It's a rainy Sunday afternoon, I've just got myself a big mug of coffee, why not binge-watch some GarysEconomics videos so I can finally explain to my stepdad and other people his age why I think the financial system is a mess and on the verge of catastrophe for everyone else
Thomas Picketty's formula explains it pretty succinctly: r (rate of return on capital) > g (rate of growth in the economy). As Gary explains, it is about money flows. While the government technically has the power to print money and distribute it wherever they see fit, the money has to end up somewhere. If the government doesn't a) tax the wealthy and directly recycle the money back into the economy, or b) force the wealthy and corporations to reinvest profits in their workforce via regulation/taxation, inequality is guaranteed to increase.
@@garyseconomics Thanks! I think just the threat of taxation is enough to get the wealth flowing back into productive investment. Most companies and the wealthy would rather reinvest their money than have it taxed away. To do that, we need to make stock buybacks illegal, increase marginal tax rates, raise corporate taxes on profits, end offshoring. Some good old fashioned trust-busting could increase competition and decrease monopoly power. That said, I agree a wealth tax is a great quick solution, so long as the money is reinvested the right way, maybe through transfer of assets to sovereign wealth funds, with the dividends being distributed equally among all citizens. Matt Bruenig has a great piece about this at the People's Policy Project. Not sure if the UK has a Sovereign Wealth Fund already, but the US does not (outside individual states).
Great contribution 👍 get the money invested and spinning through the economy instead of just sitting. What concerns me is what the politicians do with the money they get. Will they invest it effectively or just pay people not to work 🤷♂️
Spot on! The inflation that we are now facing is squeezing the average household into an uncomfortable new reality. Hopefully, people will turn to politics to vote out those who are maintaining the current broken system. We really can’t go on like this
Basically you have to introduce something that pushes wealth back round the system over time, AWAY from super rich rich families and back TOWARDS ordinary families. The most obvious way to do this is wealth taxes (although there are other options)
@@garyseconomics How do we get the wealthy Tories to vote against their own interests? As far as I can see their entire raison d'etre is to transfer our cash and public money to the rich.
@@EarthPoets whilst there are some wealthy people who are/could be supporters, I think our best bet to make change is to communicate with and build support with the ordinary people and families who are getting hurt by the current policies
@@garyseconomics I hear you and agree, however we are still in a situation where many people voted against their best interests to leave the EU and we are being daily divided by a government trying to keep us looking the other way while they rob the bank - now with arms sales. I totally appreciate what you are looking to do here Gary and I am absolutely on board however I feel we need some seriously smart thinking above my pay grade to wake the people up - I hope you are bringing it to the table mate.
This is what I want to know, there has to be a co-operative solution to reverse the wealth flow. It’s almost like living in a dystopian autocracy, where the people are so subjugated they can’t realise they actually hold the power. Other than the ballot box, which has never once caused society to be restructured in a fair way, what options do we have?
I'm looking for translating the stuff you're talking about on Polish side of RUclips, but I struggle to find channels explaining these matters that effectively and straightforward with the proper energy... Gotta keep looking deeper 💪
Gary - could you devote a video to explaining how wealth taxes would work in practice? i.e., How to structure it practically so you don't just get capital flight from rich people leaving the country. I agree with your basic analysis but we need practical workable solutions.
Totally agree with this. I know it's still important to create understanding of the issue, but we are also looking for something to start demanding from our MPs
Privatisation of public services is the biggest scandal of modern times.Services are no better than pre-privatisation,in many cases much worse but in every case hugely more expensive.The very idea that nothing can exist unless rich people are making themselves even richer out of it is mental.
Does not come more straightforward than this. The problem I have is not so much a 'wealth tax' but what does the government then do with this money. History would suggest it will not go to the people that need it most. Another way to spread the wealth around is to mandates public companies to give a portion of their wealth back to the workers who create it in the first place. More competition is needed at all levels of our society and this can only come about through government policy.
Is this not the model of rentier capitalism? Purely a form of extraction of wealth without any re-investment or pay back into improving society. The idea of trickle down has failed. Also, could you cover the laffer curve which is always being quoted as showing lower taxes mean higher tax revenues, but we are beyond the point of where lower tax = increased revenue as less incentive to avoid tax. Keep up the good work, Gary.
