Diversifying into non traditional assets can definitely help. I’m also looking at international stocks since some global markets are showing resilience despite the FED’s gloomy outlook

Economic instability, inflation, and market fluctuations can further complicate matters and add to people's financial worries

Given the uncertainties, it might be wise to allocate a portion to safer options like bonds or fixed income securities

It's crucial to have a well-thought-out plan, especially considering the current state of the global economy

Consulting with a financial advisor can provide personalized insights and help align your investment strategy

Yes my Dad asked this question and our local MP didn’t seem to have a grasp of it. Very eye opening! Glad she replied though. Think I’m sending this video as part of my email to her.

So they don’t know wealth is but they know the owners of will leave. Lol that doesn’t make sense.

Same, shocking how little the representatives of government know about how the economy functions. No wonder lobbies have so much influence, politicians are completely gullible and uninformed.

@@tj9382 yeah its worrying. As Gary alludes too, I think they just understand wealth as well paid professions and Range Rovers on your driveway

I didn't even get a response from my labour candidate. I'm not sure which is worse, someone who misunderstands or someone who doesn't care

That woman completely transformed my life for the better. I've met many investment advisors, but none are as smart as Kristin. I'm surprised you know her too.

A l0t of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, l needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across Kristin. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850k...

To be honest, I've been wary of banks for a while, but I wasn't sure how to speak with an advisor first. Please let me know who your adviser is if it's okay; I need some recommendations.

Just search the name online. You’d find necessary details to work with and set up an appointment if you like.

@@veniceblackwood2931 SCAM

You can't put yourself as a victim. Most of UK struggling, but live within your means, save 20% and invest in some sort of index fund via Stocks and Share ISA, and when you retire, will have normal living. If you unhappy with the financial, change your career, as a Physics teacher, should have loads of transferable skills, do your research, find something between what you like and what pays well and go for it.

Dollar 💲numbers are not ACTUAL physical assets. The only thing being discussed here is the financial bartering capability of the government being increased over that of the "asset" holder.

better if muslims and blacks leave the uk... such a rubbish country nowadays

Most assets can leave. Are you going to ban/tax foreigners for the value of shares they own in UK companies or hold in UK Govt Bonds,for example?. If you only tax UK assets are you going to effectively force UK savers to invest in foreign assets instead? Someone looks like they have skipped Adam Smith and jumped straight in at Piketty. The Govt are desperate for people to invest in UK companies to try to jumpstart growth. Putting off foreign investement would just increase their shortfall further.

In the same way £700 million of Sunak’s wife’s Indian based Infosys shares wouldn’t leave the UK as they were or would never be here in the first place to be taxed.

@@Jclmgthey are moving to the states where their kids will be going to Californian schools

wealth tax is better in every regard than CGT and IHT. you pay it yearly, making it less "painful", yet effective. It's difficult to hide assets, it's easy to hide gains. it involves less administration as the state does not need to track your assets and prove gains, just state what you own now. It encourages investment, as you must now at least outperform inflation and wealth tax together.

Yea, but you’re in Switzerland….

Switzerland isn’t a basket case like the UK.

Isn't it paid almost entirely by working people with the super rich avoiding it by being non domicile? Swiss banks are rather famous for being good at hiding assets...

you tax them on what they have in Switzerland, not their assets in other countries because that's under a different jurisdiction. Gary is saying let's tax someone in the UK who has house in Switzerland, so the Swiss person pays tax in the Switzerland, and then a tax in the UK for being Swiss.

But they allow offshore companies to own them. Not so simple and arguement

@@busandcoach and even if offshore companies are not allowed, it's easy to set up an onshore company owned by an offshore company.

Fuckimg vulture funds are destroying the housing market in Ireland along with AirBnB.

It can be done, even if paper companies are set up to extract a countries wealth or own their assets. However what country has the resources to monitor that? The next problem is some trade agreements often have specific fish hook clauses relating to property, asset and company acquisition

@@busandcoach close the loopholes.

Agreed. 'Tax the rich' is such a lazy call. I think Gary distinguishes between the "money/asset shufflers" and the 'hard working, well paid' rich.

America did well prior to the invention of tax. Read Tragedy and hope 101.

Very good point - ill be using that

Tax them? No, I think Mao knew how to deal with the capitalist class best.

Yeah we need to get as much emotion out of this as possible so we can think clearly and rationally 'tax the asset' 👌🙏

I asked a wealth manager what % of his clients had inherited wealth vs earned wealth... was 90% earned wealth, 10% inherited. But his clients are in the £700k - £1.5m portfolio bracket. Gary is talking about the £10m + bracket.

