Who should pay for the economic crisis? Should we all pay the same? Should those who only take out have the till closed on their hands?

We’ve all heard and seen Benefits Street. The Channel 4 “documentary” portrays the lives of residents on James Turner Street in Birmingham.

It delivers a virtuoso portrayal of the lazy, the feckless and the workshy.

It lives up to every stereotype that those who hate the benefits system want you to believe is common to all claimants.

So effective has the blunt force trauma of the programme been, even those on the left who would normally defend the people on it have been quiet, such would be the toxic nature of the public reaction of anyone trying to justify the life choices of those filmed.

As bad as some of the residents of James Turner Street appear to be, they just want a decent standard of living. But they are portrayed as being either too stupid or lazy to get it for themselves.

But what if you’re on a salary of £500,000 a year?

You’re doing better than all right. You’ve got a great standard of living. Should you pay in more?

Apparently not, if you listen to “the city” or those against the new proposed 50p tax rate suggested by Labour

Don’t worry, most of us will never have to think about it. Because if you earn more than £150,000 a year, everything above that amount is taxed at 50 per cent.

How disgusting says “the business community”. What they probably won’t tell you is that at the moment the tax rate is 45 per cent so the tax take from the £350,000 above the threshold is £157,500. If it jumps to 50 per cent it’s £175,000.

That’s less than £20,000 difference on a third of a million pounds. If you’re raking in the big numbers I’d suggest that’s not a big deal.

I’d also suggest you’d be pretty tax efficient and be getting the best advice to avoid as much tax as you can - which is your right, if not your moral duty.

As well as this Labour have also talked about a “mansion tax” to be levied on homes worth more than £2m.

Again there have howls of protest from those, well, with great big expensive houses and lots of money. Why would you kick the wealth creators is the question, they’ve been asking?

I’m not sure why the “wealth creators” believe they should be immune from the real world, just because they exist in a cosseted boardroom world of nice lunches, oak panelling and hefty remuneration.

I don’t think the plans go far enough. Why wouldn’t you charge people who earn over a £1,000,000 a year 55 per cent on anything which is over that seven-figure sum?

Apparently they’d flee abroad and take their tax, presuming they pay it, with them. They need to be guarded and made to feel special it seems, according to those opposed to the plan.

I’ve got a bit of advice for those who earn lots and resent paying back that bit more; you earn more, you pay more - that’s the way it works, you’re still rich and this isn’t the 1970s and your pips won’t be squeezed until they squeak.

And here’s a bit of financial advice too; if you want to dodge the mansion tax, then there’s a street in Birmingham you could buy a house on. You never know, you might remember just how well off you are.