There is re-investment, there has to be in order for profits to be made - You could have for example £150m of your £200m invested in the stockmarket... thats an investment in individual companies. This money allows the company to raise funds though shares and so expand. You will in return benefit from the profit or annual growth that company makes. Some might be in government bonds & gilts... if the UK government wants to raise money for investment purposes. So there always has to be a re-investment into the economy in order to benefit the capitalist... however, Gary's point is that the profits from this re-investment end up enriching the few and not the many... because of the current taxation system.
That is how capitalism always works, no matter what kind. The entire system is based on the capitalist class owning and profitting from the means of production
Many of the benefits UK citizens have experienced were established after the second world war. Sadly NHS, education, welfare etc. are fast becoming memories. Historically such benefits are just a blip. The UK political ruling class wants to return to Georgian times and a re-introduction of the workhouse to remove those who are economically inactive. In the end, the current economic model will implode. It is totally unsustainable.
I'm sorry to sound really dumb here, but I don't understand how if you are paying off a mortgage for a house, you are paying a rich person? Is it because banks are privately owned? Thank you for sharing your knowledge and empowering people to understand these issues.
Seems my comment was deleted even though I gave constructive advice. I want your message to get out there: finding the quickest way to do it is a real issue.
Hi Skylar, we have some problems with deleted messages sometimes, and we really don't know what's causing it. We didn't delete it intentionally at least - thanks for your support!
Finally found your fantastic channel which is articulated thoughts building in me over a number of years. I have a bit of a long question I hope you don't mind. The key bit I don't understand is how it was ever meant to work in the first place, over time. If assets always (create) draw more value than its starting value and that comes from debt costing more than its initial value, how was a market based around this ever supposed to work and not run itself to a standstill? What does traditional economics say is meant to be the levelling or circular factor, other than labour output? I've ordered the French economist guy you recommended and also the sovereign individual to try and understand both sides, but they've not arrived yet so hoping you can summarise a bit in case I lose my way. I guess what I'm trying to ask is 'has the system broken compared to what was expected to happen over time, or was it by design destined to always end here and everyone kind of knew that, in which case what's the rich people's end game (they're burning their own nests ultimately right?)
I’ve met inventors with ideas that would save money, reduce vehicle emissions, help disabled, recycle old IT equipment, what I’ve seen is their opportunities are scuppered because they won’t bribe buyers. Friend invented lights that were more energy efficient than the big companies, they were cheaper to buy & had better light output. You’d think councils would snap these up but companies did what he wouldn’t & they gave buyers stuff. Those buyers cost councils & taxpayers money, one buyer got a holiday for their family to Disneyland.
Anything that would scupper/ reduce an income flow for its shareholders is deemed as a threat. It's all about money, profiteering and goes hand in hand with corruption. The ordinary people suffer and never benefit. Trickle down economics ...... yes the rich control the sluice gates.
@@dellwright1407 not yet. The countries who have tried implementing even socialist reforms have usually been attacked by the imperialist powers, mainly the United States, to stop any anticapitalist movements from succeeding.
A thing I’m wondering recently. Does this wording apply anymore? With a lot of people in white collar jobs and the rise of individualism the means of production is… our brains? Business to business software? Seize the outlook licenses? Sieze Barry from accounts? I think the phrasing of tax the rich is more accurate to what we actually want here.
@@leighbee13 Means of production, distribution and exchange is more accurate perhaps. The economic infrastructure of our society should not be owned by a tiny elite.
It's what the stockmarket would give you over and above inflation if you had £200m. You can of course take higher risk but there is a reason why the rewards for success are higher... so are the chances of failure. Invested safely you could expect a 3% average annual return (some years better, some worse) after fees, inflation and taxes. So in this instance Rishi Sunak (or his wife) make a £6m net profit every year... the majority reinvested with compound interest it will do very well in time.
The very rich do indeed often make significantly more. In the first year of covid they made 22% on average which would be £44 million on £200 million. Since 2008 returns have generally been well over 3%. Just using 3% here as a conservative example.
