The Mayor of our (un)fair capital city has come out and said that it we must get rid of the 50p top tax rate and cut National Insurance contributions in order to kick-start the economy.
This comes on the back of figures released by the Office for National Statistics that shows UK GDP is still less now than it was in 2006 and looks to be in no hurry to increase much any time soon.
The Chancellor is now therefore under pressure and it is reported that No 10 advisers want the Treasury to be more 'imaginative' when applying economic resuscitation to our ailing economy. Maybe Boris want to show he has ideas as he possibly takes the long view on his chance of a crack at the No 10 job.
But Boris's idea is no new flash of genius. It is just good old fashioned trickle-down theory. Help the rich get richer and they will spend more money and employ more people, so the theory goes. That is if they're not harbouring it offshore, buying property in sunnier climes and then shooting off to live in a tax haven at the first opportunity.
One would surmise that our beloved London Mayor must have been to dinner with some of his city friends recently.
When the subject of raising taxes for the rich rears its ugly head, out comes the old mantra 'there are too few rich people for this to really raise that much revenue; we must therefore tax the masses to achieve that. And we would drive the entrepreneurs and wealthy abroad so making the UK into a third world country.'
The same basic argument is then twisted slightly when stimulating the economy is discussed – 'tax the rich less and jobs will flow and all that money will be spent in the economy.'
But we've tried all this before haven't we? And where did that get us? Oh, that's right …. here.
Boiled down what this argument really means is that, for the country to function in the modern world, it should have a few wealthy, greedy people at the top being supported by the masses of grateful poor in a sort of very shallow pyramid structure. Or are we there already? Or indeed has it always been thus?