The annual Sunday Times Rich List yields four very important conclusions for the governance of Britain (Report, Weekend, 28 April). It shows that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare.

Second, this mega-rich elite, containing many of the bankers and hedge fund and private equity operators who caused the financial crash in the first place, have not been made subject to any tax payback whatever commensurate to their gains. Some 77% of the budget deficit is being recouped by public expenditure cuts and benefit cuts, and only 23% is being repaid by tax increases. More than half of the tax increases is accounted for by the VAT rise which hits the poorest hardest. None of the tax increases is specifically aimed at the super-rich.

Third, despite the biggest slump for nearly a century, these 1,000 richest are now sitting on wealth greater even than at the height of the boom just before the crash. Their wealth now amounts to £414bn, equivalent to more than a third of Britain's entire GDP. They include 77 billionaires and 23 others, each possessing more than £750m.

The increase in wealth of this richest 1,000 has been £315bn over the last 15 years. If they were charged capital gains tax on this at the current 28% rate, it would yield £88bn, enough to pay off 70% of the entire deficit. It seems however that Osborne takes the notorious view of the New York heiress, Leonora Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes."

Michael Meacher MP

Labour, Oldham West and Royton

• Deborah Orr's lament for our monetarist times (Comment, 28 April) coincided with the publication of the Sunday Times Rich List. The people on that list are constantly referred to as being "worth" x billion pounds, when in fact all that has happened is that they have amassed x billion pounds. If we are to change our culture, then surely the first thing to change must be the language we use.

Can I plead with journalists to stop describing people as being "worth" fortunes? We are all of equal worth, and people only make money by taking money – ultimately all riches come either from the earth (commodities in one shape or form) or from commodities combined with the exploitation of the difference between cultures (once it was cotton and sugar, now it's plastics and rare earth minerals). Our current crisis arises from the fact that both these options are becoming difficult to "leverage" – hence the need for a change in culture. And what better place to start than with language?

Jeremy Brettingham

North Creake, Norfolk

• Aditya Chakrabortty exposes the spending paradox well (G2, 1 May). If UK plc invests so much more in London than elsewhere and it is so successful relative to the rest of us, then is Osborne's cutting obsession wrong and should we implement Keynesian policies in the rest of the UK, or are we just spending too much in London because it would be successful anyway?

As the north braces itself for further cuts which must follow the Olympic blowout (despite having a bigger population than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined, but unprotected by their assemblies), we must ask whether the capital should rely more on its own resources. Instead of exporting the poor to the north and drawing south our talent, we need a moratorium on south-eastern spending with a Barnett-style funding guarantee to ensure that the north gets its fair share of the infrastructure for business growth.

Dr Jim Ford

Southport, Merseyside

• Ha-Joon Chang speaks of the need for the revival of manufacturing if Britain's economy is to be rebuilt (Cutting red tape and taxes will not revive Britain, 1 May). However this must be achieved with reduced material consumption levels. A report by the Royal Society, People and the Planet, concluded that, because the planet's capacity to meet human needs is finite, such a reduction by the developed countries is imperative. This will require improvements in resource use efficiency, reducing waste, investment in sustainability, and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact (ie the development of a "green economy"). The revival of Britain's manufacturing sector must be consistent with these objectives.

Peter Slade

Guildford, Surrey