Gary Stevenson – Economist
Discussion
xstian said:
Kawasicki said:
JagLover said:
Kawasicki said:
An example from Germany.
A friend of mine has a plan, one he is enacting. It requires effort on his part, it’s risky too, but here it is…
It’s kinda boring too, so apologies…
Buy a flat with a bit of spare cash (who has 10‘s of thousands of spare cash these days!). Rent it out for a few years… the tenants pay the mortgage. Sell it after X years, to minimise tax load.
Now he has a bigger pile of cash. Split it into two smaller piles and buy two apartment buildings (say 6 flats in each building).
Repeat every X years.
He has a VERY good tax adviser… he says he pays around 12% income tax… a fraction of what I pay. Guess what? His hard work and risk taking means he is getting wealthy, but also the fact that he pays so little tax!
That would be to do with the taxation of rental income and capital gains not due to a lack of taxes on "wealth". A friend of mine has a plan, one he is enacting. It requires effort on his part, it’s risky too, but here it is…
It’s kinda boring too, so apologies…
Buy a flat with a bit of spare cash (who has 10‘s of thousands of spare cash these days!). Rent it out for a few years… the tenants pay the mortgage. Sell it after X years, to minimise tax load.
Now he has a bigger pile of cash. Split it into two smaller piles and buy two apartment buildings (say 6 flats in each building).
Repeat every X years.
He has a VERY good tax adviser… he says he pays around 12% income tax… a fraction of what I pay. Guess what? His hard work and risk taking means he is getting wealthy, but also the fact that he pays so little tax!
Here BTL has been made less attractive due to changes in the tax system, including restrictions on offsetting interest expense which mean it is theoretically possible to be paying tax on taxable profits while actually making a loss. The consequences of this seem to be many exiting the BTL market and reduced supply for tenants.
Edited to add… that my friend started with 12k € cash… and drives a shed… so there is a bit of both sides of the argument in his story.
Edited by Kawasicki on Thursday 13th March 05:43
What are the similarities?
Kawasicki said:
Gary talks about the wealthy owning the physical assets. He says that that is the true sign of wealth, the big differentiator between the have and the have nots.
I don't think that's the sort of wealth GS is talking about. I don't think he has a problem with your mate as an example. What GS says is the problem is people who have a very large passive income (£millions per year). They are using that income to accumulate more assets and wealth and frankly why wouldn't they? The trouble is there is only a finite amount of assets, whether that's houses, flats, blocks of flats, commercial interests or land. You say your mate started with £12k, but if he has to compete with buyers who literally have £millions of unearned income coming in each year, to buy a finite or high demand asset, hes going to get priced out of the market eventually.
I've watched a few of his youtube videos, they're all pretty similar. I think what he is saying about wealth inequality is correct though and on the path we are on at the moment, its only going to get worse.
Kawasicki said:
An example from Germany.
A friend of mine has a plan, one he is enacting. It requires effort on his part, it’s risky too, but here it is…
It’s kinda boring too, so apologies…
Buy a flat with a bit of spare cash (who has 10‘s of thousands of spare cash these days!). Rent it out for a few years… the tenants pay the mortgage. Sell it after X years, to minimise tax load.
Now he has a bigger pile of cash. Split it into two smaller piles and buy two apartment buildings (say 6 flats in each building).
Repeat every X years.
He has a VERY good tax adviser… he says he pays around 12% income tax… a fraction of what I pay. Guess what? His hard work and risk taking means he is getting wealthy, but also the fact that he pays so little tax!
anyone employed will also pay:A friend of mine has a plan, one he is enacting. It requires effort on his part, it’s risky too, but here it is…
It’s kinda boring too, so apologies…
Buy a flat with a bit of spare cash (who has 10‘s of thousands of spare cash these days!). Rent it out for a few years… the tenants pay the mortgage. Sell it after X years, to minimise tax load.
Now he has a bigger pile of cash. Split it into two smaller piles and buy two apartment buildings (say 6 flats in each building).
Repeat every X years.
