Taxing The Rich Is Not The Answer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 мар 2024
- Joe Biden has announced that he wants to tax the rich to solve the American Economy problems.
The proposed tax would be insignificant relative to the gaping hole in the US budget. And if the billionaires are forced to sell their shares, that would annihilate the US stock market.
But aside from that, it is unfortunately populist nonsense because it plays on the fake dogma of the rich not paying their fair share.
☕️ JOIN MY PATREON - DISCORD, BONUS VIDEOS, TARGET PRICES, MODELS & MORE
/ sashayanshin
💵 GREAT INVESTING APPS I USE
INTERACTIVE BROKERS (Global - Main investing app I use)
bit.ly/ibkr-sasha
GET A FREE SHARE WORTH UP TO £100 WITH TRADING 212 (UK & Europe)
www.trading212.com/promocodes...
You need to sign up and make a deposit within 10 days to get a free share.
DISCLAIMER: Your capital is at risk.
DISCLAIMER: Some of these links may be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service using one of these links, I will receive a small commission from the seller. There will be no additional charge for you.
DISCLAIMER: Trading 212 provides execution-only service. This video should not be construed as investment advice. Investments can fall and rise.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial advisor and this is not a financial advice channel. All information is provided strictly for educational purposes. It does not take into account anybody's specific circumstances or situation. If you are making investment or other financial management decisions and require advice, please consult a suitably qualified licensed professional.
Sasha, I agree with you on most issues but not this one. I know many people on that top 1% and I know that most of them have tax avoidance schemes ranging from LLCs to Trusts. Most borrow against their holdings at low or no interest Even Warren Buffet has stated publicly the top 1% has won the class warfare and that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. I don't think you fully understand how tax avoidance for the rich in the U.S. really works. There is even something called the Carried Interest Exception that allows people to avoid taxes on their holdings and income. It's disgusting! If we closed all the loopholes that rich have purchased in congress, we could eliminate our deficit. Bill Clinton proved that our budget can be balance while the economy grows even while raising taxes. I'm sick of hearing how "job creators" are entitled to not pay taxes. I expect someone 10 times wealthier than me to pay at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as I'm forced to pay. The rich buy their tax loopholes in congress and then complain when the finger is pointed at them.
He was talking about taxing billionaires, do you know any of them? So listen and think
@@digitalpl5409 Thanks for your rude comment. I did listen. I just disagree. I know people with much higher incomes who pay a lower tax rate than me.
Sunak paid 24% on his £2.2 million income, not assets or company values. Normal people pay 30% on their income. There is some way to go before I would consider that fair.
Source??
@@thelasthourgetready I am sorry. He only paid 23% according to the Daily Torygraph. 24/2/2024. Can't put the URL as it won''t let me but you can find it if you look.
@@thelasthourgetready it was on the news a few weeks ago look it up fella
according to Sky News it was 23%. It was low because much of it was capital gains taxed at 20%
Our king didn't pay a penny tax on his inheritance either
Hey Sasha, while you make some good points there, how about this. The Duke of Westminster inherited about 8 billion of property, but because he had some clever account mysticism he paid zero inheritance tax. Now ordinary people who inherit over the threshold have to pay 40% of tax on inheritance.
Now if he had paid tax on the it would have been enough to cut NI by 1p.
Personally I think we should be paying a flat rate of tax on any income and loans based on shares, etc are being used as income, so tax it rather than let them buy another diamond encrusted toilet to take a tax free shit in.
What's the justification for an inheritance tax? How about we simply call the receipt of any gifted cash income and tax it as ordinary income along with the rest of the recipient's tax bill? Gifted illiquid assets can be sold and ordinary income tax applied or held for more than a year and sold sometime later when a long term capital gains tax would be paid.
I get what you’re saying mate, but he didn’t pay zero tax on the 8 billion plus, he pays (or is paying) a few hundred million in tax on it once every decade. Still some bs that people like that can getaway with this sort of thing, but accuracy is important. And he did because the money didn’t go directly to him, instead it went into a trust hence why there was no inheritance tax only the few hundred million every decade. But the worst thing is that the trust itself can earn money and potentially cancel out the those payments anyways.
You can give all your wealth over to your offspring under the exact same rules at the rich people. Sign your house over X years before you die. Gift £X000 a year, those type of things. You obviously just don't know the rules. But sure fuck everybody else.
A flat tax is unfair. 10% of a £20,000 salary leaves a lot less disposable income than 10% of £2,000,000.
Tax is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth. If you want a nicer room, you have to pay for it.
you know one day this tax might affect you? im not rich but borrowed money from my dad which was sent as a gift, if i had to then pay tax it would be a nightmare and i wouldnt of been able to do it. non rich people use gifts for stuff to. how about we all have less useless government and then all pay less tax. @@maplemutt158
I'd love to see you have a debate with Gary Stevenson
pin
pin
He would run circles around Gary.
@@WillyJunior are you kidding Gary has a masters in Economics and Sasha struggles with accounting for marginal propensity to consume
He wouldn't because Gary would maul him.
I think quite a lot of this is oversimplified. Can't rebut every point in a comment section but its at least it's worth recognising that both Norway and Switzerland, two countries that have some of the highest living standards in the world, have wealth taxes. The sky hasn't fallen in. Stock markets haven't collapsed. In fact they regularly top league tables for standards in all sorts of things, from educational outcomes to crime rates to healthcare, life expectancy (could go on, the list is quite long). Inequality matters, including for the rich funnily enough, and a thoughtfully implemented wealth tax wealth can contribute to reducing it. Living examples amply demonstrate that it's not beyond the wit of humankind.
yeah, I feel that Sasha is being a paid representative for capitalism here. A lot of what he said is fear-mongering, but it's also indicative of the situation we've created for ourselves with "late-stage" capitalism where work doesn't pay and people try to recover by entering the casino known as the stock market. Problem is, it's the house that always wins. I generally like Sasha and agree with much of what he says but I felt that this was a bit too much, like the next step is the government coming for whatever he's made from RUclips and in the stock markets. Death and taxes...
This.
Interestingly enough neither of those 2 countries are members of the EU. Secondly, Norway has a massive wealth fund which they put to good use from all the oil reserves they have & Switzerland has been home to the favourite banks of choice for crooks, despots, dictators etc for decades. Such services don't come cheap! Coincidentally, both countries have more stable populations compared to there neighbours but i'm sure that's not a factor in why they regularly top such tables.
Well that's why the biggest business in Norway are slowly moving away from Norway.... Biggest salmon farmer are moving to neighbors country 😅(I live in Norway)
You're completley right, but I think the point is not that wealth taxes (where effective) should not be implemented, but that on their own they in no way solve the problem that governments want to spend far far more than they collect in tax.
Work is taxed more than profits from investments. This needs to be balanced out. I agree the rich boogeyman trope isn’t helpful but neither is the fact that in the UK the likes of Zahawi and Sunak pay a lower effective rate of tax. Wealth inequality is a major problem. If proportional wealth taxes aren’t the answer, what do you think is?
Sasha likes the idea of doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Society and crypto-bro culture is definitely swinging towards the 'passive income' craze as the solution to the hard times we are in, and the fact that it doesn't pay to work any more is definitely a major factor behind this. I could have scaled my business at approximately 5x over the last 5 years but the UK tax system makes it too much of a gamble/ball-ache to do so I ride the thresholds and settle for less.
If inflation is 2% and you make 4% half of your earnings aren’t real but you’re still advocating they be taxed.
