And this is why the super rich shouldn’t be running the country, if it was any other industry they’d call it a monopoly. You are amazing Gary! 😊

@blindstagehand

Жыл бұрын

And that is why we need to upgrade our system of democracy. Money is just as valid a unit of voting as ballots, if you understand that then the economy is the congress. Money is the lever of political power, Michelle Mone say no more 'cpt you can simply democratise money with Universal Basic Income, which can be in the flat democratic form of Conditional Basic Income and the parabolic democratic form of Unconditional Basic Income. Balot based voting is a good thing, it leads to strong leadership. Money based voting is also good, it leads to good decision making, decisions that reflect the best interests of the people, rather than the interests of the party donors. It's achieved with a Congressional Crowd Fund, where each citizen is equally funded by a significant proportion of the country's tax income, and then politicians run campaigns in the Crowd Fund the citizens buy in to. That is one way to democratise money, it's an idea worth thinking about, it's a flat democracy because everyone has an equal vote, it's an economic democracy because the unit of voting is money not ballots. The economy is different, but we live in an economic society, and what we buy reflects our needs, so Universal Basic Income provides a diversity led society in a parabolic monetary democracy [Money is still distributed unevenly, but there's a safety net below it all]. Equality and Diversity are both functions of wealth in an economic society x

@johnburrows3385

Жыл бұрын

Ahem ......I'm talking about you Sunak.

@johnburrows3385

Жыл бұрын

Gary, what's your views on the MPC constantly raising interests rates ? My opinion........ it's hurts ordinary folks and benefits those with dosh and assets .

@TheInternetIsDeadToMe

Жыл бұрын

Sunak is basically an Oligarch.

@tonywilson4713

Жыл бұрын

Its not a matter of if they do or don't run any country because they can simply do what they do in America and just buy off the politicians. *Its simply a matter of making them pay their fair share.* Part of what Gary is saying is they ONLY have their wealth because the rest of society works and earns money. This is one of the giant myths we have been bluffed with that we need them *when in fact they need us.* Unless the rest of society works and earns money we can't spend and if we can't spend they make NOTHING.

Brilliant! Much more succinct and punchy. Very important to make the distinction between ‘higher earners’ and the super rich. When ever I’ve tried to convey this message it’s often met with the challenge of, “So you want to tax me more?”

@blindstagehand

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that is a tough one, usually you can't get anything through, but you could try this one: Tax is the means by which they defraud us. Meaning what I want is just a 1% tax on all transactions of willingly traded goods and/or services; that's a tax on wealth, but only when the wealthy want to spent it... that's dead straight forward fair, not taxing you more, saving you tax, saying you only pay 1% whenever you buy stuff just like everyone else, no income tax, no vat, no money back, gaurantee ~ well, I jest, but that's a proper democratic economic society, everyone is a trader, can take payments just as easily as you can make them, you charge for your goods or your labour/services, you bear in mind you have to make a profit and consider the charge, but it's the buyer who pays the 1% tax on purchases. No inheritance tax, no poll tax, no community charge, no capital gains, no more keeping your reciepts and reclaiming the vat... forget it, what does it mean to be a citizen of the UK in 2023? C'mon x

@kernel1kadafi

Жыл бұрын

In all honesty its a moral argument. People feel as though why should i give my money to “Others” or less fortunate ? So it ultimately depends on their moral compass Greed(capitalism) vs Religion (empathy) Not saying non Religious people are not empathetic however what i am saying is that religion holds empathy as a core principle. Since Thatcher we have all become more neoliberal(individual) than religious

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

@@kernel1kadafi "religion holds empathy as a core principle." Are you sure? Who are most people in the UK eating for Easter?

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

"Brilliant! Much more succinct and punchy." ... than what? What about the rest of what he says? How do you see it working?

just 5 minutes to describe and provide solutions to one of the most crucial aspects of our current organisation of our economy. cracking stuff gary

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

I hear no solutions here, just ideas. I hear no explanation of how we would go about taxing '"accumulated hoarded wealth". Taking you at your word that you can see solutions in what has been said, can you please describe them to me in simple detail? Please be kind enough to also help me with: 1) How do you know the UK generated income of a wealthy person living in another country? 2) What happens if the person does not pay any tax you levy on them? Thanks.

@f4zkh4n

Жыл бұрын

@@EarthPoets The solution is simple, even if not easy given the opponent's capabilities and resources. Make the voting public understand the economic reality, we collectively pressure politicians through measured means into acting on our behalf once again through policy that minimises wealth inequality by acting in the favour of the many, not the super rich elite few. Not that different, from how you got any other good thing in your society. 1) if it's legal, you know BECAUSE it is UK generated. taxing their non-UK generated wealth would be the tricky bit but not a primary focus. 2) try not paying your taxes, see what happens. ultimately, if enforced, same thing that happens to anyone not meeting legal responsibilities, a loss of freedom to operate in that society.

