This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
This is an economics sub and I see a lot of people attacking the person rather than the arguments. This is called Ad hominem and is a way to distract from the real arguments.
I think Gary's points are pretty undeniable:
Super wealthy people cannot spend most of the money they have, so park it in assets with a return.
The return is on average 10%+ per year, while the economy grows on average 2% a year
This means that the super wealthy will have an increasing share of the wealth until they own almost everything. This is clearly evident in the declining wealth of the middle classes and the government.
For all the critics of the wealth tax idea - what is your alternative to stop this continuing?
Making CGT payable on house sales would be a start, would get rid of IHT and stamp duty to make transactions easier. Have an inflationary carve out so the tax is only due on above inflation appreciation.
Most of the very wealthy have their wealth mostly in shares and even if you raise cgt to 40% this doesn't come close to rebalancing the growing inequality ratio between the very wealthy and everyone else. The best it does is slow it down a little.
How do you collect the land value tax if the owner is registered in a tax haven or overseas? Currently Rich occupiers don't even pay council tax for the same reason, all you have done is compound the problem and brought in less money so other income taxes will have to increase as normal folk don't have the means to evade tax.
Automatically put it as a lien against the property, tie the lien value to the increase in value of the property, if they end up with 10% of the value not paid then when the house is sold or transferred then 10% is owed no matter the new value.
All that will happen is more legal/court action and nothing will be paid.
As much as people may dislike Council Tax it does fund local government, a full and proper revaluation of property bands will resolve issues with fairness plus removing the responsibility of adult social care back to the NHS will give more local authorities more breathing space too. This alternative solution will rely upon central government to divvy out the proceeds of the new tax which will mean that many councils will have less money and will have to cut services much more.
Also, Council Tax has years and years of legislation and Valuation tribunal decisions behind it to support it.
Yes to a land value tax to replace stamp duty but Council tax? I'm not sure that works as a wealthy area would still need the same money and simply find it easier co collect more money that a poorer area.
You could centralise more but that's not really a good thing and the local authority has no real accountablility
A land value tax will be very similar, simply those in high rise flats will pay much less than someone living in a bungalow.
A council tax system is only 'bad' as it's capped at band G (or H, i don't have a fancy house), it does have a link to those who 'consume' council services as a larger home will presumable consume more services than a small one.
Surely a local income tax would be better if you don't want it to be 'regressive'?
And then the super rich just ”sells” their properties to a company that they own for the full amount, financed by a loan to that company, and then charge themselves 1 dollar in rent.
And then that company takes a tax deduction since they are completely in the red.
If they are forced to go bankrupt then the only creditors are themselves.
IMHO: land and property taxes should only happen if you are making an income on them.
Because paying rent on your potentially fully paid off house is just wrong, especially for grandma and grandpa who might be living on a pension.
It’s better and more fair to tax the sale of that property instead.
THe UK has a property supply scarcity so part of the problem is the inefficient use of land and property. What we want is the grandma and grandpa empty nesters to sell their home and realise funds to release the larger property for a family to buy.
Grandma and grandpa have some cash and a more manageable property, the treasury have the tax income on the land regardless.
No because poor people don't own housing and they are also passing a law that means any increases in rent due to the increase council tax/land value tax is illegal and can be challenged in court.
What about social housing in London? Council tax is not part of their rent. Also I'm pretty sure for my friends renting in London, council tax is not included for the ones not in HMOs.
No idea but I doubt there will be large increases on social housing if this policy is aimed at helping the poorest and re-balancing the scales. I would imagine for social housing it might increase over the course of a decade vs having immediate effect like other housing.
Either way this reform will mean that council tax isn't capped at £6k on the most expensive houses in the country and London housing (expensive houses anyway) will pay A LOT more. Therefore, I can imagine taking a portion of the huge increase on the wealthiest houses (who have paid basically no tax for 30 years) to offset social housing (keep it as is) is more than achievable. For example, one house worth £139m (this one: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/24/london-mansion-sold-the-holme-regents-park) would go from paying £6k council tax currently (yes really) to paying £695k.
The 10% vs 2% comparison is apples to oranges and misleading because 10% is pre-tax and pre-inflation stock returns. Compare it to real GDP growth it’s more like 6-7% and that premium exists because of real risk i.e investments lose money too.
Even Piketty, who came up with r > g, doesn’t argue it leads to the super-wealthy owning everything. There are offsetting forces via discretionary spending, taxes, inheritance split and turnover of wealthy people most of today’s super-wealthy weren’t there 20 years ago.
Also, growing government debt is about tax and spend choices, not the rich “capturing” government wealth.
You don’t need to have an alternate policy plan to point out the flaws and oversimplications in Stevenson’s arguments.
>The 10% vs 2% comparison is apples to oranges and misleading because 10% is pre-tax and pre-inflation stock returns.
The issue is in the UK, which is the context Gary is arguing in, the 10% vs 2% is not linear in taxation. CGT is roughly 20% whereas income tax can be above 55% and it is plagued by tax plateaus due to poorly thought out tax policy. In the UK, CGT and income tax + NIC are more or less equalized between 50,000 to 100,000 but above 100,000 the entire system falls apart. As we are talking about property in the UK, the sums involved are almost always going to be above 100,000.
If I make:
£250,000 through asset investment (shares, property, etc) - I pay £57,018.00 in tax - £37,700 at 18% and then £209,300 at 24%.
£250,000 in income is £105,713.60 in tax at 3 varied rates of tax which are 20%, 40% and 45%.
The effective tax rate for profit from assets is about 22% but for income it is 42%. This is not taking into account tax plateaus and net losses from moving up income brackets in the UK which are apocalyptic for households. The difference between the two examples above is actually far greater than 50% when you take into account the loss of childcare support, etc which can amount to over £50,000 in value. This is the dilemma high earners face - work more, and lose more, or stop at an arbitrary number for tax reasons and come out richer? This is a productivity crisis.
There are also far more taxes to pay than just income tax in the UK. Council tax rates are an effective scam. I live next to a literal historical castle and estate. The family that own and live in said castle pay less council tax than me because they classified their home as a business, and reclassified their living space as a flat. They are somehow Band A while I'm at Band D. It is a castle with 10+ rooms and it is entirely used and live in.
The point of the 10% v 2% argument is to show that there is a disproportionate flow of capital out of the economy which we all share through our income, and debt into a private capital bubble that is excluded from an effective tax. From the context of the UK, our entire tax system is skewed towards the wealthy and we are currently undergoing a total collapse in public services with some of the highest poverty rates in the developed world. It just doesn't add up anymore. The UK is running on a Victorian perspective on taxation.
If this pattern continues then eventually the logical conclusion is you will run out of economy to own and you will deplete public revenue sources. Every year, more and more of the actual things in the UK economy are owned by a type of capital that pays decreasing tax rates. This has resulted in the shifting of the tax burden onto middle income earners who are increasingly representing less and less of the economy each year.
You can downvote all day but numbers are numbers and none of this is fringe student economics. In short, Gary is arguing a British context and he is clear about that. Taxes in the UK are unbearably complex. Wealth management is a gigantic industry and the Crown Dependencies are a very real thing. Flat out, the ultra rich do not pay proportionate tax. They also do not spend a relative % of their income on goods and services like income earners. The ultra rich are growing at 10% whereas everyone else is growing at 2% (if they're lucky). This is bad because the tax is more on the 2% than the 10%. This is a very linear problem which has a pretty obvious conclusion.
Capital being undertaxed relative to income is a legitimate argument, but it wasn’t what I was responding to i.e nominal vs real growth.
Real wealth is governed by compounding but there’s also variance via generational splitting, IHT and diminishing returns as more capital chases the same assets so I’m not sure saying it’s a linear problem is correct either, if anything the opposite.
I totally see what you're saying and I agree with you. How many moves, and how assets are dispersed generationally is not linear at all but very fragmented.
I suppose I'm pointing out at a surface level a description of the problem but once you look at how exactly to fix the problem all of your points become relevant.
How exactly do you fix this issue?
I personally think the solution is to target the vehicles used to facilitate the movement of capital which are primarily trusts. Trusts can defer GCT when moving property in/out of a trust. They also pay an effective tax rate of 6% on everything above £650,000 and it is paid every 10 years.
If you own £2,000.000 in rental property you can throw it into a trust, defer GCT, and then pay £120,000 in tax once every 10 years which if you then disperse the rental income to low-earning beneficiaries (income of less than £49,000 per year) then you 0% tax on rental income. The catch is the entry cost is going to be £240,000 upfront (10% + 10%) which for the average person is massively prohibitive but if you're wealthy you can leverage assets for credit - rinse and repeat. This is also a very simple and straightforward example - taxes for trusts can be manipulated much further and effective tax rates can drop to sub 1% depending on the governance structure.
How this is abused is quite simple: rich grandparents with a couple of peerages in the family own historic estates and a portfolio in London. Throw it into a trust, calculate the rents you want to charge vis a vis the number of potential beneficiaries and then work it all out to make sure everyone gets less than £49,000 per year. This means you, and your entire family are getting £49,000 for free, every year, with 0% tax. This money is then used to buy more property, register more trusts, and expand the portfolio.
My solution is equalize the tax on the rental income and remove the GCT deference. Owning property is fine, but collecting tax free income is not. You should pay the same effective tax rate as income tax regardless of whether you have a job, or not. Income is income.
The use of corporations is also another method of tax reduction however I cannot comment on that because I don't know much about it. My knowledge extends to trusts only.
You are right. To fix this problem requires very specific technical knowledge and arguments which is beyond any single economist or politician. For the UK to fix its tax system it needs a holistic reform in every single sector to ensure that at the end of the tax year, everyone pays roughly the same effective rates while also factoring in that people are allowed to own multiple assets.
I think some of your points, while true, are pretty irrelevant to the actual concern
Whether it's 10% or 6%, you still have r>g. Additionally, I don't think risk really matters here. What matters is what the results average out to over time and over a population scale, and over these two scales r>g.
There are offsetting forces that have been possibly slowing the widening of the gap, but the gap still widens. According to Pew, "Upper Income" households held 60% of the wealth in 1983, but 79% by 2016(curious to know what that figure is now). I'm also not sure why the turnover of wealthy people matters at all? The point is where the wealth sits, not the names of the people in the "elite" group.
The point is r>g and what the implications of it are. There's a lot of room to argue here, but again I just don't really see the value of your counterpoints. You're not really addressing any flaws, you're just adding details.
You don't need an alternative to point out flaws, but if your stance is, "let's not do a thing, because the thing is not perfect, or doesn't perfectly solve a problem/all aspects of a problem" and you don't offer anything else, you should be dismissed.
How would a wealth tax be implemented? How much would it cost to implement?What would be the immediate consequences? How would people try and avoid said tax and what would be the consequences of that?
Property taxes are wealth taxes with the caveat that it can't be moved (versus say intellectual property), it can generally be compared to peers, and liquidation can get you near par value. Still, they can cost countries tens to hundreds of billions a year to value.
Companies and intangible assets are very difficult to value particularly pre revenue. Public companies can have their market price used, but that makes a strong arguement for owner's of companies against going public, as they might be able to suppress their valuation like Rockefeller with standard oil. You would need a very capable and large team of analysts to accurately value private companies.
Then, who's being taxed? Is it only people, or is it corporations as well? In that case is there a competitive advantage in having 10 $100 million dollar companies doing the same thing rather than 1 $1billion dollar one even if the billion dollar one would have been more efficient?
Will this convince wealthy people to consume more rather than invest? If every dollar over $1 billion is taxed at a high enough rate, then why invest it when you can just buy a yacht today. What is the long term impact to productivity if there's less investment into productivity increasing resources? Does this disincentivize risky investments in new industries?
IMO you end up with a much larger, more expensive, and more complicated revenue collecting agency. You end up with a smaller public market and more nontraditional funding (offering bonds instead of shares in fear of the share issuance increasing the valuation of the company) which can lead to suboptimal outcomes. You also end up with a lower savings/investment rate which in the long term will make your country less productive. It's very difficult to predict exact numbers, particularly when I've never heard Gary outline how his wealth tax would work, but there are plenty of negative associated with a wealth tax even from an optimists perspective.
I think there are several suggestions of how to exactly implement a wealth tax floating around. You could look at Zucman (given that this thread is about gary), you could look at Switzerland.
Estimating value is always an issue, sometimes easy (flat cash, stocks), sometimes hard.
What I find confused about your comment is this part:
> If every dollar over $1 billion is taxed at a high enough rate, then why invest it when you can just buy a yacht today. What is the long term impact to productivity if there's less investment into productivity increasing resources?
Wealth taxes would obviously have to be set at a level where they don't make investing unprofitable. Spending money instead of investing it is good for the economy, so there's no issue here. People who want to invest their money, in order to make that money "productive", will do so once all their needs are met, given that gaining 16% instead of 20% return is still better than a 0% return.
This critique like many others are confused. You could levy the exact same critique against capital gains tax, against corporate tax, against income tax etc.
Yes, taxes take money out of the private sector. Bad :/
They put money into the public sector, and hopefully, the government uses that money to increase the economic output of the nation through means only a government can / would. Good :)
Wealth taxes don’t work, in the same way that rent controls don’t work. They’re populist rubbish and proven failures, kept alive by those with political ambitions who ought to know better.
Beyond the dire concomitants of his proposed panacea, I’m unpersuaded by his perspective on the underlying problem itself.
Finally, I’d wheel out the laundry list of ‘ad hominem’ attacks (it’s not fallacious to say someone is inexpert when they use their alleged expertise to legitimise their argument).
Wealth taxes don't work in the same way that rent control doesn't work?
But rent control does work in keeping the rent low for the people living in the apartments which are rent controlled. So you are saying, a wealth tax works at its intended purpose?
It seem you are too lazy to properly articulate your objections, because you've failed to substantiate an actual objection beyond a platitude.
Switzerland has a wealth tax btw., and rent control.
Switzerland? Their wealth tax replaces many other taxes on wealth (there is no CGT, stamp duty etc.) and is levied at an absurdly low % (as low as 0.1% in some cantons) - do that in the UK and you’d probably get less revenue than we do now. Not to mention wealthy people residing in Switzerland pay for the privilege of living in paradise, the same cannot be said for 99% of the UK.
I mentioned rent controls as a test, and you failed. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with someone who’s in favour of rent controls lmao, I suggest you frequent another subreddit because r/Economics is not a natural fit.
You make some very good points. The returns are not guaranteed, and sometimes the wealthy don't manage to arrange their wealth to avoid inheritance tax.
Another point that is undeniable is that wealth inequality is increasing and asset prices are increasing, which seems to suggest that even if the returns are 6-7% that is still significant. Especially if you consider compounding.
It's one thing to consider flaws in the argument, but it doesn't mean that the overall argument is wrong. If it is not wrong then the trend needs to be countered.
Exactly, we desperately need to move away from extractive economic models to more circular models that reinvest in society. The investments the wealthy (and pension funds) invest in to grow their wealth are not some benign magic money tree, they have negative externalities which are not measured by traditional forms of economic growth. Thus the harm of fossil fuel or arms company investments is not truly costed, allowing private investors to benefit from the profit but socially we all pick up the negative costs.
Super wealthy people cannot spend most of the money they have, so park it in assets with a return.
Investing is when you put capital into productivity increasing assets for a better long term return. This is generally seen as beneficial behaviour. Is it better if you buy machinery to the lower the cost of producing steel with your money, or if you buy an expensive painting?
The return is on average 10%+ per year, while the economy grows on average 2% a year
Certain indexes have had a nominal 10% annualized return. But, real estate between 1865-2015* in America appreciated an inflation adjusted 0.1% annually. The Japanese stock market has moved in price -1.8% annualized since 1989. USD Bonds have returned between -1.2% and 2.1% in the last 5 years.
So different assets perform differently, and the ones that performed well in previous years are not guaranteed to do so in the future. GDP growth is also closer to 3%.
This means that the super wealthy will have an increasing share of the wealth until they own almost everything. This is clearly evident in the declining wealth of the middle classes and the government.
Free markets are not a zero sum game. The middle class shrinking can largely be attributed to the upper class growing**. There is significant churn in the top percentile which goes against his model (a single digit percentage of the forbes 400 had parents in the list, high income earners are likely to have children underperform them, low income the opposite).
If capital was put into productivity increasing investments, that would increase the overall GDP so this is already taken into account. You can see this in China’s decades of 10% GDP increases (down to 5% now). The US and Europe are down to around 2% and the UK is around 0%.
Different assets do perform differently. Are you suggesting that asset price inflation will be lower in the future? Why?
It doesn’t really matter who owns the wealth, the point is that the percentage of people who own it is getting smaller.
This, and we haven't even begun to talk about the imapect of these taxes on the flows of investment which we desperately need. Forget the arguments about people leaving - you need to be thinking about why new people would want to invest in the UK.
"'come to the UK and we'll take 2% of everything you have, and impose a 20%. exit tax" is not the sort of slogan that gets people in the door.
As for Gary - it is one thing spouting your opinions on a YouTube channel where everyone agrees with you - that's easy. But if you are pushing for radical change, you're going to get harder and more relentless questions.
Why is any criticism of a bad idea contingent on us coming up with a better alternative?
His proposal has clear and obvious issues. Perhaps the more appropriate response is the person trying to make a career off selling his ideas, should try to come up with new ideas that overcome some of these clear issues.
Super wealthy people cannot spend most of the money they have, so park it in assets with a return.
This really depends what their wealth was made up of first.
A footballer on £3m per year will have ~£1.6m after tax in cash each year. They 'pay' themselves £125k a year & invest the rest in assets that produce a return. After 10 years they have invested £14.75m.
A business owner pays themselves £125k a year. After ten years, their business is valued at £14.75m.
But that isn't in different assets that produce a return, as it was never cash. It remains locked up in the business.
Wealth =/= cash.
You could inherit a £5m house & live in it. You are now 'worth' £5m. But you don't have £5m of assets producing a return.
Inherit £5m in cash, & invest it, & you would have £5m of assets either growing in value or producing a cash return.
That has been true since capitalism existed, the one thing you ignore is that people die.
There is a flow to capital through the generations. First generation earns it, second maintains it, third blows it. Happens all the time. Only a few families manage to hold on to their wealth.
It doesn’t matter who owns the wealth, it matters that is owned by a small number of people. The third generation may blow it, but where does all that money end up? Statistics say it goes to people who are even richer.
it seems a broad "wealth tax" is a particularly bad idea for many reasons. I'd support things like a 50-100% inheritance tax, and a tax for moving money out of a country (if it was earned there). We could increase long term capital gains tax to tax it more like income. We could also prevent banks from giving zero interest loans to billionaires (maybe? not sure how good of an idea this is)
America could also stop fighting these idiotic wars and have fiscally responsible leaders leading to lower government spending, lower inflation, lower fuel prices.
We should probably tax the wealth created from AI and robots displacing labour.
Finally, I have always been skeptical of Gary as he gives me huge "guru" vibes and focuses on simple solutions and messaging rather than having a detailed, reasoned economic argument behind his ideas. Has he covered why wealth taxes failed in the places that have implemented them? Recently there was an interview where he talked to a tax lawyer and got completely destroyed.
A stock levy and stock trade tax would be a workeable way to tax wealth. If you own a house, car, or land - you often have to pay a tax. So a levy of sorts should work, unless it's a retiree account
One of the main things you need to tackle is the tax haven/dodging industry. There are entire cottage industries dedicated to hiding wealth and avoiding taxes and some of the smartest people that come out of the most prestigious colleges in the world have huge incentives to work in those fields. You can create a thousand new laws and taxes against the 1% and trust me these industries will find ways and loopholes (legal and illegal) to dodge, avoid or even strike down these laws with money, power and lobbying.
inheritance tax is too easy to avoid, most people closer to god I've known gift their assets before they die, there's a number of ways round paying it.
Your points rely on the implication that the amount of available wealth is fixed. The issue isn’t that the super wealthy have an increasing share of the wealth, it’s that new wealth isn’t being sufficiently generated in the middle. Asset ownership by the rich doesn’t inherently cause a lack of new wealth generation. Arguably, structural hurdles, such as zoning and administrative costs associated with building new homes, for example, play a larger role than the super wealthy hoarding stocks.
The amount of available wealth is a function of GDP growth (2-3% a year). If everyone’s wealth increases 2% a year then everyone retains the same level of ownership they had before. If one segment of the population increases their wealth by 6% while the economy grows 2%, then that 4% difference comes at the expense of other segments. In other words, one group becomes richer and one group becomes poorer despite the overall amount of wealth increasing.
You are arguing that GDP growth is not high enough, and I agree. GDP growth was higher in the postwar period compared to today.
GDP growth doesn’t capture wealth generation, though. GDP growth describes how much the total economy grows, that’s separate than describing new wealth generation. For example, gains in the stock market aren’t included in GDP figures. Home appreciation isn’t included in GDP figures. The things that actually tell us about wealth generation aren’t a part of GDP. And that’s why your comparison fails, you’re not comparing equivalent metrics.
Sure! The Fed’s Flow of Funds measures household net worth, OECD’s National Balance Sheet, the World Inequality Database, and Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report.
I don’t think nearly anyone would give a flying fuck about how much money rich people have, if regular people’s lives were just better. No one cares how many yachts or how rich Jeff bezos is or how Elon musk is the first trillionaire as long as most Americans are able to afford housing, food, to raise a family and retire.
That’s a fair critique. But the ultrawealthy getting wealthier doesn’t necessarily cause less wealth generation in the middle. That perspective treats wealth as a fixed pie when it’s actually dynamic. So the solution is to increase wealth generation in the middle and at the bottom end. A wealth tax isn’t necessary to do that and would be inefficient. I’d rather see a better estate tax that captures unearned wealth transfers.
Somehow you run NHS while having billionaires already. Is your point that if billionaires become centimillionaires then six months later NHS stops operating? What is the casue and effect here?