Sorry Sash, also with Gary Stevenson here, importantly distinguishing proper wealth from being a bit rich. Which is always the clever distinction to cause not that wealthy people (even if they think they are, in todays money anthing under 8 digits isn't the target) to fight for selfish reasons.
Extreme wealth is like a blood clot if the economy were a cardiovascular system and money was both nutrients/blood.
It's like a fountain with all the freaking water stuck in the top tier and the bottom pumped to death, dry, covered in cracks.
It's like an engineer designing an engine that runs off its own fumes and the wealthy are the energy inefficiency in the system, eventually it starves itself.
It's like anything in the freaking universe that tries to grow, exponentially, forever. It eventually violently implodes or explodes.
The simple maths of it, just doesn't ever add up indefinitely.
True value/wealth has to flow, be cyclical, it can't get stuck, overconcentrated in a hyper-localised point in the economy unable to move around and do broadly useful work.
Fun fact: most taxes that everyone pays started off as “tax the rich” efforts. Even income tax!
Eventually, wealthy people find ways around those taxes and everyone else ends up paying them.
“Tax the rich” ends up becoming “tax the middle class” pretty quickly.
@@daniel_tennerAware of that, doesn't change the logical fallacy of not bothering due to the flows of wealth stagnating the broader economy. That would be like saying we removed the blood clot and another formed in my previous anaology and then just giving up.
Or we got the pump working again and added some water to the fountain but it's dried up again, let's let it collapse.
Same problem, new cycle. Still needs solved.
If Gary Stevenson ever comes up with a working mechanism for wealth taxes and runs the numbers through in a way Sasha does, I will be amazed.
Your not moving the clothes. Your simply not addressing the issue. Taxing the rich just raises the cost of goods they produce. The rich stay rich.
@@MacCraig8 If you buy a product that you want from a business, who gets poorer from that transaction?
You could look at this from the other side of the equation: the labour share of value in the UK has fallen from 72% when figures were first compiled in 1955 to about 58% (and falling) now. The situation in the US is similar. In the UK consumption is depressed and the capital share of income increasingly isn’t going into innovation and infrastructure investment. Most people I know are worried that the decay of public infrastructure and rising inequality are going to lead to fascism.
We've already got fascism in the UK. The government is currently trying to get anyone and anything that disagrees with them labelled as 'extremist'. The Prevent strategy is literally now stating holding left-wing views is a sign of radicalisation!
But maybe we should also remember that before WWI, 90% of private property was owned by the richest 10% in Britain (the top 1% richest owned 70% private property then). This started falling significantly around WWI (the middle class was born), fell even more sharply around WWII until the richest 10% only owned about 50% private property in 1990. They currently own about 55% with the richest 1% owning 20%. Happy to hear views on why this may not be representative of reality; I doubt if trust structures are included in the numbers.
Don't you mean communism? Or is that the same thing as fascism now?
Absolute living standards are more important than inequality. The complete equality you see under communist regimes consistently leads to mass starvation, poverty and massively reduced living standards. The economy isn’t a zero sum game.
@@meltedsnowman9637 Although living standards are important obviously, inequality is very insidious in that it can appear to be no problem at all until all of a sudden the middle class and the government are both broke and your on a slippery slope to reactionary politics and societal collapse.
Close tax loopholes, more efficient public programs, free public education like state universities, free medical. It makes me sick that people from the strongest country decide not to go to hospitals because of medical bills.
issue is that the very people who make the policies, are self motivated to make it benefit them. Look at our chancellor jeremy hunt. in 2016 a policy came in place that stamp duty on additional properties moved to 3%... unless you bulk bought six properties or more, and what did our chancelor do? he bought 7 properties.
500k people go bankrupt every year due to medical bills in the U.S.A.
free? you people lmao. there's no such thing as free.
@@Anon-nv7bpexactly, that's why tax the rich
When will the people learn that "free stuff" by the government costs you actually at least double if not more compared to just outright pay for the product or service you want.
It isnt about them not earning the money, its about the fatal flaw in capitalism which is ever increasing inequality, which pulls up the ladder of opportunity, is shown to reduce productivity, and often accrues due to rent capitalism not innovation. Using capital monopoly to asset strip normal people. If you dont correct for this flaw you will produce totalitarianism and/or a socialist reaction. Your crypto and share portfolios wont save you from the pitchforks and flaming torches. How you redistribute is open for debate, but don't and we'll end up either oppressed by power or redistribution via populist reaction.
I agree, this is not about wealth, it's about the accelerating rate of inequality.
The people who contribute the most to society earn the most money. This upsets a lot of people but it's true. The system works and it's evident to see.
@@snappie-riversofengland7589 Lol.
And you think somehow that government will fix this ? 😅
Nah, it's not about capitalism. It's about an oligarchy that used money to influence laws so that rich don't pay taxes at the same time when regulations and high taxation prevent poor from leveling up. The answer is not redistribution, as it only conserves the system, the answer is protecting freedom, including protecting capitalism and free market. Nowadays working people need to finance the excessive spending of the government through extortionate taxation. That causes them to consume less and the whole economy to produce less = everyone gets poorer. You won't change it by redistribution as all it does is to even more decrease economic activity, which weakens the economy and again, everyone gets poorer. Of course everyone but those who set the system in such a way, but it has nothing to do with capitalism as it used to be this way in all other systems too, the world used to be even more unequal! Look at feudalism, the disparity between the ruling class and the people was huge. Look at communism, vast majority of the people was very poor, yet those connected to the ruling class had anything they wanted. Only capitalism and free market had the power to almost eradicate poverty. But instead of protecting it, people are willing to trade their freedom as well as most of the money they make (through taxation) in exchange of ever decreasing social benefits and government funded services. Their quality need to decrease as the economy weakenes and there is less money to fund them. Redistribution never worked without external cash inflow; not in USSR, not in Cuba, not in Argentina and the latest example of Venezuela. Even Germany went into trouble having one of the best economies in the world. It is not sustainable to punish people for working and achieving success and reward them for doing nothing and staying poor.
You and Gary Stevenson should have a chat. For what it’s worth I think your analysis is good. But long term inequality reduction is fundamental. History has shown it.
I doubt he'd understand. Gary is spot on
@@ModoBroimagine trying to tell Gary how stocks work😂
Gary wants something like a 1% wealth tax for the super rich. Would be interesting to see a debate about it.
@@Kaan-wx7zg yeah that would be interesting but Sasha is quite eloquent. I think Gary has the actual insight fundamentally right though.
@@nick255
Yes some straw men here from Sasha. He’s suggesting a 25% wealth tax wouldn’t work. Well derrr! No one is advocating a 25% wealth tax! More like 0.5-1.0% He also talks about small business owners getting stung, again Gary talks about wealth over £10mill . I’m not sure Sasha has heard what serious advocates of wealth taxes are suggesting, and has just launched on a rant
I'm with Gary Stevenson on that one, mate.
100%
Me too. Gary's right.
read his book, it's surprisingly well-written: insightful, descriptive, yet reads like a page burner novel. I just bought it and I'm blown away by Gary's facility with language as well as math. Very recommended.
