It's a fallacy to suggest that they're getting off scott free though, as the richest 5% already pay the vast majority of tax in the UK. The bottom 50% of earners contribute around 10% of the income tax income, with the wealthier half of society already paying as much as they ever did during the Labour years.
In reality though, income tax is a red herring as it's just the most obvious tax. Over 3/4 of government income comes via other taxes, and so Labour going after 'high earners' is just another class war policy in the mould of their privatisation plans for private schools.
As an aside, why don't you spend your current 'vanity' expenditure on those things? No local hospital will ever refuse donations, as I'm sure your local schools wouldn't either. You can contribute as much as you want without requiring Labour to force people to do so. It would be easier to support such a policy if those advocating it walked the walk themselves.
Of course the wealthiest pay the most (in theory, in actuality many avoid paying what they ought because of elaborate schemes, though that tends to be more the super rich). However they earn most of the money. I saw something on Richard Bacon the other day, where he said something like the top 5% pay 27% of the tax so we can't criticise them. However they earn 73% of the money, so in relative terms they are notreally contributing what they ought, or even close to it, if that makes sense?
As for the 2nd point, I believe that is fair. I don't think it's massively realistic from Mcdonnell, just as I don't think Johnsons giveaways, in the context of a hard Brexit Deal and lowering taxes are realistic. I also think, at this stage the electorate are going to massively appreciate a stringently honest approach (which Blair was very good at). I am not sure thats the epoch currently.
What Mcdonnell's manifesto does, is open the space and question that the reason why promises aren't kept to the full is because the wealthy avoiding their taxes, as opposed to those who are currently blamed, be it single mothers, the unemployed, migrants, refugees etc. Given the worrying rise of the far right, this is a worthwhile and arguably essential reset if we are to beat back some of these ideas.
I didn't mean to cause any offence with the "vanity" phrase, but given it's early on a Saturday I struggled to find a more apt one! I hope it can be seen that I wasn't trying to be lazy or offensive with it. Hayek speaks about this, which is what we do with our money and how the more money we have, the less essential it becomes. I've seen that myself, I started working at 15 on minimum wage and gradually built up as I've got older. The more money I have the less essential it feels, which is nice in many ways for me as an individual. However at a societal level I can also see why my preferences are not as essential as someone with very little money.
As for the final point you make, I would countenance against making assumptions on what people do with their money. Again what you are talking about is Hayek's idea that people will naturally give money away if they have lots. My answer would be that it ought to be under the democratic control of a government, as opposed to the whim of wealthier individuals. If you have the former you get all sorts of "deserving and undeserving" narratives that cause enormous damage to the fabric of society.
To change society for the better, we need a degree of coordination, centrality, planning and strategic decision making which I'm not sure can be done solely from relying upon the benevolence of individuals. Anyway I hope I haven't rubbed you up the wrong way, that wasn't my intention with comments such as vanity.
