Underated comment.

😂😅😊

Ba-dum tchhhhhh

🎉

How could he possibly have known? Oh yes, he’s clever and really knows his stuff. 😮

One of my professors in Medieval History mentioned one day that people tithing 10% of their income every year, and 10% of their estates when they die to the Catholic Church, after a few centuries transferred so much wealth to the Church that it began causing economic problems, constraining the economy. So the Church had to give some of it back. Never heard another word or found mention in a book. There are a couple of things going on in our world. A tax on wealth, means a tax on unrealized capital gains. Might be okay, but I think I'd feel that pain. No tax on unrealized capital gains is one of the ways the United States has become so wealthy. (No one understands what Alexander Hamilton really did. I've never seen the musical, but know enough about it to know his most important contribution is never mentioned.) However, property taxes on real estate, etc.. are a tax on wealth, so it's not unreasonable to tax wealth above a certain amount at these rates. (Poor Jeff Bezos having to pay 2% of his $170 billion every year.) Also the United States grows in wealth. The problem of course is this has been going to fewer and fewer hands -- people, corporations, etc.. that don't actually do much good with it (your point.) A lot of old old money is loaned out as credit card debt, which has become little different from Mafia loan sharks. It's buying up as many houses in the U.S. as it can so it can rent them out at increasingly higher rates. Basically it's surplus money to the super rich. At this point, that wealth is no longer really helping the United States, unless the goal is a plantation owned by Musk, Bezos, etc... It's being used to keep the middle and lower classes in penury. Now, how to sell this politically? That's the real issue. And for the record about 80% of my income and some of my capital, over 3-4 years will go to paying taxes. Not complaining. My real concern is an another problem that would exacerbate this.

This guy is a fraud, nobody can tax the rich, dont fall for this spell, rich people will leave somewhere else, reset the system, and have a goverment with dead penalty for corruption and a goverment that spends money where it had to be spended, local people. Greeting from Chile, a country under attack just like yours.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

All the successful KZfaqrs have a saying or some distinctive characteristic. Gary's "accent" is very counterintuitive (to me at least) for an intelligent informed articulate "influencer. Clearly the people who employed him as a trader recruited on merit rather than school attended. Go Gary, you give me the heart to struggle on.

Beau of the Fifth Column is similar - he looks and sounds like the stereotype of a rural MAGA conservative, but talks about political issues from a leftist perspective

the accent is interesting. That first video is very modern London street English -- fusion of cockney, Caribbean and south Asian. Most of the time these days it's slightly toned down East End cockney.

Gary asked very uncomfortable questions and they’ll never invite him back unless we all demand it. Find out who the editors are for those shows and bombard their inboxes, it’ll never happen otherwise.

Cheers mate ❤ I'll be having a good look at those stats.

Of course it won’t happen because the rich control everything & there not going to let anyone change that

I genuinely wondered what a post man was…then I realised that you must be a postman. 😂😂

@@Scotlanz Interesting also to see the common expression "rings true" become "rings through" (as a linguist, I happen to be fascinated by how language changes, particularly through mishearings and misunderstandings).

@@Scotlanz same 😅

@@jiyuandong8964 👑💥💜

Not gunna lie, I don't get it 😄

​@@Sock1122means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the injustice of it all. It's an old German saying apparently

@@SuperKendoman If a saying mentions both the devil and shit it's a good bet it's German and probably also something Martin Luther said.

​​@@SuperKendoman I'm German and yeah it's well known in Germany. Has been that way since forever I guess. Some things didn't change at all.

The devils got piles

This guy is a fraud, nobody can tax the rich, dont fall for this spell, rich people will leave somewhere else, reset the system, and have a goverment with dead penalty for corruption and a goverment that spends money where it had to be spended, local people. Greeting from Chile, a country under attack just like yours.

A more equal world is a threat to wealth creation. Marxism is a world evil. Read Animal Farm

@@mssmilingassasin501 yes because it has nothing to do with England being the most densely populated country in Europe and accepting almost a million new immigrants each year while having 5 million home deficit and vast boomer population living in oversized properties and not paying any extra tax on them.

@@vonder7 I live in the South West and can tell you for sure that what you're saying about migration is not as black and white as you put it. Sure, migration will have an impact, but there are so many properties in the area where I live that are owned as holiday homes (second homes, some of which are owned by foreign nationals primarily living overseas) and stand empty for more than 50% of the year. There are whole towns in Cornwall that are deserted for the majority of the off season, while the younger generations of the local population simply can't buy a house there. The ability to buy council properties since the days of Thatcher is part to blame. The number of social homes has reduced dramatically since then, and while yes, some of them are occupied by migrants, the fact that so many properties (both ex social and private) are now owned by landlords is very much to blame.