@@dellwright1407 majority of the UK rich list is earned wealth not inherited.. its the same everywhere. The so called rich people are looking for are actually themselves who end up doing very well. We should be taxing every man women and child until no one can ever be rich ever again!

It won’t

I agree, just look at the price of property. At one point it was rising 10/12% per annum in London, on a large house in a nicer part of town that’s £120/200k per annum on the value of a home with an average median of wage of +£30k? It was impossible in my younger days to save enough to keep up with the rise in prices, making it impossible to raise the deposit required. Same can be said for investments with the S&P benefitting from the absurd amounts of QE post 2008. If you had the capital you could expect just under 11% per annum. As the saying goes “money goes to money”, someone with an inheritance of £100k would make £10/12k per annum during a time when median salary was £30k, how does one keep up with that over the long term? Wealth inequality is the single biggest issue facing society, it’s the reason that those earning decent livings still feel like they’re falling behind (and they are), why the middle class feel poorer (it’s because they are relatively speaking).

​@@dellwright1407also depends on industries. New technologies are almost always earned. Old legacy industries are often inherited.

technofeudalism

Yep, everyone hates the 'Mom and Pop' (Mum and Dad) landlord due to jealousy, but they'll hate the Blackrock brigade even more when it sinks in how useless they are and how little they care about their tenants.

​@randomrandomness8743 Nothing to do with jealousy. It's to do with the obscene rents vs wages, it's to do with the extreme insecurity of tenure and about the very poor quality vs price. Serfs HATE being serfs no matter who their domineering master is. ps I own my house outright.

Hey do you have a source for this?

Can't Blame them for making sound financial decisions. This generation need to up skill to be able to afford houses and planning laws need scrapping. Independent fair system maybe even AI and not corrupt slow useless city councils.

The distortion has been mostly created by government/central bank policies which have been shifting left over the past 30 years?

​@@stumac869citation needed please!

Utter bullshit

@@stumac869 Might have been a typo, but if you mean shifting right over the last 40-50 years then you are generally correct. The breaking of the unions combined with the libertarian and right lining economic thoughts winning out at the time (think Hayek or Friedman)

Utter rubbish. You’re completely ignoring pension funds, which own nearly half of all US stocks. And those pensions belong to ordinary people.

I think that's a fair position sort of. The issue is I think more one of not understanding the trade offs you're taking and needing to properly evaluate those. Nothing is free so you need to ask if you think you're getting this good thing what is the price you're paying? When you really understand then you can decide

​@@MichaelRosmer Not when 20%+ people is under the poverty line and the rest of the things happening in Britain...Politically it is unjustifiable when we are on the way to the Dickensian world and this way of thinking is a contribution factor. Too big to fail companies and too big to fail individuals. Look at where the UK is with them. Thames Water was privatised via a leveraged buyout. So the general public is paying for the debt, the company paid shareholders instead of fixing the infrastructure and then they want a 49% increase on bills to cover the mistakes they made. And on top of this they will get reduced fines comparing to the compliant companies, because they would not be able to get out of the hole they dug themselves. The excuse here is the same...it would be more expensive to do anything else.

@@MichaelRosmer You people always say "Nothing is free nothing is free" but no one is saying that it's free?!! The fact is that NOT doing this COSTS US. Choosing to ignore the issue of inequality has an associated cost, this basic economics: opportunity costs. The more we allow this continue, the worse things get.

and why they discriminate based on sex

@@finalcut612 Well, YOU people always say ‘we need to do this because it costs us’ without realising that if we ‘do this’ it ends up costing us even bloody more! Labour notoriously short sighted economically, I’m very very worried for the future of this country

So discourage investment into this country even more?

@@user-nz8tz1vq2f Investment has nothing to do with tax and everything to do with business opportunity. If people have no money to spend because their money is being spent on mortgage, the national debt, bills, etc, then there are no customers for businesses and so businesses can't survive so therefore do not start. Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing to generate customers for business, so the rich still aren't going to start business, what they will do instead is buy property which pushes prices up for everyone else and means people have even less money to spend. That's why cutting taxes for the rich doesn't grow the economy. What grows the economy is making sure regular people have enough money to spend so that new businesses can meet the market demand and survive. The tax rate businesses pay is irrelevant as long as they can make the money back through their customer base. If businesses can sustain themselves then that is what leads to more investment. Money is supposed to circulate, not accumulate. When it accumulates, that destroys economic growth and that is exactly why the UK hasn't had growth in a very long time.

