Who is right?

Ronnie

This is not meant as a criticism, just a general point.

Is it likely, in the current extreme financial crisis, that middle-income people will actually go out and spend their 'real' tax cuts?

EyeSee

The argument Melanie, is surely that the State is too large. By doing only the things that a government is required to do and not the raft of nanny-statism of the Left with its unending desire to control 'for your safety', the Tories could easily consign huge amounts of tax to the bin and enrich the people, not the politicians and their clients. That is the radical intellectual debate that this nation needs to undertake. That would be true world leadership of a kind not seen since the time of the British Empire. The Left took charge of every meaningful branch of activity, schools, politics, the judiciary, the police. It has caused the fundamental and monumental problems we have today, directly. We must see the dragon and slay it. It's armour is Political Correctness. That should be the first target for intellectual dismemberment. And truth should reassert, not the Left liberal 'narrative' of whatever convenient lie works today. That is the real battleground; positive results from the ending of feral kids to proper government would result.

Augustus

We are informed by Gordon Brown that the unemployment figure is only 5.8%. This is hard to believe. There are 2.62 million people on 'incapacity benefit'. How many of these people are truly unable to do any work? Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest possibly as many as 1.5 million of them? But in any case, we are still paying benefit to all those people, and they are certainly not contributing anything to the economy, or paying any taxes. While those who are unable to work undoubtedly need government support, it is the malingerers who debase the genuine. Furthermore, an extra million people have been employed by New Labour in the public sector in the last decade, which has reduced the unemployment figures. But instead of being paid unemployment benefit these people have well paid jobs and excellent pensions which clearly also need to be funded at a time when the economy is producing a lower tax take. Now that the three main drivers of the economy have been hit hard; namely the financial services sector, the construction sector, and the retail sector, the UK is indeed in deep trouble.

hysteria

Ronnie makes a point I repeated in the Times re Anatoly's article - to the effect

A Government"grand project approach" will not benefit the economy in the way they hope. Due to our planning laws, plus natural lead time on large projects to design, procure etc. the early beneficiaries will be the "professional" classes - layers, engineers, etc - who are are unlikely to spend their income on more "stuff" but will instead pay down their debt.

The people who will go and spend their income will be the artisans and unskilled workers on the construction sites - and it will be years before we start pouring concrete and cutting steel.

No - this recovery has to be led by a reduced state sector and lower sustainable tax rates - the individual knows how to spend their money better than Kim Il Brown....

Kevyn Bodman

EyeSee in the second comment nails it.
'The State is too large' indeed
and we need a 'radical intellectual debate'.
There are two major issues facing us: the economy and the size/role of the State.
Economic activity goes in cycles;sooner or later the economy will recover.

But the erosion of civil liberties might be irrecoverable.

But a robust and vigorous political party could link the two.

Taxpayers' money is being wasted and a lot of that is wasted by people telling you what to do in areas that are none of their business and keeping tabs on you.

Reduce this wasteful and intrusive spending and free the citizens and free their economic activity too and the economy will recover faster and we will be more free in all aspects of our lives.
Where are the robust and vigorous politicians to make these points?

ian parket

Oh dear, where do we start? There is little comprehension of the true cause or scope of the current financial crisis. To date, governments have committed fundamental policy errors in trying to cope with the crisis. As a result, they have entirely failed to insulate the real economy from the toxic heap that passes for a financial system. The financial system has, effectively, abandoned its intermediary role; hence the seizure in credit markets.

The problem with Cameron’s Tories is that they look totally inept. Since they long ago abandoned core principles, they have no natural policies and hence flip-flop according to the winds of the latest perceived opinion. The Tories should, naturally, be the Party of small government. In practice, they had been the Party of marginally smaller government until the point at which Cameron had the bright idea of pledging to match New Labour’s spending plans. This was simply because he was running scared on the tax issue. Seizing the current crisis as a means of restoring some credibility hardly works. People are now entitled to ask, if they are so inept in opposition, why should they be even remotely competent in government?

New Labour have, of course, grossly mismanaged the economy and the country’s finances. Like Enron, and other great fraudsters through time, they have moved substantial liabilities ‘off balance sheet’. Many of their liabilities are unfunded and hence require massive ongoing borrowing. The true budget deficit is, therefore far higher than most people believe. (Such has been the deception of the current administration that most government data on the economy, crime, health and education has as much credibility as that of the old Soviet Union.) The structural deterioration in the UK economy over the past several years makes us very poorly placed to handle a downturn of the current magnitude. True unemployment is already running way above the massaged official figures, just as inflation has been. Real disposable incomes were already under intense pressure before the crisis was even recognised. As we all know, debt stands at record levels with many segments of the economy in severe net deficit.

