I watched Gary Stevenson's Channel 4 documentary, How to Get Filthy Rich With Gary Stevenson, last night. I have a recommendation for you. It is that you do not waste your time.
This programme is deeply embarrassing. Gary shows himself quite unable to make the argument he sets out to deliver and, in the process, undermines the case for any form of increase in tax on wealth by failing to win any of the arguments with any of the people that he interviews, whilst emoting extensively, blubbing occasionally, proving himself to be all heart and no head, and someone lacking the expertise needed to make his case.
That said, I admit that I did not expect to be a fan of this programme. Gary Stevenson and I disagree on whether we need a wealth tax. My argument is that a wealth tax is the best way to tax wealth, except for all the other, much better alternatives set out in my Taxing Wealth Report, which suggests that there are opportunities for additional revenue, if that is the goal, much in excess of anything that Gary predicts to be possible. I was almost bound to disagree with this programme as a result.
What did, however, astonish me is that Gary appeared to do no more preparation for this programme than he did for his YouTube videos. In those, he has admitted that he is not a tax expert and does not know how a wealth tax could be designed or work, and that fact remained very apparent in this programme. In fact, what he revealed was that:
- He believes in the household analogy. In other words, he thinks that the government must raise tax before it can spend, and this is not true.
- He thinks that, as far as the government is concerned, money is scarce, when it is not because it creates the stuff.
- He believes tax is the only way to tackle inequality, when it is very clearly only one way, with better regulation, better fiscal policy, better Social Security, better education, better control of interest rates, and a straightforwardly better understanding of economics all playing at least as much a part as taxation can. That does not mean that tax is unimportant, but it is just one of many tools, and the wealth tax is a poor tool within that tax option.
In addition, Gary was let down by the programme makers, from the moment they chose to call it the series How to Get Filthy Rich, which was not what it was about, to the fact that they had obviously not done their homework.
They also failed to prepare Gary for the confrontational interviews they asked him to undertake, which, without exception, he handled badly, failing to have almost any counterarguments to his opponents' claims, making him look ill-prepared, lacking in expertise and without a case to make.
His problem was clear: when, as he acknowledged, he set out to make himself a millionaire within a neoliberal framing of wealth, which he obviously believes in, his chance of successfully arguing with those who endorsed that same mindset was very low, and he never came close to successfully doing so.
The result was a programme that was just dull. As entertainment, this failed just as badly as it failed as reasoned argument.
I thought I was being incredibly negative in thinking this, so I then checked for reviews in the media and found them in the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times and The Guardian. It is unsurprising that the first two were not enthusiastic, but I think the Guardian review wanted to be, yet it too ended up feeling that this was a massive lost opportunity and a failure. Its final section was:
Tax lawyer and adviser Dan Neidle deals the final blow towards the end of the programme by summing up the underlying problem of everything that has gone before. “You are unable,” he tells Stevenson coolly but firmly, “to separate your emotional reaction to inequality from a rational assessment of the best tools for it.”
This, really, is where a truly amazing documentary could have begun. Instead of Stevenson being left floundering, without convincing comebacks to any of them (was he not briefed? Was he paralysed in front of the camera? Has he simply spent too much time preaching to the choir and forgotten what it's like to be challenged? Or is Neidle right in his frustrated pronouncement that “There's no evidence you've ever thought about it!”), we could have had an hour of him being led through wider issues by a genuine expert and letting us all learn something along the way. This way was just a faintly embarrassing waste of time.
My conclusion? It is the same as that which I supplied to Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme before it was commissioned. I told them that if they wanted to make a programme on the subject, they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.
I never heard back from them thereafter, and that does not worry me. What does worry me is that this programme might actually have put back the case for taxing the income and gains from wealth more. Precisely because doing that matters, this programme was a failure, and I suspect that even Gary's most ardent fans would have to agree.
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!
Thanks for watching! Time to get your ‘Taxing Wealth’ Report and MMT articles in wider circulation, Channel Four missed out!