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

​@@f4zkh4n "Make the voting public understand the economic reality". Sorry mate but although some of your ideas are attractive, your recommendations fall at the first hurdle. Look at what has been, and is, happening in the UK and you will see that is just a dream. 52% of the British public recently voted against their own best financial interests and it will be decades before we recover - if ever. "collectively pressure politicians through measured means into acting on our behalf" Good luck with that. Our Government has the backing of the majority of the mainstream media and is very adept at pitting us against each other so we do not look at how they are robbing us blind, At the same time more and more Tory politicians are being exposed as selling the time they are being paid to serve their constituents, to the highest bidder. They are not here to act on our behalf. Those days currently seem sadly long gone, if they ever existed at all. As for 1) you did not answer: "How do you know the UK generated income of a wealthy person living in another country?" so, *How* do you know? Let's say you are domiciled abroad and you own a house in Mayfair and I as your tenant pay rent to you, either via a non UK based agent or directly. How does the state know you have been paid that money? Do I as your tenant have to declare to the Inland Revenue who I have paid my rent to? Have you ever had to do that? And what if you are a multi-millionaire with multiple properties and you are shielded by multiple companies who offset your capital gains against expenses? I am far from expert in these matters, but I don't think it is as simple as you say. If I am wrong then please explain. And with regard to 2) "a loss of freedom to operate in that society" Is that it? Would you force them to sell the asset(s) so you could recoup the tax liability? Would you attempt to financially penalise them? What if they don't pay, or they drag you through the courts for years costing £m's? What if they owe hundreds of thousands of pounds before you discover they have not paid their dues and then declare themselves bankrupt? What would you do? I agree with Gary that we should tax wealth, however it is easy for someone to wind people up with grandstanding in order to benefit themselves. What we need is someone above my pay grade who truly understands how to enact his ideas, to explain it to us all in clearly thought out simple detail so we can all get behind it with a logical consistency that cannot be dismantled by those with a vested interest. Unfortunately all I see here are flag wavers who do not appear to understand the undernourishment of what they are being fed. I would love to be wrong and for Gary to be the man but I feel continually disappointed. If you can show me I am wrong then please do so. I am open to learning and I could do with a restful night :).

@f4zkh4n

Жыл бұрын

@@EarthPoets so let's do nothing then and quietly sink into the ocean!?? i think you need a reminder, "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." is this your first day here? i'm not all that optimistic myself but I think the dude who was once the world's top trader for citibank because he had that good a track record of prediction, who has a masters in economics from oxford, and then on top of that has the heart to leave profits behind for the greater good, has the only viable strategy... and if democracy is as dead as you seem to suggest then nothing really matters does it really? you moan about corporate media but when the embers of an alternative present themselves you are quick to shit on it. you're a cynic, a do nothing cabana boy, successfully bred to be impotent out of the gate, you've counted yourself out of the battle already but the rest of us will not shy away because the odds are slim.

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

@@f4zkh4n So I waited patiently for 3 days for a reply but like the rest of Gary's sukkofants I have questioned for detail you have disappeared. Disappointed cubed mate.

I wrote to my MP as you suggested, I asked where's the £700 bn, mentioned your name and even shared a link with one of your videos in which you talk about this stuff; I said things are getting worse for ordinary people, the NHS in crisis, public and local services on the brink with more spending cuts to come. I asked why they never clawed back that money and why is it whenever there's a crisis we always are the ones forced to pay and never the wealthy: why won't the government tax them? She dodged that question, instead talked about the fraud write-off where criminal gangs got away with some of the loan scheme funds awarded during covid, mentioned the covid crony contracts and acknowledged that Liz Truss trashing the economy will make us much more worse off. What she didn't get was that the biggest criminal gangs are the Tory government and the billionaires they represent always awarding themselves more of our money with every budget they announce! Meanwhile we're in "awful April" which leaves me in a state of anxiety when all the bills go up, I'm afraid to open the letters because I know I'm going to be hammered again with increased C/tax, rent and probably another HB overpayment (I work part time). And I am tired.

Cheers Gaz, for my weekly economics lesson. That one needed clearing up. ‘Tax the rich’ has become a cliche. But after watching this video anyone honest will understand ‘taxing wealth’ is what is needed. Thank you again.

@JAI_8

8 ай бұрын

While I agree with Gary wholeheartedly, he has to address the the inevitable philosophical critique that will be made that “We don’t tax wealth here in (country “X”), we tax people and their income. And Mr. Richman only reported an income last year of £100k so he’s paid his taxes and will continue to do so every year at this rate as he finds he’s got a comfortable life and is happy to pay his taxes and contribute his fair share.” All the while Mr. Richman owns several homes, three boats around the world a plane and his several companies keep him moving around the world “working” earning his paltry income. How are we going to address this issue that “we don’t tax wealth here since wealth taxation is “regressive” and unfair “double taxation” since all those assets were once taxed when they were income now taxing them as an asset is “double taxation”?