So, in short, we have a crisis of leadership at a time of genuine real world crisis. The current government will continue its panic response and policy errors as the economy disappears down the sewers. Cameron will continue to waffle and dance to no effect. We will then arrive at the next election having to contemplate a choice between the unthinkable and the unelectable. Happy days.

Paul

Eye See is right. We are over governed, overcentralised and overtaxed. When we had an Empire worth talking about the whole thing was run by about 60 ministers and that was well before computers. Now we have nothing and we have over 130 ministers- sorry brown nosers- who are supposed to be governing us.We have to break this up it is just jobs for the boys. We really have to find a better way to carry on. I am in my fifties and this crisis is going to be the worst in my memory. It is harking back to the chaos of Wilson and Healey. We already have a run on the pound which is deadly serious it is down more than 25% since July. We are sleepwalking our way to chaos.No party or so called leader has the answers because they are only offering more of the same.

THX1138

EyeSee - Go tell the savers in Icesave that the state is too large.

Verity

Augustus, You are correct and that is why I say it becomes ever more urgent that we disenfranchise the public sector and the welfare sector.

As a sop, we could allow them to vote in local elections. But they must not have their hands on the national levers. These people, who contribute not a farthing to the wealth of the country and are instead passengers on the hard work of others, should not be in a position to vote themselves constant raises - by returning Labour - at the expense of the wealth creators. It's insane.

Others will know more figures off the top of their heads, but the NHS alone has a million employees and they are going to vote for the government that appreciates "our wonderful health service and the people who work in it" and promises ever-increasing "funding". So, if the public sector weren't accorded a vote, that's a million votes for the socialists slashed right there.

(Incidentally, Eye See hits the nail on the head regarding the preposterous size of the state.)

Augustus notes that there are 2.62m on incapacity benefit. As they don't contribute, there is no sane reason why they should have a vote to determine how other people's money should be spent. Disenfranchise those on disability benefit and that's another 2.62m votes for Labour deep-sixed.

Caerphilly Council has a staff of 9,000. Why? There goes another 9,000 Labour votes. The same in almost every council in Britain. They're passengers on other people's money which is a comfortable situation to be in. A vote is icing on the cake and they don't need it.

My new law, incidentally - which would not be discussed before the Conservates get in, - would include the whole Westminster stew. MPs, the prime minister the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet, PPSs and Undersecretaries and advisors and the whole ungodly roiling mess - they're privileged enough. They don't need a vote.

The unemployed likewise. As they pay no taxes, it is lunacy that they should be allowed to vote for people who will court them with promises of more benefits.

At a rough guess - very rough, admittedly - we could probably slash 10m Labour voters off the electoral rolls. That's a tidy sum.

sebastian

A party that makes it hard for today's parents to pass family wealth on, unplundered by the State, to their children will care little for NuLab State debt those descendents will end up paying heavily for. Brown doesn't care about the country's future and he makes sure parents can't provide for their children's future either. He takes; he borrows; and he taxes; and never mind tomorrow's generation. There's a grim, asset stripping consistency in this. All tied in to Brown's survival in office and the immediate preservation of those flourishing State funded supplicants that vote for him and his policies. He's saving his own skin by forcing unborn children into arrears. I live now - embryos pay later.
I think this is rather wicked.

Stan

"Cutting taxes (if they actually do so) will pump up demand, but cutting public spending will depress it."

Why? The only way that public spending creates demand is by giving people public sector jobs (and money to spend) but unless those jobs produce something tangible to trade they are of little value to the economy. All you will do is increase the trade deficit further therefore increasing the amount of national debt exponentially. So not only do you have massive increases in public borrowing, but the debt increases as well! The fact is that there is plenty of scope to cut public spending AND provide tax cuts. In the absence of public sector manufacturing the only real option is to increase the money which the private sector has to spend and provide tax breaks to small and medium businesses to sitmulate trade. Anything else is economic suicide.