Only issue with Garry is he's ret@rd3d and so are you
Yep, Gary is bang on
Some slight straw-manning of some of the issues there I'd say. I agree with the premise that governments' primary focus should be on weeding out corruption rather than making productive and innovative entrepreneurs foot the bill. (Obviously they'll never do that because so many of them benefit from the same corruption) However, I am in favour of at least a small rise in capital gains tax (not taxing nominal wealth per se). When you have a growing class of super-rich with so much money they literally don't know what to do with it, and a huge proportion of working people who can't afford to feed their kids, at a certain point inequality becomes so vast that you completely destabilise the economy and society. And that's not good for anyone.
I agree - don't hammer entrepreneurs, but stamp out all these loopholes. The economy is like a game of Monopoly - in the end, all the wealth falls into the hands of a single person. Hard to address this issue.
Agree except raising capital gains tax doesn't close most (if any) of the loopholes, rich money already mostly avoids CGT, it would mainly hurt smaller less sophisticated investors and entrepreneurs who wouldn't know how to or be able to avoid it.
Mansion tax always seems like a good idea - do they still do that in France ? ... 1% of the value of your property above 1M Euros
Yes, but at the same time a so-called small rise in capital gains tax (or any tax for that matter) is magnified the lower income you have. If the capital gains tax went up, I can always buy more dividend stocks to cover that increase. Yet the family that is just trying to get by and wants to increase their investing would have to pay a larger % based on the money that they have to buy such investments
I mean it's really simple. Just tax the corporations more. Funny side effect is that stock valuations are based on the earning potential of companies. So you tax the corporation, and the stock value will drop, which will make the wealthy poorer. lol.
Borrowing against the stocks != income. Thats the hack. Wealthy can take the low interest rate loan backed by pile of stocks and purchase more assets that yield higher returns than the loan interest. So taxes are only incurred when they sell just enough stock to pay the loan. The issue is pronounced even more if the loan is taken through a corporate entity and not in their personal name.
Talk about BS, look in the mirror, Sasha. In the USA, from the 1920's through the early 1960's, the tax rate on the highest earners was 90%, even with Republican administrations in the White House. During this time the USA became a world superpower, built out the interstate freeway system, built state of the art research institutions on college campuses from coast to coast and brought electricity and ease of air travel to the far reaches of the country and had a very manageable debt.
Since the early 1960's, the income tax rate on the highest earners has been cut but 50%, the USA now has a crumbling infrastructure that was built in the mid-20th century and earlier, spends over $1 trillion each and every year on "defense", with a population that has more than doubled and is now some $30 trillion in debt. You cant cut your income while increasing your expenses and liabilities and think it's going to get better in the long term.
Also, where do you think this government deficit is goes? Government spends that money on public salaries, contracts, etc. even if they send it abroad to Ukraine some of that money returns to US as they buy weapons from US. Grow up and start thinking straight. Taxing billionaires that way would bring more damage to all society than good things.
Okay, what do you propose as policies instead? Sweeping deregulation, privatization, austerity and trickle down economics have all proven to not benefit the average person, so any alternative proposals have to not fall into any of those categories.
Lower tax for the lower classes and increase social mobility…Denmark is a good example
Land value tax is the best answer
1 55-60% of wealth is land value, so it does tax the rich but also is a massive tax base, everyone more or less either owns land or pays someone who does
2 Land cannot move when taxed, unlike other forms of wealth
3 Drives down house prices (which makes it unpopular with many, but is actually a good thing)
4 Lowers rents by driving supply
5 Limits/ends boom and bust, 2008 would not have happened without land speculation
Anarcho Capitalism. Not Argentinian leader version. Proper Anarcho Capitalism
What if policies aren't the answer..... what if personal accountability and less spending fix all of this.
@@High1QWealth I actually live in Denmark! We're not perfect and I do have policy ideas that could improve my country, but I'm glad to live here!
I think Sasha started by creating a caricature of people that advocate this sort of stuff - that they are mainly motivated by an unthinking anger/jealousy at the rich. In my experience most people are more thoughtful than he gives them credit for, and more interested in making a rational argument as to why it would make more economic sense and ultimately benefit everyone. Also the idea that this gets a lot of attention doesn't really stand up to scrutiny imo. It's barely mentioned these days on mainstream media or by either of the two dominant parties.
I literally played you one of the most talked about parts of Joe Biden's State of the Union address yesterday...
And yes - it gets a lot of attention on social media.
Channels blowing up because they keep telling people that the rich are to blame for everything.
In my experience the thoughtfulness level of nearly 50% of the population is below the average level of thoughtfulness of the population.
I suppose I was thinking about UK context really - because that's what what lot of your content relates to. But I'll own up to not knowing as much about the US context and general response the the address. Maybe you could cite these channels blowing up though? Because I'm interested and we probably inhabit different bubbles.
Still stand by former point about caricatures, which I think didn't leave a great deal of room for nuance!
Wealth taxes are much more fairer and patriotic than income taxes
@@SashaYanshin but rich people don't care about us so why should we care about them
This is daft mumbo-jumbo - the transfer of wealth to the tiny few over the last two decades is astonishingly vast - and has nothing whatsoever to do with meritocracy or competition. Redistribution of that wealth is now essential to re-balance the playing field to allow for healthy competitive capitalism - or else we simply introduce feudalism again. Smart RUclipsrs like Sasha are only as smart as their knowledge allows. In this case Sasha has hit his boundary.
Wrong
@@WitnessmooNot wrong, read any history book about the collapse of any empire. I suggest the French Revolution for a recent example.
Feudalism 🤣
Did you just miss the part where he went over the numbers? The point is that "taxing the rich" wont actually solve all the problems. Even a successful wealth tax is a drop in the ocean compared to government budget deficits. In a matter of months the additional tax raised will be spent and you will be left in the same position except with shrinking tax receipts as there is now less wealth available to tax, because it has already been taken.
@@alexanderrowe790but that's the point of a wealth tax - to take enough away from the billionaires so that they aren't billionaires anymore. If they don't hold the money anymore, others will. That's the whole point of redistribution.
And that's before we get on to the fact that a budget deficit for a currency-issuing government like the UK is never a problem because it is only owed to itself. CIGs don't tax in order to spend, they spend before they tax - there is no other way for people to get hold of their money in order to pay their taxes otherwise.
This is a super bad faith and basic argument - government can find ways to tax assets and capital properly instead of income if they really wanted to.
Income should be favoured over capital in our society. We should not tax sweat anywhere near as much as capital.
why would you want to tax people for working hard? Whether it be the everyday worker or the successful businessperson
@@stevenporter9114 that's exactly my point. We should tax labour and income very little.
We should tax capital gains much higher because it doesn't take much work - once you have capital it just grows itself.
Makes no sense capital gains is taxed significantly less than income
@@Alger0us I would totally disagree with you that capital gains earning doesn't take much work. Due to health a few years ago I had to quit working and I was scared to death of what I was going to do to be able to make money and be able to keep making an income. I taught myself about the stock market and now make a living off of that. I have built up my capital, but I assure you that if I didn't manage it properly it would not just grow by itself. That is like telling a farmer to just put the seeds in the ground and they will grow from there. It takes a lot of work to watch over your crops and make sure that they can take care of you
@@carruthers100 Always love when people try to talk about shit they don't know. If you think that investing in a company is the same as Vegas then you are totally clueless. Not to worry most people are. Nothing in life is guaranteed. You have no idea if you will even make it through another day. Does that mean that you are gambling every day? Maybe. You are right someone needs to cleam the toilets, pick up the trash, greet people at Walmart.