Buddy, the older generation expect the younger generation to.... 1. buy their 100k houses for 500k 2. pay triple salary for an average car. 3. marry women past best reproductive years. 4. work for unbacked currency others get for free. 5. get up at 5am and do a days work - to own nothing. 6. save in a bank that pays a saving rate 10% below inflation. laughable - get popcorn......and prepare for the panic sell off.
Since I started watching your video. I do my best to spread the word Twitter. I can only hope it gets the word out. Tonight I’ve tweeted this video 150 times. Then my finger started to hurt too much I do hope it helps.
But these same Rich people probably went without the fancy stuff whilst growing up. Sunak Parents were educated. Spent a lot of money on their kids education which is an investment not pissing it down the drain on drugs or drink and good time so how is it wrong ? People need to learn from the rich not envy them !!
There must be a complex bit of dynamics going on here. The wealthiest are in trouble if they own too much and ordinary people can no longer pay - I assume at that point the least wealthy become poorer. It’s similar to the models of competing populations - e.g foxes and rabbits.
Really, it is the poor who are in trouble if the rich own too much and the poor can't pay. 2008 and the current situation are both good examples of this.
The super wealthy won't become poorer when they have 101 ways of capitalising on their wealth, and even if that weren't the case, they could easily more than live on it.
Rather than trying (and often failing to claw the tax back) why don't we design economy not to be so susceptible to rent extraction (ie wealth that disappears into non productive activity... Land values, assets, bank accounts of the rich)
A restructuring tax would be land value tax. It simultaneously taxes a form of wealth, and discourages investment in it... Therefore freeing it up for society to use (the price of land and thus housing would drop) Big ramifications of course. But a govt that cared would need to think that through. Eg deferred payments, compensation schemes for pensioners, an allowance for pensioners?
Omg, have you met farmers…… they’re not exactly rolling around in cash….. in fact they have incredibly high rates of suicide due to money troubles and supermarkets margins are Smalllllllll
A USL is how we redistribute wealth. A USL is a UNIVERSAL SPEND LIMIT. Trying to tax the income and wealth of the rich has been a spectacular failure, a complex tax system is the game they want us to play and it is incredibly expensive to manage, there will never be enough laws to stop them from becoming richer and richer. The rich are just like naughty wasteful self-absorbed children and we are playing their game, stop playing and set a limit, we don't need to take their money of them, just make them share it or it can sit there doing nothing. Sorry Gary you are a genius but a wealth tax is their game.
A wealth tax, how would that impact on overseas investments in the UK? Would international companies choose to invest elsewhere? How can the UK attract overseas investment but have a wealth tax?
Well..whst do you propose then? Continuing the status-quo? Yes that is the argument is it not? The same tired argument from human trash that wants to keep things just the way they are - thank you! ;-))
Too much toxic human self - serving trash in this world I'm afraid?! It is a cancer a terminal cancer - a dumb - stupid - wretch! Perhaps it has had its chance and fucked it?!!
Don't live in London then... Go against the grain and live in a city which is up and coming. You'll get a cheaper, bigger house and a better quality of life. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool are fantastic cities with fantastic career potentials. As for the rich getting richer... Buying into companies and owning stakes is easier than it's ever been. My parents would have had to go to the bank in town to buy a stock in a company, now I can do it while on the toilet.
The problem with your argument is that living in a city up north has exactly the same issues as living in London but on a smaller scale. Buying a house is equally unaffordable for a lot of people in the cities you mention just because the salaries tend to be lower. Also, I'd dispute your claim that northern cities have the same career potential as living in London. In my case I lived up north and twice got made redundant because the company I worked for decided to move the jobs to London (mainly because the directors of the company didn't want to travel up north every once in a while to visit us). Eventually in the industry I worked in there were only 2-3 companies up north compared to 20-30 in London and the south east. In terms of career potential the best option was to be in London.
I think the people of Manchester Leeds Sheffield and Liverpool getting priced out of their home town by people who would rather live in London would not be great.