Ted Tedford

THX: If the savers at Icesave didn't listen when they were told 'the value of investments can go down as well as up', what chance they'll listen when someone tells them they have personal responsibility for their decisions, and other taxpayers shouldn't be forced to compensate them for the bad ones.

THX1138

Yes Ted personal responsibility is of course a good thing but if you had 100K in Icesave you would be very glad that the tax payer came a knockin'.

Remember Regan bailed out the S&L 's to the tune of $125 billion of US taxpayers money.

When the s**t hits the fan and it's your money or voters money going west political ideology goes out the window.

phil

Shout it from the rooftops a low tax economy is where real progress is made ,where incentive for those "capitalistas"is given and where those people will make jobs,for those that cannot ! Never mind whether you consider it fair ,at least this way everyone will eat .We also should start it off by public works ASAP and of course run up national debt, as the alternative is stagnation and deflation,a self fuelling spiral .Jobs will bring more jobs ,small firms feed off big firms .

There will be time enough to pay off those debts when we are increasing GNP again -Remember well Roosevelt's words" the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
DC may well be right to warn of debt but without that debt there will be no future anyhow .

We must not let these political battles and this advantage seeking, deter us from an economic path out of this morass that idle politicians have allowed us into. -- Oh yes I am talking about those that refused to either see or stop the crazy paths the banks in their greed pursued -It wasn't rocket science to see that loans without security and many times the borrowers income were a path to destruction.Everyone saw the adverts in the papers and on Tv offering to solve debtors woes by consolidating their debts and encouraging them to borrow even more .I wish I could name them but we do not see them now do we?-why were they not stopped ? Why did the FSA instead of chasing real professionals trying to do a good job.not spend their time thinking about how to stop nonsense's like Northern Rock -

So many Lawyers, Accountants ,Brokers and Advisors filling in useless forms crossing I,S nd T,ees being harassed by men from the FSA when they should have been doing what I have alluded to above ,whilst having to charge their hapless clients so much more for piles of useless forms that the clients neither wanted not understood -If you don't know what I mean ,for those of you long in the tooth remember the three pages of annual accounts you used to get and could understand ,and think now of what you get, how many pages of unintelligible paper shredding's do you get ,Remember the papers you get now from your financial advisors every time you cough ,.and how our lawyers are filling out all offers to sell anything with warnings a mile long -That is what we have received from our investment in regulation -we catch honest people for missing a comma and the villains get away with most things look at Enron .It is time to think again if we still have time -we did it once with Margaret Thatcher who actually stopped the nonsense of her day so I hope DC will listen to the words of the experienced people amongst us and provide us with a future free from the crazy ways we have sunk into

How the hell did I get involved in this I was planning tea ,then Strangeloves fist took over :)

nosmo29

Ted Tedford,

Im sorry but your stricture about Icesave investors doesn't wash. They weren't investing in equities which CAN go up and down. Moreover all, if not all, their accounts were overseen by the FSA - I wouldn't have invested in one of their accounts myself if that had not been the case.

Ted Tedford

THX: No doubt. But I expect incautious or unlucky investors of all stripes would like their fellow taxpayers to foot the bill for their poor judgement, but that doesn't happen.

Do not invest what you cannot afford to lose. There were plenty of warnings to Icesave investors - and they had the option of investing in more stable vehicles, offering lower interest rates.

That so many people's default reaction is to demand that the government (ie other taxpayers) step in to bail them out is an illustration of how far the Statist agenda has eroded our sense of autonomy, and infantilised us all. This, I suspect, is what many Coffee Housers mean when they ask, politely, for a bit of mature leadership - the willingness to confront our profligate public with the consequences of their actions, instead of pretending there is some complex, alchemical explanation for why it's no one's fault really, please carry on shopping; or blaming it all, child-like, on the USA or greedy bankers.

Anthony

More sanctimony from THX "EyeSee - Go tell the savers in Icesave that the state is too large."

Yes. Do go tell the savers in Icesave the state is too large.

They should not have been bailed out. It's called self-responsibility and due diligence. If you see an offer that's too good to be true and it involves a foreign bank then it's on your shoulders to check its solvency.

It's not as if the newspapers weren't warning about those wretched Icelandic banks for months beforehand. Everyone I know who had money in one took their money out ages ago because of what was in the papers.

Why should everyone else bail out their free market greed for wanting 7% interest rates.

We don't bail out foolish buy to let landlords who were similarly greedy and foolish so why should we bail out Icesavers?