The money generatesd from taxing all billionaires in the UK out of existence would run the NHS for six months. And you can do that once. It's not really that much money.
You still did not answer the question of why is taxing bilionaires relevant to runnig NHS, which clearly exists right now.
But let's follow your case studty. Lets's say billionaires pay 5% wealth tax (35B£). Their wealth will still grow per year (average now is about 10%), just slower and NHS could incrase operations by about 6-8%, so additional 100.000-150.000 emplyees (out of 600.000 that it needs within the next decade). Why would you be against it?
I'm saying that the amount of money raised by doing it is inconsequential. The NHS thing was just an example of why it would be inconsequential. It's a moral good to tax billionaires away, but it doesn't do anything over the long term.
If you want more NHS Staff, abolish the limit on new ones doctors per year, let them choose where they work, stop favouring migrant doctors over British ones, pay support staff more, nationalise and means test care, abolish the NHS and rebuild it.
It’s more about reversing the trend. Because the development has been staggering in the last 50 years.
”The trust’s data showed that globally, billionaire wealth had grown from 2.5% to 14.1% of GDP since 1990. Britain’s trajectory – 4% to 22% – is even more extreme.”
Britain have 157 billionaires btw. This is 157 people that if they magically get market value for all their assets overnight the could purchase 22% of all the goods and services produced in Britain over a year. That’s absolutely insane in a country of over 69 million people.
The power concentration is also a issue because it destroys normal market dynamics.
”Sahni-Nicholas described this as “rentier capitalism: sitting on appreciating assets, collecting rents, charging fees for moving money around”, adding that it “extracts value from the economy rather than creating it”.”
Well to start of with, a reduction in the increase of asset prices, housing, land, gold, stocks you name it. That coupled wage increases coupled to redistribution of income from capital to workers would be great for standard of living. Would also simulate greater growth due to demand increases. Increasing consumption and reducing the save rate in the economy. There are a lot of other things that need to be done as well, but a wealth tax is a good place to start, say 2% on everything about 100
Million dollars.
Most research on the field use dollar as a standard currency. You want it in £ instead? Do you think the development of the western world the last 50 years has been good? With falling productivity increases, housing prices increasing compared to wages by a factor of like 5. At the same time wealth inequality has exploded. I don’t know about you but I would rather see the growth numbers befor this time period compared to after.
The point is more about ownership. If you own a house then you can live in it and use it and not pay anything to anyone for it. If you are renting a house then your wealth will go to the owner for the rest of your life.
It's the same for water infrastructure, schools, power plants, etc. If private people own those things then the nation's wealth will go towards them. That's part of the reason the government is so broke in the UK.
Taxing people with extreme wealth will mean they will have to sell assets, making housing, infrastructure and businesses relatively cheaper to own as well as being able to continue to rent those things from the private people who own them.
So... nationalise everything? That's it? And when we take on the debt of, say, all those failing water companies what do we do then? It's almost never private people also, it's private businesses, some of which are abroad. See how France likes it when we seize EDF assets.
I didn’t mention nationalising anything. I said if you tax wealth, assets become cheaper and therefore more accessible. And if assets are in someone’s hands then it will cost rent to use forever which would not have to be paid if you owned them.
If a private company, of a public service is failing/in debt and still giving shareholders and bosses bonuses and dividends they should be fined and have their assets removed. It should be illegal to strip wealth from the public while failing to provide the service just because there is no other option
Cool. That would be theft. Theft I agree with, but I doubt Gary does. I want to see him advocate this kind of forceful redistribution, but he won't. Also, no idea how you'd play that with foreign businesses with foreign government stakes in it.
The theft is committed by the company. Taking it off them would be justice. Is there a company that’s a public service in the uk that is failing that has foreign government stakes in it? One I can think of is China and the steel industry and that’s turned out fine. Same should be done with TATA because they are robbing us blind and steel production is a national security issue
I agree. The law says it's theft though, and so would everyone. Even if we both agree it's right. Doing that has a... 100% chance of starting a Liz Truss style cascade of trust in our economy? Can we absorb that? It would be hard going, but worth it. Would everyone else thinks so?
I'm so over steel man - England bails out its own steelworks but left Port Talbot to rot and die. Part of the reason I believe that Wales needs its independence is because all economic effort gets focused on poor English people, never the Welsh, and any wealth redistribution that happens will definiteely be done less enthusiastically with us.
Breaking the UK up is an understated solution!
If other companies saw it as a red flag and decided to sell up then great. Whoever buys the company would do so knowing the new terms of ownership. I’m sure we would see a short term decline in investment but long term the UK economy would work for the people of the UK and not drained out into foreign accounts that don’t pay much tax. If the UK was run fairly and equally there would be no argument for independence ether
Not everything, just the core infrastructure of the country that can hold a country hostage if it's completely privatized, especially natural monopolies.
This has been done before through and it didn't change a massive amount. I'm in favour, sure, but not sure how it's going to redistribute wealth. Unless you're in favour of seizure (I am) then you have to pay off the debts, pay for the company at a fair rate, etc. That just gives those people even more money.
I just don't understand his grand plan.
> This has been done before through and it didn't change a massive amount.
State debt and deficits were much better.
> I'm in favour, sure, but not sure how it's going to redistribute wealth.
It reduces the amount of tax money that if funneled to the owners of that infrastructure, if it is privatized.
> Unless you're in favour of seizure (I am) then you have to pay off the debts, pay for the company at a fair rate, etc. That just gives those people even more money.
Not necessarily, there are many other ways of achieving that besides those two. But even if you just pay a fair rate, that at least stops the bleeding and reduces the outsized control they can have over a country. And the wealth tax can help pay for those purchases.
…it’s actually kinda good to have a financial system where so much of the wealth is effectively parked and not being drawn upon by all the boomers retiring at once
This last week I’ve been fantasizing about a lifetime inheritance limit. Imagine no person is able to inherit more than $2 million in their life. The money would need to be more widely distributed, either through the will of the deceased or through government action.
so here you are inheriting your parents home that is now worth above this threshold and goverment saying that you can't do that. The home where you grew up in and have all of your childhoods memories is barred from you over some arbitrary line. Is that fair?
I’ve been thinking about this because I went through this recently with a parent who died. I was not taxed on much, except for an IRA that counted as income. That also doesn’t seem fair. I didn’t earn that money. Of course it is life changing and I appreciate it.
Keeping memories: Looking back to grandparents and aunts and uncles who died, most of the time the struggle with memories and what to keep is going to be an issue regardless. There needs to be a unique situation for someone to keep their childhood home including being the only child (or at least the negotiate that with siblings), being able to move. Most of the time, the home is sold as part of the estate and people inherit the money.
cost of a home: most homes are not over $2million
additional estate money: in the situation you outlined, the person could make they choice to keep the house or money. The max is $2million.
I think property rights are an interesting concept. It might not feel so fair to the person who earned it to have it taxed or taken away. I think it gets more fair to tax more heavily with every new generation. I have benefitted from generational wealth. I’m not opposed to it entirely, but how much is deserved?
Is it fair for the heirs of billionaires or multimillionaires to inherit homes all over the country during a housing crisis? I think it’s justified to create a cap.
> cost of a home: most homes are not over $2million
Thats heavily location dependant and thats another reason not to do arbitrary lines. For example in US, a home LA or NY costing 2 million will feel very different to a home in midwest for the same amount of money and it is the same amount, yet one might be a mansion and another one a borderline shithole in a good place
Character is important to credibility and Stevenson's character is questionable at best. If he wants to be taken seriously as an economist and not merely become known as a YouTube guru for people that watch a video and imagine themselves knowledgable (many such cases), he should instead try working in the field and producing works that have value to not just the narrow field of people who already agree with him. He is simply not very persuasive if you are not inclined to agree with his point already.
I discovered from another user that we can have very different ideas of what exactly Mr. Stevenson's proposal actually is. (Although it seems we were on the same page about his understanding of thesituation, more or less.)
With that in mind, could you tell me what your understanding of the problem itself and what the proposal is?
(Mind you, I'm not looking for a gotcha here. I don't care about Reddit points. I just want to know your strongest case so I can respond to it fairly.)
work is unfairly taxed at much higher rates than non-work income (returns on investment), both due to the tax rates themselves and also all the loopholes available to avoid taxes on non-work income (or even evade, with low probability of being caught).
this leads to, over time, wealthy people owning a larger and larger share of assets, including assets that used to belong to governments, creating a cycle of rent extraction from workers and governments and into the wealthy.
wealthy people also have a lot more resources and ability to influence policy, protecting this system or even further tilting it in their favor.
over time workers get more and more squeezed and become increasingly unable to buy assets, and governments are forced to cut services as they can't extract more taxes out of workers and debt keeps piling up due to all the rents they need to pay to corporate owners.
One immediate proposed solution by Gary is a 2% tax on wealth above £10M, it's a version of the Zucman tax. There is no claim that it solves all the problems, no policy does, but it's a step in the right direction.
I mean, this is basically the main points of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, if you want to talk about credentials. But Pikkety doesn't talk with an East London accent and his book is 700 pages, so he doesn't have as much mass-appeal.
Piketty is a lot more cautious about what conclusions can be drawn from his data not because he is a boring economist but rather because he understands that the problems are a lot more complex than simple solutions can easily handle. In other words, a wealth tax is simply not good enough to make much of a difference. The big similarity between the two is that they are both essentially on the same side in the sense that they are left-wing and promote left-wing solutions.
Yep, would it be okay for an advocate of trickle down economics make misrepresentations because you overall agree with the idea that the super-wealthy should be taxed less?
A good argument stands on its own two feet and doesn’t require misleading hyperbole.
I agree with this to a point. He gets the info to lay people but he needs to convince the people who’d be paying this tax. That and the people that listen to his accent and think he’s stupid because of it.
Your argument skips what is happening when invested. That investment often lets other people benefit. a lot of money is parked in things like mortgage securities. The list is long.
Interesting take. Because Gary himself will resort to ad hominem attacks any time someone credible attempts to politely discuss those “pretty undeniable” points with him.
> Already seen in Norway it fails and the state lost money.
I've already had this discussion, it's false, revenues from the wealth tax are higher than 10 years ago when the tax rate was lower and they are increasing.
Norway has had a wealth tax for decades and it disproves all of the doomer arguments I seen on this sub about a wealth tax.
A revolution of spirit and consciousness to make most of us less greedy and purely materially focused? Its the same mentality that is causing a lot of other problems in society and nothing will change until we do.
Legislation will be lobbied or evaded by those wealthy and powerful enough anyway, or even despite that and by some miracle we went back to post WW2 tax system to pull the country out of every crisis its currently facing, the levels of corruption and incompetence in any government or political party, at a local and national level, to be able to do anything with the extra tax they collect is also fantastical at this stage. The only change left to change that would have any meaningful impact is our selves and how we treat each other.
Re alternative: high wealth tax margins (ie: if y have high net worth and high earnings, the tax rate could be really high, like 85% for example), and capital gains taxes paid when someone dies like where I am in Canada.
The wealthy have a near historic low share of wealth in the UK and it has been pretty much flat for decades. Countries with wealth taxes like Spain or Switzerland are not doing a better job at distributing wealth to the bottom 99%.
The problem with taxing the wealthy is they'll just leave the country and go somewhere else that doesn't tax them as much.......and they can take their businesses with them and then cost us jobs. So we are kind of over a barrel a bit. However TBH if I won the Powerball tomorrow I'd not want to pay tax to such a sh*te Govt who are spaffing it up the wall so badly....I'd be happy to pay taxes towards a Govt and economy that was fair to all classes and functioning for the good of all though, but what Government has ever worked like that.,......
It’s a shame. A lot of information oriented youtubers are taking breaks for health reasons (atrioc) and I can see why. Doing all this work to not see any change is a recipe for burnout. Plus a lot of this stuff is doom-pilled and inherently toxic to the psyche (not saying the creators are but the reality of the situation itself is oftentimes depressing, and the creators do a remarkable job of making it seem otherwise). We need to be in the era of action now.
No it isn’t, and that’s why it’s such a shame. These people, to a very large degree, do it for the love of the game. Otherwise they wouldn’t be taking health breaks, they’d take the private equity deal and lose something in their eyes instead.
I’m not saying their position doesn’t make things easier or that streaming is the hardest thing in the world™. But saying it’s all just a matter of funding is incredibly reductive
On its face, I actually agree with them: yes, it is easy to care about others when you have millions! Just have empathy and use that wealth to improve the lives of people who are less fortunate than you.
What I think they mean, though, is that when you have money, it's easier to care than it would be if you didn't have any.
This is absurd because gestures around at all the selfish billionaire
The absolutely brilliant Thomas Pearson has been off for a few months and at a very low ebb which he's been enormously honest about. He's been one of the crucial voices in breaking down what the Online Safety Act means amongst other topics.
They keep citing "health reasons" right at the point that the hit the inflection point where the monetisation slows to make it less worthwhile.
Youtube is enshittification on a grand scale. It's no longer making recommendations based upon your interests, instead it's serving up what will get the most clicks and actively trying to avoid you watching a long form (unless you pay). Better to push AI created shorts.
There's a reason some of the big youtube names are no longer out there putting regular content out.
The treadmill was worth money and they cashed in, but they value their time. If something else is worth it, they move on
Hahahaha. I just think it's funny the guy who sits behind a screen chatting shit all day gets to take his little breaks, whilst millions don't whilst doing much harder jobs. Dry your eyes, Gaza, you're our hero!
It’s not a race to the bottom, there will always be someone who has it better than us. And tbf Gary could have easily been doing fuck all on a tropical island with the money he has, he chose to advocate for fairer economics instead. There aren’t many people who would choose to do that instead of just disappearing on an early retirement.
If 10 thousand people decide to put their all into being the most popular streamer, do you get 10 thousand #1 streamers in the world? Do you increase the advertising budgets that pay the top streamers by 10000x?
YouTube is currently an option to earn alot of money for a select few who work very hard at it. But obviously if everyone did it to the same standard, it would pay the same as anything else that has a bloated market and set skill level. This is how the world works. If Admin work was something only a select few could do to an acceptable standard, guess what would happen.
There are many options to earn more money as well, Youtube is just an example.
No, I think it's a sensible reply to someone saying that nothing stops someone from being one of the most popular streamers in the world besides laziness and lack of discipline.
You have a very naive view of the world as a meritocracy where anyone has access to same opportunities and just has to put the same effort into things as others have.
That is especially not the case when it comes to things like popularity, where random events can make someone very well known and in ways that they themselves will tell you they did not plan for or expected to happen.
My point was, if you're not happy with your current situation, do something about it. Of course on reddit where everyone has to speak in binary terms this is not understood.
You don't need to be a world famous youtuber to have the ability to take a break. You need a middle class profession or above for that. And if you can't even manage that, you've only got yourself to blame.
Laziness and lack of discipline will give you the results that those inputs deserve.
I just unsubscribed from his channel a few days ago because I realized his point was blatantly obvious and people are simply too stupid/lazy to care until the bottom falls out of the system and they realize that living in 3rd world poverty isn't just a bogeyman scare tactic but a cold hard reality.
I hope he enjoys his life content in the knowledge that at least he tried, and he wasn't alone in seeing the writing on the wall.
Some people find it a waste of time listening to someone telling them what they know, especially when that knowledge is nothing but depressing. It’s not difficult to understand
Being subscribed has always been a show of support in my eyes as well as a way to see their content, can just not watch their videos but keep the subscription to support the channel and support the idea.
I totally get that. I've enjoyed a fair few of Gary's videos but most of the weekly videos are just repeating the same thing over and over. And y'know, it's a correct thing that isn't said enough. But Gary has a pretty strong idea of what's wrong and what needs to be done and there's very little developing his thinking or incorporating new ideas. Which is fine from an economic perspective but doesn't make for a compelling YouTube channel or an interesting hour-long video every week.
There are many societies past and present where there is a two tiered system of lavish gated communities and desperate poverty outside, and these societies are stable enough to persist over generations. I'm not confident that even the bottom falling out of our current status quo will be enough to change things politically.
He didn't do shit but tap into the emotions of the uninformed. He offers no actual solutions and just wanted to be seen as a cool champagne socialist with his humble brags.
Do you not think taxing wealth is a solution, or do you expect him to literally draft legistlation? I'm not sure whether you're refuting his point or expecting him to solve everything.
Yes, he tapped into the emotions of the uninformed, that was why he did all this media work. I don't particularly like his bravado either, but it worked to draw attention to the issue of increasing wealth disparity. We shouldn't expect one man to solve this all for us.
Not who you’re responding to but perhaps I can provide a perspective. The idea of wealth taxes aren’t new, far from it. Even the modestly informed knows that the issue with wealth taxes is always the detail of how it will be implemented. Not the idea, but the detail. For a high profile character he didn’t bring the discussion much past the idea, if at all. He can’t draft legislation you’re right, but he could have a semi robust proposal that captures the current state of political and academic thought, surely that isn’t asking too much? For me he gained a huge platform and ended up sounding like a beauty queen calling for world peace…well sure.
> Even the modestly informed knows that the issue with wealth taxes is always the detail of how it will be implemented. Not the idea, but the detail. For a high profile character he didn’t bring the discussion much past the idea, if at all.
His proposal is 2% tax on wealth above £10M, then adjust over time as needed.
Sure, and that is as about as basic a statement about a wealth tax as can be made. It has added nothing of value to the discussion, we all know that the term wealth tax means some tax rate.
I honestly think its a shame, he got a huge platform and couldn't bring himself to back an already established thoughtful proposal that would have made it harder for people to dismiss out of hand.
Again, it's a Zucman tax, it's an established proposal.
That it is simple to implement is a large part of the point. Simplicity reduces loopholes.
So what exactly do you think is missing that you think needs to be discussed at this stage and is not just a bureaucratic detail that would only be necessary when actually drafting a bill that had a chance to be voted on and implemented?
You say this proposal is easy to dismiss out of hand, why? Besides Zucman there are other established economists that support it.
It seems to me that your strategy is to attack the proposal as "not serious" so that you don't even need to find anything to criticize it on. But it is serious.
I have not seen him describe his position as Gabriel Zucmans proposal. Perhaps he has somewhere but if so that hasn’t been a particularly strong message and I expect you also know that because you described his position as “essentially” the Zucman tax. I think you’re joining the dots.
Without clear detail there will never be a bill drafted, let alone a vote. That is the issue, the detail has to be defined first because that is what a bill is.
> I have not seen him describe his position as Gabriel Zucmans proposal.
He has, and it is.
> think you’re joining the dots.
No, he has even done an interview with Zucman, it is explicitly the Zucman tax. I said "essentially" because Zucman had initially proposed a higher threshold of 100M instead of 10M, so it's not the exact same but it's the same framework.
> Without clear detail there will never be a bill drafted, let alone a vote.
The detail is the bill draft. There is no point getting there if there isn't enough political support for it. And you can't expect every political commentator to also be a lawyer with the time and expertise to draft a bill for every proposal they have.
First you need an general support for a wealth tax, the specific implementation and details come after that has been accepted, otherwise it's a waste of time do discuss minute details when the general idea hasn't even been agreed on.
The Zucman tax is specifically an ultra-wealthy tax and relies, quite substantially, on global participation for implementation. Gary’s proposal isn’t that and so is at best half baked to me.
Ultimately I don’t believe the guy has had much of an impact where it would count. Made it to Tik Tok though…
Wealth taxes are not a solution. Land value tax and minimizing other forms of rent seeking are the best ways to address the portion of wealth inequality that's actually problematic.
Imagine a dog bit your finger. You suffered a bone fracture, a possible infection, and a deep cut.
Your finger is in rough shape, it hurts really bad and is going to get worse if untreated.
The wealth tax equivalent here is cutting off the finger with barbed wire. Hard to do, grossly unsophisticated and way too excessive.
Instead, you could get a vaccine, a bandage, and a splint to keep your finger and address the actual problems. Way more nuanced and technical, but still the appropriate remedy. This is land value tax plus a bunch of other specific, targeted policies.
LVT is the least bad tax. It is unavoidable and directly solves a primary contributor to wealth inequality, and one that actually hurts the poor.
Me getting rich from curing cancer vs. me getting rich from speculating on land value appreciation gained from others' productivity are two completely different things.
In the first case, I increase wealth inequality while making the poor wealthier (they now have a cure for cancer), from my own legitimate contribution. In the second case, I increase wealth inequality while making the poor poorer (I increase their rent and pocket the difference as new profit), and from nothing I did productively.
The assessment process can be tricky but we now have open source software to efficiently and transparently provide that. Besides, assessment for a general wealth tax by definition is going to be a larger headache.
Yes, we should approach the issue from multiple angles, but none of them should be based on arbitrary thresholds.
Target land speculation. Target fraud and corruption. Target theft. Target over-consumption of luxury goods. Target patents. Target negative externalities. Target loopholes.
Targeting productive working capital is unwarranted, and probably won't remain a tax on purely the wealthy. Partially through expansions due to fabricated or "temporary" emergencies, partially through inflation.
That second part is a joke, too. Basically, the government taxes you through inflation once, and with a tax on unrealized gains, they'll tax you from inflation a second time when the new dollars eventually make their way into propped up asset prices.
Calling him a champagne socialist tells me you have actually engaged very little with his content. He is nowhere near socialism on the political spectrum lol
While am skeptical of the majority of his stances, this is a super lazy, disingenuous take; obviously you didnt really watch much of his content, you just disgreed almost immediately with his agenda, tuned out and returned to your echo chamber. He did offer solutions and while i did disagreed with majority of it, he actually put himself and his ideas out there unlike most of the political drama, rage/click baitors that makes up 90%+ of political content these days. Disagreed or not, I found his content refreshing, I try to challenge my beliefs and biases on a weekly basis and his channel was a good source for that. Edit: some of his core thesis is 100% correct, capitalism is eating itself and if we don't fix it, it will destroy itself
>While am skeptical of the majority of his stances, this is a super lazy, disingenuous take; obviously you didnt really watch much of his content, you just disgreed almost immediately with his agenda, tuned out and returned to your echo chamber.