Isn’t it the more rich people the better the economy as the more wealth is created the more enterprise is promoted the higher wages get and cheaper the supply in the economy gets through innovation. Aren’t the majority of billionaires/millionaires self made. Isn’t the rich accumulating cash good as there will be increased goods and services in an economy and even when it’s stored in a bank it enables mortgages for poorer people. I’m just thinking about which system will be best for the average person will a more socialist system be sustainable in the long run or would the heavy taxation on the rich massively hit output in the economy negatively effecting the average person in the long run. Can you do a video explaining the core macroeconomics.
We could make do with mild social democracy, as we had for 30 years after world war 2. What we’ve got now is rentier capitalism where all the money and wealth flows upwards. Normal people tend to spend the money they’ve got whereas rich people save it or invest it in assets, so it’s not good for our economy to have a small elite who are super rich and who consistently invest to increase asset prices. Trickle down economics as a concept is dead. Even rich people don’t try to defend it any more, which is why you have the Conservatives in this country pretending to be populists
No. If you said the exact opposite of almost everything you stated you'd be closer to the truth. For example most wealth is inherited, accumulation leads to hoarding and speculation - and of course exploitation, etc...Capitalism is a zero sum game, so there is a limit to how many rich people there can be and it always leads to monopolization. On the other hand, there is no limit to how rich a few people can be; thus, massive inequality. The only hope is to build a mass movement that can challenge capitalists for power and then radically (at the root) change the system from capitalism to a mode of production that is not based on exploitation and destruction. Sound impossible? It probably is, but the alternative is mass death, suffering, and dislocation from global warming, so...
@@crayontom9687 yes we need the money to circulate and wealth inequality is necessary to a certain point but too much of it will just crumble the economy. Was the 30 years after ww2 economically sound didn’t we get to high inflation economic stagnation in the 1970s. The nationalised services were costing far too much and operating at major losses the unions were holding the country to ransom. What is the possible solution to this problem? I think the theory of basic universal income for everyone could come to light in the near future to sustain the current economic system. Also the theory goes that due to our demand based economy the method of becoming rich is by meeting people’s demands indicating that these rich people have successfully accomplished that in most cases and contribute in increasing people’s standards of living, but I do agree that wealth inequality too high will destroy the system as the Pareto distribution states. So what can we do to control wealth inequality without too many negative impacts.
@@dylanemeraldgrey A 2019 study published by Wealth-X found that around 68% of those with a net worth of $30 million or more made it themselves. Further, a second study by Fidelity Investments found that 88% of all millionaires are self-made, meaning they did not inherit their wealth. Capitalism has been the most effective economic system in creating wealth and taking people out of poverty.
"made it themselves" by whose standard of make? Gary describes in the video how the wealthy sell the use of what they already own. They didn't make wealth- they already had it. Wealth isn't created. The resources already exist and we (the poor) pay to use those resources. A lot of the ownership has come from previous generations living in a slightly more balanced system where it was possible to save your money or possible to mortgage an asset to accrue money and/or assets. The money and assets got passed down and now those people who inherited rent the use of things they inherited. That's not self made. The goods and services didn't increase in number. There's a near static amount within a closed system.
It's a rainy Sunday afternoon, I've just got myself a big mug of coffee, why not binge-watch some GarysEconomics videos so I can finally explain to my stepdad and other people his age why I think the financial system is a mess and on the verge of catastrophe for everyone else
Hope you managed to convince him!!
Thomas Picketty's formula explains it pretty succinctly: r (rate of return on capital) > g (rate of growth in the economy). As Gary explains, it is about money flows. While the government technically has the power to print money and distribute it wherever they see fit, the money has to end up somewhere. If the government doesn't a) tax the wealthy and directly recycle the money back into the economy, or b) force the wealthy and corporations to reinvest profits in their workforce via regulation/taxation, inequality is guaranteed to increase.
Sounds like you know your stuff!