I expected as much – I mean look at the title?
Why did they choose that?
I almost wonder if he was set up?
Thats what I was thinking too.
An easy soft target to prove TINA
GS is in a his own media bubble, this wasn’t an environment he could control. Sad.
I watch his videos and support some of his views. But the programme was flawed from the outset with that ridiculous title
i watched about 30 minutes and gave up. Did I miss anything?
No
He believes in the household analogy. Does he believe in fairies as well?
Thanks for the heads up. Mr Stevenson would do well to leave the field to those that have some clue as to what they are talking about.
That said, another interpretation could be the meeja setting some narratives = taxing the rich is v’ difficult to impossible etc – looks even an “expert” can’t get it right.
This is the interpretation I favour.
Me too.
I didnt watch (and having read this wont)
“What does worry me is that this programme might actually have put back the case for taxing the income and gains from wealth more. Precisely because doing that matters, this programme was a failure”
or
“Mission accomplished”
Those interviews did not go well. One has to wonder if Gary Stevenson was simply allowed to expose the lack of rigour in his arguments or the consequence of Gary not rising to the demands of format.
The documentary commissioning process tends to be exacting and time consuming. The production company, Mindhouse Productions, is well established and has a reputation for high-end documentaries and investigative journalism. Founders include Louis Theroux.
A lost opportunity. Stevenson is good at explaining how economics is driving the growth in inequality, but seems entranced with his own oversimplified solution.
I agree that the documentary was clearly set up to fail with a title like that, but I will say this is clearly a bigger issue than just an ‘economics’ issue. While we can disagree about the particulars, I think it’s clear Gary is right about the direction of wealth inequality and the enormous power that these wealth owners now have. This battle isn’t going to won by sitting on here why they have free reign in the media. Before Gary, what was the cut through?
Are you saying no one noticed inequality before Gary?
That is not credible
The link between rising wealth inequality and declining living standards wasn’t a popular talking point within the establishment media sphere prior to his rise in popularity on social media. He is not solely responsible for shifting the discussion, but it would be wrong to say he hasn’t played a part in that.
Credit where credit is due. I think his influence has been a net-benefit for the tax-justice cause, but I get the impression that you think he does more harm than good, which is a shame.
This is nonsense, to be polite. When I was co-running the Tax Justice Network we delivered global reach on this.
No, I think he is saying that Gary brings a way of expressing it to a new audience, which is something you, for all of your clear understanding do not really do to anything like the same extent, if at all.
While I agree with a lot of the issues raised with the documentary, I strongly disagree with your central premise that this has set back the argument for taxing the rich.
While Gary may have failed to win the argument in the moment, the individuals he was interviewing didn’t to my mind present themselves in a sympathetic light. So While they made arguments that what Gary proposed would not work, they themselves reinforced that there was a requirement for the wealth of the super rich to be addressed, because they were clearly not going to be part of the solution.
As I co-created the Tax Justice Network, the Green New Deal, the Fair Tax Mark and more, and have 380,000 YT followers, I find the idea that I have no reach really quite odd.
Rising inequality?
It was a hot topic for those of us running food banks over a decade ago. I remember lecturing on it in a Lent series on “Spirituality and *****” at Wimborne Minster (mine was the last in the series – “Spirituality and Poverty”.
I regularly used to write to my Tory MP about it, post 2015. There was plenty of data available, especially from the very robust and huge national combined database of Trusell Trust and the independent foodbank network (IFN). When the DWP or any gov minister lied about poverty and inequality, we could produce the data to prove them wrong.
The difference now, is that these issues now impact the middle class, and large numbers of low income working people. So the MSM talk about it. Gov’t ignored it so it got much much worse.
“I, Daniel Blake”, came out in 2016. Didn’t shock me at all, I had seen that every week at our food bank since 2012, in a wealthy market town.
