That’s exactly right, Derlin. As long as the quality of life for the lower classes goes up—as it has in America, such that “poor” here doesn’t look like “poor” to the rest of the world— and as long as there is fairness and justice, the opportunity for all to get ahead provided they work hard and play by the rules, then what business is it of mine how much money Bill Gates has?

Yes, your point about the raised standard of living would have been another good point to make; thanks for doing so. What we call “poverty” in America would not be recognized as such anywhere else in the world. If “Socialists get worked up about anything which helps the poor if it (also) helps the rich”, then they give away their true colors, and demonstrate it to be about, as I said, envy, and not about any high-minded concern for poor people.

Well, that age of “equality” is not a golden era. Things taken for granted in 21st century “poor” homes- cars, washing machines, fridges, TVs, vacuum cleaners, central heating etc.- were luxury items. My parents can remember the food ration cards.

Socialists get worked up about anything which helps the poor if it helps the rich. It is likely that in 47 days time there will be an election, and this is a battleground in the area of tax.

Liberal Democrats talk about raising the “personal allowance”- the amount that you earn without paying tax. This would enable poor people to keep more of what they earn. Immediately, socialists leap in and say that this is not “progressive” as it also means that people on higher incomes will also pay less tax. Socialists treat it as a zero-sum game. If Conservative or Liberal Democrat tax plans help the middle-classes, then by definition they are anti-poor, even if the tax plans help the poor.