You can just tax wealth and assets, you can't move a big house, shopping centre or football club. Most wealthy people earn money from their assets so aren't paying income tax necessarily or certainly not on a lot of their income. Why is the capital gains tax rate lower than income tax rate?
He might like to remember that those UK-based rich people had their terrible financial investments bailed out by everyone else in 2008 - a bailout which we're still paying for and will do for decades. The national debt was literally doubled to save them and they have all manner of other support from the state / taxpayer depending on what sector they're in such as tax credits for low wage employers, housing benefit if they're private landlords, massive subsidies for the various things they might be invested in such as privatised utilities, outsourcing companies, PFI schemes etc etc. And their financial investments are also propped up by almost a trillion pounds worth of QE which weakened the value of the currency for everyone else. Honest to god, these people are not victims and he might have the courtesy to let her finish. Sounded quite defensive actually. Perhaps he knows very well what a nice ride they've been having China does not have a 100 year plan, they just say they do. Having lived and worked there I can tell you that they're neurotically obsessed with the West which they bitterly resent for showing the Middle Kingdom it wasn't quite so central to world affairs as it thought it was. I've never seen a culture where they chop and change their mind as quickly as they do and I've been to 60 countries. Agreements are meaningless in that country, respect for IP none-existent and they've blown a vast property bubble which is now causing serious problems. Seriously, China is a massive hype.
The national debt did not double. Not even close. I refer you to researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05748/SN05748.pdf. Quote: "From September 2007 to December 2009, the then Labour Government made a number of interventions to support the banking sector generally and several banks specifically. It injected £137 billion of public money in loans and capital to stabilise the financial system, most of which has been recouped over the years".
Nonsense. The 2008 UK bank bailout was designed to protect everyone, not rich people's investments. If the banking system had collapsed, it would have been disastrous for us all. The cash outlay was £137 billion and most of that has been recovered. We are not still paying for it.
@18:48 "If you're a full UK person, there are so few ways you can hide." Exactly! The whole problem is that the rules are fine within each country. But as soon as you are a multinational, there's all the freedom in the world to avoid paying any tax, by simply exploiting the differences between countries. The big 4 accounting firms (Deloitte, E&Y, KPMG and PwC) sell their expertise to governments, and those governments turn that advice into taxation laws. Then those same accounting firms sell their expertise to the big corporations, telling them exactly where the loopholes are (BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES "CREATED" THEM). And when the governments prosecute the corporations for tax evasion, they can truthfully reply: "This is not tax evasion! It is tax avoidance, and it is totally legal. We just exploit the flaws in the system. It is the government’s fault for providing these loopholes." It is highly immoral and it ruins the level playing field in which a smaller competitor can overtake big corporations by having better products. Because if those smaller businesses pay tax and the big boys don't, the better products don't stand a chance.
If you want solar and you install it yourself it is cheap. If you want solar and let a proffesional fix it, it cost more than your house is worth. The latter is him
He's repeating the same nonsense that exists in the common narrative surrounding heat pumps. One of Grace's main theses is about the problems of individualism and developing collective power to make transformational change. A real world example would be with heat pumps - they're very inefficient on small scales, i.e. at the individual house level, but if communities organised, larger scale installations could be made which are more cost effective and able to generate much more heat. District systems are excellent and work with existing radiator systems.
Give Sunak a break, that's actually completely untrue. Rishi and his wife are very affected by hikes in energy bills. Think how expensive it is to heat 5 swimming pools.
Heat pumps in the u.s. can be installed without ripping out old pipes. We also have subsidies, but even without them you can heat (and cool) a huge house for under $10k. Of course you still have to pay for the electricity it uses. England copies all of the worst elements of the u.s., so maybe you'll get affordable heat pumps (which are also a/c units - which you'll need with global warming). As far as the tax question goes, I'm surprised Grace let you get away with dismissing off shore accounts and saying the tax code was labyrinthine. It's like that because the corporations and ultra rich made it that way, so they could pay less tax.