@@garyseconomics Thanks! I think just the threat of taxation is enough to get the wealth flowing back into productive investment. Most companies and the wealthy would rather reinvest their money than have it taxed away. To do that, we need to make stock buybacks illegal, increase marginal tax rates, raise corporate taxes on profits, end offshoring. Some good old fashioned trust-busting could increase competition and decrease monopoly power. That said, I agree a wealth tax is a great quick solution, so long as the money is reinvested the right way, maybe through transfer of assets to sovereign wealth funds, with the dividends being distributed equally among all citizens. Matt Bruenig has a great piece about this at the People's Policy Project. Not sure if the UK has a Sovereign Wealth Fund already, but the US does not (outside individual states).
@@mere_cat UK Sovereign Wealth Fund? You must be joking, that would be way too far-sighted for us!
@@fburton8 Didn't want to assume! A few US states have them (most of which are quite conservative), so you never know.
Great contribution 👍 get the money invested and spinning through the economy instead of just sitting. What concerns me is what the politicians do with the money they get. Will they invest it effectively or just pay people not to work 🤷♂️
Spot on!
The inflation that we are now facing is squeezing the average household into an uncomfortable new reality. Hopefully, people will turn to politics to vote out those who are maintaining the current broken system. We really can’t go on like this
Nicely explained Gary. Now we know we're trapped, what can we do?
Basically you have to introduce something that pushes wealth back round the system over time, AWAY from super rich rich families and back TOWARDS ordinary families. The most obvious way to do this is wealth taxes (although there are other options)
@@garyseconomics How do we get the wealthy Tories to vote against their own interests? As far as I can see their entire raison d'etre is to transfer our cash and public money to the rich.
@@EarthPoets whilst there are some wealthy people who are/could be supporters, I think our best bet to make change is to communicate with and build support with the ordinary people and families who are getting hurt by the current policies
@@garyseconomics I hear you and agree, however we are still in a situation where many people voted against their best interests to leave the EU and we are being daily divided by a government trying to keep us looking the other way while they rob the bank - now with arms sales.
I totally appreciate what you are looking to do here Gary and I am absolutely on board however I feel we need some seriously smart thinking above my pay grade to wake the people up - I hope you are bringing it to the table mate.
This is what I want to know, there has to be a co-operative solution to reverse the wealth flow. It’s almost like living in a dystopian autocracy, where the people are so subjugated they can’t realise they actually hold the power. Other than the ballot box, which has never once caused society to be restructured in a fair way, what options do we have?
I'm looking for translating the stuff you're talking about on Polish side of RUclips, but I struggle to find channels explaining these matters that effectively and straightforward with the proper energy... Gotta keep looking deeper 💪
Great content man, started following you recently, keep going up and don't give up on producing high quality content !
Gary - could you devote a video to explaining how wealth taxes would work in practice? i.e., How to structure it practically so you don't just get capital flight from rich people leaving the country. I agree with your basic analysis but we need practical workable solutions.
Totally agree with this. I know it's still important to create understanding of the issue, but we are also looking for something to start demanding from our MPs
Best explanation I've heard so far. Very good.
You're doing good work lad. Keep it up.
Thanks boss will do!
Such a great video. Subbed and look forward to binge watching your stuff.
Welcome aboard!
Gwaaaan Gary. Road to 10K
Look how far he is now!!!!! Crazy.
@@WilliamAhlert Good for him.
Privatisation of public services is the biggest scandal of modern times.Services are no better than pre-privatisation,in many cases much worse but in every case hugely more expensive.The very idea that nothing can exist unless rich people are making themselves even richer out of it is mental.
Does not come more straightforward than this. The problem I have is not so much a 'wealth tax' but what does the government then do with this money. History would suggest it will not go to the people that need it most.
Another way to spread the wealth around is to mandates public companies to give a portion of their wealth back to the workers who create it in the first place.
More competition is needed at all levels of our society and this can only come about through government policy.
Is this not the model of rentier capitalism? Purely a form of extraction of wealth without any re-investment or pay back into improving society. The idea of trickle down has failed. Also, could you cover the laffer curve which is always being quoted as showing lower taxes mean higher tax revenues, but we are beyond the point of where lower tax = increased revenue as less incentive to avoid tax. Keep up the good work, Gary.
