There is some merit in implementing a ‘luvvies tax’ like that suggested by Toby Young at the Telegraph after a bunch of ‘luvvies’ made a video chastising the government for not implementing a Tobin Tax.
[T]he most objectionable thing about this video is the notion that a bunch of luvvies possess the moral authority to chastise bankers, politicians and the rest of us for not givingÂ even moreÂ moneyÂ to the European Union. David Yates, the film’s director, was at the helm for the last four Harry Potter movies and has a “first-look” deal with Warner Bros. I would conservatively estimate his total earnings over the last decade at over ÂŁ25 million. Very few “greedy” bankers earn that kind of money. If Yates and other Hollywood types are genuinely concerned about “extreme poverty” and “climate change”, why not campaign for a Luvvie Tax? Better yet, why not cut out the middle man and simply donate 0.5 per cent of their earnings directly to the EU? I’m sure JosĂ© Baroso can find a good use for it. A new fleet ofÂ Mercedes S400 BlueHybridsÂ for European Commissioners, perhaps.
I’ve never understood why showbusiness types think their political views should be taken seriously simply by virtue of their fame and fortune. What insight do members of the entertainment industry possess that members of the financial services industry lack? What’s the chain of reasoning here? I’m on telly a lot, therefore I’m wise? You may disagree with the Chancellor’s views about the Financial Transaction Tax, but at least he’s a member of the elected government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Who elected Bill Nighy to speak for the people of Britain? I mean, apart from Richard Curtis?
Do me a favour Nighy, Yates and all the other Labour luvvies involved in this “campaign”. If you want to create jobs, take early retirement.Â Read more »