10 years later, all the same issues are in the interim Timms report, just the acronyms have changed. 10 years of us shouting, but no one in gov’t listening, till some scared LINO-STP MPs found some more long grass to kick the poor into, called the Timms report. “Unfit or purpose?” Bravo! Someone finally noticed?
As for Richard’s practical contributions to reducing inequality, he was a key player over many years effecting change in international tax law. Gary S has made a lot of money, made a poor documentary, got a large YT following, but on his central issue has NO SOLUTIONS because he doesn’t understand money
Now if he gave FTF £200k team Murphy could put it to good use…
🙂 and thank you
I think what Gary does well is emotional cut through. There is a technical argument, which you make well Richard, especially on the hows. But at the moment we are fighting the narrative that immigrants are spending all the money and that’s why there isn’t any for public services. That is demonstrably false and easy to disprove but still it holds political sway.
It’s normal people who aren’t interested in economics whose views he will potentially change. If that just involves shooting down the narrative of trickle down and the old 19080s US bootstrapping idea, that anyone can be rich if they just work harder (therefore it’s a personal failing if you are in poverty).
If we can’t even dismantle those arguments then no one will listen to arguments about tax reform.
I haven’t watched all yet, but the people he spoke to, including the tax advisor looked out of touch. They may have won on some technical points, but they look callous and selfish. That’s the battle to win in my mind. Making selfishness shameful again, like it used to be.
Does he mention migration? Ever?
“Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme before it was commissioned. I told them that if they wanted to make a programme on the subject, they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.
I never heard back from them”
It seems crazy that you never heard back from them. My neice worked on the commissioning and production of this programme. I’ll ask her why they approached you in the first place if they weren’t going to listen to what you had to say and why they didn’t get back to you.
Here you go Mr Carstairs my analysis wrt Richard not hearing from C4 (see my post).
“the meeja setting some narratives = taxing the rich is v’ difficult to impossible etc – look even an “expert” can’t get it right.”
The prog was designed to fail. Had Richard been on instead of Mr Stevenson things would have been very different. As for getting any C4 explanation – would not have been worth the paper it was written on. The UK mass propaganda space has to be carefully controlled (= UK serfs mis-educated mis-directed). Happens all the time. This was another example. Normal service has been resumed and Mr Stevenson exposed. Job done.
I’m not a particular fan of GS but I did watch the program. My overwhelming impression was one of class intimidation. He doesn’t have a sophisticated analysis, nor a very viable solution which of course was part of the problem, but for me the most uncomfortable thing was that he seemed so intimidated by the establishment people he interviewed and it seemed odd almost to put the program out.
Interesting to know the agenda of Channel 4!???
While Gary is clearly not the first to identify inequality as a major societal problem I suspect he’s played a part in reaching a demographic that don’t have a specific interest in politcs and economics and would not be not be familiar with yourself and other writers and academics mentioned on this blog. I welcome anyone that brings these discussions into the public domain when our MSM can only ever seem to blame immigration.
You’re absolutely right about the demographic and it’s so valuable – especially bcs so incredibly rare, but I think you misunderstand his reaction when you parse it as ‘intimidation’.
He’s exposing (especially to people like my very large extended family, who don’t have time to listen to theories and aren’t engaged by talking heads, but are by Gary) what these people are actually like.
It’s not a ‘debate’! He lets them speak for themselves so we see them as they are. His reaction (just like ours) is disbelief and anger at the utter callousness and unreality of the people he’s talking to. And their total disconnect. And he’s also recoiling with controlled disgust at their sheer irresponsibility. So far as I can recall, not one of them expresses any regret, repentance or empathy – other than for themselves. Just think of that!
It’s not ‘oh dear, I’m out of my depth’, it’s ‘omg – what planet are you on??!’
I hear you
But it really did not work, IMO
Dear Richard
You rightly criticise the household analogy as flawed. Nevertheless it’s not entirely wrong either; there is an upper limit on government spending for reasons that are well understood.
