Short sighted governing?

[Harsh]

I would say so.

yes i know bankers are scum, but remember what happens to the money we earn.

1, it means i can fund things like this site...
2, it means funding for everything else in the economy..school fees, house prices, sevice industry, new cars etc etc.

without that boost to the economy jobs will be lost as businesses go down .

this article says it rather well
(oh and dont worry, this site will remain funded, we're having far too much fun! ;) )

Politicians are close to tipping the City over the edge By James Barty

Published: December 17 2009 02:00 | Last updated: December 17 2009 02:00

The complacency of many commentators in the face of the super tax imposed on bankers' bonuses in the recent pre- Budget report has been truly remarkable. There seems to be a belief that the advantages of London are such that those employed in the City will take whatever punishment is meted out to them in exchange for the privilege of working here.

The argument runs that the advantages of infrastructure, a wide talent pool and high fixed costs of moving means that the government can continue to turn the vice with little or no response. It is similar to the view that you can continue to push marginal tax rates higher on the better off, as the tax base on which you can levy those taxes will not change. Both ignore the fact that behaviour will change in response to such measures once you reach a tipping point. For the City we have reached that point, with a tax measure that stems from a political desire to punish.

Tipping points are hard to model, but important to understand as they change the model itself. In not grasping this, politicians are ironically making the same mistake as the bankers who designed the models for structured products that blew up their balance sheets. For many banks, hedge funds and other institutions there is a big cost to moving operations from London and an inertia of employees. Yet beyond a certain point the incentive to move becomes greater than the cost, and the tipping point is reached.

Let us consider London's advantages as a financial centre. A light regulatory touch, relatively low and stable taxes (corporate and personal), a deep talent pool, and the right time zone and language. While the latter three will remain intact, the first two are under huge pressure. Everyone in the City accepts that regulation has to increase and that severe errors were made, but there is concern that the government is more focused on punishing the City than truly reforming the system. The government has failed to oppose effectively the proposed European Union reforms to regulating hedge funds that are so badly drafted they run the risk of forcing part of the industry to move its operations out of the EU (and hence London). Domestically the head of the Financial Services Authority has described some of the operations of investment banks as socially useless and the prime minister is proposing a version of the Tobin tax. It does not make London appear welcoming.

As for tax, the move to a 50 per cent top rate of marginal tax was already threatening to take the UK to the top of the league in marginal tax rates of major financial centres. The decision to levy a further 50 per cent tax on all bonus pools takes that marginal tax rate to 70 per cent for 2009 and, if extended, to 75 per cent for years beyond, the highest rates seen since the end of the last Labour government in 1979. The Treasury argues that it is a tax to encourage higher capital ratios rather than to punish.

If the tax had been biased to those who had received the most government help or who would see capital ratios come under pressure on payment of such bonuses, then the argument might hold water. Yet this is a blanket tax. It does not matter if you managed through the crisis with no UK government help such as HSBC, Nomura, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan or Barclays. It does not matter if you were not an investment bank as some smaller institutions are finding. And with a £25,000 ceiling, it does not seem to matter if you work in the back office controlling risk or as a trader taking the risk. The Treasury's only concern appears to be to stop banks paying bonuses or to tax them if they do, so that Gordon Brown can say he has punished them. Equitable, fair, stable - the prerequisites of any good tax system - it fails on all counts.

The reputation of London built over decades has been crushed in months. Many key institutions that have based a considerable portion of their business here are starting to reconsider London as a base. Sadly the full impact will not be seen for months or even years, well beyond the horizon of Mr Brown. It is equally sad that the Conservatives have failed to oppose the tax - they should put down a marker and say they would abolish it immediately after the election. That would at least provide reason to pause for those thinking of moving out. The danger to the City's position is far greater than many "informed" commentators seem to think; it is time people had the courage to say so.

[verysideways]

Mr Brown's a total friggin' waste of space, along with the numpty Darling.

Perhaps i sound old, but honestly; what is this country coming to?

