Current Account

The Economics blog

A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn

If Nick Clegg is serious about introducing a wealth tax, here's how it could work.

By Peter Tatchell Published 25 September 2012 10:37

Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg. Photograph: Getty Images

The government's solution to the economic crisis is swingeing cuts in public services. David Cameron claims, Thatcher-style, that cuts are the only option. Not true. There are serious alternatives.

Even Nick Clegg seems to now realise this, with his recent proposal for a wealth tax. The only problem is that he hasn't spelt out the details. There are no specifics.

So let me help out the Lib Dem leader with an idea of how it could work. A one-off graduated 20 per cent wealth tax on the richest 10 per cent of the population would raise £800bn – more than enough to create the jobs needed to revive the economy and a concrete way to avoid harmful cuts in public services.

The wealthiest 10 per cent of the population have combined personal assets totalling four million, million pounds. This is a million pounds multiplied four million times. Many of these people have multi-million pound homes (often several of them), plus private yachts and jets and vast art collections. They can easily afford a once-only 20 per cent tax on their immense wealth. Selling off one of their six houses, a Lamborghini car or a Jackson Pollack painting won’t cause them to suffer. Indeed, it is in their self-interest to pay this tax because if we slip into a new depression they will lose much more than 20 per cent of their wealth.

The 20 per cent tax rate would be the average. People at the less rich end of the richest 10 per cent would probably pay a wealth tax of only one per cent, while those at the very richest end might pay 30 per cent. Everyone would be assessed individually. No one would be made to pay in ways that caused them hardship. The tax would be assessed and collected in the same way as other taxes, such as income tax and capital gains tax. People could be given the option to defer payment until after they die, so it would become a tax on their estate.

By raising a massive £800bn, this tax would be enough to pay off the entire government deficit more than four times over - or it could be used to clear most of the national debt. A reduction in the national debt would dramatically cut the government’s huge debt interest payments, which amount to nearly £50bn a year. This vast sum of money would be better spent on schools, hospitals, pensions and job creation.

Alternatively, and even more useful in terms of reviving the economy, the £800bn (or part of it) could be used to fund the proposed Green New Deal. Modelled on Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal, which got America back to work and helped end the Great Depression, the Green New Deal would create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in energy conservation, renewable energy, public transport and affordable homes; simultaneously helping remedy climate destruction and kick-starting economic recovery.

It could ensure that Britain leads the world in sustainable economics and green technologies, opening up new export markets and boosting our economic revival for many decades to come.

According to a YouGov poll in June 2010, 74 per cent of the public favour a one-off tax on the richest people in Britain. Only 10 per cent oppose it.

With great wealth comes great responsibility. The mega rich have the capacity and responsibility to help the country out of the mess we are in. They benefited disproportionately from the boom times. Now that times are tough they should contribute disproportionately to get the British economy back in shape.

Put bluntly: The super rich have a patriotic duty to help save the economy by paying more tax. If they love Britain, they will be willing to do this, in order to help us win through the current economic crisis.

Contributing more tax is in the interest of those with huge wealth. If the economy fails, their losses will be even more than the increased tax they are being asked to pay. By giving more to the exchequer they would be doing the morally right thing for the country and its citizens. Moreover, by helping save the economy they would also save most of their own riches. It’s enlightened self-interest. Over to you, Nick Clegg.

More from Peter Tatchell

View the discussion thread.

41 comments

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:29 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

According to the Office for National Statistics:

In 2010, aggregate total wealth (including private pension wealth but excluding state pension wealth) of all private households in Great Britain was £10.3 trillion

The wealthiest 10% of households were 4.3 times wealthier than the bottom 50 per cent of households combined

The wealthiest 20 per cent of households owned 62 per cent of total aggregate household wealth

This makes a strong case for a fairer tax take in the very rich.

Sat, 2012-09-29 17:08 — sid261 (not verified)

It's the elephant in the room that will, eventually, have to be tackled.

Premium health care is simply not affordable in a state funded system. It doesn't matter how much you tax the rich - you still won't be able to pay for it. Just look at the USA - that is a true reflection of the actual cost of modern healthcare.

You won't be able to reduce the cost of running it because the latest medicines will still cost £x thousand pounds.

