Bill Carmichael: In defence of David Cameron and his tax arrangements

As a proud alumnus of an inner city comprehensive, I don’t often find myself cheerleading for posh public school boys, but I decided to make an exception after the revelations of this week.

Old Etonians David Cameron and Boris Johnson – along with George Osborne who attended the equally posh St Paul’s school – are really doing the country proud.

The last few days has seen the hysteria over so-called tax dodging reach hurricane force and it has been embarrassing to watch the Prime Minister twisting in the wind, even though it has been clear right from the off that he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Left-wingers apparently want Cameron to resign – or even be thrown in jail – for the heinous crime of obeying the law. Good luck with that fellers.

But Cameron allowed himself to be bullied and badgered until he agreed to publish his tax returns – and Johnson, Osborne and Jeremy Corbyn quickly followed suit.

This is a big mistake. The correct response to such impudent demands is to tell the knuckle-dragging members of the baying lynch mob to sod off and mind their own business.

A tax return is – and should remain – a private matter between the individual concerned and HMRC. What next – should we expect the Prime Minister to publish his medical records and details of his calorie and alcohol intake?

If we go on like this, we are going to put off any decent people from standing for public office.

But the returns are now a matter of public record and fascinating reading they make. The first thing that strikes you is that for people who wield immense power the sums involved are relatively modest.

Yes, of course all of these people, including Corbyn, are wealthy compared to the average wage, but by the standards of the super rich this is chicken feed.

Cameron, for example, earns about £200,000 a year, on which he pays £75,000 in tax.

Tony Blair wouldn’t get out of bed for £200,000 and the Saudi playboy princes swanning about London in gold plated Lamborghinis probably spend more than that in an evening in a casino.

What this shows us is that our politics is remarkably clean by international standards.

Around the world, politicians use public office as a way of plundering the public purse and enriching themselves and their families. Do you think Vladimir Putin or that great socialist, Robert Mugabe, are scraping by on £125,000 a year? I very much doubt it.

The second point – and why I raise a cheer for these wealthy people – is that they pay an awful lot of tax. In addition to Cameron’s £75,000, Osborne pays about £72,000 and Boris Johnson pays a whopping £276,000 a year.

Corbyn, in contrast, earned about £70,000 and paid just under £19,000 in tax. He also failed to include details of his pension on his tax form and was fined £100 for filing it late.

This is a man, let’s not forget, who is asking you to trust him with the nation’s finances.

So Osborne pays more in tax each year than Corbyn earns, and Cameron pays almost four times as much tax as the Labour leader – who do you think is contributing more to society?

This should come as no surprise. We have known for a long time that despite all the bleating over equality, our tax system is highly re-distributive and the rich pay taxes out of all proportion to their earnings.

The top one per cent of earners pay around 27 per cent of all income tax, and the top 10 per cent pay about 55 per cent. That’s an awful of funding for schools, hospitals, new roads and benefit payments.

If all those ex-public school pupils are paying taxes at this rate we should welcome them with open arms.

In contrast if we scare off the rich this money will disappear, as the French found to their cost when punitive tax rates led to an exodus of wealthy people to London – where they now pay taxes to the British exchequer.

So if we want a prosperous society with well-funded public services the solution is clear – we need more people like Cameron, Osborne and Johnson and fewer like Jeremy Corbyn.