He has a VERY good tax adviser… he says he pays around 12% income tax… a fraction of what I pay. Guess what? His hard work and risk taking means he is getting wealthy, but also the fact that he pays so little tax!
Krankenversicherung, (or have private health insurance)
Rentenversicherung,
Pflegeversicherung
Arbeitlosenversicherung
many will also pay:
Solidaritätzuschlag
If are declared as protestant, catholic or jewish you will also pay:
Kirchensteuer
so in Germany it is not as simple as income tax.
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity. 0
This would make some sense under the Monopoly model where wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands until one company ends up in control of everything, but this simply doesn't happen in a free market economy. In fact not only does it not happen, the opposite happens. Looking at the top 10 richest people in the world and the source of their wealth, half these companies barely existed when I was born in the late 70s.
Similarly, the choices we have keep growing. Microsoft looked like an unassailable monopoly around the start of the century, by providing the operating system and much of the software for nearly every computer in the world as computers became more and more common. They're now a bit of an underdog compared to Apple and Google.
People love choice and innovation, and a free market economy rewards those who provide it. Confiscating the assets of the richest won't really make the poor any richer. It won't produce any extra houses, cars, fuel, food, medicine etc.
What I think has happened and is happening is that we have moved towards a sort of oligarchy where the rich and powerful have far too much sway in setting policy, and using it to remain rich and powerful. They always have had, but it seems to be coming more pronounced, and in some ways dragging up the ladder behind them. I don't for one minute believe Bill Gates lies awake at night worrying about malaria or covid. That Charles is passionate about stopping climate change. Or that George Soros deeply cares about Albanian economic migrants. Nor that Elon Musk is a brilliant engineer who is solving big problems with ingenious solutions. What we see is a carefully curated public image, behind which are the age-old games of money and power.
Making billions from answering a need or solving a problem doesn't make anyone poorer in the long run, and even being poor is generally far better in a wealthy society than in a poor one. When you start inventing problems to solve and needs to answer, and lobbying for regulations and taxes on working people (whether they're working for £20k or £200k a year) to pay you to solve them, then it is a different matter. You reduce mobility, you lock in inefficiency and stifle growth.
You could confiscate ever private jet and super yacht in the world tomorrow and it wouldn't help "the poor" one jot. Trim back the size and scope of the state and let capital flow to where it is most effective and all manner of new possibilities open up.
This would make some sense under the Monopoly model where wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands until one company ends up in control of everything, but this simply doesn't happen in a free market economy. In fact not only does it not happen, the opposite happens. Looking at the top 10 richest people in the world and the source of their wealth, half these companies barely existed when I was born in the late 70s.
Similarly, the choices we have keep growing. Microsoft looked like an unassailable monopoly around the start of the century, by providing the operating system and much of the software for nearly every computer in the world as computers became more and more common. They're now a bit of an underdog compared to Apple and Google.
People love choice and innovation, and a free market economy rewards those who provide it. Confiscating the assets of the richest won't really make the poor any richer. It won't produce any extra houses, cars, fuel, food, medicine etc.
What I think has happened and is happening is that we have moved towards a sort of oligarchy where the rich and powerful have far too much sway in setting policy, and using it to remain rich and powerful. They always have had, but it seems to be coming more pronounced, and in some ways dragging up the ladder behind them. I don't for one minute believe Bill Gates lies awake at night worrying about malaria or covid. That Charles is passionate about stopping climate change. Or that George Soros deeply cares about Albanian economic migrants. Nor that Elon Musk is a brilliant engineer who is solving big problems with ingenious solutions. What we see is a carefully curated public image, behind which are the age-old games of money and power.
Making billions from answering a need or solving a problem doesn't make anyone poorer in the long run, and even being poor is generally far better in a wealthy society than in a poor one. When you start inventing problems to solve and needs to answer, and lobbying for regulations and taxes on working people (whether they're working for £20k or £200k a year) to pay you to solve them, then it is a different matter. You reduce mobility, you lock in inefficiency and stifle growth.
