In the news

^ Does that apply to people mentioned earlier (i.e. Clapton/Jones et al.)? Obviously they shouldn't have any money anyway being absolute tits - but the point is, should people who accrue fortunes over decades be capped? Or just "new money"?

Ooooh, I don't know really. I think the main difference is that having a long, successful career means that the money you've earned isn't all in one chunk but spread over lots of different projects/investments gathered over time, so it's not really like they've got 150mil cash in the bank to donate but various assets that are worth that much. They would also be putting their money towards their own careers too like Jamie Oliver setting up restaurant chains and stuff.

Then again, I'm making a crass and unfair assumption that this couple don't have anything worthwhile to pursue with this money other than buying nice houses and things for themselves and their friends, and leaving a handsome inheritance for their family. Maybe now they can follow their dreams of being fine artists who make sculptures exclusively out of platinum? Maybe they will buy all the abandoned housing in London, do them up and rent them as affordable housing, making a successful Channel 4 television series in the process? Who knows?