We're starting a new series on this channel: unpacking the myths around wealth. From who the wealthy are, how they got their money, to whether we really need them at all. This is about dismantling the stories the rich tell to keep us in line.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
We are going to try a new idea on this channel over the next two or three weeks, and that is a series of related videos all on one theme, and the theme that we've chosen to look at is wealth.
Wealth is really important. Wealth changes the way in which the resources within our economy are allocated, but as importantly, wealth changes the way in which our politicians behave.
And that's why we are going to make this series on wealth, because wealth dominates life in our class-ridden country. The wealthier, the rich and famous; they demand attention, and most especially, they demand that the government jump to their tune.
So, we're going to make a series of videos.
The first is going to look at who are the wealthy? How many of them are there? What do they own, and how do they compare to everyone else?
Then we're going to ask how did the wealthy get to be wealthy, because this is a story that most of them don't want told. Issues like slavery come into this, and there's also the fact that so many of the wealthy who are now landlords captured the control of land quite possibly with the permission of kings or queens, but that's beside the point. They didn't necessarily earn what they have. And even those who have, well, the story with regard to them isn't always quite as clear and innocent as they would like.
So then I move on and ask, well, what is it about wealth that we value, and how is it valued, and in particular, is it portable? Can the wealthy take it with them when they go, in other words? I'll come back to that a little later, even in this video, but the point is, until we understand how wealth is valued, we can't really discuss its consequences, and so that issue comes up quite early in this series.
One of the other issues that, as far as I can see most people don't understand is the fact that wealth doesn't actually bring a great deal of happiness to those who have it. Most people think, if only I had more money, everything would be great in life. And look, I'm not denying that money doesn't help things along. It clearly does. But the wealthy, well, they're different from us because they spend their time worrying about wealth, and that needs to be explored because it explains so much of their behaviour and the consequences for us of what they do.
One dimension of that is the fact that they conspicuously flaunt the wealth they've got. The term conspicuous consumption was created to explain the behaviour of the wealthy who buy things that they literally own just so that they can show them off, not because they're inherently valuable, but because they had an extraordinary price ticket attached to them. But the question is, how much does this absurd part of the economy actually cost the rest of us, because I assure you, it does.
And then there's another myth that I want to look at with regard to the wealthy and the fact that they are supposedly the really clever people who will generate the wealth for the rest of us. Of course, 📍 this is the belief that underpins trickle-down economics, and it's deeply eugenic in its notion that somehow if you are wealthy, you are incredibly clever, and also that you're an entrepreneur. But are the wealthy entrepreneurs? Are they even that clever? And what value do they add for the rest of us? It's something that I will be looking at.
And I'll also be looking at whether the wealthy really do leave, and what the consequences are. You've heard it so many times. Whenever there's a suggestion that the wealthy might be taxed, they all get up and say, "If you tax us, we will leave." But is that a credible claim? How many do leave? And would it make any difference if they did? These are questions that actually have to be answered in a calm, rational way, and they can be answered in that way, and I will be.
That leads to the inevitable question,' Do we need the wealthy?' If you listen to the wealthy and all those people who they employ to speak on their behalf, and they employ lots of people to speak on their behalf, then you will believe that they are the foundation of the wealth of the country. But I'm going to ask a really big question in this series, which is, 'Do we actually need the wealthy?' Their taxes, their spending, their supposed flair, their land, or anything else that they claim title to? Do we? Let's see.
And what is it about all these myths that the wealthy have created, which means that we have somehow fallen for them? How do they propagate the myth that they are the foundation of our well-being, even though it's their well-being that is clearly the epicentre of their concern? How is that created and at what cost to them and to us? And what if that myth was shattered?
All of this is, in fact, a series about shattering the myths around wealth. Everything from the claim that a great deal of wealth exists, to the claim that the wealthy are clever, to the claim that they can't leave without causing great harm to the rest of us, and that our economy will fail if they aren't here, is based upon mythology but, not fact. So in this series, we are going to explore all those issues and really discuss what it is that the wealthy bring to our society.
Watch the series and find out. The debate will, I hope, be a big one.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Define ‘wealthy’. Otherwise this just looks like a meaningless tirade against those who are more successful than you.
As an (alleged) senior partner at an accountancy firm, presumably you must have been what many people considered to be ‘wealthy’. Then if you add having a doctor as a spouse then as a household you would have been in the top 1%.
Did you do all of the things that you claim the ‘wealthy’ do? What happened to your wealth and why do you deserve it more than others?
