You miss the point that there was substantial pro-high earner and pro-enterprise tax reform and reductions in the 1990s, which was one of the factors that created a booming economy from circa 1994 onwards. In the meantime we reversed this progress with predictable results.
I understand the point you are making, and I dont necessarily disagree. But even on foot of all the tax reforms of the '90s it is still possible that the top 20% were paying 75% of the tax, by virtue not only of tax cuts to high earners but removing low earners out of the tax net altogether.
I use the ten workers in a pub parable. If eight of them, earning varying degrees of income between €100-€1000 contribute €250 tax between and workers 9+10, on incomes of €2,000 each contribute €750 between them, then we have a top 20% paying 75% tax scenario.
But the tax applied on each worker is not necessarily punitive relative to incomes earned.
The difference today is that tax increases have become punitive on middle, and high earners. I dont dispute that.
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
And I am asking for actual concrete proposals to demonstrate how this can be achieved. To date the only proposal, with figures and costs, has come from myself!
Its fine to say 'cut higher rate of tax', but it means nothing if the cost is not identified or where else in the taxation system this money can be found. The proposal is that low earners will cover the cost. So lets see some figures of how low income earners will pay for each % cut in the top rate of tax. Unfortunately, none have been forthcoming as yet.
Its a pretty weak position from those advocating the proposal if the only proposal produced comes from someone opposed to the proposal.