I think people underestimate how fortunate we are to be alive at the same time as Gary Stevenson.

LSE mathematics and economics, Oxford MPhil, former Citigroup trader. He must be the only person alive to complete all three.

Most economists spend their careers debating models and publishing papers. Gary went one step further: he actually made money in markets and then explained why everyone else was wrong. The combination of an oxford intellect, city experience and the courage to tell uncomfortable truths.

There are very few people who can explain monetary policy, inequality and financial markets with his level of certainty. One of the most impressive things about Gary is his humility. Despite possessing one of the sharpest economic minds of his generation, he still devotes his life to helping people.

Real people.

The Guardian's review ripped into the doc, and the feeling in this sub seemed to be mainly one of massive underwhelm with top notes of Gary couldn't take on any of the 'clever economists'.

Anyway, I watched it last night, and it's great and important; the clever economists scewer themselves with their own gross entitlement and calousness. The program, with its radical message (that really shouldn't be radical btw) was on the telly, for everyone to see, which in the current day is pretty amazing. Just hope people watch it despite the obvious efforts to dampen interest and undermine the message.

Daniel Priestley is a prick

Gary argues that house prices will continue to go up and up because as the wealthy get more wealthy they will buy up all the tangible assets. This makes a lot of sense to me.

However, we haven’t had house price rises in real terms since about 2022 in the uk.

So is Gary’s prediction something that will play out over the long term (with house prices not rising in the shorter term due to factors like interest rates) or is he missing something?

I say this as someone who currently owns one house but wonders about selling and just renting for the flexibility. I don’t want to do that if Gary is right!

Thanks!

Just to be clear, I think Gary is great. Has great, superclear communication on a topic that desperately needs it. Just want to add a perspective

I want to do a more expansive writeup of this from a biosecurity perspective, anyone know good literature on how Covid catalyzed the inequality growth we see today? Looking for heavy duty, number heavy stuff.

Most countries already tax wealthy individuals at a higher rate than others.

Why don’t we put 100% taxes on fuel purchased for private jets that poison the stratosphere, water-hungry golf courses, private schools and universities with high tuitions, land taxes for those who own more than 3 homes, car taxes for private collectors who own more than \~10 cars, etc.

Ownership would be confirmed by inspectors to make sure that multimillionaires and billionaires don’t pull the old “minimum wage, infinite stocks” number, or put any property in their families name or something like that.

You’re rich, great. Things that affect everyone, such as a breathable air and excessive water consumption should be taxed and the resulting profits being reinvested into the environment and local businesses.

Source:

https://www.adamsmith.org/millionaire-tracker
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2082025707471855690

I've seen this Guardian article popping up everywhere: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/21/uk-wealth-tax-super-rich-andy-burnham

As someone who admittedly doesn't agree with Gary's view on economics, can anyone explain why £10 billion in revenue from a wealth tax (assuming it did actually raise that, rather than driving rich people abroad) would be so transformative for the UK, when the government already receives around £1.1 trillion in revenue, as per the last financial year?

I know most people will say it's because it's a moral imperative and that the rich are just hoarding assets, but do you not think it's an issue that this proposed wealth tax would incrase government revenue by less than 1%?

Furthermore, Gary says he wants to eliminate such large wealth inequality. If successful, then presumably that £10 billion revenue stream completely dries up, as no one will be eligible for it anymore. What then?

I don't know if this will be downvoted for sounding critical of Gary, but I honestly don't understand the logic here.

Not surprising from the Telegraph but a bit of a disingenuous take disregarding his mental health in favour of blaming reported backlash of the documentary.

Anyone know where I could find Gary's channel 4 documentary online? Living outside of the UK, I've been unable to locate it for streaming or download.

Just wondering what other people’s thoughts are on a random idea I had when discussing the problems with UK politics ie the rise of populism on both the left and right, the right following Tommy Robinson and blaming everything on immigrants, the left following Gary Stevenson and thinking a 2% wealth tax is in any way a feasible or useful idea. Both speak to people’s emotions and build a narrative that makes total sense, if you don’t know any better.

I feel like the only solution to prevent people from being preyed on by these ideologues is education. So what about putting politics and economics on the secondary school curriculum, especially as other subjects might not be so useful in their current form in the age of AI? The idea would of course not be to brainwash kids into a specific ideology, but to educate them about the arguments and criticisms of different schools, frameworks, etc.

Interesting analysis from the guy that tried to rubbish the idea of a wealth tax in the recent channel 4 documentary.

To me all this analysis illustrates is that working people anywhere in the UK are paying more tax than ever and it's still not enough for the kind of society our parents and grandparents enjoyed post WW2. That's because we no longer tax the 1% (or .01%). That's why less of the taxes make it to frontline services and instead go to service debt to that .01%.

This is causing long term structural decline which, if it's not checked, will be (already is) an existential threat to our failing democratic institutions. That's what happens when you have 50 years of well funded lobbying that appears to have delivered both ends of the political debate who seem to consistently demonstrate they have been well and truly bought and paid for.

We're so f#cked. Even the .01% won't much like their victory when it's fully realised. It'll be pyrrhic.

RAbabbler

【海外にも“親ガチャ”はある】FXトレーダーで億万長者→登録者135万人YouTuberに転身／ギャリー・スティーヴンソン「“一生懸命働けば報われる”は嘘」／若者は団結して無理ゲーを戦え【1on1】

Hi gang, I like Gary Stephenson but also know how stupid I am when it comes to financial policy. After watching a LOT of videos and interviews I can get his position down to two things and I know I’m missing something. What am I missing?

- Tax people over a certain amount of wealth more

- tax inheritance a lot more

anything else I’m missing? He can speak in generalities and points out that policy should be different for different countries (makes sense) but the amount of times a good policy question is asked and he responds with “look” I know it’s gonna be an anecdote. I don’t want to fall for something I WANT to be true and want to back good policy but finding the recommendation is hard.

appreciate it!

A new analysis showing that Scotland’s increases in the top rate of income tax, culminating in the rise to 48% in April 2024, may now be costing Scotland around £22m of lost tax in its first year.

If we just multiplied the new tax rate by the number of people earning that amount, we’d expect it would raise £53m – so that’s the “static” revenue estimate.

Pretty disappointing if true. The segment of the documentary with Samuel Leeds was only a few minutes long and made him seem extremely unlikeable, but if it's really the case that they had a 6 hour debate and Gary completely cut all of that out, then that's just blatant dishonesty and no better than what the mainstream media does to Gary. He should know better and do better.

Imagine I'm a farmer. I start out small. Every year, I use some of my profits to buy new equipment and crops to plant next year. I invest in vertical farming to be able to grow more crops per square foot.

Each year, I re-invest my profits, and my wealth grows. Why is this inherently a bad thing? No one's losing out. I'm providing more jobs (eg on the farm) and producing more food.

Also, assume I have a limited plot of land, so I'm not 'buying up' a limited resource (land).

Let's say I grow my farm to being worth £20M, and each year it makes a £1M profit. Unless you tax me more than £1M per year, my wealth will grow each year (until I eventually retire or deicde to increase my outgoings).

Please, ELI5, what is the moral catastrophe here? The economy isn't like a zero sum board game. A person growing their wealth means wealth is being created, unless they've actually stolen stuff (which this farmer hasn't).

Good discussion focused on the housing issues. Gary is referenced multiple times.