Could you suggest a better analogy that would be seen as reasonable to the majority of economists?
Thanks
What is that upper limnit in your view.
I have explained mine.
And no analogy is needed: it is simply using the real resources available in the economy to help people best realise their ptotential.
What is wrong with that?
The ceiling for state spending is full employment with zero underemployment. The state should keep spending on the real resources until this goal is reached.
Agreed
Hi Richard – will you be posting a commentary on the Prosperity 2030 report? Seems to propose some changes to tax and economic policy you might agree with?
It seems like total garbage to me, and just about impossible to read. I have thought about it, but why make it impossible to access. What are they so ashamed of?
Would it be too cynical to speculate that Gary has been a willing participant in a straw man plot to discredit any alternative to neoliberal economics?
Working class kid turned millionaire trader becomes successful influencer challenging inequality. Built up as our only hope against the failed neoliberal orthodoxy, but then very publicly exposed as having no credible solutions. Conclusion: there is no alternative. Orthodoxy can prevail. Gary gets his payoff and then disappears.
But that reading would be entirely fictional.
Wouldn’t it?
What a shame you couldn’t persuade C4 to follow Gary’s programme with your perspective on a separate programme.
That would have been fun
On Wednesday I watched Inequality Media’s ‘The Last Class’ documentary.
I am sad GS did not come across well. His heart is in the right place, but it is so frustrating that he is ensnared in the household analogy among other things.
I need to watch that one
I have grown to love Gary because I can see he is genuinely concerned about the future for the vast majority of people who are denied a real chance to thrive. I empathise with his perspective which is born of his very ordinary beginnings and his experience of the bias of the rich which makes them express the opinion that they are rich because they deserve to be.
Gary Stevenson unfortunately does not present MMT or even mention it. Please try to get an opportunity to present a program on it.
Nevertheless Gary showed how wealth accumulates for an elite and said it was a danger to society.
Those interviewed were allowed to show themselves as greedy and uncaring – especially the land owner of an inherited estate.
The title was misleading but perhaps aimed to engage opponents of change.
I think therefore it was helpful in limited ways – I can’t remember any other program of an hour long criticism of wealthy elitism. It was a call for protest, change and awareness of social values.
Hi Richard, just my thoughts. My knowledge on this subject is quite new and limited — I’m a layman, but more importantly, inequality is something I’ve seen affecting me and others for years. What Gary has done for me is open a door to people like yourself that I didn’t know existed. It’s sharpened my thinking and my arguments on the problem, and it could — and hopefully will — do the same for others. I’d hate to see division among inequality campaigners, activists and economists. It’s too important. Maybe don’t throw Gary out with the bathwater just yet. Is there a version of this critique that doesn’t cost the movement its biggest audience-builder?
He is promoting a poor idea, badly. Isn’t it for him to up his game? Shouldn’t you be asking him to listen?
I agree. Gary’s game is large-scale and top-shelf, but by dint of his weaknesses, perhaps not put to best use. I think you would be a naive YouTuber to write another word of criticism without considering producing a video arming your audience with the ability to appreciate your conclusion here in detail. For better or worse, the arguments in the doc are boiled-down, well-produced and now just sitting there, ready-made to be (fair-use) analysed line-by-line. I would vote for that if this article were a YouTube poll of yours, and not just a critical pan.
Otherwise, there is a substantial demographic that were touched – who either can’t or won’t read another word on the economy – who are at risk of being alienated by readers of articles such as these. I know people who cried watching the doc – so when, in conversation, it is summarily eschewed (especially by someone who skipped it at your recommendation), it would be ideal if there were a maximised chance that that conversation was an empathetic explanation of why a popular piece of media is emotionally resonant but intellectually discordant. An actively-minimised chance of spurning casual Gary fans, and the like.