They wealthy won't leave the UK because technically they're not here anyway, they're ghosts on paper. Their finances and assets live in an offshore systems that's so complex it can't be unraveled and it can't be traced back to them. So, how do you even begin to tackle that.

@@user-nz8tz1vq2f He literally says it happens in China. People still invest in China regardless

@@user-nz8tz1vq2f ...What, precisely, do you think the taxes are _for?_ Anyway, right now the money from the assets are leaving the country _anyway._ That's where the profits go.

This is the voice of insanity and it’s why UK is so terrible compared to 90s and 00s

@@acz88 explain

​@@acz88you're the voice of insanity. Keep hoping for change while doing exactly the same thing..

@@acz88 perhaps you are very rich ? :)

​@@jutsie It's worth the pittance the rich pay to Molodovan's to have them sit on youtube all day trying to undermine anyone who challenges the right of the wealthy to parasitically drain a country's wealth. acz88's comment makes no sense, but it doesn't have to, it's just about creating noise and interference. There can never be the perception of accordance with the general public on any issue. Far better to have us at each other's throats, create divisions over age, over race, over gender. Just don't let them see the con trick playing out in front of their noses. If you've watched the documentary Hypernormalisation it describes all the tactics that Russia uses which it tested on its own people - fund groups on both sides, fund Black Lives Matter and fund their opponents, fund gangs of people smugglers and fund Reform UK. The wrong people learned the wrong lessons from seeing this and here we are.

Investment should on every wise individuals bucket list. You will be ecstatic of the decision you made today.

perfect

I got my first house the year I started investing and today networth is over £732k

I’m a young mom, I’m really glad to hear your story it inspires me. can you share how you earn weekly.

Credits to Dylan Kyle Zachary, He saw me through the process.

100% agreed anyone who has more than one property, anyone who earns more than 50k all needs to be taxed more! You don't need more than that!! anyone who has assets should have those assets given to ordinary people, its not right they have more! Tax the rich!!

People think Gary’s talking about them because they shop at Waitrose 😂 honey the rich don’t shop at Waitrose. They don’t do their own shopping!

@@slapjuice disagree. When you have Centrica making 900% profit over 2022 and employees seeing none of it, these huge companies should be taxed, hard. There's also ceo for tesco, an extra 5m to his/her bonus. Why play the same game of playing people against each other when gas, oil, share holders and ceo take 99% of the pie.

Look at Japan with VERY low immigration never mind illegal immigration: Crime is low, Housing getting cheaper each year, Public services not at breaking point.

Don’t you think that immigration puts a strain on public services? and housing?

Absolutely spot on mate

Seems very “easy” to say someone else should pay more tax i.e. the rich (who are not us). For Britain and the problem faced by much of the west, is we are in terminal decline, as a society we’re in retirement phase, and we’re all fighting over a pie which is getting smaller. Gary appears to be pushing buttons of economic envy as resolution, Britain isn’t poorer due successful British based entrepreneurs, while I’d agree we need be vigilant to foreign ownership and asset stripping. Until there’s an international treaty we won’t be wealthier in the long run by penalising our successful entrepreneurs.

What is right is stopping all taxation.❤

That's not a good quote at all. Often times the two are the same and for some people, not doing what is right is extremely difficult.

@@sebrumble5994 Epstein?

Exactly, a big point missing from this is that nation states need to move to eradicate tax havens. The issue is that it is the tax havens, that includes places like Ireland, Holland, Switzerland, Luxembourg etc. that enable this shifting of wealth and avoidance of tax.

@@aldozilli1293i don't think you understand much about how this all works if you're saying that. Luxembourg, Netherlands & Switzerland can actually be quite high tax. Don't get misled by reading headlines designed to create outrage or push an agenda. You need to actually dive into the nuances of law to understand what's really going on

@@MichaelRosmer Enlighten me, you sound like you don't understand or you have an agenda yourself. Rosmer? What's that a Swiss banker's surname?

@@MichaelRosmer You mean high tax on working people?

​@MichaelRosmer Great point.

There's two categories of people in the world. People who work for their money, and people whose money works for them. Of the people whose money works for them, there's a smaller subset who have enough money working for them that the assets underlying that money will inexorably multiply. These are the people whose income is generally in the form of capital gains or dividends. Now, in the US, cap gains are generally taxed at 15pc. Dividends are normally 15pc, or 20pc for dividends totaling over half a million. The rate on income varies, but the marginal rate for a worker earning 50k a year (a rather modest income in the USA today) is 22pc. Meaning our hardworking plumber or whatever is paying MORE percentagewise than a trust fund kid who uses his income stream to buy up yet more assets. And it is (generally) far harder for the workingman to find tax avoidance schemes. Your employer deducts the taxes before you get the cheque. This is a recipe for increasing inequality.

