Your problem in the UK is very similar to ours in the US. However, it is largely a problem stemming from our misguided understanding of how both nations create and spend their sovereign currencies. We invest many hours agonizing over who should "pay for' the critical services that makes our societies work in some form of cohesion.

The answer is also common to both nations. Government should be paying for programs and benefits that serve the people and increase their productivity. There is no need for a currency issuing sovereign nation to ever "find" money to fund those programs and vital infrastructure since it is the "monopoly source" of the money.

It can never run out of its own money and can never fail to pay any obligation denominated in its own currency. It also cannot collect or borrow money that it hasn't yet created in the private sector, so neither can be "funding" sources. Your government doesn't need your money, or that of the wealthy and their corporations, to fund its public service obligations and to attempt otherwise is to interject another degree of difficulty in the already contentious spending process while taking on the most well funded and organized opposition in the country.

The way to deal with the wealthy and their corporations is first to make them irrelevant to the public purpose funding by disconnecting spending and revenue, both legally and mentally. You'll find that doing so will free up your representatives to work for the people and will ultimately result in "a lot higher" taxation level for your 1% once it dawns on the people that they aren't necessary, and never have been, to fund your nation.