SWEDES! FOR THE EIGHTY THOUSANDTH MILLIONTH TIME - that post was a very SPECIFIC response to smallwhitecat's implication that, in order to maintain a belief in redistributive taxation, one had to be wealthy.
(She'd earlier described me as being "able to afford to vote labour" or something similar.)
I didn't think that what she said is true. In my fairly eclectic experience, I have noticed - you can't seriously be disputing this - that those who believe in the principle of progressive taxation tend not to be the wealthiest say, 10th of society.
You DESERVE to be bored to death, with your terrier-like insistence on this point. The following, surely, will quiet you: it's sedated even me, to a degree I've only previously experienced with vetinarian-prescribed opiates.
My use of the phrase 'economic justice and the support of the most impoverished section of society' was pushing my belief that redistributive taxation is the best way to ensure that the poorest do not suffer.
It was not intended to imply that the wealthy cannot be NICE PEOPLE, who care about their fellow humans. And it does NOT follow that I believe that you have to be poor to have principles. As you must know. That would be a simple reversal of smallwhitecat's (imo) ludicrous position.
The second part of my post was in response to your point that that fact that the less wealthy are more likely to believe in progressive taxation can be attributed to self-interest.
Has that cleared things up, Swedes.
Swedes? Swedes? Oh Christ, she's catatonic! Someone call an ambulance - please!