Gary Stevenson said on his YouTube channel yesterday that:
“Correct implementation on tax policy is a job of experts and government and civil service. It is not the job of ******* YouTubers.”
On that, he is entirely correct.
But here's what baffles me: I listened to Gary's latest video today, and I just wish he would talk to me. We were in correspondence for a while, a month or so ago. I sent his team the Taxing Wealth Report at their request, and then I was told his agent said he was too busy to talk to me.
What Gary has now admitted is that working out how to tax wealth is hard. He is right about that. What is more, it is now also very clear that he does not think the campaigners and academics he is currently talking to have the answers, and he is right; they don't. Saying “tax wealth” as organisations like Tax Justice UK and academics like Gabriel Zucman say will not work. The answers are much more complex than that.
Unfortunately, the tax justice movement, and too many others, have regressed to precisely that: slogans. They talk about taxing wealth, but they do not show how, in contrast to what John Chrisensen and I did in our era of tax justice campaigning, when we laid out precisely what we thought was required. Our strategy worked; just making demands does not.
I have, anyway, done the design work. I set it out in my Taxing Wealth Report 2024. It contains thirty fully costed proposals that together could raise up to £90 billion a year from the UK's wealthiest households, designed to be legally robust, enforceable, and resistant to avoidance.
That said, Gary is right that narrative matters. His campaigning has helped move wealth taxation into the mainstream of political debate. But a narrative without an implementation story is empty rhetoric, and I think that is what Gary now realises that he has.
Second, he is right that resistance will be fierce. The wealthy will threaten to leave, and the media will push scare stories. However, we have dealt with all of this before, not only in the context of wealth taxation, but also in other tax justice campaigns with which I was involved.
For example, after 2008, with the demand for country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations that used tax havens, automatic information exchange from those tax havens, and other reforms, particularly to company registries, a handful of campaigners overcame enormous opposition and changed the global tax landscape. I know this precisely because I helped design and deliver those reforms, including by helping negotiate them through the OECD process to deliver reforms which are now, in the case of country-by-country reporting, the law in more than 70 countries around the world.
Third, he is right that expertise is needed. But expertise is not the same as academic commentary or campaigning slogans. It comes from those who actually know how tax systems work, how legislation is drafted, and how rules are enforced. That is the expertise I have always brought to tax justice campaigning.
My record is not theoretical. I was a practising chartered accountant for forty years. I co-founded the Tax Justice Network, helped found Tax Justice UK, and created the Fair Tax Mark. I created and delivered country-by-country reporting to the world against massive resistance. I was ranked in the world's top 50 on tax by International Tax Review for more than a decade, a feat shared only with the head of tax at the OECD at the time. And I have been a professor of accounting and international political economy. The simple fact is that I know how to turn slogans into law, and law into working practice.
The consequences of not connecting Gary's platform with real expertise are stark.
-
Campaigners will continue to say “tax wealth” while opponents laugh because they know no practical proposals exist in the debate.
-
Politicians will duck the issue, saying implementation is too difficult.
-
The public will be disappointed again, as hopes of reform fade into slogans and good intentions.
So my question is simple: why isn't Gary talking to me?
He has built a powerful campaign platform. I have built the practical tax policies. Together, narrative and expertise could be combined into the force that finally makes wealth taxation happen. Apart, the risk is that we go in circles.
Call to action
Given all that I know, may I ask a favour? If you watch Gary's videos, and if you share his anger at inequality, might you tell him this:
-
The implementation answers he knows are needed already exist.
-
They are in the Taxing Wealth Report 2024.
-
And if he is serious about “taxing wealth, not work,” then he has to speak to those who actually know a lot about tax.
So, might I ask readers here to post this in his YouTube comments, to share it on social media, and to mail it to him via his website? We share goals and frustrations, but the narratives and the solutions are ready. What we need now is for campaigners and those with expertise on these issues to join up.
