Socialists living under the oppression of capitalism should avoid paying taxes.

An uneasy conscience must be nagging away at you. As a CEO you must keep money, as a socialist you must give away money. "I'm sure most members will vote on the quality of debate" [sardonic smile] "the working classes would suffer" - "a necessary evil" The equivalent must have passed Lenin and Stalin's ears and lips more than a few times. The sort of thing lead to the death of Boxer ("Animal Farm"). Currently: "The economy is in freefall, unemployment is rocketing, the value of pensions and house prices are plummeting, inflation is soaring and while the tax payer bails out rotten banks, fat cat financiers are feathering their nests will multi-million dollar 'golden parachutes'." All excellent ammunition against the current system. However, to get rid of the current system is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Would it not be better to "Name and shame" these bankers (spelt with a "W")? One could even take them to court - conspiracy to defraud the government. Invent a new law: CEOs cannot be rewarded in the face of bad/poor deeds - this overrides any contract. I'm not an ecomomist, my studies not progressing beyond Econ 101-102, but I can assure you, the effect of giving every living soul in the UK, 73,000 pounds sterling will probably give you an inflation rate second only to Zimbabwe's (currently over 230,000,000 %) http://www.guardian.co.uk... People's wealth will evapourate, and guess who will get the blame? Rest assurred, the people you've usurped from power will ensure the populace knows. Now let's investigate how you come upon the readies. $124,000USD = ï¿½73,000GBP ï¿½73,000 x 60,780,000 people = ï¿½4,436,940,000,000 pounds ($7.57 Trillion USD) This is to come from "The Rich". Looking at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk... I notice 3 things: a) There has been little (if any) change in wealth distribution over the whole period 1976-2003 b) The "Rich" refers to 50% of the country c) You don't provide a source for figures for 2008; we presume you've extrapolated from past data. So... - Things cannot have become dramatically worse for the poor over the past quarter of a century. - You propose that we rob Peter to pay Paul -and Peter. - The "Total Marketable Wealth" includes dwellings. This means the ex-rich will have to buy their houses with their ï¿½73,000. Ye gads. - You will surely have over 50% of the country against you, i.e. everyone who has many dollars, plus everyone who has any sense. [sorry] What's more this is the rich and powerful half with >90% of the resources, and nearly all of the organisation. What's more this includes international media moguls (as you've mentioned) with their huge ability to persuade. I really don't think anything like ï¿½4.4 trillion could be raised. With so much of the UK being made available for sale simultaneously (land, houses, yachts, cars) the prices of all those things would drop dramatically. They would of course be mostly bought by foreigners at bargain-basement prices. Even if the process was spread out, you just face different problems - e.g. how to compensate people who are waiting? So there is loss in multiple ways: 1) You get a fraction of the money off the wealthy 2) The country is now owned (and therefore run) by foreigners with their own agendas, and 3) The poor half of the country generates unbelievable inflation when they try to spend their money. And it's all so unnecessary. Looking at UK history (usually preceding the rest of the world) the tendency over time is to move ever left and devolved. Roughly: • kingly power •ï¿½parliament •ï¿½Whigs • Tories • Conservatives • Liberals •ï¿½(New) Labour - and now even the cousins are beginning to see the light: http://www.theweek.com... Heheh. At the risk of repeating myself: - the instigation is bad for the country - the likelihood of success is next to nil - the result of success would be utterly disastrous - staying with the current course may well get you there safely anyway. So pay your jolly taxes!!! This attempt at vandalisng of Britain would be likely to end after little more than a few visits from the auditors.