Through a quango. That’s how all other centralist, subjective solutions are solved, why would this one be any different?

“an income as low as just over £46,000 gets you into the top decile – and you can‘t retire on your savings from that”

And that sums up this country nicely. Why do we have a serious upcoming problem with an ageing population? Because even someone in the top 10% of earners can’t support themselves in retirement. How depressing.

22 – your Dad a miner?

My grand-dad was too.
Between 1850 ad 1920 it was well paid, I’ve read.
My grandad paid off the mortgage on his new house in 7 years, had a new motorbike. Earned £50k pa in today’s money.

Tough job though on the coal face, where the money was best: don’t know what percentage of miners were coal-face.

Of course, once other countries started mining and exporting coal, demand for UK dropped, and the miners’ salaries and the industry profitability with it.

Globalisation!

People should be rewarded for effort and for the social benefits of their work (or penalised for the social costs, if necessary) rather than simply their ability to turn a profit.

How would we establish the value of their effort and social benefits of their work?

I feel the anger in your post mate, but if you step back, who is going to pay the teacher’s wages?

Yes, without the utter fucking shame and disgrace of Lloyds being given £5 billion, they could have folded and the stampede to the mutuals would have continued.

My dad would be 82 if he was still alive. He was a miner, and he always said how much the owners were hated and how everyone was glad to see them gone. But under the nationalisation, too much power was given to agents of the state and too little to workers.

Likewise, Brown has fundamentally wasted an opportunity to either mutualise failing banks or let them die because he is obsessed with restoring the Thatcherite status quo ante.

We have learnt nothing from the credit crunch and will never move on because of such fucking feeble leadership. This is why I voted NO2EU and will be seeking similar parties to support in 2010. Believe me, you’ll be hearing from us if this Tory vermin Cameron wins as well.

Given that there is a market for “City banker scum”, would it not be wiser to analyse why they are paid so much money? A serious argument rather than a polemic?

I don’t think that Tesco (capitalist organisation) is going to go bust this year.

Isn’t it better if young people become teachers or do some other worthwhile job rather than becoming City banker scum and paying themselves fortunes in bonuses, paid for by my taxes propping up a failed and discredited system?

Given Tory Blair and Tory Brown failing to restrain banker scum, people are doing it themselves by joining the mutuals in droves. You don’t see the Co Op or John Lewis going broke and having to be maintained by the state because you don’t see them exploiting the workers to maintain their filthy lifestyles.

But now, think of a university student. He figures: “I was toying with the idea of going into the City. But why should I work 80 hour weeks in a dullish job to hand over most of my money to the government? I’ll do a less well-paid job that I enjoy instead.“

It is very unlikely that a university student will think “what will be the salary of this job in 20 years time?”. They are more likely to look at the salary now (dullish job? sure but it still pays well, and I am under the higher tax rate).

Of course, where your argument really falls flat is that most of the lower paid jobs are dull too. Interesting, challenging, well-paid are three descriptions that just never get applied to any attainable job.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: :: Does taxing the rich work? http://bit.ly/7J3CLT...

There are many examples of entrepreneurs who make their wealth, then spend their days at ease or become a school teacher. Others start another business, often in a different sphere. If the state increases income tax, what do entrepreneurs think? There are examples that suggest that businesses develop because they are in the right place at the right time, and that income tax is not a disincentive. I’m thinking of IKEA and Maersk in particular.

If I was setting up a business from scratch, selling a product with universal appeal, I’d do it in the UK. Because even if I have misjudged the desires of consumers, I’m probably closer to understanding the UK market than a foreign one. Going abroad would be a daft option.

Even big companies find it difficult to expand beyond national boundaries. El Corte Ingles (big Spanish department chain, 70 years old) has started to open stores in Portugal. It is a culture that is similar to Spain, but with sufficient difference to require sensitive marketing. Compare with the crass attempt to introduce Marks and Spencer to France; the M & S halfwits still haven’t even learned to go to Luton airport to interview the Scandinavians who’ve popped over for a shopping and theatre weekend.

A banker (probably young, male, single) may hop off if income tax is increased. I’m less convinced that wealth creators would be so inclined.