too rich?

[jonb]

What government? There are national governments, but as far as I know there is no world government, so who am I suggesting forcibly Tax?

Any government. Again, your use of the word "tax" suggests you want government(s) to forcibly take the money from the rich.

The association is in your own head, which you apply to my writing. An old person could say 'it taxes me to climb these stairs', there is no implication of a government in that statement.

I don't think most people do much for others unless there is encouragement. The encouragement could be positive, but it can also be aggressive.

Tax is not aggressive encouragement. It is a form of forced payment. If it was encouragement, people could say "no" to it and wouldn't find themselves in (much) trouble. If you say "no" to tax, you will get prosecuted by the government, or you will have to leave the country. When your two options are "pay up" or "leave the country", it is a forced payment.

This trait of yours to read into a statement what is in your head, rather than what is on the page, is shown here again. The quote you use does not mention a tax, but your reply is all about governmental tax. What do you want me to do, explain what I have written or what is in your head?

Where did I say that? I did not!

You said: "The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft."

This was in response to me saying setting a precedent of "taxing people when we need money to do something" would lead to the abuse of the precedent, such as bailing out companies that were "too big to fail". To say that the banks have been bailed out, and a change would lead to it is daft, you are suggesting that it could never happen again. It doesn't matter if the banks have been bailed out; they can fail again, and when you set the precedent of "let's tax people more to pay for stuff", there is no reason to think the government wouldn't use an additional tax to bail out the banks again.

If you didn't mean it that way, then please explain why it is "daft".

My accusation of 'daft' was in response to you saying

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

In this statement you seem to be saying that a new tax would lead to abuse, I responded by pointing out that, that abuse had already taken place, as such the proposal that a new tax is causal to an abuse is daft.
Governments abusing their control, does not depend on which taxes they impose, to say it does is daft.

Now I am going to be a bit presumptive here, but I feel I should openly state what I am finding in your posts.
Tibs you have a very intense gaze. You can channel your vision onto something and see detail which others find it very hard to see, but in looking at your correspondence I have noticed that you seem to find it hard to differentiate the vision you have from your own preconceptions and these preconceptions are colouring the result you get. This seems to mean you do not look at things with fresh eyes, as such; If you have decided what a thing is you can only see it that way. It seems to me if you could learn to at times re-evaluate your preconceptions, as well as use that intense vision, and differentiate between the two, you would be in a very strong position.