There is re-investment, there has to be in order for profits to be made - You could have for example £150m of your £200m invested in the stockmarket... thats an investment in individual companies. This money allows the company to raise funds though shares and so expand. You will in return benefit from the profit or annual growth that company makes. Some might be in government bonds & gilts... if the UK government wants to raise money for investment purposes. So there always has to be a re-investment into the economy in order to benefit the capitalist... however, Gary's point is that the profits from this re-investment end up enriching the few and not the many... because of the current taxation system.
@@dellwright1407 There seems to be a lot of asset stripping going on based on selling and borrowing against real assets.
That is how capitalism always works, no matter what kind. The entire system is based on the capitalist class owning and profitting from the means of production
Many of the benefits UK citizens have experienced were established after the second world war. Sadly NHS, education, welfare etc. are fast becoming memories. Historically such benefits are just a blip. The UK political ruling class wants to return to Georgian times and a re-introduction of the workhouse to remove those who are economically inactive. In the end, the current economic model will implode. It is totally unsustainable.
Yes and turning them into yet more cash cows for the rich.
I'm sorry to sound really dumb here, but I don't understand how if you are paying off a mortgage for a house, you are paying a rich person? Is it because banks are privately owned?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and empowering people to understand these issues.
Brilliantly explained - keep preaching!
Seems my comment was deleted even though I gave constructive advice. I want your message to get out there: finding the quickest way to do it is a real issue.
Hi Skylar, we have some problems with deleted messages sometimes, and we really don't know what's causing it. We didn't delete it intentionally at least - thanks for your support!
Very good summary and quickly to the point.
Getting rich is with investing in wealth accumulating assets.
Thanks for the upload, Gary.
Finally found your fantastic channel which is articulated thoughts building in me over a number of years. I have a bit of a long question I hope you don't mind. The key bit I don't understand is how it was ever meant to work in the first place, over time. If assets always (create) draw more value than its starting value and that comes from debt costing more than its initial value, how was a market based around this ever supposed to work and not run itself to a standstill? What does traditional economics say is meant to be the levelling or circular factor, other than labour output? I've ordered the French economist guy you recommended and also the sovereign individual to try and understand both sides, but they've not arrived yet so hoping you can summarise a bit in case I lose my way. I guess what I'm trying to ask is 'has the system broken compared to what was expected to happen over time, or was it by design destined to always end here and everyone kind of knew that, in which case what's the rich people's end game (they're burning their own nests ultimately right?)
So clear. Thanks man.
I’ve met inventors with ideas that would save money, reduce vehicle emissions, help disabled, recycle old IT equipment, what I’ve seen is their opportunities are scuppered because they won’t bribe buyers. Friend invented lights that were more energy efficient than the big companies, they were cheaper to buy & had better light output. You’d think councils would snap these up but companies did what he wouldn’t & they gave buyers stuff. Those buyers cost councils & taxpayers money, one buyer got a holiday for their family to Disneyland.
Anything that would scupper/ reduce an income flow for its shareholders is deemed as a threat. It's all about money, profiteering and goes hand in hand with corruption. The ordinary people suffer and never benefit. Trickle down economics ...... yes the rich control the sluice gates.
Lobbying should be band.
This is why we need to abolish private ownership of the means of production
Is there any country in the world where this has been done successfully? (industrialised or post-industrialised society).
@@dellwright1407 not yet. The countries who have tried implementing even socialist reforms have usually been attacked by the imperialist powers, mainly the United States, to stop any anticapitalist movements from succeeding.
A thing I’m wondering recently. Does this wording apply anymore? With a lot of people in white collar jobs and the rise of individualism the means of production is… our brains? Business to business software? Seize the outlook licenses? Sieze Barry from accounts? I think the phrasing of tax the rich is more accurate to what we actually want here.
@@leighbee13 Means of production, distribution and exchange is more accurate perhaps. The economic infrastructure of our society should not be owned by a tiny elite.
Ah, a more detailed description of 'The great money trick', from the book, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
they also get sadder tooo … cuz their ego gets bigger and bigger
3%p/a I would expect better than that on £200 million assuming the increased risk that can be taken with that degree of wealth.