Gary is leading the narrative. I have the policies. It is time to connect the two.
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!
Richard
Why does Gary need an agent?
You dont have one as far as I am aware
I don’t
Gary Stevenson has an agent due to him writing a best selling book. The agent is a literary agent responsible for publicising the book. One of the reasons he wrote the book, was because he would get an agent from Penguin, his publishers, included in the book deal. This would help with his general online presence.
Literary agents are independent of publishers. That is the whole point of them. Do you know what you are talking about?
Hi Richard, it sounds like I don’t know what I am talking about. I have never had a literary agent, whereas you have. Would you agree it is useful though to clarify that Gary Stevenson agent is a literary one? I remember you mentioning we are losing nuance in discussions. I think there is some nuance here when someone tries to throw some shade on Gary, just because he has an agent.
I tried to post yesterday about a live chat last night where Gary Stevenson said he was happy to speak to you in private, but that you had requested a live debate. I think I may have failed the posting process in some way as I didn’t reply to the email confirmation until this morning. My fault.
Can you and Mr Stevenson just talk to each other? I think you have some common ground and the social media airtime he would give you and the advice you could offer him, would help you both.
It was Gary Stevenson where I first heard your name, so as I said, common ground.
I think this is all a distraction.
Gary needs to decide. That’s the nub of it.
“Gary is leading the narrative. I have the policies. It is time to connect the two”.
I am glad to read that. It is a good idea to explore where you can come together, develop a workable tax policy and park the differences – for the greater, coomon good.
Spot on Richard. The possibilities of what could be achieved with the two of you working together. My advice to Gary would be to listen very carefully to the advice of an experienced and respected tax accountant. It’s the same with the law – I bridle every time I hear phrases such as “I know my rights” (they invariably do not) or “everybody knows” when there is not a shred of supporting evidence (just look at the bogus facts and figures about migrants that are doing the rounds). Gary, if you or your people read this blog please, please, please pick up the phone and give Richard a call.
On another note, am driving down to Devon but stopped for a couple of nights in a part of Gloucestershire where there is a noticeable absence of St George’s/Union flags. As one Tetbury shopkeeper put it to me yesterday when I commented on this “we don’t want these arseholes down here with their tattoos, bear guts and Rottweilers.” I couldn’t have put it better myself!
Thank you, Martin.
The flags are all over Kent.
Family friends travelled from Buckinghamshire to Worcestershire and noted the prevalence of flags. The English hubby, Warwickshire fellow and ex Met, told his Italian wife that, should Farage win in 2029, they should go to Italy.
Yep, my partner and I have started having the “where can we move to” conversation.
We’re in the process of buying a house but there are a lof of flags up near us.
I’m British and born here, as were both my parent’s but I’m not white. There don’t seem to be a huge amount of countires that are even options at the moment, it’s so scary.
It is scary.
I haven’t got a problem with you putting a flag up outside your home. I’ll think you’re a bit of a dick, and I’ll avoid you, but if you have the time to climb up lampposts and hang flags from bridges, have a word with yourself.
Knock on an elderly neighbour’s door and ask them if they’re OK. Pick up some litter.
Do something useful, as my mother used to say. Putting flags up is not useful.
Excellent response Richard. Lets hope he takes up your offer. I have mailed him on his website (well you made it so easy didn’t you)
Thanks
At your behest, I’ve just watched Mr Stevenson’s You Tube on tax policy, having had a look through all the list of the other videos he’s done in the past. To be honest saying fuck(ing) every few sentences doesn’t impress me – and I speak as someone who swears a fair bit – but knows when it’s best to give it a rest. And yes, of course swearing can be effective at getting over how pissed off someone is with something (which is why I regularly swear at myself when I don’t do something as well as I think I could). But after a while, too much swearing undermines its effectiveness.
