UK Debt and Tax Traps Risk Civil Decay, Gary Stevenson Warns

The Diary Of A CEO

Post-pandemic wealth concentration and tax loopholes threaten to trap lower-income citizens in structural poverty unless the UK shifts from taxing income to taxing accumulated wealth.

AI-assisted summary of EMERGENCY DEBATE: They Lied About The Economy Recovering! Is A Financial Apocalypse Coming? — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2025-03-20

Detailed notes

## Background This episode of The Diary Of A CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett and published on YouTube on March 20, 2025, features an emergency economics debate between Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley. According to the show description, the guests break down an emergency financial crisis no one is talking about and discuss whether the economy is on the brink of collapse.

## TL;DR The debate centers on whether economic stagnation and rising poverty are caused by growing wealth inequality or by over-regulation and high taxation choking economic freedom. Former trader Gary Stevenson argues that systemic capital concentration and wealth extraction are destroying middle-class asset ownership, advocating for marginal wealth taxes on multi-millionaires to fund public services. Serial entrepreneur Daniel Priestley counters that economic growth, digital scale-ups, and personal agency are the true paths to prosperity, warning that punitive taxes drive wealth creators offshore. Host Steven Bartlett guides the conversation across key issues including tech monopolies, remote work, housing affordability, and the role of the state.

## Atmosphere & style The atmosphere is intense, passionate, and deeply personal, characterized by a sharp clash between two contrasting economic philosophies. Stevenson brings an urgent, combative energy driven by working-class advocacy and personal frustration, while Priestley maintains a pragmatic, optimistic, and business-focused composure centered on opportunity and agency. Guided by Bartlett's probing moderation, the discussion balances rigorous macroeconomic arguments with emotional personal anecdotes, creating a compelling and visually dynamic debate.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=0s) The fundamental debate centres on whether growing wealth inequality and asset concentration (Stevenson's view) or excessive government regulation, high taxes, and lack of individual agency (Priestley's view) are primarily responsible for falling living standards in Western economies. - [02:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=124s) Gary Stevenson contends that systemic inequality threatens to reduce Western nations like the UK to extreme structural poverty similar to South Africa or Nigeria if unaddressed. - [09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=593s) Daniel Priestley highlights that the UK's score on the Economic Freedom Index fell from 82/100 in 2006 to 68/100 post-COVID, arguing that government overreach and high taxation suppress enterprise and growth. - [13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=802s) COVID-19 stimulus policies accelerated wealth concentration, as low-income households spent stimulus money on basic needs while asset owners and corporate shareholders captured the capital flows. - [15:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=935s) The pandemic-era shift to the digital economy concentrated market gains into a small cluster of tech giants, with the 'Magnificent Seven' growing from $5 trillion pre-pandemic to approximately $17 trillion. - [17:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1068s) The UK faces a severe housing imbalance where 78% of housing wealth is held by Baby Boomers (aged 65+), making homeownership increasingly unreachable for younger generations. - [20:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1203s) Priestley distinguishes between Wealth Extraction (trading existing fixed assets) and Wealth Creation (innovative entrepreneurship expanding economic output), advocating for policies that encourage the latter. - [30:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1839s) US economic growth (6% GDP in Q4 2024 vs. UK's 0.1%) significantly outperforms the UK, though Stevenson attributes this to massive US government deficits rather than free-market small-state policies. - [44:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2671s) Over 10,800 millionaires left the UK in 2024 following the abolition of non-dom status, sparking debate on whether high tax rates cause destructive wealth flight or if non-doms fail to pay their fair share. - [48:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2919s) Multinational corporations leverage intangible assets and intellectual property licensing to shift profits offshore, creating an unequal tax burden that disproportionately hits domestic small businesses and citizens. - [55:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3324s) Stevenson advocates for a marginal annual wealth tax (e.g., 1%) on assets above £10 million to fund income tax cuts for working citizens, arguing static asset wealth must be taxed rather than labor. - [01:12:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4340s) Stevenson strongly criticizes wealthy individuals telling impoverished families to 'be entrepreneurial,' arguing it shifts blame onto victims when systemic barriers prevent social mobility. - [01:14:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4445s) Priestley emphasizes the critical importance of personal agency, arguing that waiting for political saviors leaves people powerless, whereas the digital economy gives individuals accessible tools to build income. - [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4688s) Technological advancement drives three stages of workforce disruption—simplification/replacement, globalization via remote work, and full software/AI automation. - [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) Stevenson contends that the 70-year post-WWII middle-class prosperity was a historical anomaly driven by deliberate wealth redistribution, and warning that capitalism naturally reverts to extreme wealth concentration. - [01:37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5827s) Priestley advocates for breaking up Big Tech monopolies that control entire digital ecosystems to ensure new startup entrepreneurs can compete effectively. - [01:54:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6896s) Steven Bartlett highlights that traditional educational systems fail young people by teaching obsolete subjects rather than modern digital literacy, financial mechanics, and entrepreneurial skills.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=0s) Introduction and the Opening Debate

The episode kicks off with an intense confrontation between former City Bank trader Gary Stevenson and serial entrepreneur Daniel Priestley. Gary expresses deep frustration at multi-millionaires telling struggling working-class families that they simply need to be more entrepreneurial when they cannot even afford heating. Daniel counters that if he had adopted Gary’s worldview—which posits that without a rich parent, success is nearly impossible—he would have been ruined at twenty years old. Host Steven Bartlett introduces the emergency debate on the state of the UK, US, and Western economies, framing the central conflict: are average citizens getting poorer because of government over-reach, high taxes, and stifling regulations, or is growing wealth inequality squeezing ordinary families out of basic needs like housing?

---

[02:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=124s) Who Is Gary Stevenson?

Gary Stevenson shares his backstory, tracing his journey from an underprivileged background in Ilford, outer East London, to the upper echelons of global finance. Growing up in a modest terraced house near the railway tracks, Gary was exceptionally gifted at mathematics. His talent earned him a spot at the London School of Economics (LSE), which he describes as an elite investment banking boot camp. In June 2008, at twenty-one years old, Gary landed a job at City Bank in London as a short-term interest rate trader—plunging him directly into the epicenter of the global financial crisis.

``` GARY STEVENSON'S CAREER PATHWAY

[ Raised in Ilford ] ───► [ LSE Economics ] ───► [ Citibank Trader (2008) ] (Outer East London) (Elite Math Focus) (Short-Term Rates Desk) │ [ Campaigner / Author ] ◄─── [ Top Global Trader ] ◄──────────┘ (Wealth Inequality) ($35M+ Profit in 2011) ```

Gary explains how short-term interest rate trading became the absolute core of the market during the Lehman Brothers crash, as credit dried up globally. While traders around him made vast fortunes overnight, Gary became fascinated by the macroeconomic forecasting errors that followed. As central banks slashed interest rates to zero in 2008, consensus economists consistently predicted rates would rapidly rebound in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Gary recognized that these highly paid experts were fundamentally misunderstanding the structural changes in the economy. Realizing he could capitalize on their mistake, he placed massive, counter-consensus bets that the recovery would fail and rates would remain depressed. In 2011, at just twenty-four years old, Gary became Citibank's most profitable trader worldwide, single-handedly generating over $35 million in profit.

- **Background:** Raised in a working-class family in Ilford, East London; attended the London School of Economics. - **Trading Career:** Joined Citibank in June 2008 on the short-term interest rates desk at age 21, right before the Lehman Brothers crash. - **Key Trade:** Bet against global economic recovery predictions when consensus repeatedly miscalculated rate hikes from 2009 to 2011. - **Financial Result:** Generated over $35 million in profit for Citibank in 2011, making him the bank's top-performing trader globally. - **Core Warning:** Argues that systemic wealth inequality will push Western nations toward extreme, structural poverty similar to that seen in South Africa or Nigeria if left unchecked.

---

[07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=439s) Who Is Daniel Priestley?

Daniel Priestley outlines his own path to financial success, coming from a low-income background in Australia where regional unemployment reached 24%. Surrounded by limited career options—primarily construction, pest control, and hospitality—Daniel took jobs at McDonald's, bars, and Pizza Hut delivery at fourteen. His turning point came through discovering books on entrepreneurship, which revealed how business ownership could build generational wealth. Since moving to the UK in 2006, Daniel has built and acquired a portfolio of seven companies across software, digital agencies, and business education, with one software firm ranking among the fastest-growing enterprises in the UK.

Despite their differing economic philosophies, Daniel agrees with Gary that the UK faces severe structural decay. Drawing parallels to Charles Dickens' *A Tale of Two Cities*, Daniel asserts that the modern UK represents "the best of times" for those integrated into the digital, high-growth economy, and "the worst of times" for everyone else. He notes that energy costs in the UK are now among the highest in the Western world, while housing affordability has collapsed: saving for a home deposit historically took three years, but now requires up to twenty years for the average worker.

---

[09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=593s) The Importance of Economic Freedom

Daniel introduces the concept of the Economic Freedom Index, arguing that a nation's prosperity directly correlates with market accessibility, ease of starting businesses, and low regulatory drag. High economic freedom creates widespread affluence and low poverty rates, whereas low economic freedom breeds stagnation. He cites India's economic deregulation as a success story that drastically reduced extreme poverty. Conversely, he highlights how the UK's economic freedom score plummeted from 82 out of 100 in 2006 down to 68 out of 100 following successive waves of government intervention after the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

[11:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=706s) Who Are We Blaming for the Economic Situation?

Daniel examines the cultural differences in how citizens respond to declining living standards. In the UK, historical memory leads the public to blame wealthy land-owners, aristocracy, and "the rich." In the US, the populace exhibits a strong anti-government instinct, blaming federal overreach, inflation, and burdensome taxation—a sentiment captured by the 2023 hit song *Rich Men North of Richmond*. Consequently, Americans demand smaller government and structural cuts, whereas British voters demand higher taxes on wealth.

---

[13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=802s) The UK & US Debt We're Carrying From COVID

Gary counters Daniel's narrative by focusing on the massive transfer of wealth triggered by pandemic stimulus packages. He points out that since COVID-19, the UK government accumulated over £1 trillion in deficits—equivalent to £20,000 for every British adult—while the US government injected trillions of dollars into the financial system. Gary emphasizes that lock-down policies effectively banned the rich from spending their discretionary income while flooding lower-income households with stimulus to cover basic living expenses. As working-class citizens spent their government stimulus on rent, food, and energy, those funds trickled directly up to asset owners and corporate shareholders. Because lockdowns prevented the wealthy from spending, this capital accumulated at the top, accelerating wealth concentration on an unprecedented scale.

> "At the beginning of COVID, we knew governments across the world were going to be giving out tens of trillions of pounds, dollars, euros... Nobody even thought to ask who's going to get tens of trillions richer. Nobody in the Conservatives, nobody in Labour, nobody in the Republicans, nobody in Democrats, nobody in the media... It's almost beautiful. It's unbelievable."

[015:35] The Pandemic's Digital Shift and the Rise of the "Magnificent Seven"

Daniel Priestley explains that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy underwent a massive, rapid digital transformation. As everyone was forced to work from home and local high streets closed down, society learned to operate remotely through digital channels. This led to a huge migration of capital from the traditional 2019 "High Street economy" into the digital tech economy. Investors poured money into technology giants, creating the "Magnificent Seven" (the seven massive US tech companies: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla), whose combined valuation surged from around $5 trillion before the pandemic to approximately $17 trillion. Priestley highlights that roughly 50% of the S&P 500's gains can be attributed to tech companies, driving a massive surge in remote work tools, e-commerce platforms like Shopify, and media ventures like YouTube.

In Priestley's view, this technological wave is now the primary dividing line in modern society. Anyone working in digital sectors—whether media, technology, or finance—tends to do remarkably well post-pandemic. However, Gary Stevenson interrupts to challenge the practical reality of this premise, questioning whether an ordinary British or American worker who quits their traditional job to work in tech can realistically achieve financial security, particularly when facing the crushing cost of housing and the expenses of raising a family.

- The combined valuation of the "Magnificent Seven" tech stocks rose from $5 trillion to $17 trillion during the pandemic era. - Tech stocks account for approximately 50% of the total market gains in the S&P 500.

[017:48] The Housing "Traffic Jam" and Generational Wealth Distribution

The debate transitions into the housing crisis, which both speakers agree is a critical problem, though they attribute it to different causes. Priestley shares a personal example, noting that his father bought a house decades ago for under $18,000 (less than £10,000), which is now worth well over $1 million. He emphasizes that runaway property prices are not unique to the UK or the US, pointing out that even social-democratic countries like Norway and Sweden have seen home values skyrocket by 600%.

Priestley describes the core issue in the UK as a structural "housing traffic jam." He points out that 9.5 million family homes in the UK currently have two or more empty bedrooms, with 78% of all housing wealth owned by the Baby Boomer generation (those over 65). He illustrates this with an anecdote about taking his kids trick-or-treating down a street of large family homes, where almost every door was answered by elderly residents living alone in houses with unused bedrooms. Stevenson counters with his own family experience, noting that all four of his grandparents owned property, but all died with nothing because their wealth was drained by equity release schemes, retirement living costs, and end-of-life care.

- In the UK, 9.5 million homes have two or more spare bedrooms. - 78% of UK housing wealth is held by Baby Boomers (people aged 65 and older). - More than half of the total US economy's wealth is in the hands of the Baby Boomer generation. - Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden have experienced housing price increases of up to 600%.

[020:03] Wealth Creation vs. Wealth Extraction

The discussion intensifies as Stevenson and Priestley clash over the mechanics of wealth creation and debt. Priestley argues that government interventions, ultralow interest rates, and cheap debt artificially inflated home values, allowing buyers to take on larger loans and driving prices out of reach. Stevenson counters by asking who sits on the other side of that debt, challenging the idea that ordinary families possess true credit or cash, and pushing the point that young working-class people are being systematically shut out from owning any property or wealth.

Stevenson challenges the panel directly: "Do we three multi-millionaires think it's okay that the average Brit or American young person will never own any wealth?" He accuses Priestley of viewing the economy through an idealized lens while ignoring the reality of middle- and working-class impoverishment. Priestley responds by drawing a clear distinction between two economic worldviews:

1. **Wealth Extraction:** The domain of financial traders who bet on existing assets and extract value from a fixed pie without creating new utility. 2. **Wealth Creation:** The domain of entrepreneurs who innovate, start companies, and expand the total size of the economic pie.

To illustrate wealth creation, Priestley describes how startup valuation works: an entrepreneur creates a tech concept, raises a few hundred thousand pounds in seed capital from investors at a multi-million-pound valuation, and builds a brand-new asset without taking wealth away from anyone else in the existing economy.

[024:03] Historical Taxes, Economic Freedom, and Government Size

Addressing why ordinary workers are struggling, Priestley argues that economic growth is being choked by high taxes, heavy regulations, and bloated government spending, which suppress economic freedom. Stevenson asks whether economic freedom was higher in the 1950s—a period famous for strong middle-class growth. Priestley points out that the 1950s were a unique anomaly: Britain was under strict food rationing until 1956, suffering severe postwar labor shortages (exacerbated by hundreds of thousands of war casualties and women not yet fully in the workforce), and rebuilding from the Blitz. This high demand for labor led to ultra-low unemployment (around 2%) and a postwar baby boom that drove massive consumption, followed by high top marginal tax rates reaching 80% to 90% in the late 1960s.

Priestley highlights that government spending now accounts for 45% of total UK GDP, up from roughly 30% in earlier eras, funded largely by endless debt creation through central banks. When Stevenson presses him on whether cutting government spending will actually help the average person, Priestley argues that smaller governments and high economic freedom produce widespread prosperity, citing examples like Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland. Stevenson scoffs at the Singapore comparison, remarking that its apparent prosperity ignores low-wage migrant workers "living in the closets," and points out that Ireland's tax-haven economy still leaves the average worker struggling to afford a home in Dublin.

- UK government spending currently accounts for roughly 45% of total GDP. - Post-WWII UK unemployment fell to around 2% during the reconstruction boom. - Top marginal income tax rates in the UK reached 80% to 90% in the late 1960s.

[026:03] "Capitalism Is Finished, We Won": Gary Stevenson's Warning

Stevenson delivers a stark critique of the modern economic consensus, directly confronting Priestley's free-market optimism:

> "I make money by being right on the economy... I know you're probably a wealthy man, you probably don't want to pay high taxes... but we exist in an economy where wealth is being extracted out of the middle class, out of the working class, very, very rapidly. It's benefiting people like the three of us at this table... our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor. And I just think we should be honest with them. Capitalism's finished. We won. Well done Stephen, well done Daniel, well done Gary. It's over now. Our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor... Why are we lying to them?"

Priestley rejects Stevenson's view as overly simplistic, arguing that dynamic market economies still allow people to succeed if they connect themselves to productive sectors like technology. He points to an upcoming global "split test" between the UK (which is moving toward higher taxes and more regulations) and the US (which is leaning toward deregulation and tax cuts). Stevenson counters with the human cost of the current system, sharing that his own sister can no longer afford the rent to live in the city where she was born. He insists that telling average people to just "connect to productive sectors" ignores the fundamental breakdown of social mobility for the majority of the population.

[30:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1839s) US vs. UK Economic Performance and Growth Metrics

Steven Bartlett opens with a stark statistical comparison highlighting the sharp divergence between the US and UK economies. In Q4 2024, the US economy grew by **6%**, whereas the UK managed just **0.1%**. GDP per head in the US stands at **$82,000** compared to **$49,000** in the UK. The disparity extends to financial markets and productivity: over a given timeline, the US stock market surged by **300%** while the FTSE 100 fell by **20%**. Furthermore, US productivity has outpaced the UK's by growing **30%** since 2018, and American per-capita income has risen by **72%** in dollar terms since 2007, compared to a **2%** decline in the UK.

Gary Stevenson challenges the idea that these figures prove free-market, small-state capitalism is superior. He points out that the US government has aggressively expanded its deficit and state intervention—reaching **45%** of GDP under the Biden administration—while the UK conservative government spent 14 years enforcing austerity. In Gary's view, the government running massive deficits drastically outperformed the one cutting state services. Daniel Priestley strongly counters, arguing that the UK government only engaged in "austerity in name only," expanding its footprint from **30%** of GDP to **45%** while delivering degraded public services and wasting tens of millions on corporate consulting firms.

- **GDP Growth (Q4 2024):** US **6%** vs. UK **0.1%**. - **GDP Per Head:** US **$82,000** vs. UK **$49,000**. - **Stock Market Trends:** S&P/US markets up **300%** vs. FTSE 100 down **20%**. - **Productivity Growth (Since 2018):** US up **30%**. - **Income Per Head (Since 2007, USD terms):** US up **72%** vs. UK down **2%**.

---

[33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2006s) Offshore Remote Work, Global Tech Domination, and Government Waste

Daniel explains that one of the largest structural drains on the UK working class is the acceleration of remote work post-pandemic. High-paying British jobs are increasingly being offshored to lower-cost labor markets like the Philippines, India, and Vietnam. Concurrently, high-earning individuals and tech entrepreneurs are leaving for tax havens; Daniel notes that **1,000 millionaires a month** are moving to Dubai, where over **120,000 British citizens** now reside. While the US and China have consolidated their power by building massive tech powerhouses within their borders, Europe and the UK have allowed their technology sectors to decline, causing a severe erosion of well-paying domestic jobs.

A debate breaks out when Gary demands to know what specific government spending Daniel would cut if he advocates for a smaller state—offering options like police, education, the NHS, pensions, or single-mother and disability benefits. Daniel redirects the fault back to bureaucratic inefficiency and "blood-sucking" consulting firms paid **$50 million** for reports, rather than frontline workers. Gary dismisses Daniel's reluctance to tax top wealth, demanding that government focus on taxing billionaires and major asset owners rather than squeezing working-class taxpayers.

> "I worked my tits off and I paid... 50% top rate tax plus National Insurance—60%—to bring my family out of poverty at the same time the Duke of Westminster inherited 10 billion and paid nothing. Do you think that's fair?" — **Gary Stevenson**

---

[35:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2152s) The Duke of Westminster, Wealth Taxes, and Trusts

The debate grows tense as Daniel refutes Gary’s claim that the Duke of Westminster paid no tax on his **£10 billion** inheritance. Daniel explains that the Grosvenor Estate is held in a trust, meaning it pays a "periodic tax" of **6% every 10 years** (averaging **0.6% annually**) rather than a one-time **40%** inheritance tax, because trusts never legally "die." Gary scoffs at this math, pointing out that paying **0.6%** annually on inherited wealth is vastly lower than the **60%** tax rate he paid on his earned income every single year. Daniel insists Gary is making an "apples to oranges" comparison by conflating income tax with estate transfer taxes, asserting that the Duke pays income tax, corporate tax, stamp duty, and VAT like everyone else and remains one of the UK's largest taxpayers and employers.

Gary maintains that the current tax framework privileges inherited multi-billion-pound fortunes over earned labor, creating a multi-generational aristocracy while working-class families struggle to heat their homes. Daniel warns that adopting a punitive "tax the rich" mindset will ultimately destroy economic opportunities for ordinary citizens by driving investors and builders away. Gary sarcastically accepts Daniel's stance, noting that as a trader, he will personally make money in financial markets regardless, but it is the audience who suffers under the status quo.

- **Duke of Westminster Estate Value:** Estimated **£10 billion**. - **Trust Periodic Tax Rate:** **6%** every 10 years (**0.6%** per year). - **Standard UK Inheritance Tax:** **40%**. - **Gary's Top Earned Tax Rate:** **60%** (Income Tax + National Insurance).

---

[39:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2361s) Intangible Assets, Consumption Taxes, and Corporate Profit Shifting

Daniel shifts the discussion to the changing nature of wealth, observing that in the 1970s, **75%** of the S&P 500's value was tied to physical assets like real estate and factories, whereas today over **95%** consists of intangible assets (intellectual property, software, brand equity). Because modern corporate wealth and high-net-worth individuals are hyper-mobile, attempting to levy a **1%** direct wealth tax will simply cause wealth creators to relocate. When Gary suggests taxing multinational companies based on point-of-sale revenues in the countries where they operate, Daniel calls this a consumption tax that gets passed down to ordinary consumers.

The two find brief common ground in condemning corporate profit-shifting loopholes. Daniel highlights the absurdity of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) aggressively auditing everyday citizens making a few pounds on eBay or Facebook side hustles, while allowing tech giants to operate with near-total tax impunity within the UK. He slams corporate structures where UK-based purchases are funneled through foreign subsidiaries to evade tax.

- **1970s S&P 500 Asset Composition:** **75%** physical assets. - **Modern S&P 500 Asset Composition:** Over **95%** intangible assets. - **Starbucks Royalty Licensing:** Licensing logos out of Luxembourg at **15%** to reduce taxable domestic profits. - **Tech Corporate Tax Havens:** Facebook licensing through Ireland; Amazon billing via Luxembourg.

> "It strikes me as very strange that the government... is chasing down moms and dads who sell a few things on eBay... but Facebook's fine to pretend to be in Ireland." — **Daniel Priestley**

---

[44:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2671s) The UK Millionaire Exodus and the Non-Dom Tax Scheme

Steven introduces alarming data regarding the mass departure of wealth from the United Kingdom, labeled the "millionaire exodus." In 2024 alone, an estimated **10,800 high-net-worth individuals** departed the UK—a **57% increase** from the prior year, equivalent to losing one millionaire every **45 minutes**. Steven adds that losing this millionaire cohort equates to losing the tax contributions of **530,000 average taxpayers**. Moreover, in the US, the top **10%** of earners drive nearly half of all consumer spending, while in the UK, the top **1%** of income taxpayers are projected to generate **30%** of all income tax revenue for 2024–2025.

Gary and Daniel clash over the root causes of this flight. Gary attributes it to the collapsing purchasing power of British households, arguing that businesses are leaving because the domestic consumer base is impoverished. Daniel counters that the exodus directly correlates with recent legislative changes, specifically the abolition of the UK's long-standing Non-Domiciled ("non-dom") tax status. Under the new regulations, UK tax residents face global tax exposure on all worldwide assets and foreign income, forcing international entrepreneurs to flee to lower-tax jurisdictions like Dubai or Switzerland.

- **2024 UK High-Net-Worth Departures:** **10,800 millionaires** (up **57%** year-over-year). - **Exodus Rate:** 1 millionaire leaving every **45 minutes**. - **Tax Contribution Equivalent:** Loss of **10,800** millionaires equals the income tax impact of **530,000** average taxpayers. - **UK Tax Concentration:** Top **1%** of earners generate **30%** of total UK income tax (2024–2025).

[46:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2781s) The Debate Over Wealth Flight and Non-Dom Status

``` 1% OF UK POPULATION ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Pays 30% of total UK income taxes │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 10% OF UK POPULATION ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Pays 60% of total UK income taxes │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Daniel Priestley presents a stark warning about the consequences of changing tax rules for high-net-worth individuals, specifically mentioning the breakdown of the UK's non-domiciled ("non-dom") regime. He explains that wealth managers have advised affluent clients to leave the country as tax rules shift toward taxing global income and inheritance at rates up to 40%. Daniel highlights that roughly 1,000 wealthy individuals are leaving the UK every month, cautioning that driving away top taxpayers risks devastating public finances. He framing this with a dinner bill analogy: if 10 people go to dinner and one person offers to pay 60% of the check, demanding they pay 80% instead will simply cause them to walk out—leaving the remaining guests to split a much higher bill.