THX1138

Ted & Anthony I admire your ideological purity I really do.

Back in the real world and be honest, will you saying no to taxpayers cash when your bank goes bust?

I thought not.

As for your analogy on buy to leters they have only lost money if they sell, they can wait the market out Icesavers were going to lose everything. This was not some high risk hedge fund it was a savings bank regulated by the FSA.

Ted Tedford

THX: Thanks for the compliment...

I cannot help but see a distinction between UK savers in Icelandic banks and UK savers in UK banks, regulated by UK authorities, whose failures are at least linked to the UK government's attentiveness levels. If my bank suffered similarly, I would expect compensation of the £50K maximum I'm entitled to.

But, having rewarded the lack of caution of Uk savers in Iceland, it would be grotesque in the extreme to fail to compensate UK-based savers in UK banks that failed under this govt's watch. So the government's action has served to create expectations that they will fully repay depositors in UK banks: how realistic is it that they will be able to satisfy that expectation?

To return to your original point, a state that had wasted less money in the boom years, and had discouraged the current unprecedented levels of household debt, would be better placed to bail out unlucky/incurious savers in foreign banks. And UK taxpayers would be better placed to cope with the higher taxes needed to fund the short-term borrowing. Of course, McSnotty's version of ideological purity told him that the good times were permanent, not cyclical - yet he accuses the Tories of not understanding the nature of the problem!

What is as important in this context is the *character* of that state, and whether there might have been a more constructive way to ensure these unlucky/inattentive Icesavers were reimbursed justly. The grotesque cod-patriotic posturing by McSnotty, his attempt to obscure his own culpability by getting in a bate with Iceland, and the use of anti-terror laws to freeze the UK assets of the solvent banks of a Nato ally, speaks volumes about the nature of this government. It is nasty, evasive, arrogant, and incompetent. Not a good mix, and not, I'd think, a good sign to potential investors in the UK.

By the way, I hope you enjoyed the holiday in the US you had planned for earlier this month.

THX1138

Ted- I do mostly agree with you but now that the UK high street banks are owned by Middle Eastern and Asian sovereign funds what definition of British should we apply?

If do believe that if the Government had not bailed out Icesave it would have cost more in the long run. Savers would have been spooked and looked to withdraw money across the board pushing other banks over the edge.

Watch this great montage of Ron Paul a true fiscal conservative a man of great conviction and the presidential candidate the GOP should have had.

http://tinyurl.com/5d69se

I had a brilliant time in America and it was great celebrating the Obama victory with my friends and family in librul elite NYC. Thanks for asking

Jonathan

Melanie

You were so wrong on Question Time last night. We don't have enough fiscal spare capacity for what the government proposes. All the fiscal stimulus will achieve is therefore to force sterling down and interest rates up. The deleterious effect of this will outweigh by far any meagre boost to the economy.

Instead of blaming the Tories for not doing anything, how about blaming the Labour party for saddling us with so much debt (a great deal of which they have very shrewdly omitted to put on the public balance sheet) which has left us up a certian creak without a certain paddle.

John H

Verity,

I am a public sector employee and a memeber of the Conservative Party, and I assure you that your ridiculous notion of disenfranchising public sector workers would not get off the starting blocks under a Conservative government.

For one thing, much of the work done in the public sector is to ensure compliance with legislation, work which no private company would touch with a bargepole (I know, because my own area of work was sought to be contracted out to the private sector and there were no takers.)

Also, public sector workers pay taxes as well, you know. I recall a phrase 'no taxation without representation' - now, where did that originate....?

THX1138

John H-I'm sure Verity was joking but you never can tell.

As Dave is public sector worker and his salary paid by the state under the logic of Verity's argument he wouldn't be able to vote for himself.

phil

This thread started with some attempt by posters to address the problem of the economy and continued for a short while until intervention from one who has lots to say about her new world order and now has descended into a tit for tat about Icelandic banks and who will become the untermenchen. Is there any chance that you all may discuss the problems at hand like the first seven posters attempted to do ?-even what I posted -I don't mind if you think it is rubbish :)-just stop this becoming a nonsense -it is a very serious subject .I did write it before I saw question time and lo and behold I believe most agreed with what I had written -proves nothing but.......