Thanks for vid Gary, excellent as always. Inherited wealth allows generations to live simply by investing. On the opposite end of the scale are people who work all their lives and pay rent and end up with nothing to pass on to their children. Which continues the cycle of poverty despite working hard.

@Nickle314

Жыл бұрын

And the reason is the welfare state which has asset stripped people. Denied people their wealth. It's create a debt, hidden off the books of £16 trillion. That's just negative wealth. So here we have gary, rich, telling the plebs that if only they caught the leprechauns....

@steveparker8065

Жыл бұрын

@@Nickle314 According to economists at the ONS Britain's hidden debt is actually around £69.6 billion and not £16 trillion as you assert. Although the telegraph does make an argument that hidden public debt in liabilities is around £4 trillion. The Welfare state has not asset-stripped people, they pay for the safety net and many use it when in between jobs, sometimes through Illnesses and accidents or when pregnant or disabled. We give away over £2 billion to corporations in subsidies every single week and lose a similar amount via the tax gap through corporate non-payment. The wealthy are the problem, not the victims of a system that uses the unemployed and disabled to keep wages down and people in poverty.

@Nickle314

Жыл бұрын

@@steveparker8065 So hidden debt of 69.6 bn. So lets look at that and see if that makes sense. People are owed a pension for their past contributions. Some will even be around in 100 years time. So if you got to the uk public spending website [google doesn't like links] you will see the numbers. This year 178.5 billion will be paid on pensions You are claiming that just a one off payment of 69.6 bn, we can abolish the state pension, civil service pensions, and no one will be worse off. In other words, 69.6 bn for the additional debt is complete codswallop. Now for the ONS. They state [and I have this in writting] that the reason the state pensions are not included as a debt is that the probability they will be paid is zero. So have another go on the debts. I'll give you an easy one. How much do they owe public sector workers. I'll give you a hint. It's burried in the WGA, and even that number is fiddled down.

@steveparker8065

Жыл бұрын

@@Nickle314 The GDP of the UK was £2.2 trillion in 2022 and pensions amounting to £115.78 billion were paid out of this as is clear to see if you look at UK government spending. Roughly 5% of our annual GDP. Pensions that are owed are future liabilities and will come out of future profits via our GDP and government spending. Do you work out the cost of your whole life and then compare that to a single year's income? Because that's what you're doing...

@Nickle314

Жыл бұрын

@@steveparker8065 So lets clarify a debt This year the state will pay 88 bn in interest on a debt of 2,200 bn The cost of servicing the debt is 88 bn a year, the debt is 2,200 bn Just like on an interest only mortgage at 4% you pay 40,000 a year on a debt of 1,000,000 Debt goes on the balance sheet, debt servicing costs on the income and expense books. You can't con me by claiming that expense is the debt. If you look at pensions ,for 2023, the payments are 178.5 bn. Your 115.78 bn number for the debt expense is wrong. What's the number for the debt that goes on the balance sheet? You won't say because you can't find it. That's one of the two items you need to show that its a fraud. ie. The debt number is hidden.

Thanks Gary. I'd never actually thought about this, but what you said makes complete sense. Assets are fixed so can be taxed at source. It's great that you're putting out the kind of information that can empower ordinary working people, especially working class people, because it makes sense that wealthy well educated people that spent a fortune to learn economics or law at top universities don't want ordinary working people to know this stuff.

@billsykes5392

Жыл бұрын

Ever heard of intangible assets?

@martindenham2207

Жыл бұрын

@@billsykes5392 Like IP, copyright etc?

@billsykes5392

Жыл бұрын

@@martindenham2207 Yep, intangible assets are mobile, so wealthy people can mostly evade intangible asset taxation if they have the right legal and financial frameworks.

@martindenham2207

Жыл бұрын

@@billsykes5392 From what I understand (but am no expert), for intangible assets like IP, copyright or patents etc, they have to be legally registered, which would make them tangible assets within the country of registration right? However, IP, copyright or patents etc are only worth something when expressions of them are sold, which would be income from sales, which is taxable. Let's say you write a book or a song and get royalty cheques, that's income from sales. Disney licensing Star Wars to a t-shirt company is income for Disney, so taxable. Intangible assets might not be taxable by themselves, but they might not actually make money either unless expressions of them are sold, which is income, which is taxable.

This shorter straight to the point video are good for sharing around, great take and well summarised. 😄

Thanks Gary! Been pondering this over the week, it creates a rubber band effect on the super rich, capping their total worth to the offset of tax/asset generation, so something as simple as a 5% wealth tax could halt the ever growing wealth they horde

YES! THANK YOU! its so sad how ground into us the narrative is that if you raise taxes on the super rich of the owner class theyll just leave and thatll hurt the economy. they arent producers, they just earn passive income on other people's production, so them leaving would not weaken the economy significantly. they can take their money, which is already kept out of the economy as things stand, but they cant take the productivity of their land and their employees with them

Perfectly put. Thanks man, I am really beginning to think that your message might actually seep through to people in general and mobilise us into action. Certainly, this is becoming more of a talking point in my friendship group.