@@Alger0us How much work it takes isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is how productive certain things are for the economy. Taxing capital gains very highly would create disincentives from starting businesses, when businesses are how wealth is fundamentally created, as the return on starting a business is from a return on the increase in share price. It would also disincentivise investing in productive areas of the economy, where investments make the economy more productive and help more goods and services to be produced.
The moral of the story is we need the rich to keep the plebs poor because if the rich become a little less rich the plebs become poorer
What about a small additional tax on the sale of physical goods that the super rich like to buy like superyachts and mansions?
Also, what about the effect of quantitative easing and low interest rates in boosting asset values?
The government keep cutting programmes and public services for ordinary people, some of which are a small percentage of GDP too.
A luxury consumption tax would be good, yeah. If someone can afford to splurge on a yacht, they can afford paying the extra tax attached.
They will find a way to buy it or rent it without paying a penny of taxes. They will buy a yacht in the name of an offshore company, or will make a long term lease, or rent or whatever.
I don't agree that a luxury consumption tax is good. These luxury items are made by regular people who are good at what they are doing and working in the Western world not in China. Such tax will hit consumption of these types of items so many regular people with skills will stay without jobs, just because the government wants to collect more money.
Go and watch Gary's Economics (former millionaire trader and Oxford educated economist who has been consistently right for years) and Economics Help UK.
There's some serious strawmaning and generalised ad hominem from Sasha here. If 1% of people are paying 44% of income tax, then it points to serious disequillibrium in income to begin with.
The availability of passive income through rent extraction and the rich being so rich as to buy up assets to the point that people can't afford homes or spend more and more on rents, directly threatens available expenditure in the economy.
See also Scientific American's article from a few years back that used the Affine Model mapped to the US and EU economies over decades and studied the phenomenon of symmetry breaking that occurs through this same cycle of buying up assets.
That has nothing to with hard work in many cases. It ends up devaluing the hard work of a lot of people who perform essential jobs in the economy and who deserve better than having to choose whether to eat or heat their homes.
@@ivangeorgiev4664 Couldn’t agree more. A rich person paying for a Yacht is basically wealth flowing back to society. The act of buying luxury goods by itself is already a wealth redistribution. Taxing those goods beyond existing tax rates would mean to punish "The Rich" for paying regular workers. As more luxury goods get bought as more money is flowing back. Increasing taxes on those products would probably just mean less demand for it and in turn reducing the back flow of wealth to “regular” people.
It's about inequality. When all the wealth is being extracted to the few at the top, who then buy all the assets, that's the reason prices sky rocket and the reason house prices are out of reach for the vast majority of people. Sasha is only about the stock market. His sole focus is keeping all the wealth in the stock market. That's it.
yep, this guys talking horse sh1t
inequality is irrelevant . what's more useful is everyone being above a minimum standard.
the problem is the super rich using tax free loans to buy stuff, something the ordinary cannot do. loans should be taxed like income, dividends should be taxed like income, capital gains should be taxed like income. get rid of all other double taxation, national insurance, vat, death tax, corporation tax etc. Just one simple all-inclusive income tax that covers income from employment as well as investments and loans. so, when a millionaire takes a loan of 500,000 out, that's considered income and they pay tax on it. just as an ordinary person who worked 30 years to save that money would've paid income tax on the whole thing. It's only fair. What's not fair is paying 40% tax when you drop dead on any amount of money, or paying VAT on products when you already paid income tax on the money you used to buy the product. double taxation isn't fair.
additionally, stop the super rich from foreign countries from buying up property and stop immigration, that'll lower demand and halt the house price increase. 500,000 net people came to the UK in just a year, theyve gotta live somewhere.
💯🔥
@@Anon-nv7bpInequality isn't irrelevant. It's the only thing that matters.
@@Anon-nv7bp"What's not fair is paying 40% tax when you drop dead on any amount of money" uhhhhhhhhhh IHT doesn't apply up to £325K, not including a house. "paying VAT on products when you already paid income tax on the money you used to buy the product" please, I'm begging you, read a book. The Daily Mail doesn't count.
So the Duke of Westminster dies and not one penny of inheritance tax is paid in his estate.
You’re being hyperbolic here, no one is advocating for 25% wealth tax, 1% from 5 million upwards would be enough. Switzerland is already implementing that
Joe Biden is!
I’m pretty sure that Joe Biden is actually referring to ensuring that billionaires pay a minimum 25% rate of tax in their income, not wealth. £50 billion a year is nowhere near 25% of total wealth of the top 1%. Even Bernie Sanders isn’t advocating that!
A sensible figure that has been suggested is 5% over 5 years which is 1% a year. The average billionaire’s wealth grows at an average rate of 8% per annum (no idea where that figure came from but I’ve heard it twice now) so their wealth would only grow by 7% for 5 years. That makes the policy proposal far less shocking. Say the government hypothecated it for social housing and actually spent it on that. We could build many many new homes.
It can be done and I suspect will within the next 10 years. If the wealth disparity grows too large social unrest will inevitably occur and that isn’t good for anyone. Rich or poor 😲
It wouldn’t matter though to the budget so you’re just doing it to satisfy your envy
Biden never said that billionaires should pay taxes on their wealth. He said they should pay min 25% of their income vs the average 8% they pay now.
So we just stop allowing people to take loans out against their shares? If they need money sell your shares
The tricky part of the borrowing on shares is that in the current US tax law, on death of the owner of the shares, the shares are inherited at the new cost basis on current price, which means gains are realised via loans, but *never* taxed. Closing that seems reasonable, as does a wealth tax (as seen in countries riddled with billionaires like Switzerland)
telling people not to simplify it down to a 4 year old level after literally using a 2 person village as his example.
The point is more just that people use incorrect reasoning rather than saying they’re explaining something complex simply.
With all due respect Sasha, society can only produce so many goods. When we've got billionaires consuming so much of the production of our economy building and maintaining yachts, mansions, and skyscrapers we aren't making things like regular homes that the people need. When you've got a billionaire with a 500 bedroom house that house had to be worked on by an army of people and maintained by even more since that billionaire will definitely not be doing any physical labor. Ultimately we need the mega wealthy to stop taking all the resources for themselves and the only way to do that is to reduce their spending power. Then we reallocate those resources to things people actually need like housing and food.
I know plenty of people who do nothing with their day. Go ask them to help you with building stuff.
Do remember the millions of people the billionaires employ though!
@@thoughtsofmoog but they dont. What employs people is the demand for goods and services. When a handful of people are the only ones capable of demanding and affording goods and services then economies grind to a standstill for the masses while the handful of people simply acquire more.
Ah but remember the Capitalist Ponzi scheme is built on the idea of ever expanding markets with infinite growth and exploitation of resources. Consumed the resources of planet Earth? no problem go asteroid mining etc. The only problem is that nobody has yet created an alternative that can survive human nature.
Now imagine a world where they took away the incentive to do all these things. Do a little research on North Korea where the government can come in and take whatever they want. Do you think the people there are enjoying life?
If the rich are not a problem then what is @Gary Economics talking about the rich buying up asset classes the cause long term problem for the working man.
Assets didn’t went up because of the rich. Housing became unaffordable because of low I retest rates for 2 decades and money printing.
