Have we all seen it yet...? If not then here's the link...
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/how-to-get-filthy-rich-with-gary-stevenson
What do we reckon...?
The Guardian have slated it, but then in this political day and age where up is down, left is right and I've found myself agreeing with David Icke more often than not of late, that's probably more of a recommendation than anything...
Personally, I thought he was very, very good... Better than I expected. He's usually up for a war of words, he tempered himself a lot in this programmed, held up a window to the outside world for these people and allowed the interviewees to show the audience the level of their entitlement and greed, Louis Theroux style, without letting things degrade into a shouting match...
FWIW I've been a fan of Gary's for a few years now, and fully behind his cause... I had worried that his exuberance might dilute the message too much, as it has done in the past for a lot of people... I think this time, he absolutely nailed it! 👍🏻
well first you start by getting an emerald mine from your rich parents i believe (can be south africa but anywhere in the third world tbh).
I thought the conversation with Dan Niedle was by far the most interesting part of the whole programme. Dan correctly, I think, Identifies that the 'correct' response to entrenched poverty and a widening wealth inequality is a viscerally emotional one. People are right to be angry and pissed off by it, it clearly demonstrates that you are a human. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the best resolution to those problems is also an emotional one, and the 2% tax on assets over £10M is a populist emotionally driven response. - it delivers an easy to understand, simple solution even comes with a 'them and us' style out-group with whom one can get safely be angry with. But as Dan points out, it's been researched over and over again, and it doesn't deliver what it promises, so why then does Gary - a post-grad economist himself bang on about it so much?
A question that Gary couldn't really answer.
so why then does Gary - a post-grad economist himself bang on about it so much?
A question that Gary couldn't really answer
There's an interview with Krishnan available on YT. He makes the same point and asks the same question. Gary admits it's not the answer, but it's a starting point, it shows that something can be done and that the rich aren't untouchable.
I thought the conversation with Dan Niedle was by far the most interesting part of the whole programme. Dan correctly, I think, Identifies that the 'correct' response to entrenched poverty and a widening wealth inequality is a viscerally emotional one.
I thought Dan Niedle came across as a bit of a self righteous unit in that conversation to be honest... He, like everyone else seems to delight in telling Gary that he's "not a proper economist" and doesn't know what he's talking about... Gary Stevenson had the same University undergraduate degree that most "proper economists" have (only he got better grades), then having made £millions betting against conventional economic practices (that were losing people lots of money) finally went to Oxford to do a doctorate in Economics too, where he actually ended up spending a lot of time questioning and arguing with the professors and the syllabus and proving that many of the old theories don't stand true today...
Economics is like the antithesis of science... Science is constantly evolving and changing every time somebody provides new evidence to counter the old. With economics, Somebody decided once hundreds of years ago, that this is the way that it is, and forever more shall be... Gary Stevenson has LIVED his experiences, proven his theories, isn't afraid to be challenged on them, doesn't pretend to have all the answers (a 2% wealth tax over £10m definitely won't solve all the issues, but like he says, it's a start) and is keen to work with anybody else who's got good ideas and is prepared to challenge the status quo...
Gary admits it's not the answer, but it's a starting point, it shows that something can be done and that the rich aren't untouchable.
Crucially, it also gets us plebs talking!!! And I think this is the most important point here... People are ceasing just to accept the ever increasing wealth inequality and what the rich are doing to perpetuate the problem... They're now starting to question why it is happening, and it's people like Gary that are doing a great job to spread this message... This isn't like France in the late 18th century, when aristocrats lived such opulent lives and rubbed it in everyone's faces. Modern super rich people do what they can to stay under the radar, to accrue assets but outwardly appear quite frugal, so as not to attract any unwanted attention...