@@green_beard_87 it’s a tourist hot spot, a lot of people want to live there or go on holidays so the prices are high. do you think a shop assistant can afford to buy a house in Marbella, Nice or Monte Carlo? They can move to cheaper part of a country. But O would agree that foreigners not living in the uk shouldn’t be allowed to buy properties in the uk. I don’t understand this notion that someone should simply deserve living in a nice part of a country, deserve to own a nice house without actually earning it. It’s a commies utopia that will never work. You want to live good? Just earn it - that’s why income taxes should be minimal.

Whilst I do agree in part about the tourist hotspot part, what I was pertaining to is the people who own a second home and keep it to themselves. This has a negative impact on the local economy (I.e. local hotels and b&b's missing out on trade) as well as reduces the free housing stock for the indigenous population. If I own two homes, I can only live in one of them. This is part of the issue related to your comment about a shortage of housing. Its not solely limited to the south west either, the area that I moved from had the same problem.

@@green_beard_87 yeah cause everyone should be allowed to have only one house, one pair of shoes and one bicycle. It really worries me how this country is turning into commies stronghold 😩

I'm sharing with my 25 year old son too. Young people need to be aware of this stuff 💪

To be fair its easy to pick on reform (despite them having a full manifesto which doesn't include drowning migrants) but you would get the same response from people on any party. Most people who I know who vote Labour do so because they a) hate the Tories or B) their dad always has. The greens usually because they want to save the countryside (when they actually want to build millions of houses). Most people I know who vote reform do so as their is no credible right of centre party left in Britain and they are frustrated with what is happening with uncontrolled immigration.

I've noticed this as well

Congratulations on your 4th anniversary. 3rdager discovered Gary's KZfaq channel about 3 years ago, bought his book on the first day it arrived in Manchester's bookshops and enjoyed the talk he gave as part of its promotion. 3rdager hoped to help future generations but, in order to avoid bankruptcy, will shortly be forced to sell semi-derelict houses, earmarked for a small walkers/cyclists hostel/community hub supporting co-operative housing, to property developers: We have a cash offer on the table, whoever gets involved will get a decent return but working people will not benefit. 3ha's project is in line with Gary's concerns but this 3rdager's concerns date back to the beginning of the 21st century; any advice on finding a philanthropic investor?

Absolute twaddle you spout. Anyone can attempt to invest in property. There in no inherent right to be able to own property assets. It is an open market competition.

​@@paulgbar666except large funds are building 1000+ unit build to rent projects. This is new to the uk and comes after a mass exodus of private landlords from the uk private rental sector. It is no longer profitable for small landlords to enter the buy to let sector due to taxes, legal vulnerability and high interest rates. So it is a free market but it is now very heavily weighted to the rich and the transfer of wealth and housing stock is coming from the middle classes.

This was filmed just before I went on holiday!

This is my argument. I speak about community wealth, which includes social enterprises, businesses for good, essentially inspiring ordinary people to solve the problems right in front of them through business principles

This will be far more impactful at critical mass than any top down measures

At least many in India are aware of the overt corruption. Here in the West, people are still blind to it.

wtf why haven’t I heard of this at all.. not 1 peep on twitter even. 😐

@T1tusCr0w Just Google Jeremy Corbyn There are two articles that I saw. One from the BBC fwtw. I picked up he said this idea first in an article with Guardian post election. Eary days but I hope it's true.

@@T1tusCr0w Google it. There are three articles, including one from te BBC online.

Google it . There are 3 articles one by the BBC online.

Yeah, I've started saying mega-rich or ultra-rich. Also 1% - but that's trickier as if it is said or taken literally, it's probably too precise and varies by country.

​@@tiddlypom2097 Top 1% could still be misinterpreted as more tax on high incomes and that's already a thing. Could say "the 22,000" or "the 0.03%" as that seems to be the estimate for how many people would be taxed under plans for taxing wealth over £10m. It'd be good to also make a name that obviouslys mean "by wealth", but I suppose even if it's interpreted as income, the top 0.03% would be millions of pounds per year, which is probably either from assets, being used to buy assets or both, and is clearly distant from anyone with your typical four, five or six digits of annual salary.