It's what the stockmarket would give you over and above inflation if you had £200m. You can of course take higher risk but there is a reason why the rewards for success are higher... so are the chances of failure. Invested safely you could expect a 3% average annual return (some years better, some worse) after fees, inflation and taxes. So in this instance Rishi Sunak (or his wife) make a £6m net profit every year... the majority reinvested with compound interest it will do very well in time.
The very rich do indeed often make significantly more. In the first year of covid they made 22% on average which would be £44 million on £200 million. Since 2008 returns have generally been well over 3%. Just using 3% here as a conservative example.
Remember David Cameron encouraging the proles to get exercised about 'the something for nothing' culture? Talk about misdirecting the audience.
Buddy, the older generation expect the younger generation to....
1. buy their 100k houses for 500k
2. pay triple salary for an average car.
3. marry women past best reproductive years.
4. work for unbacked currency others get for free.
5. get up at 5am and do a days work - to own nothing.
6. save in a bank that pays a saving rate 10% below inflation.
laughable - get popcorn......and prepare for the panic sell off.
Since I started watching your video. I do my best to spread the word Twitter. I can only hope it gets the word out. Tonight I’ve tweeted this video 150 times. Then my finger started to hurt too much I do hope it helps.
But these same Rich people probably went without the fancy stuff whilst growing up. Sunak Parents were educated. Spent a lot of money on their kids education which is an investment not pissing it down the drain on drugs or drink and good time so how is it wrong ? People need to learn from the rich not envy them !!
Sunak does indeed have the air of a man who went without the fancy stuff whilst growing up.
Would love you to chat to Russell Brand.
There must be a complex bit of dynamics going on here. The wealthiest are in trouble if they own too much and ordinary people can no longer pay - I assume at that point the least wealthy become poorer. It’s similar to the models of competing populations - e.g foxes and rabbits.
Really, it is the poor who are in trouble if the rich own too much and the poor can't pay. 2008 and the current situation are both good examples of this.
The super wealthy won't become poorer when they have 101 ways of capitalising on their wealth, and even if that weren't the case, they could easily more than live on it.
Rather than trying (and often failing to claw the tax back) why don't we design economy not to be so susceptible to rent extraction (ie wealth that disappears into non productive activity... Land values, assets, bank accounts of the rich)
A restructuring tax would be land value tax. It simultaneously taxes a form of wealth, and discourages investment in it... Therefore freeing it up for society to use (the price of land and thus housing would drop)
Big ramifications of course. But a govt that cared would need to think that through. Eg deferred payments, compensation schemes for pensioners, an allowance for pensioners?
Omg, have you met farmers…… they’re not exactly rolling around in cash….. in fact they have incredibly high rates of suicide due to money troubles and supermarkets margins are Smalllllllll
Next question: How do the rich get their wealth in the first place?
Nowadays, usually from their dad's. The ORIGINAL source will vary a lot.
I drink your milkshake...I DRIIIIIIIINK IT UPPPPP!
Because of the Replicators
A USL is how we redistribute wealth. A USL is a UNIVERSAL SPEND LIMIT. Trying to tax the income and wealth of the rich has been a spectacular failure, a complex tax system is the game they want us to play and it is incredibly expensive to manage, there will never be enough laws to stop them from becoming richer and richer.
The rich are just like naughty wasteful self-absorbed children and we are playing their game, stop playing and set a limit, we don't need to take their money of them, just make them share it or it can sit there doing nothing. Sorry Gary you are a genius but a wealth tax is their game.
A wealth tax, how would that impact on overseas investments in the UK? Would international companies choose to invest elsewhere?
How can the UK attract overseas investment but have a wealth tax?
Well..whst do you propose then? Continuing the status-quo? Yes that is the argument is it not? The same tired argument from human trash that wants to keep things just the way they are - thank you! ;-))
Too much toxic human self - serving trash in this world I'm afraid?! It is a cancer a terminal cancer - a dumb - stupid - wretch! Perhaps it has had its chance and fucked it?!!
The rich get richer, due to ROCE. Return on Capital Employed. They invest and get high returns on capital.
Don't live in London then... Go against the grain and live in a city which is up and coming. You'll get a cheaper, bigger house and a better quality of life. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool are fantastic cities with fantastic career potentials. As for the rich getting richer... Buying into companies and owning stakes is easier than it's ever been. My parents would have had to go to the bank in town to buy a stock in a company, now I can do it while on the toilet.