Not to forget the fact we have mostly peace since WW2. War is the main reason fix assets like property goes down in value (look at Ukraine) and we didn’t have a major war for 80 years
@@zurielsssbut unfortunately it’s the rich that have managed to take that advantage to purchase more assets which leaves the next generation struggling to get on the ladder 🪜
16:03 the "you're just jealous" argument is cheap at best. The rich literally own farmland our food is grown on, and the homes we pay rent for. They own stocks and shares of energy companies we pay to every month, you name it. The average working class home is owned and traded by people with net worths of tens of millions, and is therefore traded within their price range. These people have monopolized the economy, capitalism has made a full circle and is now consuming itself. Countries like China have introduced laws to keep home ownership in the 90th percentile. There is a huge wealth gap going on and taxing the wealthy in the right places will discourage skimming.
If you think China is so great then go live there for a couple of years. See if it is really what you think it is. Capitalism is not the problem. I bet you like drinking your coffee in the morning, watching tv, listening to music, driving a car, having a selection of clothes to wear everyday, having food to eat, being able to brush your teeth, being able to go to the hospital if you get sick. All of these things are brought to you because of capitalism
@@stevenporter9114 All of these things exist under other systems e.g. communism...
@@gordon1201 Yeah, sure they do. Just ask the people living in Russia how great life is.
I've worked in China for five years in one of the more rural provinces. Not a perfect country, but there is a lot we can learn from them if we stop pointing fingers. It is not the communist hell hole you were made it out to believe and the average person gets a lot of bang for their buck compared to our relative spending power. there's room to grow and nothing has been monopolized to the point where the working man has no chance. Food and rent isn't fleecing people the way they are in the west. They're outdoing us on many fronts, and I say this with no exaggeration. @@stevenporter9114
Russia is not a communist nation. @@stevenporter9114
Sasha, the main issue is that working people especially those on PAYE pay a far higher rate of tax than the rich. And the bigger issue is that the economy is structured to stop working people building wealth and exacerbate inequality.
There's a reason why they don't teach investing in schools.
Hungry hippos. You need to redistribute the marbles to continue playing, you cant have the government print money indefinitely to create more billionaires.
Rishi paid 23% tax last year on millions he made doing nothing. I had no idea Sasha loved Rishi so much.
How did he get the initial money? Rob? Worked hard?
@@FreaksSpeaks He married well and he was also an investment banker.
@@dtz1000 legs money and legal.income and he paid what is required? Not avoiding any tax? All legal?
Why did you have to make a huge leap and say Sasha loves Rishi? Classic lefty tactic and shows your dishonesty
Gary stevenson is not wrong anyway. However, Honestly this cannot be overemphasized, helping people mitigate certain circumstances and mistakes .It's always good to have a financial plan,
Certainly it's why the rich and wise Investors exercise caution with their exposure when considering new investments, particularly during periods of inflation. They seek guidance from a professionals in order to navigate this recession and achieve potential high yields and taxations.
yeah that's a good path, focus on a good strategy, relax back and watch it compound within the years. In good time you'll see returns.
impressive, I'll definitely check it out, I buy the idea of employing the services of a financial consultant because finding that balance between saving and living requires counsel. Who do you work with
Please could you guide me on how to get in touch with your advisor? My funds are being eroded by inflation and I seek a more lucrative investment strategy to effectively utilize before I consider retirement
from a personal angle I'm aware continuing to invest in periods of higher volatility is a Smart way to build wealth.
I'm not sure what you are smoking, but it looks like you've been drinking a little bit too much Kool-aid.
Roosevelt taxed the rich really good after the Great Depression (top rate of 80%), and everything was perfectly fine. Been there, done that.
Yes it was the same in the UK before Thatch.
Yes, but not on assets ;)
All we need to do is close all the tax loopholes and close all the offshore tax haven's that will end all these arguments.
No it won't, because currency is printed out of thin air. An entirely new system of value is the only way
Did you even watch the video?
And how do you propose to "close" all the offshore tax havens?
@@carruthers100 "you stop people being able to use them". I can send an international payment to whoever I want. It is not illegal to send money abroad and nor should it be. So, how do you stop people using them?
It'd be cool to see you have this debate with Gary Stevenson (aka Garys Economics)
I mean.... I'm a business owner who made just under 200k gross last year. After deductions, depreciation, expenses etc, my effective tax rate was 11%. That wasn't even with any shady number fudging (I'm too terrified of the IRS). If I can do it with my pithy 200k, I can't imagine what I could do at a hot million
Love your videos, down to earth, and not just click bait, but honest publication
No mention of the effect of money creation on asset prices......no mention of the effect on price discovery. Don't trust those who fail to mention this.
I didn't see any argument that really is against the tax. These are just the normal excuses rich people use.
1. There are a lot of countries that allready know a wealth tax. For some reason rich people not all left those countries....
2. Small bussiness can be excluded i.e. tax only counts if your wealth is more then X amount.
3. If a company does not plan for taxes (wealth or income) your accountant should never get a job in that field again.
4. A wealth tax like 25% would obviously be stupid, where I live it is something like 0.001 % excluding wealth below a certain amount.
5. Trickle down economy is prooven not to work. You just need to compare the tax system to the wealth disparity between different countries.
6. Yes obviously tax lop holes should be closed
7. Yes there should be a reward for work. But x private islands, x private jets etc. is absurd, while on the other hand people are forced to take jobs that not even make enough to pay the rent in the area they work for.
8. A lot of rich people had some advantage (i.e having connections a poor one doesn't have, rich parents, coincidence), especially coincidence is something rich people ignore and attribute to working hard. There is a proven psychological effect that people ignore such advantages and attribute all those to personal hard work.
Glad someone bothered to dispute every point. Was thinking all the same things that you are mentioning during the video.
"There is a proven psychological effect that people ignore such advantages and attribute all those to personal hard work."
Yeah, it's called the Just World Fallacy. RIch people think they got where they are all on their own and those who didn't didn't try hard enough and deserve what they ended up with.
Playing devil's advocate...
2) If small business is excluded, a billionaire can spread their wealth out with complex structures to avoid being taxed on it aka money laundering. It being illegal doesn't stop them from trying it today.
4) That level of wealth tax seems like it would take 1000 years to get what government needs for 1 year of spending, correct me if I'm wrong.
6) How to close tax loop holes in a way that affects the mega rich instead of poorer people who can't afford an army of lawyers, accountants, etc...?
7) Luxury consumption tax is a good idea IMO, but unclear how much it would raise, and might push luxury consumption offshore.
@@jacobh793re 4) the government doesn't need the tax to fund its spending, at least not for a government that issues its own currency. Currency issuers spend before they tax, because you can't tax people until they've acquired the thing you want to tax. There's no other way for currency users to get hold of money until the issuer spends it into the economy and it works through to them in the form of salary. And being the issuer, they can spend as much as they like (although a responsible government will stop once there are no more things to buy) because they only owe the resulting debt and deficit to themselves.
The point of a wealth tax is simply to take money away from the rich because money equals power, and the rich have WAY too much of both.
Re 6) the average person isn't able to take advantage of loopholes precisely because they don't have an army of lawyers and accountants to find the loopholes in the first place. And if they could, they shouldn't be doing so anyway - it's a loophole by definition and should be closed.
@@simonturner1 Re 4), modern monetary theory does dictate that currency issuers can just "print print print and spend spend spend", but hasn't 2020-2024 policy taught us that the consequence of doing this is economic instability, an acceleration of already broadening inequality, and price inflation which hits the poorest the hardest?
Overall, I don't find MMT very useful in that it doesn't account for the relative difference between currency issuers such as Turkey's lira vs United State's dollar, and how "just spend more into the economy" has adverse consequences for all currency issuers - but especially those who don't issue the world's reserve currency.
