A couple of news stories, in the past two weeks, related conceptually, caught my attention.

It was reported that the net worth of the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg (who owns a home in Tucker's Town), had doubled in a year. The increase followed his decision to buy back shares in his own information company, Bloomberg, at a price that valued his company at twice its previous estimated worth.

This prompted the question: What would you do if your net worth doubled?

The New York Times quoted one 24-year-old reader, Ann Quigley, as saying she would "pay off her student loans, travel more and buy an espresso maker". Other than the loan repayment, such decisions would probably return Ms Quigley's unreported net worth to where it was before it doubled.

Your answer to that question would be a function of your age, your personality and your current net worth. If, for instance, you had nothing, twice as much wouldn't make a great deal of difference. And if, like Mayor Bloomberg, you already had $10 billion, a doubling would equally not change very much in your life. It's the rest of us, in between nothing and billions, who would face intriguing questions were our net worth to double in a hurry.

Ms Quigley's answer covered all the bases that anyone might have to consider. Her proposed loan repayment addressed the prudent, sensible end of monetary behaviour. The espresso machine was from the other end of the spectrum: essentially, money thrown away on an object she neither needed nor could afford. And "more travel" was a compromise at neither extreme, an investment in self that would be arguably neither prudent nor excessive.

I'd buy an apartment in New York City. I might move to more luxurious surroundings here in Bermuda, too. And, what the hell, I'd buy an espresso maker. Then I'd save whatever little remained. So, an instant doubling of my net worth would greatly improve things, come to think of it. Pity I can't buy shares in myself.

The second news report was essentially the reverse: chairman Brian O'Hara's shares in XL Capital have fallen in value by more than $100 million in the past year.

That's tough to get your head around. In that this is share value, rather than cash we're talking about, Mr. O'Hara won't be selling his living room furniture to make ends meet. But what a blow!

For all that, I'd be willing to bet that Mr. O'Hara, whom I know to be a thoroughly decent fellow, would gladly give up the dough if the cause of his loss, the setbacks at XL, had not happened.

* * *

Quite my favourite news story of recent days concerns the Olympic Games. Seems the Chinese Government, which is composed of murderous thugs, set up "protest zones" in Beijing, at which peaceful protests could be staged. The zones were supposed to be near Olympic events. They were miles away, of course.

Protesters were required to register their names, addresses and other personal details in advance of the protests, to allow the Police time to bring in the water cannon and so on. Only one protester went along with this. When he presented himself at the relevant Police station to register in advance for his day of protest, he was thrown in jail.

* * *

How income tax works, in a story one might subtitle The Tax Burden:

The British tax authorities have handed down a ruling that should serve as an object lesson to all those who would like to see Bermudians subject to the lash of income taxation.

Joyce Burden, aged 90, and her sister Sybil, 82, have lived together in the same house all their lives. Neither is married. Under UK rules, tax savings available to married couples and same-sex civil partners do not apply to siblings such as the Burden sisters.

That means that when one sister dies, the value of the house they share will be subject to death tax at 40 percent. And when the second sister dies, the value of the house will again be taxed at 40 percent. Married couples and same-sex partners who share a home do not pay the tax when the first one dies and passes the property to the survivor.

Blatantly unfair? Obviously. Pernicious and discriminatory? Of course. But that's how income tax works, suckers: in a 15-2 vote, the European Court of Human Rights (a misnomer if ever there were one) ruled that the sisters do not face unfair discrimination. The law, you may have heard, is an ass. Tax law is the biggest ass of all. It is also, one might say, a kick in the ass.

The sisters' house was recently valued at £875,000 (about $1.7 million). Had the sisters been civil partners, their tax would have amounted to $700,000. Because they're related, the total tax due would be $1.36 million.

With interest, which runs from a date well in advance of the sisters' ability to sell their home, there'll be almost nothing left. And if the value of the house falls after the women die, the proceeds from the sale of the house might not cover the tax due on the house.

Income tax is almost never fair. Sadists invented the very concept and common sense rarely applies. The right thing to do in life is always the wrong thing to do from a tax perspective. A proposal to change the rule that affected the sisters was defeated in the British Parliament, the Labour Party denying the sisters their human rights at the direct instruction of Gordon Brown, the leader of Britain.

Can anyone in their right mind still want to see income tax introduced in Bermuda?

Roger Crombie is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, a Member of the Chartered Management Institute and a Fellow of the Institute of Financial Accountants.