Additionally, I don’t like his pretty constant claims that he’s the only one talking about/campaigning on inequality. Plenty of people have been doing that for fucking years, Gary, old mate. They just happen not to have been born into the YouTube generation (and all credit to you for using that medium well). So he could do with dialing down the self promotion – which reminds me somewhat of a certain Dominic Cummings.
Finally, I think Stevenson might know a thing or two about economics but it strikes me he could do with a bit more learning on politics/policy making. If he did he’d bite your hand off to have access to and use of the Taxing Wealth report (I speak as someone who not only taught policy studies, but also practiced policy making – albeit at the level of local government).
But anyway, overall I can see why he has an agent. And I think I can see why he hasn’t been in touch. I may be wrong. I hope I am. We’ll see.
As you say, let’s see.
And thanks.
Well said Ivan.
The only thing for me Stevenson has going for him is his youth. I have a deep distrust of people who have agents.
Have agent = can be bought.
Sorry…………………….and I do want to be wrong of course, I really do.
I had a literary agent at one time.
Not quite the same thing though.
Gary Stevenson agent IS a literary agent, the same as Richard advises he had at one point.
Hard to explain why a literary agent tells Gary who to speak to, though.
Language is important. It shaped minds. The shift Garry has let to make is from ‘Wealth Tax’ to ‘Taxing Wealth’. With that comes the question of how he takes his mass audience on without losing then in the weeds of technical detail. Garry Stevenson’s strength is explaining simply the ‘big picture’ of why the economy is not working for regular folk.
Tackling inequality is the ground upon which you both stand as activists. You both agree that tax is the best mechanism for wealth redistribution. As you say the challenge now is turning that into effective action.
Garry has pushed and popularised the ‘big idea’ of a ‘Wealth Tax’. Could be that those around him are keen he sticks with the words that have been working?
There is an undoubted tension in what he was saying: you can sense it in him.
Agreed! I’m not keen on the bad language but Gary is reaching a huge audience of people that Richard doesn’t reach. Getting everyone on board is very important & I believe that if Richard & Gary get together & work with mutual respect, they can be a huge force for change.
Perhaps Gary has painted himself into a corner by equating the management of UK finances with a household budget, a simple analogy that most people can understand. This makes it hard for him to now switch tracks and say that this connection is simplistic and wrong. It discredits much of what he’s said previously. However, if he teamed up with you Richard and allows you to do the explaining of how the household budget can’t be equated to a National budget, this could be both very helpful while getting Gary off the hook?
Let’s see
I’ve just watched GS latest video and have left a comment suggesting he contacts you. I’ve also emailed him with links to the Taxing Wealth Report, and quoted the summary.
There are a few references to yourself, and the report, in the comments below his video.
Can I suggest that readers here at least go there and uptick those comments.
Overall, this latest video comes across as badly edited, petulant and devoid of ideas. Maybe he has reached the end of his appeal, and he knows it.
Many thanks
Patience Richard…. it’s obvious which way the wind is blowing… and it’s at your back. Gary is a relatively young man, awareness and learning build throughout a lifetime and if he is now coming to some realisations then just remain quietly and supportively there for him for when he chooses to draw on it.
To resurrect the cliche ‘life is a marathon not a sprint ‘, and although you and Gary cannot yet see the finish line together I am convinced that you are a long, long way down the track.
The symbiosis of the two of you will be a powerful thing.
It’s a shame as Gary S is on the right side of the argument and brings a perspective of the dark side of the City and finance, that is powerful in challenging those massively powerful vested interests. He does need to learn to work with others and that he still has much to learn, especially on tax. His undoubted passion maybe blinds himself to the gaps in his knowledge, and just the need to contribute to something bigger.