For anyone who hasn't read it, Yanis Varoufakis' book "Technofeudalism: What killed capitalism" https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/451795/technofeudalism-by-varoufakis-yanis/9781529926095 goes a long way to describing the situation that this wealth inequality is creating... One where capitalism (making a profit) is no longer important, merely ownership... The rich don't care about profits, they care about owning assets, decreasing the supply of assets, which in turn drives the value of their assets up... Assets that they then lease/rent out to us plebs at ever increasing prices, keeping us effectively constantly in their servitude!
Why have Switzerland been able to do it successfully?
Because the wealthy Swiss pay little or nothing in other taxes. income tax rates are low, and there's very much lower tax rates on business dividends . There is no capital gains tax – so with a bit of planning, the wealthy can convert income into capital and potentially pay no tax at all on their investment. Not all cantons impose inheritance tax on spouse/children. The evidence is that most very wealthy Swiss pay considerably less tax than wealthy UK residents.
Wealth taxes are a very popular concept - most folks will never have to pay them so the idea of taxing already wealthy people "some more" is understandable, but what happens to your budget when one of the 5000 or so very rich people doesn't pay the millions you're expecting? I don't think relying on a very small group of people for very large sums individually to fund things is a very sensible way to plan govt spending. When you ask people what tax should be increase they almost inevitably choose the ones they'll never be asked to pay and vise versa when you ask people what taxes should be lowered.
I think we could successfully implement a one off retrospective wealth tax, and there's good evidence that it would be collectable, but an annual asset based tax system for very high worth individuals for all sorts of very good reasons would probs be self-defeating.
I don't think relying on a very small group of people for very large sums individually to fund things is a very sensible way to plan govt spending. When you ask people what tax should be increase they almost inevitably choose the ones they'll never be asked to pay and vise versa when you ask people what taxes should be lowered.
No of course not... Far better to let them progressively hoard everything, decreasing the availability of all resources and thus driving the value of everything they hoard up, and then let them rent everything back to us plebs at increasingly extortionate rates, yeah...?
🤦🏻
For the avoidance of doubt... That WAS sarcasm...
Caught the end of it last night, he’s an interesting guy who I only recently found out about. He knows he’s made millions, but wants a fairer distribution of wealth. He’s chat with Francis Fulford is to be what is expected, that guy is a horrible individual.
My impression is that the idea of a wealth tax isn’t to simply fund stuff. Indeed, tax does not usually directly fund spending (as far as I understand). Rather, the wealth tax would also serve to address the structure of the economy and causes of inequality.
Because the wealthy Swiss pay little or nothing in other taxes
Lower tax but an insanely higher cost of living, eye wateringly expensive health insurance costs etc
Salaries are much higher in Switzerland so the costs worked out less than the UK. I had no council tax, and didn't pay heat and lighting as that was part of the rent. And my health insurance was 4% of my monthly take home.
I'm at that age where im starting to pay more attention to my pension and its returns on how its invested and its given me a real sense of how true that saying you have to have money to make money is true . That large growth of wealth it seems is now limited to a certain level of society.
Now its probably been that way for all of human history but it feels like we've gone over a tipping point where the normal people can't fund the lifestyle that their parents had . I left home to do an apprenticeship and my wages covered my rent , food , couple of pints on a Friday and a train home every other week .No way my kids would be able to do that now without me funding it to some extent.
Is a wealth tax the answer ? I have no idea if it would work but I think Gary Stevenson does a pretty good job of explaining the problem .
No of course not... Far better to let them progressively hoard everything...
No obviously not (goes without saying) . But this is the reaction that Gary is exploiting, everyone [who isn't stupidly wealthy] gets very emotional about it, so when he offers a seemingly elegantly simple solution, people grasp at it. This is a bad failure of reasoning. The question is whether the wealth tax works. If it doesn’t work, on its own terms, then its aims are irrelevant.
The deficiencies in the wealth tax that Gary is proposing don’t mean we can’t, or shouldn’t, tax wealth. They mean that any proposal has to be looked at realistically, which is probably to reform existing taxes.