If you try and cut in other areas like staff salaries, then all that happens is that the most talented and motivated doctors will move to the USA/Canada and Australia - and all that will be left to look after you Brits will be the off-the-boat immigrants from India and Eastern Europe who can barely speak English.

So, when will the British public realise - either restrict NHS care to emergency care only or introduce some sort of payment at the point of care (no matter how small - people have to pay £5 to see a GP in France).

And then there's benefits... Don't get me started on that! But as a starter - in a country with completely free healthcare, primary and secondary education and social housing, can someone please tell me why benefits are needed as cash? Surely all that is needed are food vouchers? But I guess the fact that you wouldn't be able to use these for White Lightning and Marlboro's probably won't sit well with Kevin and Sharon down the local estate.

Sun, 2012-09-30 08:29 — Indu Pendent

You might be waisting your breath on Peter -- he's not interested in policies that would work. Its about his massive chip on his shoulder and seeking to take it out on selected people he blames who he defines as rich (NB excludes Labour people). e.g. a senior teacher who will pass his rich test and have to give up 20% of everything they've ever earned to make his life more comfortable.

Thu, 2012-09-27 20:29 — Indu Pendent

Peter
Its yet different story from what you said below which itsnt even half baked.

Peters reference source for people is the ons site (gov) UK then U=slash and X=dot ht ml
UonsUrelUwasUwealth-in-great-britain-wave-2U2008-2010--part-2-Ureport--chapter-2--total-wealthX

I cant believe you have gone from the summary page of an 3 year old ONS survey (2008/10) to the axium "This makes a strong case for a fairer tax take in the very rich.".

Interestingly, the richest 10% per household is only 4.3 times the lowest 50% households: thats not very high. Most people have a chance in life to get to the top 10%. Its shows that most of the top 10% arent rich and still have to work hard to earn it . There might be an issue with wealth concentrated in the top 1% like with Ed Balls but you avoid making that point (Ed Balls acreted wealth at the tax payers expense by flipping his property under Labour's MPs expenses policy -- how greedy it that for a wealthy serving public servant. But does not count cos he's Labour)

If you got to page 2 of the ONS anlaysis it shows the split is 46% of wealth is tied up in pensions. What do you think of the UK's pension blackhole (or had you not thought?) ? Also pension assets are long term predominatnely invested in the economy (e.g. commercial buildings) - why would anyone want to liquidate 20% of pension funds and convert it into government expenditure? Further, pensions are liquidated fully over a persons lifetime. Taking pension asset takes long term demand out of the economy -- the equivalent of increasing government borrowing.

Of the non-pension wealth, 62% is in property i.e. the majority of the total wealth has a paper value -- the UK property portfolio changes slowly yet the values are unstable. So someone who is poor now might be classed as the top 10% in the future through their family house price. Why is it fair to penalise them for it ? For the government to take 20% of property would mean liquidating 20% of the privately owned property in country to covert it into government expenditure. It would destroy the paper value of the property.

The only liquid assets that could be used for your 20% wealth tax is the 10% of total assets held in bank and building societies in cash and equivalents. But this is fundamentally M4 and M5!!! Why drain the money supply - I dont get it Peter? Its the money use for spending and buying which supports everyones jobs.

What you have ommitted to say is that Gordon has already caused massive damage to the country by the tax raid on pensions -- money to buy votes. It might make you and the Labour team feel gratified but millions of ordinary people in the lower 99% have been hurt and many will not now have decent pensions directly as a result of Labour policy.

I have to return back to my first question.

No need to ask if you are one of Meacher's crackpots. I guess you are not progressive either.

Wed, 2012-09-26 12:26 — HenryMacGee (not verified)

It's important to realise that taxing the rich big-time in this way would be an ECONOMIC DISASTER for this country.

1) You wouldn't get as much money as you think - certainly not much even in the first instance
2) Future wealth creation would be screwed, so even less tax in the future
3) rich people would flee the country in droves
4) companies would base their operations elsewhere if you raised corporation tax higher and higher - they are already doing so.

Basically some politicians and journos have rediscovered that hatred of the rich is a vote-winner. So they either don't care that the arguments don't add up, or are too stupid to understand this fact.