You could confiscate ever private jet and super yacht in the world tomorrow and it wouldn't help "the poor" one jot. Trim back the size and scope of the state and let capital flow to where it is most effective and all manner of new possibilities open up.
egomeister said:
oyster said:
The real wealth in this country isn't the billionaires.
It isn't the £100k+ earners.
It isn't the top 1% who pay 30% of all the taxes.
It's the millions and millions with hefty hauls of wealth who scrape by paying much tax on it because they take advantage of the plethora of tax advantages handed their way over the last couple of decades.
I'm talking about those who have £100K+ in cash ISAs, near to £1m in housing equity.
They pay no tax on savings, they pay no IHT. No CGT. No NICs.
How does someone with £1m in housing equity not pay IHT?It isn't the £100k+ earners.
It isn't the top 1% who pay 30% of all the taxes.
It's the millions and millions with hefty hauls of wealth who scrape by paying much tax on it because they take advantage of the plethora of tax advantages handed their way over the last couple of decades.
I'm talking about those who have £100K+ in cash ISAs, near to £1m in housing equity.
They pay no tax on savings, they pay no IHT. No CGT. No NICs.
£175k Residence nil rate band
plus £500k spouse transfer above allowances.
equals £1m.
Of course it's likely an estate has more than just the housing equity.
egomeister said:
Kinda where I'm at. He doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
Some of his positions I can get on board with, but there feels like there is something else driving him, like he feels an internal conflict between his own successes and being a class traitor or something. Either that or he's an outright grifter, but I'm not sure I take that view just yet.
I always think this and wonder what his end goal is. I can only assume youtube pays him well, or maybe he enjoys the attention.Some of his positions I can get on board with, but there feels like there is something else driving him, like he feels an internal conflict between his own successes and being a class traitor or something. Either that or he's an outright grifter, but I'm not sure I take that view just yet.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity. 0
This would make some sense under the Monopoly model where wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands until one company ends up in control of everything, but this simply doesn't happen in a free market economy. In fact not only does it not happen, the opposite happens. Looking at the top 10 richest people in the world and the source of their wealth, half these companies barely existed when I was born in the late 70s.
Similarly, the choices we have keep growing. Microsoft looked like an unassailable monopoly around the start of the century, by providing the operating system and much of the software for nearly every computer in the world as computers became more and more common. They're now a bit of an underdog compared to Apple and Google.
People love choice and innovation, and a free market economy rewards those who provide it. Confiscating the assets of the richest won't really make the poor any richer. It won't produce any extra houses, cars, fuel, food, medicine etc.
What I think has happened and is happening is that we have moved towards a sort of oligarchy where the rich and powerful have far too much sway in setting policy, and using it to remain rich and powerful. They always have had, but it seems to be coming more pronounced, and in some ways dragging up the ladder behind them. I don't for one minute believe Bill Gates lies awake at night worrying about malaria or covid. That Charles is passionate about stopping climate change. Or that George Soros deeply cares about Albanian economic migrants. Nor that Elon Musk is a brilliant engineer who is solving big problems with ingenious solutions. What we see is a carefully curated public image, behind which are the age-old games of money and power.
Making billions from answering a need or solving a problem doesn't make anyone poorer in the long run, and even being poor is generally far better in a wealthy society than in a poor one. When you start inventing problems to solve and needs to answer, and lobbying for regulations and taxes on working people (whether they're working for £20k or £200k a year) to pay you to solve them, then it is a different matter. You reduce mobility, you lock in inefficiency and stifle growth.
You could confiscate ever private jet and super yacht in the world tomorrow and it wouldn't help "the poor" one jot. Trim back the size and scope of the state and let capital flow to where it is most effective and all manner of new possibilities open up.
Ah yes, the answer to every problem is always more deregulation and more privatisation of current state assets. That always works out well in practice, doesn't it?This would make some sense under the Monopoly model where wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands until one company ends up in control of everything, but this simply doesn't happen in a free market economy. In fact not only does it not happen, the opposite happens. Looking at the top 10 richest people in the world and the source of their wealth, half these companies barely existed when I was born in the late 70s.
