I think we should try to see these things in their totality, not on the basis of one or two examples which are then used to categorise the whole system. On tax, I am content to pay tax because it funds the needs of our society, our fellow citizens. We need hospitals, schools, roads, a police force, social services, support for those in need,financial regulation, foreign embassies, etc. It is what being civilized means.
The "common man" never got anything by touching his cap to the boss. It all had to won after a collective struggle.
Public expenditure was given a bad name, which I think is wrong. We should be able to be proud of it and what we spend it on. Of course, there are always things that we get wrong and have to improve and are indeed sometimes scandalous failures, but I'd rather have it, controlled by a democratically elected Government, with all its faults, than not have it at all. The media thrives on scandals and negative stories.
Look what has happened to the "crown jewels" of our economy once they were sold off for private ownership - the water industry being a current example. Margaret Thatcher said that it was necessary as it would enable the capital to be raised to modernise it, because the Government could not. The capital was raised, over 85 billion and counting, but most of that went back to shareholders and the 70% foreign ownership of the water companies. The rest for improvements came from consumers in raised water bills. Let us be honest, there cannot be a "competitive market" in water supply. In the world, only England and Chile have a 100% privatised water industry. Scottish and Welsh water isn't.
I think that damning paying tax because we are made aware of such things as a) Government expenditure that has been wasteful or b) because a minority of people abuse the benefit system, etc, is an error.
I agree that it is not appropriate to respect someone simply because they are wealthy. Nor do I think that because we live in an unjust world (I think it is indeed unjust and is stacked in favour of those with wealth) we should give up on our own efforts to make the world a better place where we can do so.
We should, we non millionaires(!), after a hundred years of democracy, be able to find common ground amongst ourselves for all our interests, and try not to "talk past" one another, which often means that we don't really listen. I find it as hard to do as anyone.
As for the "Great Man", well, I can think of many others in horseracing, etc, Michael O'Leary, Denise Coates, etc. All the same arguments may apply, but should we be distracted from the need to ensure that they pay a whack of tax to support the society from which their wealth is drawn? I remember (showing my age) when Brian London (a boxer some may recall) complained about the 96 pence in a pound he had to pay on his earnings. Those were the days...My dad used to say,' "I'd love to pay 96p in the pound."
I know it's Talking Horses, so apologies.
