The IMF’s analysis does something to redress the balance, making two important points. First, it says that tax systems should have become more progressive in recent years in order to help offset growing inequality, but have actually become less so.
Second, it finds no evidence for the argument that attempts to make the rich pay more tax would lead to lower growth. There is nothing especially surprising about either of the IMF’s conclusions: in fact, the real surprise is that it has taken so long for the penny to drop.
That isn’t what the IMF said at all. Rather, that those with less than averagely progressive tax systems could probably have more progressive tax systems without great damage. Also, that those with low end top tax rates could probably have higher.
The UK is currently neat exactly average on both counts. Thus it is not true that the IMF has said that Britain could or should have higher tax rates or more progressivity.
This is also casuistry:
With a nod to the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, the fiscal monitor also says that countries should consider wealth taxes for the rich, to be levied on land and property.
Land and property taxes are not the same thing as wealth taxes. Don’t, ever, pretend that they are.