[john lloyd]

Why are you moaning about the very people that kept you in a job you ungrateful slob! ;)

If the govenrment hadn't stepped in you would have been out of work for the last 2 years, so what's your problem with paying a bit of extra tax as a thank you for still being in work?

It's beyond me? ;) ;)

[Fiona]

Aww, Bachi, are the mean politicians picking on you again ;)

Actually I agree with you on this, the tax system in this country is crazy. I know a fair few people who now spend most of them time abroad as tax exiles or run their businesses off shore rather than suffer through the UK tax system.

What politicians never seem to understand is that people will ultimately vote with their feet. If you look at the Mega-rich bracket, actors, pop-stars etc How many of them actually live in this country? Most have their first home abroad for tax reasons. Once they've gone and the government aren't raking in the taxes from them they look at the next bracket down and so on and so forth. Until we will be left with half the nation living off benefits while the other half give up half their wages to support them.....grrrrr!:rant:


...and if it's any consolation Politicians are way more unpopular than bankers!

[Harsh]

Why are you moaning about the very people that kept you in a job you ungrateful slob! ;)

If the govenrment hadn't stepped in you would have been out of work for the last 2 years, so what's your problem with paying a bit of extra tax as a thank you for still being in work?

It's beyond me? ;) ;)

if i worked for a UK bank i would agree with you, However i work for JP Morgan, probably the only bank who have not eeded any help through this crisis, in fact we worked with the fed to bail out a couple of banks, including buying Bear Stearns.

I dont get how the UK govt can punish an American bank?

but i do know what you're saying. ;)

[ChrisC]

Jon Lloyd
But do you think its fair to tax anything to the tune of 75.25%?

As Bachi pointed out, I also worked at the time for a US bank which took no uk money at all, the fed forced us to take cash which we dodnt need, we paid if back as soon as we were allowed, we lost nothing becuase we knew what we were doing and came out smelling of roses (if thats even possible). Why should its 5000 odd employees pay equivalent of 75% tax on their bonuses because northern rock was run by idiots?

Well for me its very simple, there is no larger and more dispropotonatly contributing industry in the uk. The goverment is pushing it out by what they are doing. They are taxing sucess hugely so removing the benifit of ambition. The economy is in a very bad state compared to most other developed nations. Why stay here at all?

Its not only me saying this but many other people I know in wider industry. Business is very fluid and talent even more so, why pay so much to live a country that is going backwards? There is no reason in this day and age.

What I do know is if things dont improve I wont be in the UK in 5-7 years time.

[Harsh]

Goldman Sachs has threatened the UK Treasury with plans to move up to 20 per cent of its London-based staff to Spain in a standoff over tax and bonuses.

It's believed that the Wall Street investment bank, which paid more than £2bn to the Exchequer's ailing coffers in corporation tax alone last year, has fired a warning shot across the Government's bows in response to the tax measures unveiled in the pre-Budget report earlier this month.

Goldman Sachs International was the biggest contributor from the financial services sector to Britain's purse last year. Previous reports suggest that in some years the firm's staff have contributed more than £1bn in personal income tax to public coffers.
A City source said: "Goldman could move a relatively large number of people if it wants to. Given how much Goldman and its staff contribute to the tax take, the firm has plenty of leverage. This is a bargaining position more than anything."
The bank, which employs around 5,000 staff in London, is believed to have strong links to the Spanish government, although it has a relatively modest number of employees in the country. Although staff moving to Spain would not receive any special tax incentives, the bank could avoid paying the bonus tax, details of which, so far, remain sketchy. A Goldman Sachs spokesman said it is looking at all options as it negotiates with the tax authorities over the bonus tax.

Tullett Prebon, a City money broker, said last week that it was offering its staff the chance to relocate, in an effort to avoid paying the super tax. But it is thought that the offer only relates to a portion of its 700-strong London staff.
Barclays' chief executive, John Varley, waded into the bonus debate on Friday, warning that talent was likely to flee London because of the tax. "This is a global industry and talent is mobile. We need a level playing field to make sure that we can compete with the best companies in the world," he said.