Stan the point I was making is that we will stimulate the economy ,yes it will have to be clawed back later but at least we will have survived without a depression -it happened in the USA and though I hate to mention the foulest man of the last century H he did bring Germany out of the worst economic decline of that century by public works like roads etc .When at last we begin to prosper again people will be able to afford higher taxes ,and of course there will be a larger flow of income for the government by more paying into the coffers .

Ronnie ,eyesee et al please bring this thread back to sensible discussion as you started it .You all were making cogent points until the tennis umpires took over -ok 15 love to me

John H

THX1138,

Verity has frequently expounded on this theme, so I presume that she intends us to give it serious consideration.

Anyway, I'm sure that she will reply on her own behalf, should she feel the need to give clarification

Mike Wood

I am amazed, for the first time in my life I find that I am actually in agreement with Melanie Phillips. As the (world) economy is going south at an increasingly rapid rate Governments have, in the short term,to embrace expansion tax cuts (especially for the poor who will actually spend them)and investment in infrastructure (never a better time to do) - if this sort of thing doesn't happen we will all be facing a chronically rising tax bill to support the increasing army of the unemployed - unless of course we are part of that army ourselves

Ian C

Melanie, you're absolutely wrong on this one.

You cannot boost consumer spending in an economy with no confidence that is already riddled with debt. Consumers will rationally defer spending in a time like this because tomorrow the price of goods will be lower than today. The deflationary expectation has taken hold and only massive consumer discounting (instant deflation) is working to keep the High Stree alive. So consumers are not going to help whatever tax cut you give them until this psychology is reversed.

Government expenditure will naturally rise in a downturn, and this natural rise is acceptable. But to artificially boost it by borrowing vast sums to drop from helicopters, which is what the gov't proposal is in effect, other than to maintain liquidity until confidence slowly returns, will go the same way as tax rebates - straight into the savings account of those who are indulged as is happening with the Banks injection of capital already.

To do as you and Brown, Darling, Anatole Kaletsky and others who think they know their Keynes is to deepen and prolong the downturn and to shorten the period before the next one.

Verity

John H - With respect, what you pay are fantasy taxes. The taxpayers pay your salary, part of which is shifted by computer from Government Dept A to Government Dept K and named "taxes". The reality is, you generate no revenue and thus you generate no taxes.

This isn't written in mean-spirited condemnation of the entire public sector, many of whom do critical work to keep the country going. And many of whom are street football coordinators, real nappy coordinators, Urdu translators, Bangladeshi translators, community advisors, teachers, dustbin collection rule makers, CCTV monitors, et cetera.

You are right that this programme would never get off the ground with today's Conservatives, led by Cameron, who wishes to be all men to all people and is a weak, posturing individual. But someone, some time, may have the steady nerve to investigate this notion seriously.

I mean you no disrespect, John H, but the fact is, you do not generate revenue. If you feel that you contribute to generating revenue, however, there might be a discussion of government workers such as yourself who facilitate the workings of the private sector, to see if it would be prudent, and workable, to have one (small) segment of the public sector retain its franchise.

"No taxation without representation" was the slogan of those Americans who - quite rightly - wanted independence from Britain. It was a brilliant rallying call for the times. In other words, before the advent of the mammoth, self-serving state, which is infinitely greedier than George III ever was.

I put my idea on the table to see what others think and how they would refine it.

No one, I note, has spoken up for the welfare sector.

Verity

We are in the ever-tightening coils of an aggressive public sector. Frankly, I think we are already teetering on the edge of who are the subjects and who are the masters.

Add to this a greedy welfare sector effectively able to vote itself more money and privileges.

I propose a solution before it is too late. If anyone has an idea he thinks is better, I would read it with interest.

Frank P

Martin Vander Weyer has a very interesting slant in today's Magazine piece in the context of this thread. It would be interesting to hear whether it changes anyone's view?

See: http://www.spectator.co.uk/i//the-magazine/features/3023371/thank-goodness-we-can-have-a-run-on-the-pound-when-we-need-one.thtml

He also raises once again the spectre of NuLab (or indeed a potential Tory PM) using this current crisis to bulldoze the pound altogether in favour of the Euro; something I have been nervous about since the 'meltdown' began. MVW is obviously agin it, but the fact that it is even being discussed again is worrying enough. Reading btweeen his lines it also looks as though Osborne is moribund; an inside Tory source is quoted as describing him as a 'prat' - hardly the credentials for Tory Chancellor, even though that would follow NuLab's tradition
for the past decade or so.