Similarly, the choices we have keep growing. Microsoft looked like an unassailable monopoly around the start of the century, by providing the operating system and much of the software for nearly every computer in the world as computers became more and more common. They're now a bit of an underdog compared to Apple and Google.
People love choice and innovation, and a free market economy rewards those who provide it. Confiscating the assets of the richest won't really make the poor any richer. It won't produce any extra houses, cars, fuel, food, medicine etc.
What I think has happened and is happening is that we have moved towards a sort of oligarchy where the rich and powerful have far too much sway in setting policy, and using it to remain rich and powerful. They always have had, but it seems to be coming more pronounced, and in some ways dragging up the ladder behind them. I don't for one minute believe Bill Gates lies awake at night worrying about malaria or covid. That Charles is passionate about stopping climate change. Or that George Soros deeply cares about Albanian economic migrants. Nor that Elon Musk is a brilliant engineer who is solving big problems with ingenious solutions. What we see is a carefully curated public image, behind which are the age-old games of money and power.
Making billions from answering a need or solving a problem doesn't make anyone poorer in the long run, and even being poor is generally far better in a wealthy society than in a poor one. When you start inventing problems to solve and needs to answer, and lobbying for regulations and taxes on working people (whether they're working for £20k or £200k a year) to pay you to solve them, then it is a different matter. You reduce mobility, you lock in inefficiency and stifle growth.
You could confiscate ever private jet and super yacht in the world tomorrow and it wouldn't help "the poor" one jot. Trim back the size and scope of the state and let capital flow to where it is most effective and all manner of new possibilities open up.
oyster said:
£325k IHT nil rate band
£175k Residence nil rate band
plus £500k spouse transfer above allowances.
equals £1m.
Of course it's likely an estate has more than just the housing equity.
Ah yes, I'd totally forgotten the residence allowance. You wonder how many people will be taking advantage of the spouse transfer in the future given the rate of divorce now!£175k Residence nil rate band
plus £500k spouse transfer above allowances.
equals £1m.
Of course it's likely an estate has more than just the housing equity.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity.
Exactly my view too.The solution is opportunity.
Governments blasting economies with money caused excess inflation which engorged the few at the cost of all.
That’s not a great way to create opportunity.
Mr Whippy said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity.
Exactly my view too.The solution is opportunity.
Governments blasting economies with money caused excess inflation which engorged the few at the cost of all.
That’s not a great way to create opportunity.
sugerbear said:
Mr Whippy said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity.
Exactly my view too.The solution is opportunity.
Governments blasting economies with money caused excess inflation which engorged the few at the cost of all.
That’s not a great way to create opportunity.
I've watched a few of his videos as they were getting lots of views so came into my feed.
My view is that he basically has his single point agenda - Tax the rich to fix all of societies ill, and chats mostly BS/tries to clunkily talk his way through a chosen topic to try & make that the logical conclusion/fix.
Some points he raises in his ramblings are reasonable, like increasing care costs for the elderly meaning inheritances for millenials/genz might be reduced. But he presents that as 'the middle class don't get inheritance anymore'...
He lets his mask slip when he says stuff like 'the rich will eat the middle class'
So yeah, just another grifter
My view is that he basically has his single point agenda - Tax the rich to fix all of societies ill, and chats mostly BS/tries to clunkily talk his way through a chosen topic to try & make that the logical conclusion/fix.
Some points he raises in his ramblings are reasonable, like increasing care costs for the elderly meaning inheritances for millenials/genz might be reduced. But he presents that as 'the middle class don't get inheritance anymore'...
He lets his mask slip when he says stuff like 'the rich will eat the middle class'
So yeah, just another grifter
First off cards down, I like Gary and his message, probably as we grew up similarly.
What is interesting from this thread is that it seems it's hard for people to accept that anyone could go on a moral crusade or somesuch and not have an ulterior motive? There is a natural suspicion of anyone with an on the face of it altruistic goal, like it can't be true, he/she has to have another 'angle'
What's worse, him just carrying on being a trader and forgetting his old friends and family's plight and shrugging saying I'm now part of the problem but that's just the way it is, I'm alright jack I'll continue to profit off what I think it in essence wrong. Or seeing/feeling the downside to this and reversing course to try and do whatever he can to fix it?
