That’s the view of tax expert and equality campaigner Richard Murphy, emeritus professor of accounting at Sheffield University Management School.

He’s the third and final contributor to our debate over whether Chancellor Rachel Reeves should introduce a wealth tax in her Autumn Budget.

Campaigners Tax Justice UK reckon a 2% annual levy on wealth above £10million would raise £24billion of much-needed revenues and spare us further cuts to state benefits.

Critics say the whole thing would backfire by making everybody poorer as wealth creators flee the country.

Murphy reckons both views are wrong.

He has left-wing views but decades of experience have taught him that a wealth tax wouldn’t work in practice.

He still wants to tax the super-rich. Hard. Really hard. But he thinks Reeves already has enough weapons to do so, and it’s about time she used them.

Murphy has set out his views at greater length in his Taxing Wealth Report.

Here’s a condensed version. Brace yourselves.

Do we need to tax those with serious wealth in the UK more? Yes, we do. They are seriously under-taxed at present.

Do we, however, need a wealth tax? No, we do not. Of all the ways in which we might increase the tax take from those with wealth, this would, undoubtedly, be the worst. It might not even raise any serious sums.

The above two statements might appear to contradict each other, but I was a practising chartered accountant for 40 years, as well as a tax justice campaigner, and a professor of accounting, and they are entirely consistent.

As anyone who has worked in tax knows, agreeing on the value of assets with HMRC can be very hard.

How much, precisely, is a stately home worth? And what about the works of art in it? What about the solid silver cutlery made in the 18th century?

One valuer’s figure may be substantially different from another’s, and when it comes to racehorses, a value is anyone’s guess.

The point is, a wealth tax would require that all these things be valued every year. That would be an administrative nightmare for those who had to comply, and agreeing the figures would lock up the resources of HM Revenue and Customs forever, and all to agree on one year of assessment, after which the process begins again.

So, if we are serious about taxing wealth, we must use the information we’ve already got to increase the tax rate on high income and wealth.

Capital gains tax should be paid at the same rate as income tax. This would involve hiking the top rate from 24% to 40% or 45% for the better off.

Tax relief on pensions and on donations to charity should be restricted to the basic rate of income tax. Today, higher earners get 40% or 45% tax relief on pension contributions.

National Insurance should be charged at the same rate right across the income range. Today, NI falls to just 2% once earnings or profits top £50,270.

There should be an equivalent to a NI charge on investment income above an agreed limit of, say, £5,000 a year. We had this, once upon a time.

All of these will be easy to create and enforce, and the data to charge them is readily available on existing tax returns. They could be in place by next year.

Wealth taxes will not work. Those arguing for them should support taxes that do work. The country would be a better place as a result.

Richard Murphy’s plan would see inheritance tax, capital gains tax and National Insurance all rise. He would also slash pensions tax relief for higher earners, and slap NI on investment gains.

These increases would affect far more people than a wealth tax, but probably raise more money too. Murphy thinks his tax war would make the UK a fairer place.

Tom Clougherty at the Institute of Economic Affairs reckons it would backfire by crushing growth and driving wealth creators away. In contrast, Jake Atkinson at Tax Justice UK reckons it would be easy to introduce a wealth tax.

The biggest question is this: what will Rachel Reeves do? We will find out in her Autumn Budget.