[thread] Yesterday, Momentum put out a meme in taxation that was glib, unhelpful, out-of-touch & quickly deleted. Mistakes happen, but I think there’s a deeper issue that affected not just that organisation but the whole Corbyn project: (1/11)

The truth is, we didn’t have a progressive vision on taxation & we accepted many of the parameters of the status quo, stretching over the last four decades. (2/11)

Some historical perspective. The highest rate of income tax was during WW2 (99.25%). It hovered at around 90% in the 1950s & 60s. In 1971 the top rate was cut to 75% & upped again to 83% in 1974. (3/11)

Thatcher started a steep downward trend with a cut from 83% to 60% in 1979, reaching 40% in 1988. It stayed that way, with the debate mostly operating on the margins of whether we should increase the top rate to 45% or increase the tax free “personal allowance” marginally. (4/11)

2015-19 was a huge missed opportunity on taxation. At best, we surrounded the debate with academic jargon. At worst, we repeated the framing of the Thatcherite consensus, because we believed the myth that tax was a bogeyman, when in fact it’s a central part of the answer. (5/11)

It’s become trendy to dismiss income tax as a lever of societal change & I’m not denying the need for a variety of methods (wealth tax, land tax, financial transaction taxes) but for decades, in a range of societies, it was a tool which had a real, redistributive effect. (6/11)

These were often social democratic societies, rather than socialist ones, but those lines are also blurred. Was Corbynism offering socialism or a raft of policies aligned to a left wing social democracy? Either way, progressive taxation should have been at the heart of it. (7/11)

There are arguments to be had about the effectiveness of traditional tax systems in our financial world of tax evasion and capital flight, of course. The way that world has changed over the last four decades makes any redistribution difficult. That’s the whole point right? (8/11)

But I’m very dubious of the 2nd part of the formulation: as if the answer to all our problems was to tax the super-rich, get our hands on the billionaires’ money & close tax loop holes. Motherhood & apple pie. Anyone who thinks it would be that easy is kidding themselves. (9/11)

Progressive income tax is a very different beast - not perfect, but a practical & time tested way of redistributing wealth. In 2020, it clearly can & needs to be more graduated (that we continue with 3 bands - basic, higher & additional is a large part of the problem). (10/11)

But I don’t think we should abandon income tax as a lever for redistribution. In fact, I think it is an important symbol of a different way of organising our societies. Of course these things are complex, but that’s exactly why we need to open up the debate. (11/11)