So, when I speak of everyone taking an 'equally fair' I actually mean that the fat cats at the top realise how bloody lucky they've been all this time, and have the guts to take a huge hit on their salaries....more like 60/70%

So why didn't you say that in the first place instead of saying everyone should take an equaly fair cut? What you are talking about is equal distribution of pay and, while it does seem to have it's advantages, the arguments against are completely different from the arguments against what you have been saying. I do wish you wouldn't change arguments mid-stream. I know it's to do with your special 'gift' but it makes you come across as someone who cannot make up their minds and it is very difficult to follow.

I have said before and will say again, if you want to go for equal distribution of wealth try using the well lmade arguments in 'The ragged trousered philantropists' by Robert Tressell. Make sure you read to the end before you do though and see why it could never work.

BTW - If bosses get a 70% cut and workers get a 20% cut what do I get? I am MD of my own company and one of the only 2 workers. Do I add the two together and take a 90% hit? :-)

DeG