You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You'll never win an election by appealing to the party membership, particuarly not when setting policies.
And you'll never win a leadership election by not appealing to the membership. You can't do the latter without doing the former. Has it occurred to you at all that the main reason the general population hate politicians is because they do exactly what you suggest? Corbyn tapped into this and it's the main reason he won. If he does as you suggest and abandons that he'll be finished far quicker than he will be at the hands of the PPE drones.
and the sudden upsurge of new party members from the 'random nut jobs' on the left
Like yourself you mean?
You see the trouble with this is that Corbyn won the biggest ever landslide in the leadership election, in all 3 sections of the vote.
Not entirely true, he won all three votes but actually if you compare like for like with Blair's election the result is quite similar. It is is £3 voters who massively change it because Corbyn dominated there more than Blair dominated the PLP vote.
£3 voters Corbyn 84% vs Blair N/A
Constituency Corbyn 49.69% vs Blair 57.61%
Affiliated Corbyn 58.2% vs Blair 52.3%
PLP Corbyn N/A vs Blair 60.55%
Note Blair won a majority in each electoral college, which Corbyn didn't quite.
martinhutch - Member
...Many were younger people making their first foray into politics, which is a good thing for the Labour Party in the longer term
The Labour mis-management have to proceed very carefully.
if (when?) Corbyn gets done-over, the exodus by the new membership will be huge, and they'll associate the words 'labour party' with a very nasty taste in their mouth. They'll never come back on side.
Here's a thought...why is it people support Cameron who would rather kill people (go to war) over offering a helping hand to the destitute (immigrants fleeing worn torn counties)... Says it all really...least Corbyn has some compassion and empathy...
I don't think you can dismiss everyone who backed Corbyn as a random nut jobs.
I wouldn't seek to do so - on the same basis as I wouldn't dismiss [u]everyone[/u] who backed Farage as a random nut job, but the fact that they both attract random nut jobs like flies round **** should be enough of a warning on how the majority see them to ring alarm bells on their policies, leadership and electability.
And you'll never win a leadership election by not appealing to the membership.
Which is why the Labour Party previously weighted elections towards the PLP - in fact, prior to that I think it was entirely a PLP decision.
but the fact that they both attract random nut jobs like flies round **** should be enough of a warning on how the majority see them to ring alarm bells on their policies, leadership and electability.
Coming from someone who has been quite open about paying 3 quid to vote for Corbyn I'm surprised you can write that with a straight face.
Really? I think it proves my point perfectly 😆
Though unfortunately you seem to be mixing up the 'attracts lots of £3 voters' and 'surge in membership' as the same people 😉
from the middle, Corbyn is hard left. As as far left as Farage is right.
But the middle has moved waaaaaay to the right. What Corbyn is mostly suggesting is only slightly to the left of Thatcher on most issues!
Though unfortunately you seem to be mixing up the 'attracts lots of £3 voters' and 'surge in membership' as the same people
I suspect only a tiny number of fanatical Tory/UKIP loonies actually paid 3 quid to vote.
from the middle, Corbyn is hard left.
Whose definition of the middle?
anyone who does not embrace thatcherism/blairism.serve the interest of global capitalism and our "free press" is seen as hard left.
Have the far left and right ever existed in the UK - at least in power?
To consider mild shifts in UK political positions as movements far in one way or another requires an extraordinary narrow context.
Even then, strip away the titles and look at actions not words. Some of the more RW stuff and policies are found north of the wall from a so-called anti-austerity, left of centre party. And the far right (sic) austerity driven nasty Tories are currently running one of the widest budget deficits in the developed world! Far right of centre???????
So much for the headlines....
More like noise around a consistent centre ground. Hence the challenge of recognising that a different mindset is needed to tackle the current situation that does not fit into LW or RW categorisation. That's just historically convenient labelling (and BS) frankly
[url= http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/laura-kuenssberg-not-good-enough.html?m=1 ]This doesn't seem right...[/url]
The BBC orchestrated the resignation of a MP from the shadow cabinet and timed it to cause maximum trouble for Corbyn while feeding Cameron the info. Then deleted the blog detailing it.