When a conservative blunders? YouTube piles on, reaction-clip-style, and both the original media and its criticisms reach more people, in a productive feedback loop. A well-meaning progressive? We seem chiefly to drive wedges of disavowal. I wish there existed an article reviewing the doc that acted as a conversation-starter as opposed to a conversation-stopper.
Even some of the most attentive viewers end up forgetting detail and retaining only the emotion of following through reason. Each Gary video does this 10-20 times over evaluated against yours, and I’d love to see yours close the gap without a zero-sum.
I understand what you’re suggesting, but I think you’re asking the wrong person to do the work.
I have now explained, repeatedly and in considerable detail, where I think Gary’s analysis is right and where I think it is wrong. Those criticisms are in the public domain for anyone to read or respond to.
The question is not whether I should produce yet another critique. The question is why Gary has chosen not to engage with any of the substantive points that have been made.
Debate is a two-way process. If someone produces a documentary making significant economic claims, and others respond with detailed criticisms, surely the next step is discussion, not silence.
I have no interest in creating a feud. I do have an interest in improving public understanding of economics. That requires people to engage with arguments, not simply with audiences.
So I think the ball is in Gary’s court. I have set out my reasoning. If he thinks I am wrong, I would be delighted to hear why. I will debate. That would be far more valuable than my repeating the same critique in another format. Debate is how ideas improve. Silence is not.
I think Gary is incapable of doing that work. The man who seems to command a full and visceral understanding of the economy, and who has an actual history of effecting political change is you!
Gary burns himself out repeatedly a few months at at time, and in return he achieves the viewership and MSM mediation that he sets out to. I don’t think he is simultaneously capable of (1) sustaining his authentic contribution t0 the public good in its present form and (2) working backwards from the “economy” that he has been publicly conceptualising, undertaking to produce the content required to square it with the reality of the economy (à la MMT), and then to credibly champion his “course-corrected” position in his own voice. If his long-term goal is to effect political change, as is your wont, then perhaps he should eventually transition from (1) to (2) and build his history of thought up to a similar level of authenticity as that he speaks with today.
I think perhaps the legwork of laying the foundations of an economics YouTube channel is something that you have actively achieved at the highest level, and that he had instead presumed would emerge naturally through his knowledge (admittedly substantial); worldly experience (proven); and training (“highest” in the land – although even he is critical of his own teachers).
If he has tied his own hands, then only YouTubers like yourself have the viable platform upon which to nurture a positive feedback loop – perhaps à la the independent American media channels who have successfully rattled Trump with repetitive reaction-style criticism. That is not to say that you should “rattle” Gary, but a polite feud might be in everyone’s best interest. Perhaps we should suspend the extremes of our British politeness for a time.
Gary also has the problem that he does not seem to walk his talk – or why is he still trading?
Fair point, and yes — I’ll ask him to listen and engage properly. But worth noting: Gary has said he asked Dan Neidle directly whether he would help him with this. It came up in a podcast — Gary said Dan didn’t want to help — though it didn’t make it into the documentary. Would you be open to actually engaging with him directly?
I have offered to do so. He declined, even when he appealed for help and I offered it.
There’s a basic misunderstanding about the documentary. And how you view it will depend largely on who you are. From my perspective and that of my family, it served the purpose intended. There’s also a good reason for the title.
Firstly, it’s clearly NOT a documentary about TAX. We might need one of those and doubtless you, Richard, would be an excellent person to make it.
But this isn’t that. It’s a documentary about calamity. About people, the societal disconnect (also illustrated by the response of the commentariat) and the horrific direction of travel. It’s a call to the many to fight back. Even hearing this narrated by someone who doesn’t sound like a talking head but like he’s from our manor and is relatable, is a huge relief (and a blessing/inspiration massively underestimated by legacy commentary).
Secondly, it’s called ‘How to Get Filthy Rich’ because it’s demonstrating what you need to be like if you’re going to be ‘filthy rich’ and shaft everyone else – in other words the answer to ‘How?; is ‘be as utterly callous and disconnected from what really matters as these people’.