It is astonishing to me how people will defend left-wing YouTube gurus using essentially the same language and the same arguments as the defenders of, say, Jordan Peterson.
>he actually put himself and his ideas out there unlike most of the political drama, rage/click baitors that makes up 90%+ of political content these days.
He has been embroiled in drama multiple times and has been called out for lying, after which he acts like the media is out to get him for simply pointing out that what he says about himself is not true. Then he kicks up even more drama by pulling the classic "I have given it my all and I am quitting now, I am done. Finished! But actually I will still be releasing content sometimes."
>some of his core thesis is 100% correct, capitalism is eating itself and if we don't fix it, it will destroy itself
Could you be more specific on what you think is correct?
So what have you accomplished that's more impressive than highlighting this issue to millions of people, regardless of whether or not he has the perfect solution?
Are we pretending like wealth inequality hasn't been one of the most controversial issues of the last 200 years? Like wealth taxes haven't existed until Gary came along?
He doesn't have any viable solution, that's the point.
Any idiot these days can stumble into millions of views parroting slop so I don't see why that's impressive.
That's a shame, I feel like he was finally getting good at messaging. He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly, but he's now consistently making interesting points imho.
Not that I follow him to be fair, just when I randomly see his stuff pop up.
>He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly
This is because of how the British media works. The majority of the major news platforms are owned by the very billionaires he is trying to tax. On top of that, the UK has a tabloid culture. If he presented himself as some guy with a Cockney accent, shaved head, and a dream then he would have been decimated as a clown in the papers but by pointing out he is from the City then this gives him prestige.
It honestly did work because he was not treated very fairly in the British media so having a sort of empirical argument to fend of low-effort insults was clutch.
Unfortunately for me I read 3 or 4 different newspapers every day and prior to this documentary I’d not read about him at all, except for Reddit and YouTube.
> He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly, but he's now consistently making interesting points imho.
Wouldn't you do this too? The first argument anyone ever comes to you with if you discuss the super rich is "politics of envy" so it's good to get that argument out of the way first...
I'd say it's the opposite of a shame if you felt he was getting good at messaging. We shouldn't want people spreading misinformation effectively. The dude's economic theories were incoherent (and often contradictory)
Tax wealth, not work, is absolutely not reasonable. We've seen wealth taxes tried numerous times around the world and they're almost always repealed cause they're abysmal policy.
Hell, we saw Norway increase their wealth tax from 1.1% to 1.35% a few years ago, a minor 0.25% absolute increase, and so many rich people fled that overall tax revenues decrease. But sure bro, just one more time and it'll work!!
It's also been well documented in countries like Sweden that they absolutely crater efficiency making them a significantly less efficient form of taxation than something like an income tax. For every dollar of tax collected, 76 cents was lost for various reasons.
A few people left for tax havens until Norway slapped on an exit tax. Then the problem was solved.
I think it's kind of outrageous that a person can become rich from a society, then move all of that money out when society asks for a tiny percentage of it back. It's up to society to decide what is reasonable, and I don't think that is.
That's not really true though. Norway's tax revenue is still going up and only 500 people left because of it (or 0.3% of Norway's millionaire population). So it's working just fine.
And a 0.25% increase on a 1.1% tax is pretty major.
Trying to stop a wealth tax is of course one of the most PR'd topics out there. But claims that it has always failed are hugely exaggerated - it's just not politically expedient.
Edit: Norway's total tax revenue isn't still going up. It's wealth and income tax combined is still going up.
> That's not really true though. Norway's tax revenue is still going up and only 500 people left because of it (or 0.3% of Norway's millionaire population). So it's working just fine.
> And a 0.25% increase on a 1.1% tax is pretty major.
These people want to go from 0% to 2%, which is a hell of a lot more major.
> Trying to stop a wealth tax is of course one of the most PR'd topics out there. But claims that it has always failed are hugely exaggerated - it's just not politically expedient.
What are you talking about? Do you think countries are getting rid of wealth taxes because they're too successful at raising revenue?
My apologies, you're right. I meant tax from just the wealth and income tax but I didn't say that. Regardless, the tax to GDP ratio is still holding up fine for overall tax, so it's still far from being a failure by that measure.
And yes 2% would be major. We should expect some capital flight, but Norway has shown us that it won't be much overall. And I saw a clip of Gary arguing for an exit tax, so it's not unaccounted for by him.
On your last point, I think at least some wealthy people campaigning against a wealth tax is a given. I think that wealthy donors to all political parties will easily be able to gain concessions that will reduce the impact of wealth taxes, and that they are certainly going to PR the "wealth taxes can't work" line perpetually. So it's likely that wealth taxes will always be weak, and therefore not worth the political cost of losing big donors.
What are you pointing to? The revenue is higher in the last few years after the tax rate increase than in the period from 2015 to 2020 when the global economy was mostly calm and growing at a decent pace after recovering from 2008 and before Covid, and in that period the wealth tax rate was lower.
The article mentions how many affluent people left but not how many moved in, it mentions small and medium businesses were damaged but doesn't explain how and how much, it mentions infrastructure is suffering but zero elaborations of where and how. The rest of the article is the same, just saying bad thing happened with zero balance or nuance.
The vast majority of the Norwegian economy is based on oil and fish. If we are looking at high level numbers like that, the oil and fish prices (as well as currency fluctuations) are much more important than minor tax changes.
The critics of the Norwegian wealth tax do so much outrageous cherry picking that they honestly just do a great job at highlighting that it works well and does not lead to the doomer scenarios they promise will happen with a wealth tax, lol.
Not even the smartest economists of yore have claimed to "understand" economics. It's human psychology vis a vis numbers masquerading as hard science and that includes all of our utter irrationality, desperation, hopes and stupidity.
I say this as someone who bought a house on investment returns alone and retired before forty.
You're right, because he supports a single tax that is advocated for by some economists, that means his entire thesis must be backed by mainstream economists as well!
His main message is tax wealth not work. The wealth tax he wants is the zucman tax which is backed by plenty of mainstream economists. You claimed wealth taxes don’t work and aren’t backed by mainstream economists. All I’m doing is pointing out that’s clearly not the case
> You claimed wealth taxes don’t work and aren’t backed by mainstream economists.
I didn't claim this anywhere. I don't think wealth taxes would work, sure, but I didn't claim they weren't backed by mainstream economists. His thesis as a whole is what is not backed by mainstream economists. Things like wealth inequality driving up asset prices isn't backed by anyone, really. He also argues things like investments being bad for the economy, and instead we should spend everything, for some reason??
He's a grifter, he had a £100 a month Patreon. I also remember reading an article where they interviewed his coworkers at Citibank and they completely shot down his "Most profitable trader globally" claim. He's just a guy who worked at a bank that realised he could make more money off YouTube making clickbait.
Him overselling his background and having a patreon aren't really cardinal sins imho.
What I saw him say was reasonable. He did harp on about the same things a lot, but his points like "the top 1% of tax payers is not the same group as the top 1% of wealthy people" is important and bears repeating.
The "most profitable" trader thing was a way to get respect in the British press, which does not give a voice to any ordinary people. Who cares whether he was in first place or whatever - he was a trader who earned millions.
Or it was a lie to get more credibility with the clickbait YouTube crowd. It's a poor strategy to make up such a verifiable lie to the British press because they will find it, and they did.
I decided to look into this, it seems a bit murky. Apparently the bank doesn't publish any information about it, and it seems to be word against word. He might have been the top trader, he might not. But there's no actual proof either way.
You said you had verifiable evidence, how did you get that if there's no published data?
Well they verified his claim against his line manager and a group of coworkers who said basically what you said, that they don't have a "leader board" that is shared amongst staff members, so he wouldn't know even if he was the number one. The overwhelming opinion amongst his coworkers was the the seemed like a nice enough guy but was no way near the best trader.
As with most Gary Stevenson posts on Reddit, I sense they are brigaded by bots paid for by the Epstein class who are against the message that the cost of living needs to come down and working class people, of which is the majority of the world, should be able to live their lives instead of worrying about being in desperate poverty.
I don't know why anyone was watching him anyway. He's been making the exact same single point over and over for years now. I got it the first time I don't need to hear him saying it weekly.
but he is not very good at providing examples of how to do it? At best he just repeats the suggestion to just tax the rich while completely ignoring any concerns on how exactly we should do it.
I kinda understand why he'd need to take time off from it.
Its such a big and slow moving problem, and with this modern format of laboured hour long youtube videos about everything, it must be so monotonous repeating and explaining the issue again and again.
But unfortunately its been kind of necessary to start getting the point across
Gary has a strong opinion of himself. Self declared best trader, self declared great economist, self decalred “right all the time”. His show doesn’t go the way he perceived, people not accepting him as their saviour and he takes a break.
Believe it or not, those sorts of statements help with mass appeal. His target audience certainly aren't academics who are very concerned with nuance and deferment of judgement.
Sure but he relies on the idea of being the 'world's best trader' all the time as a badge of expertise to deflect criticism, the guy who gets it right all the time and who went against the grain of economists to carve his own path. He literally says
> I’m not fucking Mahatma Gandhi, I’m not here to talk about morality, OK. I was the best fucking trader in the fucking world and I’m the guy that calls it right every fucking year
And consistently talks about how he wasn't just Citibank's most profitable trader, but the WORLD'S most profitable trader for earning $35 million profit for the bank. When Financial Times interviewed his colleagues
> On Stevenson’s assertion that he was once the best of the best, Feig was damning: “His claim about being the most profitable trader at Citi in any one year is laughable and clearly just an outlandish fib.”
> Another of Stevenson’s old bosses remembered him as a “nice kid”, but quickly added that “Gary was at no point ever even the highest PnL” among the 20 to 25 traders who made up Citi’s global STIRT team, let alone the whole bank.
> “He didn’t even have the risk limits to be the highest producer, in any capacity,” he added, describing Stevenson’s $35mn PnL in 2011 as “not even close” to the highest profit in STIRT that year.
and
> The ex-credit trader described Gary’s central claim as “horse shit”, noting by way of example that the investment-grade credit traders in New York averaged around $30mn to $40mn PnL back then. And that was just the average.
Again if he didn't market himself so heavily on the basis that he's, in his own words, THE BEST MOST PROFITABLE TRADER IN THE WORLD it wouldn't be such a big deal but he's a huge narcissist and Walter Mitty.
interesting nearly all detractors go after Gary's character rather than the points he makes. I'm yet to see someone make a reasonable argument against his cause.
Personally I don't care who he is, what is being said is most important, if it came from Liam Gallaghers mouth it doesn't make it any more correct or incorrect.
He supports the points he makes by appealing to his character though. Nobody criticises Pikkety on the nature of his character because Pikkety doesn't make the decision to lie and obfuscate about his character to support his points.
No he doesn't, he supports the points he makes by making a logical and sound argument with a clear message. If Pikkety was a plumber would it make his arguments less sound?
If Pikkety said he was a plumber and then built a persona on being a plumber and then wrote a best selling published book in which he appeals to his plumber credentials to draw people to him, and then talked all the time about being a plumber and in every YouTube video, interview and documentary talked about how he was a plumber and then it came out that he was not a plumber, and he lied about his credentials as a plumber for the sole purpose aiding him in pushing a narrative then I would say it's a significant character flaw that would change how I view him and it would make him as a figure less sound, yes.
But luckily Pikkety doesn't do that because Pikkety is an actual published economist who doesn't need to make up dumb slopulist narratives while lying to people for masturbatory ego purposes, unlike Gary.
No, but the nature of what Pikkety and Gary are doing is night and day. Pikkety is an actual economist who publishes peer-reviewed work and well-recieved academic books, he could be a plumber and it wouldn't matter much because he's proven himself.
Gary significantly relies on his background as a trader, which he lies about, and he makes YouTube videos to push broad non peer-reviewed societal prescriptions on the basis that he was the best trader in the world and predicted everything correct - which he wasn't, and didn't.
If Gary were publishing peer-reviewed research that was received well by the economics community broadly then it wouldn't matter as much. But as it stands, he's not, and he relies on emotional populism to make YouTube videos for the common audience.
The difference is Gary is an activist. He's trying to convey a simple message to a widespread audience. His ego or credentials do not change his arguments or make them any more or less valid.
If you want evidence and peer-reviewed research and all that, there's plenty of authors (some of whom Gary has promoted) and Gary's own thesis is on his website, or you can go to Pikkety himself if you prefer, nothing is stopping you.
My point still stands, everyone attacks Gary for his character and I'm yet to see a valid criticism for his main message. At the end of the day, he's achieved far more outreach than nearly every economist. People want to know why their money doesn't stretch as far as it used to, and he provides an explanation which people resonate with.
I think the problem was pointed out by another finance youtuber that collaborated with him early in Gary's youtube career. His critique of Gary was that his ideas are, theoretically, good, but his message doesn't contain as much substance or detail compared to his peers, and was saying he wanted to invite Gary back at some point to try and push him to go into specifics.
Gary's content is largely the same single message on repeat, with a bit of data sprinkled in occasionally. As a result, when it comes to critiquing or criticising, it doesn't actually leave much to discuss, and his ego comes to the fore instead.
All Gary does is wax poetic about his genius and greatness, say wealth taxes and never actually get into it. Just whines that people won’t talk to him and he is the only one that knows.
He is a self promoting grifter who just wants to get a standing ovation.
Productivity does not necessarily increase gdp. If I go from selling 100 shovels, each costing $5 in labour and selling for $10, to each costing $3 in labour and selling for $9, then my contribution to GDP has gone from 1,500 to 1,200, even though I’m more productive and making $100 more profit. Similarly imagine going from earning $20 to $100 an hour. You may choose to just work for 1 day a week and maintain your previous lifestyle. Ultimately productivity is deflationary as savings tend to be passed to consumers as margin tend to return to their historic mean. Whether that increases or decreases GDP relies on other factors. The productivity gains from the internal combustion engine increasing agricultural output contributed to the Great Depression.
Investors have two ways of receiving capital from companies. Either through dividends or buybacks, but ultimately earnings determine value. If you’re optimistic about future earnings than you can justify a higher price earnings multiple, as the multiple will decrease as the earnings mature. Historically periods of high multiples have underperformed as the expected earning s fail to materialize and the premium vanishes. Looking at America a naive model would put the expected return over 10 years to be (net of inflation) close to 0%. Many countries/industries have had periods that have never recovered, and just because America historically has does not guarantee this trend.
Even in America in the 20th century alone there were 3 non overlapping periods of 20+ years where real SnP 500 prices would have declined (1902-1922, 1929-1950, 1965-1991).
If you look further back in history there has also been a general decrease in returns on capital since 1400 where bonds yielded 20%+ in real terms.
Finally, if the people who owned the most wealth today are distinct from those that owned the wealth 50 years ago, that indicates that passive returns on wealth are not the best way to build wealth. If just being rich guaranteed you would be richer in the future, then you would not expect for there to be class mobility.
So we know from recent history capital can have 20+ year negative returns even diversified internationally, and that when diversified within a nation can have 40+ year negative returns. We also know that in the very long term as more capital competes, capital has tended to offer a lower return. We also know that those with the most wealth today will generally not be the wealthiest in 50 years, or more specifically capital tends to diffuse over time rather than accrue for the wealthiest.
Have you listen to any of his videos? The guy talks about himself constantly. Definitely a cluster b. I say this as a fan of his earlier works as it's prophetic but boy has he strayed far from his roots.
I wouldn’t want to read an autobiography from anyone so self-indulgent.
His penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration distracts from his message, he also changes role a lot depending on the challenge, he’s an economic expert until he gets challenged on implementation then he’s a political campaigner focused on moving the needle towards a wealth tax.
There’s also the claims he massively exaggerated his success as a trader and his “big bet” was fairly obvious to STIR traders at the time because of the macroeconomic conditions.
Isn't one of his main points regarding his success as a trader that his strategy WAS obvious, and he was concerned that no one around him was confronting the reality of what that means?
It's because people listen to authority figures. If i, as a regular guy with a 9 to 5 job, say that we need land value taxes and to tax the rich, i get accused of being jealous and greedy, but a lot of people are peasants and react more positively to a rich guy that had success.
but there is no evidence of him being any kind of authority on the subject. He claims authority as a really good trader and economist, but at best its just his claims?
I just want to put this out there but this self proclaimed millionaire has a Patreon! you can become a "member" for anywhere between £6 - £100 + VAT..... why on earth would someone with that sort of wealth be asking for money from the very people that he's supposedly trying to help out of poverty ????
Then you consider the 2% wealth tax that he purposed for anyone with £10M or more and guess what! his own reported wealth is supposed to be just under that figure.
He has a small team who run production, editing, research and writing. It isn't huge and it mostly consists of people he personally knows who have a background in these areas and who he wants to pay a wage which in London is necessary to survive. Then there is the agent sides of things - arranging the appearances, interviews and publishing. This is paid by him directly.
Yes, he runs a low budget, low production channel but he doesn't just run a channel. It is a broader advocacy movement and he is pretty active in the British media. He is a household name in the UK and this only happened over the last year or so.
To be clear, I don't want you to think I am a fan or have a bias. I think the theory supports his argument for a wealth tax. Adam Smith devoted half of volume 3 of The Wealth of Nations to the risks of capital and the need for redistribution mechanisms. Keynes argued along the same lines, and obviously Piketty is a very legit economist. None of this is fringe student economics. There is some real theoretics and empirical evidence backing this all up.
Where I disagree with the whole movement is Gary did not outline any clear policy, or provide a reference point for what might constitute a good policy. He constantly faced numerical criticism and he never really pushed back. He just said he was an advocate, and not a policymaker which I don't agree with. He should have had some policy in his back pocket and had he, I think he would have defended the personal attacks in the media a little better. He also never defended the capital flight fear which is 100% not real because politically billionaires are very limited in the places they can choose to go. The OECD has the global monopoly on capital security and it is where tax minimums are negotiated. No billionaire is going to move to a tropical island and live with a private army in a compound defending his vault of gold and no one is rushing to go to China. Globally, all capital is kept in Western democracies who are a part of the OECD. Gary completely dropped the ball on this issue and it is so easy to debunk.
With that said, just given the economic climate in the UK I don't think funding this movement is bad, or a red flag. It is funny that people might expect Gary as a millionaire to pay the wages but they don't expect the same logic in relation to the wealth tax issue.
This is unserious whatabouttery- do you expect someone to just pay down staff and editors for years and years and years while he tries to get the message across?
Have you watched like... Anything from him? Cause yeah you can say tax the rich, but he literally has a four word catchphrase that he consistently says to the point where it's his main thing on merch and I feel like anyone who's seen him once would know it.
I can understand...its a battle no one can win. He is up against billionaires who don't care and will push this narrative we shouldn't tax them more cuz they'll leave, or they won't create new jobs. absolute rubbish
Wrong. Very very much wrong. Most western countries have higher taxes now than at any point in their history, and are the largest economies that have ever existed.
Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population is the root of pretty much all great economies that have ever existed (and depending on how far back you go, a healthy amount of slavery), and these require high levels of education, healthcare, law & order, all of which require greater levels of taxation.
Regardless of that, this has very little to do with Gary Stevenson's message.
That does not refute the point. Nobody is saying education, healthcare, policing or the courts are unnecessary, or that they can be provided without taxation. The point is that taxation does not itself create the wealth being taxed.
Rich Western countries collect more tax partly because they are richer. Their prosperity came from productivity, investment, innovation, skills, stable institutions and capital accumulation. Those things make a larger state affordable. The fact that high taxes and large economies exist together does not prove the former caused the latter.
Public spending can support prosperity when it is effective, but more taxation is not automatically better. What matters is what is taxed, at what rate, how the money is spent and whether the policy discourages investment, work or entrepreneurship. That is why several European countries abolished broad wealth taxes despite continuing to fund large welfare states.
The slavery point is irrelevant. Enriching a small ruling class through extraction is not the same as creating broad, sustainable prosperity.
So yes, competent government and public services matter. But they are financed by a productive economy; they are not a substitute for one. And whether this captures Gary Stevenson’s wider argument is separate from whether your reply actually disproves the original claim.
"Their prosperity came from productivity, investment, innovation, skills, stable institutions and capital accumulation." which is made possible by "Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population" which is caused by taxation.
"or that they can be provided without taxation" potentially, but not the norm historically.
"The point is that taxation does not itself create the wealth being taxed." No, this does: "Innovation and skills" which is the result of "high levels of education, healthcare, law & order".
Nearly every developed large economy has those things to some degree or another, and pretty much all undeveloped smaller economies do not.
"That does not refute the point. Nobody is saying education, healthcare, policing or the courts are unnecessary" What do you think the government spends our taxes on? Or you think they just collect it for fun?
You are still collapsing “taxation can fund useful institutions” into “taxation causes prosperity.” Those are not the same claim.
Education, healthcare and law and order can raise productivity, but only when they are effective. Tax revenue can also be wasted, misallocated or used in ways that discourage investment and work. The relevant question is not whether government spends tax revenue, but whether the next euro taxed and spent creates more value than it removes from the productive economy.
Innovation and skills are not simply “caused by taxation.” They also come from families, firms, universities, competition, private investment, culture and existing institutions. Many countries collect substantial taxes while still having poor schools, corruption, weak policing and stagnant economies. Taxation is therefore neither a sufficient condition nor, at today’s high levels, automatically a beneficial one.
Rich countries can sustain larger tax systems partly because they are already productive and institutionally stable. Pointing out that developed countries have both taxes and public services does not establish that higher taxation created their wealth, any more than observing that rich people spend more proves spending made them rich.
Nobody thinks taxes are collected “for fun.” The disagreement is over scale, design and results. Some taxation is necessary. It does not follow that more taxation necessarily produces more prosperity.