Either way they will wreck the country if we take this path - perhaps noone cares...as long as we make a half-hearted attempt to hit the rich where it hurts

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:35 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

This proposal has got nothing to do with hatred or jealousy towards the rich. It's about a fair and just society - for everyone, not just the very wealthy. It is morally wrong for some people to have the immense wealth of multi-billionaires, while elderly people can't afford proper heating during the winter and some patients are being denied life-saving drugs by the NHS.

Wed, 2012-09-26 14:24 — HenryMacGee (not verified)

"It is morally wrong for some people to have the immense wealth of multi-billionaires"

And this shows the problems with your reasoning perfectly. It can be morally wrong for me to do something, perhaps. But it's cannot be morally wrong for a situation to exist.

You might (OTOH) say we have a moral duty to do something about it, but surely the only way to decide what best to do in any situation is to work out the likely consequences for everybody.

When I (and others) outline some of these consequences, Peter, you seem to have just ignored them. If the measures you suggest won't do what you want the to do, but will instead make us all poorer, then what is the point of pursuing them? (contrary to what you say I think the motive for many is very much envy)

I repeat, these measures will not work and will in fact impoverish people - I have to ask: do you care whether this happens?

Wed, 2012-09-26 09:09 — SadButMadLad (not verified)

Just get one thing into your head Peter, before you go spouting off about tax, a subject you obviously do not understand.

Wealth does not equal income. Income has no meaning on wealth. The two are totally different concepts.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:23 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Sorry, you are the confused one. My article never talked about income. I was discussing wealth.

Wed, 2012-09-26 07:33 — Christie Malry (not verified)

This is a terrible, terrible idea. It won't work in practice, for reasons I go into on my blog. But the most serious flaw with it is its breach of human rights. I simply don't understand how a well-respected gay rights campaigner can simultaneously demand that governments across the world recognise the rights of gay people while encouraging them to steal 30% of any resident's assets. It's an obscene suggestion.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:27 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Taxation is not stealing. It is fairness and to rebuild the economy - which will ultimately benefit everyone - poor and rich. Re-read my article. The rich will lose more than 20% of their wealth if the UK and global economy tips into a new Great Depression. My proposal could help prevent such as disaster.

Wed, 2012-09-26 15:57 — Christie Malry (not verified)

Taxation isn't stealing, no. Taking 30% of everything someone owes *is* stealing, whether you call it "taxation" or not. Please don't pretend you don't see any distinction between a tax on income and a tax on assets.

Wed, 2012-09-26 08:12 — New statesman II (not verified)

Yes. No one should pay taxes, and the government should never be able to raise or lower taxes.

I'd rather see people die in the streets then give anyone any money.

Wed, 2012-09-26 09:33 — Indu Pendent

You mean like we are seeing in Greece for real as the outcome of borrow-- corruption--spend policies.

The Greeks thought they could live on free lunches and someone else would pick up the tab. Just like Peter thinks so.

Wed, 2012-09-26 09:17 — SadButMadLad (not verified)

There is a difference between paying taxes as you earn or as you buy something and the government coming along years after you bought something and saying "I have decided you should pay 30% tax on that item, pay up". That is effectively retrospective taxation and totally and absolutely wrong on every level.

Wed, 2012-09-26 01:58 — Steve Knight (not verified)

You don't pay off a deficit only a debt. Based on these numbers
you'd change a deficit to a surplus for 12 months. If income and
outgoings stayed the same you'd return to the same deficit with
a substantially reduced debt. With any deficit the debt would then
increase again.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:44 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

You are right. My wording was inadvertently incorrect. Of course you don't "pay off" a government deficit. Sorry.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:38 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Sorry, you appear to have confused my statement about the government deficit with what I said about the government deficit. The two are different.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:41 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

PS: Apologies if my language was a bit muddled

Tue, 2012-09-25 22:52 — Frederica (not verified)

Er how are we defining richest? Income or assets? Because in income terms that's about £50 k and above for richest ten per cent. You really, really really want to take 20% of their wealth?