So pleased this has been covered. A top 1% earner from employed income who originated from no inheritance is very different to a person in the top 1% through wealth. We need to wealth and land tax those in the top 1%.

Thank you, G! Another succinct, informative, logical video :) Keep up the amazing work! x

If their wealth is generated from assets that exist in this country, they should be paying tax to contribute to this country. They can live where they damn well want, it makes no difference.

@andrewharpin6749

Жыл бұрын

Exactly the "they will leave" narrative is BS, we can only tax the assets in this country, so they can move to a tax haven and they would still need to pay taxes on the assets in this country.

As always, on point and clear.

This should go viral.

If people have been watching & listening to what Gary has been saying from day 1, they would understand he is taking about the tax dodgers who use tax havens to avoid paying taxes.. pay attention. You need to invest over 1 million pounds at least to get citizenship on one of these tax havens, plus you need to be accepted. ❤

Absolutely love your very simple explinations. You made 100% sense 👍🏻 Looking forward to your next vlog

Again gary, amazing. The way how you explain it. Brilliant

Love this simply explained thanks Gary. The lack of social diversity within economics and politics has allowed con to run on working people for decades. We need to get widen access and increase awareness of exactly how the working majority are being exploited and apply as much pressure as possible to get the right policies to address the asset accumulation and concentration within a select class.

Sheer brilliance. Thank you so much for your wisdom.

I liked the concept I heard of earned wealth and Un-earned wealth.... We need more tax on unearned wealth.

@8G00SE8

Жыл бұрын

It's almost impossible to manage, if you tax someone on a stocks growth, do you refund them when it crashes?

I appreciate the great work you are doing Gary, I think the message is starting to get through.

Hey Gary, I just wanted to say thanks for opening my eyes to this fucked up economic system we live under. Keep up the good work!

You make so much sense! Thanks Gary for clearly explaining this stuff... just wish one of these parties implement in to their manifesto to tax the Wealth

Thanks for spreading what you learnt

that was such a good summary of the differences between wealth vs income. Keep up the good work.

This brilliant guy is to the point. It's time for all workers in the world to get together for 0 tax, why are we giving our sweat and tears to the rich and we get nothing, even at 100k a year, you're still poor.

Thanks Gary - there is still the argument that the rich can afford to pay for financial advice so are more literate about tax avoidance - they can initiate capital flight and transfer payments so it's hard to capture their passive income from wealth

@BrianMcGuirkBMG

Жыл бұрын

Transfer payments are fine if the transfer happens after the tax is taken. How does capital in the form of a building such as a shopping mall or skyscraper take flight?

@MatthewRivers-Davis

Жыл бұрын

@@BrianMcGuirkBMG Gary is referring to ownership of physical capital as in the Chelsea FC example but the flight can occur with human and financial capital as shares are dumped on the UK market and bought elsewhere and human capital where entrepreneurship and skills of the rich leave a market as Russia is experiencing. Governments can easily nationalise physical capital - true, it's difficult to get a shopping mall through customs :)

@BrianMcGuirkBMG

Жыл бұрын

@Matthew Rivers-Davis Shares are dumped on the UK market? What does that mean? Shares get their value based on company performance. Some shares have limitations on where they're allowed to be owned. The tax can be taken from the company based on tax rules long before dividend and share values get decided. It is possible to formulate rules which would capture the tax effectively. The complex structure of taxation is due to the ever lasting continuous pretzel shaped bending over backwards to allow the wealthy to escape tax and make the hoi polloi pay for everything. The point is that worry about the wealthy leaving is a complete and utter exaggeration.

Yet another great video - weird part in my mind is how hard the asset farmers fight to not pay their fair share given how little difference it would make to them and their lifestyle NOT having the money

@intraum

Жыл бұрын

broken system innit. the greediest, most selfish people are allowed (and encouraged) to push the system to its limits - in various ways, that's essentially how they got where they are.

@curmudgeon1933

Жыл бұрын

Cruelty is baked into the system. The idea is not to make themselves richer...but to ensure normal people don't get powerful enough to challenge the status quo.

Great knowledge TY

Brilliant again Gary

Very interesting thank you for pointing this out

Thanks Gary, another great vid. I’d love to see a tax law that meant plc’s had to tax share dividends at source rather then leave it to the wealthy individuals and their tax accountants to manage, hopefully eliminating tax avoidance in that context.

🤯🤯🤯....wicked! Thank you Gary.

Another banger G!

Utterly brilliant and concise explanation of the way our economy works. It is our economy and we have the power to change. Great work!

