The rich will always be fine; the poor have government programmes designed to help them. The middle classes can sometimes feel neglected, under-appreciated and under pressure, as well as the likeliest targets for any tax raid.
The middle classes should probably become poor then, and then they/we will be looked after and won't have anything to worry about.
(Probably pretty borderline whether this is a weighty matters or relaxation station post given I don't have much else to add at the moment, but I'm genuinely irritated about this comment so optimistically posting it here)
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
The FT has long reflected a mix of opinions from protect-the-rich like this, to more centrist ideas that recognise the widespread understanding that reducing inequality is a good thing that requires taxing the rich harder.
What dismayed me more was a similar comment in the Economist Bagehot column (editorial column about Britain) about 6 weeks ago. It asserted, that “The Conservatives left behind an over-progressive tax system in which high earners are over-taxed”, as if that was a self-evident truth. There was no attempt to evidence it. So, therefore, it went on, tax rises would have to hit the middle. The reason that I can quote it precisely is that I was upset enough to draft a letter to send.
The Economist usually has a more even and conscious political position than the FT, and has generally been in favour of greater inequality reduction in the past. So that is why it was so upsetting.
IvanV wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:21 am
The FT has long reflected a mix of opinions from protect-the-rich like this, to more centrist ideas that recognise the widespread understanding that reducing inequality is a good thing that requires taxing the rich harder.
What dismayed me more was a similar comment in the Economist Bagehot column (editorial column about Britain) about 6 weeks ago. It asserted, that “The Conservatives left behind an over-progressive tax system in which high earners are over-taxed”, as if that was a self-evident truth. There was no attempt to evidence it. So, therefore, it went on, tax rises would have to hit the middle. The reason that I can quote it precisely is that I was upset enough to draft a letter to send.
The Economist usually has a more even and conscious political position than the FT, and has generally been in favour of greater inequality reduction in the past. So that is why it was so upsetting.
It's insane, although probably (unconsciously) highlights that social mobility isn't much more than a fantasy for most people, otherwise they would be less likely to see socioeconomic status as being as integral to someone's identity as the colour of their skin.
The Economist years ago had an article where it passingly mentioned 'independent' medical assessments for ESA and DLA, again as if it was just a bland fact and that these assessments were entirely fair and neutral as they were carried out by a private company rather than the DWP. I think these papers and magazine probably think themselves above concerning about these sorts of things too much to be honest.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
