You're (probably) a hypocrite

I understand why Government Ministers and other Coalition spokespeople are so keen to state that the cuts are "not ideological". One reason is that it's true, in that they merely take us back to the public spending levels of a few years ago. The top rate of income tax remains at 50 per cent and expenditure on healthcare, overseas aid and infrastructure improvements has been ring-fenced. Furthermore, Labour would make cuts of about 80 per cent of overall Coalition plans - which made Ed Miliband's recent call to arms (in which he invoked the spirits of Dr King and Nelson Mandela) both hilarious and offensive. There is in fact a broad consensus.

But, of course, there's more to it than that. Front-line politicians are plainly either disinclined or scared to get into philosophical discussion about the size and scope of the state. I think that it is always a good time to ask such fundamental questions. I also think that as things stand modern political discourse is looking at things myopically and one-dimensionally.

We have talk of devolving central government powers to local government. We have some debate about the top rate of income tax. There is a lot of chatter regarding the empowerment of individuals and community groups. There is voluminous and voluble discussion about spending priorities. But precious few people seem to be articulating the view that there must be a limit on what one human being can demand of another.

I want to make clear that I support the principle of progressive taxation. For one thing, I wouldn't work in this town again if I didn't. And it does make economic sense - the wealthiest often are the biggest beneficiaries of the protection of property and enforcement of contracts. It also seems profoundly unlikely that any government could afford not to tax the rich more heavily than others.

Yet it does not flow from this that government should look at a nation's overall wealth and divvy it up according to need (let alone nakedly political priority). Nor is it right to decide what the government should spend and then determine what taxes need to be raised. Ministers should consider what taxation levels are fair and reasonable at the same time as calculating what they should spend - and what they can afford to spend.

Perhaps you are now on the edge of your seat, waving your fist at the screen and bellowing "As long as there are people starving in the world we should soak the wealthy! I wouldn't give a damn if Sir Richard Branson was reduced to owning one very large home and a modest island - he'd cope!"

He would cope. But before you rush to judgement, go home and have a look around. Consider your nice bed. You could trade it in for a mattress and still sleep soundly. Look at your DVD collection - do you really need them all? They'd raise a few quid at a secondhand merchant's. Do you use your dishwasher much? Washing up by hand doesn't take long and is good for the soul. Do you own your home? You could downsize, you know. Truly poor people live five or six to a room (if they're lucky enough to have one). Do you need to spend all that dosh on booze and going out? If you live in London, you really don't need a car most of the time. Sell it!

So what should you do with the change you've pocketed? Why, you could write a cheque to George Osborne, if you really believe he spends your money with infinite sagacity. Or you could send a donation to a reputable charity that works in poor countries. But you're not going to do that, are you? Because - like me, like your friends, like pretty much everyone - you care a bit about people you don't know, but only a bit. John Lennon wrote Imagine, but he didn't mean it. He still had quite a few possessions when he died.

Next time you rag on Richard Branson and Philip Green, just remember that the Exchequer has far more money than it would have done had they never existed or decided that they couldn't be bothered to start a business. They may not feel the pinch like you do, but they've made more hospital beds available than you have. Oh, and they've also provided products, services and jobs to a great many of us.

It's human nature to put oneself and one's family and loved ones first. That isn't going to change, which is why punitive rates of taxation are self-defeating - the wealth creators WILL move elsewhere or cease to do their thing if we hit them too hard. Maybe, just maybe, their yachts matter to them like your widescreen television matters to you.

There are some things from which all of society benefits, and so all of society should be made to pay for them. There are, of course, moral imperatives too. However, although "First they came for the yacht-owners..." is an even worse rallying cry than Ed Miliband's, it has more than a grain of truth to it.