I've previously complained about how people often repeat a quote that starts with

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

(Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)

…and then don't seem to realize that the thing they're quoting is saying "rich people spend less money than poor people, and that's why they're rich". It seems to me that people interpret it as saying various different things, but rarely the thing it's quite obviously saying.

Here's an oversight in my previous complaint: I didn't look at Wikipedia. I picked up vibes from a few internet randos, but not the specific internet randos who edit the world's premier encyclopedia.

Part of what I want to point out here is "there's no consensus on what the term boots theory refers to". If I'm wrong about that, and just happened to read the wrong internet randos, it seems likely that Wikipedia will tell me what the consensus is. So let's take a look.

As I write, the most recent revision is from March 17 2025, and it tells us:

The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items.

Come to think of it, this is actually a stronger claim than what I called level 1 boots theory. I described that as "being rich enables you to spend less money on things", but this is a specific way that being rich enables you to spend less money on things. Maybe it is worth having a term for this distinct from "ghetto tax", which is what I suggested previously. (But that term shouldn't necessarily be "boots theory".)

So that's what Wikipedia says "boots theory" refers to. Let's follow its citations and see why Wikipedia says that.

---

Wikipedia:

In the Discworld series of novels by Terry Pratchett, Sam Vimes is the captain of the City Watch of the fictional city-state of Ankh-Morpork.[1][2]

This doesn't talk about boots theory at all, but following the citations anyway:

[1] is The Guardian, Terry Pratchett estate backs Jack Monroe's idea for 'Vimes Boots' poverty index. This is an article about someone named Jack Monroe creating a price index, intended as an alternative to CPI, and naming it the "Vimes Boots Index".

As a source for Wikipedia's claim, the relevant part of this is quoting Rhianna Pratchett, who says:

My father used his anger about inequality, classism, xenophobia and bigotry to help power the moral core of his work. One of his most famous lightning-rods for this was Commander Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

I note pedantically that Commander is a different rank than Captain. (Vimes is promoted from Captain to Commander in Men at Arms.)

On the subject of boots theory, we have the original quote from Men at Arms, starting (as usual) with "the reason that the rich were so rich". Rihanna calls it a "musing on how expensive it is to be poor via the cost of boots".

We're not told how the index is calculated or how it relates to boots theory except that it's "named in honour" of it.

(Incidentally, Monroe's own Wikipedia page doesn't mention the Vimes Boots Index at all.)

[2] is an NYT financial advice column, I think? Spend the Money for the Good Boots, and Wear Them Forever. It mostly boils down to someone giving an example where buying an expensive thing now saved money in the long run compared to buying cheap things. He bought $300 ski pants that have lasted 17 years and counting, and claims that if he'd bought $50 ski pants instead, he'd have had to buy a new pair every year, spending over $800.

Note, there's an important calculation that he skips. If he'd invested $300 in the S&P 500 in 1999, this site claims it would have been worth $762 nominal in 2016, or $528 inflation-adjusted. So yes, if he has the numbers right, it seems like this was probably a good financial investment on his part.

Anyway. This article does back the cited claim (albeit without using the phrase "City Watch"). On the subject of boots theory, it includes the original quote (starting, as usual, with "the reason that the rich were so rich") and doesn't take it any further than "you can spend more money now to spend less money in total". The example it gives matches Wikipedia's definition of boots theory.

---

Back to Wikipedia:

In the 1993 novel Men at Arms, the second novel focusing on the City Watch through Vimes' perspective, Vimes muses on how expensive it is to be poor:[2][3]

We just discussed [2]. [3] is Gizmodo, Discworld's Famous 'Boots Theory' Is Putting a Spotlight on Poverty in the UK. This is another announcement of the Vimes Boots Index. It gives a little more detail on how it relates to boots theory:

Monroe drew parallels to the famous passage's explanation to how low-income families in the UK have seen supermarkets either noticeably increase prices on "budget" lines of basic food and goods (an example Monroe used cited an over 300% increase on a bag of rice at one store in the last year, while cutting the amount of rice in the bag in half) as the country faces the continuing economic effects of Brexit, the covid-19 pandemic, and general supply chain issues. With these lines, aimed at low-income households, either pricing up or being replaced with more expensive store-brand ranges, struggling families are being forced to turn to charities and food banks to sustain themselves, reckoning with over a decade of cuts to social support programs by Britain's series of Conservative governments, including Boris Johnson's current cabinet, itself rather busy right now trying to hide a long string of embarrassing, potentially illegal social gatherings by the Prime Minister during covid-19 lockdowns.

…except that I don't see much connection. But boy, impressive segue in that second sentence.