Gary Stevenson rejects this premise, countering that non-doms were essentially guests at the dinner table who agreed to attend only on the condition that they wouldn't pay their fair share. He asserts that wealthy individuals leave not because they are overtaxed on local contributions, but because the system began requiring them to pay taxes on their global earnings rather than granting them tax shelters. Gary argues that high-net-worth individuals escape to places like Dubai to make money off Western economies without contributing to local infrastructure, leaving average citizens unable to afford housing or families. When Gary suggests taxing corporate profits at the point of sale, Daniel points out that taxing at the point of sale is functionally a consumption tax rather than a profit tax, which sets off a debate on how modern multinational corporations handle revenue.

- **Taxation distribution:** In the UK, 1% of taxpayers contribute 30% of income tax revenues, while the top 10% contribute 60%. - **Exodus rate:** Approximately 1,000 wealthy individuals are leaving the UK monthly due to non-dom tax changes. - **Gary Stevenson's direct quote:** "Isn't it a bit more like if there were 10 of us at dinner, and there was one guy who came to dinner on the condition he wouldn't pay?"

---

[48:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2919s) Profit Shifting and the Duty to Fight Hard Battles

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ DANIEL'S VIEW ON TAXATION │ │ Digital corporate structures make profit shifting easy; │ │ aggressive tax hikes drive wealth & capital overseas. │ └──────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GARY'S VIEW ON TAXATION │ │ Governments must intentionally outlaw profit shifting and │ │ fight hard battles to protect the working class from poverty.│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Daniel details how modern digital business models easily bypass traditional national profit taxes. Companies can lease databases from entities in Luxembourg or license intellectual property from tax havens, effectively shifting profits out of high-tax jurisdictions before local governments can touch them. Gary responds that profit shifting is not an unchangeable law of physics—it is a political choice. He points out that countries like China do not tolerate profit shifting, nor did Western nations 50 years ago. He criticizes the government and media classes for telling the public that taxing global capital is impossible simply because it is difficult.

Delivering an impassioned speech, Gary stresses that he returns to the UK to advocate for these policies despite the personal difficulty. As a multimillionaire, he notes he could easily choose to live a life of leisure in the Philippines, but he chooses to fight because he comes from a working-class background and refuses to watch ordinary families slide into deep poverty. He draws a historical parallel to past generations who fought for healthcare, education, and social housing, arguing that society must take on hard challenges rather than giving up.

> "We don't try and do things which are necessary to keep our kids out of poverty because they are hard, then our kids will live in poverty... Sometimes we have to do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. That is what makes a rich country rich." — **Gary Stevenson**

- **Corporate tax mechanisms:** Multinationals route profits via foreign licensing agreements and database leases in low-tax jurisdictions (e.g., Luxembourg). - **Historical context:** Gary argues that the post-WWII generation demanded healthcare, housing, and education despite severe economic hardship, rather than surrendering to wealth concentration.

---

[50:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3034s) Remote Work, Tax Flight, and Corporate Valuation

Daniel agrees with Gary's passion regarding working-class struggles, but maintains that Gary's proposed solutions fail to account for modern realities like remote work and global mobility. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, business owners no longer need to reside in the country where their revenue is generated. He illustrates this by pointing out how local service providers—such as gym trainers or restaurant workers—often work for businesses whose owners live overseas. If the UK imposes harsh taxes on individuals worth £10 million or more, Daniel explains that high earners will simply pass a board resolution, move their head offices, transfer intellectual property abroad, and establish non-tax residency within weeks.

To show the practical difficulty of taxing paper wealth, Daniel uses Gary's own growing YouTube channel (which had hit 820,000 subscribers) as a hypothetical case study. He explains that an analyst could easily value Gary's media brand at £11 million based on growth projections. Under a 1% annual wealth tax on assets over £10 million, Gary would suddenly owe £10,000 in cash every year on purely unrealized, paper gains. Daniel argues that taxing unrealized gains is notoriously difficult, as it penalizes paper valuations, discourages angel investment, and incentivizes founders to set up foreign entities to hold their company's equity.

``` GARY'S YOUTUBE MEDIA BRAND (HYPOTHETICAL VALUATION) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Estimated Brand Valuation: £11,000,000 │ │ Wealth Tax Threshold: £10,000,000 │ │ Taxable Paper Wealth: £1,000,000 │ │ 1% Wealth Tax Owed: £10,000 │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

- **Audience metrics:** Gary Stevenson's YouTube channel reached 820,000 subscribers at the time of recording. - **Relocation speed:** Daniel notes an entrepreneur can shift corporate residency using services like WeWork and Airbnb within a week or two. - **Taxation structure:** Gary clarifies that his proposed wealth tax is marginal (applying only to the asset value *above* the £10 million threshold, not the entire wealth pool).

---

[55:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3324s) The Economic Freedom Index vs. Wealth Redistribution

``` HIGH ECONOMIC FREEDOM LOW ECONOMIC FREEDOM ┌──────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ Poverty Rate: Below 7% │ VS. │ Poverty Rate: ~30%+ │ └──────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────┘ ```

Daniel presents a chart of the Economic Freedom Index, arguing that countries with higher economic freedom consistently display poverty rates below 7%, whereas nations that restrict economic activity see poverty rates climb past 30%. He asserts that reducing government intervention and lowering taxes encourages business creation, which naturally alleviates poverty far better than heavy taxation. He performs a rough napkin calculation showing that a 1% tax on wealth over £10 million in the UK might yield around £20 billion annually—assuming zero tax flight—which represents less than a single week of the UK government's annual £1.2 trillion spending budget.

Gary pushes back, proposing higher marginal rates (such as 3%) and lower thresholds to raise significant revenue (e.g., £60 billion), which could then be used to cut income tax and National Insurance for everyday workers. He asserts that wealth concentration is directly responsible for ordinary people losing access to property, as asset ownership shifts away from the middle class into the hands of the ultra-rich.

- **Economic Freedom Index stats:** High-freedom nations exhibit under 7% to 10% poverty; low-freedom nations experience poverty rates exceeding 30%. - **UK Budget Context:** Total UK government spending is approximately £1.2 trillion per year. - **Napkin math:** A 1% wealth tax above £10 million generates an estimated £20 billion annually, which equates to roughly £250 in tax relief per working person if redistributed directly.

---

[57:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3471s) Tech Monopolies and the Missing UK Tech Giants

Daniel points out that the vast majority of global wealth creation since the pandemic has concentrated in seven major US tech giants (the "Magnificent Seven"), which gained an estimated $11 trillion in market value. He notes that taxing UK multimillionaires does nothing to capture that wealth creation, as those tech founders and companies are based in the United States. Host Steven Bartlett interjects with a fundamental concern: rather than just debating how to tax existing wealth, why is the UK failing to create any of these dominant global technology companies in the first place?

Steven highlights the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, sharing an example where AI software (from companies like ElevenLabs and OpenAI) generated a near-perfect clone of his voice and produced an entire podcast episode rated 4.6 stars on Apple Podcasts without his manual input. He cautions that if the UK does not build an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and retains top technical talent, it risks falling behind as a technological colony to the US and China.

``` GLOBAL TECH WEALTH CONCENTRATION (POST-PANDEMIC) ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Market Value Added by US Big Tech (7 Companies):│ │ $11,000,000,000,000 │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

- **US Tech dominance:** Seven major US tech companies saw their valuations increase by $11 trillion following the pandemic. - **AI capabilities:** Steven Bartlett notes an AI tool cloned his voice to write, produce, and publish a podcast episode that achieved a 4.6-star user rating. - **Brain drain example:** Steven cites a London-founded AI startup, Fixer, whose 25-year-old British founders relocated to San Francisco to raise capital at a $60 million valuation due to the lack of local UK venture capital and talent density.

[01:01:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3660s) The AI Trap and Taxing Wealth vs. Income

Stephen Bartlett steps in to challenge the notion that building massive global tech companies in the UK is an impossibility, pointing to his own journey and arguing that San Francisco shouldn't be the sole model. However, Gary Stevenson quickly counters that the UK—and virtually everywhere else outside of Silicon Valley and China—is facing a losing game in AI and mega-tech. AI, Gary points out, is a unique beast: an "extremely low labor, extremely high capital model" that employs very few people globally while concentrating immense wealth into a couple of geographic hubs. Trying to duplicate Silicon Valley in London is a fool's errand when giant state-capitalism models like China or first-mover behemoths in the US already dominate.

Daniel Priestley pivots the discussion to technology at large rather than raw AI research, arguing that technology integration is transforming media, editing, transcription, and everyday operations. But Gary insists the UK government must focus on tangible domestic needs—like repairing falling-apart housing stock—rather than chasing buzzwords. More crucially, Gary reiterates his central economic thesis: the UK must dramatically lower income taxes for working people and entrepreneurs who produce value, but relentlessly tax massive accumulated wealth. When Daniel asks whether a founder should be taxed on a £50 million paper valuation before an exit, Gary clarifies that whether through capital gains, direct wealth taxes, or preventing multi-generational wealth hoarding, society must stop super-wealthy families from continuously expanding their share of the pie at the expense of ordinary working households.

- **Capital concentration in AI:** Gary highlights that AI requires massive capital expenditure while generating remarkably few direct jobs globally. - **Taxing income vs. assets:** Gary argues that lower taxes on active earnings paired with higher taxes on static wealth is the only way to restore economic balance. - **Paper wealth dilemma:** Daniel raises the operational risk of taxing non-liquid assets (e.g., a founder whose company is valued at £50M or £100M while they only hold £20,000 in cash).

---

[01:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3874s) Exits, Offshore Tax Havens, and the Breakdown of Society

Stephen brings up a concrete story about a personal friend who sold a UK business for £300 million during the pandemic. Immediately after the sale, the founder packed up and moved between Dubai and Monaco to avoid paying massive UK tax bills, which would have amounted to the equivalent of "paying £20 million rent a year to live in the UK." According to Stephen, his friend argued that the UK "product" simply wasn't worth the price tag anymore, citing high crime, the threat of getting mugged for a luxury watch on London streets, declining healthcare, and an underperforming education system.

This story sparks a fiery, passionate response from Gary. He argues that this exact dynamic—allowing wealthy individuals to build or own hundreds of millions in British assets while fleeing offshore to pay zero tax—is precisely *why* British streets are dirty, crime is rising, and the NHS is crumbling. "If you give all of the wealth to a group of people who do not pay tax, there will be nothing left to provide things like healthcare and education for ordinary people," Gary points out. Daniel counters that high earners in the UK already account for a disproportionate amount of total tax revenue—noting that the top 1% pays roughly 30% of income tax and the top 10% pays around 60% of the country's £1 trillion annual revenue—and warns that driving these individuals out entirely deprives the state of vital funds.

``` "If you allow British people who own 300 million pounds of British assets to technically live in Monaco and not pay tax, then you will get crime and you will have dirty streets and you will have a bad healthcare system." — Gary Stevenson ```

- **Top tax contributions:** Daniel notes that the top 1% of UK earners pays ~30% of total income tax, while the top 10% contributes ~60%. - **Offshore residency:** Stephen's example illustrates how high-net-worth founders relocate to zero-tax jurisdictions like Dubai or Monaco following multi-hundred-million-pound exit events. - **Land and rent extraction:** Gary highlights how non-resident offshore individuals can extract £50 million+ annually in UK property rents without contributing back to public infrastructure.

---

[01:08:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4119s) Pragmatism, Social Mobility, and Systemic Barriers

As the debate intensifies, Daniel pushes back against pure ideological arguments about "fairness," claiming that tax policy must be pragmatic and realistic about human behavior in a hyper-mobile globalized world. He notes that mathematically, a flat tax might sound "fair" to some, but policy must account for what a nation can realistically execute without triggering a mass capital flight. Gary angrily rejects this framing, asserting that what society is currently "getting away with" is pushing the children of working-class families into desperate poverty while multi-millionaires shield their multi-generational assets.

When Daniel brings up social mobility data, noting that children born into the top socio-economic tier have a 60% chance of dropping out of the top bracket over time ("persistence rate" is only ~40%), Gary remains unimpressed. Gary stresses that the real issue isn't rich kids falling into middle-class comfort, but poor kids being completely locked out of achieving basic financial security. When asked how he himself succeeded, Gary points to his unusual background: winning math competitions, excelling at LSE, and ultimately breaking into trading through sheer luck and card-game skill—an path he insists is entirely unreplicable for the average person.

- **Wealth persistence statistics:** Daniel cites data showing that 60% of offspring from top-tier wealthy families do not remain in the top bracket. - **Gary's background:** Raised in East London without even a desk at home, Gary won competitive math contests, attended LSE, and broke into institutional trading. - **Unreplicable paths:** Gary stresses that individual success stories from the working class are statistical anomalies, not viable systemic models.

---

[01:12:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4340s) "Just Be Entrepreneurial": The Clashing Realities of Wealth Creation

The conversation reaches an emotional boiling point when Daniel argues that young people can still achieve financial independence by stepping outside the traditional education system. Daniel contends that schools were designed for an outdated Industrial Revolution mindset—training people for corporate office jobs and saddling them with university debt—whereas modern success comes from self-directed learning, dropping out, and launching tech-enabled businesses. He insists he routinely sees young people from disadvantaged backgrounds build successful businesses once they bypass the standard school pipeline.

Gary reacts with intense outrage, accusing Daniel of selling an absurd, dangerous fantasy to desperate families. He sarcastically mocks the idea that all struggling viewers need to do is buy a book and become entrepreneurs. Speaking from his roots in East London, where his childhood friends are currently struggling just to feed their children and turn on the heating, Gary forcefully condemns wealthy commentators who preach individual hustle to people trapped by structural economic decay. He passionately argues that telling broke, struggling families "you just need to be more entrepreneurial" causes deep psychological damage and mental illness by blaming victims for a broken system.

``` "I'm sick of multi-millionaires telling kids who can't afford to turn the heating on 'you just need to be more entrepreneurial.' It's sick, Dan! It gives people mental illness. Tell them the truth: our generation took the opportunities, and now it is almost impossible to get out of poverty." — Gary Stevenson ```

- **Outdated schooling:** Daniel criticizes the traditional education pipeline for preparing students for non-existent industrial jobs while leaving them burdened with debt. - **Alternative paths:** Daniel advocates for self-education, entrepreneurship, and technical skills as the modern escape hatch from low wages. - **Psychological harm of hustle culture:** Gary fiercely argues that promoting entrepreneurship as a catch-all fix to families facing poverty is cruel, disingenuous, and mentally damaging.

[01:14:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4445s) The Clash Over Personal Agency and Systemic Failure

Gary Stevenson reiterates his core conviction that instead of telling individuals who cannot afford basic necessities like heating to simply become more entrepreneurial, society must fix the economic system driving them into poverty. Daniel Priestley pushes back sharply, arguing that it is far harder to reform the entire global economic system than it is for an individual to take control of their personal economics by starting a business. Daniel emphasizes that feeling a lack of agency is the single biggest cause of mental health issues among young people. He criticizes Gary’s content, claiming that if he had watched videos telling him "if you don't have a rich dad, you're screwed" when he was 19 or 20, he would have felt completely hopeless.

``` "The thing that I know that gives people mental health issues is feeling that they have no agency in their life... To me, if I had have come across your content at 19, 20 years old, I would have been screwed." — Daniel Priestley ```

Daniel shares stories of working with teenagers from impoverished backgrounds and a charity in rural Uganda where a woman went from picking food out of trash piles to building a livestock empire employing 15 to 16 local workers. Gary firmly rejects the implication that he discourages hard work, noting that he has never told anyone not to work hard, but maintains that in 99.9% of cases, not having wealthy parents determines economic outcomes. He recounts an emotional interaction on a street near London Bridge at 1:00 AM with a young working-class man from Newcastle who started crying while holding two jobs to support his sick mother, relieved to finally hear someone say that his economic struggles were not his own fault.

- **Gary's standard counter-quote**: He asserts it remains true in 99.9% of cases that children without rich parents will not become rich under current conditions. - **Daniel's Uganda example**: A woman built a business progressing from chickens to pigs to cattle, eventually employing 16 people. - **The Newcastle story**: A young man working two jobs cried because Gary's videos made him realize his financial hardship wasn't a personal failing. - **The warning to Daniel**: Gary asks Daniel to think deeply before sending a message that implies failing to make it financially means you simply didn't work hard enough.

---

[01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4688s) Technology Disruption and the Shrinking Workforce

Daniel frames the current crisis around tech disruption rather than laziness or personal failure. In the UK, 11% of working-age people are officially declared too sick to work, and 25% of working-age individuals do not work at all (including one in seven men). When Gary asks if Daniel considers these citizens "lazy," Daniel replies that the system itself is collapsing under technological change. While the post-war era offered stable local jobs, technology now simplifies, globalizes, and ultimately automates work out of existence through software and AI.

``` "Technology does three things: it makes jobs more simple which makes them replaceable, it makes jobs global where you can move them anywhere else, and then ultimately it automates the job altogether and gets rid of it." — Daniel Priestley ```

Daniel points out that the current education system continues to prepare young people for 1950s-style office jobs that will no longer exist as AI disrupts industries. Meanwhile, host Steven Bartlett prompts Daniel to address the limits of his own "start a business" advice, noting that high-risk entrepreneurship works for specific mindsets and personalities, but roughly 90% of businesses fail. Steven notes that successful entrepreneurs often suffer from hindsight bias, forgetting that they started with significant intellectual capital, mentors, and favorable market conditions.

- **Workforce statistics**: 11% of working-age Britons are classified as too sick to work; 25% of working-age people (and 1 in 7 men) are not employed. - **The three stages of tech disruption**: Simplification/replacement, globalization (e.g., outsourcing to the Philippines), and full AI/software automation. - **Business failure rate**: Approximately 90% of new ventures fail, making entrepreneurship an unsuitable safety net for the broader population.

---

[01:20:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4843s) How Wealth is Generated and the Role of Scale-Ups

Daniel defends his focus on entrepreneurs by arguing that wealth creation and job growth depend entirely on a tiny fraction of the population. He cites his friend who became a quadruple amputee at age 19 after a sudden medical emergency and made a conscious mental decision in his hospital room that it would be the best thing that ever happened to him—eventually founding a multi-million-dollar clinic. Daniel emphasizes that during peak economic periods in the UK, just 40,000 scale-up companies drove the majority of job creation, wage increases, and national investment.

``` "It's only 1% of people who pay 30% of the taxes, and 10% of people who pay 60% of the taxes. So you only need one in a hundred to actually create something that's valuable." — Daniel Priestley ```

Daniel uses Gymshark as a prime example, pointing out that thousands of employees rely on founder Ben Francis having created the enterprise. Without risk-taking founders building companies past £10 million in revenue, the jobs for the remaining 99% of the workforce vanish. Therefore, Daniel argues, economic policy must incentivize potential wealth creators to build locally, which in turn lifts everyone up through free-market circulation.

- **UK tax distribution**: Top 1% of earners pay 30% of total tax revenue; top 10% pay 60%. - **Scale-ups impact**: 40,000 scale-up businesses historically drove UK economic expansion. - **The Gymshark example**: Illustrates how one founder's initiative creates thousands of jobs for individuals who do not wish to start their own companies.

---

[01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) The Historic Anomaly of the Middle Class and Betting on Economic Collapse

Gary counters Daniel's free-market narrative by stating that the last 70 years of broad-based prosperity in Western nations were a historical anomaly, not the default setting of capitalism. Throughout most of human history—and across most developing nations today—societies consist of a small super-rich elite and a vast majority living in deep poverty. Gary references Charles Dickens' *Hard Times* to illustrate that 19th-century British industrialists threatened to "throw their factories into the sea" rather than pay taxes, echoing modern billionaire talking points.

``` "The last 70 years are not normal... The only time we've ever really been able to provide decent living conditions for ordinary working people was the period after the war where we massively redistributed wealth." — Gary Stevenson ```

Gary argues that the middle class only existed because post-WWII policies protected equal wealth distribution and taxed the rich at exceptionally high rates. Because those protections have been dismantled, Gary admits he places financial bets on the economy getting worse, predicting that poverty will rise, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump will win elections, and ordinary people will continue to lose ground. When Steven asks why Gary promotes a wealth-redistribution strategy he believes is unlikely to win politically, Gary replies that as a betting man he sees the steep odds, but building a grassroots movement to tax the rich is still a fight worth waging. Daniel agrees with Gary's historical context, acknowledging that for 5,000 years, extreme inequality with kings, dukes, and peasants has been the historic norm.

- **Historical standard**: For 5,000 years, societies have almost universally consisted of a tiny ruling elite and a impoverished majority. - **Post-war exception**: Decades of high tax rates on high earners and strong wealth distribution created the modern middle class. - **Gary's economic outlook**: Bet on rising poverty and economic degradation, predicting right-wing populist victories as conditions worsen.

[01:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5280s) Dubai as an Economic Model vs. Incentive Structure

Daniel Priestley describes Dubai as a striking economic anomaly—a harsh desert environment that has transformed into one of the richest and most thriving entrepreneurial hubs outside the United States. He attributes this growth directly to a low-tax environment that entices high-level talent, investors, and tech founders. To contrast the impact of tax burdens, Daniel shares the story of two personal trainers he knows: one in the UK capped his working hours upon reaching £50,000 to avoid entering the 40% tax bracket, while the other moved to Dubai, launched an online fitness community, and recently bought a $350,000 Ferrari.

``` ┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ INCENTIVE DISPARITY COMPARISON │ └───────────────────────────────────────────┘

UK Personal Trainer Dubai Personal Trainer ┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │ • Hits £50k income ceiling │ │ • Relocated to Dubai │ │ • Faces 40% tax bracket │ vs │ • Low/zero tax environment │ │ • Limits working hours │ │ • Scaled online business │ │ • Caps production/growth │ │ • Purchased $350,000 Ferrari │ └──────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────┘ ```

Daniel poses a hypothetical scenario to Gary Stevenson, asking if he would sign a second book deal with his publisher (Penguin) if they decided to cut his royalties in half simply because he reached the top 1% of authors. Gary responds that he wrote his book *The Trading Game* for the cause rather than money, even offering to forfeit his advance. Daniel argues that humans naturally respond to incentives: given two equivalent opportunities, anyone will choose the structure that rewards success rather than penalizing it.