I'd ask if you were insane, but I think we can all tell what the answer is. It'd be worse than the poll tax riots, and I'll be there with a flaming torch of my own

Tue, 2012-09-25 23:14 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Please re-read the article. It's about assets /wealth - not income. The richest 10% will loose more than 20% of their wealth if the economy goes bottom up. This proposal to rebuild and rebalance the economy will ultimately benefit the richest as as well an everyone else.

Wed, 2012-09-26 10:44 — Frederica (not verified)

Ok, so let's see how this would work in practice. 20% of wealth - how do we assess this, the valuation would be a nightmare in practice. It would lead to people selling up their illiquid assets, like their house, their business, their pensions - I assume pensions would be caught - everything. We're currently giving tax advice to people trapped in house owning structures (and not in them for tax avoidance motices, but for other reasons) where they have to sell up before the end of the year to avoid punitive tax rates, and they aren't finding it that easy. It is also leading to little old ladies with Alzheimers being kicked out of their houses. They're nice houses, I grant you, in Chelsea so they really must deserve it, mustn't they? Never mind their confusion and upset, because they're RICH. BURN THE RICH. And if it kills her, well never mind, life's unfair.

It would lead to the complete collapse of the market economy as everyone tried to sell up at once, but hey, let's assume that this is even possible.

Why would anyone ever invest in the UK again, knowing that the government was prepared to levy one off taxes of that magnitude? We're already advising French people coming to the UK to avoid the income tax rates and the increase in wealth tax.

Tell you what, though, if you're so keen on this, sell up and give 20% to charity. No claiming tax relief on the gift either. You first.

Wed, 2012-09-26 13:47 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Sorry, you appear to have not read my article. I wrote:

"Everyone would be assessed individually. No one would be made to pay in ways that caused them hardship. The tax would be assessed and collected in the same way as other taxes, such as income tax and capital gains tax. People could be given the option to defer payment until after they die, so it would become a tax on their estate."

Wed, 2012-09-26 19:30 — Frederica (not verified)

Deferral would doubtless require the payment of interest. It usually does. And deferring payment stops the whole scheme working because then there's no money to spend on green jobs is there?

So how do you stop people leaving the country before they die and selling up all their assets?

And taking inheritance tax into account on estates, you would then be taking 60% of someone's wealth on death? And you don't think that people might look at that and think there's no point investing in the UK, staying here or working for a living facing that kind of penal regime?

This is just bonkers.

Wed, 2012-09-26 09:25 — Indu Pendent

Peter,

You have not done yourself any justice at all as I know you are bright. You can see below that your figures are wrong (there are not on average 7 people per household in the UK). I'll assume it was a silly mistake blindly believing your source without thinking.

Under Labour the divide between rich and poor grew larger - I'd question why people would want more of that? e.g. progressive redistribution could be done both fairly by increasing VAT to 25% and reducing payroll taxes for the lowest paid which gives a economic advantage to exporters i.e. the opposite of Labour policy which seeks to reduce VAT, raise NI and freeze the personal allowance.

Dr David Hill - World Innovation Foundation's picture

Tue, 2012-09-25 22:42 — Dr David Hill - World Innovation Foundation (not verified)