A joke? Hard to tell on reddit, wasn't funny/amusing either way
"You are still collapsing “taxation can fund useful institutions” into “taxation causes prosperity.” Those are not the same claim."
No I'm not. Read carefully. I never make either claim.
"Innovation and skills are not simply “caused by taxation.”" I never said this.
"They also come from families, firms, universities, competition, private investment, culture and existing institutions. Many countries collect substantial taxes while still having poor schools, corruption, weak policing and stagnant economies. Taxation is therefore neither a sufficient condition nor, at today’s high levels, automatically a beneficial one."
Yep I never said otherwise...?
"Education, healthcare and law and order can raise productivity, but only when they are effective. Tax revenue can also be wasted, misallocated or used in ways that discourage investment and work. The relevant question is not whether government spends tax revenue, but whether the next euro taxed and spent creates more value than it removes from the productive economy."
Ok, I agree I never said otherwise...?
This whole thread started when you failed to address what I originally asked. Seems to be a thing with you doesn't it. I'm not interested in getting into some weird internet debate other something completely unrelated to the thread.
Sorry, I left a detailed response which the mods have removed for some unknown reason, I won't be wasting my time in case it is removed again.
The really short version is that you need to have plentiful resources if you want to distribute them. Modern welfare states came after the vibrant economy, not before them.
Brazil has a young, well educated workforce and an abundance of natural resources. Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world 100 years ago, they took really sharp turns into the model one could deduce you support. That's in stark contrast to the countries who took the opposite route.
Slavery was clearly a joke, I obviously don't support slavery.
Brazil is a rapidly developing economy as a result, and has been a strong economy in the past, but has been plagued by corruption and crime, which it still struggles with.
Argentina lost it's wealth due to political instability, did I not mention corruption in my original post? I suppose I could add stability, but it was implicit anyway.
Both of these examples add evidence to my point.
The modern welfare state in the UK occurred in the post-war period when britain was broke, and in ruin, many of it's abled population dead or maimed as a result of the war and much poorer than today, and income taxes on rich folk were higher back then.
Sure resources help, but there are plenty of countries with large amounts resources which are not large economies.
You are actually reinforcing my point. I raised Brazil and Argentina as examples of relatively high tax economies that nevertheless suffered from corruption, instability, inflation and weak productivity. If Brazil’s problem is corruption and Argentina’s is political instability, then prosperity depends on institutional quality, sound money and competent government, not simply on how much tax is collected. Brazil’s vast and complex tax system even became the setting for major tax corruption scandals, which rather neatly demonstrates that a large tax take does not guarantee good administration.
Postwar Britain shows that taxation can finance a welfare state, which nobody disputes. It does not show that high taxation created Britain’s underlying wealth. Britain already had an industrial economy, accumulated capital, skilled workers and established institutions. The headline top tax rates were also paid by very few people and were far higher than the effective rates actually collected.
And your point about natural resources supports me as well. Resources alone do not create prosperity; institutions and policy determine whether they are used productively.
So we agree that taxes can fund useful services. What you still have not shown is that higher taxation itself causes prosperity.
North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela until recently had 100% or near 100% tax rates, hasn't helped them. When China, Vietnam, Sweden (I appreciate it's still quite high), the UK from the 80s on etc all moved away from excessively high rates of taxation, their economies have displayed enormous growth.
You're arguing against points I never made, I never said high tax guarantees economic prosperity.
You claimed there are no countries that taxed their way into prosperity. I disagree, I said it seems every major economy that exists and has existed collected relatively high rates of tax. I then provided a mechanism by which tax can lead to a strong economy. Nothing you have just said has addressed this.
Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela are either communist or military dictatorships with massive amounts of corruption and crime, with poor health due to poverty and lack of access to healthcare, and with poor education. See: "Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population is the root of pretty much all great economies"
I don't see a point in continuing this conversation since you fail to address anything I say.
Which ones? Wealth tax seems pretty viable in Norway, they've had one for decades and all the critics can point to is incredibly cherry picked numbers from one year or two, and no sign of all the doomer scenarios they say will happen with a wealth tax.
Ohhh he's got biscuits on a plate in his little flat he pretends to live in, he must be one of us. Cmon, the guys absolutely a grifter, he just parrots one point with zero idea of how to implement it. Probably got one of the most chinable faces I've ever seen constantly pouting.
Coincidental timing ... he released a documentary lately which was critically panned, primarily because he was embarrassed and made to look a complete fool .... in his own documentary.
> primarily because he was embarrassed and made to look a complete fool .... in his own documentary.
What section are you referring to? Is it the clipped out bit with Dan Neidle that ignores Gary's response that shows he knew more about the report that Dan referenced than Dan himself?
IT was an interesting documentary, Ch 4 recorded a debate between Stevenson and Kristian Neimitz author of Fools gold, a critique of wealth taxes: Fool's Gold — Institute of Economic Affairs
Neimitz is very bright and wiped the floor with Stevenson who looked unprepared and as it was recorded at the Hayek society of the LSE in December 2025, just before Christmas, possibly a little spirited. Ch4 didn't include the debate and the Hayek society of the LSE were very annoyed as they were blocked from using the content themselves.
High Blood Pressure probably, the guy is always so tightly wound and turns statements into rants. I don't mind him in small doses but I do find his approach very repetitive with a sprinkle of arrogance.
It is really strange to me how many ardent supporters this guy has for the one idea he has been promoting for years that is simply not very great. If you mention his name they are bound to show up and support him but their arguments are very not great also and you get the feeling he is the only "economist" they have ever heard out. This is because he did not become famous for his economics, he became famous because he has a populist idea that people usually support before they find him. He, in other words, preaches to the choir, and the choir is always ready to sing his praises in return.
A lot of people in this thread mention the point behind questioning his story. Someone can be an expert at economics while also being a serial liar who says things like "I was the top trader in my company" and then later changes it to "I was a top trader in my company" because people noticed. They can also be an expert at economics without a degree in economics. They cannot become an expert in the field of economics without actually working in it. A book which restates an idea his audience already likes and backs it up with bad data is not working in the field of economics, it is simply more populist politics. The reality is that nothing he did is really that spectacular even if you are inclined to agree with him.
There is a pattern to people like Donald Trump that is easy to recognize when you disagree with them but very hard to recognize when you agree with them. They think very highly of themselves, inflate their success and their expertise beyond what is accurate or reasonable. When found out, they act like they have been victimized and that it is a scandal by their nefarious enemies in the world of academia, politics or whatever else. In reality, it is narcissism, the key characteristic of the charlatan. I have seen no evidence that Stevenson is anything but one.
Nominally, we are on the same side. Realistically, I could never support someone like this.
The thing with Garry is as someone with academic background in finance. He was selling some parts of the truth but the grift was the biggest part of it. He just cares about himself. His entire you guys need to hear the truth heres my book to buy. It happens a lot. People make videos about real topics to only benefit themselves.
What bothered me most was how he would deliberately constrain his information in order to support his points. Most people didn't even realize he was doing it either. In multiple videos I watched, he used the frame of an economic pie (perfectly fine start) but inflated it with not even a hint that total and real wealth could increase. It is simply not the case that the wealthy gaining a larger share of the pie as a percentage is inherently and always bad, but if you watched his videos you might walk away with that conclusion. I know enough about economic cycles to know that certain parts of the cycle build wealth at the top because of the impact of new industries, but as the cycle progresses that distribution changes to favor others in rungs below due to technology spread, competition and investor demands, among other such things. It is very easy to build extreme wealth in new areas but very hard to hold on to it for very significant amounts of time. Practically none of the big names today (Musk, Zuckerberg, et. al.) were big names 50 years ago and as a corollary there are very few big names in wealth from 50 years ago that still are today, even though people who became very wealthy 50 years ago still have it most of the time. Warren Buffett is one such exception, but after he goes, who?
I think there is merit to his promotion of the admittedly simple idea of a wealth tax. He's stated that he is not the right person to draft legislation for such taxes, just that his goal is to make people aware of growing wealth inequality, and hopefully generate pressure for incumbent governments to start addressing the problem, rather than continue with their short termism
But people are already very aware of wealth inequality and their knowledge of that is usually why they are watching him in the first place. You will find very few people that had no idea of wealth distribution changes, even among right-wingers it is usually pretty apparent. They just don't care at all and don't see it a problem because it is not always clear that it is.
No, his message is very clear: Wealth is distributed to the rich, this means the not rich have a lower share of wealth, in a stagnant or slow growing economy this leads to lower living standards for the not rich.
He specifically says he doesn't know what the exact solution is, the solution might be a wealth tax, but it could be something else.
My take: I agree with the message, I'm yet to see anyone make credible arguments against his message, most detractors attack his character more than anything.
Our understanding is comparable so far except for the fact that I think his emphasis on the wealth tax is much stronger than you give it credit for. After all, if I point to a problem and suggest one solution and say otherwise it is a complete mystery, that gives a lot more weight to the solution.
But let's ignore that for a second, because I'm curious where else we may not be meeting on equal ground. How do you understand his analysis of the problem itself? (i.e. why the economy is stagnating.)
Perhaps but the point is, it's not the point of his message. Those who fixate on the wealth tax idea miss the point of what Gary Stevenson is about, he's an activist spreading awareness of a real problem for most working people in the UK.
People buy into what Gary says because most people want to know the answer to "Why does money not go as far as it did 5-10 years ago? Why are living standards going down?", and Gary provides a pretty solid argument for why. Why do you think living standards are going down?
I always thought the guy was somewhat genuine, but that was baffled how can he refer to himself as "economist" and hold all these best trader titles and use such language he is using when he speaks. He is not coherent and articulate, and commonly lacks basic understanding of things, but is paid speaking fees to speak about economy. Also, he reiterates mostly the obvious stuff. I don't know how he got famous, but I feel like his content is appealing to finance doomers.
I hope he is ok though, he always spoke so fast an twitchy, most likely abused drugs during his professional days, I work in S&T and there are days I am like that even if i don't take anything. Some finance jobs really take a toll on the body. Hope he recovers, even though I am not a fan of his content.
Economics-ModTeam | 9 hours ago
This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
This is an economics sub and I see a lot of people attacking the person rather than the arguments. This is called Ad hominem and is a way to distract from the real arguments.
I think Gary's points are pretty undeniable:
Super wealthy people cannot spend most of the money they have, so park it in assets with a return.
The return is on average 10%+ per year, while the economy grows on average 2% a year
This means that the super wealthy will have an increasing share of the wealth until they own almost everything. This is clearly evident in the declining wealth of the middle classes and the government.
For all the critics of the wealth tax idea - what is your alternative to stop this continuing?
Rewindcasette | 11 hours ago
Reform capital gains and abolish council tax and stamp duty to one annual land value tax.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> Reform capital gains
How? That's so vague it might as well be "make things better".
dc_1984 | 10 hours ago
Making CGT payable on house sales would be a start, would get rid of IHT and stamp duty to make transactions easier. Have an inflationary carve out so the tax is only due on above inflation appreciation.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/capital-gains-tax-reform
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> Have an inflationary carve out so the tax is only due on above inflation appreciation.
That would be a tax break.
dc_1984 | 10 hours ago
Not if you raise the CGT rate at the same time...you didn't even read the link did you?
ric2b | 9 hours ago
When I replied the comment didn't have a link, I think. But that makes sense, yeah.
Rewindcasette | 10 hours ago
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/16/how-to-reform-capital-gains-tax-and-cut-income-tax/
MrGrizzle84 | 10 hours ago
Not enough.
Most of the very wealthy have their wealth mostly in shares and even if you raise cgt to 40% this doesn't come close to rebalancing the growing inequality ratio between the very wealthy and everyone else. The best it does is slow it down a little.
Rewindcasette | 10 hours ago
I'll take slowing it down alongside looking at increasing growth.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
Fair enough, seems like a reasonable change to me, thanks for the link.
General_Frags | 10 hours ago
How do you collect the land value tax if the owner is registered in a tax haven or overseas? Currently Rich occupiers don't even pay council tax for the same reason, all you have done is compound the problem and brought in less money so other income taxes will have to increase as normal folk don't have the means to evade tax.
DreamtISawJoeHill | 9 hours ago
Automatically put it as a lien against the property, tie the lien value to the increase in value of the property, if they end up with 10% of the value not paid then when the house is sold or transferred then 10% is owed no matter the new value.
Rewindcasette | 10 hours ago
By ensuring that it's part of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-overseas-entities-tax-implications/tax-implications-of-the-register-of-overseas-entities
General_Frags | 10 hours ago
All that will happen is more legal/court action and nothing will be paid.
As much as people may dislike Council Tax it does fund local government, a full and proper revaluation of property bands will resolve issues with fairness plus removing the responsibility of adult social care back to the NHS will give more local authorities more breathing space too. This alternative solution will rely upon central government to divvy out the proceeds of the new tax which will mean that many councils will have less money and will have to cut services much more.
Also, Council Tax has years and years of legislation and Valuation tribunal decisions behind it to support it.
Rewindcasette | 10 hours ago
It depends on the localism reforms Burnham has in mind.
IntravenusDiMilo_Tap | 11 hours ago
Yes to a land value tax to replace stamp duty but Council tax? I'm not sure that works as a wealthy area would still need the same money and simply find it easier co collect more money that a poorer area.
You could centralise more but that's not really a good thing and the local authority has no real accountablility
Rewindcasette | 11 hours ago
Council tax is based on property values from 1991 and are regressive. The poorest pay more of their income for the same property.
IntravenusDiMilo_Tap | 11 hours ago
A land value tax will be very similar, simply those in high rise flats will pay much less than someone living in a bungalow.
A council tax system is only 'bad' as it's capped at band G (or H, i don't have a fancy house), it does have a link to those who 'consume' council services as a larger home will presumable consume more services than a small one.
Surely a local income tax would be better if you don't want it to be 'regressive'?
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
most rich people I know pay themselves 12 and a half grand and don't pay income tax, so no I don't think so.
RaDeus | 11 hours ago
And then the super rich just ”sells” their properties to a company that they own for the full amount, financed by a loan to that company, and then charge themselves 1 dollar in rent.
And then that company takes a tax deduction since they are completely in the red.
If they are forced to go bankrupt then the only creditors are themselves.
IMHO: land and property taxes should only happen if you are making an income on them.
Because paying rent on your potentially fully paid off house is just wrong, especially for grandma and grandpa who might be living on a pension.
It’s better and more fair to tax the sale of that property instead.
IntravenusDiMilo_Tap | 10 hours ago
There is possibly a Uk / US difference here.
THe UK has a property supply scarcity so part of the problem is the inefficient use of land and property. What we want is the grandma and grandpa empty nesters to sell their home and realise funds to release the larger property for a family to buy.
Grandma and grandpa have some cash and a more manageable property, the treasury have the tax income on the land regardless.
AccordingPair3 | 11 hours ago
Won't that fuck poor people in London?
Pirrt | 10 hours ago
No because poor people don't own housing and they are also passing a law that means any increases in rent due to the increase council tax/land value tax is illegal and can be challenged in court.
AccordingPair3 | 10 hours ago
What about social housing in London? Council tax is not part of their rent. Also I'm pretty sure for my friends renting in London, council tax is not included for the ones not in HMOs.
Pirrt | 10 hours ago
No idea but I doubt there will be large increases on social housing if this policy is aimed at helping the poorest and re-balancing the scales. I would imagine for social housing it might increase over the course of a decade vs having immediate effect like other housing.
Either way this reform will mean that council tax isn't capped at £6k on the most expensive houses in the country and London housing (expensive houses anyway) will pay A LOT more. Therefore, I can imagine taking a portion of the huge increase on the wealthiest houses (who have paid basically no tax for 30 years) to offset social housing (keep it as is) is more than achievable. For example, one house worth £139m (this one: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/24/london-mansion-sold-the-holme-regents-park) would go from paying £6k council tax currently (yes really) to paying £695k.
Alarakion | 11 hours ago
Depends, if they live in a flat it won’t as much
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 12 hours ago
The 10% vs 2% comparison is apples to oranges and misleading because 10% is pre-tax and pre-inflation stock returns. Compare it to real GDP growth it’s more like 6-7% and that premium exists because of real risk i.e investments lose money too.
Even Piketty, who came up with r > g, doesn’t argue it leads to the super-wealthy owning everything. There are offsetting forces via discretionary spending, taxes, inheritance split and turnover of wealthy people most of today’s super-wealthy weren’t there 20 years ago.
Also, growing government debt is about tax and spend choices, not the rich “capturing” government wealth.
You don’t need to have an alternate policy plan to point out the flaws and oversimplications in Stevenson’s arguments.
Ok-Constant-2683 | 11 hours ago
Piketty may not argue it leads to that but reality is making a strong case in that direction
Thom0 | 11 hours ago
>The 10% vs 2% comparison is apples to oranges and misleading because 10% is pre-tax and pre-inflation stock returns.
The issue is in the UK, which is the context Gary is arguing in, the 10% vs 2% is not linear in taxation. CGT is roughly 20% whereas income tax can be above 55% and it is plagued by tax plateaus due to poorly thought out tax policy. In the UK, CGT and income tax + NIC are more or less equalized between 50,000 to 100,000 but above 100,000 the entire system falls apart. As we are talking about property in the UK, the sums involved are almost always going to be above 100,000.
If I make:
The effective tax rate for profit from assets is about 22% but for income it is 42%. This is not taking into account tax plateaus and net losses from moving up income brackets in the UK which are apocalyptic for households. The difference between the two examples above is actually far greater than 50% when you take into account the loss of childcare support, etc which can amount to over £50,000 in value. This is the dilemma high earners face - work more, and lose more, or stop at an arbitrary number for tax reasons and come out richer? This is a productivity crisis.
There are also far more taxes to pay than just income tax in the UK. Council tax rates are an effective scam. I live next to a literal historical castle and estate. The family that own and live in said castle pay less council tax than me because they classified their home as a business, and reclassified their living space as a flat. They are somehow Band A while I'm at Band D. It is a castle with 10+ rooms and it is entirely used and live in.
The point of the 10% v 2% argument is to show that there is a disproportionate flow of capital out of the economy which we all share through our income, and debt into a private capital bubble that is excluded from an effective tax. From the context of the UK, our entire tax system is skewed towards the wealthy and we are currently undergoing a total collapse in public services with some of the highest poverty rates in the developed world. It just doesn't add up anymore. The UK is running on a Victorian perspective on taxation.
If this pattern continues then eventually the logical conclusion is you will run out of economy to own and you will deplete public revenue sources. Every year, more and more of the actual things in the UK economy are owned by a type of capital that pays decreasing tax rates. This has resulted in the shifting of the tax burden onto middle income earners who are increasingly representing less and less of the economy each year.
You can downvote all day but numbers are numbers and none of this is fringe student economics. In short, Gary is arguing a British context and he is clear about that. Taxes in the UK are unbearably complex. Wealth management is a gigantic industry and the Crown Dependencies are a very real thing. Flat out, the ultra rich do not pay proportionate tax. They also do not spend a relative % of their income on goods and services like income earners. The ultra rich are growing at 10% whereas everyone else is growing at 2% (if they're lucky). This is bad because the tax is more on the 2% than the 10%. This is a very linear problem which has a pretty obvious conclusion.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 10 hours ago
Capital being undertaxed relative to income is a legitimate argument, but it wasn’t what I was responding to i.e nominal vs real growth.
Real wealth is governed by compounding but there’s also variance via generational splitting, IHT and diminishing returns as more capital chases the same assets so I’m not sure saying it’s a linear problem is correct either, if anything the opposite.
Thom0 | 10 hours ago
I totally see what you're saying and I agree with you. How many moves, and how assets are dispersed generationally is not linear at all but very fragmented.
I suppose I'm pointing out at a surface level a description of the problem but once you look at how exactly to fix the problem all of your points become relevant.
How exactly do you fix this issue?
I personally think the solution is to target the vehicles used to facilitate the movement of capital which are primarily trusts. Trusts can defer GCT when moving property in/out of a trust. They also pay an effective tax rate of 6% on everything above £650,000 and it is paid every 10 years.
If you own £2,000.000 in rental property you can throw it into a trust, defer GCT, and then pay £120,000 in tax once every 10 years which if you then disperse the rental income to low-earning beneficiaries (income of less than £49,000 per year) then you 0% tax on rental income. The catch is the entry cost is going to be £240,000 upfront (10% + 10%) which for the average person is massively prohibitive but if you're wealthy you can leverage assets for credit - rinse and repeat. This is also a very simple and straightforward example - taxes for trusts can be manipulated much further and effective tax rates can drop to sub 1% depending on the governance structure.
How this is abused is quite simple: rich grandparents with a couple of peerages in the family own historic estates and a portfolio in London. Throw it into a trust, calculate the rents you want to charge vis a vis the number of potential beneficiaries and then work it all out to make sure everyone gets less than £49,000 per year. This means you, and your entire family are getting £49,000 for free, every year, with 0% tax. This money is then used to buy more property, register more trusts, and expand the portfolio.
My solution is equalize the tax on the rental income and remove the GCT deference. Owning property is fine, but collecting tax free income is not. You should pay the same effective tax rate as income tax regardless of whether you have a job, or not. Income is income.
The use of corporations is also another method of tax reduction however I cannot comment on that because I don't know much about it. My knowledge extends to trusts only.
You are right. To fix this problem requires very specific technical knowledge and arguments which is beyond any single economist or politician. For the UK to fix its tax system it needs a holistic reform in every single sector to ensure that at the end of the tax year, everyone pays roughly the same effective rates while also factoring in that people are allowed to own multiple assets.
RealPrinceJay | 11 hours ago
I think some of your points, while true, are pretty irrelevant to the actual concern
Whether it's 10% or 6%, you still have r>g. Additionally, I don't think risk really matters here. What matters is what the results average out to over time and over a population scale, and over these two scales r>g.