@@brokenrecord3095 It will always be like this as well! Once you have money you can make money. Then you will always get the people that work in a factory who win millions on the lottery and blow the lot in a short time and end up back where they started! Unless a basic living wage is given to everyone to maintain a certain standard of living. I believe that will happen in the far future! But then it is up to the individual to be responsible with their money.

@@brokenrecord3095exactly, it’s wrong :(

I’m going to send an email to my local MP and link Gary’s video - I’ve never done anything like that in my life! But something’s got to change! I’ve got to do something different! Good luck 🤞🏼 💪🏼

@@80schunkaymunkay Great idea!!

It's wrong though. If you increase corporation tax and assets tax you shrink the economy. Gary knows this but he's pandering.

​@Hiberno_sperg Please explain how the economy isn't already shrinking due to asset hoarding millionaires...and how do they contribute to the economy when they don't pay tax 🤔

The rentier class has existed throughout history in every culture and country on the planet, not because the plebs had difficulty understanding they are getting exploited, but because they want to be part of the rentier class themselves. Thats why the rentiers spend so much time and energy on CONSPICUOUS consumption and CONSPICUOUS leisure. Its a powerful and ancient signal to the rest of the chimp troupe - check me out - look at my clothes - look at my castle - look at my friends - you want to hang out with me? you want to be like me? - then do what I say. And it works well. And they are getting better and better at it. Once in a while one of them goes over the top, has their head chopped off and is replaced by another from the same class. See The Circulation of the Elites. The plebs are better off just searching for and moving to greener pastures than watching youtubers who for 2 decades now have no record of moving the needle on anything once they get everyones attention.

@@chameleonj90 this is so typical. My original comment got deleted. Did you flag it?

@@chameleonj90 Those assets create capital so that credit can be issued and investment to new projects can be made.

This guy is full of shit. Half of what he said is factually WRONG. The rich already pays most of the taxes. Taxing the rich will only result in a country full of only poor people. It’s why UK is broke today. But keep going down that communist road and rot your country some more. I don’t live near UK. I don’t give a fuck about UK 😂

100%. Infuriating!

Could you please expend on “backed up by economics”? The premise of argument in this video is the example of “Rishi’s” 700 million wealth, yet this is the Sunak’s wealth and primarily from his wife’s share of her parents multi billion dollar Indian IT business. So the simple truth is majority of their wealth has nothing to do with their residency or their UK assets. Now is Gary misinformed or is well aware he’s misleading his channel? If the magical tax system he’s referring to was in place it’d seem highly unlikely Akshata Murty’s wealth would be anywhere near the UK, which might suit your political ideology but it doesn’t make the UK wealthier so please don’t pretend that it does.

9.5k+ millionaires alrewdy left the UK this year....

That's because the poor hope maybe somehow they'll be rich one day. They're living in a world of hope otherwise there would be violent revolution.. So the TV perpetuates this thought. 🙊🙊🙈

It ain't gonna happen. Why did billionaires fund Starmer? Why did Murdoch's media back him? Not because he was going to tax them more.

The top 20% pays 60% of taxes. The bottom 80% pays 40% of all taxes. The bottom 50% don’t pay any taxes. Sorry but who needs to pay more?

Why do you want the wealthy to be taxed more? Your country has the world's largest steel reserves and almost no steel mills. You have massive coal reserves and you sell it all to China who burn it, build solar panels and wind turbines which they sell back to you. Then you guys pat yourselves on the back and claim to be "green". There is literally no amount of tax that can counteract that level of stupidity.

​@@acz88Gary's fans are mostly brain dead English Socialists. There is literally no getting through to them.

The resources were stolen from the aboriginal people of Australia. I hope there is concern for their compensation as well.

It's incredible the degree to which humans will believe something without checking if enough people say it. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Another reason this channel is so urgent.

It might just be a lie they tell to scare the ill informed.