---

Wikipedia now gives the original quote, starting as usual with "the reason that the rich were so rich". This is citation 4, pointing at Men at Arms. Then:

In the New Statesman, Marc Burrows hypothesized Pratchett drew inspiration from Robert Tressell's 1914 novel The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists.[5]

[5] is the New Statesman, Your best ally against injustice? Terry Pratchett. This is another piece talking about the Vimes Boots Index. It gives an extra hint about how it's calculated:

[Monroe has] been monitoring the true "cost of living" for over a decade – not the one the ONS espouses, based on the price of 700 pre-selected goods including (as Monroe wryly notes in their article in the Observer) "a leg of lamb, bedroom furniture, a television and champagne", but the ones familiar to those who have no choice but to spend the absolute minimum: value ranges, budget items and absolute basics. The ONS bases its statistics on average prices, but for millions of the country’s poorest, average prices don’t reflect reality at all.

On the subject of boots theory, we get the original quote, refreshingly not starting with "the reason that the rich were so rich" - it starts with "take boots, for example". As commentary, it says "being poor is actually more expensive than being wealthy".

(That sounds a lot like "poor people spend more money than rich people", but they're not quite the same. If I say "owning an Aston Martin is more expensive than owning a Ford", you probably assume that the cost of driving, maintaining and insuring a Martin in some minimal adequate condition is higher than doing that for a Ford. But some people will voluntarily spend more than the minimum, and some Ford owners will spend more on their cars than some Martin owners; and Ford owners may well spend more than Martin owners on non-car stuff. So it would be coherent to say something like: "being poor is more expensive than being rich, in the sense that poor people are forced to spend more money on daily living activities. But rich people typically spend more than they're forced to, and more than poor people overall, on daily living activities and other stuff." I'm not sure if I've previously realized this distinction.)

---

Wikipedia:

In the book Fashion in the Fairy Tale Tradition, Rebecca-Anne C. Do Rozario argued "shoes and economic autonomy are inexorably linked" in fairy tales, citing the Boots theory as "particularly relevant" and "an insightful metaphor for inequality".[6]

[6] is just a link to page 180 of that book. It doesn't have much more than what Wikipedia gives:

Shoes and economic autonomy are inexorably linked. Terry Pratchett, with his firm understanding of how fairy tales operate, places the "'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness" in the mind of Sam Vimes in Men at Arms (1993). It is an insightful metaphor for inequality articulated through shoe-wear: "A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

This might be the shortest extract of the quote I've seen yet.

("Particularly relevant" seems to come from a footnote on page 213. I can locate it through search but there's no preview available for the page.)

---

Wikipedia:

In 2013, an article by the US ConsumerAffairs made reference to the theory in regard to purchasing items on credit, specifically regarding children's boots from the retailer Fingerhut; a $25 pair of boots, at the interest rates being offered, would cost $37 if purchased over seven months.[7]

This seems to switch the idea from "in the long run, repeatedly buying cheap things costs more than buying expensive things" to "buying things with money you don't hand over yet costs more than buying things with money you hand over immediately". Or, "people won't typically lend you money for free".

The article (ConsumerAffairs, Fingerhut boots and the Vimes' Boots paradox) even notices this leap. ("though we haven't tested this ourselves, we're sure that Carrini boots or Reebok sneakers bought from Fingerhut are just as good as Carrini or Reebok items bought elsewhere.)

We're given the original quote, starting as usual with "the reason that the rich were so rich".

---

Wikipedia:

In 2016, the left-wing blog Dorset Eye also ran an article discussing the theory, giving fuel poverty in the United Kingdom as an example of its application, citing a 2014 Office for National Statistics (ONS) report that those who pre-paid for electricity—who were most likely to be subject to fuel poverty—paid 8% more on their electricity bills than those who paid by direct debit.[8]

Dorset Eye, Mike Deverell discusses five reasons why those with less end up paying more.

Welp, uh, this is kind of a case where people will lend you money for free, if you have money.¹ It fits a broad "being poor is expensive" narrative, but it's not a case where rich people buy a more expensive thing up front to save money in the long run.

Other than fuel poverty, the article gives four more reasons "why it's so difficult to climb out of the poverty trap": VAT, other taxes, food poverty and austerity. None seem to have any relation to boots theory. The article doesn't explicitly say they're examples of it, and Wikipedia doesn't mention them, so I'll leave them out.

We get the original quote, starting with "the reason that the rich were so rich".

---

Wikipedia:

In a 2020 discussion paper for the Social and Political Research Foundation, Sitara Srinivas used the theory to analyze how sustainable fashion is inaccessible compared to fast fashion.[9]

Stitching a new narrative: engaging with sustainability in the fashion industry. The relevant part is:

Because of the higher pay to workers and quality of materials used, sustainable fashion usually is more expensive. As previously stated, a fast fashion brand white t-shirt costs on average Rs 824. A sustainably produced t-shirt on the other hand costs on average Rs 4825[4]. For the average working or middle class consumer, who may not have the money to invest in a piece of quality clothing that will last long, but also at the same time has the aspiration to dress fashionably, sustainable fashion then becomes an unachievable goal.