And the far right (sic) austerity driven nasty Tories are currently running one of the widest budget deficits in the developed world! Far right of centre???????
You're seeing things from a purely economic viewpoint in which a poor person's pound is the same as a rich person's pound. "Austerity" a la Osborne is not about spending less, it's about spending less on poor people, such as via working tax credits.
The BBC orchestrated the resignation of a MP from the shadow cabinet and timed it to cause maximum trouble for Corbyn while feeding Cameron the info. [b]Then deleted the blog detailing it[/b].
Particularly telling.
Austerity is a set of economic policies implemented with the aim of reducing government budget deficits.
I think most would agree that the govt is doing this , or attempting to do so, even if THM will refuse to accept this point.
Given the state of the public sector its pretty hard, though I am sure some will take up the challenge, to argue that the govt has not/is not implementing polices designed to reduce its spending and therefore the deficit.
Well you have to admire the Tories' spin machine for making sensible things like state-owned railways seem like the beginning of a Stalinist tyranny, while you marvel at the stupidity of the British electorate who routinely vote for things which are directly opposed to their own interests, apparently stuck in a time warp of forelock-tugging and blindly doing the bidding of the gentry.
But some 'stupid' people still remember national strikes crippling state-owned industries so maybe they think (rightly or wrongly) putting them back into state-ownership would result in something similar again, so maybe they are thinking of their own interests (i.e. they need to go to work, have electricity etc.).
Its that kind of "I know better than you" attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.
But some 'stupid' people still remember national strikes crippling state-owned industries so maybe they think (rightly or wrongly) putting them back into state-ownership would result in something similar again, so maybe they are thinking of their own interests (i.e. they need to go to work, have electricity etc.).Its that kind of "I know better than you" attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/privatising-east-coast-rail-rip-off
I know, Grum, thats my railway, you're preaching to the converted here!
I was more trying to point out the aggressive labeling of people with a different opinion doesn't win them over.
If you walked up to me, told me I was as thick as mince then you would be unlikely to get me to look at your facts to prove it.
Its not stupidity that gets the Tories in..its greed and selfishness which is a product of neo-liberalism. That's why the Tories can only ever talk about the economy...and also why you never here the tory supporters on here defending Cameron and co for the good, community spirited work they (obviously don't) do...nstead they have to hide behind slinging insults at othe politicians...I meam , strike in the 70's..what a lame argument for not voting Labour now...
[quote=breatheeasy spake unto the masses, saying]I know, Grum, thats my railway, you're preaching to the converted here!
I was more trying to point out the aggressive labeling of people with a different opinion doesn't win them over.
If you walked up to me, told me I was as thick as mince then you would be unlikely to get me to look at your facts to prove it.
That's OK - I'm not a politician and I'm not trying to win you over.
[quote=sunnydaze310 spake unto the masses, saying]Its not stupidity that gets the Tories in..its greed and selfishness which is a product of neo-liberalism.
Yeah ... well ... that too, but to vote out of greed and not actually benefit when your choice gets elected seems a bit ... stupid.
Its that kind of "I know better than you" attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.
Given the perverse logic most Tory sycophants come out with to justify their political position, I'd suggest that a fart in a wet paper bag knows better than them, let alone the majority of Labour members who voted for Corbyn
A commentator once wrote that he/she felt the Tory strategy was to suggest to the public that if you voted for them you'd get what they have (money), but never actually making a situation where the masses get the share of the money. Instead the top tier keep it for themselves - but the crucial bit so the strategy keeps working is to drip feed little scraps of incentive to the masses as if to say, "look we're giving you some" keep voting for us...
The UK is not a poor country for its size but a lot of people are suffering - the money is somewhere
[b]Someone else wrote...without an understanding of hegemony it would be puzzling to contemplate how, in a democracy, it is possible to create a society in which it is has been justi?able to increase poverty at the same time as wealth...[/b]
The reality is most of us have to lose in the pyramid scheme that is capitalism
The former shadow justice minister[Dan Jarvis} told the Guardian in an interview: “To my core I have always been Labour and always will be, but I would feel deeply uncomfortable fighting as a Labour candidate on a manifesto that committed us to getting rid of our nuclear deterrent, not least because we would lose the election. It’s an issue of such strategic importance with the public that it would be catastrophic for us to go into an election with that as our policy.”
Regrettably, as I am no fan of the deterrent and think its an expensive toy we will never use and we have nukes via NATO, but he is probably correct that a no nukes platform is unelectable.
The reality is most of us have to lose in the pyramid scheme that is capitalism
It's this type of lazy 'agree and retweet' rhetoric that undermines the Corbynites view of the world.
Do you really think that people are worse off (eg. Overall quality of life wise) than they were in the sixties, seventies and eighties? The stats show clearly that UK poverty rates dropped massively since the war, and hovered around 10-15% for the past forty years of evil capitalism, being in poverty in Britain today sure as hell doesn't mean what it did in the seventies.
How do you think poverty in India and China has fared under capitalism? You pyramid seems to be a bit messed up when the people at the bottom are getting richer.
The UK is not a poor country for its size but a lot of people are suffering - the money is somewhere
We are the 6th richest country in the world, the second richest in Europe. When people look at where the money is they neglect to properly value things like the NHS which provides universal health care, state pensions and welfare support which is non contributory (unlike France and Germany). As quited elsewhere in STW unless you earn more than £38k pa you take out more than you put in.
As someone who has commuted daily by train for 30 years I can verfiy our railways are poor and expensive (have commuted by train/subway in NY and Sing and used railways extensively in Europe and Japan). However London is one of the worlds largest cities in terms of commuter numbers, others just don't have the same pressures. I personally think raiway re nationalisation would be a disaster on a Greek scale with almost immediate huge increases in costs and necessary subsidies. Its very easy to predict a Labour government nationalising a railway and facing huge increases in wages as workers strike - can you really see a Labour government facing down railworkers having just become their employer ? State employees did for Labour in the 1970's. Its also a strange policy politically, very idealistically driven and not one thats going to attract many swing/undecided voters.
its this inability to read and comprehend that undermines the tories trolls
The pyramid[ its not mine] only gets messed up when there is no bottom and its a square- really you wish to argue capitalism will create this?
Its not possible to argue that wealth within capitalism is anything other than inequitably distributed.
You make a different point that has some merit
The base has [possibly] got wider but the distance to the top has got further away.d.
You can like capitalism or dislike it but one has to accept it is a pyramid in terms of wealth/income distribution.
What @ninfan says. JY why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ? For every anti-capitlaist whiner there are hundreds if not thousands of very bright well educated ambitious hard working Indians and Chinese desperate to come to the UK. None of them are interested in the minimum wage or welfare or indeed the cost of housing, all they see is the opportunity. They are happy to live in a small room in a shared house to get started as its worth it and they won't be whinning about it.
JY the top of this pyramid is folks like Mark Zuckerberg etc. Its getting fatter at the bottom due in large part to exploding world population and campaigners insistence on including property wealth and ignoring the benfits of welfare and free health provisions. Those lower down this "pyramid" have had their jobs amd wages undermined firstly by offshore manufacturing and now by immigrant labour which is increasingly doing jobs "on-shore". This is now moving very much up the skill chain as per the bright Indian and Chinese I spoke of above, they are competing for the graduate jobs.
The base has [possibly] got wider but the distance to the top has got further away.
I'll give you a challenge - go and draw a pyramid, and show me just how that is possible geometrically...
Ninfan every now and then i see if you wish to actually debate rather than scribble
Every time the same answer.
FWIW both a geometry and a not answering the question fail there
As were then as we were.
What does that have to do with the point I am making about capitalism?why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?
Why is it that you cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious truth about what capitalism has produced that you evade and change the subject at every point using gentle name calling?
It is a pyramid scheme - though of course whilst the top has fewer numbers it also has more wealth than the bottom - This is true and its morally unjustifiable hence you have to avoid discussing it or accepting it yourself and just claiming that the raison detre of capitalism is poverty reduction.
Its BS and you know hence the obfuscation.
The point i made is just true
Deal with it.
why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?
Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?
Woah Ho Ho Ho Ho there 😆
FWIW both a geometry and a not answering the question fail there
Go on then, explain how a pyramid can get both wider and taller at the same time? There's only one way that it can be achieved.
And yes, the answer is directly relevant, because it sums up capitalism perfectly!
[b]Growing the pyramid[/b]
The people at the bottom are getting richer - India, China, South America, Poland, Romania, Albania, the list goes on - they're not complaining about capitalism.
It's this type of lazy 'agree and retweet' rhetoric that undermines the Corbynites view of the world.
No (in their vacuum) it feeds them. Without it, what would be left (excuse the pun)
why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?
Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?
No Dr, considerably colder in fact verging on frozen.
The most rapid increase in immigration has been seen from the EU (although the total is just below non-EU) and the majority is related to work and formal study.
But let's not let facts get in the way of the froth
It is a pyramid scheme - though of course whilst the top has fewer numbers it also has more wealth than the bottom - This is true and its morally unjustifiable hence you have to avoid discussing it or accepting it yourself and just claiming that the raison detre of capitalism is poverty reduction.
JY, I think you've summed up the difference between socialism and capitalism there. Proponents of socialism argue that the state should engineer wealth redistribution from richer to poorer, fair enough. Capitalists would argue that the second-order effect of exploiting human ambition/striving/greed, whatever you want to call it, is that everyone gets richer, to a far greater extent than under socialism?
Socialism always seems to me like it would be a great idea, if only people would stop being people.
I'm not suggesting that Labour or the Conservatives fully reflect either ideology btw, just separate points on the spectrum.
Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?
I'd say not. The UK is a nice place to live. Kids get a good education, we have a great health service and (generally) we look after people when they're in the shit.
Frankly, if I were a Syrian I'd be doing my level best to get my family the hell out of dodge and to somewhere like the UK.
The UK's challenge is that this all costs money, and we don't have any (in real terms)
I'd wager that the average Syrian either doesn't know or doesn't give a shit what anyone's ancestors did. They have bigger problems.
The most rapid increase in immigration has been seen from the EU (although the total is just below non-EU) and the majority is related to work and formal study.
You seem to be in a muddle over what has been claimed. Immigrants can come from the EU because it is legal for them to do so, so the actual numbers of immigrants cannot be used as an indicator of how many people from around the world WANT to come to the UK. I realise that this may be a bit complicated for an economist to understand.
Frankly, if I were a Syrian I'd be doing my level best to get my family the hell out of dodge and to somewhere like the UK.
And this has nothing to do with our intervention in the region?
The UK's challenge is that this all costs money, and we don't have any (in real terms)
The 5th richest country in the World doesn't have any money?
We have plenty of money. We just make very bad choices on how we spend it.
And this has nothing to do with our intervention in the region?
Syria is a shitstorm due to an uprising which was in full flow before we got involved.
The 5th richest country in the World doesn't have any money?
In real terms, we haven't. We are still borrowing more than we take. We may have cashflow, but our balance is in the - numbers.
I realise that this may be a bit complicated for an economist to understand.
Indeed, you will have to forgive us thickies. Complex stuff is well beyond us.
Ben, we do indeed!
And this has nothing to do with our intervention in the region?
Why would you want to get to the UK specifically, if you hated it so much?
In real terms, we haven't. We are still borrowing more than we take.
Yeah, us and every other economy in the World. That's how economies work.
No Ben, there are economies running budget surpluses including those of a left of centre persuasion! Economies don't have to work like that at all, only a the appropriate time.
Have a look at the recent Uk record of surpluses and deficits and compare with the party in power and their so called RW or LW bias (ignoring legacy effects)
Yeah, us and every other economy in the World. That's how economies work.
Really?
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Budget-surplus/%2B-or-deficit/--
2012 figures though.