Of all your videos, this is the most important. It’s not often that my mind is blown - but it never dawned on me that the trope ‘tax the super rich and they’ll leave’ is one huge piece of bollocks!! Thank you Gary!!

Very interesting! Thanks for this video.

You get to the point, finally! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Why can't everybody else propagate this concept, which should be obvious by now, with so many others like you that were able to figure this out? Digits can be moved anywhere but they're useless without real assets to back them. You can only do so much with gold and other "portable goods" and art is just a scammy method of wealth transfer, but much worse than currency (value wise). You get them by taxing real estate and other immovable interests. We should not tax income or small investments when you can get much more by taxing the ones you should, how you should, and it would also be way more efficient because you'd have a much smaller number of parties to fiscalize.

Top geezer thanks 👍

Great explanation of why we can and should tax the super rich more. The misconception that super rich people means people with high paying jobs is very widespread.

Absolutely beautiful, succinct and perfect description of what’s wrong with how we view the economic landscape. Your work has armed me with the knowledge necessary to chat to my wife, wider family and friends, some of whom are instinctively conservative though not overtly political, that would see this as some sort of ‘lefty’ vision, a deliberate obfuscation that’s inflicted on them by ALL the media. This is daylight robbery of EVERYBODY who pay taxes through working thus forcing us to pay more tax due to this elite cohort paying next to or literally nothing. Thank you and keep up the fantastic work!

@Nickle314

Жыл бұрын

This is daylight robbery ======== By the STATE. You identify the probem, then you can't put two and two together.

very well explained thanks

Summed up in less than six minutes. Legend.

BIG UP GARY!!

Hi Gary, you should look into what's currently happening in Norway - the media reports an exodus of wealthy businessmen to Switzerland, because of increases to our wealth tax. They argue that their wealth isn't real money, it's the valuation of their company. They argue that to pay their wealth tax, they need to extract that money as income from their business (and then pay income tax on that again) - they argue that this money should've stayed in the business for further reinvestment (to create more jobs etc). What would your response to that be?

@WhoopaDoopaYay

Жыл бұрын

Another point I'll add is that they argue it's unfair that the wealth tax only applies to Norwegian citizens, which is why they're leaving - if they become citizens of say Switzerland, they are not subject to the wealth tax.

@billsykes5392

Жыл бұрын

Increasingly business profits are being sat on as a “rainy day fund” or used to enrich the CEO/top managers and shareholders who use the gains to acquire more wealth in unproductive assets like property etc. rather than productive business investment (UK being a case in point given historically low capital investment). By taxing wealth, profits essentially locked up in bricks and mortar/other intangible assets are put to work in the real economy e.g. essential public services provision.

@billsykes5392

Жыл бұрын

Additionally the flight of wealthy Norwegians to Switzerland may potentially deflate asset prices, like property, making them more affordable to Norwegian citizens. This frees up more income for these citizens, who already have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich, and to set up their own businesses which is a positive for small-business entrepreneurship.

Superb explanation. TFS 🙂

Bro I enjoy listening you.

Brilliant content, explanations and delineations of terms that many (myself included) have gotten confused about in the past. It never ceases to amaze me that ordinary working folks don't get angry about this stuff to the level they do in France for example. It all begs the question 'Who is Britain for?'

Thank you Gary. Everyone should like his vids. More likes the more views.

So clear! First step to make it happen - vote out all Conservative Councillors In May. That will increase the chances of getting rid of the Tory Government, who will never tax wealth. Second step, actually get rid of the Tories at the next GE. Third step pressure Keir Starmer to do it. It may take a lot of pressure.

Whilst I strongly agree that taxation on wealth transactions should at least equal taxation on work, I think you need to take this along the line and clearly explain what you are suggesting Gary. When you say at 3:36 "we can still tax them because the money comes from you, and you are still here" it sounds very much like you wish to enhance the tax system to tax payments rather than just receipts - payers rather than recipients. Perhaps a form of R-A-T - Rich Added Tax? Surely the system would need to understand who specifically was to receive the money and what their financial position was at the moment of payment, before being able to understand if the transaction needed extra taxation? And just how difficult, expensive and impossible would that be to police? And how could it not be disguised by company involvement to obfuscate? At 4:45 you say "so we can tax their income wherever they are because their income comes from you". Seems to me you need to spell this out a lot more clearly mate otherwise you do risk sounding like you want to impact working people :). Imagine I make a £500 rent payment to an estate agent, and that money is eventually going to Mr Rich who lives in CantTouchMeLand. How does it work Gary?

@crashmachine9777

Жыл бұрын

He unfortunately has no answers, just a load of old tosh and a bunch of paid sheeple to big up the tosh.

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

@@crashmachine9777 I'm sure Gary can explain this to us, let's give him a chance.

@crashmachine9777

Жыл бұрын

@@EarthPoets Ok so I gave him another day but still nothing. This manip u later sounds like all the culture war-iors trying to profit from getting us angry with each other. Made his £ from other peoples loss too. Move on bruv!

