View Single Post
Old 11-04-2007, 03:47 PM   #7
Scruffy Englishman
Pavlos's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The real world/ivory towers
Posts: 1,973
Current Game: Viking Warrior Poets
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
But that defeats the entire purpose of being rich!

You are not supposed to be looted by the poor and the middle-class. That's just reeks too much class warfare, and besides, the rich people would come up with a brilliant plan: "Place their money somewhere else!"
I'm not sure how the American income tax system works but the person in question wouldn't be paying 50% on everything they earn - only on the portion that is above the ceiling of the band. They don't lose half their money to the state, they keep most of it. It's not as big as it seems and anyway, it doesn't have to be 50%, just 42% would be nice.

I've no idea what a new band should be - 50% just happens to be a figure that popped into my head - but there should be one for earnings over 100 000. That's 0.9% of the population - you wouldn't lose an election on that increase and I doubt many people earning that much would notice an extra, say, 2p leaving their pocket for every pound sterling they earn over 100 000.

Wealth redistribution is desperately needed in the UK, the gap of wealth is wider than it has been since the 19th Century; both the left and right recognise that there's something horribly wrong with that. To the right, it harms social mobility and equality of opportunity. To the left, it completely flies in the face of a quest for egalitarianism. Blair's, and now Brown's, reluctance to tax super-earners is, frankly, disgusting. Our capital city has forty billionaires - it's a tax haven. It is not because they're moving their money around that they pay less tax than the bottom 1/5 of the population do. It is due to government policy.

I believe it was Poly Toynbee who used the metaphor of crossing the desert. Everyone's moving across it... but some people are driving in BMWs and flying in private jets while the others walk.

Originally Posted by SilentScope001
Darth Insidious: Think of it this way. Scotland is not declaring indepedence from England. England is declaring indepedence from Scotland, after all, King James VI was originally the King of Scotland before he took over the Kingdom of England.
Best to refer to him by his proper title when talking about him being King of Scotland. And no, it's not. The Act of Union (1707) was actually opposed by most Scots, their leaders signed it anyway. Which is the basis of the argument that "the Act of Union was a joke." -- News and features will be returning shortly...

I 'gin to be a-weary of the sun,
And wish the estate o' the world were now undone.
Pavlos is offline   you may: quote & reply,