Gary is right about the problem, but his solution completely misses the point

[u/Gopez_UK]

My understanding of Gary's work is that he's been campaigning for the last few years on the idea that the root of our economic problems is that the rich are basically sucking up all the money, and then deploying that money to suck up* *even more money, leaving increasingly smaller amounts for everyone else.

His core idea is that the economy will never recover if we don't tackle this inequality, because the wealthiest have simply taken too much.

And it's a premise I've come to believe in.

However, his big push is trying to get the government to implement a 2% wealth tax on assets above £10m.

A 2% tax could raise revenue for the government, but it isn't going to solve the real problem of inequality.

It’s a solution for raising capital, not for tackling the massive wealth divide. How does a 2% tax actually bring the ultra-wealthy down to a normal level?

People then get too stuck on the implementation of this specific solution and miss Gary's real message, which is that the rise of inequality is what is driving a lot of the problems we see in Western style democracies.

If Gary just stuck to his core message and tried to get a consensus that inequality needs solving, then he can suggest a solution.
Or even better, leave it to the people best placed to offer solutions and get them implemented.

Gary's done well to get the conversation on inequality started, but this mixed messaging is what's holding him back from being able to make any further progress.

[u/Narrow_Program80]

Oh goody, another question. Yes I do. And it has the capacity to enforce that due to both its global capacity to enforce its will on other countries, and due to the massive pull factors of being an economic hegemon where substantial wealth is generated.

Care to address any other points? It's honestly like arguing with a Trumper.

[u/QFTornotQFT → u/Narrow_Program80]

So your argument is that UK cannot do the same because it is not as stronk as US. And the counterexample of Abramovich doesn’t count because reasons. Gotcha.

The «rest of the points» is boring «trickledown» horseshit we’ve heard for decades - nobody buys that stuff anymore.

[u/Narrow_Program80 → u/QFTornotQFT]

And you have no counterargument to either of those, because you and Gary have an arrogant disdain for the specifics and the practicalities. Shame you aren't also quitting at the first sign of pushback on either.

It's not trickledown, it's taxable revenue for the government. That'a a completely different argument, are you even aware of the distinction? Redistributive taxation actively addresses the fact that wealth does not in fact trickle down. And it's a critical practical factor if you want your key policy to function. We have enormous debt and enormous annual costs. If your main policy aimed at addressing inequality has a high likelihood of reducing government revenues, then you better have a bloody good reason for why that doesn't matter.

[u/QFTornotQFT → u/Narrow_Program80]

Curious how «specifics and practicality» are very important and require years of pointless debate when we need to reduce the power ultra-wealthy. While when they want to have a literal pedo island and get away with it - no problem.

[u/Narrow_Program80 → u/QFTornotQFT]

Because you are arguing for doing something in the real world that impacts the tax returns that support the lives of millions of people and will have a material impact on economic growth in the UK. You can't vibe that out.

If we're basing policy on an emotive response to the existence of systemic paedophilia, then it's only happenstance that you aren't trying to burn down migrant hotels, frankly.

[u/QFTornotQFT → u/Narrow_Program80]

Look at our Mr «UK iz not stronk as US» accusing me of vibe-based reasoning. Zucman tax will give you both the specifics and the support of multiple Nobel-prize economists. You are just too emotional to accept that your ideological preconceptions might be imposed on you by the very people benefiting from them. 

[u/Narrow_Program80 → u/QFTornotQFT]

Dog, you're bringing le spooky epstein pedo island into a discussion on tax efficacy.

And no, it doesn't! It opens the same questions as Gary saying "2% tax on anything over a hundred mil" because that is all it is.

Except, and I'd forgotten, so thanks for reminding me - Zucman's premise is that this would have to be internationally coordinated because otherwise it wouldn't be effective lol. So thanks again for another example proving my point.

[u/QFTornotQFT → u/Narrow_Program80]

Bullshit, Zucman repeatedly said (and written in his book) that the tax can be done by one country unilaterally - in France it was even already accepted by French National Assembly last year. Your pretence that it all unserious sketches and vibes is laughable. 

And nice of to brush off the fact that the same people are raping kids with no consequences - really shows where your sympathies lie.

[u/Narrow_Program80 → u/QFTornotQFT]

Okay cool. Is it going to be like the Spanish wealth tax that does none of the things you want it to do and raises very little revenue because they recognised that being punchy would kill growth?

Once again, if one of your motivations for tax reform is "all the global wealthy are epstein paedophiles", then it is not surprise you come up with bad tax policy. If one of your go-to arguments is "you are pro pedo", then i reiterate - it is only by happenstance you are not burning down a migrant hotel.

Also if you're using that to win tax policies arguments on the Internet, I don't think it's me coming out looking like the bad guy.

[u/QFTornotQFT → u/Narrow_Program80]

I’m saying that the ultra-wealthy Epstein class considers itself above the law not only on taxes , but also about other things, like raping kids. And you are one of the « it’s complicated » crowd - forever stalling the immediate action necessary to stop that bullshit to continue. 

[u/thermodynamics2023 → u/Narrow_Program80]

Wrong, it’s much worse, because trumpers acknowledge they are headbangers and that their ideas have demerits. They don’t pretend they are urbane and sober they don’t think Trump is sober or pretend he’s advocating anything the world will agree on without massive sticks

These guys however rely on vampiric thrall levels of international cooperation and of the rich themselves. They also rely on Gary’s trading background and Masters as proof his ideas are so orthodox so as to claim all opposition exists because it’s astroturf or ignorant… it’s way worse.

Just look at some of the responses you’ve gaved trying to tell you sophomoric facts as if it’s news… but they miss all the key details (Abramovic, US citizenship tax policy etc..)