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

@@crashmachine9777 Come on man, a day's nothing, he's probably very busy. Let's give him a chance to explain how the system he proposes would work.

@crashmachine9777

Жыл бұрын

1 day becomes 2 days and the tosh gets watched and liked by who knows what or who and more comms get written by who knows what or who and questions of the what or who go unanswered by the what or who. Seems to me this guy is a perfect example of the decreasing value of a degree. If he has one then whoever paid should ask for their money back because this is less than O level delivery..

Short messages are good for the KZread attention span.

Good point, well made. Having valuable assets that are increasing in value and produce a good return attracts investment and those assets continue to increase in value. If you tax them a bit but they still make loads of wealth from it the books still look good and they will want to invest anyway. But the fact that they can’t leave means we shouldn’t be fed this nonsense.

income is social mobility accumulated assets is leverage on other people who don't have assets (aka social control over other people) high taxes on income, while having low tax on assets is concentrating social control in the hands of a few... while reducing social mobility into said group of people who have 'control' (aka making the powerful even more powerful, while preventing the less powerful from joining that class)

Brilliant

Absolutely!

Love the videos Gary, you're doing such a great job. What do you say to the idea of capital strikes? The idea that if you tax the increadibly wealthy they won't invest in your country, sector etc and then that leads to job losses and increases in poverty? Thanks

I already know most of this but I think this guy does a fantastic job of explaining it in layman's terms. People don't get wealth and how you pay minimal tax (I know as I'm doing OK and my wealth grows at a rate beyond my entire salary now) on it whilst the worker pays a huge proportion. There really needs to be a rethink of taxes as its crucifying the young.

The effective tax rate Rishi Sunak pays is a great example of the disparity between people who only earn income from their jobs versus people who have "accumulated hoarded wealth".

Your videos are brilliant, thank you . I am in my 70’s and learning so much. Another question please. They say we need growth so cannot tax wealthy people or they will not invest and that investment is needed for growth in order to create more jobs. It is so clever that you point out that even if they move we can still tax them on their assets in this country. I bet they spend a fortune persuading politicians not to tax them.

Wow, you're absolutely right. I'm writing a Ebook on the mortgage scam and it's worldwide. Thanks for the video.

Yo...nice one...

Everyone should watch this.

GODDAMN this one great

Thank you for beeping out the swearing - this can be played to school children.

If we don't want inequality to keep rising then this is 100% needed

Great vid. Be useful to understand how this would look in a policy. Given many of the asset owners will be off shore, presumably this results in a transaction tax on rent and mortgage payments. Or are you proposing a yearly charge, like a council tax on fixed assets? Either way I am unclear how the taxes that are raised from this would not just be extracted as surcharges on the people at the bottom using those assets.

@darkangel686868

Жыл бұрын

If there was enough council housing built, people at the bottom wouldn’t need to pay absurd rent hikes to the private landlords that would hypothetically pay transaction tax on rental income received. A multi faceted approach needs to be adopted, in order to level the playing field, and stop the wealth/asset rich’s monopoly. Take away their power by taking away the scarcity of the resources they own.

Thanks Gary for another brilliant lesson; I never thought of fixed assets vs non fixed assets. The mainstream media/Rupert Murdoch media always drive you think of non fixed assets leaving the country. It would be really useful if you were able to do a video one day, of a scenario where wealth was taxed at exactly the same rate as income tax. I wonder just how rich the UK and it’s average citizens would be? I wonder how angry the working class would be if they found out?

Great

But isn't it the case that things like office buildings and supermarkets and multi story carparks are owned by people that don't live in the UK? Here in Australia most of this kind of asset is owned by people that don't even live here. In fact it's very likely that you'll be pushing shit up hill trying to find out who and/or where these people are.

@basil3663

Жыл бұрын

and if they wanna dodge taxes, we can make them forfeit that ownership. what are they gonna do, dig up their buildings and ship them across the sea?

@David-bi6lf

Жыл бұрын

The asset is still in the UK or Australia. Does not matter if they don't live there, the increase in value should be taxed and could be seized from the proceeds of sale if they dont pay.

@BrianMcGuirkBMG

Жыл бұрын

If they already live abroad, we don't have to fear them leaving the UK, do we? The tax can be applied on the asset in the UK. The holding company which owns the asset can be made liable for the tax. It's simpler than the wealthy would have you believe.

@mawkernewek

Жыл бұрын

a lot of that kind of commercial property seems to be owned via some kind of offshore entity in some way or another

@EarthPoets

Жыл бұрын

​@@David-bi6lf So is what you suggest that all UK sales are subject to capital gains tax, and if there are any current loopholes they should be closed and the total gain should be taxed here in the UK regardless of any other losses incurred by the individual in the same tax year wherever they may be resident? But how would you apply this to the asset rich with their sharp lawyers, and not to the rest of us? And aside from capital sales, how would it work for income from say rents?