Think Liz Truss in the UK, if you try and issue currency willy nilly you blow up all the unstable systems we built our economy on.
6) My point about loopholes is, you can close loopholes all you like, but the richest people will always find new ones - and often the measures you take to close a loophole (e.g. taxing inheritance) only ends up taxing poorer less well-resourced families while the rich family uses a new loophole.
This is a really interesting analysis Sasha, thanks for this. A lot in this to think on.
You make an interesting case. Quite persuasive.
Of course in the UK the main issue os that CGT is substantially lower than i come tax, so they should really sort that out
Would love to see a debate between you and Garys Economics
What are you talking about!? Gary Stevenson is bang on, the rich and sucking the wealth out of the middle and lower class. Half of those people you have mentioned were born from rich families, they don't have to work half as hard as the working man
The economy isn’t a zero sum game. There isn’t a fixed amount of wealth in a nation. When you buy a product you want from a business, who gets poorer from that transaction?
@meltedsnowman9637 There is a fixed amount of assets that either grows very slowly or ultra wealthy get access to before anyone else.
I am not saying it is a bad thing it is just the reality. Ultra wealthy get millions a year in 'passive' income which they then use to buy more assets generating more income as they have nothing else to use the money for.
The middle class is then expected to compete with that kind of purchasing power when they spend a higher percentage of their income on living expenses
@@meltedsnowman9637It’s useless to try to explain. They think there is fixed amount wealth and when you have that mind virus inserted in your head it’s not going to go away.
Please can you explain the Duke of Westminster wealth?
It was accrued in a perfectly fair and reasonable manner.
I love Sasha he goes from absolute legend to absolute bellend and back again. He’s completely wrong here, we do need a wealth tax, as our current UK tax system allows people with gains as opposed to income to pay way lower rates, no NI, capital gains tax rates are lower than income etc.
You haven't got a clue dude.
America has a spending problem, not a taxing problem
It really doesn't. When Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary, it's clearly a tax problem. He's even said as much. America doesn't even spend money on giving its citizens free healthcare ffs.
Well, let's at least give taxing the rich a little a try. We owe it to ourselves.
It's the one thing that must never, ever, ever be tried, even for a little bit. Apparently.
"let's at least try stealing from those who have more than us, instead of making our own money, we owe it to ourselves" there fixed it for ya.
@@Anon-nv7bp Ahem? Who are you calling a thief? Dude, I have great and broad experience with money and yes, we do need rich people but most money is made a little dishonestly, as one of my wealthy friends tends to say. First, know the laws and then learn how to break them without having to pay for it. Wealthy people know you can break the law as long as you can afford your bail. So don't get me started on all that socialism and unworthy poor crap. I have a degree in economics. I understand it.
@@Anon-nv7bpthe rich stole that money from their staff by not paying them the true value of their labour. It's just reclaiming what is rightfully ours. Happy to have enlightened you :)
The Tories wouldn't like it. It would send out the wrong message.
Taxing the super rich is, i believe, part of the issue. Money is a limited resource.
Political corruption is as costly as anything.
Worse case scenario Jeff bezos becomes poor
Ah well
Is this guy for real? The whole system is collapsing?! Does he live with his parents or something? He’s clearly my age
It's wealth that is a limited resource. Money can be created and destroyed by central banks as needed.
@@kevingeoghegan294Wealth is not limited🤦🏽 you can create wealth as much as you can.
Unsubscribed.
Another 18 minutes I won't get back again. Still waiting for the UK mortgage issues.
No issues people still got jobs. Just don’t eat and don’t put on heating. Pay mortgage. All good.
I agree, I was waiting for some sort of punch line
But it just seems to be a bit of boot licking
Sad
You can't be a billionaire without exploitation
Crypto bros shouldn’t have to pay tax either because they are so important to future bro
It would be great if you and Gary Stevenson talk about this together.
Sasha has had a mare here poor fella.. not because he's wrong that "taxing the rich" would solve everything on its own .. it wouldn't, but it would help. Vast majority of economists know that a better distribution of wealth is what's required. that's billionaires and more importantly the vast corporates. Lol moment when Sasha went full Rees Mogg sociopath and conflated the small business person with billionaires.. the same entrepreneurs who would do better if we all had a bit more wealth to spend and didn''t have to unfairly compete with the corporate and billionaire monopolies. Wealth tied up in shares and accounts isnt spent or invested efficiently or "locally".. Sasha needs to read more and think about people in his equations not just the numbers
1% wealth tax on anything over £100M?
Include land and publicly listed stocks, along with a transaction tax. We can’t just keep taxing middle earners because it’s “hard” to tax the richest.
Collected how? And the impact on the stock market being what?
@@SashaYanshinwho gives a shit?
@@ChunkyLover69420 Your pension?
Hi Sasha. Thanks for your reply. I’m talking about 1% a year from a very small % of the publicly listed stocks… the market moves far more than that every week. I’m very comfortable that the impact will be minimal. By “collecting” I assume you mean “how do we calculate their wealth” and “How does the Government receive it?” I don’t see the harm in limiting the definition of wealth to land, publicly listed stocks, commodities, bonds etc that are easily quantifiable… perfect is the enemy of the good, as they say.
Ive just moved into the forest with my axe, and brought my wife with her bow an arrow. I keep telling her that, "We are going to be millionaires".
I love the simple life 😂
I really appreciate your point of view, even if most of the comments disagree with you.
Its great that we can put these ideas on the table and discuss them.
I never understood why anyone thinks more tax is the answer. Look at the NHS in the UK, it doesn’t need more money, it needs more efficiency.
Well actually the NHS does need more money for the doctors and nurses it seemingly can't afford to pay properly and the doctors and nurses it can't afford to hire. And you're right, it does need more efficiency starting with getting rid of a lot of the administration and producing proper health policies to reduce the burden of demand for care.
Don't tax the rich. Stop taxing the poor.
The rules are geared up for the very wealthy running large companies. Smaller companies can't compete against the government rules and regulations - I know because I shut mine down. We were happily working away making a few million paying our sub-contractors well (they were all easily clearing 100k a year) - new rules came in place making it impossible to hire us. End result - all the contractors had to take regular jobs earnings far less, we shut down; and the big companies got all the work charging far more - the public pay more and we earn less. It is not a level playing field.
Great video
Lots of people work really hard and are still poor. Hard work in isolation from being in the right place at the right time, often with the right family connections and wealth does not make you rich.
Ethically: no one can be said to 'deserve' billions of pounds or dollars in wealth. Nor can you say that billions who are relatively poor, or in poverty deserve to be. Nor can you say that they can change their situation unaided - their may be exceptions but most can't.
Socially: inequality creates social unrest and unhappiness.
Economically: having an elite holding wealth in assets and stock with an increasingly poor middle and working class impoverishes the whole economy because most people have less to spend, this makes governments poorer which lowers public services and investments which becomes a vicious cycle.
I take your point that it is complicated and difficult to tax wealth. Yes much of it is in shares or land ownership. But trillions in government spending in the pandemic basically made its way into the pockets of a few. It made the existing situation worse. It might not be simple or easy, but it is vital that wealth inequality is lawfully re-dressed via tax, otherwise you are heading towards a socially feudal situation and then eventually to violence. That is not an endorsement of violence, just a lesson from history. It is also not about saying that rich people are bad - I think there is exploitation in Amazons wealth, both of employees and sellers - so one way of redressing inequality would be better regulation - but Jeff could be very wealthy with our that. But that much wealth is simply not earnable or spendable or beneficial to society in so few hands.