Andy sounds incredibly defensive and dismissive, the way he speaks over his guests. Same problem as with the Gary Stevenson interview. The idea that the rich pay their fair share of taxes in the UK is pure gaslighting. If they were, you would not have this growing inequality, leading to deepening impoverishment of the bottom half of the population as the rich get phenomenally richer. And the idea of millionaire tax flight is first of all a myth that is contradicted by the data, and second of all, why do you even want them there when you refuse to force them to actually contribute to your society? What good are they if they are just going to be a drain on your assets and your resources and the money they make never goes back into your real economy?
About 90% of British teachers don't believe in germ theory so, yeah, even if all the British left was made of competent people, it won't be enough, the UK is done.
The British after WW2 opted to focus economically on offshoring their currency in their remaining colonial posessions primarily in the islands as the way of recovering financially .
How about mandatory accounting/finance in the schools? That could have been done since Sputnik. Too complicated an idea for economists! Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik? Who cares about all of the other durable consumer goods?
I had to stop watching as he keeps interrupting Grace without getting her point. Very painful go listen. A shame as her points seemed quite interesting.
Taxes are not spent by the government. The government creates money when they spend and deletes money when they tax. Steven Keen would even tell you this. I’m not saying the rich and corporations should not pay tax. I’m just pointing out how it works. #Learn MMT
Yes and no. When the government spends it has to borrow money. The money comes out of the economy and is respent into the economy. Taxes takes money out. It really depends on if the federal reserve creates money out of thin air to then buy government bonds. It’s really fractional reserve banking that’s bad creating loans with only having a small amount of currency. Actually it was Lincoln that really got a country to do MMT printing 250 million or something without issuing debt. Like wars in Europe had to borrow money from the rothschilds and pay the debt whether they lost or won. Lincoln though printed money so there was no debt to pay back if he won or lost. But that caused inflation. With debt being owed like today when the government pays down debt through taxes that’s deflationary sucking money out. It’s one reason why the continental or green back etc currency at the end of civil war inflated a ton.
@@koltoncrane3099 The government doesn't borrow money to spend. The money to buy treasuries comes from deficit spending. It spends first. The government doesn't even need to sell treasuries. It's just a holdover from the old gold standard days. Before Lincoln, the colonies printed their own money to pay for the war. The taxes were paid back and burned. Fractional reserve banking has been debunked many times.
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp, One is printed by the issuer, the other is a product of a system of banking that creates an endogenous multiplier. IE, nothing that matters. It is a "choice" to create bonds and sell debt when printing money... Sometimes you can argue that the choice is a smart one, and solves certain economic issues, but if the people doing it are not honest about that choice, and why it is being made. And they know that you don't understand how any of it works... Aren't they just liars? (The answer is Yes!, They are liars) Only an id**t argues that it is a requirement for the printing operation to take place at all. But then again, those are the same id**ts who don't know how that system works.
@@koltoncrane3099 Government borrowing is largely a fiction. It started as a substitute for taxes on the rich. Instead of paying taxes the rich would 'loan' the money they would otherwise pay in taxes and get it back with interest. The idea is that the state is actually asset insurance for the rich who can't live with it can't without it and don't want to pay for it so instead of paying for it they 'loan' the money. In modern terms Government borrowing then should be seen, like taxes, as inflation control.
Grace Blakeley is not much of an economist, doesn't understand capital markets and is certainly not a tax expert. Her first book was riddled with errors. What do all these podcasts see in her?
She's just come back off her holiday and is worried about climate change. Anyone else spot the irony? However, we shouldn't just shout "hypocrite" because neither will we listen to hermits.
"If you think the world should decarbonize but you emit CO2 in any way you are a hypocrite" - No. You can't realistically live a carbon neutral life at the moment. That does not mean you shouldn't advocate action on climate change. That framing is just a way to shift the blame from the people actually responsible for this crisis onto ordinary people doing ordinary people's things. It is intended to distract from the massive failure on the part of our governments around the world, the fossil fuel companies, and the largest CO2 emitters among us, to actually make meaningful change, as the only people who really can.
We have voted to forcefully take some of the other people's money. Some of those people use legal means to protect their stuff. We somehow count that as a loss and hate those people because we think we deserve more of their money. I guess that 99.9% of people think that's fair. I don't. That's disgusting.
@wajnerw how exactly have we voted to forcefully take some of the other peoples money…? Forgive me when I say that you seem to be engaging in a lot of libertarian talking points that are, respectfully complete and utter bullshit. But can you demonstrate to me the reality behind this little fantasy that you clearly live in? That taxation is somehow magically theft…? I haven’t met a libertarian that can actually present to me a rational evidence-based argument but I’m hoping that maybe you might be the one.
The only reason they could make that money is because of an entire state apparatus allowing them to do so. If they went to the libertarian utopia of Somalia and tried opening a mine a militia could come along and take it from them and they couldn't do shit about it. Here they're protected by the state through laws, law enforcement, courts, etc. Their employees, who create their wealth for them, on top of being educated and cared for by the state, get to work on public roads and public transport, just like their goods and products. Considering they're doing so well from this system they absolutely should pay for it's upkeep and be grateful that at the end of it they're at the top of one of the world's most unequal nations, with some of the developed world's worst poverty. The rich are not victims because they get taxed, you elitist, anti-worker snob.
That's because you've bought into the libertarian conspiracy theory that these people are gods. Their wealth depends on us as much as it depends on their own efforts. In 2008 we were all forced to bail out their catastrophically bad financial investments. The national debt was literally doubled to stop them losing everything. Our kids will be paying that off long after we're gone. Their financial wealth is also propped up by Quantitative Easy (£885 bn of which has been created since 2010) which has weakened the value of our currency / spending power and which has produced massive asset price inflation. Depending on what sector they operate in they get all manner of other subsidies from us the taxpayers and then of course there is our labour if we work for them and our spending if we buy their products. After everything that's happened in the last 15 years, a little humility might be in order. And on your part, some rational thinking instead of instinctual delusions about how you relate to them
"Tax evasion is illegal" "Tax [avoidance] is good financial practice..." That's some serious copium horsehockey right there. I love when folks can just make sh*t up and pretend to be virtuous.
@@ronaldreagan-ik6hzRich people do what they can to artificially reduce their tax liability (i.e. infinitely more than the average Joe), with the active collusion of the very politicians who are supposed to be 'taxing' them.
@@davidparry5310 here is a fact that democrats will never admit as they sell votes to stupid liberals. the top 1% of earners in the USA pay 45% of all the federal taxes. the top 25% pay 85% of all the federal taxes. so much for your theory that the rich avoid taxes huh? stop listening to liberals -- they make you stupid.
@@ronaldreagan-ik6hz Rich people (and, more specifically, rich capitalists) benefit from taxation by not having state expenditure on the infrastructure that they rely on to profit from other people's labour outspend the productive capacity of the economy and thereby cause runaway inflation.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Very interesting to have Grace go on a show where one of the hosts just woke up from a 20+ year coma.
This guy doesn’t let her finish a single sentence 😂
Dang it. I first saw her on Novara media but don’t like the interviewer over there.
He sounds obnoxious
You can just tax wealth and assets, you can't move a big house, shopping centre or football club. Most wealthy people earn money from their assets so aren't paying income tax necessarily or certainly not on a lot of their income. Why is the capital gains tax rate lower than income tax rate?
He might like to remember that those UK-based rich people had their terrible financial investments bailed out by everyone else in 2008 - a bailout which we're still paying for and will do for decades. The national debt was literally doubled to save them and they have all manner of other support from the state / taxpayer depending on what sector they're in such as tax credits for low wage employers, housing benefit if they're private landlords, massive subsidies for the various things they might be invested in such as privatised utilities, outsourcing companies, PFI schemes etc etc. And their financial investments are also propped up by almost a trillion pounds worth of QE which weakened the value of the currency for everyone else.
Honest to god, these people are not victims and he might have the courtesy to let her finish. Sounded quite defensive actually. Perhaps he knows very well what a nice ride they've been having
China does not have a 100 year plan, they just say they do. Having lived and worked there I can tell you that they're neurotically obsessed with the West which they bitterly resent for showing the Middle Kingdom it wasn't quite so central to world affairs as it thought it was. I've never seen a culture where they chop and change their mind as quickly as they do and I've been to 60 countries. Agreements are meaningless in that country, respect for IP none-existent and they've blown a vast property bubble which is now causing serious problems. Seriously, China is a massive hype.
The national debt did not double. Not even close. I refer you to researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05748/SN05748.pdf. Quote: "From September 2007 to December 2009, the then Labour Government made a number of interventions to support the banking sector generally and several banks specifically. It injected £137 billion of public money in loans and capital to stabilise the financial system, most of which has been recouped over the years".
Nonsense. The 2008 UK bank bailout was designed to protect everyone, not rich people's investments. If the banking system had collapsed, it would have been disastrous for us all. The cash outlay was £137 billion and most of that has been recovered. We are not still paying for it.
For a program named Business Without Bullsh-t, this guy talks an awful lot of BS. He appears to have no real understanding of the world.
@18:48 "If you're a full UK person, there are so few ways you can hide." Exactly! The whole problem is that the rules are fine within each country. But as soon as you are a multinational, there's all the freedom in the world to avoid paying any tax, by simply exploiting the differences between countries. The big 4 accounting firms (Deloitte, E&Y, KPMG and PwC) sell their expertise to governments, and those governments turn that advice into taxation laws. Then those same accounting firms sell their expertise to the big corporations, telling them exactly where the loopholes are (BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES "CREATED" THEM). And when the governments prosecute the corporations for tax evasion, they can truthfully reply: "This is not tax evasion! It is tax avoidance, and it is totally legal. We just exploit the flaws in the system. It is the government’s fault for providing these loopholes." It is highly immoral and it ruins the level playing field in which a smaller competitor can overtake big corporations by having better products. Because if those smaller businesses pay tax and the big boys don't, the better products don't stand a chance.
Whats that guy on about? You dont need underfloor heating for a heat pump
If you want solar and you install it yourself it is cheap.
If you want solar and let a proffesional fix it, it cost more than your house is worth.
The latter is him
He's repeating the same nonsense that exists in the common narrative surrounding heat pumps. One of Grace's main theses is about the problems of individualism and developing collective power to make transformational change. A real world example would be with heat pumps - they're very inefficient on small scales, i.e. at the individual house level, but if communities organised, larger scale installations could be made which are more cost effective and able to generate much more heat. District systems are excellent and work with existing radiator systems.
I turened off at this point, he's a gullible plonker
Grace rocks - but this guy... 🙄
grace is a fucking socialist. talk about stupid on steroids.
Give Sunak a break, that's actually completely untrue. Rishi and his wife are very affected by hikes in energy bills. Think how expensive it is to heat 5 swimming pools.
Grace is incredible.
there is nothing, absolutely nothing incredible about a person that's dumb enough to be a socialist. nowhere in the world are those ideas successful.
The innterviewer is forgetting the first rule of interviewing: people want to hear the interviewee!
Funny how things always come out first from UK...like reaganomics, in true.
Heat pumps in the u.s. can be installed without ripping out old pipes. We also have subsidies, but even without them you can heat (and cool) a huge house for under $10k. Of course you still have to pay for the electricity it uses. England copies all of the worst elements of the u.s., so maybe you'll get affordable heat pumps (which are also a/c units - which you'll need with global warming).
As far as the tax question goes, I'm surprised Grace let you get away with dismissing off shore accounts and saying the tax code was labyrinthine. It's like that because the corporations and ultra rich made it that way, so they could pay less tax.
Andy sounds incredibly defensive and dismissive, the way he speaks over his guests. Same problem as with the Gary Stevenson interview.
The idea that the rich pay their fair share of taxes in the UK is pure gaslighting. If they were, you would not have this growing inequality, leading to deepening impoverishment of the bottom half of the population as the rich get phenomenally richer.