Whatched an interview ya did respect from ascouser

Ah so fixed assets is the name for what the mega rich cannot hide. Nice. Is there a name for tracking where the printed money ends up in terms of income inequality or is that just a flaw in most economic systems? Great stuff as always!

Spitting the truth....Thank you....to be honest, i am very annoyed by this realisation .

Hello 👋🏽 Gary. Thanks for bleeping out the swear words! My 12 year old son is usually around when I watch your videos on a Sunday. Keep up the good work. Phupinder

🔥

Thank you, I would like to hear more about the mechanics of how we might "garnish" the wealth of those rather dangerous folks history calls Aristocrats.

So even if the leave, we could still tax the owners of the asset. But, what about farmers, not the farms owned by investment bankers, but actual working farmers, many of whom are struggling to make an income , would a wealth tax give them problems?

I wonder what Richie Sunak's first concerns are when he wakes up in the morning. Is it the state of the country or is it his wealth?

Not only do we need to tax wealth accumulation. We need to find a way to stop that accumulation from happening in the first place. Pre-distribution can be much more effective than redistribution after the fact

Many of the super rich have their millions the same place as you have yours Gary - in stocks and shares. They can move abroad quite easily. Not all wealthy own supermarkets, they might just have shares in supermarkets. Move abroad, get taxed somewhere else at a lower rate. You don't even need to sell your shares in Tesco's - you'll get taxed in your new country of residence instead. And let's say you have a farm - you move abroad, sell the UK farm. Pay the lower CGT (or none if they don't apply) in your new country of residence. Abramovich got clobbered not because of UK or global taxes but because of laws relating to sanctions on Russia and Russian Oligarchs in UK.

This might theoretically be correct, although plenty of big corporations are already moving income and assets around internationally to minimize taxes. For this to be a reality there would also have to be an international shift towards heavy enforcement against tax evasion schemes.

I agree that a new net wealth tax/land value tax is necessary. Unless the government finds out how to close the loopholes of gift without reservation for inheritance tax, buy hold and die for CGT and multiple property ownership tax loopholes for stamp duty then even policies such as equating CGT with marginal income rates aren't going to be a major equalizer as people could simply choose not to realize their gains or use gifts without reservation to pass on assets 7 days before they die. The loopholes need closing to have an impact on inter/intra-generational equity. That said, I'd have thought that the richest people are the most mobile and will continue to be the most mobile UNLESS we re-negotiate our double taxation treaties with other countries. Otherwise, they are able to seek non-dom status in country's which hold agreements with the UK not to tax income earned from UK assets or wealth held in the form of . This is part of the reason why France's wealth tax failed miserably due to tax avoidance. Perhaps this is a step that needs to be taken globally in order to enforce a wealth tax with minimal avoidance domestically. Only if these steps are taken (which is difficult in a deglobalizing world) will it be possible to tax wealth effectively and maximize its utility to reduce wealth inequality and lift people out of poverty with greater transfer payments. Sidenote- I've been watching this channel since the early days and I completely agree with Gary's reasoning behind a wealth tax. I also believe in its potential to be successful in order to redistribute some of the wealth accumulated through QE (post-2008 and post-COVID) and the cash cycle disruption (luxury non-essential spending savings) caused by COVID in the new asset economy. Some articles backed by empirical data estimates state that a 1% wealth tax on wealth greater than £1m over 5 years could raise as much as £260bn (either to pay off the national debt and ease ordinary worker's tax burdens or to redistribute). The main discussion points that have come up when I put forward the case of a wealth tax are Laffer curve (less applicable if small scale & less applicable to wealth than income if double taxation agreements are re-negotiated), liquidity issues (again most wealthy people above a certain threshold can easily make 1% of their wealth liquid to pay in tax), double taxation (perhaps a £10m wealth threshold is better than a £1m threshold), meritocracy (billionaires increasing their wealth 22% when half the population are struggling to afford their food and energy bills and can't acquire a home through jobs above 2.5x median income isn't meritocracy) and why can't the UK accept renting is a suitable alternative to home ownership (e.g only 39% of German's own their home compared to 60% of the British) (not a suitable alternative due to rogue landlords, rising yearly rental prices and renovation restrictions. Renting in the UK is not the same as Germany as Germany has more even wealth distribution, higher transfer taxes on real estate to avoid prices rising due to second property ownership and a broad supply of social housing built after WW2 to ensure that renting is affordable (in the UK it makes up 40% of disposable income!). I think a video going through and dispelling all of these types of arguments would be great and intrigued to know your thoughts on the double taxation agreement issue

so what is the plans to start doing this

true

Great video Gary. How would a tax on rich people that leave work in practice?

@garyseconomics

4 ай бұрын

Rich people own assets. Tax the assets.