Both and. If you can't collect it, you can't spend it. Gary is saying the equivalent of "Wouldn't it be better environmentally if we used water instead of petrol in engines." when people say "yeah, great, show us your design for an engine that does that" Gary's response is "well, it's just a theory, and I've never got it to work, but at least we're discussing it"
Caught the end of it last night, he’s an interesting guy who I only recently found out about. He knows he’s made millions, but wants a fairer distribution of wealth. He’s chat with Francis Fulford is to be what is expected, that guy is a horrible individual.
TBH I think he’s a bit marmite but he’s been growing on me.
I think it takes a certain type of person to go from rags to riches and still be aware of the issues of being poor/ not wealthy as opposed to the common approach of pulling up the ladder behind rather than to communicate how the wealth distribution and vast generational wealth is really bad and causing the problems.
As opposed to that man of the people we all love, losing his mind when a little gift becomes public knowledge who blames all the issues on ‘boats’.
'I think it takes a certain type of person to go from rags to riches and still be aware of the issues of being poor/ not wealthy as opposed to the common approach of pulling up the ladder ' My experience of meeting middle rich people is that actually it's not that weird. The person I know with the worst attitude to other people and money is my mother , which is a whole other story, but she's obsessed with people not working hard (though she doesn't) and immigrants, poor people taking it.
OK, so there's a lot of money in the UK economy, but a very high proportion is tied up and bundled away, and not in distribution and working. I pay a wealth tax now (don't live UK) and I think it's a good idea to redistribute money out, but that means as well as taxing rich people, taxing pension funds , which are holding a whole lot of money. And that seems to be the end of the world for the UK, or at least the bit that owns/publishes newspapers
any proposal has to be looked at realistically, which is probably to reform existing taxes.
Something that could help with living standards is eliminating fiscal drag with ongoing changes to personal allowances and income tax thresholds.
Beyond what’s said in this thread I have no knowledge of Gary Stevenson. Documentary sounds kind of interesting. Once upon a time I imagine discussions like these would have been part of political discourse from folks who had more potential for action than a documentary guest presenter.
So the wealthy are all bad?
*Checks notes
Except for Gary. Gotcha.
No obviously not (goes without saying) . But this is the reaction that Gary is exploiting, everyone [who isn't stupidly wealthy] gets very emotional about it, so when he offers a seemingly elegantly simple solution, people grasp at it. This is a bad failure of reasoning. The question is whether the wealth tax works. If it doesn’t work, on its own terms, then its aims are irrelevant.
I see you consistently argue against a wealth tax and yet offer no solution yourself.
I don't understand what exactly you are saying. Is it that a wealth tax won't magically solve all societies problems? If so, Gary agrees, as do most people proposing a wealth tax. It's a first step to begin the slow clawback of wealth that has been steadily flowing towards fewer and fewer people for decades.
If you have no alternative solution, are you saying we should just carry on as we are? Because I really don't see ever greater concentrations of wealth ending well.
Genuinely, I don't know what you are arguing FOR and I'm interested in finding out.
So the wealthy are all bad?
*Checks notes
Except for Gary. Gotcha.
He could voluntarily give up his wealth, but I'm not sure what that would achieve.
I'd prefer if he used his resources to advocate that the government should work to limit his wealth along with all the other wealthy people.
'I think it takes a certain type of person to go from rags to riches and still be aware of the issues of being poor/ not wealthy as opposed to the common approach of pulling up the ladder ' My experience of meeting middle rich people is that actually it's not that weird. The person I know with the worst attitude to other people and money is my mother , which is a whole other story, but she's obsessed with people not working hard (though she doesn't) and immigrants, poor people taking it.