And the idea of millionaire tax flight is first of all a myth that is contradicted by the data, and second of all, why do you even want them there when you refuse to force them to actually contribute to your society? What good are they if they are just going to be a drain on your assets and your resources and the money they make never goes back into your real economy?
The British left seem to have som competent people. It gives a tiny hope.
dont underestimate the power of the media to crush competence
About 90% of British teachers don't believe in germ theory so, yeah, even if all the British left was made of competent people, it won't be enough, the UK is done.
nowhere in America or canada or the UK is anything on the left working. LOL
The British after WW2 opted to focus economically on offshoring their currency in their remaining colonial posessions primarily in the islands as the way of recovering financially .
This dude is defiantly cheating on his taxes
The merging of climate help and covid disease prevention ..bs 3:13
"Need to stop listening to economists." Looks like you agree with Liz Truss on that.
The government stopped listening to economists when they pushed for Brexit. "We're sick of experts" said Michael Gove, and now we're fcked.
Stop interrupting Grace dude.
How about mandatory accounting/finance in the schools? That could have been done since Sputnik.
Too complicated an idea for economists!
Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik? Who cares about all of the other durable consumer goods?
I had to stop watching as he keeps interrupting Grace without getting her point. Very painful go listen. A shame as her points seemed quite interesting.
there is little thats interesting about socialism.
Taxes are not spent by the government. The government creates money when they spend and deletes money when they tax. Steven Keen would even tell you this. I’m not saying the rich and corporations should not pay tax. I’m just pointing out how it works. #Learn MMT
Yes and no. When the government spends it has to borrow money. The money comes out of the economy and is respent into the economy. Taxes takes money out. It really depends on if the federal reserve creates money out of thin air to then buy government bonds. It’s really fractional reserve banking that’s bad creating loans with only having a small amount of currency.
Actually it was Lincoln that really got a country to do MMT printing 250 million or something without issuing debt. Like wars in Europe had to borrow money from the rothschilds and pay the debt whether they lost or won. Lincoln though printed money so there was no debt to pay back if he won or lost. But that caused inflation. With debt being owed like today when the government pays down debt through taxes that’s deflationary sucking money out. It’s one reason why the continental or green back etc currency at the end of civil war inflated a ton.
@@koltoncrane3099 The government doesn't borrow money to spend. The money to buy treasuries comes from deficit spending. It spends first. The government doesn't even need to sell treasuries. It's just a holdover from the old gold standard days.
Before Lincoln, the colonies printed their own money to pay for the war. The taxes were paid back and burned.
Fractional reserve banking has been debunked many times.
@@koltoncrane3099 What's the difference between "printed money" and fiat money created by private banks?
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp, One is printed by the issuer, the other is a product of a system of banking that creates an endogenous multiplier.
IE, nothing that matters.
It is a "choice" to create bonds and sell debt when printing money... Sometimes you can argue that the choice is a smart one, and solves certain economic issues, but if the people doing it are not honest about that choice, and why it is being made. And they know that you don't understand how any of it works... Aren't they just liars? (The answer is Yes!, They are liars)
Only an id**t argues that it is a requirement for the printing operation to take place at all. But then again, those are the same id**ts who don't know how that system works.
@@koltoncrane3099 Government borrowing is largely a fiction. It started as a substitute for taxes on the rich. Instead of paying taxes the rich would 'loan' the money they would otherwise pay in taxes and get it back with interest. The idea is that the state is actually asset insurance for the rich who can't live with it can't without it and don't want to pay for it so instead of paying for it they 'loan' the money. In modern terms Government borrowing then should be seen, like taxes, as inflation control.
Grace Blakeley is not much of an economist, doesn't understand capital markets and is certainly not a tax expert. Her first book was riddled with errors. What do all these podcasts see in her?
the model of rationality used by economists does not makes sense to explain the economists profession.
She's just come back off her holiday and is worried about climate change. Anyone else spot the irony? However, we shouldn't just shout "hypocrite" because neither will we listen to hermits.
Cheers for admitting that you lot aren't interested in good-faith engagement with environmentalists.
