Forum Topic

Luxury Beliefs

Luxury beliefs can be described as opinions aimed at advertising the virtue of those who express them while costing them nothing. One example is the view that the rich should be taxed to fund public services. This is often advocated by individuals who are unlikely to be asked to make a financial contribution themeselves. Another is the view that the threat posed by Hamas does not justify Israel's campaign in Gaza, a judgment easy to make from the safety of Putney. Neither of these issues is straightforward, but the individuals who profess such views are often unwilling to listen to any mitigating arguments, dismissing those who make them as 'right wing' or worse.

Steven Rose ● 16h13 Comments

Mr RoseI wonder what level of taxation Mr Brigo pays on the profits from Brigo Personal Training 'where we create body transformations for women with busy lives by providing an all-in-one fitness service at their home'.

John Hawkes ● 35m

Mr Ixer'So I can't see why anyone following a Jewish, Christian or Islamic religion would object to the principle of taxation, particularly in a secular democracy where the government is elected by the people. (Well, to some extent, as obviously in the UK we don't elect the Head of State or Lords ).Did the electorate vote for the Labour Government's increases in taxation ?Was it in their manifesto ?BTW sad to read of the demise of Lou Gerstner the man who put IBM back on its feet and top of the corporate IT industry.I have his signature on my study wall - 'in recognition and appreciation of 25 years service' !

John Hawkes ● 41m

Mr Ainsworth'If they bore, one must counter-bore.'And who better at it than you as your long diatribe generated by your artificial intelligence proves.

John Hawkes ● 51m

Mr Brigo'Not aware that anyone likes or dislikes it, just boring, hence the lack of engagement.'But you have engaged twice ?

John Hawkes ● 54m

Mr Brigo'Late contender for 'most boring post of 2025' right there.What a wag you are - just like BoycieI look forward to more of your jests to brighten up 2026.Though you have a strong challenger in Kier Starmer who 'was delighted' to welcome antisemitic Egyptian Islamist Alaa Abd El Fattah back into the country, a view supported by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Foreign Secretary David Lammy.And doubtles also by you I am sure.

John Hawkes ● 55m

My objection, Michael, is not to the principle of taxation but to the sanctimonious individuals who advocate taxes which they are unlikely to pay - wheher IHT on family homes in London or the mansion tax or VAT on private schools or the tax raid on family farms. The justification for this low level Bolshevism is that the people affected are rich and can afford it. But this is increasingly not the case as more and more middle class and sometime struggling families are dragged into the super tax bracket.

Steven Rose ● 1h

You amongst a few others have engaged. This particular period between Xmas and New Year is usually unstimulating, you just have to read newspapers to be bored at this time of year!

Lucille Grant ● 2h

It's purely Steven's opinion. One could view taxation as a secular extension of Church tithes? (Church tithes are a traditional practice, rooted in the Bible, of giving one-tenth (10%) of one's income or produce to a religious organization, serving to fund ministry, support the needy, and demonstrate faith and gratitude, though modern interpretations vary, with some viewing it as a guideline for generous giving rather than a strict Old Testament law, emphasizing cheerful, proportionate giving based on ability. Thank you to Mr Google's AI for the description. )The Bible obviously supports the poor being helped by the rich? So I can't see why anyone following a Jewish, Christian or Islamic religion would object to the principle of taxation, particularly in a secular democracy where the government is elected by the people. (Well, to some extent, as obviously in the UK we don't elect the Head of State or Lords )

Michael Ixer ● 2h

If they bore, one must counter-bore."The theory of "luxury beliefs," coined by Rob Henderson in 2019, is frequently critiqued as being a luxury belief itself. The term refers to ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while inflicting real-world costs on the lower classes, because the wealthy are sheltered from the consequences of those ideas.Whether the theory is a "luxury belief" depends on how it is applied and who is using it. Critics and proponents have raised several points regarding this paradox:1. The Theory as a Status SignalCritics argue that the term "luxury beliefs" has become a fashionable status symbol for conservative intellectuals and elites. Intra-Elite Signaling: Using the term can signal that a person is "intellectually enlightened" and separate from the "woke" elite.Political Shorthand: It is increasingly used as a conventional piece of language for acceptance in right-wing circles, serving as its own form of "cultural capital".2. Lack of Personal Cost for the Messenger One core tenet of a luxury belief is that the holder does not pay for its negative effects. Intellectual Insulation: Critics note that commentators who use the theory to dismiss social movements (like "Defund the Police") often do so from safe, well-funded positions.Abstract Critiques: If the theory is used solely to win academic or social media debates rather than to address the root causes of poverty or crime, it may fit the definition of a luxury belief: a high-status idea with no personal risk. 3. Sincerity and HypocrisyThe theory often implies that elites are duplicitous—preaching radical values they don't actually live by. Counter-Critique: Some argue that those who hold "luxury beliefs" are often perfectly sincere and simply naive about the impact on others.Universal Application: Critics like Bryan Caplan argue that almost all political beliefs are "luxuries" because individuals rarely face personal costs for being wrong about broad social policies. 4. The Response from ProponentsProponents, including Henderson himself, argue the theory is an empirical observation rather than a belief. Empirical Defense: They point to survey data showing that higher-income individuals are more likely to support policies like drug legalization or defunding police, while lower-income groups—who live with the consequences of those policies—tend to oppose them.Agnostic Framework: Some suggest the concept is a useful tool for any ideology to examine how its ideas affect the marginalized, rather than just a weapon for the right."

David Ainsworth ● 3h

Not aware that anyone likes or dislikes it, just boring, hence the lack of engagement.

Michael Brigo ● 3h

I agree with Steven for just calling it out as it is.  What’s not to like 👍.

Robert Wheeler ● 3h

🤣🤣 Completely agree! What an absolute low energy, droning, pompous monologue. Makes ‘Thought for the day’ seem like a fun run through the park. Jesus wept!

Gerry Boyce ● 4h

Late contender for 'most boring post of 2025' right there.

Michael Brigo ● 5h