OK, so there's a lot of money in the UK economy, but a very high proportion is tied up and bundled away, and not in distribution and working. I pay a wealth tax now (don't live UK) and I think it's a good idea to redistribute money out, but that means as well as taxing rich people, taxing pension funds , which are holding a whole lot of money. And that seems to be the end of the world for the UK, or at least the bit that owns/publishes newspapers
I suppose I should have added ‘on YouTube/socials engaging discussion around it’ 😀
OK, so there's a lot of money in the UK economy, but a very high proportion is tied up and bundled away, and not in distribution and working. I pay a wealth tax now (don't live UK) and I think it's a good idea to redistribute money out, but that means as well as taxing rich people, taxing pension funds , which are holding a whole lot of money. And that seems to be the end of the world for the UK, or at least the bit that owns/publishes newspapers
Schrödinger's wealth. It can't be both tied up / bundled away *and* growing at the same time. If its growing (and therefore not being taxed like salary income is) it's invested - and working. Rich people dont put it on all in a easy access savings account!
but that means as well as taxing rich people, taxing pension funds
I'm intrigued. Can you explain please
Yes it can very well be tied up and growing at the same time. It's sitting in basically large investment funds and the pot grows, but it generally doesn't come out again. How often do we say that such and such a decision by a company, or someone is bought, and it's done to make the shareholders happy? These share holders are very often investment funds, with significant ownerships by pension funds.
With economics, Somebody decided once hundreds of years ago, that this is the way that it is, and forever more shall be...
Well, at least we know who here hasn't studied economics at any level at all.
It's sitting in basically large investment funds
Who then pass it on to companies when they issue stocks. It doesn't sit around, it gets spent on headcount / factories / AI tokens / exec bonuses.
The economics of the past might not be suitable for the future.
The last 150 years saw a population explosion thats now ending. During that time, growth was much easier, there was always many more young people than old people, the size of your market was growing, goverment debt easier to pay back
Thats all finished now. population decrease has not happened before for the whole of human history.
What are the alternatives
- reduce goverment spending rarely works as well either. Goverment manage a circular economy. Often they immediately get back 40%+ of what they spend in tax, so savings are never as great as they seem. "waste" is often an argument, but goverments and civil service are always trying to reduce waste... what can you do differently? Cut the NHS and that just moves cost onto general public, or let their health decline etc.
- "grow the pie" - very tricky with aging population, declining fertility. This was the distastrous Trussenomics, very similar to Reforms idea of "tax cuts pay for themselves with extra growth"
Economics is like the antithesis of science... Science is constantly evolving and changing every time somebody provides new evidence to counter the old.
100% this! Whenever the age-old argument of 'but you're not an economist' is wheeled out (usually by someone defending the status quo or feeling like their chosen academic subject is being diminished) what they really mean is 'but you're not an economist who agrees with the classical status quo'. Economics is not a science, it's more like a religion. The sooner we start to recognise that the better.
I'm not much of a Gary Stevenson fan but Dan Neidle has been posting a lot of stuff about him on twitter so he must have ruffled some feathers. The difference is that the likes of Stevenson can imagine doing things differently where the likes of Neidle start from the unshakeable assumption that the way things are now will always persist and there's no other alternative worth even talking about let alone trying to implement it. David Graeber had a lot to say on this subject so worth looking up if anyone's interested.
I see you consistently argue against a wealth tax and yet offer no solution yourself.
I think we could successfully implement a one off retrospective wealth tax
They mean that any proposal has to be looked at realistically, which is probably to reform existing taxes.
I used to be a big supporter of a wealth tax but changed my mind after reading a lot of counter-arguments. We already have all the mechanisms we need to tax wealth without having to create a new one. IHT, CGT and VAT already do the job, they just need to be used more while income taxes should be used less. Also probably replace stamp duty and council tax with a land value tax. The other possibility is doing what the US does and tax all global assets and income of anyone with UK citizenship.
Personally, I think Gary is a very entertaining financial entertainer, who currently has a luvvly jubbly cockney wide boy man-of-the-people pukka-wicked-innit gig going on. The Jamie Oliver Del Boy of finance.
I think Neidle came across very badly. I also think he’s right, both on finding the best way to tax wealth, and on Stevenson’s single minded approach being very populist (it is, and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t be gaining the attention he is).
So the wealthy are all bad?
*Checks notes
Except for Gary. Gotcha.