* "Dubai is a desert... yet it's one of the most economically rich places in the world right now." * "One entrepreneur is super pumped and super excited about building a business because he's not overtaxed. The other entrepreneur has literally said, 'I'm not willing to do this because of how much I have to pay.'" * "If all things being equal... one's going to penalize you for being in the top 1% and the other one's going to reward you... of course you would go with the normal one."

---

[01:30:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5442s) Offshore Wealth, Elite Governance, and Wealth Accumulation

Gary Stevenson clarifies that he has always campaigned for lower taxes on working-class citizens, but contends that Western nations must stop allowing ultra-wealthy individuals to generate massive profits in markets like the US and UK while escaping taxation by residing offshore in places like Dubai or the Cayman Islands. While Daniel notes that the US taxes its citizens on worldwide income, Gary counters that loop-holes render these policies ineffective.

Gary argues that political systems are increasingly captured by the super-rich, pointing to figures like Elon Musk in the US or former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, whose family wealth reaches hundreds of millions of pounds. Gary contends that when political leaders make passive fortunes that eclipse public salaries, their policies naturally protect upper-crust wealth while squeezing ordinary citizens out of real estate, energy, and democratic influence.

* "You're saying, 'I want the benefit of being able to sell to the US market and the UK Market, but I don't want the obligation of having to pay US and UK taxes.'" * "If you allow the rich to get richer and richer and richer, they squeeze the middle class and they squeeze the poor class out of things like housing, of things like space in cities... and of things like owning a share in government."

---

[01:32:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5526s) Economic History and the Post-War "Golden Age"