They will leave, trainee accountant. They will structure the sale (if they have to) so they pay no tax of those assets, on top of that, the tax that they cannot avoid will go to another jurisdiction. The biggest issue with a tax on wealth, is generally speaking, it attempts to tax UNREALIZED gains. As an accountant (trainee or otherwise) you should know the problems with attempting such an idea. This tax the rich stuff is always ill-conceived and its typically used by socialists as a catchphrase to get you to buy into their death cult

I think Gary’s idea here is that if you own £100m of UK assets, valued that much from the sale price when you bought them, you should pay a tax. You should have enough liquid assets to be able to pay for the tax on the illiquid assets you hold. Perhaps you could tell us what problems you see existing for such a policy @james3744 ..?

perhaps they are worried that they will lose their job and status if the rich people that pay them to do their accounts leave.

Excellent idea. I think I'll do the same

@@howareyou857 👍

Excellent. You will see why the poor are poor and how they live and take more from the system than they contribute. You will also see how abuse of the system and mismanagement cause most of the problems with the NHS. I have and it's completely broken my perspective of people. It will be worth it when you get to genuinely help someone in need.

@@mrdave02 Yeah. It's all the fault of the poor! Not at all the fault of the tax-dodging rich mfs - the latter don't at ALL take more than they contribute . . .

Taxing the rich makes everyone poorer. They don't give you the money you lazy tool

We've still got schools, hospitals & roads that can be sold off. Thatcher made a good effort to sell off most the nation, but she forgot some stuff. I fully expect most of the above to be in the hands of Starmers newest buddy, blackrock, by 2030.

@@Nick-io9uk Uk was bankrupt when Thatcher took over. It had inflation of 24% and unemployment of 15%. Labour will not be able to convince the public this time. Nobody bought the post 2008 crisis.

Councils are on the financial verge because they have driven out business and squandered their incomes on vanity projects. Just name a council.

@@Art-is-craftCameron and Osborne slashing their govt central funding plays a big part

@@annieschlater1534 Name a council.

@@Art-is-craft Every council in the U.K. had their central govt funding cut by George Osborne from 2013 during austerity. A National Audit Office (NAO) report, showed councils' spending power fell in real terms by more than 50% on a like-for-like basis between 2010-11 and 2020-21.

@@Art-is-craft incidentally you are coming up under a different name in my notifications which says David Devlin not Art -is-craft.

It's a nice explanation but it's wrong. What he's describing isn't an accurate representation of the tax system

@@MichaelRosmer you'll need to bring some evidence to support your position because I think Gary makes very strong points here.

Gary talks absolute garbage. Happy to discuss.

better if muslims and blacks leave the uk... such a rubbish country nowadays

Pretty sure he's touched on this in previous vids - not sure it's explicitly titled in line with what you've asked tho

Mark Blyth has answers to that question. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qrCfmMKVxraUdHk.html

I'll tell you something about that equality it was for the middle classes the working classes were not wanted really. It's true there was free university education but who could afford to live on a student grant? Society was divvied up quite nicely for the middle classes by the middle classes. I know this because it was my actual life not from a book but I actually lived this. So you see when I hear that the middle classes are being defenestrated I'm not at my most sympathetic. Anyway of course tax the asset rich and it's important to say that and not high income earners. They will try to hide behind that difference won't they.

Post WWII Labour government

One of the few things we got right, allegedly XD

@@manuelrapino5917 yes but this does not stop the phenomenon, so there must be workarounds accessible only to the "initiates" with certain company structures. It would be interesting to dive deeper

This is also true in Britain if the asset is transparently owned and the rents are paid transparently. But for the rich, the asset isn't owned transparently. It will be in a complex legal structure and the rent will end up in an offshore bank account out of reach of the tax authorities. This will be true in Italy, France etc. You have to realise that the rich don't play by the same rules as the non-rich. Read about the lengths Lewis Hamilton went to to avoid paying taxes on the private aircraft he purchased. This got disclosed by a rare investigative journalist and the same sort of thing happens every day. Many of the high earners in the UK provide these services to the super rich.

@@imbariegh there's always a way around the rules we know it (shell companies, plain fraud, bribes,. ..), but i would say inequality here in the UK is numerically and empirically more noticeable, even in the day to day life.

The same is true in the UK... Gary doesn't seem to understand tax laws in the UK. In the UK, if you have income in Italy, you are not taxed in the UK by UK govt, if you live in the UK and have have overseas income as you are taxed already in that country.

Well put

Good point. Note you need to maintain the right incentivizes in there.

That's cause we decided to base our entire economy on people shuffling bits of paper around, calling it 'wealth generation' - no wonder everything is so confused

Why would I put so much into creating something if I can’t extract from it once it’s made? Unlikely PAYE; a field doesn’t yield as you sew. A good farmer creates better systems so they can work less and extract more. As per they guy above: the correct incentives need to be in place.