I do see a feedback loop which is at the core of our economic and other problems and which might help as a pointer to the vision thats utterly lacking at the moment, and key messages and policies. Put a little crudely:
– Economic Policies of the last 30 plus years that have privileged Finance (and the Treasury) at the expense of other sectors/regions/social groups
– Excessive growth of the Finance Sector (and its bailing out), leading to financialisation (business run solely for the benefits of finance) and massive concentrations of Wealth at the top
– That Wealth leading to accumulation of extreme Power, individual and corporate – most obvious in USA but also in UK
– That Power (and Wealth) being used to influence Politics in its own interests
– Politics choosing to adopt particular Economic Policies, boosting asset prices cutting public expenditure … and so on
The nexus of Westminster, City, Treasury, BofE, Tufton Street, et al … Steadily increasing over the last 30-40 years
It points towards where interventions are needed to change things:
– Redirecting Finance, at least the banking elements, towards the wider economy and restraining its ’socially useless’ activities. Another Glass-Steagall perhaps
– Potentially splitting Treasury and changing its make up, outlook and culture to consider the whole economy and country. Along with the make-up of the MPC so it is not just bankers and economists
– Tackling extreme wealth – which is where taxation comes in
– Reducing the influence of big money and corporations on politics and political parties
– And – changed economic policies so they do not favour these interests at the expense of the wider economy and society
In other words, it needs recognition of the underlying system and the changes needed to it, not just the odd intervention. Steve Keen understands ‘systems’. Gary S is getting there but has some way to go.
Thanks, Robin
I watched Gary’s very sweary video yesterday and thought the constant f-bombs were an obvious sign of stress. He’s just come back from a fairly lengthy break so I hope he isn’t burning out. Before that break I posted a comment on his YT suggesting a debate with Richard and Gary himself gave my comment the thumbs up, so something perhaps has changed in his personal life.
I also suggested that he perhaps align with or even join an institution of some sort to carry the burdens of constant exposure and also that it would also give him a new story, one more focused on the issue with reference to the others around him – his origin story of Citibank, trading, quick personal wealth and so on is getting a bit long in the tooth, I feel.
So a joint input with yourself, and perhaps the likes of Piketty and others in the campaign against inequality space would be very welcome.
Sent a message to Gary this morning asking him ‘to go the extra mile and speak to [you]’- fingers crossed!
🙂
I think of Gary Stevenson as the Greta Thunberg of economics (yes I know inequality and environmental justice
are linked to each other). I’m sure she has a team of advisors and people with deep knowledge in many fields. I wish Gary had advisors like Richard behind him.
Has she?
I don’t know.
I have emailed Gary as suggested.
Thanks
I’ve been wishing Gary would speak to people from other communities for a long time now.
We found him a while ago and obviously its all very exciting but then it started leaving a sour taste in my mouth because he seems to lack intersectionality.
He’s speaking to people like him, and I understand that white working class men are absolutely opressed, but that oppression also seems to make them completely blind to how much they’re shielded by their masculinity or their whiteness.
If Gary is too busy to talk to you then he’s definitely too busy to talk to black women and ask them if he’s missing anything.
He mentioned that he doesn’t read much and unfortunately it shows. There’s so much to be understood about hierarchy from black feminist philosophy.
I fear that a movement that is speaking to oppression without being fully informed on how oppression can manifest is doomed to make the same mistakes. I’m scared that we’ll get equality for white men but still have different flavours of opression for everyone else.
I have nit read much black feminist philosophy, explicitly, I admit
I have read a mass of feminist philosophy, deliberately, in my time. I needed the education. And now I think about it there were plenty of black writers in there, so maybe I have, after all. That said, it was a while ago.
What I most definitely know is white men with wealth (and maybe I am one to some degree, but not like Gary) cannot know all the answers.
Yes, I have alot of empathy for the fact that we don’t know what we don’t know. But I struggle when I see a lack of curiousity. Like you, a few years ago, despite being a pretty well informed black feminist, I realised I had big blind spots when it came to religion and trans rights, obviously I bore no ill will but there were large gaps in my understanding. Learning about that was amazing, I feel my politics and ability to reinforce my arguments has only become stronger because I did this. It’s like following a thread, you find one thing and it opens you up to a whole new world, I’m black and british, I thought I understood racism and colonialism but I still knew nothing of what we did to India or Africa and how that’s linked to our current economic systems.
