>Mike,
>
>>From a personal POV, sure. But England had to adapt to financial reality. With a tax rate that high it was impossible to remain competitive in a global market. Some of the Scandinavian countries still haven't quite figured that out, and become more and more marginalized in the world economy.
>
>I think you'd better look twice at those scandanavian countries before making such remark. They have the best economies in europe and generally are labeled as the best places in the world to live in. They are pretty wealthy countries.
>
>About marginalisation, Well, the scandanavian countries are not heavely populated, so by that definition they will never be an economical power. They simply don't have to.
>
>We all know that simple work is going to be outsources to india and china in where taxes are low. The western world has to focus on what they do best: Innovating, driving businesses, financial, research, etc.
>
>Time will tell, but my stance is that the high tax rates are better for a nation in the long term.
>

"The best economies in Europe" -- even if true, that's a pretty slim accomplishment, isn't it? That Euro-centric view of the world just never seems to go away. Economically, the world has moved on. If you want to claim it is one of the best places in the world to live, economics aside, that is your right, but personally I wouldn't want to live on a bus driver's income.