Anthony

Says THX: "Back in the real world and be honest, will you saying no to taxpayers cash when your bank goes bust?"

In the real world, I abide by a principle that applies to everyone for everything: 'buyer beware'.

If my bank goes bust I expect what the rules say: £50,000 - no more.

The Icelandic savers were never entitled to more than that. Those were FSA rules before all of this began.

As to my bank going bust, you can forget it. My bank won't be going bust because I've made sure I'm in a safe one, and it's not a bank either.

Verity

Re 'No taxation without representation', may I refer readers to the great Mark Steyn, who writes today: "That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: "No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry.

"No representation without taxation" has less mass appeal.

For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable, and you've got to give some of it back?

As ever, Mr Steyn says it best.

Dave

Verity advances a very interesting argument. Disenfranchisement for those that don't make any money. |Lets flesh that out.
We need a baseline. Tim Berners-Lee was working in the public sector when he laid the foundations for what we now know as the internet. Shall we say his contribution is worth around a billion pounds?
Obviously at the time he couldn't vote in Verity's grand plan. Fair enough.
Verity's plan is all about cash. The whole point is how much cash we each generate.
So Verity, have you generated more than a billion? That's the upper limit for public sector invention. But clearly you must be superior to that.
That's the most generated by a potentially disenfranchised public sector employee that I know of. And if the point is how much cash people generate I'd venture you have to create more than that.
And if you can't then you certainly can't vote and to be honest if you've generated a lot less than that I'm pretty sure we don't have to listen to you at all.

Verity

Dave, I don't usually respond to lefty ticks because their identikit arguments are repetitive and boring.

However, you attempt to make a point here: "Tim Berners-Lee was working in the public sector when he laid the foundations for what we now know as the internet." So? Your point? Ministers who nail down lucrative trading agreements with other countries probably generate far more. And? "Shall we say his contribution is worth around a billion pounds?" Sure. Lets.

I am still completely baffled by your muddy argument. Are you saying he earned a billion pounds for the government, or himself?

(If for the govenment, I have already opened to discussion that the tiny number of wealth creators within the government should be privileged with the vote. So what is your point?

Equally, Wossname who wrote the Harry Potter books was on welfare when she wrote the first one. During that time, she should not have been enfranchised. When she sold her books and began to contribute to the country, she should have had her name transferred on the computer onto the voters' registry.

I maintain that non-contributors to the economy have no business in voting how that wealth created by other is spent. (Especially as most of them want it spent on themselves.)

phil

Dave there is a lady here who agrees with democracy but only for those she likes or approves of -definately not "lefty ticks"whatever they might be .Im not sure whether I would be classed as one either as I believe all men are born equal -does that make me a marxist? -strange if it is as I vote Tory -maybe its just my age :)

Conservative Cabbie

I believe all men are born equal -does that make me a marxist?

No, Phil. Possibly a sexist though!!!

Funnily enough I was looking for a West Wing quote (from Sam Seaborne) that speaks to this issue and following a google search found it right here posted by Fraser Nelson yesterday (great minds etc). Here's thw quote:

“I paid 23 times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of 22 other people. And I’m happy to, ‘cause that’s the only way it’s gonna work. And it’s in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads. But I don’t get 23 votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn’t come to my house 23 times faster and the water doesn’t come out of my faucet 23 times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for 23 percent of this country. Let’s not call them names while they’re doing it, is all I’m saying.”

Whilst I don't agree with Verity on this issue (no-one should be disenfranchised in a democracy), the basic truth behind her point is right. The tax system is unfair and yet the left seek to punish and denegrate the very people that make the greatest contribution to the wealth of the nation. Bizarre.

phil

Cabbie :)ok women too !
I can only tell you what my fundamental belief is that the most gifted in society have a duty to help those less fortunate and if it means paying more taxes (as I have done )then so be it , and I thank G-D that I have been so blessed as to be able to -actually from all you have written in the past I don't expect you have a different moral view .You are aware that I abhor most of the fragrant ladies views (not all),but I care about all people regardless of their origins or abilities .its probably something to do with my upbringing which put charity and compassion high on the list best regards to you .I always enjoy your posts .

Dave

Verity most people don't actually take "Atlas Shrugged" seriously. You advocate a world where Paris Hilton would have the vote but not say Mr Berners Lee.
And you're welcome to it.