@DileepaRanawake

4 ай бұрын

@@garyseconomics thank you ☺️ Your videos are incredible. So grateful for all you are doing.

Just seen you for the first time yesterday in the Novara interview and I really like what you're doing. I still have another question though about the usual arguments against a Wealth Tax, I'd also expect others will ask the same at some point and I want to make sure a well prepared answer is ready. -- What about people who bring their businesses here which are not based on physical assets in the in the UK such as a stadium (Chelsea FC), supermarket, etc.? To give an example, let's say a growing Silicon Valley Cybersecurity company is either looking to establish or already has established a presence in Europe and they've chosen the UK. We reap the benefits of the creation of jobs, money brought to the area, etc. The UK then increases tax on individuals / organisations, which is going to affect the example company's profits. This example company is not locked here by any physical assets. It operates based on their intellectual property and services. What would stop this example company from taking their offices and instead moving to say the Republic of Ireland, or another country in Europe? And if that scenario were to happen, would that be more or less harmful to the UK economy than the alternative situations you've described?

Gary, please, please, please read chapter 8 of the new book by Martin Wolf - it is totally up your street. I would love it if you both did a video together. I agree with what you are saying and I am spreading the word as much as I can, keep going!! ❤

@Roog1111

Жыл бұрын

Page 289 onwards will be of interest!

Wealth makes its own money for the Rich, Income's earned by workers, Wealthy MP's choose to tax workers not wealth ! Elect working class people to power to Tax the Rich

@martindenham2207

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Working class sensibilities are absent from many areas in life, but would certainly add a much needed voice in the room. Unfortunately, the media demonise the working class as yobs, knuckle draggers, benefit cheats & illiterate morons. I find this absolutely disgusting. I'm from a working class background & am none of those, none of my family are. We just know how to apply the necessary common sense and do the work that needs to get done.

Start with the ones pulling the strings of those ‘in power’, they’re actually ‘in service’ of these hidden players.

When Marx wrote his critique of Capitalism, the phrase that he coined, " all property is theft" ( I believe it was him?!!) was not such a strange idea. We have got so used to the idea that someone owns our mortgage, our house, the land around us, the places we work, the facilities we use etc, that we are blind to the concept of property and how just a few people got to own the things that are just there and the spaces in our lives and the means by which we survive. Another deliberate obfuscation of this concept was to extend the concept of property to personal belongings so that ordinary people somehow got to feel they have a stake in the property owning wealth. A deliberate blurring of the lines between personal belongings and ownership of your own spaces and things that directly support you, and someone else owning those things in order to extract money from you.

Can you go a video on silicon valley

Has anyone checked Prof. Michael Hudson, Steve Keen or Guy Standing - all of them have similar take on the economy and this modern version does not describe the real economy, they also talk about taxing assets/wealth/land.

Hey gary. If the rich have all the assets and we tax them an extra 1%, wouldn't they be able to raise rents and cost of goods, thereby still maintaining their wealth?

Finance can be moved about easier than fixed assets

Another great video, thank you. When it comes to taxing the super rich, you have previously advocated introducing a wealth tax, but in practice, wouldn’t valuing often illiquid assets each year be very difficult to do? Perhaps a simpler mechanism would be to abolish trust funds which allow the very rich to pass down wealth and avoid ever paying inheritance tax? This transfer of tax/wealth would only require valuing assets once at the point of death rather than yearly, so much easier to implement - especially as it already applies to most of us!

@garyseconomics

Жыл бұрын

That's a good point, and for that reason I only advocate wealth taxes on wealth above a very large amount like £10 million pounds. My preferred way of recirculating smaller fortunes back through society is the "Wealth Time Limit", which I explain in another video, and requires no valuations.

@timbennett3495

Жыл бұрын

@@garyseconomics Understood, but I think scrapping trust funds (which are nothing more than a tax loop hole for the rich) initially at least, would work better for these reasons: 1. The timing of tax collections starts immediately as people die, plus there is a very definite time you know tax will be be paid. Collections can also be forecast 2. With a 100 year time limit, there’s every chance of policy change before the 100 years are reached. I know I’d take my chances and hold out spending/selling, especially given I wouldn’t be alive anyway 3. Inheritance tax is already in place, it just needs to be extended to the wealthy, so practically it’s simple to roll out 4. Promoting the idea politically to the public is much simpler, you just need to highlight that trust funds are nothing more than a tax loop hole for the rich. The vast majority of voters do not have trust funds and will pay inheritance tax, so it’s an easy sell

When thatcher dropped income tax the the amount of tax brought in dropped by £6 billion, they were l ying when they claimed they would leave and go depending on the tax system. You know why because it's their home. Not just that we are a country we should not make are tax policy on the whims of some millionaire.

I am a bit confused! If they leave and they are still getting their income from us in another country how can we still tax them, surely they would pay tax in another country? I really want to hear the explanation.

Real money is weapons, land, resources, and owning the labour of another human being!