The problem with your argument is that living in a city up north has exactly the same issues as living in London but on a smaller scale. Buying a house is equally unaffordable for a lot of people in the cities you mention just because the salaries tend to be lower.
Also, I'd dispute your claim that northern cities have the same career potential as living in London. In my case I lived up north and twice got made redundant because the company I worked for decided to move the jobs to London (mainly because the directors of the company didn't want to travel up north every once in a while to visit us). Eventually in the industry I worked in there were only 2-3 companies up north compared to 20-30 in London and the south east. In terms of career potential the best option was to be in London.
I think the people of Manchester Leeds Sheffield and Liverpool getting priced out of their home town by people who would rather live in London would not be great.
Would u like to go for a coffee
Isn’t it the more rich people the better the economy as the more wealth is created the more enterprise is promoted the higher wages get and cheaper the supply in the economy gets through innovation. Aren’t the majority of billionaires/millionaires self made. Isn’t the rich accumulating cash good as there will be increased goods and services in an economy and even when it’s stored in a bank it enables mortgages for poorer people. I’m just thinking about which system will be best for the average person will a more socialist system be sustainable in the long run or would the heavy taxation on the rich massively hit output in the economy negatively effecting the average person in the long run. Can you do a video explaining the core macroeconomics.
We could make do with mild social democracy, as we had for 30 years after world war 2. What we’ve got now is rentier capitalism where all the money and wealth flows upwards. Normal people tend to spend the money they’ve got whereas rich people save it or invest it in assets, so it’s not good for our economy to have a small elite who are super rich and who consistently invest to increase asset prices. Trickle down economics as a concept is dead. Even rich people don’t try to defend it any more, which is why you have the Conservatives in this country pretending to be populists
No. If you said the exact opposite of almost everything you stated you'd be closer to the truth. For example most wealth is inherited, accumulation leads to hoarding and speculation - and of course exploitation, etc...Capitalism is a zero sum game, so there is a limit to how many rich people there can be and it always leads to monopolization. On the other hand, there is no limit to how rich a few people can be; thus, massive inequality. The only hope is to build a mass movement that can challenge capitalists for power and then radically (at the root) change the system from capitalism to a mode of production that is not based on exploitation and destruction. Sound impossible? It probably is, but the alternative is mass death, suffering, and dislocation from global warming, so...
@@crayontom9687 yes we need the money to circulate and wealth inequality is necessary to a certain point but too much of it will just crumble the economy. Was the 30 years after ww2 economically sound didn’t we get to high inflation economic stagnation in the 1970s. The nationalised services were costing far too much and operating at major losses the unions were holding the country to ransom. What is the possible solution to this problem? I think the theory of basic universal income for everyone could come to light in the near future to sustain the current economic system. Also the theory goes that due to our demand based economy the method of becoming rich is by meeting people’s demands indicating that these rich people have successfully accomplished that in most cases and contribute in increasing people’s standards of living, but I do agree that wealth inequality too high will destroy the system as the Pareto distribution states. So what can we do to control wealth inequality without too many negative impacts.
@@dylanemeraldgrey A 2019 study published by Wealth-X found that around 68% of those with a net worth of $30 million or more made it themselves. Further, a second study by Fidelity Investments found that 88% of all millionaires are self-made, meaning they did not inherit their wealth. Capitalism has been the most effective economic system in creating wealth and taking people out of poverty.
"made it themselves" by whose standard of make? Gary describes in the video how the wealthy sell the use of what they already own. They didn't make wealth- they already had it. Wealth isn't created. The resources already exist and we (the poor) pay to use those resources. A lot of the ownership has come from previous generations living in a slightly more balanced system where it was possible to save your money or possible to mortgage an asset to accrue money and/or assets. The money and assets got passed down and now those people who inherited rent the use of things they inherited. That's not self made.
The goods and services didn't increase in number. There's a near static amount within a closed system.
Putting poressure on our elected representetives sounds a bit weak, Gazz.
@@Vroomfondle1066 True.