My goodness David! Thanks for the cogent retort…

Mintoff must have got his inspiration from the murkans:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Or Adam Smith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#History_of_intellectual_debate

Don’t worry. I’m not advocating you get a tax hike, unless you’re in the top 5%. As it stands now the tax burden is shifting more on the low (me) and middle income earners (most probably you and daphne) whilst the government gives a lot of incentives to high income earners and asset holders just in case they would like to invest their money in the economy.

You find that fair?

Do you think it promotes a healthy democracy?

As it is now democratic governments are in fact neutered shams that have to institute policies to favour rich asset holders. Up till now Malta has been relatively egalitarian, contrary to other island states (Bahrain comes to mind) but things are changing fast.

Large pay packets are in fact an incentive to commit misdeeds. I’ll leave you to Taibbi but I assume you only read stuff that reinforces your prejudice…

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

@ La Redoute

“Margaret Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter, much derided by that ‘ruling class’ you mention”

and she got amply rewarded for her services

I understand that progressive taxation will imply a heavier tax burden but why would you want to limit top end income? If anyone can earn more, good luck to them.

For the record, I would consider a maximum of 45% tax for 6 zero figure earners. Anything higher than that I would consider as socialist state sponsored theft.

“It is now unavoidable that if you want a country that works, you need progressive taxation that limits top end incomes”

What are you saying “limits top end incomes” Are you saying people should not be allowed to earn too much?

How Mintoffian of you. The word ‘lanzit’ comes to mind.

It is the stupidest conspiracy theory ever. The Thatcher government had planned to decommission the two carriers and the two amphibious landing ships, with which it fought that war, as part of budget cuts. Had the Argentines attacked the Falklands a few months later, Britain wouldn’t have had anything to retaliate with.

‘Peace through Strength’ Ronald Reagan declared when he became president. I totally agree with you though that Britain has had only two PMs with balls since WW2 – Churchill and Thatcher. The latter will remain famous for bringing to a complete halt the coal miners’ unions, and for going for the Argies to retake the Falklands. Some feat that is, and balls yes.

I know you chaps adore Carl Sagan, so I’ll quote him: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Bring me proof that Thatcher colluded in the invasion of the Falklands, and then we can start talking. Otherwise, this is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I’ve ever seen.

Planned invasion my arse. Argentina has been planning an invasion of the Falklands since the early 20th century, and it’s still on their constitution (Maltese tight-arsed lawyer types would take so much comfort in that). How was Thatcher to pre-empt it? By bombing Buenos Aires every week?

I suppose Hitler was financed by Churchill so he could start the war and make Churchill popular. Right?

I actively fight prejudice and understand she wouldn’t have had it easy being prime minister.

But I’m judging her legacy. I assume we can criticise female prime minister as much as we can bash Lloyd George or Churchill or Bliar…

@Joseph A Borg

Margaret Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter, much derided by that ‘ruling class’ you mention.