I file Jeff Bezos alongside Mike Ashley. Fantastic lads both of them.
This was a (mostly) terrible video, and very condescending.
Wealth inequality is a MASSIVE issue, which has been exacerbated by covid. There are many ways to tax the rich without destroying the economy. But it’s not really about taxation, because that won’t fix inequality anyway unless you trust the government to spend the money wisely….
It’s assets like water, gas, train, and electricity company’s that when nationalised will filter money down into the masses.
A limit on the amount of houses people own would also help combat inequality. Also a time limit to spend extreme generational wealth is somthing we should talk about. Forcing the rich to sell assets and spend money would help combat the issue.
Wealth inequality might be THE most important topic in economics at the moment. Be wary of people who tell you different.
In my country they just charge stock custody fees if you have more than 5 million net worth and the percentage increases the more you have so in a way you have to sell to pay this but its not a drastic amount
Look at what the UK gov did to landlords. Taxed on turnover. Now rents have doubled, much less available to rent, landlords leaving in their droves. Do that to other business types and it’s just not worth the effort.
Percentage of all taxes paid doesn't matter in this context. What matters is the ratio between taxes paid and income. Bringing up that the top 5% pay most of the taxes makes no sense. They could still not be paying their fair share if they amount they paid in taxes is only a small fraction of their overall income.
Sounds like he has just discovered Europe in a different galaxy and is reporting back something new to America.
Overall wealth in an economy IS a zero sum game if GDP is not growing. In many developed countries GDP grows very little. If inequality grows at a faster rate than GDP then by definition some people are getting rich at the expense of others. GDP growth reflects the guy who suddenly was very good at building houses in your analogy. Don’t normally disagree with Sasha but wealth distribution in an economy matters and it has gotten really bad, it will not fix itself we need to do something and that is what our representatives are there for.
There is no need that a small business owner need to carry the economy. I pay tax but nothing has changed in a decade e.g. in infrastructure. I would like to invest in a public company specifically in a certain infrastructure. Now we have large companies with divided interests, some have state equity. See for example the wind mills at uk coast. Basically where is the business opportunity with decent gains for a small retail investor which leads to improved infrastructure
There is a wealth tax in Norway and yes, some of the rich pay more in tax a year than they made that year
So you can go bankrupt because the government took more money than you had? Great policy
This has nothing to do with demonising rich people. Rich people can still be rich. We just need to find a way to improve infrastructure and public services so the most basic standards of living are still good for everyone. Nobody should be going without food, nobody should be homeless. In today’s world often the people that work the hardest get rewarded the least, it shouldn’t be like that. If you made everyone’s lives better you would reduce crime, increase happiness, increase productivity and that would make things better for rich people too. The whole point of money is supposed to be that it represents actual work done, but making huge sums from interest alone isn’t doing anything useful for the country. Money is supposed to motivate people to do the jobs we need doing but that system is so broken now nothing is getting done.
Is the problem revenue or wasteful spending? The US Federal budget is c. $20k per person. What is an appropriate level of public spending?
@@SashaYanshinThere are too many problems to list. The whole world needs to change their priorities from making ever more money to actually making life better. Capitalism in its current form is putting motivation in the wrong place. We have the manpower and resources to build beautiful homes for everyone, to provide decent services for everyone. The problem is all the people who have the power to make this happen are all focused on making ever more money from money, rather than doing anything useful with it. We need to change the rules of the game if we want different results. I personally don’t think anything will change as we are just too stupid, too selfish and too short sighted to change anything… However, there is a possibility AI is going to wake up at some point and change everything.
I wouldn't say money is supposed to do anything. It's a commodity just like gold.
@@Andygb78 Unlike gold money only exists because we all agree to go along with the idea. There is a small but dangerous possibility that if inequality grows too much and the majority of people at the bottom have terrible lives they will stop going along with the idea and money will be worthless. If you think this is impossible see what happened with communism. Ultimately money is a tool to control people. The first thing the Romans did when they took over Europe was to ensure everyone was using their money. Originally trade meant if you do something for me I’ll do something for you. Money adds a level of abstraction into that idea and if you are clever you can game the system so everyone else does the actual work while you sit back and do nothing but play with abstraction.
@@jwbarsby Great comment. I always think money in itself isn't the root of all evil, it's the way that it's used. And it can be used to do bad things, like control and exploit people, and it can be used to do good things, like philanthropic gestures.
$50 billion a year huh. $50b doesn't even pay the interest on the US national debt for a month!
Hey Sasha how come you stick to fvrr but got rid of pltr? After both of there last earnings pltr look way better looking into there future don’t you think? ✌🏻
It's funny how rich people insist taxing them won't solve anything. "You won't get any more of the pie by taking the 99% slice I cut for myself away from me". Yeah, whatever 🙄
When Dwight Eisenhower (that well-known socialist [/sarcasm]) was President, the top rate of income tax was 90% which gave the rich the choice of putting their wealth into their businesses which resulted in expansion, more jobs, and a better quality of life for the middle class or hand it over to the government. In his own words "it's not communism, it's responsible economics".
It's no coincidence that wealth inequality exploded since Reagan and Thatcher came along with their fundamentally-wrong Monetarist ideas and cut those rates to where they are now. The sky will not fall in if we go back to that, all that will happen are some rich parasites will cry because now their social status is a bit closer to everyone else and they don't have as much power and influence that they're used to. It's about time they took a hit.
Simply tax the land
Only if you want to create terrible environmental damage.
Errr i don't think so, you haven't thought that through at all.
@@stevo728822 I'm all ears
Or tax the lad.
Or give the land back to the native communities it was stolen off.
How many millions of Celtic people have had to emigrate due to poverty in Cornwall , Wales and Scotland
Would love to see you interview Gary Stevenson! I think it would be very insightful given that I think you both make good points yet you have such contrasting views on this particular topic
Gary thinks there is a wealth inequality problem at an ideological level. Sasha is arguing against a specific mechanism to combat it. The two may not be mutually exclusive.
This video was brilliant
Good points made, thanks for great video!
Thanks for watching!
You know Sasha, sonetimes the answer is actually staring you in the face. It was good whilst it lasted. This was probably a video you should not have made.
Unfortunately a lot of people are choosing to not think from first principles. Far easier to blame everything on the rich.
I have a question for you , if the usa lowers the interest rate, do you believe that part of the money that is floating/parked in safe places will go towards cryptocurrency ?
Thank you in advance for any reply, I understand that cryptocurrency😮s are a very volatile and risky business .
I would say that is a tulip event but , this is how wealth is distributed in the market 😅.
There’s still scope to shift the tax burden though,for instance,to discourage multiple property ownership,regulate the private rental sector,build more housing in the public sector.
I've always been all for a wealth tax (somehow), whilst the gap between the top 1% and bottom 1% gets wider, and I say that as a top 1-2% earner for my location, but you make a good point.
There has to be a way though, as there's no way that anyone needs more than £100m or whatever, certainly not a billion or more, or deserves that, no matter how well they've done or what risk they've taken. No kids deserve to inherit that either.
If they were forced to trickle their stock away gradually, not 25% instantly, and maybe not losing voting rights or company control etc, then the market could slow but that could be a good thing as it would open the door for people with less cash to get more stock at a cheaper price, or even let the rich guy buy half back after a year or whatever. Could even give them fist option to buy at the cheaper price, so they get to keep the shares, but just lose some value/ tax on them?