​@@ConspiracyLoonThe rich have had enough incentives over the last few hundred years, now it's time to pay the fiddler. My attitude is "f**k em"

Only someone that don't own anything could say something like this.when I get taxed for stuff I've already paid for from my hard earned taxed pounds on a yearly basis its not my property anymore I'm merely renting it

I left. Took my 3 businesses with me. Communism doesn't work pal.

@@Spencertarring out of curiosity, what happened to your previous customers? Did they move to a competitor, did they come with you or did they do without the service? I'm just curious about what happened to them, given the subject of this video.

Depends what the goal is. If its to make property cheaper, yeah, that will work. If its to raise revenue, not so much. Values are a matter of opinion, as they say, and an annual property tax eats into yields, the value must reduce accordingly to hold up yields.

@@Spencertarring Could you explain your statement in a less passive aggressive way? I think it would be very helpful in this discussion.

Even Labour know it would catastrophic to tax the rich.

Agree that we all need to communicate to our MPs about wealth inequality and the need to redress the situation 👍(search contact my MP).

@@maaziy_ghaziyIYI why

@@maaziy_ghaziyIYII’m ready to be part of a movement that stands up to bullies.

@@maaziy_ghaziyIYI Explain why you say that after watching this video. Or did you not watch it?

Thank you for your most sensible comment about this topic. Though it still boggles my mind that you can be held liable to pay tax in a country you no longer live in for up to ten years after you leave. That just seems wrong to me.

And the parts that Gary does not understand (or he does, but doesn't trust his viewers to understand)... [1] unrealized gains and (the problem of) taxation, [2] trusts and taxation, [3] carry forward losses and taxation [4] CGT calculation and taxation, [5] inter-group loans, treasury functions and taxation, and [6] structuring the sale of assets and taxation. The tax man may not be stupid, but there is a hell of lot of voluminous local tax legislation without even looking at international obligations. Its a cat chasing its own tail.

If I may add to that for Gary's attention, it's not just assets owned by individuals, its corporations owning assets. There are a lot of convoluted group company structures with companies incorporated in various different countries and with different tax laws which make it difficult to see who the benificiaries are. The ultimate owners of these are the ones who benefit and will take money through dividends. What specific tax changes would you make to balance the capital asset inequality? Changes to capital gains, income, inheritance tax?

@@james3744 Well put, inter-company base opens so many doors and closing one opens another, it’s a rabbit hole. Government is too busy chasing big law’s global structures to rethink the entire taxation system. Especially agree with you on the TLCFs.

@@Pravine9 I understand where you’re coming from, the layering and anonymity of beneficiaries is not the matter at hand. It’s about people leaving if taxes are increased and whether they’re taxed properly or not. Those global structures you mentioned usually trigger taxes on every step of the earnings moving up the chain to the beneficiary, or if not, they’re usually being deferred. What to change? Eliminate “buy, borrow, die” on capital assets. (Germany for example, did it already) Impose taxes on trusts once every 30 years or so to simulate a generational exchange to treat it the same way as asset exchanges among individuals. Apart from that, taxation is often ineffective and not worth the effort, which is why many countries abandoned wealth tax and taxing unrealized gains, it needs to many people working on it and is therefore unaffordable. We all know that ownership is the way to wealth so we need more ways to make workers owners, like simplifying stock option plans and automatically investing National Insurance contributions and ISA contributions into the stock market to participate while investing in financial education for the masses. Incentives are much easier to control that more tax layers. Then decrease income tax for the average income range and charging a few percentage points more on income of the top executives and advisors who do have earned income in the millions while not capping national insurance contributions at any income level. Problem is: it could result in >60% taxes for earned income. Only way to tax more regularly is fixing trust taxation to not let profits accumulate for eternity and maybe prohibit borrowing against stocks to force realisation of capital gains.

It happened in the 1960s, the rich left the uk in great numbers. It depends a lot on what the tax rate is? Though the 1960s was at 90% above a certain amount

@@larrygerry985 High levels of innovation and industry occurred in USA in the 1950s at a time when the highest level of taxation was levied on the highest earners. Innovation wasn't stifled, but rather flourished. Perhaps then were more optimistic times! Gary is mostly addressing the passive incomes of the wealthiest asset-owning class, rather than an earned income tax rate. Progressive tax probably works best, instead of clobbering the same high levels on those with more modest income-earning assets such as dividend paying equities.

tbh i don't think some of them leaving the country would be necessarily bad. no more monopoly/oligarchy by big corps could mean local businesses will thrive. even now it's not like uk manufacturers a lot of stuff, we're paying imports on those either way.