Gary seems like he has something to say, and I’m willing to listen, but that doesn’t seem reciprocal (obviously I’m not expecting him to chat to me specifically). I think a lot of his audience are sort of using him as a model for their political awakening and are using him for cues on how to approach things and as someone to tell them what questions to ask. If he’s not modelling that you should be reaching out and educating yourself then a large part of his audience simply won’t, and that’s going to set them up for failure when they encounter folks with different experiences and solutions.
Thanks
Much to agree with
Happyto hear this acknowledgment ftom GS that taxing wealth is just a compass point implementation – mapping the how, requires considerable experience and expertise, which you have in spades.
I wonder if private meetings might work, but I am sure you’re on this, as ever 🙂
If we start, silence might be the modus operandi for a while.
I’ve been following Gary for some time, and you for a bit longer. While I like his passion and his message, his efforts lack both the depth and width that you bring to the table. His utube stuff is starting to get a bit repetitive, so the fact is that he needs your support a lot more than you need his. Having said that, I think that together you would be a much stronger force than ‘the sum of the parts’ I doubt if it will happen though because “egos” and because while you are clear and open about your motives and direction of travel, his ambitions are not so clear.
Just keep doing what you’re doing I for one still hang on your every word.
BTW. I left a comment on that utube clip recommending the taxing wealth report about 12 hours ago.
Thanks
I’ve just emailed Gary and posted on his Youtube channel.
I think Gary’s slogan of ‘Tax wealth, not work’ only needs a little tweaking:
Tax the wealthy, not the workers.
You can lead a horse to water…anyway I have left a comment, with a link to this article, on his latest YouTube video, and I’ve also emailed his website.
Really enjoying your work Richard.
Thanks, John.
There has been no response, as yet.
Both you and Gary have complementary skills but also address different audiences (and in very different styles!). It would be a powerful combination if you could both work together. I too have contacted Gary via Facebook and Telegram. Hopefully you two can meet. He needs advice on tax policy.
Thanks
Great work my friend; as you’ve suggested, Stevenson has been pinged.
Bw
I’ve posted comments many times, and signposted to RJM’s Taxing Wealth Report. Many people comment that they would like the two of you to talk or work together. GS does speak about his mental health and using an agent may be a way of dealing with the world.
Some thoughtful comments here; I especially liked Rob C’s. Lilly, I find GS a bit ‘Blokey’ but saw another side to him speaking with Paloma Faith. He has Asian and Black school-friends, I don’t see him as speaking only to a white, male audience, though he may lack some feminine perspective. I have hope of him blossoming! I liked your observations about learning – I’m over 60 and the onion keeps revealing more layers! Learnt lots on here for one thing.
I am still hoping to hear from him.
Gary may or may not have an agent who may or may not be just a literary agent. But the rule is that the agent may advise and/or act on his or her actual or apparent authority, however ultimately it is for the principal (in this case Gary) to decide what action to take.
I agree. Hence my confusion.
‘The unavoidable gravity sucked them to the ground’ – Moving Hearts’
As an IT guy I had to use, amend or create methodologies needed to work in a particular IT department to deliver the managements goals.
And this also came in handy in interest clubs usual ‘ownership’ struggles.
I was suspended from the UK Permaculture Group for suggesting we DNA tested landed gentry and if they had Norman blood send them back to France. On the basis their land was stolen by King William from the existing incumbents and so on. But that is too high profile. Like a previous Labour govenment who had rich people raze their homes to the ground.
You need to apply MMT in such a way as it quietly achieves the goal of at least some leveling up. In a quiet incremental sort of way.
The biggest draw anywhere is rule of law. And perhaps culture?
Cheers. Andrew.
I am not wholly sure I follow your arguments.