The Bank of England added fuel to the bonus fire last week when it said that the bailout of Britain's banks might have been avoided had City bonuses been just one fifth less in the years running up to the crisis. In its Financial Stability Report, the Bank said: "If discretionary distributions had been 20 per cent lower per year between 2000 and 2008, banks would have generated around £75bn of additional capital – more than provided by the public sector during the crisis."

Meanwhile, firms continue to negotiate with Her Majesty's Revenue over details of the super tax, which will tax bonuses of £25,000 at 50 per cent. It is believed that independent stockbrokers will be spared, after initially being caught in the Chancellor's net.


i'm rather stunned at the stupidity of the highlighted comment....
if your mother was a man she'd be your father. since when did what if ever matter?

if Liverpool had won all their games this season we'd be top of the league.

can anyone explain this to me? (not the Liverpool comment, i understand whats happening there :( )

[verysideways]

My mother always says this:

"If? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle..."

:D

[john lloyd]

Goldman Sachs has threatened the UK Treasury with plans to move up to 20 per cent of its London-based staff to Spain in a standoff over tax and bonuses.

It's believed that the Wall Street investment bank, which paid more than £2bn to the Exchequer's ailing coffers in corporation tax alone last year, has fired a warning shot across the Government's bows in response to the tax measures unveiled in the pre-Budget report earlier this month.

Goldman Sachs International was the biggest contributor from the financial services sector to Britain's purse last year. Previous reports suggest that in some years the firm's staff have contributed more than £1bn in personal income tax to public coffers.
A City source said: "Goldman could move a relatively large number of people if it wants to. Given how much Goldman and its staff contribute to the tax take, the firm has plenty of leverage. This is a bargaining position more than anything."
The bank, which employs around 5,000 staff in London, is believed to have strong links to the Spanish government, although it has a relatively modest number of employees in the country. Although staff moving to Spain would not receive any special tax incentives, the bank could avoid paying the bonus tax, details of which, so far, remain sketchy. A Goldman Sachs spokesman said it is looking at all options as it negotiates with the tax authorities over the bonus tax.

Tullett Prebon, a City money broker, said last week that it was offering its staff the chance to relocate, in an effort to avoid paying the super tax. But it is thought that the offer only relates to a portion of its 700-strong London staff.
Barclays' chief executive, John Varley, waded into the bonus debate on Friday, warning that talent was likely to flee London because of the tax. "This is a global industry and talent is mobile. We need a level playing field to make sure that we can compete with the best companies in the world," he said.

The Bank of England added fuel to the bonus fire last week when it said that the bailout of Britain's banks might have been avoided had City bonuses been just one fifth less in the years running up to the crisis. In its Financial Stability Report, the Bank said: "If discretionary distributions had been 20 per cent lower per year between 2000 and 2008, banks would have generated around £75bn of additional capital – more than provided by the public sector during the crisis."

Meanwhile, firms continue to negotiate with Her Majesty's Revenue over details of the super tax, which will tax bonuses of £25,000 at 50 per cent. It is believed that independent stockbrokers will be spared, after initially being caught in the Chancellor's net.


i'm rather stunned at the stupidity of the highlighted comment....
if your mother was a man she'd be your father. since when did what if ever matter?

if Liverpool had won all their games this season we'd be top of the league.

can anyone explain this to me? (not the Liverpool comment, i understand whats happening there :( )

Bye http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/tsys.gif ;)

[Harsh]

:) :smash:

to Liverpool or Me?

i dont work for GS....fortunately!

[ChrisC]

bachi, bachi play nice, otherwise the GS police will come after you!

I suspect that John is waving to me. That fine, if I go so will my tax obviously and I'm sure it wont only be me. What you need to be understood here is that "employeed" higher rate tax payers fund the uk becuase the uk, as a lot of other countries do, have a skewed taxation policy against the sucessfull ones in society. Its like that setting in racing games that makes you go faster the further behind you are, its not fair but it keeps you in the game.