No one without money can do it, he went back to Oxford after trading to do a Masters, he's been, I believe, in thinktanks etc trying to change things from within the offical system and I think he sees the youtube thing as a means to get direct to people, if he makes money to continue to spread his message then fair enough he himself has nothing against people earning money. Part of the issue/his message is that the poor have zero representation in economics, the media and academia is nearly all well off people who are naturally ignorant of certain aspects. A tiny tiny fraction of those without money at birth get to make 'big' money and then a smaller fraction still, jump off that gravy train to attempt to fix the inequity they percieve. If this makes me naive in the extreme so be it, and I'll eat the humble pie when proven wrong about him.
The latching on to whether he was the best trader this and that, is nit picking, he went to LSE, worked for Citi and got a masters at Oxford (that must be true else it would have been jumped on immediately) and they all make huge sums and see what happens/how it all works, that's enough for me, the whole backlash from colleagues thing, who is to say they are being 100% truthful, ultimately you end up believing what you want to beleive and me, I believe that leaving these places is harder than staying in them, and leaving them to not just retire but to put yourself up for attempting something like this is admirable, even if you disagree with him, I like seeing people with genuine passion for anything.
That passion could it be used/steered by third parties? maybe but right now I think he is popular because of the message and people want him on their podcasts (recent Piers Morgan one was interesting) etc as they get more views, he seems confident in his work (borderline arrogant to some no doubt) and I would imagine would be quite canny/resistent to manipulation?
There are some interesting things that come out of the talking about covid money or the debt increases in general for countries and how if there are now Trillions out there (financial crisis 2008 if was all hundreds of Billions) then the money is somewhere, and those at the bottom will get relatively poorer.
So what are the truths, he was a working class kid, he had a talent for maths, a drive to be rich, got a degree from LSE (1st?) got into Citi bank and was obsessed with making money, but didn't really perceive quite how much money that might be, then over time reacted badly to the effects of it partly due to his upbringing and things like the incredulousness of his bonus being many many years of his fathers wages. The gulf between that must have been crazy to experience in your early 20's.
There must be an ideallic wealth divide range? The extremes are both unfavourable, communist level wealth regardless of talent/ingenuity/effort and the other of elites and the remainder picking off scraps also regardless of talent/ingenuity/effort. His argument is we are currently a bit off and his argument is also that once a bit off the problem is then self perpetuating towards the elites side as we are in a position where the powerful are in charge of everything, media, politicians banks and turkeys don't vote for Christmas? So the current trajectory is towards the ever widening of the wealth gap?
As a 51 year old with friends and family in the up to mid 60's range we nearly all were brought up with stay at home mums regardless of social staus and now all our kids are faced with the likelyhood of that being possible as virtually nil. That is a lived experience of the things he talks about, life milestones are delayed now or missed altogether due to finances and this is not an improvement despite the trillions now out there.
What is interesting from this thread is that it seems it's hard for people to accept that anyone could go on a moral crusade or somesuch and not have an ulterior motive? There is a natural suspicion of anyone with an on the face of it altruistic goal, like it can't be true, he/she has to have another 'angle'
What's worse, him just carrying on being a trader and forgetting his old friends and family's plight and shrugging saying I'm now part of the problem but that's just the way it is, I'm alright jack I'll continue to profit off what I think it in essence wrong. Or seeing/feeling the downside to this and reversing course to try and do whatever he can to fix it?
No one without money can do it, he went back to Oxford after trading to do a Masters, he's been, I believe, in thinktanks etc trying to change things from within the offical system and I think he sees the youtube thing as a means to get direct to people, if he makes money to continue to spread his message then fair enough he himself has nothing against people earning money. Part of the issue/his message is that the poor have zero representation in economics, the media and academia is nearly all well off people who are naturally ignorant of certain aspects. A tiny tiny fraction of those without money at birth get to make 'big' money and then a smaller fraction still, jump off that gravy train to attempt to fix the inequity they percieve. If this makes me naive in the extreme so be it, and I'll eat the humble pie when proven wrong about him.