@@brianmorrison6636 The US had a 90% tax on realised gains not on gains. That 90% could be avoided by keeping the money in the business. Many did not withdraw at 90% against their business and instead invested the money into plant, resources and employees. Is that what you mean?

​@larrygerry985 a lot of those that left in the 1960's went to South Africa. They are now desperately using their uk citizenship rights to send their kids back to live in the UK. Also returning themselves and claiming UK pension and pension credits

Socialists always come out of the wood work in these times of broke governments, that couldn't run a piss up in brewery. Wasting taxes and they need more and more and more.

Somebody who has a net worth of 1 billion but only has 2 million in cash would have to sell of some of that 1 billion to pay the tax. So do you think it would work.

The country would be bouncing if they dropped income tax and could get it elsewhere instead, imagine having an extra £10k a year to play with

​@@UIM_Moose you're right, people having disposable income is the main driver in economic growth via consumerism, if no one's buying goods or services, growth stops. The stagnation of people literally working to survive will be the eventual collapse of the whole system, less purchasing of goods/services means these businesses go under, less jobs, higher unemployment, the longer the snake eats it's tail the worse it becomes. I think the scam of a trickle down economy has well and truly come home to roost. They papered over the cracks from the crash in 2008, we've limped along ever since, being told we're OK, our growth is better than other countries blah,blah,blah, yet the vast majority of us are feeling the real effects in our standard of living and way of life, which has declined massively. I think change will happen regardless because we're circling the drain, and it's getting quicker.

@@UIM_Moose .....and government spending would plummet (NHS, roads, police, armed forces....), or government borrowing would balloon : interest rates would have to rise significantly for the government to borrow more than £250 billion per annum (latest Income Tax receipts : 2022-2023). You'd keep more of your income, but the government would be unable to provide the level of services that we, as a country, have decided to spend. Your mortgage would rise significantly, the pound would collapse so imported goods would be more expensive. Be very, very careful what you wish for - we'd be bouncing our way to widespread poverty and economic oblivion.

its a struggle when you dont have a good job yea if you dont care/didnt care to get qualifications better than your neighbour then you cant complain that lifes a struggle can you.

Wealthy people pay that as well.

I’m guessing the qualifications that make you so superior to your neighbour, weren’t in English.

You don't need a direct wealth tax in order to tax wealth. Wealth is owned in industry, land, companies, stocks and bonds. You can tax these assets, for example company tax rates in 'Western' countries are across the board lower than income taxes. Land taxes also don't exist in many countries compared to the stamp duties that many pay which is a tax on buyers. You can tax the things that people own which will tax their wealth without a tax directly on wealth.

Not sure where you're getting this idea from, because its not fact. Even France has a wealth tax it was reformed and changed names (to IFI in 2018) but wasnt abandoned; 0-1.5% of what people gain starting with an estate over 1.3M euros. You speak about 0.5% of tax like its nothing, 0.7% of UK tax revenue funds ALL academic research. Doubling the input to this would have profound impact on our economy within a decade.

That's what Gary described as State Capture, and like gunk in the drains blocking the flow of water, it's a perennial problem because extendive asset wealth gives you power and influence. But it doesn't have to be that way. If we don't put the effort to ensure our politicians serve the interests of every citizen, then that's on us. Our ancestors came back after World War II, and used the ballot box to draw a line in the sand. And unfortunately, we can't say "one and done". It's only taken 50 years or so to erode that legacy, of the electorate really taking back control. We didn't realise that that legacy had to be defended. A legacy that fought ignorance and despair, cannot defend itself against a system that relies on leveraging some of the worst traits in human nature. We must protect ourselves against those traits getting out of control in those we reward for exploiting them. Democracy is the only means the people have to tame it, because to govern the country requires our approval to have legitimacy. The cynical say if voting meant anything, they wouldn't let us do it. But I say, if voting meant nothing, why do the plutocrats spend so much time, effort, and money on trying to influence who and what we vote for? Why did certain people try to make it more difficult for certain citizens to vote. For once, Rees-Mogg wasn't lying when he admitted that Voter ID was gerrymandeting. That's why our voting system needs to upgraded and made more effective democratically. We have to move to a system where every vote counts. It's only one defence against those who would manipulate us, but it's an essential one for our democracy to act more effectively. We have to have systems of governing that ensure that our best interests of our communities and country are served. We have to stop being dependent on being lucky. Our democracy needs strengthening, and so do our communities. Neoliberalism isnt just an economic experiment gone badly wrong. It was a social and political one gone awry too. The ideology wanted us to believe that there was no such thing as Society, until those pushing that nonsense wanted it to replace the state's collective support that had been deliberatively withdrawn to provide bug tax cuts to cipirations and their owners, who had 8nturn suppressed wage growth fir decades. They encouraged us to believe that John Donne was wrong when he asserted that No An is an Island, written when the powerful wealthy elite wreaked havoc on their people to entrenched their power. Donne wrote that passage as a survivor of political and economic upheaval in England in the late 16th century that was dressed up as a religious and political struggle, but was the wealthy throwing the little people under the bus yet again, to secure their power. Like a gardener having to keep on weeding the garden, the citizens if this nation have to keep fighting time and time again, against those who would put themselves above the interests of the country and their people. And as austerity and the pandemic showed us, the tendency for the asset wealthy and entitled to throw poor people under the bus never goes away. So we must be able to weed them out. And we must work at it to protect the harvest of our sweat, of our hard work being stolen and hoarded while we suffer. That's the part 9f our history not exactly taught and it should be, because the work can never stop, can it? It's not the 16th century. it's not the 20th century. It's the 21st century. And the work has to continue for the next generation not to slip into poverty again.

