Historically, periods of rapid industrial growth in the USA and UK have coincided with the highest bands of income tax of 95 per cent or more.

Directors and other recipients of huge incomes quickly realised that drawing ridiculous salaries and bonuses was like throwing money down the drain.

Instead, they used it more productively either to build up their own companies or invest in new ones.

High taxation also deters spending on luxury goods which in general are overpriced and demonstrate conspicuous ownership rather than providing value for money.

The market prices of luxury goods bear little relationship to their production costs.

Many are turned out in Asian sweatshops and little of the cash spent on them feeds back into the wider economy by way of creating jobs.

Quantitative easing describes feeding large amounts of cash into the economy by the worst possible route – via banks.

It should be called ‘quantifiable easing’ and used only when there is an acceptable rate of return.

Keynesian theory showed that investment in infrastructure was the best way of generating jobs and at the same time provided many of the benefits we now enjoy.

Time is running out in which to reduce the disparity between the rich and poor, so listen up local Tory MPs.

The amount of anger under the surface concerning the lack of wealth distribution is already depersonalising the culprits responsible including politicians and has been recognised as a precursor to revolution and chaos.

Many now use elaborate tax avoidance schemes by which to continue their lives of indulgence whilst ignoring the plight of the poor and needy.

A 90 per cent tax band would entail turning our millionaire cabinet ministers from poachers into gamekeepers but may be worth the effort to do so.

If they had any sense, they would realise that chasing wealth for its own sake is in itself a form of madness.

Mike Joslin, Garfield Avenue, Dorchester