This whole article just seems to be a string of generalisations and abuse of people who have more than you, and therefore more about envy and jealously than about politics or economics.
I will define wealthy.
And no, we were never in the top 1%, although we were well off, not least because my wife never worked full time and by the time we were married I was a campaigner. But I am not avoiding the issue – some of the things I recommend would have hit people like us. There is n o hypocrisy here.
And what is it the wealthy do? Yes, I save in pension funds. I think that’s about it.
And what did I do with my wealth? I reduced my earnings by choosing to be a campaigner. That was what I did with it.
And if you do not understannd that this article is an introduction, you might need lessons in comprehension, as well as anger management. You might also find the video on who promotes the politucs of envy of especial interest.
No one really knows our story…. or anyones story. We listen to people talking about they are a scrounger, they don’t work, they are lazy, they are rich, well off, posh, poor. We have all heard this and it is very difficult at times not to judge or not have an unconscious bias but when you listen to a persons story and what someone has went through its easier not to judge or jump to conclusions. Rather than everyone having to justify themselves let us learn to care and love first and not assume that we know their story.
Mr Jerome K (Jerome?)
Your first sentence equated wealth with “sucess”. But many inherit wealth & this can hardly be counted as “success” rather “chance”
I would count the men that founded Intel as successful – they built from the ground up a semiconductor giant. Or Mr Hewlett and Mr Packard, or… there are other examples, sadly almost none in the UK (Dyson? already well off when he founded his vaccum cleaner firm) – Alan Sugar? a trader not a builder of things – which in large part the Uk seems to have forgotten to do – although it is very good faciliatating the stashing of money by the wealthy. I have seen conspicuous and absurd consumption (the motor yacht with helicopter after deck that was cut in half to accommdate a seaplane ……..insane) that is bad of society in lost of different ways. When is “enough enough”? a question well worth answering.
@ Jerome K
The give-away in your trolling, was your use of the word “alleged” before the phrase “senior partner”.
As that is the easiest thing about Richard to independently verify (it took me about 2 minutes) it shows me that you are using the word “alleged” as a deliberate but lazy slur.
https://taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/AACA_flat_tax_report_-_JUN_2006.pdf
https://www.kwaku.org.uk/Speakers/2025-2026/M10Murphy.html
https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2024/mar-2024/mastering-accountancy-influence-on-x-formerly-twitter
You really need to up your game if you want to suceed as an internet troll. You should stick to writing books about men in boats.
The psychological impact of wealth. This needs to be discussed. Musk is one person who, may well have been psychologically disturbed by wealth.
I leave it to a modded version of Fame (co-written with Lennon btw) by the late great Bowie to have the final word – sometimes one requires the medium of art to understand what one is looking at:
Wealth …makes a man take things over
Wealth lets him loose, hard to swallow
Wealth puts you there where things are hollow
Wealth … not your brain, it’s just the flame
That burns your change to keep you insane (‘Sane)
Wealth what you like is in the limo
Wealth ….what you get is no tomorrow
Wealth what you need, you have to borrow
Wealth …. bully for you, chilly for me
Got to get a rain check on pain (Pain)
Very good…
I’m looking forward to reading these.
All I see from so-called ‘investment’ by the wealthy these days is the extraction of other people’s wealth although I know that it is a lot more complex than that. As the state withdraws its investment, it creates additional wealth opportunities for the wealthy.
I am not going to make myself popular with this series.
You may not be popular with some people who are ignorant, greedy or lazy.
But I believe there are thousands of us who honour you highly for what you write.
Thank you.
Thank you. The trolls are already out this morning.
Popular with whom?
The wealthy, for a start.
Taking aim at Mammon will produce a kickback. He is a popular idol after all, with a lot of followers.
Taking aim at the idea of a “wealth tax” will upset a different group of people, but it needs doing, because the “wealth tax” is politically so easy to ridicule (to discredit progressives) as well as being inefficient at redistributing wealth).
Go for it!
“The trolls are already out this morning.”
In the defense of Trolls, you did throw them a lot of food to take a bite of and choke on!
LOL!
There will be a lot more
Look forward to the series Richard.
I found Andy Wightman’s book ‘The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland (And How They Got It)” an insightful view on the subject matter and why we must all aim for a well-being economy in the interest of the many. I’m sure your series will describe the absurdity of the current state of affairs with regard to the growing gap in wealth between the very small percentage of ‘haves’ and the increasing percentage of ‘have nots’. The headline article in today’s Guardian sums it up “ Children in England ‘living in almost Dickensian levels of poverty“.
I will pick up some of thsoe themes
Many years ago a friend pointed out that while the rich could leave they could not take their physical assets – land, buildings etc with them.
there is also the Vimes Boots that comes with wealth or as Alan Clark said in his famous put down of Michael Hesseltine ‘He bought his own furniture’
I will be tackling this issue
Thank you, John.
It was Michael Jopling who said that. Clark recounted that “cutting comment” about the “nouve” and “odious” Heseltine in his diaries.
” in his famous put down of Michael Hesseltine ‘He bought his own furniture’ “.
One of my favorite quotes of all time that sums up the British Class System.
I watch a lot of YouTube channels dealing with stately homes and stately estates. I am amazed at the leaky barns after leaky barns that are chock piled full of 200 year old furniture. Some are valuable pieces and most are junk but the piles reach to the rafters.
I hope you will explore the philosophy of the term wealthy, and what difference it makes socially and politically if you encompass a definition of wealth that goes beyond money, share ownership, property, physical assets and land. Could cultural assets such as authorship skills, or composing skills or artistic skills be regarded as part of a person’s wealth? I don’t know, but I feel asking the question at the outset is worthwhile.
I think this is going to be a must-follow series of blogs
I do…
What we don’t want is this.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/08/children-england-living-almost-dickensian-levels-poverty
Keep going.
Agreed
I preferred to write what I did than comment on that.
I hate to break it you Richard, but you’re not popular with anyone. Well, maybe with those who can use your lies to support their prejudices.
But apart from that, no-one.
You are right, of course. Without you having offered any explanation for your expertise, or your qualification to comment, you have told me that I am unpopular. I am, of course, necessarily obliged as a result to agree that is the case.
After all there will only be 900,000 views on this blog this month, and 2 millio or more on YouTube and millions in Twitter.
And that is why I am a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, one of only 10 accountants to have ever been elected to that body.
It is also why I was ranked as high as seventh in the world in taxation by the International Tax Review over a period of more than 12 years, over which period they included me in their world top 50.
That is also why I was described as social media accountant of the year for five years in a row by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
In addition, precisely because I am so bad, two universities have appointed me to full professorships, and a third has done so to a visiting professorship, whilst three others have appointed me as a visiting fellow.
It’s also why I have a Google Scholar research ranking that lists more than 3,400 people referencing my research work.
But let’s ignore all of that. You, without any apparent qualifications at all, say that I am completely rubbish at what I do and ask that everyone accept that you are right. So, why on earth wouldn’t we? All those others must be wrong in that case.
My T shirts
Change Money change the world
KOINONIA
Thank you, Richard.
Having been to school with and later worked with and for the wealthy, one looks forward to the series.
If the public knew how most wealth is generated and spent and how feckless the wealthy often are, there would be much more outrage.
My view is that every billionaire is failure of public policy.
You might like the series then
The outline is written
Only the next one is recorded….
Go and speak to tradesman like builders, sparky’s, plumbers, painter and decorator’s or myself as a roofer and ask them do they need “the wealthy”. They will all unequivocally say YES!!!!!
How are you defining the wealthy?
And do you think you would have no work if we made 200,000 new houses a year?
How are you defining it? You haven’t, so you can hardly criticise others for not doing the same.
All you have done is produce a range of idiotic stereotypes and pretend that the ‘wealthy’ are all like this. It’s meaningless drivel.
This was an introduction. Dis you not notice?
“And do you think you would have no work if we made 200,000 new houses a year?”
Err..you should check the day rates working for a Housing association or even a big house builder like Berkeley compared to doing work for a wealthy homeowner if you are an experienced and trusted tradesman.
So, we have to reduce the spending capacity of the wealthy then
You make my case for me
I spend a far higher proportion of my retired person’s wealth on roofers, painters, renewable infrastructure, and builders than any billionaire does.
Any money coming into our household is expected to WORK, and as locally as possible. %wise I do far better than either gov or billionaires.
If my neighbours had more disposable income, our local economy including roofers, would be doing fine. There are literally thousands of 1930’s council houses in my neighbourhood in need of new roofs. Meanwhile we give wealthy people unnecessary tax reliefs they don’t need and don’t spend.
@ Paul
I found these quotes per roofer per day (presumably for private individual work).
https://www.hamuch.com/rates/roofer (£165-242)
https://www.priceyourjob.co.uk/roofer-prices/#daily (£150-350)
and hourly, per person
https://rnsroofing.co.uk/how-much-does-a-roofer-charge-per-hour-in-the-uk/
(£15-60)
Couldn’t find any accessible info on daily rates for roofers, paid by local councils or HA’s or Berkely Homes. Perhaps you could oblige then we can compare the two?