@@aoikk9966 Europe is a failing market place and the UK is about to follow this example. I wonder will labour try to re-enter the EU as it sinks.

Don’t a lot of countries tax income earned within their borders? So in your example of someone owning assets in France but living in the Cayman Islands, wouldn’t they pay tax on any rental income earned within the country they reside i.e France?

Saudi Arabia and Russia own central London.

Yeah but there was always an entity above them who financed those mills in the first place.

Lots of places. UK really isn't that attractive on a global scale anymore

Good point, thanks for raising this I would also like to know how this could be addressed.

Thanks for raising this. Just recently I was arguing for a wealth tax with an Australian friend and he said but Australia needs foreign investment.

but hes talking bout owning property, how is owning property investing in the economy the only people who benefit from that are the companies who make the property in the first place, when some one else who lives in this country could do that instead for a lower cost

​​@@hoktoshinkenmaster the issue I'm describing is that people who wish to invest their money will seek the best return on their investment. If a person has the choice between investing in an asset which is subject to a wealth tax and an equivalent asset which isn't, then I'd expect most people to choose the latter, unless there's very strong reasons to nonetheless invest in the former inspite of the greater tax burden. Crucially this applies to foreign nationals as well as British citizens since any Brit can easily invest their wealth in non British assets (as well as leave). This also applies to all kinds of assets and not just real estate. As far as I can tell, the consequence will be that unless Gary's tax proposals are implemented in many, if not all, major economies, the level of investment in the UK will substantially drop. I'm a big fan of Gary's purpose and vision, but this is an aspect that I've not been able to reason away. I'm not an economics expert and would therefore appreciate Gary's take on this.

At a preferential rate. It’s there to be taken back.

fantasy land. Foreigners can buy property in virtually any country they like.

if they dont want to pay, we either take it back as payment, or force sale as payment and stipulate rules on who the buyer may be

@@littlewol2620 you ain't gonna do any of that 😂

@@books4739 didnt say "we " would. but it is the rational answer. as gary said. it will not be easy.

@@mattsmith1157 This is what I thought was already happening aswell? Unless there’s some difference when owning the properties in a limited company which is registered abroad or something?

@@user-uu6wz5lt6f Foreign individuals and foreign companies are both liable to tax on UK property income and on gains they make on the sale of UK properties. The same rules apply in most western countries so it is difficult to avoid tax on physical assets held in a country.

@@mattsmith1157 in that case I don’t understand which tax loophole Gary is referring to regarding property

There are ways to release wealth from Perry you own that aren't taxed so efficiently. For instance, look at Thames Water. The owners, or major shareholders, loaded the corporation up with debt repayable to the same shareholders, who directly or indirectly owned the companies that were Thames Water's creditors.

@@user-uu6wz5lt6fi think he is referring to the secondary mortgage market, ie mortgage backed securities, not an individual person owning a few houses earning rental income and the gain on the price increase when selling any of those houses.

Thrilled about XAI's potential! Happy to be part of this community and looking forward to gains!

Feeling positive about XAI's future!

XAI is a great investment choice!

Excited for XAI's potential gains ahead! 🚀

Excited about XAI too! It’s great seeing our investments grow together. Let's keep it up! 🚀