Gary doesn’t say that all the wealthy are bad. He understands, as I expect many of us do, why they behave as they behave.
I think he correctly diagnoses a/the problem and is setting out an idea of what needs to happen to address it. He says this is still a work in progress and invites others so collaborate and contribute. If Niedle et al were more open minded we may begin to get somewhere.
I used to be a big supporter of a wealth tax but changed my mind after reading a lot of counter-arguments. We already have all the mechanisms we need to tax wealth without having to create a new one. IHT, CGT and VAT already do the job, they just need to be used more while income taxes should be used less. Also probably replace stamp duty and council tax with a land value tax. The other possibility is doing what the US does and tax all global assets and income of anyone with UK citizenship.
But we don’t have the means to tax wealth at the moment. CGT is only charged when the assets is sold. The rich don’t ever sell them. They borrow against them to access cash at considerably lower rates than you or I could access. IHT is very easy to avoid. Beyond the unfortunate situations of someone dying unexpectedly young it’s very easy to avoid and inexpensive to do so. We have it set up with my parents and it cost less than a grand to ensure no matter what happens to my parents we won’t pay a penny.
IMHO a wealth tax on assets can be made to work as many asset types can’t easily be mined to a different tax jurisdiction. I still think the best solution is to simply state that if you either live in the uk or are a uk citizen or uk passport holder then you are liable for tax in the uk on all income and assets globally. If you don’t want to pay don’t be a uk citizen or reside here.
Change property taxes to start with. It'll affect those that own more property of course, and they'll bleat that they're not rich. Ignore their cries and sort it out. Make sure that owning property though a company doesn't allow you to reduce your exposure to taxes. It's not simple, but compared to other wealth taxes it is (and property is wealth).
Stephenson picked out some words where the case for an annual tax was being made... but the summary was very much that a windfall tax paired with making taxes on immobile wealth more progressive and less avoidable is likely to result in better redistribution without the negative effects on the economy of declaring a long term indiscriminate wealth tax of the type Stephenson is advocating. Stephenson's selectiveness appeared reasonable, Neidle's came across as unreasonable... because one is a much better communicator in this situation (and was much better prepared for the discussion).
Neidle always come across as cautious and defeatist in terms of taxing wealth. It’s the ‘establishment position’ and it’s always the same when people are challenged about what they feel they or others have absolute rights to… be it to property and asset ownership in the context of addressing inequality or to the freedom to fly and travel in the context of climate breakdown, driving and roads in addressing transport impacts.
IHT is very easy to avoid
And very easy to close that loophole. The UK is fairly unique in having a policy where if you give away your money at least seven years before you die then it can’t be taxed. Lots of other countries tax gifts and we could do the same.
Alternatively though I’d bring in a policy where people could pay IHT in advance at a discount before they die. Everyone wins in that scenario. People can be more tax efficient and the state gets an immediate short term injection of cash. Obviously not a long term solution but it would enable investment now in infrastructure and services.
Neidle always come across as cautious and defeatist in terms of taxing wealth.
Because, like many other economists ad tax experts he understands that any annual tax based on collecting a percentage on 'wealth' doesn't deliver on its own terms the things it tries to claim it does, and could actually cause harm to the economy - not that 'harm to the economy' is necessarily a reason not to tax.
The wealthy live like they do because they can raise funds based on the worth of their assets, stop them from doing that and you go a long way to prevent the hoarding. Elon doesn't spend any of his piles of cash, he raise bank loans on it and spends that instead, paying little to no interest (as a form of pseudo-taxation) on it.
How does that work? Surely you have to pay it back or you lose the asset so you can’t just use the cash you’ve raised to fund your living expenses.
Its entirely practical to tax the rich on their wealth. We do it now. For example, every 10 years the Duke of Westminster's family trust is valued and he has to pay 6% on it. Same goes for any other family trust. I would argue it should be more like 12% to bring it into line with inheritance tax but the fact is its taxed.