Since we're educating people on what wealth is, we push for more wealth tax, we should call them "the very wealthy". Of course, this scares people that want to accumulate wealth, but it should not. If you're accumulating, then you have good income. Anything that lessens the tax burden on your income will help you accumulate. The only ones affected are the ones that have income exclusively based on their existing wealth/assets, which are a very small minority everywhere in the world.

He does? That is what the video is about.

A pretty short video 😂😂😂

OMG I recognised it from Spirited Away but until your comment I didn't think about the relevance of the characters and story. Good pick up!

@@tiddlypom2097damn I didn’t get that - could you explain 🤣

@@WilliamAhlertin Spirited Away the character ‘No Face’ is a character driven by greed and continuous consumption and becomes horrifically bloated as a result. The character also creates an environment of servitude amongst the bathhouse staff by piecemealing out scraps of gold! Genius link really

@@821Drifter128 Yep the greed for gold, and how they're all consumed by it. Thinking about it some more, there's another part too: No Face isn't even inherently greedy or evil, he's influenced by the bath-house. He's shaped by the system he's in. Change the system, and it pushes individuals in a different direction.

Rent prices aren't ridiculous. They are as a result of the market. Move to somewhere cheaper no matter how inconvenient

@@paulgbar666 That's what you took from that? the '3 times the monthly amount' that agents/landlords use as an excuse to discriminate against the unemployed. the 'my insurance states no DSS' is just an excuse, i already stated housing benefit fully covers the rent so whats moving somewhere cheaper gonna do? you wanna know why theres a homeless problem there you go

@albertross4492 There is a reason why income has to be 30 times the monthly rent which you would know if you had any clue as to how the PRS works. This is the minimum requirement on the income side for a tenant to qualify for RGI. Without RGI a LL is defenceless against feckless rent defaulting tenants who cost LL £9billion a year in defaulted rent. No sane LL would take on any tenants not able to qualify for RGI. Even more so now that S21 is to be abolished. The reason for No DSS is because most BTL lenders state no DSS tenants permitted. Down South it is extremely rare that HB comes anywhere near the market rents. My rents were double the LHA so I never had any LHA applicants apart from one who failed a reference check with CCJ's Now if it weren't for these blanket No DSS policies then you would make a duoerb tenants. You would never have to actively seek employment and would have all sorts of other benefits which would mean no chance of rent defaulting. You would make for an extremely attractive tenant situation. DSS tenants like you are few and far between. So the vast majority should move up North where everything is cheaper. Everyone and his aunt wants to live in the SE which is why market rents are so expensive. Scotland is crying out for population. Why not move there with very cheap rents!? Companies that invest in letting properties are perfectly entitled to seek the highest rents they believe they can achieve. They have shareholders to satisfy. Tenants will be paying for the share dividends with their rent for the accommodation services they consume. Nobody is forcing them to rent with these corporates. They are however a perfectly legitimate method of bringing letting properties to market. They tend to be more expensive rents than the normal small LL of which 95% have 2 letting properties. However ridiculous Govt policies like S24 have driven many of these small LL out of business. Now with the S21 abolishment and the even more ridiculous Labour Renters Charter even more LL will be selling up. This just means even more expensive market rents. Very few new LL are entering the PRS There will be decline from the current 17% of the housing market to 7% as was in the 60 and 70's. This will be a disaster for tenants none of whom will be able to buy any of the former LL properties. Nobody has worked out yet where millions of homeless tenants will live. There certainly isn't sufficient Social Housing which is where they should really be housed. Based on need an illegal immigrant family will always be deemed to be in the greatest need. Very few of the Social Housing that Labour intends to build will go to indigenous white British. Nobody cares about millions of homeless tenants especially the Labour Govt. They like the Tories want homeowners. Many tenants will have little choice than to return to their childhood bedrooms if available. If not perhaps tents will be the order of the day! Most DSS tenant situations aren't worth bothering with especially those that are required to seek work Not being required to actively seek work is actually a great plus for you. Your circumstances guarantee an income stream for a LL and as such you are a great risk.

Reading Tressell's book that was published in 1911, its shocking how much is familiar today in the thoughts and attitudes of the working class xharacters. And there was if I remember correctly, there was a big baking crisis in the 1880s. So... Perhaps not that much has changed.

It changed the world that book. I would recommend it to anyone even now. It’s as relevant as ever unfortunately.

Great book, set in the period before nationalisation.