>
>Another article I found says that Brits pay 45% on income above 150,000 pounds, so I'd say giving Rowling money is actually not a bad way to spend it.
>

I think you missed the point. I simply used that as an example because the topic is so well-known.

Vast majority of the time, people don't purchase with their conscience - they purchase for their own benefit (or benefit of friends, family, etc.). I am sure there are many who gripe about WalMart execs, but still shop there. (I try to avoid the place because I think they sell junk, the stores are often dirty and smelly, and the parking lots are a nightmare).

They generally don't care if they are funding the owner of the company, the country where the product was produced, or indirectly the people on welfare who wind up benefiting from the high taxes someone pays. Pretentious Hollywood phones like George Clooney can gripe all the want about social economic injustices, but his own actions in life are far more selfish.

Not all wealthy people are doing to do with Rowling does. So my original point remains - unless people want to disconnect themselves from basic consumer markets, they ARE contributing to "pay inequity".

And by the way, I'll come out openly and say it - there is nothing at all inherently wrong with income inequality. "Equal" is unfair. And that's a segue to a book that should be required reading: :)

http://www.amazon.com/Equal-Unfair-Americas-Misguided-Inequality/dp/125008444X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461777857&sr=8-1&keywords=yaron+brook