In terrible taste? Why the Sunday Times Rich List may serve a purpose in a pandemic-battered Britain

An orgy of wealth porn is, on the face of it, just about the last thing Britain needs as the country teeters on the brink of an economic abyss thanks to the (very necessary) measures taken to try to contain Covid-19.

But we’re going to get it anyway, thanks to the annual Sunday Times Rich List, which is set for publication at the weekend.

“Celebrating excessive wealth in this way is like holding a five-course banquet in a food bank,” said Wanda Wyporska, executive director of the Equality Trust, in response.

She’s not wrong. Really, it’s the very definition of the word “crass”.

But maybe, just maybe, the list will this year serve a purpose beyond offering its readers the chance to moon over the obscene purchasing power of the nation’s plutocrats while ogling their latest toys.

The Equality Trust is key to this. Every year it publishes a wealth tracker, calculating the cumulative increases in the wealth of the top 1,000 according to the rich list.

Last year those on it boosted their total to the staggering sum of £771.3bn. The contrast with the wealth of the poorest 40 per cent of households could hardly be more stark. Their wealth totalled £567bn between 2014 and 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Reaganite “trickle down” theory, much favoured by free marketeers, holds that we shouldn’t poke a stick at the rich getting richer because their wealth ultimately “trickles down” to the poor.

This has been widely debunked but you can bet that some variant will be trotted out to explain why we shouldn’t increase taxes on those who can afford to pay at a time when the national debt is exploding like a truck full of dynamite.

My money would be on the Institute of Economic Affairs passing the post first, but there are plenty of no less well funded contenders.

Others seek to highlight the philanthropy of some of those on the list. And some of the people who will be featured do great work on that score. I wouldn’t seek to deny it.

But the thing with philanthropy is that it’s optional. Some do it and some don’t. And there’s no democratic control over it. The revenues produced from taxation can be directed to the areas of highest need, at least at such times as we have a government willing to do that.

That can include areas that aren’t particularly popular and don’t tend to attract charitable donations but are still very necessary, such as, for example, council planning departments or regulatory agencies.

Taxation ensures that people who have profited handsomely from society make a worthwhile contribution to it. The people who pay the most are far more worthy of celebration than the people who have accumulated the greatest stores of wealth.

Public opinion certainly appears to be moving in the direction of raising taxes on those best placed to pay as the best way to finance the spending the pandemic has necessitated.

There has been some heavyweight backing for taking this course too: the International Monetary Fund last month suggested that governments consider increasing taxes on income, property and wealth, to fund the programmes enacted to protect the economy.

The other option, cutting spending, would, by contrast, exact the heaviest toll on those least able to pay. They’ve suffered quite enough over the past decade, and the Equality Trust has innumerable facts and figures that show how.

The rich list has therefore dropped right into the middle of a debate that’s just starting to heat up. It should help to keep the fires burning.