r/GarysEconomics

We all know it. Society is constituted by antagonisms. As the rich consolidate their positions, the rest of us get weeker and weeker, getting ever more dependent on their assets. Becoming clients/surfs/dependents.

We are not living in the post war economic boom anymore, there is no returning to that. We are living in an era of instability, scarcity, and climate shocks.

This is not going to be a positive sum game. This is not going to be zero sum. This is going to be negative sum. This is an allocating lifeboats type situation. If the rich keep winning they are going to get all the lifeboats and the rest of us are going to drown.

The aim of a wealth tax is not to generate revenue, its not to collect information about wealth, its not to establish fairness. Its to force the rich to sell their assets. Particularly strategic assets like housing, farmland, companies.

The point is a struggle between classes for control of the things we all need to live.

I've been watching a lot of Gary's interviews and noticed a slight inconsistency. On the one hand, he keeps talking about how he grew up really poor, lived on a council estate, his parents couldn't afford to keep the lights on in the house and so on.

On the other hand, as part of his argument for wealth taxes, he frequently claims that his father only worked for the post office 35 hours a week but could still afford a house, 3 kids and had complete financial security because they had wealth taxes back then.

So were Gary's parents poor or not? It seems like he simultaneously claims to have grown up poor, while also claiming his father could afford a decent life, which directly contradicts the previous claim. Am I missing something?

When will they be available again? I've been putting them up in Denmark and wanted to buy a t-shirt with the next batch of stickers.

Most investors read the income statement and balance sheet, but miss critical details hidden in the 10-K about where a company actually makes its money.
This guide walks through exactly how to find and analyze geographic revenue breakdowns in SEC filings, including:
• Which sections to check
• How to interpret country and region exposure
• Why geographic concentration risk matters
• Common pitfalls to avoid
Full step-by-step breakdown here:
https://metricshour.com/blog/how-to-read-a-10-k-filing-for-geographic-revenue-data-2/
Have you ever dug into the geographic revenue notes in a 10-K? Worth the effort?

I’ve noticed an annoyingly common theme in many of the replies in my posts; tax payers dollars.

For context, I 20F am not particularly knowledgeable on the Australia’s system of government (though I’m trying to become more knowledgeable). However I know some basics.

I have posted a couple questions on reddit which have gotten me some very angry feedback! One about taking a myki fine to court and whether it was worth it, and the second about viability of living with a romantic partner while having to declare a defacto relationship for receiving Centrelink (I’m a student).
In both scenarios multiple angry users have told me to get a real job, grow up, stop acting like I’m better than everyone who doesn’t receive Centrelink and that I’m essentially robbing them straight out of their pockets by even just considering using the court system to contest a fine. Everyone is so worried about other people using their tax!!!?

Now as someone who also pays tax, I get it! It sucks and we want it to be used for the benefit of Australia. I can absolutely understand the flaws in our system. However I can also acknowledge that my tax is going toward necessary infrastructure, towards those with disabilities, to our healthcare system and yes, to Centrelink to support those who need help! And as a student who doesn’t have financial parental support, I can tell you I would much rather be able to afford my expenses than have to rely on the tiny amount of government support that won’t even provide enough to feed me!

So why are people so mad at fellow Australians about their tax? Am I missing something? Educate me please (in a nice way hopefully)!

​

The point is that billionaires currently keep their money in stocks, bank accounts, and safes, and when that money is in the hands of workers, they will also keep their money in stocks, bank accounts, and safes. Therefore, even if leftists redistribute all billionaire money to workers, they will only solve a moral issue while the economy and money will remain exactly where it is.

*Last month, Ocasio-Cortez declared that no billionaire becomes one honorably: "You can get market power, you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they're worth, but you can't earn that."

*This is not only grossly immoral. It is insane economics," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) wrote in September,.

I've share opinions he has for the longest time and his analogies are subpar. Because we all know it. Glad he's spreading the word.. But

He doesn't play emphasis on improving and implementing change. What could possible change include besides just saying tax wealth.

Can we go into how it will functionally work and pro and cons. So we can keep the conversation moving

His videos are becoming repetitive rants

I've changed my mind about Gary Stevenson. I think his message is flawed. But, I'm going to explain why, so that people can reconvince me.

Gary advocates for a tax of 2pc on assets over 10million.

This is too broad.

You have two options. You either "tax the rich" or, you can control how much in the way of assets the rich are allowed to buy. These are functionally the same thing.

I don't care if a rich person wants to buy: Fabergé eggs, jet skis, a magnificent 10 bedroom primary residence, a rolls Royce, MacBook pros, stocks and shares, government bonds.

I do care if a rich person buys a portfolio of 20 two bedroom starter homes, 1000 hectares of development land.

For a significant portion of the population "T-A-X" is a profanity. No amount of lobbying, no amount of social media posts will ever change their minds.

The only way to win this thing, is to focus in. Target housing and development land. I believe we can win this thing earlier if Gary narrows his message. LVT, or, better still, land rationing/ controlling how much land the super rich are allowed to own.

One of the more successful political phrases from the Blair years was the mantra "Education, education, education."

I've just been left totally exasperated by the latest tweaks to the ISA rules. I'm wondering if adopting a mantra of "Simplify, simplify, simplify" would be popular.

Could they gain some political capital even from potential financial losers?

Fixing inequality means more money for people to consume the goods and services produced by the economy, which means more economic activity and a bigger economy.

To grow the economy, one must reduce inequality.

Taxing Wealth, Not Work will not destroy the economy but is how to save it!

I know most people on this subreddit are going to support wealth taxes (i.e. a tax on someone's total net assets each year). But how about capital gains taxes? Especially if you're a middle class retail investor, wouldn't capital gains taxes prevent you from building generational wealth?

I live in a country with zero capital gains tax, and I'm struggling with reconciling my support for wealth taxes with my aversion to capital gains taxes. I think capital gains tax would be a terrible thing for the average person who's trying to build wealth in the stock market. Let's say you've been diligently investing a portion of your income for the past 10 years. You got lucky and picked a winning stock, and have now made a profit of 100K. With a capital gains tax of 40%, selling your stocks would only net you 60K instead of the original 100K. Wouldn't a capital gains tax go against my own self interest as an average retail investor? Isn't it better to have no capital gains taxes, but just tax people on their assets if their total net worth exceeds a certain amount?