Daniel challenges Gary by asking whether anti-wealth, big-government regimes consistently collapse, pointing to Britain's economic crises in the 1960s and the 1976 IMF bailout. Gary counters that the decades following World War II represent the "Golden Age" of the middle class, driven by high top-tier tax rates alongside widespread asset ownership. He notes that living standards began to fragment after the 1980s as public housing and assets were privatized—a one-time windfall that could not be repeated for future generations.

``` POST-WAR "GOLDEN AGE" POST-1980s SHIFT ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ • High top-tier marginal taxes │ │ • Deregulation & tax cuts │ │ • Broad middle-class growth │ ───> │ • One-time housing sell-offs │ │ • Widespread family asset base │ │ • Concentrated wealth holdings │ └─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

The debate shifts to Singapore, which Daniel cites as a thriving low-tax market that encourages property ownership. Gary counters that Singapore's government plays a massive role in the economy—controlling roughly 25% of GDP and managing state-backed housing schemes through sovereign funds. Gary reiterates that he does not want a large, bloated state; he wants targeted wealth taxes on non-productive asset hoarders so that lower- and middle-class families can keep more of their earnings and retain ownership of real property.

* "Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes. If we have complete freedom, multi-millionaires like you and me will get richer... and we will eat the middle class." * "I am the only person at this table anti-redistribution, because the redistribution is happening in front of our eyes: the middle class is losing its assets... those assets are being accumulated by the rich." * "Wealth inequality is not the problem—it's collapsing living standards." * "I am somebody who has made millions of pounds by understanding the simple fact that living standards are falling because of growing wealth inequality."

---

[01:37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5827s) Ecosystem Monopolies and Trust-Busting Big Tech

Daniel aligns with Gary on the danger of concentrated power, citing how America's Founding Fathers established a division of powers to prevent single factions from dominating society. In the early 20th century, US trust-busters broke up giant monopolies like Standard Oil to maintain market competition. However, Daniel argues that today's legal frameworks rely on outdated definitions of monopolies. Modern tech giants like Amazon (owning AWS, Audible, Whole Foods) and Google (owning Search, YouTube, Gmail) build interconnected corporate "fortresses" through vast ecosystems that lock out competition.

Daniel advocates for compulsory breakups of mega-tech corporations once they attain ecosystem control. He notes that established billionaires fear disruption from young, nimble entrepreneurs above all else. He humorously accuses Gary's proposed tax policies of playing into the hands of incumbent elites by capping growing companies, though Gary responds that a 1% tax on multi-millions would never deter a real business builder from creating wealth.

* "In the technology world, a monopoly is formed through an ecosystem... It creates a fortress that's almost impossible to compete with." * "Billionaires have two big fears... Number two is high taxes; number one is that startup entrepreneur who disrupts their business." * "Compulsory breakup of Big Tech once you hit a certain size... because they are terrified of entrepreneurs in the middle." * "Nobody is going to say, 'Oh my god, I don't want to be a multi-multimillionaire because in 20 years' time I'll have to pay 1% taxes.'"

---

[01:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6008s) Reality Check and Advice for 18-Year-Olds

When asked what actionable advice they would offer an ambitious 18-year-old seeking to build wealth in today's economy, Gary admits it is an extraordinarily difficult question. He warns young people against viewing his own path as a template, emphasizing that his career as a star trader was a rare anomaly that cannot easily be replicated. He also cautions against hype around day-trading courses, which he views as a dangerous trap turning young men into gambling addicts.

Gary encourages hard work and pursuing genuine opportunities in fields like tech entrepreneurship, but stresses the importance of understanding risk. He criticizes the pervasive media narrative that "everyone can just become an entrepreneur and get rich," warning that the vast majority of startups fail, leaving individuals with little fall-back in a system where baseline living standards continue to erode.

* "What I did is not replicable... People always say, 'Why don't you teach me to trade?' It's hard and it's dangerous, and a lot of young men are getting sold into trading and becoming gambling addicts." * "Understand it's risky. I think sometimes this message 'just become an entrepreneur and you'll make it' is a bit dangerous, because I think most people who try to become entrepreneurs fail."

Here is a detailed walkthrough of this portion of the debate:

[01:41:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6076s) Shrinking Lifeboats and the Nigerian Tech Example

Gary Stevenson begins by addressing a harsh reality that many young people might dislike hearing: it is extraordinarily difficult for a young person from a poor family to become rich today, and even obtaining basic financial security is growing harder. While advising people to work hard, study, and avoid superficial luxury spending like Balenciaga, he warns that society is actively "shrinking the seats on the lifeboat"—reducing the proportion of the population that can achieve financial safety from 50% down to 30% or 20%.

When host Steven Bartlett mentions his own Nigerian heritage, Gary argues that if a young person from a Nigerian shanty town asked how to get rich, the realistic response would be to acknowledge their extreme difficulty and encourage them to work hard enough just to support a family. Steven counters that knowledge acts as a personal life raft, pointing to Nigeria's booming tech sector. Steven cites his own tech venture in San Francisco, Flightcast (and Guest Radar), where the lead developer is a Nigerian engineer. However, Gary questions how many of those lucrative tech jobs actually go to kids raised in shanty towns, noting his own experience working in Canary Wharf: despite growing up within sight of the financial district in East London, he did not meet a single other kid from East London the entire time he worked there.

- **Nigerian Tech Sector:** Steven highlights remote development opportunities as a key vehicle for upward mobility. - **Flightcast / Guest Radar:** Steven mentions his San Francisco-based tech startup whose lead developer is based in Nigeria. - **Canary Wharf Anecdote:** Gary emphasizes that despite his local origin in East London, zero working-class locals from his neighborhood were represented on his trading floor.

---

[01:43:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6187s) The Remote Work Debate: Philippines and Global Arbitrage

Steven pivots to the broader trend of digitalization and remote work, pointing out that his company, thirdweb, hires creative talent in the Philippines because it is cost-effective and highly skilled. He asks whether this global shift isn't a net positive for workers in developing nations. Gary challenges this optimistic framing, arguing that remote workers in Western countries are often locked in their bedrooms barely paying bills, while questioning whether the average person in the Philippines is actually living a luxurious life.

A heated back-and-forth ensues. Steven asserts that money is flooding into the Philippine economy and that remote foreign workers are "balling out of control" relative to local standards, supporting whole extended families. Gary maintains that horrific poverty remains rampant in places like the slums of Manila and that global capital inflows have not translated into a high quality of life for the average Filipino.

> "There is this thing called remote foreign workers and this is a huge boom... The poverty in the Philippines is horrific... Money is flowing in, but it is not giving a good quality of life to your average Filipino."

---

[01:44:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6292s) Advising the "Lost Boys" and the Limits of Talent

Steven brings up a recent article about "the lost boys," pointing out that approximately one in seven young working-age men are currently out of work. He asks Gary what practical advice he has for young people trying to liberate themselves from poverty. Gary reiterates that young people must recognize the systemic reality they are in, support political change, and engage with his platform to stop the middle class from collapsing. When Steven presses him on personal career advice, Gary candidly admits he might not be the right person to give general career formulas because he was blessed with an unusual mathematical talent.

To illustrate the limits of individual effort, Gary shares a personal story about his sister. She is a talented poet who wrote a critically acclaimed grime musical based on Dizzee Rascal's debut album (*Boy in da Corner*). Despite having two university degrees and working relentlessly hard, she can barely afford her rent in London. Gary argues that telling young working-class kids to simply "follow their passion" is unrealistic and rarely leads to financial security unless they come from a wealthy family.

- **Out-of-Work Statistic:** Roughly 1 in 7 working-age young men are currently unemployed or out of the labor force. - **Dizzee Rascal Grime Musical:** Gary's sister wrote a successful musical adaptation of Dizzee Rascal's first album, yet still struggles financially despite her high achievements and hard work.

---

[01:47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6421s) Daniel Priestley on the Two Economies and Playing Your Hand

Daniel Priestley responds by mapping out what he calls the "two economies" running simultaneously: a dying Industrial Revolution economy (office and factory jobs being automated or offshored) and a surging digital/entrepreneur economy. To succeed economically, Daniel argues, individuals must align themselves with where money is flowing. He points out that poetry has never paid well, whereas skills learned for free on YouTube, personal branding, and launching digital startups offer unprecedented upside.

Addressing Gary's career path, Daniel notes that traditional finance is now in decline as AI and automated trading systems replace human rate traders. Daniel stresses the concept of personal agency, arguing that individuals cannot sit around waiting for global macroeconomic reforms; they must "play the cards they are dealt" rather than adopting a victim mindset that waits for political saviors.

> "You cannot sit around waiting for the economic system of the world to be changed. You have to say, 'These are the cards I was born with... I'm going to play the cards that I've been dealt.' Personal agency is what gets people to feel good about their life."

---

[01:49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6585s) Political Action vs. Personal Agency

Gary strongly pushes back against pure individualism, warning that if society becomes a collection of isolated individuals who ignore macro problems, it will become incapable of fixing systemic crises. Gary reflects on his past career, describing himself as "somebody who has made millions of pounds betting on the collapse of society" and stating bluntly that he does not want to be giving out "stock tips on the *Titanic*."

He urges listeners to take political action—subscribing to educational channels across YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, sharing economic information, and voting for policies or parties (such as the Green Party) that advocate taxing accumulated wealth rather than wage earners. When Steven asks whether Gary supports young people taking risks and starting businesses in their private lives, Gary clarifies that he completely supports ambition and hard work—he worked tirelessly himself—but stresses that the economic system currently blocks smart kids from working-class backgrounds from entering elite spaces.

- **Systemic Critique:** Gary warns against purely individualistic thinking when the overarching financial structures are deteriorating. - **Tax Policy Demands:** Gary calls for shifting the tax burden away from working-class incomes and onto multi-million-pound wealth hoards.

---

[01:52:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6752s) Elite Spaces and Self-Made Wealth Statistics

Daniel challenges Gary’s assertion about entry into elite spaces, differentiating between elite academic institutions or exotic derivative trading floors and the "real economy" where small business owners operate. Most ordinary people, Daniel argues, do not aspire to be rates traders dealing in financial derivatives; they want to build businesses that employ people and generate local value.

To support his view that entrepreneurship remains viable, Daniel cites global wealth statistics: approximately 65% of ultra-high-net-worth individuals worldwide are self-made, while only 19% purely inherited their wealth, and 16% inherited wealth but significantly expanded it through their own entrepreneurial ventures. Gary responds that those figures reflect the end of a historic "golden age of capitalism"—an era when his father's generation and immigrant families in Ilford, East London could build wealth from scratch—and insists that window has now closed for the current generation. The section ends with Steven pointing out the irony of Gary's pessimism, noting that everything Gary has personally touched—from academia to derivative trading, writing a bestselling book, and building a massive social media following—has turned to gold.

- **Global Ultra-High-Net-Worth Distribution:** - **65%** Self-made - **19%** Inherited wealth - **16%** Inherited wealth and grew it through business ventures - **Ilford / East London Context:** Gary references his upbringing in an immigrant-heavy area of East London to show how wealth creation used to be accessible to ordinary families.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the transcript:

[01:54:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6896s) Rethinking Education for the Internet and Entrepreneurial Economy

Steven Bartlett pushes back against Gary Stevenson's insistence that ordinary young people cannot succeed, questioning whether modern education is fundamentally at fault for failing to equip youth for today’s economy. Steven uses the example of Gary’s sister—who writes poetry—explaining how, if he were her CEO, he would urge her to start an Instagram page and a YouTube channel immediately. He points to figures like Jay Shetty, who built multi-million dollar empires simply by sharing motivational and poetic words online. Steven argues that while the traditional economy offers few viable paths for a poet, the internet has decentralized media and opened massive new financial opportunities. However, schools completely ignore these realities—failing to teach students how to start a digital business or navigate platforms like YouTube, while continuing to focus on concepts like Pythagoras’s theorem, which AI tools like ChatGPT can easily handle.

The conversation turns deeply personal as Steven recalls his own school days, revealing how the system punished his early business instincts by placing him in an exclusion unit for conducting deals. In contrast, his brother Jason—who excelled at mathematics, attended the London School of Economics (LSE), and now manages Steven’s investments—was praised and rewarded by the exact same system. Steven explains that as a child with ADHD who struggled to focus in class, the traditional school setup made him feel like an absolute failure, while his brother was viewed as the model for success. He asserts that if schools celebrated entrepreneurial energy, technology, and internet literacy rather than punishing kids who do not fit the academic mold, the broader economy would benefit immensely.

- Jay Shetty built a tens-of-millions-a-year media presence by posting poetic and motivational content online. - Steven Bartlett was placed in a school exclusion unit for running business deals as a teenager, despite his Headmaster later boasting on national TV about how much money Steven made for the school. - Steven's brother, Jason, attended the London School of Economics (LSE) after succeeding in traditional academic math, and now works in Steven's company managing his investments.

---

[01:57:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7024s) Economic Reality, Individual Survival, and Asset Ownership

Gary Stevenson acknowledges Steven’s efforts to inspire young people, but he grounds the debate back in macroeconomic statistics: the actual percentage of young people who achieve financial freedom and can afford to start a family is shrinking. Gary warns that telling young people "it's there for the taking" while only 1% to 5% can actually make it creates a dangerous societal delusion. Steven agrees that the concentration of wealth is a major problem, sharing his own vivid memories from ten years ago when he was living in Moss Side, Manchester. He describes hitting rock bottom—stealing Chicago Town pizzas to survive, calling food delivery drivers to plead for free meals, hiding from bailiffs, printing off Jobseeker's Allowance forms, and dealing with County Court Judgments (CCJs) while estranged from his parents.

Because of that hardship, Steven emphasizes that individuals cannot simply wait around for Parliament to fix their lives; they need practical, individual solutions to build wealth right now. Responding to the idea of taxing wealth, Steven notes that as an employer of hundreds of young staff in London and Manchester who plans to hire 500 more over the next five years, overly hostile anti-business policies could force entrepreneurs to take their companies elsewhere. Gary points out that despite no current wealth tax, high-profile figures still move away, but Gary reiterates his core stance: taxation should target only high levels of wealth—specifically those with over £10 million—to rebuild a strong middle class.

