It was made clear that hundreds of thousands of top earners would face paying the new rate — which Labour will also introduce after the election if they hang on to power — if Mr Cameron enters Number 10."
Idiocy has won.
We live in a nation in which our government is not accountable to anyone and makes endless decisions concerning its own welfare which it cloaks in the language of 'transparency' and 'public interest'.
Now the nation is being told that it is the duty - a term which subsided into the bloody maw of political correctness along with the concepts of fairness and nationhood - to rescue the economy.
If those who have putatively been elected to public office are unable to safeguard the economy in the first place, why should the unelected general public be forced to pay for their mistakes?
It is clear that there is a pressing need in the absence of governmental culpability to find a scapegoat. The next candidate is dangled in front of the mob for their delectation: the richest, who already pay the highest taxes, generate the most income for the economy and represent the finest entrepreneurial, intellectual and financial minds we possess, are somehow to blame and must make amends for their talents by giving away yet more of their money. They are being hanged on the scaffold of an ignorant public's censure, a 'general' public which is always casting around for others to condemn because it has not, itself, achieved their successes; and those who carry the hallmarks of success are inevitably the ones to suffer.
This is not to say that no-one has any 'duty' to society. It is saying that one's duty, being an innate will to good, is best enacted independently rather than being precipitated by a socialist-motivated state which demands money with menaces ('taxes') in order to carry out said good. (And those who would ask the delightfully naive questions 'who pays for the roads, if no-one pays taxes?' should rather look at our national debt: that is where most of the money goes.) In other words, one's duty is to society, not to the State: bracketing State and society together is a very dangerous thing, because it paves the way for totalitarianism - one way of approved thinking. The compulsion inherent in forcing people to do good for others also removes the equally innate will to be responsible for the other: the 'there but for the grace of God go I' gene, if you will.
Asserting a universal right to, say, abortion means that I will have to pay for abortion, whether I believe in a sacred right to life before birth or not; ditto war, ditto IVF for lesbian couples, ditto ID cards, ditto failed educational and health schemes; ditto free speech or its abolition, for the taxpayer pays for the mechanism that denies them the right to articulate their beliefs: Parliament. All of this is a hallmark of Labour's Big State. All of this has been paid for by the taxpayer despite their personal convictions: such is the hallmark of democracy, that it frustrates individuality through ensuring everyone is obliged to pay, literally and figuratively, for the outcome of others' beliefs and opinions to the detriment of their own.
And, because Labour has expanded the public sector to such an extent that it has been the only direct competitor of the private sector, growth has been stifled in other areas. Potential quashed. Now, the 'general' public is being asked to believe that it has a duty - a moral imperative in a state that would deny morals or imperatives - to make right the errors that have characterised the past twelve years. Cameron wishes to perpetuate the rot by targeting the few individuals who may potentially rejuvenate the country and encourage foreign investment. What is 'fair' about this scenario?