too rich?

[jonb]

My point was, governments always abuse the powers they are given. If they are given a power to take tax from people just because they have enough money to do something, they will only abuse that power. I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse; I implied that governments abuse their powers generally.

As you say governments abuse power, therefore, the introduction of a levey on the income of the wealthy would be of no bearing on a governments future or past actions. If the Banks required new bailouts, how would the rich giving to the poor influence a governmental decision? Next you say
' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'

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.

'If we allow that, why stop there?'
Explain? What difference if you did or did not allow. Are you not implying, this would start something that would be hard to stop? In other words a cause and an effect? You say

'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

so shall we put two of your lines together?

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'