[john lloyd]

bachi, bachi play nice, otherwise the GS police will come after you!

I suspect that John is waving to me. That fine, if I go so will my tax obviously and I'm sure it wont only be me. What you need to be understood here is that "employeed" higher rate tax payers fund the uk becuase the uk, as a lot of other countries do, have a skewed taxation policy against the sucessfull ones in society. Its like that setting in racing games that makes you go faster the further behind you are, its not fair but it keeps you in the game.

There's about half a dozen discussions in your statement. But let's just take a simplistic view as members of a society we as individuals need to contribute to the general "whole" of our country or it wouldn't function.

How revenue is collected and at what level is then up for debate. (We could if you want to keep your income suggest you work for 7 months as say a prison warden for no income and then return to your normal job for the remaining 5 months impractical) so we are taxed for the good of all.

The other thing that annoys me is the threat you make to the rest of us. Since the mid 80s the financial sector has never had it so good with deregulisation. Now there has been an awful cyclical blip caused by the banking community and to recover the amount of money the government has pumped into the system they need to raise taxes to get their revenues up you want to piss off in your private lear jet and leave the rest of us here (who can hardly afford the cost of petrol to commute to and from work.)

Your actions and threats are no better than those of BA union leaders who threaten us all with striking over the Xmas holiday period.

So go if you want to, but don't give me any of your scantimonious claptrap about how unfairly you've been treated, because all taxes across the board are being tweeked to raise revenue for the government, but we cannot afford to leave or have jobs that can relocate in the way that yours could be.


Rant over!

[Harsh]

Now we're talking, i love a good debate!

ok from my perpective....i think your view is a little polarised, in the same way the governments is.

logically, yes, taxes need to be raised and the rich will always be taxed at a higher level.
However, the govt bailed out UK banks...not US ones. if they want to recoup their outlay why dont they do it from those that they actually paid the money to?.
take the profits. After all they took the risk so why not reap the rewards?

Also in terms of the 50% levy on bonuses this year.
we worked all year with a knowledge that we had a specific tax treatment.
then in December the goalposts were moved for everyone.

it effectively means i'm being taxed at 75.25% instead of 40%

now i had plans to invest my bonus in a new venture.
This will now not be going ahead, i wont be employing the 5 staff i had planned to because i simply cant afford the investment.

[john lloyd]

Harsh,

I don't have a problem with what you are saying as you are planing to stay.

If you're going to go, go I'll hold the door open for you, but don't come the bully boy just, because things are not going your way.

I also have a theory on high taxes which is the people who set wage levels tend to be higher earners so both conciously and subconciously they will pay themselves more to compensate for the higher taxes leaving less for the rest. This just widens the wage gap over a long period of time and helps no one.

[Fiona]

it effectively means i'm being taxed at 75.25% instead of 40%

now i had plans to invest my bonus in a new venture.
This will now not be going ahead, i wont be employing the 5 staff i had planned to because i simply cant afford the investment.


Sounds like you need to find yourself a nice little tax haven to operate out of.....or start your own country :D

[Harsh]

Thats one way of looking at it, but the oher side is that they have to set the wages higher because the takes will take proportionally more.
so you have to have a large increase in gross pay to have a small increase in net pay.


The main crux of my argument however may have been lost and that is...the money that the government are taking away in tax would have been used to boost the economy anyway.

My second point is that changing the tax treatment in such a radical way actually achieves a very small amount of extra revenue for them but makes a huge psychological difference to those who are subject to the draconian measures. Hence the feelings of 'Why do i bother to work hard?' or 'Why am i in this country?' it isn't the answer but i do understand the deflating feeling

[john lloyd]

Thats one way of looking at it, but the oher side is that they have to set the wages higher because the takes will take proportionally more.
so you have to have a large increase in gross pay to have a small increase in net pay.


The main crux of my argument however may have been lost and that is...the money that the government are taking away in tax would have been used to boost the economy anyway.