For once I agree with Nick Clegg. In this respect it was interesting to read in Forbes two weeks ago that Bill Gates increased his wealth by $7 billion and that the 400 richest Americans increased their wealth by $1.7 trillion or 13% over the last 12-months, but where contrary to this 97% of the world’s population got poorer. The same is the case in the UK. Therefore it has to be asked if these Foundations that these people operate out of are really philanthropic at all and where all this giving is not really giving in the true sense of giving, but a way to increase their personal wealth without incurring any tax. It is debateable as the people behind these vast Foundations get richer every year. Indeed it could be construed that the formula is to create a Foundation so that the taxman cannot get his hands on any part of your wealth, then you reinvest these vast financial resources around the world through employing an array of investors to make as much additional wealth as possible. Nothing wrong in this but it could be seen as a very clever corporate tax dodge where the ultimate owners keep hold of their wealth and pay no tax on the earnings to government, and therefore there is no redistribute of wealth to the less fortunate in society – the vast majority of us. What appears to happen is that Gates and others give around 3% of their wealth (and no more) every year but where the 97%+ that they are left with makes far more billions for them, easily outstripping by far the mere 3% given. Therefore the wealthiest people are far better off financially and their families after them by creating these huge Foundations - little or no tax to pay and most is kept to reinvest to make these people even more richer than before. There is therefore an irony about this giving and philanthropy that is not as straight forward as it seems. In this respect there is more to it than meets the eye and where corporate minds are not programmed to be benevolent in the true sense of the meaning that normal people can understand – the 97% of the world’s populous that now control less than 30% of the world’s wealth. Indeed a mere 2,000 companies last year according to Forbes again, the ‘Global 2000’, controlled 51% of the world’s total economic turnover or $36 trillion in nominal terms. Therefore it appears also that those who run big business never let it go and that can be seen when they form these so-called vast philanthropic Foundations. But also it appears and where I have observed this over the years that these philanthropic multi-billionaires and their Foundations do not give to things that affect their ‘bottom-line’. In this respect I am aware of several examples that can rid the world of major global scourges, such as a cure for Class ‘A’ drugs, the stoppage of future killer pandemics such as avian flu and the vast reduction in HIV/AIDS cases through early testing of new infants. Why don’t they do this? You tell me, but where I believe it is down to financial investment considerations and where highly needed solutions for humanity are not entertained because the present products that try to treat these great diseases and human threats (which have little success) are required to be continually used and thereby continually reap the very high returns for the billionaires like Gates et al personally (through their Foundations of course). It is time therefore in Britain and the West for these people to help their nations who have given them their vast wealth to pay more taxes and their due share to society. Will it happen, probably not as it is as though they think that they can take it with them when they die and their life’s work is just creating personal wealth for themselves and not for a better society?

Dr David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
United Kingdom - Switzerland

Tue, 2012-09-25 16:43 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Closing tax avoidance loop-holes is also a good idea. This would raise around £20 billion extra a year. Cancelling Trident would save up to £100 billion over 30+ years. Ending pension tax relief on those earning more than £100,000 pa would raise an extra £20 billion annually. All good ideas worth considering.

Tue, 2012-09-25 18:10 — Indu Pendent

Not buying a spare aircraft carrier: £2Bn
Not wasting money on Nimrod: £13Bn
Not hiding money off the balancsheet with PPP and PFI: £150Bn
Not borrowing to buy votes: £600bn

All good ideas worth considering.

Why dont you split your pension with the state? Oh sorry, you are telling us what you would do with other peoples money.

Tue, 2012-09-25 15:50 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

The total personal wealth in the UK is around £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt and the government deficit. It is mostly concentrated at the top, with the richest 10% owning £4,000bn - an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%.

The wealthiest hold the bulk of their money in property or pensions, and some in financial assets and objects such antiques and paintings. Some of these assets could be sold to pay the tax - either now or upon the person’s death.

Finer minds than mine can work out the precise details but I think (hope) that I’ve shown that a wealth tax can potentially raise staggering sums to help remedy the financial crisis - and be used to revive the economy with new investment and jobs.

Tue, 2012-11-06 19:37 — David Hill (not verified)

Peter,

You should read what the chief economist of PwC stated last year in a company and press release that the total debt of all our people and government (everything that the nation owes) will be around £10 trillion by 2015. Therefore when you look at this figure the £9 trillion is slightly dwarfed. That is the real dire mess that the UK is in and it is not aired enough unfortunately. It should, as then people may then realise what an enormous economic and sustainable mountain we have all to climb. That is if we can ever climb it with the very poor thinking coming out of Whitehall, government and so-called wise advisers.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
Huddersfield, United Kingdom - Bern, Switzerland - Arlington, USA

Tue, 2012-09-25 18:48 — Indu Pendent

Its gobblygook Peter.

Per your figures:

- Top 10% own £4Tn @ £4M per household. So there must be 1M households. So that would make 10M households in total which is nonsense. Theres 40M working people in the UK and 70M population so for you figures to be right there would need to be on average 7 people per household and 4 of them working.