- Steven's personal financial rock-bottom occurred 10 years ago in Moss Side, Manchester, where he lived with CCJ letters and bailiff notices on his desk. - Steven expects to employ 500 additional young workers in the UK over the next five years through his companies and investments on *Dragons' Den*. - Gary Stevenson defines his proposed wealth tax threshold at individuals holding **£10 million or more** in assets.

---

[02:01:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7286s) Inheritance, Middle-Class Purchasing Power, and Modern Markets

The debate turns to how wealth gets passed down through generations. Steven expresses a controversial view: he believes he should not be able to pass massive fortunes down to his own children, stating that inheriting tens of millions would rob them of the grit and drive he gained from his humble beginnings. Gary agrees that working hard should allow ordinary people to support themselves, pointing out that current tax policies place a heavy burden on working-class citizens while allowing the ultra-wealthy to preserve vast fortunes through loop-holed inheritance planning.

Gary explains that a healthy capitalist economy relies on a strong middle class with disposable income. In the 1960s, a thriving middle class fueled a vibrant art and music scene by purchasing records, clothes, and theater tickets. Today, because middle-class families are struggling just to pay basic utility bills, markets have bifurcated: businesses cater either to the extremely wealthy or produce cheap, disposable mass goods (such as fast fashion). Gary contrasts this with less unequal societies like Japan, where high-quality, affordable restaurants and cultural goods flourish for everyday citizens. Meanwhile, platforms like YouTube have stepped in as free entertainment for cash-strapped audiences, even though creator economics force entrepreneurs to endure years of unpaid struggle before turning a profit.

- The standard UK inheritance tax rate is **40%**, though Gary and Steven debate how effectively the ultra-wealthy bypass it. - Gary notes that in the 1960s, middle-class disposable income drove the UK's cultural boom in music, fashion, and theater. - Today, middle-class squeeze has forced the market into extreme ends: super-cheap fast fashion vs. elite luxury goods. - Gary highlights Japan as an example of a less unequal society where ordinary citizens enjoy high-quality everyday goods and dining.

---

[02:07:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7621s) Asset Mobility vs. Domestic Real Estate

Steven brings the debate to a practical premise, asking whether all parties agree that the top tier of wealthy individuals should contribute more. Daniel Priestley points out that the top 1% of taxpayers already contribute 30% of income tax revenues, adding that wealth today is completely mobile—rich individuals can easily relocate their capital, companies, and residency overseas if taxation becomes overly aggressive. Daniel argues that capital will simply flee anti-wealth environments to foreign markets.

Gary counters by pointing out that real estate and land—which make up a massive portion of national wealth—are physically fixed and cannot be moved offshore. Daniel disputes the idea that ultra-wealthy individuals keep the bulk of their net worth in domestic residential properties, noting instead that nearly four-fifths of UK housing stock is held by the Baby Boomer generation who bought homes decades ago. Gary maintains that a strong domestic consumer base is what truly attracts investment, whereas Daniel warns that driving away entrepreneurs risks destroying the very job engines and startup ecosystems the country needs.

- The top **1% of UK taxpayers** currently pay approximately **30%** of total income tax. - Daniel notes that **78% of UK housing** is owned by Baby Boomers who purchased their homes decades ago (e.g., around 1992). - Gary argues that physical assets like land and housing stock cannot be "ripped out of the sea," making them a fixed foundation of national wealth.

[02:08:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7686s) Wealth Concentration, Generational Decay, and the Role of the State

The discussion begins with Daniel Priestley claiming that pension funds own much of the commercial property and land, meaning everyday citizens indirectly own these assets. Gary Stevenson immediately challenges this premise, asking about the actual distribution of pensions and how much is concentrated in the top 1%. While Daniel admits he does not know the exact percentage off the top of his head, he acknowledges that wealth concentrates at the top. However, Daniel argues that the wealthy are not a static group, pointing to historical studies showing that most families who were among the richest in 1900 are no longer wealthy today. If those families had maintained their wealth, there would be 16,000 more billionaires today. He notes that wealth management banks struggle with succession planning because intergenerational wealth preservation across multiple generations is notoriously difficult.

Gary counters by pointing out that 20th-century wealth redistribution was largely driven by destructive events like two world wars and the Holocaust—an outcome no one wants to repeat. While both agree on wanting a thriving, affluent middle class, they clash sharply on how to achieve it. Daniel argues for growing entrepreneurship and creating wealth-friendly economies, whereas Gary contends that government growth mandates have failed to deliver for ordinary people. When Steven Bartlett brings up the US approach—specifically referencing Donald Trump and Elon Musk slashing government waste—Gary expresses skepticism. He warns against austerity and stripping away public infrastructure like education, policing, and youth services, pointing out that government programs are "how single moms feed their kids."

* Intergenerational wealth planning in major banks frequently fails to preserve fortunes across multiple generations. * In the 20th century, major wealth redistribution was heavily driven by global conflicts and systemic disasters rather than policy alone. * Daniel points out that the majority of top-tier fortunes from the year 1900 failed to persist into modern times.

[02:10:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7848s) Protecting the Middle Class and Modest Wealth Taxes

Gary warns that stripping resources from ordinary people leads to severe economic degradation, drawing a parallel to how extreme poverty operates globally. He references MrBeast spending £500 in developing nations to restore sight to visually impaired children, explaining that the issue isn't a lack of solutions, but a lack of money among the population. Gary mentions a friend returning from India who witnessed people on the street with untreated, rotting limbs—a stark visual of what happens when a society completely disempowers its middle class. He asserts that a wealthy middle class creates the consumer demand necessary for businesses to sell goods and services successfully.

When Steven asks if Gary would tax Daniel more, Gary clarifies his proposed wealth tax policy. Assuming a high-net-worth individual makes a 5% return on their assets, a person with £100 million earns £5 million in passive income annually. Taxing them 1% (£1 million) still leaves them with £4 million per year, allowing them to continue growing wealthy while contributing to public stability. Gary emphasizes that his stance is not based on morality, but on "cold hard economic analysis" that formed the basis of his successful trading career.

* Gary proposes a 1% annual wealth tax on individuals worth over £10 million. * Assuming an average annual return of 5%, a £100 million net-worth individual would earn £5 million and pay £1 million in tax, keeping £4 million in net passive gains.

[02:12:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7943s) Gary’s Advice to Young People and Political Strategy

Addressing young people, Gary paints a grim picture, forecasting that economic inequality and poverty will worsen relatively quickly. He advises the younger generation to prepare financially and emotionally, noting that it will become nearly impossible to build serious wealth through standard means. He urges them to pursue viable, practical fields like AI, computing, or specialized technical skills rather than financially unviable paths in the arts or over-saturated social media ventures. Despite the bleak outlook, Gary stresses that change is possible if people actively fight for political reform, just as previous generations fought for healthcare, education, and housing.

> "If you don't play politics, I guarantee you the other side will play politics and that means your kids and your grandkids live in poverty."

On political leadership, Gary expresses deep distrust in current politicians, stating that wealth inequality looks great from the top, where leaders are insulated from the crisis. Rather than pleading for concessions, his strategy is to build a massive digital movement—aiming for 5 million followers on YouTube through *Garys Economics*—to pressure and "bully the politicians" into systemic policy changes. He dismisses narrow party loyalty, arguing that both the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK, as well as Republicans and Democrats in the US, are failing to address the fundamental wealth divide. While he does not actively seek to become an MP or Prime Minister, he leaves the door open if it proves to be the only effective path forward.

* Gary advises young people to focus on high-utility careers like AI and computing over the arts due to economic pressures. * His primary campaign objective is to build a 5-million-follower media platform to force legislative reform on wealth taxation. * Gary criticizes political factionalism, asserting that both major UK and US political parties fail to tackle wealth inequality.

[02:17:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8271s) Daniel’s Perspective: Technology, Economic Freedom, and Global Opportunities

Daniel offers his closing remarks, praising Gary’s book, *The Trading Game*, as a compelling narrative regardless of one's economic background. While Daniel agrees that the traditional middle class is collapsing, he attributes the root cause to technological disruption and globalization rather than purely policy failure. He notes that taxes and government spending are already at historic highs, and because digital businesses and high-net-worth individuals are highly mobile, aggressive tax enforcement is practically difficult to execute without driving capital away.

At a macro level, Daniel argues that economic freedom directly correlates with lower poverty rates, citing data that moving from a high-freedom to a low-freedom economic environment can cause poverty rates to triple from roughly 10% to 30%. On a micro level, however, he believes there has never been a better time for ambitious individuals to start a business. With low entry barriers, anyone can leverage digital tools, create content, and access global markets. He points out that all three men in the room—Steven, Gary, and himself—built substantial fortunes starting from scratch across their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

Regarding political direction, Daniel advises voters to act as uncommitted "swing voters" to force politicians to earn their support. Commenting on the US political climate under Trump and Elon Musk's government efficiency initiatives (such as DOGE), Daniel predicts that aggressive deregulatory policies and golden visa programs will draw wealthy entrepreneurs and capital to the United States, ultimately raising living standards there to the detriment of countries that fail to remain competitive.

* Daniel highlights data indicating that restricting economic freedom can cause poverty rates to rise from 10% to 30%. * He argues that digital tools and globalized markets provide unprecedented opportunities for individual entrepreneurs to build low-overhead businesses. * Daniel predicts the US will attract significant global capital and high-net-worth talent through aggressive deregulation and targeted visa policies.

[02:21:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8504s) Closing Thoughts and Shared Goals

As the debate draws to a close, the speakers reflect on the tax dynamics surrounding the top earners, noting that if the 1% who pay roughly 30% of all taxes choose to leave, the remaining tax burden inevitably gets spread across everyone else. Host Steven Bartlett expresses his deep admiration for both Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley, emphasizing how valuable it is to watch people exchange and listen to opposing ideas in pursuit of genuine answers. He points out that while many voices online—including himself and Daniel—focus on entrepreneurship, business, and personal finance, there is a massive gap in the market for Gary’s perspective. Gary’s channel, *Garys Economics*, provides crucial collectivist, society-wide explanations for wealth inequality that are often missing from mainstream economic discussions.

Despite their disagreements on specific policy mechanisms, Steven highlights that all three of them share the exact same underlying goal: wanting the UK to thrive through genuine social mobility. True national survival relies on enabling those at the bottom to succeed and create opportunities rather than simply accumulating wealth at the very top. Steven warmly encourages viewers to check out Gary’s bestselling book, *The Trading Game*—which spent four consecutive weeks at number one on the *Sunday Times* bestseller list—as well as Daniel Priestley’s book *Entrepreneur Revolution* and his business resources at danielpriestley.com.

* **Top 1% Tax Contribution:** The top 1% of earners pay approximately 30% of total taxes. * **Gary Stevenson's Media & Book:** Host of YouTube channel *Garys Economics* and author of the *Sunday Times* #1 bestseller *The Trading Game* (4 weeks at #1). * **Daniel Priestley's Media & Book:** Author of *Entrepreneur Revolution* and owner of digital resources at danielpriestley.com.

---

[02:24:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8658s) Sponsor & Channel Closing Remarks

Steven concludes the episode with a brief promotional segment for podcast sponsor PerfectTed, a ceremonial-grade Japanese matcha brand he has invested over seven figures in. He mentions its widespread use in global coffee chains such as Blank Street Coffee and Joe & The Juice, noting that viewers can purchase flavored powders to make at home or buy them in major retail stores across the UK, Netherlands, and USA.

Finally, Steven shares a channel statistic with the audience, noting that 53% of regular listeners have not yet subscribed to *The Diary Of A CEO*. He asks viewers for a simple, free favor: hitting the subscribe button to support the show, promising that in return, he and his team will continuously work to improve the content, listen to feedback, and bring on requested guests every single week.

* **PerfectTed Retail Availability:** Tesco, Sainsbury's, Holland & Barrett, and Waitrose in the UK; Albert Heijn in the Netherlands; Amazon in the US; or directly via perfectted.com (40% off code: `STEVEN40`). * **Subscriber Metric:** 53% of regular podcast listeners are not currently subscribed.

## Notable quotes > [13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=802s) At the beginning of COVID, we knew governments across the world were going to be giving out tens of trillions of pounds, dollars, euros... Nobody even thought to ask who's going to get tens of trillions richer. Nobody in the Conservatives, nobody in Labour, nobody in the Republicans, nobody in Democrats, nobody in the media... It's almost beautiful. It's unbelievable. — Gary Stevenson

> [26:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1563s) I make money by being right on the economy... I know you're probably a wealthy man, you probably don't want to pay high taxes... but we exist in an economy where wealth is being extracted out of the middle class, out of the working class, very, very rapidly. It's benefiting people like the three of us at this table... our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor. And I just think we should be honest with them. Capitalism's finished. We won. Well done Stephen, well done Daniel, well done Gary. It's over now. Our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor... Why are we lying to them? — Gary Stevenson

> [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2006s) I worked my tits off and I paid... 50% top rate tax plus National Insurance—60%—to bring my family out of poverty at the same time the Duke of Westminster inherited 10 billion and paid nothing. Do you think that's fair? — Gary Stevenson

> [39:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2361s) It strikes me as very strange that the government... is chasing down moms and dads who sell a few things on eBay... but Facebook's fine to pretend to be in Ireland. — Daniel Priestley

> [46:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2781s) Isn't it a bit more like if there were 10 of us at dinner, and there was one guy who came to dinner on the condition he wouldn't pay? — Gary Stevenson

> [01:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3874s) If you allow British people who own 300 million pounds of British assets to technically live in Monaco and not pay tax, then you will get crime and you will have dirty streets and you will have a bad healthcare system. — Gary Stevenson

> [01:12:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4340s) I'm sick of multi-millionaires telling kids who can't afford to turn the heating on 'you just need to be more entrepreneurial.' It's sick, Dan! It gives people mental illness. Tell them the truth: our generation took the opportunities, and now it is almost impossible to get out of poverty. — Gary Stevenson

> [01:14:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4445s) The thing that I know that gives people mental health issues is feeling that they have no agency in their life... To me, if I had have come across your content at 19, 20 years old, I would have been screwed. — Daniel Priestley

> [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4688s) Technology does three things: it makes jobs more simple which makes them replaceable, it makes jobs global where you can move them anywhere else, and then ultimately it automates the job altogether and gets rid of it. — Daniel Priestley

