A recent article in the New Statesman by Anoosh Chakelian was titled ‘To match the poverty line, experts are now drawing a ‘riches line’ for too much wealth.’ Thankfully the article was not as bad as the title may suggest (which again serves as a healthy reminder to those who love to dive into the comment section on Twitter). It certainly was not as bad as George Monbiot’s incredibly misguided article asking for wealth limits. 

Ms Chakelian was mainly discussing this report which outlined public perceptions of different levels of prosperity. The majority of society is split into 5 bands, ranging from A - ‘The minimum income standard’ to E - ‘The Super Rich.’ It goes without saying that we should obviously be trying to move people up these bands (and prioritising the ascent of those closer to the bottom) rather than trying to move people down or restricting access into higher bands because they have already reached what we have deemed a satisfactory amount. 

Thus it was heartening to see that ‘only at or above Level D that any negative aspects of being rich were expressed’ and that ‘focus groups’ responses suggested there is “no appetite for defining a threshold above which riches are problematic.’” However, this should be no surprise when considering the rejection of the politics of envy in the last three elections. 

Although we should be desperately seeking to raise those currently in Bands A and B out of them, it is worth considering that things such as a mobile phone, a holiday away, as well as ability to eat out at very specifically described ‘restaurants with £15-£20 main courses’ were things unavailable to many until fairly recently (and still shamefully unavailable to a small few currently) and also would be regarded as luxuries by many around the world. 

The poverty line is an incredibly useful tool. It helps focus minds to help those below it and clearly demonstrates the remarkable progress made over the years. Indeed it would be nice to look back in 50 years time and see some of the aspects of Bands D and E such as five holidays a year, yachts and pedigree pets become much more normalised and enjoyed by all or at least many. 

What would be a tragedy though is if this future was sacrificed so that everyone could just sit stationary in bands B or C. Maybe it’s good that ‘people identify with the wealthy as their imagined or aspirational selves’ because they are not prepared to vote for policies that would make society settle for less. Maybe this aspiration helps drive entrepreneurship, technological development and many other features that help create value for society. And just maybe we should encourage this aspiration, while also appreciating that increased wealth creation helps provide the government revenue to help those who need a hand up out of homeless or aid those struggling at the minimum income standard who may need assistance.  

Most people understand prosperity is not a zero sum game. So let’s get back to the conversation about helping those who are struggling, rather than deliberately pulling down those at the top.