There are offsetting forces that have been possibly slowing the widening of the gap, but the gap still widens. According to Pew, "Upper Income" households held 60% of the wealth in 1983, but 79% by 2016(curious to know what that figure is now). I'm also not sure why the turnover of wealthy people matters at all? The point is where the wealth sits, not the names of the people in the "elite" group.
The point is r>g and what the implications of it are. There's a lot of room to argue here, but again I just don't really see the value of your counterpoints. You're not really addressing any flaws, you're just adding details.
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 11 hours ago
You don't need an alternative to point out flaws, but if your stance is, "let's not do a thing, because the thing is not perfect, or doesn't perfectly solve a problem/all aspects of a problem" and you don't offer anything else, you should be dismissed.
iTedsta | 11 hours ago
What if our stance is: “that’s a bloody terrible idea, and by the way the chap pitching it is a grifting windbag (a known liar too).”
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 11 hours ago
You'd have to substantiate why it's a terrible idea.
BluebirdOrnery9858 | 10 hours ago
How would a wealth tax be implemented? How much would it cost to implement?What would be the immediate consequences? How would people try and avoid said tax and what would be the consequences of that?
Property taxes are wealth taxes with the caveat that it can't be moved (versus say intellectual property), it can generally be compared to peers, and liquidation can get you near par value. Still, they can cost countries tens to hundreds of billions a year to value.
Companies and intangible assets are very difficult to value particularly pre revenue. Public companies can have their market price used, but that makes a strong arguement for owner's of companies against going public, as they might be able to suppress their valuation like Rockefeller with standard oil. You would need a very capable and large team of analysts to accurately value private companies.
Then, who's being taxed? Is it only people, or is it corporations as well? In that case is there a competitive advantage in having 10 $100 million dollar companies doing the same thing rather than 1 $1billion dollar one even if the billion dollar one would have been more efficient?
Will this convince wealthy people to consume more rather than invest? If every dollar over $1 billion is taxed at a high enough rate, then why invest it when you can just buy a yacht today. What is the long term impact to productivity if there's less investment into productivity increasing resources? Does this disincentivize risky investments in new industries?
IMO you end up with a much larger, more expensive, and more complicated revenue collecting agency. You end up with a smaller public market and more nontraditional funding (offering bonds instead of shares in fear of the share issuance increasing the valuation of the company) which can lead to suboptimal outcomes. You also end up with a lower savings/investment rate which in the long term will make your country less productive. It's very difficult to predict exact numbers, particularly when I've never heard Gary outline how his wealth tax would work, but there are plenty of negative associated with a wealth tax even from an optimists perspective.
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 8 hours ago
I think there are several suggestions of how to exactly implement a wealth tax floating around. You could look at Zucman (given that this thread is about gary), you could look at Switzerland.
Estimating value is always an issue, sometimes easy (flat cash, stocks), sometimes hard.
What I find confused about your comment is this part:
> If every dollar over $1 billion is taxed at a high enough rate, then why invest it when you can just buy a yacht today. What is the long term impact to productivity if there's less investment into productivity increasing resources?
Wealth taxes would obviously have to be set at a level where they don't make investing unprofitable. Spending money instead of investing it is good for the economy, so there's no issue here. People who want to invest their money, in order to make that money "productive", will do so once all their needs are met, given that gaining 16% instead of 20% return is still better than a 0% return.
This critique like many others are confused. You could levy the exact same critique against capital gains tax, against corporate tax, against income tax etc.
Yes, taxes take money out of the private sector. Bad :/
They put money into the public sector, and hopefully, the government uses that money to increase the economic output of the nation through means only a government can / would. Good :)
iTedsta | 10 hours ago
Wealth taxes don’t work, in the same way that rent controls don’t work. They’re populist rubbish and proven failures, kept alive by those with political ambitions who ought to know better.
Beyond the dire concomitants of his proposed panacea, I’m unpersuaded by his perspective on the underlying problem itself.
Finally, I’d wheel out the laundry list of ‘ad hominem’ attacks (it’s not fallacious to say someone is inexpert when they use their alleged expertise to legitimise their argument).
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 8 hours ago
Wealth taxes don't work in the same way that rent control doesn't work?
But rent control does work in keeping the rent low for the people living in the apartments which are rent controlled. So you are saying, a wealth tax works at its intended purpose?
It seem you are too lazy to properly articulate your objections, because you've failed to substantiate an actual objection beyond a platitude.
Switzerland has a wealth tax btw., and rent control.
iTedsta | 8 hours ago
Switzerland? Their wealth tax replaces many other taxes on wealth (there is no CGT, stamp duty etc.) and is levied at an absurdly low % (as low as 0.1% in some cantons) - do that in the UK and you’d probably get less revenue than we do now. Not to mention wealthy people residing in Switzerland pay for the privilege of living in paradise, the same cannot be said for 99% of the UK.
I mentioned rent controls as a test, and you failed. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with someone who’s in favour of rent controls lmao, I suggest you frequent another subreddit because r/Economics is not a natural fit.
likamuka | 11 hours ago
And all those billionnaire are angels and not liars either. lets protect them.
iTedsta | 10 hours ago
They don’t even come into it, but if you insist.
I’ve only ever met one, but he was far better company than Gary that’s for sure - and more honest to boot.
roodammy44 | 11 hours ago
You make some very good points. The returns are not guaranteed, and sometimes the wealthy don't manage to arrange their wealth to avoid inheritance tax.
Another point that is undeniable is that wealth inequality is increasing and asset prices are increasing, which seems to suggest that even if the returns are 6-7% that is still significant. Especially if you consider compounding.
It's one thing to consider flaws in the argument, but it doesn't mean that the overall argument is wrong. If it is not wrong then the trend needs to be countered.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> The returns are not guaranteed
But the 6-7% already takes that into account as it is average returns, so it includes the losses as well.
everything2go | 11 hours ago
Exactly, we desperately need to move away from extractive economic models to more circular models that reinvest in society. The investments the wealthy (and pension funds) invest in to grow their wealth are not some benign magic money tree, they have negative externalities which are not measured by traditional forms of economic growth. Thus the harm of fossil fuel or arms company investments is not truly costed, allowing private investors to benefit from the profit but socially we all pick up the negative costs.
BluebirdOrnery9858 | 10 hours ago
Investing is when you put capital into productivity increasing assets for a better long term return. This is generally seen as beneficial behaviour. Is it better if you buy machinery to the lower the cost of producing steel with your money, or if you buy an expensive painting?
Certain indexes have had a nominal 10% annualized return. But, real estate between 1865-2015* in America appreciated an inflation adjusted 0.1% annually. The Japanese stock market has moved in price -1.8% annualized since 1989. USD Bonds have returned between -1.2% and 2.1% in the last 5 years.
So different assets perform differently, and the ones that performed well in previous years are not guaranteed to do so in the future. GDP growth is also closer to 3%.
Free markets are not a zero sum game. The middle class shrinking can largely be attributed to the upper class growing**. There is significant churn in the top percentile which goes against his model (a single digit percentage of the forbes 400 had parents in the list, high income earners are likely to have children underperform them, low income the opposite).
*Irrational Exuberance by Robert Shiller
** https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ (share of income earned by the top 10% has not changed significantly since 2013. The top 10% own a smaller share of wealth then they did in 1970)
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/ (by income tier the upper class has grown almost triple the rate of the lower class since 1971)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N (50th percentile families have inflation adjusted doubled since 1963)
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/upper-middle-class-now-largest-203027677.html (if you use inflation adjusted dollars, there are fewer working class/middle class Americans and more wealthy Americans)
https://www.weforum.org/stories/economic-growth/social-mobility-upwards-decline-usa-us-america-economics/ (Only 8% of top percentile earners who had children in the 80s are out-earned by those children, 79% of bottom percentile children out-earn their parents).
zomskii | 10 hours ago
>"The top 10% own a smaller share of wealth then they did in 1970"
Where did you find that?
BluebirdOrnery9858 | 9 hours ago
In the link that was directly before my quote? Based in the UK where Gary is typically talking about
roodammy44 | 10 hours ago
If capital was put into productivity increasing investments, that would increase the overall GDP so this is already taken into account. You can see this in China’s decades of 10% GDP increases (down to 5% now). The US and Europe are down to around 2% and the UK is around 0%.
Different assets do perform differently. Are you suggesting that asset price inflation will be lower in the future? Why?
It doesn’t really matter who owns the wealth, the point is that the percentage of people who own it is getting smaller.
Chicken_shish | 10 hours ago
This, and we haven't even begun to talk about the imapect of these taxes on the flows of investment which we desperately need. Forget the arguments about people leaving - you need to be thinking about why new people would want to invest in the UK.
"'come to the UK and we'll take 2% of everything you have, and impose a 20%. exit tax" is not the sort of slogan that gets people in the door.
As for Gary - it is one thing spouting your opinions on a YouTube channel where everyone agrees with you - that's easy. But if you are pushing for radical change, you're going to get harder and more relentless questions.
thatlad | 9 hours ago
Why is any criticism of a bad idea contingent on us coming up with a better alternative?
His proposal has clear and obvious issues. Perhaps the more appropriate response is the person trying to make a career off selling his ideas, should try to come up with new ideas that overcome some of these clear issues.
optionr_ENL | 9 hours ago
This really depends what their wealth was made up of first.
A footballer on £3m per year will have ~£1.6m after tax in cash each year. They 'pay' themselves £125k a year & invest the rest in assets that produce a return. After 10 years they have invested £14.75m.
A business owner pays themselves £125k a year. After ten years, their business is valued at £14.75m.
But that isn't in different assets that produce a return, as it was never cash. It remains locked up in the business.
Wealth =/= cash.
You could inherit a £5m house & live in it. You are now 'worth' £5m. But you don't have £5m of assets producing a return.
Inherit £5m in cash, & invest it, & you would have £5m of assets either growing in value or producing a cash return.
cypowolf | 10 hours ago
Yeah but to be fair this isn't new information and anyone with a few braincells left already knew it.
lick_it | 10 hours ago
That has been true since capitalism existed, the one thing you ignore is that people die.
There is a flow to capital through the generations. First generation earns it, second maintains it, third blows it. Happens all the time. Only a few families manage to hold on to their wealth.
roodammy44 | 10 hours ago
It doesn’t matter who owns the wealth, it matters that is owned by a small number of people. The third generation may blow it, but where does all that money end up? Statistics say it goes to people who are even richer.
Jonjonbo | 12 hours ago
https://youtu.be/BRcWIXMQze8
it seems a broad "wealth tax" is a particularly bad idea for many reasons. I'd support things like a 50-100% inheritance tax, and a tax for moving money out of a country (if it was earned there). We could increase long term capital gains tax to tax it more like income. We could also prevent banks from giving zero interest loans to billionaires (maybe? not sure how good of an idea this is)
America could also stop fighting these idiotic wars and have fiscally responsible leaders leading to lower government spending, lower inflation, lower fuel prices.
We should probably tax the wealth created from AI and robots displacing labour.
Finally, I have always been skeptical of Gary as he gives me huge "guru" vibes and focuses on simple solutions and messaging rather than having a detailed, reasoned economic argument behind his ideas. Has he covered why wealth taxes failed in the places that have implemented them? Recently there was an interview where he talked to a tax lawyer and got completely destroyed.
Few_Painter_5588 | 12 hours ago
A stock levy and stock trade tax would be a workeable way to tax wealth. If you own a house, car, or land - you often have to pay a tax. So a levy of sorts should work, unless it's a retiree account
lukefiskeater | 11 hours ago
One of the main things you need to tackle is the tax haven/dodging industry. There are entire cottage industries dedicated to hiding wealth and avoiding taxes and some of the smartest people that come out of the most prestigious colleges in the world have huge incentives to work in those fields. You can create a thousand new laws and taxes against the 1% and trust me these industries will find ways and loopholes (legal and illegal) to dodge, avoid or even strike down these laws with money, power and lobbying.
Few_Painter_5588 | 11 hours ago
Well, it should be relatively easy to avoid that if the law is strict enough.
In general, punish rent-seeking behaviour
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
inheritance tax is too easy to avoid, most people closer to god I've known gift their assets before they die, there's a number of ways round paying it.
IndWrist2 | 10 hours ago
Your points rely on the implication that the amount of available wealth is fixed. The issue isn’t that the super wealthy have an increasing share of the wealth, it’s that new wealth isn’t being sufficiently generated in the middle. Asset ownership by the rich doesn’t inherently cause a lack of new wealth generation. Arguably, structural hurdles, such as zoning and administrative costs associated with building new homes, for example, play a larger role than the super wealthy hoarding stocks.
roodammy44 | 10 hours ago
The amount of available wealth is a function of GDP growth (2-3% a year). If everyone’s wealth increases 2% a year then everyone retains the same level of ownership they had before. If one segment of the population increases their wealth by 6% while the economy grows 2%, then that 4% difference comes at the expense of other segments. In other words, one group becomes richer and one group becomes poorer despite the overall amount of wealth increasing.
You are arguing that GDP growth is not high enough, and I agree. GDP growth was higher in the postwar period compared to today.
IndWrist2 | 10 hours ago
GDP growth doesn’t capture wealth generation, though. GDP growth describes how much the total economy grows, that’s separate than describing new wealth generation. For example, gains in the stock market aren’t included in GDP figures. Home appreciation isn’t included in GDP figures. The things that actually tell us about wealth generation aren’t a part of GDP. And that’s why your comparison fails, you’re not comparing equivalent metrics.
roodammy44 | 10 hours ago
Hmm, that’s interesting. Are there any reliable global indicators for wealth and wealth growth?
IndWrist2 | 9 hours ago
Sure! The Fed’s Flow of Funds measures household net worth, OECD’s National Balance Sheet, the World Inequality Database, and Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report.
JefferyTheQuaxly | 10 hours ago
I don’t think nearly anyone would give a flying fuck about how much money rich people have, if regular people’s lives were just better. No one cares how many yachts or how rich Jeff bezos is or how Elon musk is the first trillionaire as long as most Americans are able to afford housing, food, to raise a family and retire.
IndWrist2 | 9 hours ago
That’s a fair critique. But the ultrawealthy getting wealthier doesn’t necessarily cause less wealth generation in the middle. That perspective treats wealth as a fixed pie when it’s actually dynamic. So the solution is to increase wealth generation in the middle and at the bottom end. A wealth tax isn’t necessary to do that and would be inefficient. I’d rather see a better estate tax that captures unearned wealth transfers.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
If we tax all billionaires out of existence in the UK, we can run the NHS to six months with that money. What's the plan for after?
_DrDigital_ | 11 hours ago
Somehow you run NHS while having billionaires already. Is your point that if billionaires become centimillionaires then six months later NHS stops operating? What is the casue and effect here?
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
The money generatesd from taxing all billionaires in the UK out of existence would run the NHS for six months. And you can do that once. It's not really that much money.
_DrDigital_ | 9 hours ago
You still did not answer the question of why is taxing bilionaires relevant to runnig NHS, which clearly exists right now.
But let's follow your case studty. Lets's say billionaires pay 5% wealth tax (35B£). Their wealth will still grow per year (average now is about 10%), just slower and NHS could incrase operations by about 6-8%, so additional 100.000-150.000 emplyees (out of 600.000 that it needs within the next decade). Why would you be against it?
EmphasisTotal8232 | 9 hours ago
I'm saying that the amount of money raised by doing it is inconsequential. The NHS thing was just an example of why it would be inconsequential. It's a moral good to tax billionaires away, but it doesn't do anything over the long term. If you want more NHS Staff, abolish the limit on new ones doctors per year, let them choose where they work, stop favouring migrant doctors over British ones, pay support staff more, nationalise and means test care, abolish the NHS and rebuild it.
_DrDigital_ | 9 hours ago
> pay support staff more
Thank you for defeating your own point.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 9 hours ago
It's not gonna come from wealth tax lil bro
SirSwix | 11 hours ago
It’s more about reversing the trend. Because the development has been staggering in the last 50 years.
”The trust’s data showed that globally, billionaire wealth had grown from 2.5% to 14.1% of GDP since 1990. Britain’s trajectory – 4% to 22% – is even more extreme.”
Britain have 157 billionaires btw. This is 157 people that if they magically get market value for all their assets overnight the could purchase 22% of all the goods and services produced in Britain over a year. That’s absolutely insane in a country of over 69 million people.
The power concentration is also a issue because it destroys normal market dynamics.
”Sahni-Nicholas described this as “rentier capitalism: sitting on appreciating assets, collecting rents, charging fees for moving money around”, adding that it “extracts value from the economy rather than creating it”.”
source
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
What does reversing this trend actually do?
SirSwix | 10 hours ago
Well to start of with, a reduction in the increase of asset prices, housing, land, gold, stocks you name it. That coupled wage increases coupled to redistribution of income from capital to workers would be great for standard of living. Would also simulate greater growth due to demand increases. Increasing consumption and reducing the save rate in the economy. There are a lot of other things that need to be done as well, but a wealth tax is a good place to start, say 2% on everything about 100
Million dollars.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
Dollars 😵
SirSwix | 9 hours ago
Most research on the field use dollar as a standard currency. You want it in £ instead? Do you think the development of the western world the last 50 years has been good? With falling productivity increases, housing prices increasing compared to wages by a factor of like 5. At the same time wealth inequality has exploded. I don’t know about you but I would rather see the growth numbers befor this time period compared to after.
roodammy44 | 11 hours ago
The point is more about ownership. If you own a house then you can live in it and use it and not pay anything to anyone for it. If you are renting a house then your wealth will go to the owner for the rest of your life.
It's the same for water infrastructure, schools, power plants, etc. If private people own those things then the nation's wealth will go towards them. That's part of the reason the government is so broke in the UK.
Taxing people with extreme wealth will mean they will have to sell assets, making housing, infrastructure and businesses relatively cheaper to own as well as being able to continue to rent those things from the private people who own them.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
So... nationalise everything? That's it? And when we take on the debt of, say, all those failing water companies what do we do then? It's almost never private people also, it's private businesses, some of which are abroad. See how France likes it when we seize EDF assets.
roodammy44 | 10 hours ago
I didn’t mention nationalising anything. I said if you tax wealth, assets become cheaper and therefore more accessible. And if assets are in someone’s hands then it will cost rent to use forever which would not have to be paid if you owned them.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
You are complaining about private ownership of infrastructure, is there any solution to that which isn't nationalisation?
Caledfrwd | 10 hours ago
If a private company, of a public service is failing/in debt and still giving shareholders and bosses bonuses and dividends they should be fined and have their assets removed. It should be illegal to strip wealth from the public while failing to provide the service just because there is no other option
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
Cool. That would be theft. Theft I agree with, but I doubt Gary does. I want to see him advocate this kind of forceful redistribution, but he won't. Also, no idea how you'd play that with foreign businesses with foreign government stakes in it.
Caledfrwd | 9 hours ago
The theft is committed by the company. Taking it off them would be justice. Is there a company that’s a public service in the uk that is failing that has foreign government stakes in it? One I can think of is China and the steel industry and that’s turned out fine. Same should be done with TATA because they are robbing us blind and steel production is a national security issue
EmphasisTotal8232 | 9 hours ago
I agree. The law says it's theft though, and so would everyone. Even if we both agree it's right. Doing that has a... 100% chance of starting a Liz Truss style cascade of trust in our economy? Can we absorb that? It would be hard going, but worth it. Would everyone else thinks so? I'm so over steel man - England bails out its own steelworks but left Port Talbot to rot and die. Part of the reason I believe that Wales needs its independence is because all economic effort gets focused on poor English people, never the Welsh, and any wealth redistribution that happens will definiteely be done less enthusiastically with us. Breaking the UK up is an understated solution!
Caledfrwd | 8 hours ago
If other companies saw it as a red flag and decided to sell up then great. Whoever buys the company would do so knowing the new terms of ownership. I’m sure we would see a short term decline in investment but long term the UK economy would work for the people of the UK and not drained out into foreign accounts that don’t pay much tax. If the UK was run fairly and equally there would be no argument for independence ether
EmphasisTotal8232 | 3 hours ago
Nobody is buying with those terms.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
Not everything, just the core infrastructure of the country that can hold a country hostage if it's completely privatized, especially natural monopolies.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
This has been done before through and it didn't change a massive amount. I'm in favour, sure, but not sure how it's going to redistribute wealth. Unless you're in favour of seizure (I am) then you have to pay off the debts, pay for the company at a fair rate, etc. That just gives those people even more money. I just don't understand his grand plan.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> This has been done before through and it didn't change a massive amount.
State debt and deficits were much better.
> I'm in favour, sure, but not sure how it's going to redistribute wealth.
It reduces the amount of tax money that if funneled to the owners of that infrastructure, if it is privatized.
> Unless you're in favour of seizure (I am) then you have to pay off the debts, pay for the company at a fair rate, etc. That just gives those people even more money.
Not necessarily, there are many other ways of achieving that besides those two. But even if you just pay a fair rate, that at least stops the bleeding and reduces the outsized control they can have over a country. And the wealth tax can help pay for those purchases.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
So we are taxxing the wealthy to pay the wealthy for our services back? One day we'll say seizure of assets is right.
ric2b | 9 hours ago
No, it's taxing ALL the wealthy to compensate a few ones selling businesses that are deemed critical to the country's sovereignty.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 9 hours ago
Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the rich
K31KT3 | 10 hours ago
…it’s actually kinda good to have a financial system where so much of the wealth is effectively parked and not being drawn upon by all the boomers retiring at once
homewest | 10 hours ago
This last week I’ve been fantasizing about a lifetime inheritance limit. Imagine no person is able to inherit more than $2 million in their life. The money would need to be more widely distributed, either through the will of the deceased or through government action.
Penki- | 8 hours ago
so here you are inheriting your parents home that is now worth above this threshold and goverment saying that you can't do that. The home where you grew up in and have all of your childhoods memories is barred from you over some arbitrary line. Is that fair?
homewest | 3 hours ago
I’ve been thinking about this because I went through this recently with a parent who died. I was not taxed on much, except for an IRA that counted as income. That also doesn’t seem fair. I didn’t earn that money. Of course it is life changing and I appreciate it.