The latching on to whether he was the best trader this and that, is nit picking, he went to LSE, worked for Citi and got a masters at Oxford (that must be true else it would have been jumped on immediately) and they all make huge sums and see what happens/how it all works, that's enough for me, the whole backlash from colleagues thing, who is to say they are being 100% truthful, ultimately you end up believing what you want to beleive and me, I believe that leaving these places is harder than staying in them, and leaving them to not just retire but to put yourself up for attempting something like this is admirable, even if you disagree with him, I like seeing people with genuine passion for anything.
That passion could it be used/steered by third parties? maybe but right now I think he is popular because of the message and people want him on their podcasts (recent Piers Morgan one was interesting) etc as they get more views, he seems confident in his work (borderline arrogant to some no doubt) and I would imagine would be quite canny/resistent to manipulation?
There are some interesting things that come out of the talking about covid money or the debt increases in general for countries and how if there are now Trillions out there (financial crisis 2008 if was all hundreds of Billions) then the money is somewhere, and those at the bottom will get relatively poorer.
So what are the truths, he was a working class kid, he had a talent for maths, a drive to be rich, got a degree from LSE (1st?) got into Citi bank and was obsessed with making money, but didn't really perceive quite how much money that might be, then over time reacted badly to the effects of it partly due to his upbringing and things like the incredulousness of his bonus being many many years of his fathers wages. The gulf between that must have been crazy to experience in your early 20's.
There must be an ideallic wealth divide range? The extremes are both unfavourable, communist level wealth regardless of talent/ingenuity/effort and the other of elites and the remainder picking off scraps also regardless of talent/ingenuity/effort. His argument is we are currently a bit off and his argument is also that once a bit off the problem is then self perpetuating towards the elites side as we are in a position where the powerful are in charge of everything, media, politicians banks and turkeys don't vote for Christmas? So the current trajectory is towards the ever widening of the wealth gap?
As a 51 year old with friends and family in the up to mid 60's range we nearly all were brought up with stay at home mums regardless of social staus and now all our kids are faced with the likelyhood of that being possible as virtually nil. That is a lived experience of the things he talks about, life milestones are delayed now or missed altogether due to finances and this is not an improvement despite the trillions now out there.
DaveCWK said:
I've watched a few of his videos as they were getting lots of views so came into my feed.
My view is that he basically has his single point agenda - Tax the rich to fix all of societies ill, and chats mostly BS/tries to clunkily talk his way through a chosen topic to try & make that the logical conclusion/fix.
Some points he raises in his ramblings are reasonable, like increasing care costs for the elderly meaning inheritances for millenials/genz might be reduced. But he presents that as 'the middle class don't get inheritance anymore'...
He lets his mask slip when he says stuff like 'the rich will eat the middle class'
So yeah, just another grifter
Actually I read it differently. If you let a small number of people accumulate large amounts of wealth then the rest of society suffers. So yes, taxing the uber rich certainly helps the rest of society and taxing someone who has assets 100m+ isn't really going to impact their life as much as over taxing someone that earns £100,000 to make up for the tax benefts of those that derive their income from passive investments. My view is that he basically has his single point agenda - Tax the rich to fix all of societies ill, and chats mostly BS/tries to clunkily talk his way through a chosen topic to try & make that the logical conclusion/fix.
Some points he raises in his ramblings are reasonable, like increasing care costs for the elderly meaning inheritances for millenials/genz might be reduced. But he presents that as 'the middle class don't get inheritance anymore'...
He lets his mask slip when he says stuff like 'the rich will eat the middle class'
So yeah, just another grifter
Sunak was a classic example. Income of 2.2m. effective tax rate of 23% where as if he had a PAYE job he would have paid about 45% (ish).