The selling of shares shouldn't stop the companies making good profits etc (other than those selling yachts or whatever), so the stock price would go back up again (or their valuations become more realistic), just in the hands of people who used to have less money/ less stock. Then if the skint people have better public services and a better ROI on their stock (after the crash), then surely they would end up spending more themselves, which would then increase the companies profits, and thus the stock price again?
Obviously the extra tax helps the vast majority of people out also, everyone uses A&E, the roads, rail etc, and relies on national defence etc.
The bottom 50% don't give a toss about what a companies share price is, and it's them that need the most help, and they're still spending a massive chunk of their wages with with Amazon and Apple etc, and might end up spending more?
Sure my share portfolio might take a 20% hit for a few years, maybe even more than that, but it wouldn't be the first time, and it would come back and then still grow at the same or better rates. Anyone with a significant amount of shares can afford to take a bit of a hit, it's those who have zero who can't take any more hits, they need a boost.
Even Bezos only owns ~12% of Amazon and musk 13% of Tesla, if you take 5% of that value away per year will it really make that much difference if Amazon's profits are still good?
Could also increase tax rates on cars, boats, property etc, the higher the value you go, a lot more than we currently do. Let people have the nice stuff, but just pay more of a premium for it.
This is a deeply flawed argument. First you start by saying punish the rich for being successful (or more likely, lucky) by forcing them to sell off their stocks. Let's say they sell 25% of their stocks. The value of the stock doesn't drop by 25% *after* they sell, it happens *during* the sell. Meanwhile, the stocks you hold also lose 25% of their value so *you* end up being 25% worse off. Except that if the stock price dumps 25%, a whole bunch of other people will panic sell as well, so that 25% becomes more like 40%. And it doesn't recover, because the only way to make it recover is to buy the stocks again, but the people buying the stocks have just lost 40% of their buying ability, so they cannot, unless they sell stocks at a loss in order to buy back stocks, which means locking in the losses, paying more taxes and losing more money. And then, even if it works and the wealth is spread out, an average increase in wealth across the board means more demand which means more inflation due to price hikes to soak up the extra money in the system, which further lowers the value of money in the system.
Brilliant again Sasha!
Thank you!
There's an unrealised tax in New Zealand. They seem happy enough with it. You pay tax on your shares profits at the end of every year. When the stock value goes down thats your tough luck. It's called wealth tax.
what needs to be done is make profit sharing mandatory for any publicly traded company, i don't want the government in charge of that money
You're right about one thing, it's not a popular view. The gap between the have and the have nots has never been wider. For the first time in history our kids won't be better off. Take some time out mate and listen to Gary Stevenson, you may just learn something. Respect - gone.
There's 2 sides to every story: while I can't disagree that a wealth tax is impractical and doesn't fix everything, it's also quite obviously not a fair status quo. The richer you are, the easier it is to use and abuse tax loopholes like tax loss harvesting and using credit to avoid realising gains / income, not to mention offshore structures etc... Do you have any better ideas or only pointing out the problem?
I don't think serious people want to tax a Billionaire, Billions of dollars because they own Billions of dollars of shares.
But when they sell some shares and net 1 Billion profit, they will pay ~238M in tax (assuming they weren't Tax loss harvesting somewhere else), If they were paid an income of the same amount they'd pay ~370,000,000 in tax. Which is a loss in tax of ~132M. The difference is 23.8% for CGT and an Income Tax of 37%, I am not even saying it should be 1-1 where income tax and CGT are equal, but, these taxes are so far apart, especially at the level where Billionaires are making Billions in profit and we just accept that it's how the system works.
Maybe restrict company profits to 5% anything above is taxed at 100% . Would it not be in the interest of the company to invest in the company or give it to the staff. ??
It would not be in anyone’s interest to start the company in the first place.
You're wrong. Wealth is a zero sum game in relation to debt. We live in debt based society - which literally means wherever there is debt somebody is owed money. Money can't be owed to no one and someone 'owns' that debt. For example government borrowing is owed to people and owned by those people in the form of bonds and so on. On the opposite side of debt is wealth. Basically put if we added up all the money/wealth in the world and used it to pay off all of the debt, the net sum would literally be zero. So , if someone is getting richer, a lot richer, them someone else is getting poorer, a lot poorer.
hmm, i like your videos, you make it easy to understand all this stuff specifically to people who ARENT rich, but you missed it here.
Listen you probably have a fair bit of money, or you should at least because of how switched on you are financially, but dont worry, when people say tax the rich they dont mean you. No matter how much money you have you obviously dont meet the 'tax the rich' threshold, else you wouldnt be doing a youtube channel. You dont need to protect them to save your bags.
This is why we need wealth taxes. No individual needs billions when there are people starving in the countries they live. If we dont reduce the wealth gap, even people earning 6 sigires will end up owning nothing because the wealthy will continue to buy everything.
How can zuckerburg be allowed to buy so much of hawaii for himself?
Would SpaceX exist if someone with millions/ billions didn't decided he was putting the money in to create it? Hence because he created it, it put USA astronauts back in low earth orbit, without this investment, the USA would still need Russia to get to low earth orbit. so yes people do need millions and billions, if you want to change the world you need to be able to get hold of capital to change it.
What is the answer tho and if they paid tax things would be a lil better even if its not the answer
Rare sasha L. Gary's economics is the way
Great conclusion 1 minute after I post a 17 minute video.
@SashaYanshin There's no way that someone earning millions pay 19% tax and someone on 30k pays ~30%. Doesn't matter how much you talk about hunters or what. That's not a just society. Every year. For 15 consecutive years. Rich get rich. Poor get poorer. We all see it and it has to stop. Even adding value makes people poorer. Someone hoarding houses adding value makes stagnant wage workers have to pay more for those assets. Huge L. Tax the rich.
@@Kaan-wx7zg Yeah tax the rich out of the country and show people like you what real pain is.
@@Kaan-wx7zg Do you not understand the impact of heavily (over) taxing the Rich?
see your 30k a year guy, that now doesnt have a job because all the biggest companies have moved their companies overseas.
so now you've got no big companies in the US, so nothing thing going in to the economy...plus all the jobs losses fucking the economy even further.....absolute genius idea.
you have to make it equal across the board (by %) while at the same time attracting the big businesses to your country.
funny old thing there actually doesn't seem to be an easy way to fix this.
@@Kaan-wx7zg if you'd watch the video you'd have understood that these people aren't necessarily *"earning millions"* it's that the value of the stock they own has went up. It's not real money until they sell that stock at which point *IT IS TAXED* under Capital Gains Tax.
Now we could tax it every year based on the difference in value from last year but now we have a problem, there's been a stock market crash and the value of everyone's assists have gone down, do governments now distribute wealth tax refunds since the difference is negative from last year? And if so where do they get the money from? If there's been a market crash the cost of borrowing has probably gone up because the economy isn't doing well
I’m not sure about this - I’m not saying it’s a zero sum game but we are seeing Governments and regular people carry more and more debt and get poorer - whilst individuals and corporations are getting richer and richer. We are moving back towards greater inequality….. and that is because of the way wealth is distributed- and I can’t think of anyway to change that other than taxes.
someone need to read a bit of marxs theory; surplus-value of labor power in particular:)
It’s not just houses. Supermarkets, office blocks, even hospital and school buildings there is a lot of
commercial property. They also own debt, so everything we need.