I think property rights are an interesting concept. It might not feel so fair to the person who earned it to have it taxed or taken away. I think it gets more fair to tax more heavily with every new generation. I have benefitted from generational wealth. I’m not opposed to it entirely, but how much is deserved?
Is it fair for the heirs of billionaires or multimillionaires to inherit homes all over the country during a housing crisis? I think it’s justified to create a cap.
Penki- | 3 hours ago
> cost of a home: most homes are not over $2million
Thats heavily location dependant and thats another reason not to do arbitrary lines. For example in US, a home LA or NY costing 2 million will feel very different to a home in midwest for the same amount of money and it is the same amount, yet one might be a mansion and another one a borderline shithole in a good place
No_Aesthetic | 12 hours ago
Character is important to credibility and Stevenson's character is questionable at best. If he wants to be taken seriously as an economist and not merely become known as a YouTube guru for people that watch a video and imagine themselves knowledgable (many such cases), he should instead try working in the field and producing works that have value to not just the narrow field of people who already agree with him. He is simply not very persuasive if you are not inclined to agree with his point already.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
Ok, cool, so Stevenson has questionable credibility.
Now what about his proposal, can we discuss that much more interesting and important topic?
No_Aesthetic | 10 hours ago
Sure, what would you like to discuss about it?
ric2b | 10 hours ago
Do you disagree with it? If so, why?
No_Aesthetic | 10 hours ago
I discovered from another user that we can have very different ideas of what exactly Mr. Stevenson's proposal actually is. (Although it seems we were on the same page about his understanding of the situation, more or less.)
With that in mind, could you tell me what your understanding of the problem itself and what the proposal is?
(Mind you, I'm not looking for a gotcha here. I don't care about Reddit points. I just want to know your strongest case so I can respond to it fairly.)
ric2b | 9 hours ago
Sure, the understanding of the problem is:
One immediate proposed solution by Gary is a 2% tax on wealth above £10M, it's a version of the Zucman tax. There is no claim that it solves all the problems, no policy does, but it's a step in the right direction.
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
I mean, this is basically the main points of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, if you want to talk about credentials. But Pikkety doesn't talk with an East London accent and his book is 700 pages, so he doesn't have as much mass-appeal.
No_Aesthetic | 11 hours ago
Piketty is a lot more cautious about what conclusions can be drawn from his data not because he is a boring economist but rather because he understands that the problems are a lot more complex than simple solutions can easily handle. In other words, a wealth tax is simply not good enough to make much of a difference. The big similarity between the two is that they are both essentially on the same side in the sense that they are left-wing and promote left-wing solutions.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 11 hours ago
Yep, would it be okay for an advocate of trickle down economics make misrepresentations because you overall agree with the idea that the super-wealthy should be taxed less?
A good argument stands on its own two feet and doesn’t require misleading hyperbole.
CapillaryClinton | 12 hours ago
He is however incredibly skilled at explaining the situation and problem to lay people. Which I think should be valued in itself
ColdShadowKaz | 10 hours ago
I agree with this to a point. He gets the info to lay people but he needs to convince the people who’d be paying this tax. That and the people that listen to his accent and think he’s stupid because of it.
No_Aesthetic | 12 hours ago
Everyone that is a fan of a YouTube guru believes this.
likamuka | 11 hours ago
You would defend Marie antoinette to just be able to live on her court.
No_Aesthetic | 11 hours ago
That is a fascinating response and entirely baseless. Bravo.
IntravenusDiMilo_Tap | 11 hours ago
I really don't think the problem in the UK economy is that wealthy people keep investing in it. The problem is not enough are.
YOU_WONT_LIKE_IT | 11 hours ago
Your argument skips what is happening when invested. That investment often lets other people benefit. a lot of money is parked in things like mortgage securities. The list is long.
apoliticalpundit69 | 10 hours ago
Interesting take. Because Gary himself will resort to ad hominem attacks any time someone credible attempts to politely discuss those “pretty undeniable” points with him.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
When?
etherswim | 11 hours ago
If a wealth tax were implemented, do you truly think the wealthy will just leave their wealth in taxable assets in a country?
Already seen in Norway it fails and the state lost money. Same in France with the similar thing. Can't compare with Switzerland's similar equivalent.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> Already seen in Norway it fails and the state lost money.
I've already had this discussion, it's false, revenues from the wealth tax are higher than 10 years ago when the tax rate was lower and they are increasing.
Norway has had a wealth tax for decades and it disproves all of the doomer arguments I seen on this sub about a wealth tax.
AnimatorCommercial53 | 10 hours ago
A revolution of spirit and consciousness to make most of us less greedy and purely materially focused? Its the same mentality that is causing a lot of other problems in society and nothing will change until we do.
Legislation will be lobbied or evaded by those wealthy and powerful enough anyway, or even despite that and by some miracle we went back to post WW2 tax system to pull the country out of every crisis its currently facing, the levels of corruption and incompetence in any government or political party, at a local and national level, to be able to do anything with the extra tax they collect is also fantastical at this stage. The only change left to change that would have any meaningful impact is our selves and how we treat each other.
LemonCake2000 | 10 hours ago
Honestly I’d take a forced reformation of human nature, like a mass psychic lobotomy or something. Sounds great
i8abug | 10 hours ago
Re alternative: high wealth tax margins (ie: if y have high net worth and high earnings, the tax rate could be really high, like 85% for example), and capital gains taxes paid when someone dies like where I am in Canada.
ResponsibleWillow775 | 10 hours ago
The wealthy have a near historic low share of wealth in the UK and it has been pretty much flat for decades. Countries with wealth taxes like Spain or Switzerland are not doing a better job at distributing wealth to the bottom 99%.
The ideas sound nice but are not backed by data
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wealth-share-richest-1-percent?tab=line&time=2001..latest&country=DEU~GBR~FRA~ESP~CHE&mapSelect=USA~JPN~DEU~GBR~FRA~ITA~CAN
SellSideShort | 9 hours ago
Regardless of this, it’s widely known in finance circles that this guy is a complete fraud
Gixer77 | 9 hours ago
The problem with taxing the wealthy is they'll just leave the country and go somewhere else that doesn't tax them as much.......and they can take their businesses with them and then cost us jobs. So we are kind of over a barrel a bit. However TBH if I won the Powerball tomorrow I'd not want to pay tax to such a sh*te Govt who are spaffing it up the wall so badly....I'd be happy to pay taxes towards a Govt and economy that was fair to all classes and functioning for the good of all though, but what Government has ever worked like that.,......
CarsTrutherGuy | 10 hours ago
Yet Gary can't help but play the trump style game where he bigs himself up by lying about himself and his past constantly (number 1 trader etc)
integer_hull | 13 hours ago
It’s a shame. A lot of information oriented youtubers are taking breaks for health reasons (atrioc) and I can see why. Doing all this work to not see any change is a recipe for burnout. Plus a lot of this stuff is doom-pilled and inherently toxic to the psyche (not saying the creators are but the reality of the situation itself is oftentimes depressing, and the creators do a remarkable job of making it seem otherwise). We need to be in the era of action now.
languageassessment | 11 hours ago
When you care about others, particularly others that don’t even care about themselves, it withers you.
likamuka | 11 hours ago
It’s very easy to care for others if you have 2 million sitting on your bank account
integer_hull | 10 hours ago
No it isn’t, and that’s why it’s such a shame. These people, to a very large degree, do it for the love of the game. Otherwise they wouldn’t be taking health breaks, they’d take the private equity deal and lose something in their eyes instead.
I’m not saying their position doesn’t make things easier or that streaming is the hardest thing in the world™. But saying it’s all just a matter of funding is incredibly reductive
Few-Pen9912 | 9 hours ago
It's actually easier to ignore others when you have money.
languageassessment | 8 hours ago
On its face, I actually agree with them: yes, it is easy to care about others when you have millions! Just have empathy and use that wealth to improve the lives of people who are less fortunate than you.
What I think they mean, though, is that when you have money, it's easier to care than it would be if you didn't have any.
This is absurd because gestures around at all the selfish billionaire
TremendousCustard | 10 hours ago
The absolutely brilliant Thomas Pearson has been off for a few months and at a very low ebb which he's been enormously honest about. He's been one of the crucial voices in breaking down what the Online Safety Act means amongst other topics.
thatlad | 9 hours ago
They keep citing "health reasons" right at the point that the hit the inflection point where the monetisation slows to make it less worthwhile.
Youtube is enshittification on a grand scale. It's no longer making recommendations based upon your interests, instead it's serving up what will get the most clicks and actively trying to avoid you watching a long form (unless you pay). Better to push AI created shorts.
There's a reason some of the big youtube names are no longer out there putting regular content out.
The treadmill was worth money and they cashed in, but they value their time. If something else is worth it, they move on
Propie | 13 hours ago
I agree. We do need action. We all need to get out and do what we can
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
Shame I can't do that for burnout, you know, in my actual job.
HorribleOldCunt | 11 hours ago
Poor you.
What is stopping you from making a YouTube channel and gaining enough support to take a break whenever you fancy it?
Instead of whinging about your self inflicted situation in life and being envious of others, why don't you do something about it?
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
Hahahaha. I just think it's funny the guy who sits behind a screen chatting shit all day gets to take his little breaks, whilst millions don't whilst doing much harder jobs. Dry your eyes, Gaza, you're our hero!
Foreign-You160 | 10 hours ago
You think so little of other peoples work and think so highly of your own. I would love to be you
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
Not really, I just think multimillionairees who sit in front of cameras should come off it a bit with burnout.
CrabbyGremlin | 10 hours ago
It’s not a race to the bottom, there will always be someone who has it better than us. And tbf Gary could have easily been doing fuck all on a tropical island with the money he has, he chose to advocate for fairer economics instead. There aren’t many people who would choose to do that instead of just disappearing on an early retirement.
HorribleOldCunt | 11 hours ago
My original comment applies once again.
Nothing stopping anyone from improving their own situation, other than their own laziness and lack of discipline.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
If 10 thousand people decide to put their all into being the most popular streamer, do you get 10 thousand #1 streamers in the world? Do you increase the advertising budgets that pay the top streamers by 10000x?
HorribleOldCunt | 10 hours ago
Do you think that's a sensible question?
YouTube is currently an option to earn alot of money for a select few who work very hard at it. But obviously if everyone did it to the same standard, it would pay the same as anything else that has a bloated market and set skill level. This is how the world works. If Admin work was something only a select few could do to an acceptable standard, guess what would happen.
There are many options to earn more money as well, Youtube is just an example.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> Do you think that's a sensible question?
No, I think it's a sensible reply to someone saying that nothing stops someone from being one of the most popular streamers in the world besides laziness and lack of discipline.
You have a very naive view of the world as a meritocracy where anyone has access to same opportunities and just has to put the same effort into things as others have.
That is especially not the case when it comes to things like popularity, where random events can make someone very well known and in ways that they themselves will tell you they did not plan for or expected to happen.
HorribleOldCunt | 9 hours ago
My point was, if you're not happy with your current situation, do something about it. Of course on reddit where everyone has to speak in binary terms this is not understood.
You don't need to be a world famous youtuber to have the ability to take a break. You need a middle class profession or above for that. And if you can't even manage that, you've only got yourself to blame.
Laziness and lack of discipline will give you the results that those inputs deserve.
Your comments are amazingly stupid to me.
ric2b | 8 hours ago
> You don't need to be a world famous youtuber to have the ability to take a break. You need a middle class profession or above for that.
Nice Motte-and-bailey, so it was just about being able to "take a break" with any profession, sure.
This is what you had said: "What is stopping you from making a YouTube channel and gaining enough support to take a break whenever you fancy it?"
> Your comments are amazingly stupid to me.
That's one thing we have in common, then.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
Fiesty boy.
ChuckMoore89 | 14 hours ago
I just unsubscribed from his channel a few days ago because I realized his point was blatantly obvious and people are simply too stupid/lazy to care until the bottom falls out of the system and they realize that living in 3rd world poverty isn't just a bogeyman scare tactic but a cold hard reality.
I hope he enjoys his life content in the knowledge that at least he tried, and he wasn't alone in seeing the writing on the wall.
Myfirstinternetname | 11 hours ago
You unsubscribed but agree with his point?
Severe_Rise8694 | 10 hours ago
Well, isn't that kind of like putting down a book that you've read..?
davexmit | 10 hours ago
Some people find it a waste of time listening to someone telling them what they know, especially when that knowledge is nothing but depressing. It’s not difficult to understand
Myfirstinternetname | 10 hours ago
Being subscribed has always been a show of support in my eyes as well as a way to see their content, can just not watch their videos but keep the subscription to support the channel and support the idea.
ChickenGamer199 | 11 hours ago
Welcome to Reddit. There's no a whole lot of sense to be found here.
Anti_shill_cannon | 11 hours ago
Reads like oblique rightwing astroturf to get supporters/left conscious people to unsubscribe lmao
Sharp-Body3994 | 11 hours ago
If you agree with his point then his YouTube channel has done its job
deano2099 | 9 hours ago
I totally get that. I've enjoyed a fair few of Gary's videos but most of the weekly videos are just repeating the same thing over and over. And y'know, it's a correct thing that isn't said enough. But Gary has a pretty strong idea of what's wrong and what needs to be done and there's very little developing his thinking or incorporating new ideas. Which is fine from an economic perspective but doesn't make for a compelling YouTube channel or an interesting hour-long video every week.
quintus_horatius | 11 hours ago
Why stay subscribed if you're not learning anything new?
Complex-Magazine6690 | 10 hours ago
There are many societies past and present where there is a two tiered system of lavish gated communities and desperate poverty outside, and these societies are stable enough to persist over generations. I'm not confident that even the bottom falling out of our current status quo will be enough to change things politically.
Long__Ground | 11 hours ago
Doesnt make sense to me. Keep supporting them
lexicon_riot | 12 hours ago
He didn't do shit but tap into the emotions of the uninformed. He offers no actual solutions and just wanted to be seen as a cool champagne socialist with his humble brags.
twistingdoobies | 12 hours ago
Do you not think taxing wealth is a solution, or do you expect him to literally draft legistlation? I'm not sure whether you're refuting his point or expecting him to solve everything.
Yes, he tapped into the emotions of the uninformed, that was why he did all this media work. I don't particularly like his bravado either, but it worked to draw attention to the issue of increasing wealth disparity. We shouldn't expect one man to solve this all for us.
Thorazine_Chaser | 12 hours ago
Not who you’re responding to but perhaps I can provide a perspective. The idea of wealth taxes aren’t new, far from it. Even the modestly informed knows that the issue with wealth taxes is always the detail of how it will be implemented. Not the idea, but the detail. For a high profile character he didn’t bring the discussion much past the idea, if at all. He can’t draft legislation you’re right, but he could have a semi robust proposal that captures the current state of political and academic thought, surely that isn’t asking too much? For me he gained a huge platform and ended up sounding like a beauty queen calling for world peace…well sure.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> Even the modestly informed knows that the issue with wealth taxes is always the detail of how it will be implemented. Not the idea, but the detail. For a high profile character he didn’t bring the discussion much past the idea, if at all.
His proposal is 2% tax on wealth above £10M, then adjust over time as needed.
It's essentially the Zucman tax.
Thorazine_Chaser | 9 hours ago
Sure, and that is as about as basic a statement about a wealth tax as can be made. It has added nothing of value to the discussion, we all know that the term wealth tax means some tax rate.
I honestly think its a shame, he got a huge platform and couldn't bring himself to back an already established thoughtful proposal that would have made it harder for people to dismiss out of hand.
ric2b | 9 hours ago
Again, it's a Zucman tax, it's an established proposal.
That it is simple to implement is a large part of the point. Simplicity reduces loopholes.
So what exactly do you think is missing that you think needs to be discussed at this stage and is not just a bureaucratic detail that would only be necessary when actually drafting a bill that had a chance to be voted on and implemented?
You say this proposal is easy to dismiss out of hand, why? Besides Zucman there are other established economists that support it.
It seems to me that your strategy is to attack the proposal as "not serious" so that you don't even need to find anything to criticize it on. But it is serious.
Thorazine_Chaser | 9 hours ago
I have not seen him describe his position as Gabriel Zucmans proposal. Perhaps he has somewhere but if so that hasn’t been a particularly strong message and I expect you also know that because you described his position as “essentially” the Zucman tax. I think you’re joining the dots.
Without clear detail there will never be a bill drafted, let alone a vote. That is the issue, the detail has to be defined first because that is what a bill is.
ric2b | 9 hours ago
> I have not seen him describe his position as Gabriel Zucmans proposal.
He has, and it is.
> think you’re joining the dots.
No, he has even done an interview with Zucman, it is explicitly the Zucman tax. I said "essentially" because Zucman had initially proposed a higher threshold of 100M instead of 10M, so it's not the exact same but it's the same framework.
> Without clear detail there will never be a bill drafted, let alone a vote.
The detail is the bill draft. There is no point getting there if there isn't enough political support for it. And you can't expect every political commentator to also be a lawyer with the time and expertise to draft a bill for every proposal they have.
First you need an general support for a wealth tax, the specific implementation and details come after that has been accepted, otherwise it's a waste of time do discuss minute details when the general idea hasn't even been agreed on.
Thorazine_Chaser | 8 hours ago
The Zucman tax is specifically an ultra-wealthy tax and relies, quite substantially, on global participation for implementation. Gary’s proposal isn’t that and so is at best half baked to me.
Ultimately I don’t believe the guy has had much of an impact where it would count. Made it to Tik Tok though…
lexicon_riot | 12 hours ago
Wealth taxes are not a solution. Land value tax and minimizing other forms of rent seeking are the best ways to address the portion of wealth inequality that's actually problematic.
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 11 hours ago
They all work in tandem, this
"No, your solution doesn't perfectly solve it all, we need a different solution to perfectly solve it all!" is incredibly dumb.
"Land Value Tax" does not solve for a lot of issues, and actually intruduces a couple of headaches, depending on the implementation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with implementing a lot of different tools, in order to attack a complex issue from many different sides.
lexicon_riot | 11 hours ago
Imagine a dog bit your finger. You suffered a bone fracture, a possible infection, and a deep cut.
Your finger is in rough shape, it hurts really bad and is going to get worse if untreated.
The wealth tax equivalent here is cutting off the finger with barbed wire. Hard to do, grossly unsophisticated and way too excessive.
Instead, you could get a vaccine, a bandage, and a splint to keep your finger and address the actual problems. Way more nuanced and technical, but still the appropriate remedy. This is land value tax plus a bunch of other specific, targeted policies.
LVT is the least bad tax. It is unavoidable and directly solves a primary contributor to wealth inequality, and one that actually hurts the poor.
Me getting rich from curing cancer vs. me getting rich from speculating on land value appreciation gained from others' productivity are two completely different things.
In the first case, I increase wealth inequality while making the poor wealthier (they now have a cure for cancer), from my own legitimate contribution. In the second case, I increase wealth inequality while making the poor poorer (I increase their rent and pocket the difference as new profit), and from nothing I did productively.
The assessment process can be tricky but we now have open source software to efficiently and transparently provide that. Besides, assessment for a general wealth tax by definition is going to be a larger headache.
Yes, we should approach the issue from multiple angles, but none of them should be based on arbitrary thresholds.
Target land speculation. Target fraud and corruption. Target theft. Target over-consumption of luxury goods. Target patents. Target negative externalities. Target loopholes.
Targeting productive working capital is unwarranted, and probably won't remain a tax on purely the wealthy. Partially through expansions due to fabricated or "temporary" emergencies, partially through inflation.
That second part is a joke, too. Basically, the government taxes you through inflation once, and with a tax on unrealized gains, they'll tax you from inflation a second time when the new dollars eventually make their way into propped up asset prices.
Telperion83 | 10 hours ago
Land value tax is a form of wealth tax. Land is wealth.
I_Think_It_Would_Be | 8 hours ago
So how would LVT handle extremely profitable businesses which have the majority of the people work from home?
Grouchy-Onion-2344 | 11 hours ago
Calling him a champagne socialist tells me you have actually engaged very little with his content. He is nowhere near socialism on the political spectrum lol
UltimateGammer | 11 hours ago
He's a political outrider. That's all.
It's up to legislators to make the ideas happen, as they're the ones who have access to the resources and information a random streamer doesn't.
You expect too much.
DanyisBlue | 11 hours ago
In my country the idea of a wealth tax wasn't really in the national conversation until Gary put it there.
lukefiskeater | 12 hours ago
While am skeptical of the majority of his stances, this is a super lazy, disingenuous take; obviously you didnt really watch much of his content, you just disgreed almost immediately with his agenda, tuned out and returned to your echo chamber. He did offer solutions and while i did disagreed with majority of it, he actually put himself and his ideas out there unlike most of the political drama, rage/click baitors that makes up 90%+ of political content these days. Disagreed or not, I found his content refreshing, I try to challenge my beliefs and biases on a weekly basis and his channel was a good source for that. Edit: some of his core thesis is 100% correct, capitalism is eating itself and if we don't fix it, it will destroy itself
No_Aesthetic | 11 hours ago
>While am skeptical of the majority of his stances, this is a super lazy, disingenuous take; obviously you didnt really watch much of his content, you just disgreed almost immediately with his agenda, tuned out and returned to your echo chamber.
It is astonishing to me how people will defend left-wing YouTube gurus using essentially the same language and the same arguments as the defenders of, say, Jordan Peterson.
>he actually put himself and his ideas out there unlike most of the political drama, rage/click baitors that makes up 90%+ of political content these days.
He has been embroiled in drama multiple times and has been called out for lying, after which he acts like the media is out to get him for simply pointing out that what he says about himself is not true. Then he kicks up even more drama by pulling the classic "I have given it my all and I am quitting now, I am done. Finished! But actually I will still be releasing content sometimes."