Would his life be much worse if he paid a 45% on all his income instead of 23%? it's the difference between earning £98,000 per month instead of £141,000. With that extra £41k he could easily buy a house every four months and generate even more passive income and so on until he eventually "wins" at real life monopoly. Passive income should be taxed exactly the same way as PAYE income. (and I realise that he can dump money into a pension to reduce that rate).
I expect that someone will be along to say it's all the poltiics of envy.
sugerbear said:
Mr Whippy said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I always part company with these arguments when the proposed solution is a transfer of existing wealth, rather than the broadening of opportunity.
Exactly my view too.The solution is opportunity.
Governments blasting economies with money caused excess inflation which engorged the few at the cost of all.
That’s not a great way to create opportunity.
Government take a good 25%+ of money most people make, tax gains at about 25% now even if they were made over decades, and take another 20% on VAT item consumer spending.
Government get plenty to run the country.
I’d suggest they get too much, and their meddling, choosing winners and losers, and stimulating the economy out of the wazoo for 15 years after GFC and covid, is what’s broken it.
But it proves the point.
Throw money out to everyone, or even just the poor, and they’ll spend it.
The beneficiaries of that are business owners and people who deploy capital to make more money.
We’ve seen that happen for 15 years.
We don’t need to give poor people more money.
We need to give them a means to make more money in a thriving economy, where you can get a good job, move house easily and cheaply to be near work (not £30k in taxes, fees and costs for average houses) etc etc.
sugerbear said:
When I own all the properties / houses on the monopoly board, I say exactly the same thing to the other players, it isn't about wealth transfer, it's about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and looking for opportunities. They never listen and invariably all go bankrupt so it's definietly their fault. Or the bank. But definitely not mine.
Monopoly is a better analogy for corporatism and oligarchy than a free market economy. It takes place in a small, closed economy with finite resources, prescriptive rules and compulsory consumption. You can't set up a campsite, go to Prague instead or stay at home when you're hard up. You can't attract new customers, get into the conference business or divide Pall Mall into low cost sleeping pods. Going to jail, paying tax and getting share dividends are all a matter of pot luck. It's more like Blairism than small state capitalism. JuanCarlosFandango said:
sugerbear said:
When I own all the properties / houses on the monopoly board, I say exactly the same thing to the other players, it isn't about wealth transfer, it's about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and looking for opportunities. They never listen and invariably all go bankrupt so it's definietly their fault. Or the bank. But definitely not mine.
Monopoly is a better analogy for corporatism and oligarchy than a free market economy. It takes place in a small, closed economy with finite resources, prescriptive rules and compulsory consumption. You can't set up a campsite, go to Prague instead or stay at home when you're hard up. You can't attract new customers, get into the conference business or divide Pall Mall into low cost sleeping pods. Going to jail, paying tax and getting share dividends are all a matter of pot luck. It's more like Blairism than small state capitalism. swisstoni said:
How does he say that this wealth has recently been extracted from ordinary people and into the pockets of the super-wealthy?
Relatively simply:1: He uses the Rishi Sunak example; with £700m in the bank he gets £40m of passive annual income, he doesn't spend that money as the richer you are the less your personal consumption matters. Instead the super rich just buy up all the assets houses, gold, stocks as they can out bid you.
2: The taxes on most forms of passive income are lower which structurally moves wealth to asset owners over time.
3: Most people essentially leave nothing to there descendants but unless your family has millions in assets the likelihood is that at some stage somebody will have a health or personal care bill that will zero that wealth.
4: Very high income inequality also leads to political volatility see South America where policy flits between protection of the uncompetitive domestic industries owned oligarchs and deregulation where existing land owners get to buy up everyone else's assets.
In terms of policy provision I don't think Gary is particularly specific and he's mainly working at getting the inequality leads to bad outcomes even for those who are doing well (crime and decline of the public realm) message.
I think he's mainly advocating some form of assets taxes which means that you can't offshore the wealth e.g. land value taxes and a proper inheritance tax.
For both of those you need public mood to be in that direction, see reaction to the farm inheritance tax changes.
Edited by Talksteer on Thursday 13th March 21:41
Edited by Talksteer on Thursday 13th March 21:46
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff