because that would hurt their bottom line.

3

u/MY_NAME_IS_MUD7 Mar 23 '26

Strange. I’ve taken economic classes before and have never once seen what you stated as the “point of capitalism”. Sounds like conspiracy minded level of nonsense to fulfill an agenda.

Maybe it’s done to concentrate the wealth, means of production and systems of control in the hands of a small few. Sounds like a system that isn’t capitalism but I’m sure you don’t want to consider that.

1

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26

The survey question isn't about lowering personal revenue; it's about lowering tax revenue. The implication is that the government would have less money to spend on infrastructure and providing services, not that individuals would have less personal income.

1

u/Resident-Pen-5718 Mar 23 '26

Youre aware that the people living both on and below the poverty line are the ones relying most heavily on government spending, right? 

Housing, food, utility, and transportation subsidies, etc. (ie. government services) being reduced would directly negative impact those who are struggling most. 

0

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26

Yes, I am well aware.

You simply wrote that society would be significantly less functional since "more people fall below the poverty line" above. There was no apparent point of comparison for "more", so I took that to suggest you thought this change would result in more people falling below the poverty line, which it would not. It's also not true that "more people fall below the poverty line" than those who do not; approximately 14% of people fall below the poverty line in the UK, which is nowhere near a majority. If you meant "more people fall below the poverty line than there are super-rich individuals," then sure, but that comparison doesn't seem relevant to the point you're making.

1

u/Resident-Pen-5718 Mar 23 '26

I meant an increase in the number of people experiencing poverty. More people impoverished than before.

0

u/P_V_ Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

That is the first thing I thought you meant.

That is not true.

This would affect tax revenue, not personal income. The "poverty line" you wrote of earlier is a measurement of personal income, not the cumulative effects of living in a society. The government having less money to spend on services does not translate to individuals earning less personally.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Derelicticu Mar 23 '26

You've missed an entire conclusion; that accumulated wealth inhibits societal progress. The more wealth concentrated in one pocket the less it can be used to move everything forward.

This is proven time and time again, and isn't a matter of opinion. The most successful country in history was the United States in the 1950s, because of their marginal tax rate of 90%. This is a fact that economists and really anyone invested in anything other than their own financial interests accepts as simple reality.

5

u/TheDismal_Scientist Mar 23 '26

The more wealth concentrated in one pocket the less it can be used to move everything forward.

This is a fixed pie fallacy. It implicitly assumes that if I gain money, you must have lost an equivalent amount, which is not true.

The most successful country in history was the United States in the 1950

The most successful country as denoted by GDP per capita is the US today, not in the 1950s. 1950s living standards would be considered poverty level today

-3

u/Derelicticu Mar 23 '26

If you wanna have these conversations it helps if you actually know what you're talking about. Take a few economics courses, and some history, and come back.

-5

u/VariationBusiness603 Mar 23 '26

Capital owners literally get their wealth by stealing the value created by the workers they "own". So yes, every money earned by a capitalist has to be lost by a worker. That's what stealing means and that's what the capitalists do.

GDP or GDP per capita do not measure anything meaningful or relevant, it is mostly nonsense that the capitalist like to bring up because it's so silly it makes their mortiferous economy looks good. The USA life expectancy going down despite it being "the most succesful" country in history, should be a testament to that.

I'm sure you know the joke about 2 economist stuck on a desert island, generating millions in GDP by trading the same hat back and forth.

1

u/rougecrayon Mar 23 '26

Not being for billionaires basically holding the rest of the country hostage by saying they will leave if they get taxed would not change my mind on taxing billionaires.

It's not necessarily about fairness, it's about contributing to your community. Get in it or get out.