- £9Tn in total less £4Tn for top 10% less the 9% wealth of lowest 50%. Hence 40% of people own £4.19 Tn and 10% own £4Tn. So the top 10% own 4 times more than the next 40% hence they each have an average £1M. Utter nonsense! The wage range of the 40% is £26k to £50k per other NS posts. So the £1M is more than 20 years gross salary before tax! People dont accumulate anything like that in a lifetime. Even double it and its not even close to the retirement wealth let alone their average wealth over their lifetime.

The whole article is nonsense from start to finish. "Finer minds than mine can work out " -- thats the most believable thing you say.

Its worrying because what you are talking about is forcing anyone with a bit of money to sell their house and take a cut to make your life more comfortable.

Many people who have accumulated more than £1M have it in shares setting up successful businesses - you have put yourself into the Meacher and crackpots arena along side Gordon and his fatwa against SMEs -- its why I asked below are you an idiot?

Tue, 2012-09-25 15:15 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

In answer to the some of the points raised above:
Prof Greg Philo of Glasgow University has done considerable work on the idea of a one-off 20% wealth tax and its potential to raise vast revenues.
You can read his verified statistics and factual sources by going to the home page of the website of the Glasgow Media Group and also by looking at the index under Wealth Tax - or by typing Wealth Tax into the search facility.
Apologies but the NS does not allow website links to be published in the comment threads

Tue, 2012-09-25 15:14 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

Tue, 2012-09-25 15:00 — DavidC (not verified)

Not possible to implement I'm afraid. The team of accountants would be primed to shift their clients financial affairs offshore, that's before even starting on the catastrophic damage to Britain reputationally that such a tax would do. It's simply impossible, let alone morally questionable. I'd rather see more resources going into minimising tax evasion and closing obvious loopholes than a mad 'easy fix' scheme like this that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.

A simplistic, silly idea beneath Tatchell's intelligence.

Tue, 2012-09-25 14:28 — mike cobley (not verified)

Concise, to the point, and bang on target!

Tue, 2012-09-25 14:25 — M .Wenzl (not verified)

1. And the flip side to this coin is?
2. £800bn -- where did this figure come from?
3. If this would be such a magical solution, a) why hasn't it been implemented, and b) why don't all countries do it?

Tue, 2012-09-25 16:30 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

£800 billion is 20% of the total personal wealth held by the richest 10% of the UK population.
Most countries don't do wealth taxes because their governments serve big business.

Wed, 2012-09-26 14:12 — Stephen Fox (not verified)

'Most countries don't do wealth taxes because their governments serve big business'

Quite so. They do that because, whether you like it or not, we now live in a globalised world of big businesses, and if we want to continue paying for a (not even very good) NHS, and welfare state, we need big business to generate the necessary income. As President John F. Kennedy put it, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” And that was in the US in the early 60s. If it applied then and there, you can triple it for here and now.

Tue, 2012-09-25 14:29 — M .Wenzl (not verified)

Sorry, I should say, where did the calculation of £4trn come from?

Tue, 2012-09-25 16:37 — PeterTatchell (not verified)

It came from calculations based on information from the Office of National Statistics

Tue, 2012-09-25 14:29 — Indu Pendent

Peter

Are you an idiot?

The wealthiest 10% have a joint household income less than £100k, get the bus and train to work and live in Surbiton in a house they spend 25 years buying.

You are wrong about the £4Tn personal assets as you have measured it gross not net and included assets owned by the investment funds such as the pension schemes and insurance companies. Your £800Bn does not exist.

A true piece of information is that Labour borrowed £600Bn (thats £600,000,000,000 - a tiny trifle for you) and spent it but what did we get for the money:
- greater inequality between the rich and poor
- half of adults leaving school without GCSE maths and english
- UK industry declined at its fastest rate since the 1970's
- UK NHS fallowing behind the health care standards of the countries
- Labour's vast structural deficit
- inflation busting public sector pay. Kick public sector pensions down the road because Labour cant tackle the miltant unions that wont support the national interest
- higher taxes for the rich and everyone paying for a massive structural deficit
- not to mention under Labour MPs expenses, phone hacking and police bribery, manipulation of the treasury forecasts ... goes on and on and on

So now you want another £800Bn to spend. How would Labour spend the money differently? Would you use it to buy votes and power for a small political elite like Labour did?

Why dont you make a 20% donation of all your assets to the state? After all that would be fair.