Thanks
@David – a very understandable, and legitimate, expression of your vulnerability….”if there aren’t people wealthy enough to employ me how do I earn my living?” I don’t think that the issue has ever been about having wealth in society only obscenely disproportionate inequality. The sort of wealth and power structures that are taking what you obviously physically toil hard for and sucking it back out of you.
The government can readily afford to pay you for your services and wouldn’t you rather your labour be, in some small part, put to socially valuable use?
The key characteristic of true entrepreneurs is that any and all profit they make gets sunk into their next venture, which may or may not also be profitable. Remember, for example, Clive Sinclair’s ‘electric vehicle’ start-up, or his wafer-scale integration venture. Both perhaps laid the groundwork for others to profit, but neither made Sinclair money. He was definitely a true entrepreneur. That’s very different from being in the right place at the right time, once, and walking away rich.
Obsession with ultra-wealth as a measure of success misses what truly advances society. Do we really need another billionaire adding to their property portfolio when what we really need are solutions to challenges? Genuine innovation, whether in renewable energy, medical research, or technology creates more societal value than wealth accumulation ever could.
Innovation comes from researchers, entrepreneurs, and creative thinkers who aren’t necessarily ultra-wealthy. Their motivation isn’t another zero in their bank balance but solving actual real problems.
What our economy actually needs is investment in education and research, support for problem-solving start-ups, and resources directed toward future solutions. Instead of celebrating wealth hoarding, and bowing down to wealth stupidity, we should be asking who’s creating genuine value? Who’s solving problems? Your bank balance won’t matter one jot once everything on earth is either flooded or on fire.
We need to stop pretending extreme private wealth drives progress and start supporting those who actually make a difference.
This government is so failed it makes my blood boil.
You are not alone.
Do we need the wealthy? – Well they certainly need us! – We are their victims.
Without us buying their ‘stuff’ (the good stuff and the downright bad), or us voting in one of their favourite parties (one of two with FPTP in our so-called democracy) to maximise their profits all funded by what they have engineered via the political process or their bungs or their lobbying. And their protracted legal cases (the Post Office Horizon Scandal) and then rigging the interest rates to maximise the rate of the growth in their wealth and them setting the all the social media genies free, (ok ….lets stop there….)
It’s the RATE of their wealth accumulation that they have maximised by using their power and their greed, and then the fact that they can to convert so much of it into tangible assets which they can pass on for a few generations.
The National Trust is littered with previous attempts to do this. But will todays’ mega-rich be more successful than those previous generations?
I had hoped that I would see a much fairer and more equitable world and it’s my greatest sadness that it’s not so and that I have to leave it to others with more years ahead and energy to beat the loud drums for change. Keep going Richard.
These issues will be explored…
You’re really going ruffle some (very delicate, expensive) feathers with this series. I see it’s already started looking at some of the tantrums in the comments.
I look forward to it. This is a much neglected (through fear no doubt) subject that gets to the core of the economic inequality that continues to plague the UK population.
“I see it’s already started looking at some of the tantrums in the comments.”
I very much enjoy reading the tantrums in the comments as 60% of them are rather entertaining in a schitts & giggles way.
I delete a lot more
There are some people lacking in humour out there.
Looking forward to this series.
I note the use of the popular neolib term ‘trickle down economics’ in the introduction. Personally I prefer hoover up economics.
Other forms of wording will appear…
I’m not sure how to articulate this or how it could or should be tackled but from my perspective I see that having wealth and displaying it has not only become acceptable it has become cool. That ‘greed is good’ so to speak. That somehow the wealthy have not only managed to convince vast swaths of the population that we need them but that being super wealthy itself is chic. I realise I’m not being very clear but I hope you get what I mean
This issue will be addressed
This is a great idea.
I recommend the book Limitarianism by the philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, which was a big help to me in developing ideas about wealth. Her thought experiments merit detailed study.
I have ordered a copy. Thanks.
I look forward to this very much. You and I share a Quaker background which naturally prompts me to think about the Quaker industrialists whose wealth (in the sense of their ownership of production) was and is believed to have been force for good in terms of the welfare of their employees and communities. I would be very interested to hear your view. Was it true then or now? What can it teach us?
They, on the whole, made profit first the sake of investing, not gain. It meant a totally different approach to business and it worked for a very long time.