I introduced the new 'Richard Murphy' View On' series here yesterday. The first was on modern monetary theory
This morning we have another new idea. These are called 'Debate Ammunition'. The aim here is to develop ideas from the day's video into arguments that can be used for debate. They will be short - around two pages of A4 in length and will be in a consistent format, although that is bound to take a little time to become settled.
The logic behind these is to help all those who say they need arguments to use in discussions with people they meet. Watching the video is one thing, then. Treat that as if it were the meal. The Debate Ammunition series will provide the recipes so you can take the argument forward in your own way. I hope they give you the agency and the confidence to use this material.
Feedback would be useful at this moment.
Importantly, eventually these briefings will always be published as PDFs. The PDF for this video is available here. The reason is simple. Layout is much easier that way. And PDFs preserve layout on multiple platforms, and that can be hard, so this will always be the best way to view them.
That said, this is the Debate Ammunition for this morning's video. Let me know what you think.
THE RICHARD J MURPHY YOUTUBE CHANNEL
DEBATE AMMUNITION
Funding the Future | Issue #1 | 17 May 2026
TODAY'S TOPIC
Inheritance tax, London wealth, and the FT's wrong conclusion
THE CORE ARGUMENT
The FT is wrong to claim that inheritance tax data shows the Treasury depends on wealthy Londoners. What the data really shows is that UK economic policy has created grotesque regional inequality, and inheritance tax is far too weak to challenge dynastic wealth.
KEY STATISTICS
| Statistic | Figure | Source |
| London constituencies paying more inheritance tax than Scotland and Wales combined | 5 | FT data cited in video |
| London constituencies paying more inheritance tax than the north of England over five years | 10 | FT data cited in video |
| Projected inheritance tax receipts by 2029 | £12.6 billion | OBR cited in video |
| Approximate total UK financial wealth | At least £12 trillion | ONS cited in video |
THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
Step 1 — The FT framed the story backwards: The FT treated wealthy Londoners as if they fund the state. That is the household analogy dressed up as fiscal analysis.
Step 2 — Tax does not fund spending: A currency-issuing government creates money when it spends. Tax withdraws spending power, controls inflation, gives value to the currency, corrects market failures, shapes policy, redistributes wealth, and builds democratic accountability.
Step 3 — Inheritance tax is about redistribution: Inheritance tax should stop dynastic wealth compounding across generations. The data shows it is failing because wealth remains massively concentrated in a handful of London postcodes.
Step 4 — The real issue is regional policy failure: Scotland, Wales, the north and the Midlands are not poor because they lack talent. They are asset-poor because successive governments concentrated housing wealth, finance, infrastructure and investment in London and the southeast.
THEIR ARGUMENT → YOUR REBUTTAL
| They Say | Your Response |
| The Treasury depends on wealthy Londoners, so ministers must not upset them. | No, the UK government issues its own currency. The state is not hostage to wealthy postcodes. |
| High inheritance tax will drive rich people and investors away. | That threat is wheeled out every time wealth is challenged. It is lobbying, not evidence. |
| London pays more because it is more productive. | This is not just productivity. It is decades of policy bias towards London housing, finance and infrastructure. |
| Inheritance tax already raises serious money. | It collects roughly one-thousandth of UK financial wealth each year. That is not redistribution; it is nibbling at dynastic wealth. |
THE ONE-LINER
“Britain does not depend on wealthy Londoners; wealthy Londoners depend on a Britain whose economy has been rigged in their favour.”
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is a political economist, emeritus professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University Management School, a former professor of international political economy and, for 42 years, a practicing chartered accountant. As a tax justice campaigner, he created country-by-country reporting, which is now legally required for multinational corporations' tax reporting in more than 70 countries around the world to tackle tax haven abuse. He is one of the UK's most widely read heterodox economics bloggers. He is the author of the Funding the Future blog and runs the Richard J Murphy YouTube channel, which has more than 370,000 subscribers. He co-founded both the Tax Justice Network and the Green New Deal.
YOU CAN FIND RICHARD AT:
- Blog, Funding the Future blog
- Twitter/X, @richardjmurphy
- Bluesky, @richardjmurphy
- YouTube, Richard J Murphy YouTube channel
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
While its in the PDF the article here has lost its formatting.
I can read it because I can second guess what you are saying but not everyone will manage it
That is why very soon they will onky appear as PDFs.
There is far too mucgh work involved in getting the formatting right here
Brilliant. Just what we need. Thanks Richard and the Murphy team.
WE think we can do this…
That’s a full metal jacket if I ever saw one!
Lock and load people! And out we go on patrol………………..
Thank you – love the concept.
🙂
Very useful. You could mention Thomas Pickett’s book Capital to illustrate the concentration of wealth in very few hands.
From previous discussions Picketty pinched at least one of Richards ideas
Big cheer from the omnibus!
KUTVVGW!
You motivated this
This is immensely helpful. Many thanks to the MMT (Marvellous Murphy Team).
Excellent
Ronald Reagan famously said, when you’re explaining you’re losing. There is more than a grain of truth in that, it’s vital to engage the emotions before committing to the details or none of it will sink in. To that end, the one liner you propose is great and the only change I’d make to your structure is putting it right at the front.
That’s a long winded way of saying: brilliant Richard, keep up the good work! I was one of your new Substack subscribers yesterday. I welcome that, and your politics of care, as part of the growing assault on neoliberal orthodoxy.
Good to see Will Self on good form on Laura K this morning as well, and interesting to see Josh Simons bending with the wind. With strong leadership there is hope, whether that’s Burnham or not remains to be seen but you are starting to cut through.
Thanks
This entirely misses the point – regardless of whether tax come first then spending, or spending comes first then tax, the point is that spending is constrained by tax. It’s that simple.
At a time when taxes are at record levels and providing a massive millstone around the neck of the economy, to pretend that there is scope to raise significant additional tax to close a £150bn deficit is nonsense, certainly on an ongoing basis.
The next part of the nonsense argument then suggests that because we issue our own currency, the government can do so without adverse consequences and hence foes not need to borrow from the markets – again untrue. But lefty nonsense like this is exactly why our bond yields are where they are.
Tell me you haven’t read or understood anything without telling me you haven’t read or understood anything.
Tremendously helpful as this is always in my mind, as a reader. If it becomes a big time sink maybe this is something where AI could have a role.
The “they said… my response” structure reminds me of ’23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism’.
Brilliant. Just need the courage to dip into those phone in shows, and also avoid the temptation to say: just see Richard Murphy!!
Thank you
I wondered when this might appear. Tremendous for all of us that have to carry the debate forward for a Caring Society. You can never have enough ammunition and having the armour piercing variety provide by you and the team is just invaluable. The upcoming political battles are going to be intense so this is an opportune event indeed. An aside – I note that LINO are now involved in a To re-join or Not to Re-join argument. Surely righting a wrong is what matters!
Love the idea of these shorties – immensely helpful. No need to add t0 blog – just felt clicking the heart wasn’t enough this time -wanted to say thank you!
Thank you
Very much so, especially with hyperlinks to previous commentary/blog posts/glossary entries. For example: I have yet to have a discussion with anyone about MMT that has not included a discussion about bonds/gilts
My only suggestion: In writing/speaking responses, I note the defensive/rebuttal position. Alternatively, it’s possible to start with the affirmative, for example, “At present, inheritance tax collects roughly one-thousandth of UK financial wealth each year. That is not redistribution. It is the country mouse nibbling at the dynastic wealth. Creating a caring society requires a bit more cheese.”
Other than that, bang on.
Noted. I will bear that in mind.