High rate taxpayers flocking to the front of today’s papers to criticise the 50p tax rate proposal are partial and disingenuous at best in their analysis. Corporate tax rates, confidence in growth prospects and the cost of and access to investment are surely more important to jobs and further growth than the personal tax of the boss.

However, I didn’t come into politics to put up anyone’s taxes so I responded to the headlines about Ed Ball’s important speech on Saturday with a heavy heart. The far more significant and important announcement was the binding target to cut the deficit and run a surplus on the current budget, but the obvious and intended headline was the pledge to return to a 50p top rate of income tax. On this, I take almost exactly the opposite approach to Polly Toynbee who was quoted as saying that even if the higher rate raised no extra revenue, it was the right thing to do as it looked fairer to people.  Polly is, at least, consistent. I can remember her arguing for higher personal tax rates back in 1999 at an event I attended – once again as a symbol of a Labour government’s willingness to tax and spend.

For me, a specific rate of income tax should never be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to raise necessary revenue in a fiscally progressive way; in a way which is efficient and effective to collect and in a way which doesn’t deter the economic activity necessary to provide the income for taxing in the first place.

Ed and his team rightly flagged up that new HMRC figures which identified that people earning over £150,000 paid almost £10bn more in tax in the three years when the 50p rate was in place. The Tories lied when they suggested that the top rate tax cut wouldn’t cost revenue. It is now clear that they were determined to help out those most able to look after themselves at a cost to public services and poorer tax payers. So I’m convinced that the 50p tax rate does have a role to play in helping us to reduce the deficit and it is clearly progressive. However, that doesn’t mean we should do it with relish.

I agreed with Gordon Brown when we first had to introduce the 50p rate in 2009. ‘It is not my desire or my wish, or the chancellor’s desire or wish, to raise the top rate of tax. That is not something that we wanted to do.’

I hope that we’ll all argue that the 50p rate is not our long-term objective for the top rate, but a temporary measure to ensure that all contribute to cutting the deficit. As I’ve previously argued in this column, a personal tax increase is likely to raise more in the short term before people have the time to re-order their remuneration arrangements or even to leave the country. We may not like tax avoidance schemes, but we’d be silly not to accept that accountants don’t only earn a living from doing your books!

I want us to be arguing for a greater sense of responsibility from those who make it to the top of the income tree. However, using high rates of income tax to do that is a blunt, or even counterproductive political instrument. Those without a sense of responsibility will relatively easily avoid the tax. If they move abroad, we’ve lost all the tax revenues we could have received from them.  For the far greater number aspiring to earn more, we mustn’t look as if we condemn that ambition.

Secondly, of course, raising the top rate of tax doesn’t let us off the hook on spending. Ed has rightly refused to allow the shadow cabinet to promise to reverse cuts; we’ve developed a much clearer argument about how we will control welfare spending. But also on Saturday, at the Progress Third Place First conference, Caroline Flint was right to say ‘I have always thought that Labour should stand for value for money because we represent the people who aren’t flush’. 

Alongside our tax announcements, we must remind people that we’re committed to already announced spending limits for 2015/16 and to a root and branch zero-based review of spending.  This is also the time to begin developing arguments about our priorities for public services in a period of deficit reduction. As Caroline also said, there are many Labour councils being forced to redesign services in the face of stringent cuts. What can we learn from their experience?

Less money; higher expectations; growing demands – how can a Labour government ensure that every pound we’re able to spend on our schools; health service; police and council services responds not just to the fiscal challenges but also to new and different expectations from users, staff, taxpayers and communities? Now that’s a question which makes tax seem uncontroversial and simple – but it’s one we need to address urgently.