The history of tax reforms and proposals suggests the current proposals for a mansion tax are from optimal - there are better and fairer ways of taxing wealth.
The 50p tax rate would apparently have minimal impact but also be devastating to the UK economy. It's worth recalling similar arguments made against the 1981 proposal for a maximum salary cap of four times average wage.
The Emilia Romagna region in northern Italy gives an insight into how a republican economy might look in practice. The whole infrastructure is significantly geared towards cooperative production without any sign of lost efficiency. There is plenty the UK should learn.
Are high executive and banking pay related to results? Or to social value added? Or does executive compensation simply ratchet upwards, irrespective of either? Jeremy Fox reviews work from the High Pay commission, the New Economics Foundation and Ha-Joon Chang suggesting the answers are "No", "No"
Is there any reason to set top tax rates at anything but the rate which maximises government revenues? And what is that rate? Jeremy Fox has argued that the 50p rate does not constrain growth. Michael Bullen returned with the argument that 50p is too high for public revenue maximisation. Jeremy Fo
Michael Bullen argued against Jeremy Fox's charge of "blackmail by the wealthy" with respect to the campaign in Britain to abolish the 50p tax rate. Here, the author returns to the attack, proposing that the evidence suggests that 50p is, if anything, too low a tax for the welfare of all
Should the marginal rate of income tax be reduced for very high earners? Jeremy Fox argues that there is no obvious link to growth. But the link to government revenue is much better understood, argues Michael Bullen, and the numbers suggest that 50% is too high
Britain's 50 per cent tax rate for high earners isn't slowing growth. But many of the rich don't want to pay, so they're fighting dirty for its abolition