"If you think the world should decarbonize but you emit CO2 in any way you are a hypocrite" - No. You can't realistically live a carbon neutral life at the moment. That does not mean you shouldn't advocate action on climate change. That framing is just a way to shift the blame from the people actually responsible for this crisis onto ordinary people doing ordinary people's things. It is intended to distract from the massive failure on the part of our governments around the world, the fossil fuel companies, and the largest CO2 emitters among us, to actually make meaningful change, as the only people who really can.
she's a hypocrite simply because she's a socialist that uses capitalism in her every day life-- in 100% of her everyday life.
We have voted to forcefully take some of the other people's money.
Some of those people use legal means to protect their stuff.
We somehow count that as a loss and hate those people because we think we deserve more of their money.
I guess that 99.9% of people think that's fair. I don't. That's disgusting.
@wajnerw how exactly have we voted to forcefully take some of the other peoples money…? Forgive me when I say that you seem to be engaging in a lot of libertarian talking points that are, respectfully complete and utter bullshit.
But can you demonstrate to me the reality behind this little fantasy that you clearly live in? That taxation is somehow magically theft…? I haven’t met a libertarian that can actually present to me a rational evidence-based argument but I’m hoping that maybe you might be the one.
@@theQuestion626Sorry, you're hopeless.Greetings from Fantasy Land of Complete and Utter Bullshit!
The only reason they could make that money is because of an entire state apparatus allowing them to do so. If they went to the libertarian utopia of Somalia and tried opening a mine a militia could come along and take it from them and they couldn't do shit about it. Here they're protected by the state through laws, law enforcement, courts, etc. Their employees, who create their wealth for them, on top of being educated and cared for by the state, get to work on public roads and public transport, just like their goods and products. Considering they're doing so well from this system they absolutely should pay for it's upkeep and be grateful that at the end of it they're at the top of one of the world's most unequal nations, with some of the developed world's worst poverty. The rich are not victims because they get taxed, you elitist, anti-worker snob.
@@coreyc1685Are you 16? 17? Cheers from Somalian snobbery!
That's because you've bought into the libertarian conspiracy theory that these people are gods. Their wealth depends on us as much as it depends on their own efforts. In 2008 we were all forced to bail out their catastrophically bad financial investments. The national debt was literally doubled to stop them losing everything. Our kids will be paying that off long after we're gone. Their financial wealth is also propped up by Quantitative Easy (£885 bn of which has been created since 2010) which has weakened the value of our currency / spending power and which has produced massive asset price inflation.
Depending on what sector they operate in they get all manner of other subsidies from us the taxpayers and then of course there is our labour if we work for them and our spending if we buy their products.
After everything that's happened in the last 15 years, a little humility might be in order. And on your part, some rational thinking instead of instinctual delusions about how you relate to them
imagine having a channel called business without bullshit == and then entertaining a socialist set of ideas? wow. the level of stupid that takes.
Why don't you toodle off to some TH-cam channel for status quo-supporting dweebs then?
"Tax evasion is illegal"
"Tax [avoidance] is good financial practice..."
That's some serious copium horsehockey right there.
I love when folks can just make sh*t up and pretend to be virtuous.
no. smart people pay what they legally owe, and nothing more thus tax avoidant. duhh
@@ronaldreagan-ik6hzRich people do what they can to artificially reduce their tax liability (i.e. infinitely more than the average Joe), with the active collusion of the very politicians who are supposed to be 'taxing' them.
@@davidparry5310 here is a fact that democrats will never admit as they sell votes to stupid liberals.
the top 1% of earners in the USA pay 45% of all the federal taxes. the top 25% pay 85% of all the federal taxes.
so much for your theory that the rich avoid taxes huh? stop listening to liberals -- they make you stupid.
@@davidparry5310 rich people pay most of the taxes in the usa. and rich people get the least of benefits.
@@ronaldreagan-ik6hz Rich people (and, more specifically, rich capitalists) benefit from taxation by not having state expenditure on the infrastructure that they rely on to profit from other people's labour outspend the productive capacity of the economy and thereby cause runaway inflation.