It shows the rest of us the real reason for wealth inequality. And what we’re up against. It shows that, while these people are happy to argue about theories, they absolutely couldn’t care less about the fate of humanity.
That’s the point of it. And it did what it intended to do. We all deeply appreciated it. It spoke for us. Of course theories are important, essential. But this is rare as the Gold of Ophir. And we need it.
Thoughts on the works of Zucman and piketti please and the endorsements by 7 noodle prize winners? Or are they talking claptrap too? From a once YT follower no more
Read this and the first piece it links to. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/06/18/why-i-oppose-unworkable-wealth-taxes/
I think he is being used as a wealth tax Trojan horse character. He is too emotionally involved to spot it. The only sensible argument I have heard him make in favour of wealth taxes, admits they are very, very hard to impose, but so is a cure for cancer.
He then says that it is for economists to develop the tax and then asks Gabriel Zucman who advocates what appears to be a Worldwide wealth tax. Good luck with that.
What is frustrating is the relatively low bandwidth offered to Richard here, or the likes of Dan Neidle, who have solutions that could be in place very, very quickly, with little effort.
Gabriel Zucman personifies the naivete of tax justice and academia. Individually they can be bad. Comnined they can be very much worse.
Richard,
I agree with basically all of your work – but most of the analogy issues you have with Gary are immaterial to achieving a wealth tax and ensuring the super rich can not continue to hoover up assets.
Being on the left, you are a massive hinderance to the overall trajectory towards a rejection of trickle down economics when you attack Gary in such a way. It’s easy to use your words against him when you ultimately do want the same thing.
People are likely to go for a wealth tax before they go for MMT carte blanche. It could be the best first step as it provides enough of a basis to implement radical spending reforms. However, as Gary has said many times, his policies are nothing to do with raising revenue and ensuring the government has more budget. It is purely to reset the effective tax burdens of the super rich versus the middle and working class, to give us all a fighting chance that we may not have our country swallowed up by parasitic capital.
Thank you for everything else you do.
Politely, ant I don’t think I have said this here before, fuck off.
Gary is the hindrance. His refusal to engage with how to beat wealth is the hindrance. I bp have done it. I did more than just about anyone to crack open tax havens, and to beat corporate tax abuse? How? By knowing what I was talking about. That is how I changed the law in many countries around the world. Hard, technical analysis did that. And that is why Gary is a problem, not a help.
So, don’t tell me I am a hindrance. That is a comment based on ignorance or prejudice. Either way my reaction is justified.
I have changed the world and helped beat tax abuse. When Gary has changed anything, let me know.
I hope you don’t mind me saying but I think you ‘blow a fuse’ too quickly. I am a similar age to you, and also appear to have tendency to be Mr Angry. But I realise it doesn’t get me anywhere, no matter how right I am. By the way I think you are right here, but there must be some nuance, if only to get something, anything done.
Maybe. But have you tried running a very big blog? I accept I make mistakes – although only one yesterday – but when you are subject to considerable, deliberate, abuse intended to undermine working out who – when you are dealing with a person you have never heard from before – is trying to help and who is seeking to abuse is not always easy. And yes, after ywenty byears I still sometimes make mistakes. But try putting yourself in those shoes before telling me I blow the fuse too often, I suggest. And sometimes it does get me somewhere in what is sometimes a confrontational space.
Fair enough Richard,
It really was not intended as abuse and it really wasn’t. I totally understand why you would get pissed off, I genuinely do.
But there’s one person making documentaries on mainstream TV about changing the economic status quo right now, and it’s not you. Yes you will be annoyed by that, deservedly so. But instead of continuing the narrative switch and convincing those who are still trapped in the neo-liberal consensus, your words are being used to discredit an economic challenge to that.
I think your criticism of Gary can be done in a way that is saying I will help you get where you need to be rather than so derogatory. If you tell me you’ve tried to reach out to him and help been met with scorn yourself, then I’ll shut up and have a go at Gary on that. But I don’t think that’s happened.