Okay, yes, every other country apart from OPEC countries 😉
Without it, what would be left
Morons on the right emulating turkeys voting for christmas?
A deficit isn't a binary thing though. There's a question of scale!
In real terms, we haven't. We are still borrowing more than we take. We may have cashflow, but our balance is in the - numbers.
You are aware that a country's economy in no way resembles a household credit card bill, aren't you? Or are we going to have to do this in words fewer than two syllables?
Syria is a shitstorm due to an uprising which was in full flow before we got involved.
I see. Nothing to do with Iraq, then.
Not completely true zokes - but an explanation for the thickies in words of less than two syllables would be interesting and possible helpful. Can you oblige?
The use of pronouns helps with the partial answer.
Or are we going to have to do this in words fewer than two syllables?
Well done you 🙄
Now scurry off thanks.
I see. Nothing to do with Iraq, then.
More to do with the arab spring.
Not quite words of two syllables thm, but I'm tired and off to bed, and I reckon you're a bright fellow, so you should be able to understand this:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
Now scurry off thanks.
Happy to oblige, but only if you'll educate yourself
No, more to do with the longstanding play out of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, as are most of the issues in the Middle East. But of course it's easier to think short term in an attempt at Pilger - like self flagellation
Except I'm not arguing in favour of austerity. I agree with Jezza that we need to close tax loopholes and make companies and people pay what they should.
Maybe I don't match your obviously towering intellect, but I know how to add and subtract. Servicable debt is still debt.
No, more to do with the longstanding play out of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
I blame the Crusaders.
Yes indeed, but lots of long words and from an economist and the good Dr's views on that have already been aired.
It's true that there are differences between governments and households but not true that they "no way ressemble" each other. That is clearly falsifiable.
But in the spirit of cooperation here is a less than two syllable answer - they can and do print money. HTH 😉
(they being governments )
Being the good Keynesian that he is, Krugman notes clearly that
As John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury." All of this is standard macroeconomics.
Indeed and sad that we forget it in the booms!
Still this all misses the point that we in a balance sheet recession caused by too much leverage. My old colleague Richard Koo explains this better than anyone and better than Krugman IMO.
Servicable debt is still debt.
Sure. But would you succeed in paying off your debts more effectively by selling off the family silver, or by investing in tools / training to allow you to earn more money in the long run, even if it meant spending more in the short term?
Hows about earning more, getting a grip of the debt and then investing?
Hows about earning more,
How do you do that if you've just sold the tools you needed to earn?
getting a grip of the debt
Yeah, cos gideon's done [i]such[/i] a good job of that 🙄
and then investing
This done first makes the other two much easier
How do you do that if you've just sold the tools you needed to earn?
I thought I'd specified how I would go about this (and Jezza seems to agree)? That's £19.1Bn/year (conservative estimate).
Yeah, cos gideon's done such a good job of that
No disagreement from me. The tories doctrine prohibits them from going after the tax evaders though doesn't it?
This done first makes the other two much easier
Leaves us horribly exposed though doesn't it? Sitting at maximal debt at a time when the global economy (as Ben pointed out) is held together with black nasty.
Zokes, don't forget that few politicians have the patience for true supply side reforms.
Plus we have plenty of tools left, but they are being applied in the wrong way.
Don't forget that (strip away the rhetoric and the froth and) Gideon continued to run deficits (as Keynes would advocate), indeed to a greater degree than other countries (austerity, what austeriity) which is one reason why the UK rebounded relatively quickly. But it didn't solve the underlying problem of excess leveraged. Why? Because the debate (Koo aside) continues t be framed in the wrong context not least the RW v LW billshit that is inescapable (or so it seems)
The tories doctrine prohibits them from going after the tax evaders though doesn't it?
Would that be the doctrine that keeps us in the EU, whereby we are bound by EU rules on incorporation and taxation?
JY, I think you've summed up the difference between socialism and capitalism there. Proponents of socialism argue that the state should engineer wealth redistribution from richer to poorer, fair enough.