>some of his core thesis is 100% correct, capitalism is eating itself and if we don't fix it, it will destroy itself
Could you be more specific on what you think is correct?
No-Pack-5775 | 11 hours ago
So what have you accomplished that's more impressive than highlighting this issue to millions of people, regardless of whether or not he has the perfect solution?
lexicon_riot | 11 hours ago
Are we pretending like wealth inequality hasn't been one of the most controversial issues of the last 200 years? Like wealth taxes haven't existed until Gary came along?
He doesn't have any viable solution, that's the point.
Any idiot these days can stumble into millions of views parroting slop so I don't see why that's impressive.
No-Pack-5775 | 10 hours ago
Have you stumbled into millions of views? No? Why not?
He's shedding light on an important issue. More than you've done.
Myfirstinternetname | 11 hours ago
Such a strange take, it’s like you haven’t watched much or any of his content?
UseADifferentVolcano | 14 hours ago
That's a shame, I feel like he was finally getting good at messaging. He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly, but he's now consistently making interesting points imho.
Not that I follow him to be fair, just when I randomly see his stuff pop up.
Thom0 | 13 hours ago
>He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly
This is because of how the British media works. The majority of the major news platforms are owned by the very billionaires he is trying to tax. On top of that, the UK has a tabloid culture. If he presented himself as some guy with a Cockney accent, shaved head, and a dream then he would have been decimated as a clown in the papers but by pointing out he is from the City then this gives him prestige.
It honestly did work because he was not treated very fairly in the British media so having a sort of empirical argument to fend of low-effort insults was clutch.
UseADifferentVolcano | 12 hours ago
Sure, but he wasn't a top trader though. Just a trader. He would have been just as likeable without the big exaggeration.
MathematicianOnly688 | 11 hours ago
Who do you mean by “British media”?
Unfortunately for me I read 3 or 4 different newspapers every day and prior to this documentary I’d not read about him at all, except for Reddit and YouTube.
Recidivist67 | 11 hours ago
4 newspapers a day? That's insane jez
FingerbangingGrandma | 11 hours ago
I only UK paper I read is the Guardian and they have published a number of articles about him in the last few years.
AccordingPair3 | 11 hours ago
> He initially seemed to lean on his "top trader" nonsense constantly, but he's now consistently making interesting points imho.
Wouldn't you do this too? The first argument anyone ever comes to you with if you discuss the super rich is "politics of envy" so it's good to get that argument out of the way first...
UseADifferentVolcano | 10 hours ago
Sure. The problem is he exaggerated how good he was at it, which made it easier for people to dismiss other things he said.
etherswim | 11 hours ago
because he kept getting called out due to his top trader credentials being made up
UseADifferentVolcano | 9 hours ago
Yeah. He could have just said he was a trader and it would have been fine.
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
I'd say it's the opposite of a shame if you felt he was getting good at messaging. We shouldn't want people spreading misinformation effectively. The dude's economic theories were incoherent (and often contradictory)
UseADifferentVolcano | 13 hours ago
Not the ones I saw. He accurately describes many things in simple ways, and tax wealth, not work is pretty reasonable
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
Tax wealth, not work, is absolutely not reasonable. We've seen wealth taxes tried numerous times around the world and they're almost always repealed cause they're abysmal policy.
Hell, we saw Norway increase their wealth tax from 1.1% to 1.35% a few years ago, a minor 0.25% absolute increase, and so many rich people fled that overall tax revenues decrease. But sure bro, just one more time and it'll work!!
It's also been well documented in countries like Sweden that they absolutely crater efficiency making them a significantly less efficient form of taxation than something like an income tax. For every dollar of tax collected, 76 cents was lost for various reasons.
keynoko | 13 hours ago
Yes, about 300 wealthy Norwegians fled the country and Norway was better off for it lol. Leeches do more damage the longer they suck
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
A few people left for tax havens until Norway slapped on an exit tax. Then the problem was solved.
I think it's kind of outrageous that a person can become rich from a society, then move all of that money out when society asks for a tiny percentage of it back. It's up to society to decide what is reasonable, and I don't think that is.
UseADifferentVolcano | 13 hours ago
That's not really true though. Norway's tax revenue is still going up and only 500 people left because of it (or 0.3% of Norway's millionaire population). So it's working just fine.
And a 0.25% increase on a 1.1% tax is pretty major.
Trying to stop a wealth tax is of course one of the most PR'd topics out there. But claims that it has always failed are hugely exaggerated - it's just not politically expedient.
Edit: Norway's total tax revenue isn't still going up. It's wealth and income tax combined is still going up.
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
> That's not really true though. Norway's tax revenue is still going up and only 500 people left because of it (or 0.3% of Norway's millionaire population). So it's working just fine.
It most certainly is not
> And a 0.25% increase on a 1.1% tax is pretty major.
These people want to go from 0% to 2%, which is a hell of a lot more major.
> Trying to stop a wealth tax is of course one of the most PR'd topics out there. But claims that it has always failed are hugely exaggerated - it's just not politically expedient.
What are you talking about? Do you think countries are getting rid of wealth taxes because they're too successful at raising revenue?
UseADifferentVolcano | 12 hours ago
My apologies, you're right. I meant tax from just the wealth and income tax but I didn't say that. Regardless, the tax to GDP ratio is still holding up fine for overall tax, so it's still far from being a failure by that measure.
And yes 2% would be major. We should expect some capital flight, but Norway has shown us that it won't be much overall. And I saw a clip of Gary arguing for an exit tax, so it's not unaccounted for by him.
On your last point, I think at least some wealthy people campaigning against a wealth tax is a given. I think that wealthy donors to all political parties will easily be able to gain concessions that will reduce the impact of wealth taxes, and that they are certainly going to PR the "wealth taxes can't work" line perpetually. So it's likely that wealth taxes will always be weak, and therefore not worth the political cost of losing big donors.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> It most certainly is not
What are you pointing to? The revenue is higher in the last few years after the tax rate increase than in the period from 2015 to 2020 when the global economy was mostly calm and growing at a decent pace after recovering from 2008 and before Covid, and in that period the wealth tax rate was lower.
keynoko | 12 hours ago
And yet these are consistently among the happiest countries in the world.
Perhaps the singleminded narrative of growth, wealth, tech progress etc is only part of the story of human flourishing.
Americans after all are pretty miserable as a cohort
pongvin | 13 hours ago
They did not flee
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
Yes they did
Amazonrazer | 13 hours ago
Very vibes based statements.
The article mentions how many affluent people left but not how many moved in, it mentions small and medium businesses were damaged but doesn't explain how and how much, it mentions infrastructure is suffering but zero elaborations of where and how. The rest of the article is the same, just saying bad thing happened with zero balance or nuance.
I hate these sorts of garbage news outlets.
pongvin | 13 hours ago
No. This article is intentionally misleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJttqFCWtQM
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
We can literally look up Norwegian tax revenue. Some youtube video doesn't debunk the very real truth that tax revenue has fallen since 2022
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
The vast majority of the Norwegian economy is based on oil and fish. If we are looking at high level numbers like that, the oil and fish prices (as well as currency fluctuations) are much more important than minor tax changes.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
The critics of the Norwegian wealth tax do so much outrageous cherry picking that they honestly just do a great job at highlighting that it works well and does not lead to the doomer scenarios they promise will happen with a wealth tax, lol.
MrBeekers | 13 hours ago
You clearly don’t understand economics, and you’re in an economics sub bHahahahahah
keynoko | 13 hours ago
Not even the smartest economists of yore have claimed to "understand" economics. It's human psychology vis a vis numbers masquerading as hard science and that includes all of our utter irrationality, desperation, hopes and stupidity.
I say this as someone who bought a house on investment returns alone and retired before forty.
Gary is right though
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
I don't understand economics because I'm against a guy whose entire thing was going against what mainstream economists think? Huh?
Still_Ad4315 | 13 hours ago
I mean the Zucman tax that Gary advocates for is backed by economists like stiglitz and Krugman. Are they not mainstream enough for you?
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
You're right, because he supports a single tax that is advocated for by some economists, that means his entire thesis must be backed by mainstream economists as well!
Is this meant to be a serious argument?
Still_Ad4315 | 13 hours ago
His main message is tax wealth not work. The wealth tax he wants is the zucman tax which is backed by plenty of mainstream economists. You claimed wealth taxes don’t work and aren’t backed by mainstream economists. All I’m doing is pointing out that’s clearly not the case
BidenGlazer | 13 hours ago
> You claimed wealth taxes don’t work and aren’t backed by mainstream economists.
I didn't claim this anywhere. I don't think wealth taxes would work, sure, but I didn't claim they weren't backed by mainstream economists. His thesis as a whole is what is not backed by mainstream economists. Things like wealth inequality driving up asset prices isn't backed by anyone, really. He also argues things like investments being bad for the economy, and instead we should spend everything, for some reason??
Good_Air_7192 | 13 hours ago
He's a grifter, he had a £100 a month Patreon. I also remember reading an article where they interviewed his coworkers at Citibank and they completely shot down his "Most profitable trader globally" claim. He's just a guy who worked at a bank that realised he could make more money off YouTube making clickbait.
UseADifferentVolcano | 13 hours ago
Him overselling his background and having a patreon aren't really cardinal sins imho.
What I saw him say was reasonable. He did harp on about the same things a lot, but his points like "the top 1% of tax payers is not the same group as the top 1% of wealthy people" is important and bears repeating.
Good_Air_7192 | 12 hours ago
Who said it's a cardinal sin, it's just the sign of a grifter.
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
The "most profitable" trader thing was a way to get respect in the British press, which does not give a voice to any ordinary people. Who cares whether he was in first place or whatever - he was a trader who earned millions.
Good_Air_7192 | 12 hours ago
Or it was a lie to get more credibility with the clickbait YouTube crowd. It's a poor strategy to make up such a verifiable lie to the British press because they will find it, and they did.
roodammy44 | 12 hours ago
I decided to look into this, it seems a bit murky. Apparently the bank doesn't publish any information about it, and it seems to be word against word. He might have been the top trader, he might not. But there's no actual proof either way.
You said you had verifiable evidence, how did you get that if there's no published data?
Good_Air_7192 | 10 hours ago
Well they verified his claim against his line manager and a group of coworkers who said basically what you said, that they don't have a "leader board" that is shared amongst staff members, so he wouldn't know even if he was the number one. The overwhelming opinion amongst his coworkers was the the seemed like a nice enough guy but was no way near the best trader.
Folkloner184 | 11 hours ago
The top comment asks that we don't descend into ad hominem attacks. Thread is 90% ad hominem attacks from the disingenuous, infiltrators, and bots
CapillaryClinton | 11 hours ago
People have really been given bullet point list of things to run around the internet attacking Gary on, its silly.
likamuka | 11 hours ago
Jam and the holograms compound has been compromised.
EmphasisTotal8232 | 11 hours ago
Infiltrators and bots hahahahaha
ZuP | 10 hours ago
22 day old account
EmphasisTotal8232 | 10 hours ago
accounts do indeed have to be created at a point in time
McLarenMercedes | 10 hours ago
As with most Gary Stevenson posts on Reddit, I sense they are brigaded by bots paid for by the Epstein class who are against the message that the cost of living needs to come down and working class people, of which is the majority of the world, should be able to live their lives instead of worrying about being in desperate poverty.
This continual cost increase is not sustainable.
Elanthius | 13 hours ago
I don't know why anyone was watching him anyway. He's been making the exact same single point over and over for years now. I got it the first time I don't need to hear him saying it weekly.
Any_Smile_7037 | 11 hours ago
I mean that's advocation works, repetition to reach the people who still think wealth tax reform will hurt them
Penki- | 8 hours ago
but he is not very good at providing examples of how to do it? At best he just repeats the suggestion to just tax the rich while completely ignoring any concerns on how exactly we should do it.
CapillaryClinton | 11 hours ago
I kinda understand why he'd need to take time off from it.
Its such a big and slow moving problem, and with this modern format of laboured hour long youtube videos about everything, it must be so monotonous repeating and explaining the issue again and again.
But unfortunately its been kind of necessary to start getting the point across
Groggrogrog | 11 hours ago
Sorry it bores you but theres a reason it needs to be repeated, its important I dont think hes doing it for fun.
whitephantomzx | 9 hours ago
Thats funny people watch conservatives and there only arguments has been " immigrants are the cause of all your problems " for the past 100 years.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 13 hours ago
As soon as it evolved past that i.e the Channel 4 doc where he had someone responding with constructive challenge, he quits YouTube lol.
tokyobrownielover | 8 hours ago
https://youtu.be/HTXu7XbetmU?si=l_7ILJ4yXmY3CQiJ
Rayzee14 | 13 hours ago
Gary has a strong opinion of himself. Self declared best trader, self declared great economist, self decalred “right all the time”. His show doesn’t go the way he perceived, people not accepting him as their saviour and he takes a break.
Amazonrazer | 13 hours ago
Believe it or not, those sorts of statements help with mass appeal. His target audience certainly aren't academics who are very concerned with nuance and deferment of judgement.
Irenaean | 12 hours ago
Sure but he relies on the idea of being the 'world's best trader' all the time as a badge of expertise to deflect criticism, the guy who gets it right all the time and who went against the grain of economists to carve his own path. He literally says
> I’m not fucking Mahatma Gandhi, I’m not here to talk about morality, OK. I was the best fucking trader in the fucking world and I’m the guy that calls it right every fucking year
And consistently talks about how he wasn't just Citibank's most profitable trader, but the WORLD'S most profitable trader for earning $35 million profit for the bank. When Financial Times interviewed his colleagues
> On Stevenson’s assertion that he was once the best of the best, Feig was damning: “His claim about being the most profitable trader at Citi in any one year is laughable and clearly just an outlandish fib.”
> Another of Stevenson’s old bosses remembered him as a “nice kid”, but quickly added that “Gary was at no point ever even the highest PnL” among the 20 to 25 traders who made up Citi’s global STIRT team, let alone the whole bank.
> “He didn’t even have the risk limits to be the highest producer, in any capacity,” he added, describing Stevenson’s $35mn PnL in 2011 as “not even close” to the highest profit in STIRT that year.
and
> The ex-credit trader described Gary’s central claim as “horse shit”, noting by way of example that the investment-grade credit traders in New York averaged around $30mn to $40mn PnL back then. And that was just the average.
Again if he didn't market himself so heavily on the basis that he's, in his own words, THE BEST MOST PROFITABLE TRADER IN THE WORLD it wouldn't be such a big deal but he's a huge narcissist and Walter Mitty.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
interesting nearly all detractors go after Gary's character rather than the points he makes. I'm yet to see someone make a reasonable argument against his cause.
Personally I don't care who he is, what is being said is most important, if it came from Liam Gallaghers mouth it doesn't make it any more correct or incorrect.
Irenaean | 10 hours ago
He supports the points he makes by appealing to his character though. Nobody criticises Pikkety on the nature of his character because Pikkety doesn't make the decision to lie and obfuscate about his character to support his points.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
No he doesn't, he supports the points he makes by making a logical and sound argument with a clear message. If Pikkety was a plumber would it make his arguments less sound?
Irenaean | 9 hours ago
If Pikkety said he was a plumber and then built a persona on being a plumber and then wrote a best selling published book in which he appeals to his plumber credentials to draw people to him, and then talked all the time about being a plumber and in every YouTube video, interview and documentary talked about how he was a plumber and then it came out that he was not a plumber, and he lied about his credentials as a plumber for the sole purpose aiding him in pushing a narrative then I would say it's a significant character flaw that would change how I view him and it would make him as a figure less sound, yes.
But luckily Pikkety doesn't do that because Pikkety is an actual published economist who doesn't need to make up dumb slopulist narratives while lying to people for masturbatory ego purposes, unlike Gary.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 9 hours ago
you didn't answer my question, read it and try again.
Irenaean | 9 hours ago
No, but the nature of what Pikkety and Gary are doing is night and day. Pikkety is an actual economist who publishes peer-reviewed work and well-recieved academic books, he could be a plumber and it wouldn't matter much because he's proven himself.
Gary significantly relies on his background as a trader, which he lies about, and he makes YouTube videos to push broad non peer-reviewed societal prescriptions on the basis that he was the best trader in the world and predicted everything correct - which he wasn't, and didn't.
If Gary were publishing peer-reviewed research that was received well by the economics community broadly then it wouldn't matter as much. But as it stands, he's not, and he relies on emotional populism to make YouTube videos for the common audience.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 8 hours ago
The difference is Gary is an activist. He's trying to convey a simple message to a widespread audience. His ego or credentials do not change his arguments or make them any more or less valid.
If you want evidence and peer-reviewed research and all that, there's plenty of authors (some of whom Gary has promoted) and Gary's own thesis is on his website, or you can go to Pikkety himself if you prefer, nothing is stopping you.
My point still stands, everyone attacks Gary for his character and I'm yet to see a valid criticism for his main message. At the end of the day, he's achieved far more outreach than nearly every economist. People want to know why their money doesn't stretch as far as it used to, and he provides an explanation which people resonate with.
Nemisis_the_2nd | 10 hours ago
I think the problem was pointed out by another finance youtuber that collaborated with him early in Gary's youtube career. His critique of Gary was that his ideas are, theoretically, good, but his message doesn't contain as much substance or detail compared to his peers, and was saying he wanted to invite Gary back at some point to try and push him to go into specifics.
Gary's content is largely the same single message on repeat, with a bit of data sprinkled in occasionally. As a result, when it comes to critiquing or criticising, it doesn't actually leave much to discuss, and his ego comes to the fore instead.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 9 hours ago
Yes, that's called activism...
Pretty sure Gary has his thesis on his website if you can be arsed reading it.
Rayzee14 | 11 hours ago
Gary’s dumbest claim is he was the only one to predict of economic issues after the pandemic. Trump levels of delusion and narcissism
MathematicianOnly688 | 11 hours ago
> Believe it or not, those sorts of statements help with mass appeal.
Maybe so. But once they’re found out to be exaggerations at best, straight up lies at worst, it undermines arguments he makes subsequently.
Valuable_K | 10 hours ago
You'd think it would. But in reality, it doesn't.
The fact that he wasn't literally "the best trader in the world" doesn't matter.
It gives the people who hate him plenty of ammunition. But the people who like him don't care about the relative status of city traders.
Penki- | 8 hours ago
> His target audience certainly aren't academics who are very concerned with nuance and deferment of judgement.
but who exactly will write the policy he suggests?
Rayzee14 | 13 hours ago
All Gary does is wax poetic about his genius and greatness, say wealth taxes and never actually get into it. Just whines that people won’t talk to him and he is the only one that knows.
He is a self promoting grifter who just wants to get a standing ovation.
vLinko | 11 hours ago
You sound like a bit of a prick mate.
Rayzee14 | 9 hours ago
Gary?
malteaserhead | 9 hours ago
I love how conversations on tax are completely detached from why its needed in the first place, its literally a joke from Yes Prime Minister.
BluebirdOrnery9858 | 6 hours ago
Productivity does not necessarily increase gdp. If I go from selling 100 shovels, each costing $5 in labour and selling for $10, to each costing $3 in labour and selling for $9, then my contribution to GDP has gone from 1,500 to 1,200, even though I’m more productive and making $100 more profit. Similarly imagine going from earning $20 to $100 an hour. You may choose to just work for 1 day a week and maintain your previous lifestyle. Ultimately productivity is deflationary as savings tend to be passed to consumers as margin tend to return to their historic mean. Whether that increases or decreases GDP relies on other factors. The productivity gains from the internal combustion engine increasing agricultural output contributed to the Great Depression.
Investors have two ways of receiving capital from companies. Either through dividends or buybacks, but ultimately earnings determine value. If you’re optimistic about future earnings than you can justify a higher price earnings multiple, as the multiple will decrease as the earnings mature. Historically periods of high multiples have underperformed as the expected earning s fail to materialize and the premium vanishes. Looking at America a naive model would put the expected return over 10 years to be (net of inflation) close to 0%. Many countries/industries have had periods that have never recovered, and just because America historically has does not guarantee this trend.
Even in America in the 20th century alone there were 3 non overlapping periods of 20+ years where real SnP 500 prices would have declined (1902-1922, 1929-1950, 1965-1991).
If you look further back in history there has also been a general decrease in returns on capital since 1400 where bonds yielded 20%+ in real terms.
Finally, if the people who owned the most wealth today are distinct from those that owned the wealth 50 years ago, that indicates that passive returns on wealth are not the best way to build wealth. If just being rich guaranteed you would be richer in the future, then you would not expect for there to be class mobility.
So we know from recent history capital can have 20+ year negative returns even diversified internationally, and that when diversified within a nation can have 40+ year negative returns. We also know that in the very long term as more capital competes, capital has tended to offer a lower return. We also know that those with the most wealth today will generally not be the wealthiest in 50 years, or more specifically capital tends to diffuse over time rather than accrue for the wealthiest.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 14 hours ago
Honestly can’t believe he was so popular in the first place.
His entire brand is “look how fucking great I am and how shit you are”
He made it out because he’s a genius, but it’s impossible for anyone else.
There might be a fair point in there regarding wealth inequality, but I can’t listen to someone so far up their own arse.
Old_Man_Robot | 14 hours ago
If that was your take away from his book, I think that’s more on you. Because that certainly wasn’t the message.
Original-Age-6691 | 13 hours ago
I never got that vibe from his YouTube channel either. This comment section is really weird and full of bad faith stuff like you're responding to.
IIGrudge | 13 hours ago
Have you listen to any of his videos? The guy talks about himself constantly. Definitely a cluster b. I say this as a fan of his earlier works as it's prophetic but boy has he strayed far from his roots.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 13 hours ago
I wouldn’t want to read an autobiography from anyone so self-indulgent.
His penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration distracts from his message, he also changes role a lot depending on the challenge, he’s an economic expert until he gets challenged on implementation then he’s a political campaigner focused on moving the needle towards a wealth tax.