You have my continued support despite the fuck off.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/07/10/how-to-get-filthy-rich-a-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1085867
Consider the consequences of the fuse that DOESN’T blow – a lot of smoking expensive tech, and possibly an electric shock. 😉
🙂
I’ve just tried to submit a comment, but lost it all because of the silly word limit. Anyway, I can’t be bothered to type it all out again, but just to say that Gary has repeatedly stated that the purpose of a wealth tax is not to raise income, but to reduce wealth inequality. He said as much in the programme.
Gary is far from perfect, and this documentary wasn’t his finest hour, but it saddens me to see someone who should be on the same side take needless potshots at him without acknowledging some of the good work he has done in raising awareness of the importance of taxing wealth with parts of the UK public that academics such as yourself are unlikely to reach. We need people like Gary connecting with these people just as much as we need people like you to also make your case. Therefore, for all its flaws, I disagree with your conclusion that this documentary will harm the cause of taxing wealth more.
You say I am silly and then want to persuade me of you argument?
Why?
And why is arguing for somnething that cannot work, won’t work and will not happen of use? Tell me why that is not a distraction for fantasists?
Maybe if the call for something that cannot work, won’t work and will not happen, becomes so great that politicians realise they need to do something, they will come to you, for something that might work and appease the demand.
Please read my comment again properly. I did not say you were silly – I said the word count is silly. There is quite a big difference between the two, but if you want to willfully misinterpret the two, that’s your prerogative.
With regard to your second point, I think you overestimate how much the general public are able to engage with the details of policy decisions. To most people, you are Gary are arguing for the same thing, which is taxing wealth more. This is the argument that needs to be won first with the general public. Once this argument is won, we can get into the nitty gritty of how best to tax wealth.
I set the eord count. My interpretation was correct.
And wouldn’t it be better to get the argument right first of all? I just do not see why not.
Peter, the word count is NOT silly. It is a necesary discipine – remember, WE don’t have to read all the posts, but Team Murphy DO HAVE to read all OUR stuff (not least to moderate it for legal reasons), and that is time-consuming for them (You have yourself just demanded they read YOUR post a SECOND time!). The 300 word count was the result of a consultation and vote by the participants here some weeks ago – so maybe we are ALL silly?
Two points
1. – the interface includes a running word count for you to check just above the text box. Check it before submitting (and allow a margin of error).
2. – If I DO submit a “too long” post (as I suffer fom verbal diarrhoea this happens quite often), and get the “too long” message, my Samsung/Android/Firefox setup allows me to hit the phone’s “back” icon, recover what I wrote and edit it further. YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
I’ll stop there, the FTF counter says I have about 120 words left.
Many thanks Robert.
And, spot on.
I watched programme last night. What resonated was how his family had been able to buy a house bring up three children and retire in comfort. We all know that neoliberalism has resulted in assets being monopolised by the super rich and that financialisation has destroyed our productive industries. Supporters of this blog see MMT as a framework to bring about change and Taxing Wealth Report as a way to start changing things.
The neoliberals and their wealthy supporters had a long wait before they had the opportunity to impose their ideas. They set up think tanks and worked to get ideas accepted in 1970’s. The financial crash of 2008 should have been the opportunity to defeat them. Now we have the phenomena of technofeudalism. (Varoufakis) mixed with enshittification (Doctorow). Climatologist have been warning us for forty years about climate change. The elites are not going to give up their power without a fight. Sadly I think it will take a major crisis to bring about change and we may be in the midst of it. Let’s hope we are not in a ‘Don’t Look Up’ moment. People like Richard are going to get flak but for the sake of humanity progressives need to work together to defeat the forces of reaction.
Supporters of the blog need to draw the attention of opinion formers to Richard’s work. Last point – many must already have come across these ideas but are afraid to put their head above the parapet for fear of being shot down by their contemporaries.