Almost all taxation systems do this - technically they all expect teh rich to pay more that the poor the difference is in the degree to whih they wish to redistribute.
they would indeed argue that. TBH i dont care that much how we make money I only care that we actually bother to try and redistribute it because the very real affect [ not here ] is that there are people starving to death whilst a number of folk live the lives of opulent billionaires. Personally this is both indefensible and inevitable under capitalism. is the ten richest people are worth more than the bottom 50 %. Its hard to mount a defence for that IMHO.Capitalists would argue that the second-order effect of exploiting human ambition/striving/greed, whatever you want to call it, is that everyone gets richer, to a far greater extent than under socialism?
Whilst some humans are greedy and some want to kill folk that is no reason to not try to negate the effects of so called "human nature"
No one teaches their child to be greedy and not share and to eat whilst others starve. We all know its wrong its just not all of us want to do something about it
Absolute poverty is going down at a faster rate than at any time before.
[url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-2016-will-have-less-poverty-hunger-and-disease-than-any-year-in-human-history/ ]See article with graph here[/url]
The guardian article, referred to in the article, is worth a read too - [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/28/politicians-optimistic-philosophy-hope ]here[/url]
there are people starving to death whilst a number of folk live the lives of opulent billionaires. Personally this is both indefensible and inevitable under capitalism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Anybody with half a brain can read a newspaper, listen to the news or scour the internet and find multiple sources of empirical evidence that demonstrates, in the UK, the status quo is unequal and either staying that way or getting worse..
Those on here who are defending the status quo, IMO, are doing so purely out of self interest because the status quo has favored them and they want to keep it that way.
Those on here who are defending the status quo, IMO, are doing so purely out of self interest because the status quo has favored them and they want to keep it that way.
Is anyone defending the status quo?
IMHO, the VAST majority of people won't move against their own self interest.
I won't/can't defend rampant capitalism, but I do believe in a meritocracy.
Fortunately the other half of the brain allows anyone to read basic data. Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis. That's neither defending nor attacking anything.
But the current policy mix while stopping the economy getting a lot worse does run the risk of future inequality through the uneven impact of rising asset prices
@thm - please post your empirical evidence of "Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis".
please post your empirical evidence of "Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis
You could always post your's that shows it did.
Done that many times and currently waiting for doc appointment so will pass. But go to the Ons website - the data is all there
HTH
http://inequalitybriefing.org/
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/OECD-Income-Inequality-UK.pd
www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R107.pdf
policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/poverty-in-the-uk
www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures
Static figures i.e. not declining, is a shameful situation to be in 2016...
@thm - ah the 'ole doctors excuse....me thinks you were talking rubbish with your claim...
The job of the tax system is to raise money to pay for state services. In progressive societies like ours the burden falls most heavily on those with the most, higher rates leading to accelerated tax receipts on larger amounts.
The tax system has no place or role to play in "redistribution" which is a fatally flawed concept. Those less well off gain significantly from state welfare, security including policing, fire service, welfare etc without paying for the full cost of those services.
On another topic I see Corbyn'/Livingstone's unilateral nuclear diarmament stance has attracted critism from Dan Jarvis who implied he would not stand as a Labour MP if that became Labour policy (unlikely as Unions don't support it)
Well you will be relieved/disappointed to know that I don't give a fig what you chose to believe. I just hope that the doc knows what he is doing. That IS important. But feel free to access the data I noted or even he knew you posted
Not sure that's correct Jambas as the tax system (at least in its current form) plays an very important role in redistribution. Unsurprising in a mixed, centrist and democratic society.
I studied the British tax system at uni.
In progressive societies like ours the burden falls most heavily on those with the most,
False, it's working poor who pay the most in terms of their incomes and the middle classes who pay most overall.
higher rates leading to accelerated tax receipts on larger amounts.
Leading to tax evasion, use of tax havens, emigration, zero tax investments and tax exempt investments which are generally in things only the rich can afford. No reason to pay UK tax rates if you are rich. Ask Bono, Bob and Co.
The tax system has no place or role to play in "redistribution" which is a fatally flawed concept.
Flawed in which way? You live in France remember.