Back in the 60s we paid 90% tax and winced but, to a 20 year old, I was raking in millions from my huge global music sales so why worry? With the pathetic few pennies from Everyone's Gone To The Moon I was able to buy my little house in London for £18,650 and still live in it today. Of course we resented the horrid, huge Labour taxes and many moved abroad (Stones, Beatles) but most stayed put, constructed corporations to pay less individual tax and coped. Slowly taxes came down (we dumped Wilson). And most would feel that 40% is pretty fair for top earners. These days I reckon the very rich don't mind forking out a few extra quid to save the NHS, boost education, help the needy. No; not 90% again, thanks (something I reckon Corbyn and McDonnell are well aware). But a few % - OK as long as it is intelligently managed (which it hasn't been so far). And as long as such social needs as helping needy refugees and others are also looked after; benefits are fair; stupid costs (like Trident) are cut back. Essential new costs (like Cyber Crime) are made. I don't think a Wayne Rooney or David Beckham would object to that.

Which is why I think the Corbyn approach appeals to many more than you would imagine and why cold, ice Queen May might find herself disappointed in June.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4509228...-3-000-tax-hike.html

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/wayn...ks-up-50000-10418459

Quite right, many people such as footballers have got so much money, they don't know what to do with it, so they end up frittering it away on gambling or alcohol, far better that some of it was used to pay for hospitals, roads, cyber crime etc. It would save themselves from themselves and help everyone else.

It is a falsehood to believe that all rich people will pack their bags and rush out of the country because they have to pay 5% more tax. In the 70s it was about 30 or 40% more tax a big difference.

I remember in the 60s many of my friends - other pop stars - bought huge mansions in Weybridge (where, later, Max Clifford would live) and I always asked them why. They didn't need so many rooms. Rather as Brian Epstein answered once, when I asked him why he always overpaid the rent boys, "'cause then they think I'm groovy".

The problem with simplistic solutions to complex problems is that it avoids the ramifications. The worry I have with the Labour tax plans is that those making big profits are doing so partly because they are far more clever than the low paid MPs and ministers. So, as tax levels are increased, the majority of the wealthy will take big pay cuts and huge additional legitimate expenses. Home expenses will become office costs. Corporations will continue to do as Google, Murdoch, the Mail and others do; base large segments abroad, often in tax havens. The accountants and lawyers of record companies will be based in the Bahamas. Recording and studio costs will switch to tax free islands (why on earth do you think those big albums were recorded in Caribbean studios?). It will take seconds, not even minutes, and long before a Labour Government passes new tax levels. So the 50 billion will in reality be 10 billion. Still a nice chunk, but not quite what is needed.

But the Ice Maiden has nothing new to offer and I still prefer Corbyn to May.