> [01:20:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4843s) It's only 1% of people who pay 30% of the taxes, and 10% of people who pay 60% of the taxes. So you only need one in a hundred to actually create something that's valuable. — Daniel Priestley

> [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) The last 70 years are not normal... The only time we've ever really been able to provide decent living conditions for ordinary working people was the period after the war where we massively redistributed wealth. — Gary Stevenson

> Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes. If we have complete freedom, multi-millionaires like you and me will get richer... and we will eat the middle class. — Gary Stevenson

> [01:37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5827s) Billionaires have two big fears... Number two is high taxes; number one is that startup entrepreneur who disrupts their business. — Daniel Priestley

> [01:47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6421s) You cannot sit around waiting for the economic system of the world to be changed. You have to say, 'These are the cards I was born with... I'm going to play the cards that I've been dealt.' Personal agency is what gets people to feel good about their life. — Daniel Priestley

> [02:12:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7943s) If you don't play politics, I guarantee you the other side will play politics and that means your kids and your grandkids live in poverty. — Gary Stevenson

## Mentioned Gary Stevenson, Daniel Priestley, Steven Bartlett, Citibank, London School of Economics, The Trading Game, Magnificent Seven, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, Tesla, Shopify, YouTube, Duke of Westminster, Grosvenor Estate, HM Revenue and Customs, Fiverr, WHOOP, Intuit, Perfect Ted, Ben Francis, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Rishi Sunak, Charles Dickens, Hard Times, ElevenLabs, OpenAI, Fixer, Gymshark, Penguin, WeWork, Airbnb, NHS, Economic Freedom Index, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Standard Oil, AWS, Audible, Whole Foods, Google, Gmail, Flightcast, Guest Radar, thirdweb, Dizzee Rascal, Boy in da Corner, Green Party, Jay Shetty, Dragons' Den, Chicago Town, MrBeast, Garys Economics, DOGE, The Diary Of A CEO, Sunday Times, Entrepreneur Revolution, danielpriestley.com, Blank Street Coffee, Joe & The Juice, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Holland & Barrett, Waitrose, Albert Heijn

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas)

中文简报

Gary Stevenson警告：英国债务与税收陷阱恐致社会衰退疫情后的财富集中与税收漏洞威胁将低收入群体困于结构性贫困之中，除非英国将征税重点从所得税转向累积财富税。这场辩论的核心在于，经济停滞和贫困加剧究竟是由日益扩大的财富不平等所致，还是由过度监管和扼杀经济自由的高税收所引起。前交易员Gary Stevenson认为，系统性的资本集中与财富掠夺正在摧毁中产阶级的资产所有权，主张对千万富翁征收边际财富税以资助公共服务。连续创业者Daniel Priestley则反驳称，经济增长、数字化扩张和个人能动性才是通往繁荣的真正途径，并警告惩罚性税收会迫使财富创造者流向海外。主持人Steven Bartlett引导对话深入探讨了包括科技垄断、远程办公、住房负担能力以及国家角色在内的多项关键议题。根本分歧在于，西方经济体生活水平下降的主因，究竟是财富不平等和资产集中加剧（Stevenson的观点），还是政府过度监管、高税收以及缺乏个人能动性（Priestley的观点）。 (0:00) Gary Stevenson主张，若不加以解决，系统性不平等恐将使英国等西方国家沦入类似于南非或尼日利亚的极端结构性贫困。 (2:04) Daniel Priestley指出，英国在经济自由度指数中的得分从2006年的82/100下降至疫情后的68/100，并认为政府过度干预与高税收压制了企业活力和经济增长。 (9:53) COVID-19刺激政策加速了财富集中，低收入家庭将救助资金用于满足基本需求，而资产所有者和企业股东则获取了这些资金流。 (13:22) 疫情期间向数字经济的转变将市场收益集中在少数科技巨头手中，“七巨头”（Magnificent Seven）的总市值从疫情前的5万亿美元激增至约17万亿美元。 (15:35)

Reading summary

In a debate hosted by Steven Bartlett, former Citibank trader Gary Stevenson and entrepreneur Daniel Priestley clash over whether the erosion of Western living standards stems from systemic wealth inequality or from state overregulation and suppressed economic dynamism. Pandemic Stimulus and Wealth Concentration (13:22) Stevenson argues that Western policy responses to COVID-19 triggered an unprecedented upward transfer of capital. He notes that the UK accumulated over £1 trillion in debt—around £20,000 per adult—while the US injected trillions into markets. Because lockdowns curtailed discretionary spending among the wealthy while lower-income households spent their stimulus checks on rent, food, and utilities, capital flowed straight to asset owners and corporations. In Stevenson's view, this dynamic permanently eroded middle-class purchasing power and severed ordinary families from property ownership. Economic Freedom and Digital Disruption (9:53) Priestley counters that prosperity depends on high economic freedom, low regulatory drag, and individual entrepreneurship. He highlights that the UK's Economic Freedom Index score fell from 82 out of 100 in 2006 to 68 post-pandemic as government spending expanded to 45% of GDP. He attributes recent wealth creation to rapid digital transformation, noting that the US 'Magnificent Seven' tech firms surged from a $5 trillion valuation pre-pandemic to roughly $17 trillion, driving roughly 50% of S&P 500 gains. Priestley contends that technological automation and globalization are eliminating conventional office jobs, meaning individuals must bypass outdated schooling to build scalable, tech-enabled enterprises rather than waiting for structural state intervention. Taxing Mobile Wealth Versus Physical Capital (39:21) The participants sharply dispute how governments should respond to fiscal imbalances. Stevenson proposes an annual wealth tax of 1% to 3% on fortunes exceeding £10 million to fund tax cuts on earned wages, arguing that physical assets like land cannot flee abroad. He claims that low taxes on inherited fortunes, such as the Grosvenor Estate's periodic trust tax of roughly 0.6% annually, unfair privilege dynastic wealth over earned labor. Priestley warns that modern capital is overwhelmingly intangible and mobile, pointing out that over 95% of S&P 500 value now consists of software, IP, and brands, compared to 75% physical assets in the 1970s. He highlights data showing that 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK in 2024 following the abolition of non-dom tax status. Because the top 1% of UK taxpayers contribute 30% of income tax receipts, Priestley argues aggressive wealth taxes will induce capital flight and shrink public revenue. Systemic Political Reform Versus Individual Agency (74:05) Stevenson characterizes the broad middle-class prosperity of the post-WWII era as a historical anomaly made possible only through aggressive wealth redistribution and steep top marginal taxes. He warns that telling struggling families who cannot afford heating to 'just be entrepreneurial' peddles a false promise when roughly 90% of startups fail. Stevenson insists citizens must organize politically to force governments to shift taxes off wages and onto accumulated wealth hoards. Priestley and Bartlett maintain that preaching systemic powerlessness damages youth mental health and strips individuals of agency. Bartlett notes that digital tools and decentralized media provide historically unique opportunities for self-directed workers to build businesses, arguing that reliance on parliamentary reform leaves workers stranded in a deteriorating economic environment. The discussion leaves unresolved whether Western governments can feasibly tax mobile modern wealth without accelerating capital flight, or whether encouraging entrepreneurial self-reliance can realistically restore broad-based living standards given high structural asset prices.

精炼阅读摘要

在前花旗银行交易员加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）与连续创业者丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）的辩论中，核心议题在于西方国家普通家庭生活水平下降的根源，究竟是极端财富集中导致的不平等，还是政府过度干预、高税收与监管造成的增长停滞。史蒂文森主张对超额存量财富征税以补贴劳动者，普里斯特利则认为资本高度流动，唯有提升经济自由度并激发创业创新，才能从根本上扭转经济颓势。疫情刺激与财富向顶层集中的机制 (13:22) 史蒂文森指出，新冠疫情引发了罕见规模的财富向上转移。英国在疫情期间积累了超1万亿英镑赤字（每位成年人约承担2万英镑），美国亦注入数万亿美元刺激。封锁政策限制了富人群体的非必要消费，底层家庭则被迫将救济金全额用于支付房租、食物和能源等生存开支。这些支出通过商业循环迅速流向资产所有者与企业股东，由于缺乏针对财富分配的调节机制，公共债务激增的同时，巨额流动性在金字塔顶端持续淤积，加速了阶层贫富分化。普里斯特利则从技术转型视角提出不同解释。他认为疫情推动了全球经济向数字化迁移，资本从传统线下商业街涌入科技领域。美国“七大科技巨头”（Magnificent Seven）市值从疫情前的约5万亿美元暴增至约17万亿美元，贡献了标普500指数约50%的涨幅。普里斯特利视技术迭代为现代社会的核心分水岭，认为融入数字生产力即可获益；史蒂文森反驳称，科技巨头带来的财富极度集中，普通工薪族即使转行科技也难以抵御高昂的基本生活成本。英美增长分歧与经济自由度评估 (30:39) 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）援引数据指出英美经济表现明显分化：2024年第四季度美国经济增长6%，英国仅为0.1%；美国人均GDP达8.2万美元，英国仅4.9万美元；自2018年以来美国生产力增长30%，而英国自2007年以来人均美元收入下降2%。普里斯特利据此强调经济自由度的重要性，指出高自由度国家贫困率普遍低于7%，而管制过度的国家贫困率常超30%；英国经济自由度得分已从2006年的82分降至疫情后的68分，同时政府支出占GDP比重升至45%。他认为英国推行的是伴随低效浪费与公共服务恶化的无效大政府模式。史蒂文森对此提出反驳。他指出美国在拜登政府任内同样推行了大规模赤字扩张，政府开支占比达GDP的45%，其亮眼增长实质由高额财政赤字支撑；相比之下，英国保守党政府实行了14年紧缩政策，严重削弱了国内消费力。史蒂文森强调，英国普通年轻人攒够购房首付的时间已从历史上的约3年拉长至约20年，内需萎缩才是经济停滞的根源，单纯鼓吹减少干预无视了分配失衡对实体经济的负面冲击。财富税构想与资本外流的现实博弈 (44:31) 在税收政策方面，史蒂文森主张对超1000万英镑净资产征收1%至3%的财富税，用于削减工薪阶层的所得税与国民保险负担。他以第七代威斯敏斯特公爵继承百亿英镑家族信托为例，指出该信托每10年仅缴纳6%的周期性税费（年化约0.6%），远低于普通劳动者高达40%至60%的所得税率，批评现行制度庇护世袭特权。他同时辩称，土地和房产等核心实体财富无法转移出境，无需过度担忧税收引发的产业外流。普里斯特利则强烈警告财富税带来的资本逃逸风险。他指出，标普500指数成分股中超过95%的价值已转为知识产权等无形资产（1970年代实物资产占75%），高净值人群与企业高度可移动。2024年英国已有约10,800名高净值人士离境（同比激增57%），相当于每45分钟流失一名百万富翁；由于英国前1%纳税人承担了约30%的个人所得税，废除“非本地居籍”（non-dom）规则等措施正在加速税务出逃。普里斯特利还说明，对未变现的纸面股权估值征税，在操作上极易打击早期创业投资，促使创始人外迁至迪拜或瑞士等低税地区。个人创业能动性与系统性阶级固化 (74:05) 面对工薪青年的困局，普里斯特利主张打破工业时代陈旧的教育范式，积极利用互联网展开自主创业。他援引全球数据称，约65%的超高净值人群属于白手起家，仅19%纯粹依靠继承；缺乏掌控感是青年心理健康恶化的根源，宣扬“没有富父母便无法成功”会扼杀个人能动性。巴特利特亦认为，传统学校忽视了数字平台和人工智能技能，未能教会年轻人在去中心化网络中寻找商业机会。史蒂文森对此提出激烈抨击，批评富豪阶层对连暖气费都难以承担的家庭兜售空洞的创业说辞。他指出，英国约有七分之一的适龄年轻男性处于非就业状态，且初创企业失败率高达90%，将系统性匮乏归咎于个人缺乏拼搏精神是对受害者的道德绑架。史蒂文森回顾历史指出，战后30年中产阶级的繁荣建立在对高财富阶层的高额税收与广泛再分配之上，属于历史特例而非资本主义常态；他呼吁年轻人正视分配恶化的现实，通过政治参与和公共发声推动制度层面的利益重构。本场辩论展现了当代西方经济治理在公平与效率层面的根本分歧：史蒂文森坚持宏观存量视角，警告财富过度集中将扼杀中产消费力并导致社会动荡，主张实施激进的再分配；普里斯特利则立足于全球要素流动与数字经济竞争，警告单边重税将逼退生产力与税基，主张通过降低管制和激发商业能动性做大经济总量。尽管双方一致认同社会流动性对国家繁荣至关重要，但在优先进行存量财富再平衡还是依靠增量技术创业破局的路径上，未能达成共识。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由知名商业播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 3 月 20 日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目以“关于经济复苏的谎言与即将到来的金融危机”为主题，邀请了前花旗银行顶尖交易员、《The Trading Game》作者 Gary Stevenson 与连环创业家兼畅销书作家 Daniel Priestley 展开深度经济辩论。 ## TL;DR 辩论聚焦于西方经济停滞、极端贫富差距与年轻一代财务安全崩溃的根源。Gary Stevenson 坚称当前体制已实质终结，疫情期间的印钞与资产通胀造成了人类历史上最大规模的财富向上逆流，唯有对千万英镑以上的超高净值群体征收财富税才能挽救中产阶级与公共设施；Daniel Priestley 则持自由市场立场，认为导致贫困的主因是大政府的低效臃肿、惩罚性高税收以及传统教育与 AI 时代的严重脱节，主张通过削减干预、提升经济自由度并借助数字化超级个体创业来打破阶层固化。双方在财富究竟属于“增量创造”还是“零和掠夺”、百万富翁大逃离的因果关系，以及系统性改革与个人能动性的权衡上爆发了极其激烈的交锋。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场对话火药味十足却极具知性深度，宛如一场在沉没边缘的“泰坦尼克号”头等舱内爆发的哲学与阶级激辩。Gary Stevenson 带着草根阶层的愤怒与洞悉金融内幕后的幻灭感，言辞犀利、情绪饱满，多次发出振聋发聩的道德质问；Daniel Priestley 则展现出理性务实的商业乐观主义，以数据和商业案例从容应对，试图在残酷现实中为个体点燃希望。主持人 Steven Bartlett 在两者之间精妙穿插亲身贫困经历与商业反思，整场辩论节奏紧凑、情感张力拉满，既有宏观经济学的冷酷剖析，又充满对底层命运的深切人文关怀。 ## Bulletin - [44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2672s) 财富集中与税基流失加剧：英国前 1% 人口贡献了全英近 30% 的个人所得税，但在废除非本地户籍（Non-Dom）制度及高税负驱动下，2024 年预计净流出 10,800 名百万富翁，导致税负转嫁给工薪阶层的风险显著上升。 - [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1054s) 住房代际断层严重：全英约 78% 的房产财富集中在 65 岁以上人群手中，全国存在 950 万套拥有闲置卧室的房屋，而房价已攀升至工薪族平均年薪的 10 倍以上，年轻人首付积攒周期长达数十年。 - [30:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1829s) 英美宏观差距走阔：疫情刺激推高核心资产价格，2024 年第四季度美国 GDP 增长达 6% 且人均达 82,000 美元；相较之下英国 GDP 增速仅 0.1%，人均收入自 2007 年以来以美元计缩水 2%。 - [01:17:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4657s) 劳动力市场与岗位颠覆：英国适龄劳动人口中高达 25% 处于无就业状态，11% 被判定健康状况过差无法工作，传统白领岗位正迅速遭受极简化、跨国外包与 AI 自动化的三重冲击。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=0s) 财富不平等是社会撕裂的根源：Gary Stevenson 认为当前的生活水平下滑并非底层不努力，而是顶层资产复合增长导致的财富垄断将普通工薪族彻底挤出了核心资产市场。 - [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) 二战后工薪中产繁荣是历史特例：普通工薪族依靠一份普通薪水即可购房养家的 70 年是两次世界大战摧毁旧财富后的罕见异常，人类历史常态往往是极少数超级富豪统治绝大多数赤贫阶层。 - [01:34:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5664s) 逆向财富再分配正在发生：Gary 指出当前现实是财富正从普通中产与政府部门大规模单向抽离并汇聚至极少数超级富豪手中，亟需政策遏制这种掠夺。 - [44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2672s) 富豪出逃与税负转嫁风险：Daniel Priestley 指出全英前 10% 人口承担了 60% 的个人税收，在苛刻税制下高净值人士的大规模出逃可能导致剩余普通纳税人承担成倍的公共开支账单。 - [48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2881s) 财富税可行性与未实现收益难题：双方就 1000 万英镑起征累进财富税展开激辩，Daniel 质疑未实现资产估值缺乏流动性且会扼杀投资，Gary 则坚持必须压低名义资产价格以让工薪族买得起房。 - [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2006s) 资产形态演变与属地征税失灵：标普 500 企业资产中无形资产占比已从 1970 年代的 25% 飙升至 90% 以上，数字资本与顶尖人才具备极高流动性，传统按地域征税机制面临技术性挑战。 - [01:17:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4657s) 技术对稳定白领饭碗的三步打击：技术先将工作流程极简化，继而向低成本国家跨国远程外包，最终由软件和 AI 彻底自动化替代，动摇中产阶级就业根基。 - [01:55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6911s) 现行教育体系脱节：公立教育仍在按工业革命流水线模式培养办公室白领技能并制造学生债务，Gary 批评不解决财富分配问题的教育改革无异于在沉没的“泰坦尼克号”上重新摆放甲板椅。 - [01:19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4781s) 个人能动性与幸存者偏差的边界：Steven Bartlett 指出创业领域九成面临失败，对不具备高风险承受力的大多数普通人而言，单纯灌输创业成功学并不具备普适解题意义。 - [01:40:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6027s) 拆分科技生态垄断的必要性：Daniel 主张拆分通过底层基础设施捆绑上层业务的科技巨头生态圈（如亚马逊、谷歌），防止既得利益集团利用壁垒绞杀颠覆性初创企业。 - [02:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8171s) 超越政党对抗与派系迷思：无论是左翼还是右翼民粹政客，若无法解决资产过度集中和中产购买力萎缩的问题均将走向失败，公众应以能否保住普通人住房与资产作为衡量政策的唯一标准。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=0s) 激辩开场：贫富差距与创业神话的交锋节目一开场便充斥着火药味十足的交锋。Gary Stevenson 情绪激动地直斥当前社会舆论的一种病态现象：“我受够了那些千万富翁跑去对连暖气都开不起的孩子们说：‘你只是需要更有创业精神。’这太病态了，Dan，这简直令人作呕！”Daniel Priestley 随即反唇相讥，指出 Gary 在视频里宣扬的“没有一个富爸爸你就完蛋了”的论调同样极具破坏力。Daniel 直言，如果自己在十九二十岁时接触到 Gary 的这种言论，整个人生就会被彻底击垮。Gary 则愤怒地反驳道，自己的朋友们现在甚至连给孩子买食物都成问题，“如果真有那么容易，为什么不是每个人都去创业发财？” 主持人 Steven Bartlett 介入定调，称今天的辩论虽然激烈，但对审视当下英国、美国乃至整个西方世界的经济现状至关重要。关于普通英美民众日益贫困的根本原因，双方各执一词：Daniel 认为贫困并非因为人们不懂得如何创造财富，而是源于日益庞大的政府规模、创纪录的高税负、落伍的学校教育体制，以及技术和远程工作带来的剧烈冲击；Gary 则针锋相对地坚称，民众生活水平急剧下滑的核心症结在于财富不平等的持续扩大——放任富人越变越富，就会将中产阶层和贫困阶层彻底挤出住房等核心资产市场，因此必须减轻辛苦工作人群的税负，对全球最富裕、最有权势的群体大幅加税。Daniel 对此予以反驳，指出如今每个月有上千名百万富翁逃离英国，导致税基缩减，最终反而让每年缴税 1 万英镑的普通人被迫去掏 2 万英镑，“这无异于自残”。双方在“如何避免下一代陷入贫困”的核心分歧上迅速拉开阵势。 - 辩论核心分歧：财富不平等导致的资产挤压 vs. 庞大政府、过度征税与滞后教育系统的抑制 - 英国资本外流现实：据 Daniel 提及，每月约有 1,000 名百万富翁离开英国，加剧了普通劳动者的税负转嫁风险 --- ### [01:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=88s) 主持人倡议与对话背景展开在正式切入正题前，主持人 Steven Bartlett 面对镜头分享了一组令人惊讶的数据：在长期收听该节目的听众中，有 53% 的人尚未点击订阅。他借此向观众发起诚挚呼吁，希望认同节目价值的观众顺手点击订阅，并郑重承诺团队将倾听反馈、邀请更多重磅嘉宾，持续提升节目品质。随后，Steven 正式将话题抛向对坐的两位嘉宾。鉴于 Daniel Priestley 此前已多次做客节目，Steven 选择首先深入了解 Gary Stevenson 的个人背景与底层逻辑，希望弄清楚这位写出畅销书《The Trading Game》（交易游戏）、拥有庞大 YouTube 影响力的前明星交易员，究竟经历了什么，才会如此执着地在当下为不平等议题奔走呼吁。 --- ### [02:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=124s) 少年天才与花旗交易台的危机洗礼 Gary Stevenson 缓缓道出自己的成长足迹。他出生于伦敦东区郊外的伊尔福德（Ilford），来自一个清贫的工人家庭，在铁路旁的一间狭小排屋里长大，童年时光大多是在街头踢球度过的。自幼展现出惊人数学校赋的他，凭借优异成绩考入顶尖学府伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）研读数学与经济学。在 Gary 眼中，LSE 本质上就是一个顶尖投行的“新兵训练营”。2008 年 6 月，年仅 21 岁的他顺利进入花旗银行（Citibank）伦敦分行，成为一名全职的短期利率交易员。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Gary Stevenson 从工人阶层到顶尖交易员的历程 accDescr: 展现 Gary 从清贫家庭成长，进入 LSE，经历 2008 年危机并成为顶级交易员的路径。 subgraph Early["底层成长与名校跳板"] A["出身清贫家庭 伦敦东区伊尔福德"] --> B["展现数学天赋 考入伦敦政治经济学院 (LSE)"] end subgraph WallStreet["投行生涯与危机爆发"] B --> C["2008年6月入职花旗银行 出任短期利率交易员 (21岁)"] C --> D["雷曼兄弟破产 信贷市场冻结与危机爆发"] end subgraph Peak["反向押注与巅峰套现"] D --> E["看穿零利率陷阱与复苏谎言 押注经济长期衰退与不平等加剧"] E --> F["2011年为花旗赚取超3500万美元 荣登全球最赚钱交易员榜首"] end ``` 入职仅三个月，华尔街雷曼兄弟危机彻底爆发，全球金融海啸呼啸而至。Gary 所在的短期利率交易台主要涉及短期贷款工具，在整个银行体系信贷冰封、人人无法借贷的至暗时刻，原本冷门低调的业务瞬间被推上风暴的最中心。年仅 21 岁的 Gary 目睹着身旁形形色色的疯狂交易员在危机中大赚特赚，但他真正关注的，却是金融危机发生后宏观经济走向的深层异动。 - 出生地：伦敦东郊伊尔福德（Ilford）的铁路旁排屋，典型的蓝领清贫背景 - 教育经历：伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）数学与经济学专业 - 入职时间：2008 年 6 月，以 21 岁之龄出任花旗银行短期利率交易员 --- ### [03:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=233s) 洞悉“长期低迷”：逆向押注成就全球最赚钱交易员 Gary 深入浅出地解释了利率交易的逻辑：当经济疲软时央行会降息刺激，而当经济过热、通胀高企时央行则会加息降温。2008 年金融海啸摧枯拉朽，全球央行一反常态，打破了过去以 0.25 个百分点微调的惯例，直接将基准利率从 5.5%、5.25% 粗暴地“断崖式腰斩”至 0% 到 0.5% 的极低区间。主流经济学家普遍坚信超常规降息必将带来经济的强劲“V 型复苏”，进而一致预测利率将在 2009 年回升；预测落空后，他们又押注 2010 年必将加息；到了 2011 年初，市场上身价数百万英镑的经济学者和资深交易员们再度笃定当年必定迎来加息周期。这一现象让年轻的 Gary 极为震撼：全球最顶尖的头脑拿着数百万英镑年薪预测经济，却年复一年地彻底错判。他敏锐地察觉到两个层面的现实：其一，整个社会对宏观经济底层逻辑的理解出现了巨大盲区；其二，如果全球最聪明的人都错了，只要自己能看透真相并做出反向押注，就能赚取天文数字的财富。2011 年，24 岁的 Gary 做出惊世决断——全面押注经济不仅不会复苏，反而会“陷入永久性的衰退与恶化”。这一坚决的看空押注让他当年为花旗银行狂揽超过 3500 万美元利润，一跃成为花旗全球最赚钱的王牌交易员。 - 降息拐点：2008 年全球央行打破每次调息 0.25% 的常规，直接将利率砍至零或 0.5% - 主流预测连续落空：2009、2010、2011 年华尔街精英连续三年误判利率会回升 - 战绩：2011 年（24 岁），Gary 逆向押注经济不会复苏，单年为花旗创造超过 3,500 万美元利润，登顶全球第一 --- ### [05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=354s) 告别华尔街：拒绝从文明崩塌中收割财富既然在交易体系中如鱼得水，为何选择决然离开花旗？Gary 给出了一个令主持人动容的答案：他在 2011 年乃至 2012 年确实靠押注“西方社会的逐步衰落与崩溃”赚得盆满钵满，但他骨子里不希望看到这种崩溃沦为现实，他想阻止它发生。面对 Steven 关于“崩溃究竟是指什么”的追问，Gary 谈到了全球不平等的直观呈现。Steven 提到自己在博茨瓦纳出生、在尼日利亚有家族血脉并在开普敦置有房产，深知那里的贫富差距有多么触目惊心。Gary 随即指出，英美发达国家普遍弥漫着一种极度危险的幼稚心态，以为南非、尼日利亚或印度那样大面积、触目惊心的赤贫现象绝不可能降临西方。“但这一定会在这里上演，这就是英国和美国的未来。”Gary 强调，自己绝非信口开河，因为过去 15 年来他一直在拿真金白银押注这一趋势，且事实证明他屡次料中。他如今四处疾呼，正是为了阻止自己的预言在祖国演变成残酷现实。 --- ### [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=441s) Daniel Priestley 的草根创业路与时代断层话题随后转回 Daniel Priestley。Daniel 坦陈自己同样出身于社会底层。他在澳大利亚一个失业率高达 24% 的衰败地区长大，身边同龄人能接触到的工作机会极为有限，几乎清一色局限于建筑施工、有害生物防治、餐饮接待与低端旅游业等体力活。14 岁起，Daniel 便在麦当劳打工，随后辗转于酒吧间和必胜客外卖车队。直到他偶然接触到商业与创业类书籍，才惊觉世界上有人可以依靠开创属于自己的事业赚取数百万财富，这成为他人生轨迹的关键转折点。经过多年打拼，Daniel 如今已构建起庞大的商业版图，旗下拥有或收购了 7 家企业，横跨快速扩张的 SaaS 软件公司（位列英国增速最快的企业之一）、品牌营销机构以及商业教育培训公司。谈及当下的西方世界，Daniel 坦言承认严重贫富悬殊的历史其实并不遥远——一个世纪前，英国甚至还有成群的童工在矿井拉煤、在海滩做刺骨的开蚝工作。他引用查尔斯·狄更斯在《双城记》开篇的名句：“这是最好的时代，这是最坏的时代。”Daniel 意味深长地表示，当下的英国已再次回到了这个两极分化的历史节点：对于一部分人而言，眼下是前所未有的黄金时代；但对另一部分人来说，这无疑是最艰难、最糟糕的至暗时刻。 - Daniel 出身背景：澳大利亚失业率高达 24% 的低收入地区，14 岁打工经历麦当劳、酒吧及必胜客配送员 - 商业版图：现拥有 7 家控股或参股公司，涵盖英国高增长软件（SaaS）公司、营销机构与教育培训业务 - 引用典故：狄更斯《双城记》名句“这是最好的时代，这是最坏的时代”，用以对照当前英国社会严重割裂的二元现实 ### [09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=550s) 经济崩溃的现实与经济自由度指数 Daniel Priestley 指出，当前的经济呈现出极端的两极分化态势。对于像他和主持人 Steven 这样拥有全球化、蓬勃发展业务的人而言，一切看似繁荣；但对绝大多数无法接触到数字化、高增长经济的普通人来说，生活完全无法产生共鸣，甚至正在崩塌。西方国家的能源账单飙升至历史最高水平，食品通胀居高不下，买房首付在过去只需要积攒 3 年，如今理论上需要 20 年才能攒够。这种困境背后存在一个国家发展可预测的轨迹，即“经济自由度指数”（Economic Freedom Index）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 经济自由度与贫困率的关系 accDescr: 展示高经济自由度通往普遍富裕，而低经济自由度与过度监管导致高贫困率。 subgraph HIGH["高经济自由度"] A["开放自由市场"] --> B["低创业与扩张门槛"] B --> C["极端贫困率 < 10% 广泛富裕"] end subgraph LOW["低经济自由度"] D["过度监管与高税收"] --> E["财富创造者出逃"] E --> F["极端贫困率可达 70% 社会民怨与内耗"] end ``` 根据该指数，经济自由度衡量个体进入自由市场的难易程度、创业和规模化扩张的阻力，以及政府对个人掌控生活的干预程度。经济自由度高的国家普遍富裕、贫困率低于 10%，而缺乏经济自由的国家贫困率可攀升至 70%。例如，印度沿着提升经济自由的路径发展，近期宣布几乎根除了极端贫困；英国过去也曾走过这条道路，贫困率大幅下降。 - **英国经济自由度下滑**：Daniel 刚来英国的 2006 年，英国在该指数上评分为 82/100，如今已跌落至 68/100。 - **危机的转折点**：2008 年全球金融危机后，政府介入接管，大幅推高债务、加税并引入海量监管；疫情暴发后，政府重蹈覆辙，导致经济自由度进一步被严重削弱。 ### [11:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=706s) 英美两国民怨的归咎差异：怪富人还是怪政府？随着经济自由度降低，贫困加剧，百万富翁与财富创造者选择出逃，困在死胡同工作或失业的民众陷入愤怒，开始寻找替罪羊。Daniel 分析指出，由于历史文化记忆的不同，英国与美国在“该怪谁”的问题上出现了截然相反的社会情绪。英国拥有深厚的地主阶级与贵族政治（landed gentry）历史，其文化记忆中的天然靶子就是“富人”（blame the rich），民众倾向于认为一切不公都是富人剥削造成的；而在美国，文化记忆根植于对政府集权的警惕与有限政府的追求。2023 年登顶全美榜首的乡村抗议歌曲《Rich Men North of Richmond》精准反映了美国工薪阶层的心声——歌词控诉华盛顿的政客根本不在乎劳动者，货币被肆意贬值，双手触碰的每样东西都要被课税，政府试图全面掌控人民的生活。