There’s also the claims he massively exaggerated his success as a trader and his “big bet” was fairly obvious to STIR traders at the time because of the macroeconomic conditions.
Grouchy-Onion-2344 | 11 hours ago
Isn't one of his main points regarding his success as a trader that his strategy WAS obvious, and he was concerned that no one around him was confronting the reality of what that means?
iaNCURdehunedoara | 13 hours ago
It's because people listen to authority figures. If i, as a regular guy with a 9 to 5 job, say that we need land value taxes and to tax the rich, i get accused of being jealous and greedy, but a lot of people are peasants and react more positively to a rich guy that had success.
Penki- | 8 hours ago
but there is no evidence of him being any kind of authority on the subject. He claims authority as a really good trader and economist, but at best its just his claims?
Good_Air_7192 | 13 hours ago
According to his £100 a month Patreon "Other Economists make predictions but my ones are actually right"
He's not only a massive grifter but also an absolute bellend. I think the young TikTok pseudo-finance crowd like him.
HotelPuzzleheaded654 | 13 hours ago
Doesn’t surprise me, he claims all other economists are from rich families and don’t care about getting it right.
He does though of course, our caped crusader.
I can’t see how people don’t see right through him.
MythicalBlue | 13 hours ago
It’s just more populist nonsense from an era where populist nonsense thrives.
Lo_jak | 14 hours ago
I just want to put this out there but this self proclaimed millionaire has a Patreon! you can become a "member" for anywhere between £6 - £100 + VAT..... why on earth would someone with that sort of wealth be asking for money from the very people that he's supposedly trying to help out of poverty ????
Then you consider the 2% wealth tax that he purposed for anyone with £10M or more and guess what! his own reported wealth is supposed to be just under that figure.
It's all a grift
Thom0 | 13 hours ago
It's to fund his channel. He has staff.
live_rail | 11 hours ago
What do his staff do? He makes videos of himself sitting at a kitchen table talking.
Grouchy-Onion-2344 | 11 hours ago
Incredibly reductive
Thom0 | 11 hours ago
He has a small team who run production, editing, research and writing. It isn't huge and it mostly consists of people he personally knows who have a background in these areas and who he wants to pay a wage which in London is necessary to survive. Then there is the agent sides of things - arranging the appearances, interviews and publishing. This is paid by him directly.
Yes, he runs a low budget, low production channel but he doesn't just run a channel. It is a broader advocacy movement and he is pretty active in the British media. He is a household name in the UK and this only happened over the last year or so.
To be clear, I don't want you to think I am a fan or have a bias. I think the theory supports his argument for a wealth tax. Adam Smith devoted half of volume 3 of The Wealth of Nations to the risks of capital and the need for redistribution mechanisms. Keynes argued along the same lines, and obviously Piketty is a very legit economist. None of this is fringe student economics. There is some real theoretics and empirical evidence backing this all up.
Where I disagree with the whole movement is Gary did not outline any clear policy, or provide a reference point for what might constitute a good policy. He constantly faced numerical criticism and he never really pushed back. He just said he was an advocate, and not a policymaker which I don't agree with. He should have had some policy in his back pocket and had he, I think he would have defended the personal attacks in the media a little better. He also never defended the capital flight fear which is 100% not real because politically billionaires are very limited in the places they can choose to go. The OECD has the global monopoly on capital security and it is where tax minimums are negotiated. No billionaire is going to move to a tropical island and live with a private army in a compound defending his vault of gold and no one is rushing to go to China. Globally, all capital is kept in Western democracies who are a part of the OECD. Gary completely dropped the ball on this issue and it is so easy to debunk.
With that said, just given the economic climate in the UK I don't think funding this movement is bad, or a red flag. It is funny that people might expect Gary as a millionaire to pay the wages but they don't expect the same logic in relation to the wealth tax issue.
CapillaryClinton | 12 hours ago
This is unserious whatabouttery- do you expect someone to just pay down staff and editors for years and years and years while he tries to get the message across?
It's a realistic and sensible solution
BeardyNews | 13 hours ago
Business acumen...
lexicon_riot | 14 hours ago
More than likely, he has finally realized that no one is buying his shtick. When properly challenged on concrete policy he has been exposed.
You can only humble brag and scream eat the rich for so long. Sooner or later you need to produce something concrete and actually defend it.
Weeblewobbly | 14 hours ago
Yes, you are right, we need more billionaires abs private equity that don't pay taxes. That will solve all the problems. The poor can eat each other.
Good_Air_7192 | 13 hours ago
You can be against wealth inequality and also realise this guy is a grifter.
lexicon_riot | 12 hours ago
Literally just stop being a grifting coward and defend specific policies. That's the standard I judge anyone by, and it's one Gary can't live up to.
By all means be the biggest commie in the world, but make actual arguments.
He wasn't interested in solutions, he was interested in being a left wing populist celebrity.
TheMightyKumquat | 14 hours ago
Exposed how?
Ok-Glove-847 | 14 hours ago
I’ve not watched the documentary but if the Guardian write up of it is anything to go by, it does seem like he was shown up a bit.
monkeybawz | 14 hours ago
I know you want it to be true, but even if you don't like him you can't possibly believe something so fucking stupid?
lexicon_riot | 13 hours ago
What's stupid is left wing populist slop that's incapable of providing or defending specific policy proposals.
monkeybawz | 12 hours ago
What's stupid is your original comment. Then trying to play "what about...?" while leaving it in the wild? That's also stupid.
lexicon_riot | 12 hours ago
What? Lol I have no idea what you're trying to say
monkeybawz | 12 hours ago
It's super basic, but I'm not surprised you don't get it. I'm just going to block you.
MayContainRawNuts | 14 hours ago
His policy was fairly upfront and informed, could even be expressed in 3 words.
Tax the rich.
lexicon_riot | 13 hours ago
"tax the rich" isn't a policy prescription, and he has consistently squirmed away from offering one in every confrontation that I have seen.
He even responded negatively to the only version of such that has any merit, the LVT.
Empty words and populist slop, that's all he can grift on.
WalterWoodiaz | 13 hours ago
That isn’t 2 words lmfao
MayContainRawNuts | 13 hours ago
Lol, typo edited thanks
Original-Age-6691 | 13 hours ago
Have you watched like... Anything from him? Cause yeah you can say tax the rich, but he literally has a four word catchphrase that he consistently says to the point where it's his main thing on merch and I feel like anyone who's seen him once would know it.
TheMightyKumquat | 10 hours ago
OK, I've read all the back and forth below where you defend your assertion. I reckon youre about as full of it as you believe this guy is.
drewbles82 | 11 hours ago
I can understand...its a battle no one can win. He is up against billionaires who don't care and will push this narrative we shouldn't tax them more cuz they'll leave, or they won't create new jobs. absolute rubbish
Useless_or_inept | 11 hours ago
OK but why is this in r/Economics? His statements aren't viable economics, although I'll concede he's popular with some Guardian readers.
It's like posting an antivax article in r/healthcare
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
Why aren't they?
Plane-Tap7068 | 9 hours ago
No country in the history of the world has ever taxed its way into prosperity.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 9 hours ago
Wrong. Very very much wrong. Most western countries have higher taxes now than at any point in their history, and are the largest economies that have ever existed.
Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population is the root of pretty much all great economies that have ever existed (and depending on how far back you go, a healthy amount of slavery), and these require high levels of education, healthcare, law & order, all of which require greater levels of taxation.
Regardless of that, this has very little to do with Gary Stevenson's message.
Plane-Tap7068 | 5 hours ago
That does not refute the point. Nobody is saying education, healthcare, policing or the courts are unnecessary, or that they can be provided without taxation. The point is that taxation does not itself create the wealth being taxed.
Rich Western countries collect more tax partly because they are richer. Their prosperity came from productivity, investment, innovation, skills, stable institutions and capital accumulation. Those things make a larger state affordable. The fact that high taxes and large economies exist together does not prove the former caused the latter.
Public spending can support prosperity when it is effective, but more taxation is not automatically better. What matters is what is taxed, at what rate, how the money is spent and whether the policy discourages investment, work or entrepreneurship. That is why several European countries abolished broad wealth taxes despite continuing to fund large welfare states.
The slavery point is irrelevant. Enriching a small ruling class through extraction is not the same as creating broad, sustainable prosperity.
So yes, competent government and public services matter. But they are financed by a productive economy; they are not a substitute for one. And whether this captures Gary Stevenson’s wider argument is separate from whether your reply actually disproves the original claim.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 4 hours ago
"Their prosperity came from productivity, investment, innovation, skills, stable institutions and capital accumulation." which is made possible by "Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population" which is caused by taxation.
"or that they can be provided without taxation" potentially, but not the norm historically.
"The point is that taxation does not itself create the wealth being taxed." No, this does: "Innovation and skills" which is the result of "high levels of education, healthcare, law & order".
Nearly every developed large economy has those things to some degree or another, and pretty much all undeveloped smaller economies do not.
"That does not refute the point. Nobody is saying education, healthcare, policing or the courts are unnecessary" What do you think the government spends our taxes on? Or you think they just collect it for fun?
Slavery comment was clearly a joke dude.
Plane-Tap7068 | an hour ago
You are still collapsing “taxation can fund useful institutions” into “taxation causes prosperity.” Those are not the same claim.
Education, healthcare and law and order can raise productivity, but only when they are effective. Tax revenue can also be wasted, misallocated or used in ways that discourage investment and work. The relevant question is not whether government spends tax revenue, but whether the next euro taxed and spent creates more value than it removes from the productive economy.
Innovation and skills are not simply “caused by taxation.” They also come from families, firms, universities, competition, private investment, culture and existing institutions. Many countries collect substantial taxes while still having poor schools, corruption, weak policing and stagnant economies. Taxation is therefore neither a sufficient condition nor, at today’s high levels, automatically a beneficial one.
Rich countries can sustain larger tax systems partly because they are already productive and institutionally stable. Pointing out that developed countries have both taxes and public services does not establish that higher taxation created their wealth, any more than observing that rich people spend more proves spending made them rich.
Nobody thinks taxes are collected “for fun.” The disagreement is over scale, design and results. Some taxation is necessary. It does not follow that more taxation necessarily produces more prosperity.
A joke? Hard to tell on reddit, wasn't funny/amusing either way
Dazzling-Variety-946 | an hour ago
"You are still collapsing “taxation can fund useful institutions” into “taxation causes prosperity.” Those are not the same claim."
No I'm not. Read carefully. I never make either claim.
"Innovation and skills are not simply “caused by taxation.”" I never said this.
"They also come from families, firms, universities, competition, private investment, culture and existing institutions. Many countries collect substantial taxes while still having poor schools, corruption, weak policing and stagnant economies. Taxation is therefore neither a sufficient condition nor, at today’s high levels, automatically a beneficial one."
Yep I never said otherwise...?
"Education, healthcare and law and order can raise productivity, but only when they are effective. Tax revenue can also be wasted, misallocated or used in ways that discourage investment and work. The relevant question is not whether government spends tax revenue, but whether the next euro taxed and spent creates more value than it removes from the productive economy."
Ok, I agree I never said otherwise...?
This whole thread started when you failed to address what I originally asked. Seems to be a thing with you doesn't it. I'm not interested in getting into some weird internet debate other something completely unrelated to the thread.
Plane-Tap7068 | 4 hours ago
Sorry, I left a detailed response which the mods have removed for some unknown reason, I won't be wasting my time in case it is removed again.
The really short version is that you need to have plentiful resources if you want to distribute them. Modern welfare states came after the vibrant economy, not before them.
Brazil has a young, well educated workforce and an abundance of natural resources. Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world 100 years ago, they took really sharp turns into the model one could deduce you support. That's in stark contrast to the countries who took the opposite route.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 4 hours ago
Slavery was clearly a joke, I obviously don't support slavery.
Brazil is a rapidly developing economy as a result, and has been a strong economy in the past, but has been plagued by corruption and crime, which it still struggles with.
Argentina lost it's wealth due to political instability, did I not mention corruption in my original post? I suppose I could add stability, but it was implicit anyway.
Both of these examples add evidence to my point.
The modern welfare state in the UK occurred in the post-war period when britain was broke, and in ruin, many of it's abled population dead or maimed as a result of the war and much poorer than today, and income taxes on rich folk were higher back then.
Sure resources help, but there are plenty of countries with large amounts resources which are not large economies.
Plane-Tap7068 | an hour ago
You are actually reinforcing my point. I raised Brazil and Argentina as examples of relatively high tax economies that nevertheless suffered from corruption, instability, inflation and weak productivity. If Brazil’s problem is corruption and Argentina’s is political instability, then prosperity depends on institutional quality, sound money and competent government, not simply on how much tax is collected. Brazil’s vast and complex tax system even became the setting for major tax corruption scandals, which rather neatly demonstrates that a large tax take does not guarantee good administration.
Postwar Britain shows that taxation can finance a welfare state, which nobody disputes. It does not show that high taxation created Britain’s underlying wealth. Britain already had an industrial economy, accumulated capital, skilled workers and established institutions. The headline top tax rates were also paid by very few people and were far higher than the effective rates actually collected.
And your point about natural resources supports me as well. Resources alone do not create prosperity; institutions and policy determine whether they are used productively.
So we agree that taxes can fund useful services. What you still have not shown is that higher taxation itself causes prosperity.
North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela until recently had 100% or near 100% tax rates, hasn't helped them. When China, Vietnam, Sweden (I appreciate it's still quite high), the UK from the 80s on etc all moved away from excessively high rates of taxation, their economies have displayed enormous growth.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | an hour ago
You're arguing against points I never made, I never said high tax guarantees economic prosperity.
You claimed there are no countries that taxed their way into prosperity. I disagree, I said it seems every major economy that exists and has existed collected relatively high rates of tax. I then provided a mechanism by which tax can lead to a strong economy. Nothing you have just said has addressed this.
Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela are either communist or military dictatorships with massive amounts of corruption and crime, with poor health due to poverty and lack of access to healthcare, and with poor education. See: "Innovation and skills, with low levels of crime and corruption, and a healthy population is the root of pretty much all great economies"
I don't see a point in continuing this conversation since you fail to address anything I say.
Plane-Tap7068 | 4 hours ago
The mods keep removing my responses, have a good evening and apologies for not giving a proper response.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> His statements aren't viable economics
Which ones? Wealth tax seems pretty viable in Norway, they've had one for decades and all the critics can point to is incredibly cherry picked numbers from one year or two, and no sign of all the doomer scenarios they say will happen with a wealth tax.
bendyman13 | 11 hours ago
Ohhh he's got biscuits on a plate in his little flat he pretends to live in, he must be one of us. Cmon, the guys absolutely a grifter, he just parrots one point with zero idea of how to implement it. Probably got one of the most chinable faces I've ever seen constantly pouting.
NoCatch2153 | 11 hours ago
Another Ad Hominem attack here
bendyman13 | 11 hours ago
Did you even read the comment, I attacked him and his views 😂
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
Which is what ad hominem is. You attack him rather than the points he makes.
bendyman13 | 8 hours ago
Again, I attacked both, so it isn't as hominem....
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> with zero idea of how to implement it.
He has said multiple times that it is a 2% tax on wealth above £10M, it's a Zucman tax.
5u114 | 11 hours ago
Coincidental timing ... he released a documentary lately which was critically panned, primarily because he was embarrassed and made to look a complete fool .... in his own documentary.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with that though.
ric2b | 10 hours ago
> primarily because he was embarrassed and made to look a complete fool .... in his own documentary.
What section are you referring to? Is it the clipped out bit with Dan Neidle that ignores Gary's response that shows he knew more about the report that Dan referenced than Dan himself?
IntravenusDiMilo_Tap | 10 hours ago
IT was an interesting documentary, Ch 4 recorded a debate between Stevenson and Kristian Neimitz author of Fools gold, a critique of wealth taxes: Fool's Gold — Institute of Economic Affairs
Neimitz is very bright and wiped the floor with Stevenson who looked unprepared and as it was recorded at the Hayek society of the LSE in December 2025, just before Christmas, possibly a little spirited. Ch4 didn't include the debate and the Hayek society of the LSE were very annoyed as they were blocked from using the content themselves.
Mr_Brozart | 11 hours ago
High Blood Pressure probably, the guy is always so tightly wound and turns statements into rants. I don't mind him in small doses but I do find his approach very repetitive with a sprinkle of arrogance.
No_Aesthetic | 12 hours ago
It is really strange to me how many ardent supporters this guy has for the one idea he has been promoting for years that is simply not very great. If you mention his name they are bound to show up and support him but their arguments are very not great also and you get the feeling he is the only "economist" they have ever heard out. This is because he did not become famous for his economics, he became famous because he has a populist idea that people usually support before they find him. He, in other words, preaches to the choir, and the choir is always ready to sing his praises in return.
A lot of people in this thread mention the point behind questioning his story. Someone can be an expert at economics while also being a serial liar who says things like "I was the top trader in my company" and then later changes it to "I was a top trader in my company" because people noticed. They can also be an expert at economics without a degree in economics. They cannot become an expert in the field of economics without actually working in it. A book which restates an idea his audience already likes and backs it up with bad data is not working in the field of economics, it is simply more populist politics. The reality is that nothing he did is really that spectacular even if you are inclined to agree with him.
There is a pattern to people like Donald Trump that is easy to recognize when you disagree with them but very hard to recognize when you agree with them. They think very highly of themselves, inflate their success and their expertise beyond what is accurate or reasonable. When found out, they act like they have been victimized and that it is a scandal by their nefarious enemies in the world of academia, politics or whatever else. In reality, it is narcissism, the key characteristic of the charlatan. I have seen no evidence that Stevenson is anything but one.
Nominally, we are on the same side. Realistically, I could never support someone like this.
Wise-Pay-8993 | 11 hours ago
The thing with Garry is as someone with academic background in finance. He was selling some parts of the truth but the grift was the biggest part of it. He just cares about himself. His entire you guys need to hear the truth heres my book to buy. It happens a lot. People make videos about real topics to only benefit themselves.
No_Aesthetic | 11 hours ago
What bothered me most was how he would deliberately constrain his information in order to support his points. Most people didn't even realize he was doing it either. In multiple videos I watched, he used the frame of an economic pie (perfectly fine start) but inflated it with not even a hint that total and real wealth could increase. It is simply not the case that the wealthy gaining a larger share of the pie as a percentage is inherently and always bad, but if you watched his videos you might walk away with that conclusion. I know enough about economic cycles to know that certain parts of the cycle build wealth at the top because of the impact of new industries, but as the cycle progresses that distribution changes to favor others in rungs below due to technology spread, competition and investor demands, among other such things. It is very easy to build extreme wealth in new areas but very hard to hold on to it for very significant amounts of time. Practically none of the big names today (Musk, Zuckerberg, et. al.) were big names 50 years ago and as a corollary there are very few big names in wealth from 50 years ago that still are today, even though people who became very wealthy 50 years ago still have it most of the time. Warren Buffett is one such exception, but after he goes, who?
Grouchy-Onion-2344 | 11 hours ago
I think there is merit to his promotion of the admittedly simple idea of a wealth tax. He's stated that he is not the right person to draft legislation for such taxes, just that his goal is to make people aware of growing wealth inequality, and hopefully generate pressure for incumbent governments to start addressing the problem, rather than continue with their short termism
No_Aesthetic | 11 hours ago
But people are already very aware of wealth inequality and their knowledge of that is usually why they are watching him in the first place. You will find very few people that had no idea of wealth distribution changes, even among right-wingers it is usually pretty apparent. They just don't care at all and don't see it a problem because it is not always clear that it is.
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
And Gary explains why it's a problem...
No_Aesthetic | 10 hours ago
I know I am not speaking to the one and only Gary Stevenson, but would you like to make a case for the wealth tax?
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
No, Gary himself doesn't. Do you even watch him and listen to what he says?
No_Aesthetic | 10 hours ago
I've heard him make a case for the wealth tax. I've watched videos where he talks about it. What's your take?
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 10 hours ago
No, his message is very clear: Wealth is distributed to the rich, this means the not rich have a lower share of wealth, in a stagnant or slow growing economy this leads to lower living standards for the not rich.
He specifically says he doesn't know what the exact solution is, the solution might be a wealth tax, but it could be something else.
My take: I agree with the message, I'm yet to see anyone make credible arguments against his message, most detractors attack his character more than anything.
No_Aesthetic | 10 hours ago
Our understanding is comparable so far except for the fact that I think his emphasis on the wealth tax is much stronger than you give it credit for. After all, if I point to a problem and suggest one solution and say otherwise it is a complete mystery, that gives a lot more weight to the solution.
But let's ignore that for a second, because I'm curious where else we may not be meeting on equal ground. How do you understand his analysis of the problem itself? (i.e. why the economy is stagnating.)
Dazzling-Variety-946 | 9 hours ago
Perhaps but the point is, it's not the point of his message. Those who fixate on the wealth tax idea miss the point of what Gary Stevenson is about, he's an activist spreading awareness of a real problem for most working people in the UK.
People buy into what Gary says because most people want to know the answer to "Why does money not go as far as it did 5-10 years ago? Why are living standards going down?", and Gary provides a pretty solid argument for why. Why do you think living standards are going down?
SerbianHustle | 9 hours ago
I always thought the guy was somewhat genuine, but that was baffled how can he refer to himself as "economist" and hold all these best trader titles and use such language he is using when he speaks. He is not coherent and articulate, and commonly lacks basic understanding of things, but is paid speaking fees to speak about economy. Also, he reiterates mostly the obvious stuff. I don't know how he got famous, but I feel like his content is appealing to finance doomers.
I hope he is ok though, he always spoke so fast an twitchy, most likely abused drugs during his professional days, I work in S&T and there are days I am like that even if i don't take anything. Some finance jobs really take a toll on the body. Hope he recovers, even though I am not a fan of his content.