The 'Boots theory of socio-economic unfairness' engages with this phenomenon. Derived from a paragraph in Terry Pratchett's novel Men at Arms, it explores the idea that quality costs more in the short term, with a purchase being more expensive at first, and the cost per use reducing over time. For someone that cannot afford a quality piece of clothing, cheap clothing becomes the best option. While clothing that is made sustainably may last longer, fast fashion remains cheaper and hence more accessible (Ellen MacArthur Foundation).

Followed by the original quote, starting as usual with "the reason that the rich were so rich".

So this broadly matches Wikipedia's description of the term. It doesn't come right out and say "buying the expensive t-shirt is cheaper in the long run". But it's at least hinting in that direction.

---

Wikipedia:

In an article titled "The Price of Poverty" published in Tribune Magazine in 2022, the theory was cited as explaining the economic predicament in the United Kingdom. Examples provided included the higher cost of renting compared to home ownership, higher interest rates for loans to impoverished people, the effects of food poverty on educational advancement, and healthcare costs.[10]

Tribune, The Price of Poverty. This one doesn't give the original quote at all, describing boots theory in its own words:

This obvious injustice—subsidies for businesses, cost hikes for workers—is only one example of the reality spread across our economic system: that being in poverty is much more expensive than being rich.

Vimes' 'Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness'

To understand why poverty is so expensive, we can look to Samuel Vimes, Captain of the City Watch and protagonist of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel Men at Arms. Vimes uses his 'Boots theory of socio-economic unfairness' to outline how the nobility of his city, Ankh-Morpork, could live twice as comfortably as him while spending half the money.

Vimes earned 38 dollars per month as captain of the watch. A really good pair of boots, the kind that would last for around 10 years, would cost around 50 dollars—far more than his monthly salary. As a result, he would have to buy the cheaper, lower-quality boots for 10 dollars, which would last for one year at most. Over a 10-year period, Vimes would spend 100 dollars on 10 pairs of boots (and would still have wet feet), whereas the noble would have only spent 50 dollars on one pair of boots during the same period.

(I repeat that Vimes is wrong about the nobility - at minimum, about the specific nobility he's thinking of, who is the richest woman in the city and his fiancée - spending less money than him.)

Here are the examples the article gives:

subsidies for businesses, cost hikes for workers

Roughly speaking, I think the idea here is "rich people's cost of living is going down and poor people's is going up". But that's talking about acceleration, not velocity.

Housing costs for private tenants have jumped by nearly 50% above the general rate of inflation in the last 25 years. House prices have also soared, but home ownership remains, often, the cheaper option.

So this is "spending more money up front is cheaper in the long term". You can even kind of make it fit the original definition: when you rent, you repeatedly purchase "the right to live in this place for the next month", but when you buy, you purchase that right once and keep it indefinitely. And the rights you purchase when you rent are typically worse than the rights you purchase when you buy (e.g. more restrictive about pets, or decoration, or interior layout).

(Note: costs of home ownership here do take into account "interest lost by paying a deposit rather than saving.")

Borrowing costs are also much higher for poor people because they are seen by lenders as higher risk, meaning they pay more interest on debt like overdrafts and credit cards.

"Poor people get less favorable terms when borrowing money."

In 2021, a study by the Food Foundation found that the poorest fifth of British society would need to spend 40% of their income to reach the government’s healthy eating guidelines. The chronic malnutrition caused by poverty has long-term costs, both to individuals and to society as a whole.

"Poor people don't get enough food, and that causes them long term problems."

A 2016 study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that healthcare spending accounted for the largest portion of additional spending associated with poverty, at £29 billion. … The British Medical Journal has warned that unless the government acts to address the Cost of Living crisis, poverty, and therefore health inequalities and the costs associated with treating and managing them, will increase.

"Poor people are less healthy, and more expensive for the government to provide healthcare to."

---

Remember that Wikipedia's definition is

The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items.

Of the citations, it seems like three back this up? One with an example about ski pants, one with an example about t-shirts, and one talking about home ownership versus renting.

Other than those, here are some things that citations relate to boots theory:

• You can spend more money now to spend less money in total. (More general than Wikipedia's definition.)
• Being poor is more expensive than being rich. (More general again.)
• Buying things with money you don't hand over yet costs more than buying things with money you hand over immediately.
• Except that sometimes it costs less.
• Poor people get less favorable terms when borrowing money.
• Costs of living are going down for rich people and up for poor people.
• Poor people don't get enough food, and that causes them long term problems.
• Poor people are less healthy, and more expensive for the government to provide healthcare to.

…and for some of these, Wikipedia even includes them inline. You don't need to click through to the citations to realize that multiple different concepts are getting confused.

(Someone in the talk page has noticed the same thing: "The instances listed here aren't really examples of the same mechanism.")

(Also, when I wrote the previous essays, multiple commentators told me what they take boots theory to mean, but none of them picked Wikipedia's definition of it.)

So I think I'm vindicated in my complaints. Wikipedia's definition of "boots theory" is not consensus, even among Wikipedia's sources. There is no consensus.