My second point is that changing the tax treatment in such a radical way actually achieves a very small amount of extra revenue for them but makes a huge psychological difference to those who are subject to the draconian measures. Hence the feelings of 'Why do i bother to work hard?' or 'Why am i in this country?' it isn't the answer but i do understand the deflating feeling|


That's the same argument smokers, drinkers and car drivers use. THe "I'm being penalized unfairly because of what I do tax."

I think you already do all three Harsh so this 4th one must really be the straw that breaks the camels back!!! ;)

[Harsh]

To a point, however I'm aware of the tax on all the other things and i dont complain. What i have a problem with is the way these measures have been brought in. (i'm also slightly annoyed that whilst some banks paid bonuses before the announcement - some paid 2 years worth at once - my bank decided not to bother so it's the employees that suffer. it makes no real difference to the bank at all. so the moral aspect of the govts tax is lost as well.

i could go on about this all day (and probably will) but i need to go and steal some candy from a baby at some point today

[john lloyd]

To a point, however I'm aware of the tax on all the other things and i dont complain. What i have a problem with is the way these measures have been brought in. (i'm also slightly annoyed that whilst some banks paid bonuses before the announcement - some paid 2 years worth at once - my bank decided not to bother so it's the employees that suffer. it makes no real difference to the bank at all. so the moral aspect of the govts tax is lost as well.

i could go on about this all day (and probably will) but i need to go and steal some candy from a baby at some point today

You're pushing your luck now! I've got to give you a break, because of the way you're going to be taxed AND also on how your companies policy on bonus payments is set up. Why don't you just move to another bank you lot keep telling us how easy that is and how macho it is to do it ;)

[john lloyd]

Harsh,
Why don't you depress us all and tells how many millions you're making between posts, whilst all I've managed to do is raise one invoice for £150.00 and sit here waiting for some random web designer to turn up and tell me how to spend $4k on a new web site. ;)





(Not that I'm bitter and twisted in anyway!)

[Harsh]

If i remember right, one of those invoices came from my building company didnt it? ;)
if i couldn't fund the startup of that company i wouldn't be able to pay for the wages, the materials and the external media which you so ably provide.

i'm actually at home working on Tiger Two and Petrolhead Nirvana at the moment, but wil be at the bank to run the NYk shift later on today.


i'll be disappointed if i dont make around $50k tonight for the bank..
of course i wont see any of that

[john lloyd]

If i remember right, one of those invoices came from my building company didnt it? ;)
if i couldn't fund the startup of that company i wouldn't be able to pay for the wages, the materials and the external media which you so ably provide.

i'm actually at home working on Tiger Two and Petrolhead Nirvana at the moment, but wil be at the bank to run the NYk shift later on today.


i'll be disappointed if i dont make around $50k tonight for the bank..
of course i wont see any of that


Glad to read you're working two jobs, you'll easily be able to pay your tax bill!! ;)

[Harsh]

multitasking... !

oh and on your other question, i may be unique in this but i've actually worked for the same institution for the last 20 years. i could have left to go to GS or other places but loyalty means a lot to me and so does my working environment.

[Fiona]

multitasking... !

oh and on your other question, i may be unique in this but i've actually worked for the same institution for the last 20 years. i could have left to go to GS or other places but loyalty means a lot to me and so does my working environment.

Nope, you're not unique. I've been at Sky for 11 of my 17 years in broadcasting. The pay's not great but I love my job. The company supported me when I was seriously ill, I don't know what i would have done if they hadn't and for that reason i am fiercely loyal to them. I also get to work with interesting people and they let me have time off when I want to do crazy car rallies :) A few more weekends off would be nice but other than that I can't knock it.

We make our own choices in life, if I wanted a higher paid job I would have one. The lad who sat next to me in Math's at school now works for the Deutsche Bank. We had the same teacher and the same opportunities, if I had chosen the same path as him I would be whinging about my bonus being taxed too. As it is I don't get bonuses or even a reasonable salary thanks to Thatcher breaking the TV unions but I have a job I enjoy which is more important to me....so there you go :)

Oh and I don't care what anyone does or how much they earn 75% tax is just crazy and it's something we should all stand up against because you can bet we'll be next!