因此，美国人的本能反应是“怪罪政府”（blame the government），呼吁缩减政府规模、成立“政府效率部”（Department of Government Efficiency），期盼有一记“破坏球”砸碎臃肿的政府体制；而英国人的本能则是“憎恨富人”。 ### [13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=802s) 疫情印钞大转移：一万亿英镑与天量财富向顶层流动前金融交易员 Gary Stevenson 随即从宏观资金流向切入，揭示了更为残酷的数学现实。作为前交易员，Gary 的看家本领就是“下注”。在疫情初期，各国政府推出天量财政刺激时，他就清楚地意识到，不平等的恶化将直接摧毁大众的生活水平。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 疫情期间财富单向转移循环 accDescr: 政府印钞补贴底层民众，底层因刚性生活开销将钱交给富人，富人消费受限积累巨额财富。 subgraph MONEY_FLOW["天量印钞转移过程"] G["政府通过巨额赤字印钞 (英国 1 万亿英镑 / 美国 14 万亿美元)"] P["工薪阶层与底层民众 获得救助补贴"] R["富人阶层与资产所有者 (房东、能源巨头、科技寡头)"] G -->|"财政直接发放"| P P -->|"支付账单、房租与房贷"| R R -.->|"封控导致消费被禁 资金沉淀并涌入资产市场"| R end ``` Gary 强调，自疫情暴发以来，英国政府的累计赤字达 1 万亿英镑（折合每位英国成年人背负约 2 万英镑），而美国更是印出了不可思议的 13 至 14 万亿美元。但令他震惊的是，在整个疫情初期，无论英国的保守党还是工党，美国的共和党还是民主党，抑或学术界、主流媒体和中央银行，居然**没有任何人公开质问**：“这几万亿甚至几十万亿的钱，最终会落进谁的口袋？谁会因此暴富数十万亿？” Gary 给出了自己的本质剖析： - **封控的经济本质**：封控实质上是“强行禁止了富人的日常消费”，并用政府印钞来替代富人的消费支出。 - **财富单向吸血**：政府把钱发给普通劳动者，劳动者为生存必须立刻把钱用来支付账单、房租和房贷；这些钱顺理成章流入房东和富人手中。富人因封锁无法消费娱乐，巨量资金在顶层迅速沉淀固化，完成了现代历史上规模最大的一次财富集中。 - **不可逆的后果**：如果把整个经济人为暂停两年，在此期间极度拉大贫富差距，那么当暂停键重新开启时，广大普通人的实际生活水平必然不可避免地断崖式下跌。 ### [15:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=943s) 数字经济红利与“科技七巨头”的财富吸附 Daniel 对此提出不同视角，他认为疫情并非单纯的资金流动，而是一场向数字化经济的全面大迁徙。在这场转型中，敏锐的投资人和创业者其实早已预见到了风口。从 Zoom 到微软，再到如今主导美股的“科技七巨头”（Magnificent 7），其总市值在疫情期间从 5 万亿美元一路狂飙至 17 万亿美元。当时整个社会的生活与工作形态被连根拔起：全体被迫远程办公，所有人都必须购买微软软件订阅，网站流量全部涌向亚马逊的 AWS 云服务，人们被迫学会网购而不再逛传统商业街（High Street）。与此同时，Shopify 店铺、YouTube 自媒体等线上创业项目迎来了爆发式增长。标普 500 指数近 50% 的涨幅几乎全部被这几家科技巨头包揽。Daniel 认为，科技正在撕裂人群：任何跨入传媒、科技、金融等在线数字领域的人，在疫情后普遍混得风生水起；而那些依赖传统实体经济的人则被彻底甩在身后。 ### [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1054s) 转向科技就能财务安全？英国住房“堵塞”真相面对 Daniel 的技术乐观论，Gary 尖锐地反问：“你真的认为一个普通的英国人、美国人或澳大利亚人，只要辞去手头工作转行干科技，就能相对轻松地实现财务安全——比如买得起房、养得起家吗？” Daniel 坦承这取决于对财务安全的定义，并承认当下房屋问题极其严重。他举例说，自己的父亲当年只花了 1.8 万澳元（当时折合不到 1 万英镑）就买下一套房产，如今该房产估值已超过 100 万澳元。而且这绝非英国独有，连挪威、瑞典等北欧高福利国家的房价涨幅也高达 600%。然而在英国本土，核心矛盾在于严重的“住房大堵车”（housing traffic jam）： - **卧室闲置与代际错配**：英国目前有高达 950 万套房屋拥有两间或以上的闲置卧室，绝大部分是空间宽敞的家庭住宅。 - **财富代际垄断**：全英国 78% 的房产财富牢牢掌握在婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）手中，年轻家庭在市场上根本找不到适合安家置业的可负担房源。 ### [18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1129s) 婴儿潮一代的房产与代际财富“大堵塞” 丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）分享了自己在万圣节带孩子去“不给糖就捣蛋”（Trick-or-treating）的观察：整条街上全都是宽敞的大户型独立家庭住宅，然而敲开门走出来的，几乎清一色是 65 岁以上的老人，屋里许多卧室常年空置。如今全美超过一半的经济财富掌握在婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）手中，他们在当年以极低的价格买下房产并持有至今，造成了严重的代际资产“交通大堵塞”。丹尼尔以自己的家庭为例指出，他的四位祖父母虽然生前都拥有房产，但最终却“两手空空地离世”，因为那些房产价值在暮年通过股权释放计划（Equity Release）、养老开销和临终关怀护理（End-of-life Care）被消耗殆尽。面对丹尼尔关于财富最终会流向护理机构或下一代的解释，加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）步步紧逼，质问房地产危机的核心到底是谁在承担债务、谁在享有信贷。丹尼尔指出，政府长期通过超低利率（0% 或 2%）大量注入债务，人为推高了房价；而加里则尖锐地反问：“如果普通英美家庭背负着 50 万英镑的债务，那么谁站在债务的另一端？普通家庭手握这 50 万的现金信贷吗？”丹尼尔澄清，房价被推高并不等于手里有现金，而是体现为房产净值（Equity），如今 78% 的住房财富集中在 65 岁以上人群手中。在超低利率政策下，原本只能借得起 20 万英镑贷款的人被推到了 30 万英镑的负债规模，直接将缺乏资产的年轻一代彻底挡在门外。 - **婴儿潮一代的财富集中度**：美国超过 50% 的经济财富由婴儿潮一代掌握；在英国，约 78% 的房产财富集中在 65 岁以上老人手中。 - **老年房产的资金流向**：巨额房产净值并未顺利变成子孙后代的启动资金，反而在养老体系、股权释放金融方案及医疗护理中被逐步稀释。 - **低利率的负面反馈**：政府长期的超低利率政策极大推高了资产估值，使普通家庭名义负债暴增，却未能转化为真实的流动性积累。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 代际房产财富与债务流动闭环 accDescr: 展示政府廉价债务如何推高婴儿潮一代房产估值，并最终将年轻一代排除在外的资产分配链条。 subgraph GovPolicy ["政策端刺激"] A["政府低利率与宽松信贷政策"] --> B["推高资产价格与债务总额"] end subgraph WealthLock ["资产端垄断"] B --> C["婴儿潮一代（65岁+） 占据78%住房资产净值"] C --> D["空巢大户型住宅流转停滞 形成代际资产大堵塞"] end subgraph Leakage ["资产消解与剥离"] C --> E["养老机构与临终关怀开销"] C --> F["金融机构反向抵押与股权释放"] end subgraph YoungGen ["年轻一代困局"] B --> G["高额贷款门槛与沉重负债"] D -.-> G G --> H["彻底失去财富积累可能"] end ``` --- ### [21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1290s) 零和博弈 vs 财富创造：交易员与企业家的世界观碰撞加里向在场的丹尼尔与主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）抛出了一个直击灵魂的问题：“我们三个都是千万富翁（Multi-millionaires），我们难道觉得普通英美年轻人注定一辈子无法拥有任何资产是合理的吗？”面对加里的质问，丹尼尔反驳称加里是用典型的“金融交易员思维”看待世界——认为经济是一个切蛋糕的“零和博弈”（Zero-sum game）。加里立刻用宏观数据回击：目前英国 GDP 增速仅有约 1%，但丹尼尔自己的财富过去一年却增长了 20% 到 30%，加里本人的财富增长更快；如果整个经济盘子只增长 1%，而富豪的财富年增 30%，这些增量财富如果不是从普通观众身上剥离出来的，又是从何而来？丹尼尔随即以科技创业者的视角进行辩护。他解释道，创业者的财富并不是从现有经济中抢夺既有份额，而是“无中生有”的财富创造：从脑海中构想出一个新产品，做成商业计划书向天使投资人募集几十万英镑的种子轮资金，在账面上将公司估值推至数百万；随后引入更多风险投资，比如出让 10% 股权换取 100 万英镑，公司账面估值随即达到 900 万英镑或美元。丹尼尔强调：“我没有从任何人手中偷走东西，我是把经济体之外的全新价值带入了这个体系。”他由此区分了两种截然不同的财富路径：金融交易员靠押注波动进行“财富榨取”（Wealth extraction），而企业家则靠创新与解决问题实现真正的“财富创造”（Wealth creation）。 - **经济增速与个人财富的背离**：英国宏观经济 GDP 年增速徘徊在 1% 左右，而顶层高净值人群的资产年化增幅却高达 20% 至 30% 甚至呈指数级扩张。 - **股权估值的造富逻辑**：初创企业依靠商业模式和风投资金注入实现账面资产跃升（如 10% 股权融资 100 万对应 900 万纸面估值），被丹尼尔视为增量价值创造。 - **两类造富机制的对立**： - **财富创造（Wealth Creation）**：企业家研发新技术、提供更优流程，做大整体经济蛋糕。 - **财富榨取（Wealth Extraction）**：金融衍生品与二级市场交易员通过下注博弈，在既有蛋糕中转移流动性。 --- ### [24:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1440s) 战后繁荣、高税率神话与膨胀的政府支出加里反问，难道广大普通老百姓越来越穷，仅仅是因为他们不懂得如何“创造财富”吗？丹尼尔否定了这种归咎于个人的说法，指出大众变穷的根本根源在于“经济自由（Economic Freedom）遭到了严重侵蚀”，特别是畸高的税负和繁复的行政监管。加里随即追问，20 世纪 50 年代西方工人的黄金期是否代表了更高的经济自由？丹尼尔梳理历史指出，50 年代是一个极其特殊的重建周期：英国直到 1956 年才彻底取消战争时期的配给制，二战导致三四十万男性丧生，劳动力严重短缺，妇女尚未大规模步入职场，全国面临被德军闪电战轰炸后的重建需求，失业率低至 2%，即便伤残退伍军人也全员上岗。那段时期的战后婴儿潮极大拉动了消费，并孕育了 60 年代喧嚣的文化与经济繁荣（The Swinging Sixties）。然而，丹尼尔警告称，到了 60 年代末政府大幅加税，最高边际所得税率一度飙升至 80% 到 90%，直接将经济带入了灾难性的停滞。两人在历史细节上发生了轻微争论，加里质疑极高税率究竟出现在 50 年代还是 60 年代。丹尼尔进一步点出当前体制与历史的核心差距在于政府规模的无限扩张：过去英国政府支出仅占 GDP 的 30% 左右，如今已经膨胀至 45%，而填补这庞大赤字开支的正是英格兰银行（Bank of England）无节制印钞印出的海量国债，这种印钞行为直接蚕食了普通人的购买力。 - **战后英国经济背景**：长达十年的食品配给（持续至 1956 年），伴随战后劳动力极度匮乏与战后重建红利，失业率仅维持在 2% 左右。 - **历史超高税率的影响**：战后最高阶梯税率曾攀升至 80%~90%，丹尼尔认为这直接遏制了资本活力并促成了后来的经济倒退。 - **政府财政体量失衡**：英国公共部门支出占整体经济的比重已从历史上的约 30% 飙升至目前的 45%，主要依靠央行支持的国债发行支撑。 --- ### [25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1558s) “资本主义已经结束，我们赢了”：加里的犀利反击看到两人争论愈发激烈且加里不断抛出质问，主持人史蒂文出面打断，要求加里直接阐述自己的核心论点，而不是只对丹尼尔步步紧逼。加里坦诚地回应道：丹尼尔是一位极其出色的企业家，而自己不是商人，是一名全职经济学家，自己的财富来自于过去 15 年对宏观经济走势的精准预判。他直言不讳地揭穿了体面叙事背后的残酷真相：大家身处的经济体系，本质上就是在以惊人的速度将中产阶级和工人阶级的财富疯狂抽干，并转移到像演播室桌前的三位千万富翁手中。加里随后发表了一段情绪极其激昂的独白，直击代际撕裂的痛点：“我们应该对公众坦白。资本主义已经结束了，我们赢了！干得漂亮史蒂文，干得漂亮丹尼尔，干得漂亮加里！一切都结束了。我们的孩子会大富大贵，而他们的孩子将一贫如洗。他们去缴纳沉重的税负，而我们这帮富人会合法避税。我年复一年靠押注这种贫富分化继续赚大钱——我们为什么还要对他们撒谎？” 面对加里宣称“资本主义已死”的悲观断言，丹尼尔反驳这是一种将复杂世界极度扁平化的过度简化视角。丹尼尔坚持认为，未来中位数工薪家庭的后代是否能过得更好，核心取决于社会是否能维持经济自由度。他指出，未来英美两国即将展开一场截然不同的制度“A/B 测试（Split Test）”：英国走向高税收、强监管的路线，而美国则可能迈向低税收、去监管的模式；而历史上如新加坡等保持高度经济自由的地区，始终在向世界证明增量繁荣的可能性。 - **加里的核心断言**：当前的资本主义分配机制已经不可逆地终结，社会流动性彻底锁死，顶层富豪的后代将恒久占有资产，中下层的财富正被系统性抽取。 - **税负承担的倒挂**：跨国资本与高净值精英拥有充足的避税工具，而失去资产壁垒的工薪大众则承担了维系国家机器运转的主要税收负担。 - **未来路线的 A/B 测试**：丹尼尔认为英美将呈现分化走势——英国偏向加税与规制，美国偏向减税与松绑，两者的经济自由度差异将决定各自工薪阶层的财富命运。 ### [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1663s) 小政府模式的争议与住房危机根源辩论围绕“小政府与经济自由是否能带来普遍富裕”展开。Daniel Priestley 举出新加坡、爱尔兰和瑞士作为典型案例，坚称小政府、低税收与轻监管能吸引大量企业进驻，从而创造广泛的财富。Gary Stevenson 随即辛辣反驳，指出新加坡表面繁荣的背后，是大量住在壁橱般逼仄隔间里的外籍清洁工，而官方统计数据刻意忽略了这部分真实人群。Daniel 则辩称这些人并非新加坡公民，且他们选择移民新加坡是为了摆脱母国更糟糕的环境以提升生活质量。当 Daniel 提到爱尔兰在 2011 年经济濒临崩溃后通过减税和减少监管实现复苏时，Gary 尖锐质问这是否造福了在都柏林买不起房的普通爱尔兰人。针对住房问题，两人虽然都对现状感到极度愤怒——如今房价已飙升至平均年薪的 10 倍以上——但在归咎原因上大相径庭。Daniel 认为祸根完全在于大政府与高税收：正是因为政府税收过高，才有底气借贷更多债务并以此推高通胀。Gary 反问，如果大幅缩减政府支出，普通人的生活条件是否真能改善。Daniel 坚称自由市场才是正途，英国政府占经济总量的 45% 显得过于臃肿；而 Gary 直言自己的亲妹妹甚至因高昂房租无法继续生活在出生的城市，普通工薪阶层的现实自由早已被高昂的生活成本彻底剥夺。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济自由与住房危机因果分歧 accDescr: 展示 Daniel Priestley 与 Gary Stevenson 对政府角色与生活成本危机的相反解释路径 subgraph Daniel["Daniel 的小政府观点"] D1["小政府、低监管与低税收"] --> D2["吸引跨国企业与高净值人才"] D2 --> D3["激发自由市场活力与财富增长"] D4["高税收引发过度借贷与通胀"] --> D5["导致房价暴涨与普通人买不起房"] end subgraph Gary["Gary 的社会分配观点"] G1["紧缩政策削减公共服务与基础设施"] --> G2["社会底层与工薪阶层承受生活重压"] G3["财富与房产高度集中于少数顶层"] --> G4["普通人买不起房、付不起房租，失去实质自由"] end ``` ### [30:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1829s) 美英经济差距：赤字扩张还是科技创新？主持人 Steven Bartlett 抛出一组详实的研究数据，对比了英美两国在经济表现上的巨大落差，引发了关于两国发展模式的核心辩论： - **GDP 增速**：2024 年第四季度，美国经济实现了 6% 的增长，而英国仅为 0.1%。 - **人均 GDP**：美国达到人均 82,000 美元，英国仅为 49,000 美元。 - **股市表现**：美国股市涨幅高达 300%，而英国富时 100 指数（FTSE 100）以美元计价甚至下跌了 20%。 - **生产率提升**：自 2018 年以来，美国生产率增长了 30%，远超英国。 - **人均收入变化**：自 2007 年以来，美国人均收入以美元计算增长了 72%，而英国却缩水了 2%。面对这组悬殊的数据，Gary 提出了颠覆直觉的看法。他指出，公众普遍认为美国代表小政府和自由市场，但过去几年拜登政府大举增加财政赤字，美国公共支出规模达到经济的 45%；反观英国，保守党政府推行了整整 14 年的“财政紧缩（Austerity）”，结果却是大规模扩大赤字的美国在各项经济指标上全面碾压了严酷削减公共开支的英国。 Daniel 对此坚决反驳，认为英国保守党政府是“挂羊头卖狗肉的虚假紧缩”，国家开支占 GDP 比重不降反升，从 30% 膨胀到了 45%。针对 Gary 质疑警政支出遭削减的质问，Daniel 猛烈抨击体制内的贪腐与低效：被砍掉的基层资金根本没有用在刀刃上，反而流入了大型跨国咨询公司（Management Consulting）。这些咨询巨头犹如附着在政府身上的“吸血鬼”，动辄收取 5000 万美元来撰写一份无关痛痒的报告。 ### [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2006s) 远程办公、人才外流与科技霸权的缺失 Daniel 进一步剖析了导致英国普通人陷入困境的深层结构性原因。疫情以来远程办公成为常态，大量原属于英国本土的常规工作岗位正加速外包至菲律宾、印度和越南等低成本国家。与此同时，英国高净值人群正以惊人速度流失——目前每月有多达 1000 名百万富翁迁往迪拜，定居迪拜的英国人总数已达 12 万人。 Daniel 警告，这是一场由技术驱动的全球重组：美国凭借硅谷等科技生态牢牢掌握了科技话语权，与中国并驾齐驱；而英国和欧洲的科技行业则陷入严重衰退。伴随高税负导致的优秀创业者离去，税收重担进一步转移到普通工薪族身上，迫使政府继续加税，进而引发更恶性的资本与人才出逃死循环。 ### [34:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2098s) 削减开支与亿万富翁税收之争：威斯敏斯特公爵信托案例当 Daniel 再次主张必须缩小政府规模时，Gary 连环追问到底打算砍掉什么：“儿童福利？警察？教育？NHS 全民医疗？养老金？还是单亲妈妈或残障津贴？”Gary 强调，自己绝不支持削减这些公共命脉，解决问题的唯一出路是降低工薪阶层税负，并向超级富豪开刀。两人的辩论随即在税收公平性上爆发激烈交锋。Gary 以切身经历痛陈：作为出身贫寒的交易员，他拼尽全力带领家人摆脱贫困，期间需要缴纳最高达 50% 的所得税外加国民保险（National Insurance），综合边际税率高达 60%；然而，坐拥格罗夫纳地产（Grosvenor Estate）的第七代威斯敏斯特公爵（Duke of Westminster）继承了高达 100 亿英镑的巨额财富，却几乎不用缴纳遗产税。 - **信托避税争议**：Daniel 反驳称公爵并非不交税，由于其财产属于信托基金，而信托本身不会“死亡”，因此不适用一次性征收 40% 的普通遗产税，而是每 10 年缴纳一次 6% 的定期税（Periodic Charge）。 - **税率算术对抗**：Gary 立即指出，每 10 年 6% 相当于每年仅承担 0.6% 的有效税率，这与自己年复一年缴纳的 60% 劳动所得税相比，税负相差了近百倍。 - **不同税种的混淆**：Daniel 强调这是在“拿苹果比橘子”，信托资产存续 70 年累计缴纳的定期税可达 42%，实际甚至超过了 40% 的标准遗产税；此外公爵在日常生活中如果提取收益，同样需要交纳高额个人所得税、公司税以及购买房产时的印花税（Stamp Duty）。但 Gary 始终咬定核心矛盾：靠劳动拼搏的人每年被抽走大半收入，而依靠庞大世袭信托资本生活的人所承受的财富流失比例却微乎其微。 ### [37:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2234s) 继承与所得之争：富二代与普通打工人的税收鸿沟两人围绕英国顶级财富继承人（以威斯敏斯特公爵为例）的税负展开激烈交锋。Daniel 强调，即便身份显贵如公爵，只要在英国境内消费或支取收入，同样需承担增值税（VAT）及所有标准税项。针对信托架构，Daniel 澄清信托并非完全免税，而是每隔十年需缴纳约 0.6% 的周期性税收（Periodic Charge），而非一次性缴纳全额遗产税，且公爵本人长期名列英国纳税最多、雇佣员工最多且拥有土地最多的顶级富豪之一。Gary 则对此嗤之以鼻，尖锐指出普通劳动者若凭打拼赚得 1000 万英镑，边际税率高达近 60%；而富豪子弟继承 100 亿英镑巨额财富，却几乎不用为本金交纳像样的税赋。 Daniel 试图区分“劳动所得”与“财产代际转移”，认为将两者的税率混为一谈并不合理。Gary 情绪激动地打断并质问：“凭什么我辛苦工作挣钱要交 60% 的税，别人平白继承 100 亿却分文不纳？”他嘲讽这种制度的终局必然是“巨富的子孙拥有一切”，富人阶层的孩子锦衣玉食，而普通大众连给孩子买食物、交暖气费都捉襟见肘。Gary 甚至自嘲地说，作为金融交易员，这种畸形体制反倒最适合他去市场做空套利，“这对我们来说太好了，但倒霉的是屏幕前所有贫穷的普通观众”。 - 威斯敏斯特公爵信托结构适用 0.6% 的周期性税费，而非一次性标准的 40% 遗产税。 - 英国最高边际所得税率约 45%（算上失去个人免税额与国民保险后综合边际税率可达约 60%）。 - 争论焦点：代际资产转移（Inheritance）是否应当等同于收入（Income）予以课重税。 --- ### [39:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2361s) 无形资产时代与资本全球流动性困境面对 Gary 的抨击，Daniel 提出转向更具现实操作性的问题——当今财富的本质形态早已发生颠覆性变化。他指出标普 500 指数（S&P 500）的资产结构演进说明了一切：在 20 世纪 70 年代，标普 500 成分股价值的 75% 属于土地、厂房等实体有形资产；而如今，实体资产占比已缩减至 10% 以下，甚至接近 5%，超过 90% 以上的驱动引擎是软件、算法、专利和品牌等数字化与无形资产（Intangible Assets）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Asset Composition Shift accDescr: Shift in S&P 500 company assets from tangible assets in the 1970s to intangible assets today. subgraph 1970s["1970年代标普500市值分布"] A1["实体/有形资产 约 75%"] B1["无形资产 约 25%"] end subgraph 2020s["当代标普500市值分布"] A2["实体/有形资产 低于 10%（约 5%）"] B2["数字/无形资产 高达 90%~95%"] end 1970s ==>|数字化演进与全球化| 2020s ``` Daniel 进一步论证，这种无形化意味着当今创造主要财富的科技企业与富豪具备极致的全球流动性（Mobile），他们可以轻易把服务器、知识产权与居住地迁往全球任何角落。如果英国贸然对顶级富豪开征看似温和的“1% 财富税”，哪怕只有极小比例的资本持有者因此连夜出逃，整个国家的公共财政都会陷入崩溃境地。 - 1970 年代标普 500 企业资产：约 75% 为土地、厂房等有形资产。 - 现今标普 500 企业资产：有形资产不足 10%（逼近 5%），95% 为无形资产。 - 资本形态从“绑定土地”转向“云端流动”，导致单纯针对富豪存量财富征税的行政壁垒与资本外逃风险成倍上升。 --- ### [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2464s) 跨国巨头的利润转移把戏与属地征税争议 Gary 反驳称富豪的财富源于其持有的跨国公司，而这些公司的天价估值建立在从终端消费者那里赚取的真金白银之上。以 Daniel 自己拥有 8,000 名客户遍布 150 个国家的公司为例，其最大收入来源仍是美国等具体市场。Gary 提出核心论点：无论资本家跑到开曼群岛还是世界尽头，主权国家都可以、也应当直接在消费发生的终端（销售发生地）对其营收或按真实市场划分的利润强行征税。 Daniel 澄清，向终端销售征税在本质上属于消费税，这类成本绝大多数最终都会转嫁给普通消费者，并非对富豪所有权的直接财富税。但 Daniel 坦承自己同样极度厌恶跨国巨头的税收筹划游戏：英国企业在 Facebook 上投放广告卖英国产品给本地人，Facebook 却把交易记账在爱尔兰；英国消费者从本地仓库买由本地商户供应的 Amazon 商品，Amazon 却利用卢森堡子公司避税；甚至星巴克（Starbucks）在英国大量盈利，却通过向低税区母公司支付高昂的商标授权费（Licensing Deals）将账面利润清零。Daniel 愤怒地感慨，英国税务海关总署如今全力盘查在 eBay 上卖闲置二手货、在社交媒体搞点副业谋生的小老百姓，却对这种庞然大物的“利润转移”（Profit Shifting）视若无睹。然而 Daniel 警告，若因噎废食树立起“惩罚资产超过 1000 万英镑富人”的极端敌视财富形象，不仅治不好避税痼疾，更会导致本土年轻创业者在面对初创企业成长、融资和被收购套现时遭遇税负围剿，从而迫使整个创新生态连根拔起转移到海外。 - 跨国巨头典型避税路径：通过爱尔兰、卢森堡等低税区设立无形资产授权公司，将营运利润借由版税与许可费转移清零。 - 政府执法失衡：对在 eBay、Facebook 经营小微副业的普通家庭严格追缴税款，对科技巨头系统性避税束手无策。 - 财富惩罚效应：过激的财富税会向青年创业者传递“一旦做大做强即遭剥夺”的负面信号。 --- ### [44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2672s) 百万富翁“大逃离”：经济衰退还是非居民税制（Non-Dom）终结？主持人 Steven Bartlett 适时介入辩论，引入了一组震撼的权威统计图表：英国当前正面临全球最严重的“百万富翁大逃离”（Millionaire Exodus）。官方与研究机构数据显示，在 2024 年，预计有高达 10,800 名高净值人士（HNWIs）净流出英国，同比暴增 57%，相当于每隔 45 分钟就有一名百万富翁收拾行囊离开。损失这批财富创造者，在财政贡献上等同于失去了 53 万名普通纳税人所缴纳的税金总和。Steven 补充称，极高收入群体对税收支撑巨大——美国前 10% 的高收入人群贡献了近一半的消费支出；而在英国，仅占 1% 的最高收入群体预计在 2024 至 2025 年度承担全英近 30% 的个人所得税总额。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Perspectives on UK Millionaire Exodus accDescr: Diverging views of Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley on why millionaires are fleeing the UK. Exodus["2024年英国百万富翁大逃离 • 净流失 10,800 名富豪 • 每 45 分钟流失 1 人 • 相当于流失 53 万名普通纳税人"] Exodus --> GaryView["Gary 的诊断：内需崩溃 英国底层与家庭消费力遭摧毁 企业失去有购买力的本土市场"] Exodus --> DanView["Daniel 的诊断：税制变动 废除 Non-Dom（非本地户籍）制度 对全球离岸资产实施普遍征税与长臂管辖"] ``` 关于这些富人为何仓皇出逃，两人给出了完全对立的诊断。Gary 坚持认为这绝不是因为英国对财富征税，因为英国至今根本没有开征真正的财产税；富人逃跑的真正根源是“英国经济与消费者的极端羸弱”——中产与底层家庭的购买力被长期压榨见底，连温饱与暖气费都要精打细算，市场极度贫瘠萎缩，投资人与企业在这里根本赚不到钱。 Daniel 则针锋相对地指出，这一出逃峰值精确对应着英国政策的巨变——英国废除了延续数百年的“非本土居籍”（Non-Dom）税制。在原体系下，旅居英国的非居民身份高净值人士仅需对其在英国境内赚取的收入缴税，其海外商业帝国与跨国资产受到保护，且在英国辞世时也仅对在英资产征收遗产税。而随着 Non-Dom 废止，只要被认定为英国税务居民，其在全球的资产与收入都将被英国政府实施长臂管辖与全球性追税，甚至在印度等国外的继承财产也将面临高达 40% 的英国遗产税，这种致命的规则突变才是迫使富豪集体出走的直接导火索。 - 2024 年英国高净值人士净流出：约 10,800 人（增幅达 57%），折算流速为每 45 分钟离开 1 人。 - 税收杠杆失衡：英国顶层 1% 纳税人贡献了全国个人所得税总额的近 30%。 - 制度催化剂：英国废除 Non-Dom（非本土居籍）特殊税制，从“仅按境内资产征税”转变为“对全球资产与继承征税”。 ### [46:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2779s) 富人外流之辩：餐桌账单比喻与全球征税的博弈丹尼尔·普里斯利（Daniel Priestley）直指英国税制改革带来的严重后果：当政府宣布要对富人在全球范围内的所有资产征收高达 40% 的遗产税或资本利得税时，全英国的财富管理经理立刻向所有客户发出警告，劝他们“必须马上离开”。丹尼尔指出，目前每月正有上千名富人逃离英国。在英国的税收结构中，前 1% 的人口承担了全英 30% 的税收，而前 10% 的人则承担了 60%。为了生动展现这种冲击，丹尼尔打了个生动的比方：假设 10 个人出去吃晚饭，其中一个人主动站出来承担了整桌 60% 的账单，其他 9 个人却指责他应该承担 70% 甚至 80%；结果这个人负气离席，剩下的 9 个人分摊的账单立刻翻倍。丹尼尔警告，驱逐百万富翁将直接导致普通纳税人的负担加重——原本每年缴 1 万英镑税款的普通老百姓，未来可能被迫缴 2 万英镑。加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）随即进行了犀利的反驳。他认为丹尼尔的比喻完全颠倒了事实：现实根本不是那个富人主动付了 60% 的账，而是那个富人当初加入饭局的前提条件就是“自己一分钱都不用出”（即过去的非定居者 Non-Dom 规则，不对海外所得征税）。加里讽刺道，这些富人之所以离开，是因为英国终于开始要求他们交税了，这就像某人吃完饭后不仅拒绝付钱，还辩解“凭什么要我替其他餐馆的事情买单”。加里进一步指出，富人们纷纷跑去迪拜，正是因为迪拜没有所得税；然而，这些富豪的巨额利润本质上依然来自西方市场，他们一边从西方疯狂敛财，一边看着本土普通家庭连买房和养育后代的起码开销都负担不起。 - **英国税收集中度**：全英前 1% 的高收入人群贡献了 30% 的税收，前 10% 贡献了 60% 的税收。 - **富人外流速度**：据丹尼尔所述，新规出台后每月约有 1,000 名富豪离开英国。 - **避税核心争议**：加里坚称非定居者（Non-Dom）以前凭借政策漏洞在英国生活却不对全球财富缴税，离开只是为了继续保住免税特权。 --- ### [48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2881s) 利润转移与“做艰难的事”：加里·史蒂文森的贫困警示与道德呼吁在讨论如何向跨国资本征税时，两人的争论迅速升级。加里提出应当在“销售发生地（Point of Sale）”对跨国公司的利润征税。丹尼尔当即反驳称在销售端收税本质上是消费税，而企业利润是通过复杂的跨国数字网络流动的——企业可以轻易把数据库租赁给卢森堡子公司，或者将品牌 Logo 的授权费转移到低税区，实现利润转移（Profit Shifting）。面对这种技术性推脱，加里愤怒地打断并驳斥：“听着，这帮人又不是甘道夫，不会什么魔法！”他指出，阻止利润转移完全取决于政治意愿，中国不接受利润转移，50 年前的西方国家也不接受，今天英国同样可以依法拒绝。加里痛斥当下的政治阶层与媒体精英自己本身就是极端富裕群体，所以整天对外宣称“向富人征税是根本不可能的”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 利润转移运作与规避路径 accDescr: 展示跨国企业如何通过在低税区设立壳公司和授权知识产权，将本地利润转移出去的结构图。 subgraph HighTax["英国市场 (高税区)"] Customers["本土客户与销售收入"] --> Operations["本地运营实体"] Operations -. 缴纳微薄税款.-> UKGov["英国税务海关总署 (HMRC)"] end subgraph LowTax["离岸/低税辖区 (如卢森堡/迪拜)"] IPHolding["母公司/知识产权持有公司"] Database["核心数据库与服务器租赁"] BrandLogo["品牌与商标特许授权"] end Operations -- "高额软件租赁与技术费" --> Database Operations -- "巨额品牌特许权使用费" --> BrandLogo BrandLogo --> IPHolding Database --> IPHolding ``` 加里随后发表了一段极具感染力的自白。他坦承向富人征税确实极其艰难：“我今天坐在这里，并不是因为向富人征税容易。我知道这很难，甚至我知道我大概率会输，我知道屏幕前观众的孩子们未来可能会生活在绝望的贫困之中。”加里直言，自己作为身家数百万的富翁，完全有资本去菲律宾喝着椰林飘香（Piña Colada）度假，但他之所以选择回到聚光灯下抗争，是因为他出身贫寒，不忍看到工薪阶层的后代重蹈覆辙。他回顾了祖辈的斗争历史：老一辈人面对极度贫困时，并没有因为“太难改变”而放弃，而是团结起来抗争，争取到了国民医疗服务（NHS）、普及教育、住房与基本食物保障。加里强调，保护一个国家的底线往往需要去做那些艰难却必要的事，绝不能任由极少数超级富豪在穷奢极欲中侵吞一切社会资源。 > “听着，这帮人又不是甘道夫（These guys are not Gandalf）……有时候我们必须去做一些事情，不是因为它们容易，而是因为它们艰难。这才是让一个富裕国家真正富有的原因，这才是保护普通人的方式。” —— 加里·史蒂文森 --- ### [50:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3034s) 远程办公时代与跨国逃避：企业主的撤离手段与未实现收益估值之争丹尼尔表示，他完全理解加里的同理心和对问题的关切，但在解决方案上存在根本分歧。丹尼尔指出，2020 年新冠疫情改变了全球经济模式，向所有人证明了远程办公（Remote Working）的可行性，这也成为了向富人征税的最大阻碍。在祖父母的时代，企业老板和工厂实体必须扎根在英国本土；但在今天，一家健身房的教练在本土带课，健身房老板可能远在海外，餐厅的幕后老板也完全可以旅居他国。资本和创业者具有极高的流动性，而消费者与市场虽然留在本土，但硬性征税只会迫使企业剥离资产或撤出服务。主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后向丹尼尔提问：作为一个身家超过 1000 万英镑的企业家，如果政府真要对 1000 万英镑以上的财富开征富人税，他具体会采取什么手段来规避？丹尼尔毫无保留地列出了实际操作流程： - **公司架构迁移**：直接通过董事会决议，将公司总部及核心知识产权（IP）转移至海外低税管辖区。 - **人身与税务脱钩**：举家搬迁出国，一周内即可在异国租下一间 WeWork 办公室，并通过 Airbnb 解决住宿，彻底切断与英国的税务居民联系。 - **业务规避重组**：若某国税收政策变得过于苛刻，直接设立第二家海外公司来沉淀核心财富，甚至暂停在该地区的直接营运。丹尼尔接着以加里本人的商业案例发起反击。他指出加里的 YouTube 频道订阅量已激增至 82 万，增长极其迅猛。咨询公司的分析师完全可以将其估值推算为一家价值 1100 万英镑的高成长媒体公司。丹尼尔以此质问加里：“如果你被认定身家超过 1000 万，是不是意味着你每年要多缴 10 万英镑的税？”加里澄清富人税是边际累进税（Marginal Tax），超出 1000 万的部分（即 100 万）按 1% 征收只需缴 1 万英镑，并嘲讽丹尼尔不懂税法基本常识。丹尼尔则进一步抛出核心技术难题：究竟由谁来定义“财富”的价值？所谓账面财富，本质上大部分只是未实现收益（Unrealized Gains）——有人花 2 万英镑买的房子涨到 20 万英镑，房子还是那套房子，并未变成现金；初创公司拿到一笔种子轮天使投资，估值在纸面上暴涨，但创始人根本没有支配这笔钱的现金流。丹尼尔警告，一旦推行富人税，不仅会导致投资者因政策劣势而拒绝投资英国资产，还会促使所有企业主疯狂玩弄“闪转腾挪（ducking and weaving）”的账目游戏，最终适得其反。 ### [55:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3320s) 经济自由度与财富税的现实算计关于如何对富人的未实现收益征税，辩论双方陷入了激烈的博弈。Gary Stevenson 承认追缴未实现收益在实操上极度困难，富豪身边环绕着全球顶尖的会计师团队，但他质问是否有更直接有效的解决方案。Daniel Priestley 随即拿出“经济自由度指数”（Economic Freedom Index）图表作为回应。Daniel 指出，经济自由度最高的国家，贫困率普遍低于 10% 甚至低于 7%；而一旦政府干预并削弱经济自由，贫困率便会陡增至 30% 甚至更高。在他看来，繁荣的关键在于减少政府对个人决策的阻碍，让民众自由支配自己的生活与资产。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济自由度与财富税立场对比 accDescr: 展示 Daniel 与 Gary 在税收政策、政府支出及经济自由度上的核心分歧 subgraph Daniel["Daniel Priestley 的自由市场主张"] D1["提高经济自由度"] --> D2["放宽政府干预 / 激发企业活力"] D2 --> D3["贫困率降至 7% 以下"] D4["财富税 1% 仅得 200 亿英镑"] -.-> D5["不足政府一周开支 (年支出 1.2 万亿)"] end subgraph Gary["Gary Stevenson 的再分配主张"] G1["对超级富豪征收累进财富税 (3%~6%)"] --> G2["迫使富豪出售资产"] G2 --> G3["筹集数百亿资金并削减劳动者所得税"] G3 --> G4["普通人重获购房与积累资产的能力"] end ``` Gary 针锋相对地反驳，指责 Daniel 的逻辑本质上是在主张为“坐在桌前的三位千万富豪”减税，并讽刺这种做法根本无法帮普通家庭养活孩子。Daniel 举出一个现实案例：某家公司原本准备给员工加薪，却因为政府上调国民保险税（National Insurance）而被迫作罢——国民保险本质上就是对就业征税。Gary 对此表示赞同，强调自己的诉求恰恰是削减普通打工人的就业与收入税，转而向超级富豪开刀。Daniel 则给出了一笔“草稿纸上的粗略算计”：即便对 1000 万英镑以上的财富征收 1% 的财富税，且假设富豪完全不逃离、心甘情愿纳税，英国政府最多也只能拿到 200 亿英镑，而英国政府一年的开支高达 1.2 万亿英镑，这笔税收连政府一周的花销都支撑不起。 - **经济自由度与贫困率**：自由度最高的国家贫困率低于 7%–10%，自由度受限的国家贫困率会激增到 30% 以上。 - **政府财政开支体量**：英国政府目前年开支已达 1.2 万亿英镑。 - **1% 财富税试算**：针对 1000 万英镑以上资产征收 1% 财富税，乐观预估仅能带来约 200 亿英镑税收；平摊到每位普通纳税人身上，每年仅能减税约 250 英镑。 --- ### [57:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3433s) 财富流向何方？万亿资产与失去的房产面对 200 亿英镑杯水车薪的质疑，Gary 主张应当采取更大胆的税率：将税率提高到 3%，筹集 600 亿英镑，甚至像二战时期那样将税率提升到 5% 或 6%。他强调，正是战后那种极端的再分配政策，才让普通工薪阶层（比如他的父亲）买得起住房。Daniel 反驳称普通人当年能买得起房并非因为税收，而是因为英国政府曾把持有的公营住房打包低价出售给个人，但这种“将公共财富转移给婴儿潮一代”的红利一辈子只能发生一次。