Thanks for flagging this article but it doesn't actually support the argument that low tax raises more tax overall. It was just an article answering that that question.

Also it is important to distinguish between direct and indirect tax. The low direct tax is supported by shifting the burden of tax to poorer/ordinary people via higher VAT/indirect Tax. Thatcher and the Cameron both put up Vat while lowering elements of income tax.

[Link]

Green's membership to overtake that of UKIP.

If the greens have a higher membership, then surely they have more right to be in a leaders debate than UKIP.

Sorry but no.
As above, ''Membership and votes are not the same thing''.
In all my years I've only met 1 person who's voted for the Green Party, my best mates brother (lovely fella btw). Personally I believe they need to change the name if they ever want to attract more voters. What do they actually stand for apart from the obvious?
They've missed a trick imo. They should've called themselves UKIP/similar a while ago and then do a complete turnaround should they ever get into power, just like all the others always have/will constantly do. They're a well meaning bunch but the marketing department is beyond dumb.

Membership numbers, of any party, are completely irrelevant other than for raising funds.

Optimistic as ever

Sure that Dave the cund said theses debates were very important before the last election.