[Boris]

I for one am against the increase in tax! Firstly I work for a Financial Systems firm and as a result depend on the success of the banks directly for my paycheck! Fortunately GS moving to spain shouldnt really affect us as we work globally!

Secondly I think if the Bankers take an increase in tax so should Politicians as its partly their screw up in allowing the Current Account deficit to reach such a high level, which is putting in just as much cr*p as any of the bank issues! GRRRRRR

[john lloyd]

I for one am against the increase in tax! Firstly I work for a Financial Systems firm and as a result depend on the success of the banks directly for my paycheck! Fortunately GS moving to spain shouldnt really affect us as we work globally!

Secondly I think if the Bankers take an increase in tax so should Politicians as its partly their screw up in allowing the Current Account deficit to reach such a high level, which is putting in just as much cr*p as any of the bank issues! GRRRRRR


So let me understand this, if you didn't work for a financial systems firm you would be OK with the taxes going up?

Good God does anyone ever think of anyone, but themselves these days! :banghead:

[Fiona]

Good God does anyone ever think of anyone, but themselves these days! :banghead:


hey, didn't you read my post? I did! :(

[john lloyd]

hey, didn't you read my post? I did! :(

I'm feeling the love! :)

[Boris]

My comment wasnt meant to come across as selfish, so apologies, if you look there are 2 points raised not one! I would be happy to write an essay about my personal reasons for being against the tax rise but figured you guys didnt want to read it all so I summarised it! I think the government spends far too much time demonising the succesfull members of our society which I think is wrong and also goes against government policy to reduce the social class system we have in the UK!

[chevy-stu]

... I think the government spends far too much time demonising the succesfull members of our society which I think is wrong and also goes against government policy to reduce the social class system we have in the UK!....

Exactly... There's also too much of a tax/fine culture in government policy now, and very little reward logic..

[ChrisC]

A long time ago a shop keeper once said "I need to make more money". His friend said "Why dont you reduce your prices then?". He replied "Your crazy, if I reduce my prices I will make less, I will increase my prices instead"

Guess who was right?

Taxation tends to be elastic in most countries but polititians tend to ignore this fact! If you make sucess more atractive (to both domestic and foreign emplyees) then more people will end up in high brackets and you will gain more revenue its schoolboy economics!

[Dan H]

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io00QGNNTEE

[john lloyd]

ROLF :)

One of the best!

[jumplead]

Haven't really had chance to follow this really due to being maxed at work. Does it apply to bonuses over £25k for people outside the banking sector?

[harry_430]

i believe it does,
i think it's everyone.

I am not impressed at all.

[Harsh]

i believe it does,
i think it's everyone.

I am not impressed at all.

Is that why you've not been tending your bar recently? ;)

[bruce fielding]

A long time ago a shop keeper once said "I need to make more money". His friend said "Why dont you reduce your prices then?". He replied "Your crazy, if I reduce my prices I will make less, I will increase my prices instead"

Guess who was right?



If he was selling perfume, quite possibly the shopkeeper...

[ChrisC]

If he was selling perfume, quite possibly the shopkeeper...

I know I know, but thats rare to find somthing inelastic, its not like taxes are luxury goods is it!!!!

[ChrisC]

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io00QGNNTEE

LOL!!!!!! Classic!!!!!

[Fiona]

Slightly off track as it's talking about tax reductions but still a great explanation of the tax system.....


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay £1 The sixth would pay £3 The seventh would pay £7 The eighth would pay £12 The ninth would pay £18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings) The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28%savings) The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings) The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings) The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Harsh]

thats why i dont go down the pub! :D

[jumplead]

thats why i dont go down the pub! :D

You've bought me a pint before :) thank you person #10 :)

[Fiona]

You've bought me a pint before :) thank you person #10 :)


Don't you have to own your own lear jet to be a #10 ? ;)