随后两人爆发了关于“当代财富究竟流向了谁”的激烈交锋。Gary 步步紧逼质问：“如果普通中产正在失去住房和财富，而政府资产也在崩溃，那究竟是谁拿走了所有的钱？财富到底去了哪里？”Daniel 指出，自新冠疫情爆发以来，全球最大体量的财富激增主要流向了掌控核心技术的少数巨头——仅美国排名前七的科技巨头（Magnificent Seven），市值就暴涨了 11 万亿美元。Gary 坚持认为必须对这些亿万富翁征收重税，迫使他们抛售资产，资产价格下跌后普通英国人才能重新买得起房子；而 Daniel 则提醒，这些科技巨头的股东和企业都在美国，对他们征税并不能直接充盈英国国库。Gary 则辩称，只要美国通过征税让美国消费者手里有钱，英国就能增加对美出口，同时也能为英国本土效仿“向超级富豪征税”提供范例。 - **二战时期的历史参照**：Gary 提及战后英国曾通过激进的高额财富税压低资产价格，创造了中产阶层拥有住房的黄金时代。 - **公屋出售红利**：Daniel 指出昔日中产购房潮源于撒切尔时期的“购买权”（Right to Buy）政策出售公有资产，具有不可复制性。 - **巨头增值规模**：疫情以来，美国前七大科技公司的市值增量高达 11 万亿美元。 --- ### [58:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3531s) 为什么英国造不出自己的科技巨头与 AI 独角兽？主持人 Steven Bartlett 介入了两人的争论，将视角拉向更宏观的产业竞争力。Steven 困惑地发问：与其纠结于如何向美国的七大巨头征税，为什么英国不能在本土孵化出哪怕一家同等量级的科技巨头？特别是在人工智能革命席卷全球的当下，从自动驾驶到播客制作等一切知识型工作都在被颠覆。Steven 甚至现场提到，目前市面上已经出现完全由 AI 模仿他声音撰写并播报的播客，在 Apple 播客获得了 4.6 星的高评分，而这项技术背后捕获全部商业价值的，正是美国公司 ElevenLabs 和 OpenAI。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 英国科技创新面临的困境链条 accDescr: 展示英国科技公司在资本、人才流失以及消费市场萎缩等方面的负反馈 A["英国初创团队 / 技术苗子"] --> B["本土缺乏深厚资本与风险投资"] B --> C["人才与企业外流 (直奔旧金山 / 硅谷)"] C --> D["估值暴涨但在海外产生税收与经济价值"] D --> E["英国本土沦为纯消费国与技术输入地"] ``` Steven 担忧英国如果无法建立对创业者友好的环境，最终在科技版图上将沦为彻底的边缘角色。他以自己曾经意向投资的一家名为 Fixer 的英国本土 AI 公司为例：几位来自伦敦、年仅 25 岁的年轻创始人在英国四处碰壁，最终只能远赴旧金山，迅速以 6000 万美元的估值完成融资。旧金山整栋大楼里挤满了源源不断输送知识与资本的创业生态，这是英国完全缺失的。Gary 则指出，健康的商业环境不仅需要创业土壤，更需要底层大众有可支配收入来消费；当英国绝大多数人月底连账单都付不起时，内需根本无从谈起。不过 Steven 反驳称，现代科技公司生来就是全球化运营的，OpenAI 面向全球用户收取每月 20 至 30 美元的订阅费，并不依赖任何单一本土市场的购买力。 - **AI 对行业的颠覆实例**：Steven 提到市场上已出现克隆其音色制作的 AI 播客，在 Apple 平台获得 4.6 星评分，底层依托 ElevenLabs 和 OpenAI 等美国公司的技术支持。 - **初创公司出海案例（Fixer）**：几位 25 岁的伦敦青年在英国本土难以获取资金，转战旧金山后迅速获得 6000 万美元估值融资。 - **高技术产业的马太效应**：AI 产业属于极低用工量、极高资本密集的产业模型，全球范围内除了美国旧金山和中国个别中心城市依靠国家资本主义形成集群外，德国、法国、澳大利亚、日本等发达国家均未诞生对标 ChatGPT 的底层大模型。 --- ### [01:01:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3704s) 押注 AI 还是修补基本盘？当被 Steven 问及“如果你是英国首相会怎么做”时，Gary 给出了极为务实且略带怀疑的回答。他直言，政客高喊“大举投资 AI”很容易赢得掌声和选票，但伦敦试图在底层 AI 领域与旧金山正面抗衡极大概率会以失败告终。回顾 1980 年代日本在微电子领域的崛起路径，资本密集且先发优势极强的先导产业往往具有极强的排他性，而且大模型本身绝不可能成为解决大规模就业的灵丹妙药。 Gary 主张英国政府应回归最基本的民生痛点：“我们国家的房屋资产正在彻底老化坍塌，我们应该先看看英国普通人真正需要什么。”Steven 则纠正道，讨论 AI 本质上是在讨论现代底层科技基础设施，即便是播客制作从剪辑、脚本文案到转录，乃至 YouTube 平台本身，全都在全面 AI 化，英国不能放弃科技产业的构建。辩论最终再次回到了制度层面：Gary 强调，要激活创新与企业活力，首先应当对真正从事生产劳动、创造财富的人大幅减税，而不是任由不劳而获的食利阶层坐享其成；而面对 Daniel 追问“那针对那些创办企业的人呢”，Gary 明确回应：“对于创立公司的人，同样应该减轻他们的税收负担。” ### [01:03:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3807s) 创业估值、资产套现与财富税的争论讨论聚焦于如何对高估值企业及其创始人课税。Gary Stevenson 抛出质问：如果政府对初创期企业给予低税率优待，但当公司估值达到 2000 万、3000 万甚至 5000 万英镑时开始征税，难道创业者会抱怨 5000 万英镑还不够赚吗？对此，主持人 Steven Bartlett 提出了创业者的真实痛点：如果自己的公司估值达到了 5000 万或 1 亿英镑，但在完成退出清算（Exit event）之前，银行账户里可能只有一两万英镑的流动资金，税收究竟应当在出售公司时缴纳，还是仅仅因为持有股份就要交税？ Gary 认为课税可以采用多种方式，无论是征收资本利得税还是财富税，其核心目的必须是阻止极少数富豪和超级家族长期囤积巨额财富。他强调，如果对富豪阶层持续免征或低征资产税，他们在社会财富大饼中所占的份额必然随时间不断膨胀，从而挤压普通家庭的生存空间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 对创业财富课税的分歧 accDescr: 对比创始人账面估值流动性问题与长期财富囤积导致社会不公的逻辑链条 subgraph FounderPerspective["创业者视角 (Steven / Daniel)"] A["公司账面估值飙升至数千万"] --> B["尚未退出/出售股份 (无流动性)"] B --> C["银行现金匮乏 (仅 1-2 万英镑)"] C --> D["若按未变现估值征税将不堪重负"] end subgraph EconomistPerspective["宏观经济视角 (Gary)"] E["巨富家族长期持有并囤积资产"] --> F["资产收益复合增长"] F --> G["财富大饼份额持续扩大"] G --> H["挤压中产及普通工薪家庭生存空间"] end ``` --- ### [01:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=3874s) 3 亿英镑套现离境、海外避税与英国公共系统的崩溃 Steven Bartlett 分享了一个身边朋友的真实案例：在疫情期间，该朋友在英国卖掉了人尽皆知的大型公司，套现约 3 亿英镑后立刻决定离开英国，迁往迪拜和摩纳哥定居。该朋友算过一笔账：若继续留在英国生活六七年，需要缴纳高达 1.5 亿英镑的税款，相当于每年为了住在英国支付 2000 万英镑的“房租”。对方直言英国“这个产品根本不值这个价”——走在伦敦街头随时可能被抢劫劳力士手表，国家医疗服务体系（NHS）效率低下，教育体系也乏善可陈。 Gary 情绪激动地驳斥了这一逻辑，指出治安恶化、街道脏乱和 NHS 崩溃正是这种避税行为直接造成的后果。若任由手握数亿英镑英国资产的富豪在形式上定居摩纳哥而免除纳税义务，社会财富被抽干，政府自然没有资金去维持治安、医疗和教育。Daniel Priestley 则为出海企业家辩护，强调这些朋友并非做空英国，而是彻底迁居境外经营全球化业务，且在英国纳税的顶层群体已经承担了不成比例的巨额税负（最富有的 1% 贡献了 30% 的所得税，前 10% 贡献了总额 1 万亿英镑中 60% 的税收）。Gary 随即质问 Daniel，普通劳动者被征收 30% 到 50% 的税率，而拥有 3 亿英镑的资本家却能在税单到来前逃往海外只交微薄税负，这根本谈不上公平。 - **出海套现案例**：Steven 的富豪朋友通过出售英国公司套现 3 亿英镑，选择迁往免税港迪拜与摩纳哥，规避了约 1.5 亿英镑的英国资本利得税款。 - **公共服务恶性循环**：Gary 指出，资本逃税导致公共财政枯竭，从而恶化了治安、医疗与基础设施，促使更多富人借治安与服务退化为由撤资逃离。 - **英国税负集中度数据（Daniel 提出）**：全英前 1% 的最高收入者缴纳了 30% 的个人所得税，前 10% 的高收入者贡献了 60% 的税收。 --- ### [01:07:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4024s) 资产租金与劳动收入的界线：公平还是务实？ Gary 举例说明资本收益与劳动所得的本质区别：如果一个人在英国持有价值 10 亿英镑的房产，自身住在迪拜，每年从英国租客身上榨取 5000 万至 6000 万英镑的租金并汇往海外且不交税，任何人都会认为这是极不公平的。他呼吁必须改革税制，无论纳税人身在何处，都必须对在其资产所在国赚取的财富征税。 Daniel 则反驳称，现实经济治理不能单凭道德上的“公平感”，而必须看现代经济运作中的“务实可行性”（Pragmatism）。若单纯追求理论上的绝对公平，许多人甚至会支持 20% 的单一税率（Flat tax：挣 1 镑交 20%，挣 1 亿也是 20%）。Daniel 试图跳出个案展开宏观讨论，并以自身作为三个孩子的父亲为例，提到根据代际流动性研究，出生在顶层的孩子在下一代有 60% 的概率掉出顶层群体（即财富留存率仅约 40%）。Gary 对此嗤之以鼻，尖锐指出 Daniel 作为千万富翁的孩子绝无可能沦入赤贫，而双方若不能正视富豪阶层对底层资源的挤压，讨论便只是在自欺欺人。 - **离岸房产租金套利模型**：持有 10 亿英镑英国房产每年可产生约 5000 万至 6000 万英镑租金现金流，若所有者定居迪拜避税，其从英国实体经济中抽走的资本将完全不回馈本土。 - **财富留存率数据（Daniel 引用）**：高财富家庭下一代保持在最高阶层的概率（Persistence rate）仅为 40%，约 60% 的富家子弟会在代际交替中下滑。 --- ### [01:09:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4148s) 财富创造者与财富囤积者：底层能否跨越阶级？在探讨税改方向时，双方短暂达成了一项原则共识：应当降低对“财富创造者”（努力工作、打磨产品、创造收入的人）的税收，大幅提高对“财富囤积者”（坐拥数千万至数亿英镑资产只为代际传承并挤占中产资源的人）的税负。然而在界定谁是囤积者时再次爆发分歧：Gary 举出苏纳克（Rishi Sunak）的家族为例，指出其岳父创立的科技巨头企业（Infosys）市值数百亿美元，即便创始人隐退或去世，庞大的资本壁垒依旧能让后代不劳而获、主宰社会；Daniel 则争辩该企业雇佣数十万人，必须每隔两年自我革新才能存活，不能视作单纯的食利资产。Gary 以苹果公司在乔布斯去世后依然庞大、以及自己作为前交易员坐拥数百万英镑资产为例，指出当资本积累到一定规模后便完全脱离了个人劳动，仅凭资产增值即可无限蚕食工薪阶层的财富生存空间。辩论最后转向底层青年的发展机会。Daniel 询问在当前技术革命的浪潮下，贫困家庭的孩子是否享有祖辈不曾拥有的全新致富机遇。Gary 直言不讳地打破幻想，断言对当今底层出身的年轻人而言，高昂的住房与生活成本使得他们连实现“财务安全”都几乎不可能，更奢谈积累财富。面对 Daniel“你和我当年都能白手起家，为何如今的年轻人不行”的追问，现年 38 岁的 Gary 回应称时代早已改变，而自己当年能够在金融市场破局，是因为他曾是“赢下了所有参加过的数学竞赛”的极少数异类，个人侥幸突围的特例绝不能掩盖系统性阶层流动断绝的残酷现实。 ### [01:11:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4290s) 工业流水线教育与“自主创业”的空头支票辩论从个人晋升经历的残酷现实展开。Gary Stevenson 情绪激动地谈到自己的出身：他从小在东伦敦长大，家里甚至连一张正经的书桌都没有；尽管后来拼尽全力成为伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）名列前茅的优等生，他最终进入投行拿到交易员职位，竟然是靠在扑克卡牌游戏测试中“耍手段搞作弊”才赢来的。他直言不讳地指出，这种道路根本不是普通人可以复制的模式，社会现实极为残酷。如今许多已经发财的人总喜欢摆出高高在上的姿态，轻飘飘地对年轻人说“去科技行业发展就能实现财务自由”。Gary 尖锐地反驳道，大众和观众绝不是傻子，大家日复一日拼命寻找机会、拼命工作，如果通往财富的道路真有那么容易，大家早就都去做了。 Daniel Priestley 则立刻打断并反驳，表示自己从未把观众当成傻子，反而是 Gary 一直在向年轻人灌输“阶级已经彻底固化、你们再也不可能成功”的宿命论。Daniel 解释了为什么大众无法轻易致富的根源：当前的公立教育体系本质上是在工业革命时期设计的，目的是把学生批量打造成坐在办公室里的流水线白领，教给他们一套在当代早已严重贬值的技能，甚至还让他们背上沉重的大学学贷。Daniel 观察到，当下许多在经济上取得耀眼成就的年轻人，恰恰是通过边缘化路径脱颖而出的——他们主动从学校或大学退学，通过自我钻研掌握前沿技能，开创自己的业务或成为联合创始人。在 Daniel 看来，只要避开传统教育的负债陷阱，去探索当今真实商业世界的运转规律，外界依然充满着大量自下而上的机遇。 ### [01:13:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4390s) “去创业吧”还是“这不是你的错”：东区现实与纽卡斯尔工人的眼泪面对 Daniel 的解释，Gary 毫不留情地施以辛辣讽刺：“照你这么说，问题全解决了——大家只要去买 Dan 的畅销书，变成创业者，然后就能变成百万富翁，多么简单！”Gary 提高了声调，情绪近乎爆发地痛斥这种精英话语的冷酷无情。他提到东伦敦那些连孩子都快喂不起、连冬天暖气都舍不得开的底层家庭，怒斥道：“我受够了千万富翁对着那些冻得瑟瑟发抖的孩子说‘你们只需要更有创业精神’，这简直变态（sick）！这会把人逼出心理疾病的！”Gary 认为，老一辈人掠夺并锁死了财富积累的路径，导致如今跃升贫困阶层几乎变得不可能，精英阶层不应该一边挥舞着大把钞票，一边要求穷人自求多福，而必须去直面并修复那个不断把人推向贫穷深渊的破损系统。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 技术对传统就业岗位的毁灭路径 accDescr: 展示 Daniel Priestley 提出的技术如何通过简化、全球化与自动化三步摧毁传统岗位。 subgraph TechDisruption["技术重构与岗位替代路径"] A["岗位技能极简化 (Simplification)"] --> B["工作全球化外包 (Globalization)"] B --> C["代码与AI彻底自动化 (Full Automation)"] end C --> D["传统白领与办公室岗位消亡"] ``` Daniel 针锋相对地回击称，试图去推翻和重构整个全球经济系统，难度远超过创立一家小企业来改善个人的财务状况。Daniel 坚持认为，真正导致心理崩溃的并非奋斗的艰辛，而是让人彻底丧失“生活的主观能动性（agency）”。他直言，Gary 在视频里宣扬的“没有富爸爸就注定完蛋、唯才主义完全是谎言”的论调极其危险，如果自己在十九二十岁时看到这种内容，整个人生都会被毁掉。Daniel 以自己在乌干达农村的慈善经历佐证：一个起初只能在垃圾堆翻找烂菜叶的极端贫困妇女，在学会做小生意后，从养鸡起步逐步拓展到养猪、养牛，最后在当地雇佣了 15 到 16 名工人。Daniel 强调，创业的本质并不要求每个人都成为百万富翁，而在于赋予人在逆境中依靠自己双手改善生存状态的希望。 Gary 随即以亲身经历回击了所谓“成功学叙事”对底层民众造成的心理摧残。去年他的新书精装本出版后，某天凌晨一点在伦敦桥附近解自行车锁时，一名来自英格兰东北部纽卡斯尔（当地有大量贫困工人阶级）的年轻男子认出了他。那名年轻工人在深夜的伦敦街头当场崩溃大哭，哽咽着对 Gary 说：“我每天拼命打两份工，母亲重病在床，我倾尽一切想要支撑这个家，可生活还是毫无起色。对不起，我忍不住哭了……但此前从来没有任何一个人对我说过，‘这不是你的错’。”Gary 凝视着 Daniel 严肃警告道：“‘只要你足够努力就能成功’这句话的致命背面，正是‘如果你失败了，就是因为你不够努力，全是你自己的错’。”他要求 Daniel 在向年轻一代灌输这种道德枷锁前，务必深刻反思其带来的残酷伤害。 ### [01:17:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4657s) 英国劳动力危机与技术对传统工作的降维打击讨论随即延伸到那些不具备创业野心、仅希望本分生活的普通人身上。Gary 追问，社会上绝大多数人只想通过辛勤工作抚养家人、拥有一套住房、冬天开得起暖气并获得基本的经济安全感，难道这些普通人都必须沦为资本家和创业者的雇员吗？面对社会的实际撕裂，Daniel 列举了一系列触目惊心的英国官方数据：目前英国处于适龄劳动阶段的人口中，已有 11% 被医疗判定为“身体过差无法工作”，总体有高达 25% 的适龄人口处于无就业状态，甚至每七名男性中就有一人完全不参与任何工作。当 Gary 质问 Daniel 是否认为这些底层劳工“纯粹是太懒”时，Daniel 明确否认，并指出这是整个劳动力生态和经济系统在技术冲击下的全面瓦解。Daniel 剖析了技术对战后稳定就业市场的“三步绞杀”： - **简化工作流程（Simplification）**：数字工具将岗位内容标准化、碎片化，使得传统需要经验积累的熟练工变得极其容易被替代。 - **跨国远程外包（Globalization）**：一旦岗位被拆解为标准化操作，跨国资本便能轻易将其迁移到菲律宾等全球低劳动力成本地区。 - **软件与自动化替代（Automation）**：在数字化的最终阶段，企业通过编写代码、算法和软件系统，彻底将人工岗位从流程中抹去。 Daniel 总结道，尤其是自疫情以来的过去五年中，技术加速摧毁了战后几十年人们赖以生存的职场根基。学校系统依然在自欺欺人地假装社会能为毕业生提供充裕的办公室白领职位，仿佛世界还停留在 1950 年代。而现实是，AI 技术正掀起前所未有的替代狂潮，下一代所有年轻人的生存饭碗都将被彻底颠覆，这才是整个社会与企业界亟待正视的深层危机。 ### [01:19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4781s) 赞助商插播与个人能动性的争议：创业建议是否具有普适性？节目进入中场休息，Steven Bartlett 介绍了赞助商 Fiverr 推出的新功能“Fiverr Go”。该工具允许自由职业者训练并掌控属于自己风格的个性化 AI，使客户能在保留创作者独特风格的同时几乎即时生成交付内容。Steven 强调，这彻底解放了时间，把原本需要数天的工作压缩到几秒钟，若需调整原作者也可随时介入；目前该服务已覆盖 60 多个领域。广告结束后，Steven 将对话拉回 Daniel Priestley 之前反复强调的核心论点——“个人能动性”（Personal Agency）。Steven 直截了当地要求 Daniel 给自己的论据提出反驳： “我想让你，Daniel，反驳一下你自己的论点。因为当我们在探讨这个问题的解决方案是‘去创业、要有企业家精神’时，你必须明白，这套逻辑或许对拥有我们这种大脑、这种思维方式、风险承受力或者创伤背景的人有用，但并不是每个人生来都是这种构造。” Steven 进一步指出“幸存者偏差”的危险：在创业领域，90% 的企业都会倒闭，像他们这样成功杀出重围的人往往会回过头轻巧地说“既然我能做到，你也可以”。即便 Daniel 强调自己曾因行业颠覆而数次“白手起家”，Steven 依旧犀利指出，Daniel 在重头再来时早已掌握了丰厚的智力资本、导师资源，并且身处英国伦敦经济自由度最高峰的黄金市场。因此，“去创业”绝不可能是一项放之四海皆准的普适建议。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Entrepreneurship Advice vs Systemic Reality accDescr: Diagram contrasting Daniel Priestley's agency-driven view with Gary Stevenson's systemic wealth inequality critique. subgraph DanielView["Daniel 的逻辑：企业家引领繁荣"] A["个人能动性 / 面对逆境的决断"] --> B["少数企业创办人与规模化企业 (4万家)"] B --> C["创造高薪就业与 30%-60% 核心税收"] C --> D["自由市场繁荣，外溢惠及全体劳工"] end subgraph GaryCritique["Gary 的反驳：历史常态与财富集中"] E["二战后70年均富期为历史特例"] --> F["普通工薪阶层能靠单一工资买房养家"] G["资本无节制累积与极富阶层垄断"] --> H["回归历史常态：极少数超富与广大贫民"] H --> I["单靠创业外溢无法阻止整体阶层坠落"] end ``` --- ### [01:22:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4923s) 少数财富创造者与 99% 的现实依托面对 Steven 的质疑，Daniel 坚持认为“个人能动性”是普适的。他分享了一个震撼的朋友经历：这位朋友 19 岁时去夜店，突然身体不适倒地送医，醒来时四肢已被截肢，成为了高位截瘫的四肢截肢者（quadruple amputee）。然而，他在病房里做出了一个不可思议的决定——坚信“这将是我人生中发生的最美好的事”，并最终白手起家创办了一家价值数百万美元的诊所。 Daniel 借此阐明他的核心逻辑：一个社会并不需要人人都成为企业家，只要有少数人成功突围，整套经济机器就会被盘活： - 在英国经济表现最好的鼎盛时期，全英仅有约 **40,000 家** 规模化扩张型企业（scale-ups），正是这 4 万家企业驱动了全国的就业、薪资增长以及对英投资。 - 纳税结构高度集中：英国仅前 **1% 的人群贡献了全英 30% 的个人税收**，前 **10% 的人群贡献了 60% 的税收**。 - 这意味着只要百人中有一人能够创造出巨大价值，国家就能获得巨额税源去维持社会运转。 Steven 随即追问：“那剩下的 99% 怎么办？你是在叫他们直接去打工吗？”Daniel 坦然肯定了这个逻辑，并以英国著名运动品牌 Gymshark（由 Ben Francis 创立）为例说明：在 Gymshark 工作的员工非常庆幸 Ben 创办了这家企业，否则成千上万的高薪就业岗位根本不存在。如果政策抑制创业，导致创始人把企业搬走或者在做到 1000 万英镑时就止步收手，这些岗位将瞬间化为乌有。Daniel 总结道，自由市场就是每个人与其他人自由交易，自古以来只要经济保持自由、有企业家持续创造增量，水涨船高，所有人的生活都会得到改善。 --- ### [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) 战后70年的“历史异常”与 Gary 的悲观下注当被问及对 Daniel 的论述有何异议时，Gary Stevenson 斩钉截铁地反驳：“这根本行不通（It doesn't work）。” Gary 情绪激动地指出，Daniel 所描述的美好图景完全建立在一个罕见的“历史特例”之上： “听着，Steven，过去这 70 年绝不是历史的常态。在欧美，像我父亲那样在邮局上班、拿着低于全国平均工资的薪水，就能买得起房、抚养一整个家庭，这在整个人类历史上、在全世界范围内都是极不正常的！” Gary 列举了当今的尼日利亚、巴西，以及 300 年前的英国、200 年前的法国：放眼全球和历史，人类社会的绝大多数常态都是“极少数超级富豪精英统治着庞大且赤贫的底层大众”。他援引查尔斯·狄更斯（Charles Dickens）以 19 世纪工业革命全盛时期的英国为背景写成的小说《艰难时世》（*Hard Times*）：当时的英国是无可匹敌的世界工业霸主，但当政府商讨是否该对工业巨头征税时，资本家们同样叫嚣“如果你们敢征税，我们就把工厂直接推下海”。Gary 强调，普通工薪阶层唯一真正过上体面生活的窗口期，仅仅是二战后那个通过极其高昂的税率对财富进行大规模强制再分配的时代；而如今，中产阶级所持有的财富正在被全盘吸干。面对 Steven 关于“如今时代早已完全不同，财富再分配极其难以落地”的提问，Gary 毫无保留地承认这一现实，但他给出了一个极为坦率且悲观的回答： - **百分之百承认其难度**：这就是为什么所有人的祖辈世世代代都生活在极度贫困中。 - **身为交易员的下注**：Gary 直言自己正是看透了这一点，才在金融市场上豪赌经济必将恶化、贫困必将加剧，并因此赚到了财富；他预测 Nigel Farage 和 Donald Trump 等民粹政治人物会赢得选战，社会现实会愈发艰难，工薪阶层很可能会输掉这场经济博弈。 - **为何依然抗争**：当 Steven 质问“既然明知可能赢不了，为什么不采取更务实的策略”时，Gary 反驳道，不可能与极其困难是两回事。他正在通过 YouTube 建立草根运动来反抗最富有的阶级。明知对手拥有数百亿美元且会动用所有手段封杀抹黑自己，但为了让普通劳动者争得一个公平的生存空间，这场注定艰难的战斗依然“值得为此拼上一把（worth fighting for）”。Steven 与 Daniel 也不得不承认，从历史跨度来看，极端的财富不平等确实始终是社会的默认状态。 ### [01:27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5272s) 迪拜的减税神话与两名健身教练的截然命运 Daniel Priestley 指出，回顾人类过去五千年的历史，社会形态几乎总是由国王、女王、贵族以及底层的农奴和贫民构成，唯独现代经济创造过短暂的例外。他以迪拜为例：那里地处气候恶劣、寸草不生的沙漠，按常理本是人们最不愿定居的地方，如今却一跃成为全球最富裕的地区之一。迪拜并非单靠石油起家，而是借债大兴土木，并凭借极低税率的营商环境，吸引了全世界最顶尖的人才和科技创业者。在 Daniel 看来，如今的迪拜已经成为仅次于美国、甚至能与美国分庭抗礼的全球最具活力的创业生态中心。为了具象化税收对个体行为的扭曲，Daniel 讲述了身边两位私人健身教练的真实案例： - **留在英国的教练**：年收入达到 50,000 英镑的门槛后，因边际税率陡然跳升至 40%，他索性决定减少工时、不再多接客户，将收入精确控制在 50,000 英镑以内便直接“躺平”。 - **移居迪拜的教练**：前往迪拜创办了一家线上健身社群，不仅事业风生水起，最近更是全款提了一辆价值 35 万美元的法拉利跑车。 Daniel 借此强调，创业者和劳动者都是受经济激励驱动的。当被问及如果出版商企图因为 Gary Stevenson 跻身英国最畅销作家前 1% 而将第二本书的版税腰斩时，Gary 是否会另投别家？Gary 则情绪激烈地反驳，自己从年薪 200 万英镑的花旗顶级交易员职位辞职转做 YouTube 频道科普经济学，写书根本就不是为了赚钱，他甚至第一本书最初都愿意免预付款、免费撰写乃至捐出全部版税。但 Daniel 坚持认为，Gary 的特例并不能代表整体人性，“所有条件均等的前提下，你绝不会接受惩罚成功的合同，创业者同样可以用脚投票，只需大笔一挥就能把企业注册在低税率国家”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 税收激励对创业与劳动行为的分流机制 accDescr: 对比高税收环境下劳动者主动停止工作与低税收环境下企业家全力扩张的两种截然相反的经济选择 subgraph HighTax["英国等高边际税环境"] A1["年收入触及 50,000 英镑"] --> B1["边际税率跳升至 40%"] B1 --> C1["削减工时、拒绝增收 / 躺平限制生产力"] end subgraph LowTax["迪拜等低税宽松环境"] A2["零所得税 / 极低税率吸引"] --> B2["利润全额留存个人与再投资"] B2 --> C2["创办高增长线上平台 / 购置 35 万美元法拉利"] end ``` ### [01:30:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5442s) 全球离岸避税、政客富豪化与中产被挤压的困境面对资本外流的论调，Gary Stevenson 态度坚决地表示，西方发达国家必须彻底反思并重构税收规则，绝不能继续放任富豪一边从英美本土庞大市场攫取巨额商业利益，一边把资产和居住地迁往海外避税天堂以逃避税收义务。尽管 Daniel 提醒美国对其公民实行“全球征税制”，但 Gary 指出实际执行中依然存在大量漏洞与特权通道。 Gary 进一步将批判的矛头指向政治与财富的深度绑定：西方政府早已实质上被富豪精英阶层俘获。他直言不讳地以埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）在政坛举足轻重的影响力，以及英国前首相里希·苏纳克（Rishi Sunak）为例——苏纳克的岳父（印孚瑟斯联席创始人纳拉亚纳·穆尔蒂）是全球顶级富豪之一，其家族坐拥约 7 亿英镑财富，每年光是无风险被动收入就高达三四千万英镑；相比之下，苏纳克作为英国首相的年薪不过 13 万英镑。Gary 质疑道：“当你作为首相制定政策时，难道不会下意识考虑富豪家族的利益吗？”他明确重申，自己绝不反对创业或合法致富，但如果放任超级富豪以无底线的速度持续聚敛财富，他们就会无情地挤压中产阶级与底层群体的生存空间，将普通人从房产、城市居住权、能源乃至政治话语权中彻底挤出。 ### [01:32:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5526s) 战后黄金时代与新加坡模式之辩：大政府还是资产占有？ Daniel 随即向 Gary 发难，质问他是否承认历史上所有奉行“反富人、大政府”路线的国家最终都走向了经济崩溃，并搬出 1960 至 1970 年代的英国作为例证——由于政府过度干预与高税收，英国在 1976 年不得不向国际货币基金组织（IMF）申请紧急救助。 Gary 则反唇相讥，指出二战后长达数十年的时期被称为“资本主义黄金时代”（Golden Age of Capitalism），那恰恰是英美对富豪征收极高所得税、同时中产阶级生活水平大幅提升的时代。针对这一点，双方展开了激烈交锋： - **房产红利的本质**：Daniel 反驳称，战后中产阶级的繁荣归根结底是因为政府将公有住房集中私有化并甩卖给中产家庭（如“购买权”计划），然而“这种把所有房子甩卖给大家的戏法一辈子只能玩一次”，这也解释了为何财富牢牢沉淀在婴儿潮一代手中，而后续世代的生活水平急剧恶化。 - **生活水平断崖的节点**：Daniel 追问生活水平崩溃的确切时间点，Gary 认为标志性节点包括 1980 年代财富分配体系的扭曲、2008 年全球金融危机以及新冠疫情（COVID-19）。Gary 强调，真正的核心在于“普通家庭对实体资产的持有权”被全面剥夺，历史上没有任何一个国家能在剥夺普通家庭资产所有权的前提下维持宽泛的高生活水准。 - **新加坡模式争议**：Daniel 举出新加坡鼓励全民拥有资产的例子，称其政府支出仅占 GDP 的 25%，却实现了全球顶尖的住房自有率；Gary 针锋相对地指出，新加坡政府通过主权基金直接掌控了绝大多数住房存量（建屋发展局 HDB 组屋系统），其强力干预的本质绝非纯粹的自由放任。 ### [01:34:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5664s) “苍鹭的自由即是鱼类的死刑”：真正的逆向财富再分配辩论进入白热化阶段，Gary 郑重澄清外界对他的误解：他从未主张建立一个事无巨细、臃肿官僚的“大政府”，他主张的是**对资产囤积者（Wealth Hoarders）加税，以此为普通工薪阶层和财富创造者减税**，让普通民众兜里留有更多资金，并阻止超级富豪将普通家庭彻底挤出资产所有权的市场。当 Daniel 试图将其概括为“从富人手里抢夺资产进行再分配”时，Gary 情绪激动地当场打断： > “我是这张桌子上唯一一个真正反对‘财富再分配’的人！因为残酷的再分配此时此刻就正在我们眼皮底下发生——中产阶级正在失去资产，政府正在失去资产，而所有这些资产正以惊人的速度被极少数超级富豪巧取豪夺。我所倡导的，是立刻阻止这场将财富从英美普通家庭抽离的逆向再分配！” Daniel 阐明自己的核心立场：坚信自由市场、小政府和低税收才能自下而上为中间层创造更多社会总财富。Gary 则引用经典政治哲理予以当头棒喝：“苍鹭的自由，就是鱼类的死刑”（"Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes"）。他直言，如果在毫无约束的前提下实行绝对自由市场，像自己和 Daniel 这样的千万富翁只会变得越来越富有，而作为代价的，则是底层和中产阶级彻底沦为被吞噬殆尽的“鱼类”。 ### [01:35:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5744s) 财富不平等与生活水平暴跌的核心逻辑辩论在紧张的气氛中继续。Steven 向 Gary 抛出一个直击核心的问题：如果解决了财富不平等，但所有人的生活都变得更糟，这算不算一个好方案？Gary 斩钉截铁地反驳：“显然不是。”他强调，自己发声的唯一原因就是不希望普通人陷入贫困，这关乎人们能否喂饱自己的孩子。当对方质疑“财富不平等本身不是问题，生活水平下降才是”时，Gary 直言这种逻辑纯属曲解。他坦言自己之所以能赚到数百万英镑，正是因为敏锐洞察到了一个简单事实：正是由于日益扩大的财富不平等，普通人的生活水平才在急剧下滑。 Steven 追问，如果底层的生活水平提升了，同时存在超级富豪，这难道不行吗？Gary 指出，极度富有的精英阶层必然会带来巨大的社会风险。他以美国的建国先贤为例：美国在立国之初确立总统、众议院、参议院和独立司法的分权架构，其核心哲学就是防止权力过度集中。他们从欧洲逃离出来，因为那时的欧洲正是权力高度集中、极少数精英坐拥巨富，而广大人民赤贫。允许社会极少数群体逐渐垄断权力和财富是极度危险的，而 Gary 关注不平等的根本原因在于，现实中财富集中正在无情地击碎普通人的生活水准。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富过度集中与社会失衡机制 accDescr: 展示财富垄断如何挤压中产与底层，导致生活水平持续下滑的传导链路。 subgraph Elite["极少数富豪阶层"] A["财富加速聚集"] --> B["垄断经济与政治话语权"] end subgraph Middle["社会结构"] B --> C["侵蚀挤压中产阶层"] C --> D["生活水准全面下滑"] end subgraph Bottom["普通家庭"] D --> E["基本生存与育儿陷入困境"] end ``` ### [01:37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5827s) 新时代的科技生态垄断与亿万富翁的梦魇 Daniel 对 Gary 提出的权力制衡表示赞同，并提到 20 世纪初西奥多·罗斯福时代打破标准石油等托拉斯的反垄断行动。然而，Daniel 指出当今的反垄断定义严重落后于时代：过去的反垄断针对的是掌控全部石油储量的大亨，而当下的科技巨头则是通过“生态系统”构筑几乎坚不可摧的商业堡垒。比如 Amazon 旗下不仅有电商，还有 AWS、Audible、Whole Foods，Google 则将 YouTube、Gmail 等无缝捆绑，形成极高竞争壁垒。Daniel 主张，一旦科技公司规模达到特定界限，就必须强制进行拆分。谈到超级富豪的心态，Daniel 剖析了让亿万富翁夜不能寐的“两大恐惧”：排在第二位的是高税收，而高居第一位的，是那些可能会颠覆其商业帝国的初创期企业家。正如当年 24 岁的 Steve Jobs 颠覆了 IBM，Jeff Bezos 颠覆了 Walmart 一样，巨头们极其害怕中间层冒出的颠覆者，因此他们乐于看到繁复的监管和税收，甚至巴不得政府出台政策“将创业者的资产规模限制在 1000 万英镑以内”。Daniel 认为财富税会打击人们将业务做大的动力。但 Gary 随即激烈驳斥这一观点，称自己从未说过要给任何人设限： - **数字反驳**：Gary 算了一笔账，如果一个人拥有价值 3000 万英镑的公司，按每年 5% 的资本回报率可获利 150 万英镑；对其超出部分征收 1% 的税仅为 20 万英镑。“难道会有人因为 20 年后要交 1% 的税，就赌气说‘我不去创办价值 3000 万的企业了’吗？这简直荒谬！” - **真实动机**：Daniel 辩称多数交易员和企业家并非仅为金钱止步，但财富顾问已在警告客户“英国对财富不友好，不要在英国办企业”。 - **避税漏洞**：Gary 重申自己的立场毫不偏激，核心是英国和美国不能继续纵容那些本土赚大钱的企业主，肉身躲在迪拜或开曼群岛却一分钱税都不交。 ### [01:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6008s) 给当代年轻人的忠告：救生艇上的席位正在缩减当 Steven 询问两位嘉宾，如果现在有一个 18 岁的年轻人渴望通过个人奋斗脱贫致富，他们会给出什么建议？Gary 的回答显得冷峻而坦诚。他直言这是一个极其沉重的问题，并打破幻想：“我当年做交易员暴富的路径是不可复制的。”他警告年轻人不要轻易听信兜售“学交易致富”的谎言，那极易让人沦为赌瘾患者。 Gary 坦承，在当下的大环境里，来自贫困家庭的孩子想成为富人是极度艰难的，甚至连获取基本的财务安全都变得越来越奢侈。他的核心建议是保持清醒与克制： - **拒绝消费陷阱**：坚决远离 Balenciaga（巴黎世家）这类虚浮的奢侈品消费。 - **认清社会现实**：努力工作、刻苦学习、争取一份好工作，但必须明白“社会的救生艇正在缩小”——过去也许有 50% 的人能享有财务安全，接着缩减到 40%、30%、20%。 - **现实主义心态**：如果你生于贫困环境，能够依靠双手踏实赚到抚养家庭的收入，就已经足以引以为傲，盲目鼓吹“去创业就能成功”是对大多数人的误导与毒害。 ### [01:42:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6127s) 全球化外包革命：是知识救生筏，还是劳动力倾销？对于同一问题，拥有尼日利亚血统的 Steven 给出了不同的视角。他认为当下的“知识与技术革命”才是年轻人的救生筏。例如在尼日利亚，蓬勃发展的科技浪潮正在帮助许多人挣脱贫困；在当今世界，只要一台电脑学会编程，就能参与全球竞争。Steven 举例称，他们目前在旧金山打造的科技项目 Flight Cast，其核心开发团队负责人就是一名尼日利亚工程师。然而，Gary 随即对这种科技乐观主义泼了一盆冷水。他直言不讳地质问：“尼日利亚科技行业中，究竟有几个职位真正落到了那些在贫民窟长大的孩子手里？”Gary 以自身经历作比：他当年在伦敦东区成长，后来进入金丝雀码头（Canary Wharf）从事交易，整栋摩天大楼里除了他自己，再也找不到第二个来自伦敦东区贫民社区的孩子。随后，辩论转向了跨国远程用工现象： - **远程套利与本地困境**：Steven 指出 Thirdweb 等公司正大量雇佣菲律宾等地的创意人才，不仅成本效益极高，且提供了大量全球化就业机会。 - **贫困分歧爆发**：Gary 质疑这一过程的公平性，认为西方企业只是为了压低人力成本，让原本在办公室拿体面薪水的普通打工者被困在卧室里苦苦支撑账单。当 Steven 声称“菲律宾员工过得风生水起、生活正在腾飞”时，Gary 连番质问：“你真的认为菲律宾的普通民众正在过着奢华生活吗？”双方在远程离岸外包对发展中国家工人的实际改变上爆发了激烈的言语交锋。 ### [01:44:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6246s) 菲律宾外包神话与“迷茫一代”年轻人的困境谈话由远程办公引发的争议拉开帷幕。Daniel Priestley 认为远程劳动力市场迎来了空前繁荣，全球化让资金像洪水一样涌入发展中国家，甚至开玩笑说年轻人如果想过高品质生活可以搬去菲律宾。Gary Stevenson 对此嗤之以鼻，并用尖锐的反讽猛烈反击：“你看过马尼拉的贫民窟吗？那些穷人为什么不直接掏出笔记本电脑来办公呢？”他指出菲律宾的贫困依然触目惊心，普通人根本没有享受到所谓资本涌入带来的福祉；而 Daniel 则辩称，当地哪怕只是一名打跨国零工的远程员工，其薪资收入也常常能养活一个大家庭。随后，主持人 Steven Bartlett 将讨论拉回到英美本土年轻人的现实困境上。他提到前一天在主流报纸上读到的一篇关于“迷茫一代”（the Lost Boys）的深度报道，数据显示英国目前有高达七分之一（1/7）的适龄青年处于失业状态，年轻人尤其是年轻男性的生存状况愈发艰难。Steven 追问 Gary：“如果一个年轻人正在听这期节目，你难道只跟他说‘努力工作’吗？”Gary 直言“努力工作”是显而易见的常识，但年轻人现在最首要的任务是“认清自己所处的严峻现实”。他打了个生动的比方：经济救生艇的座位正在急剧缩减，坐在桌前的这几位成功者自然能把自己的孩子送上救生艇，但普通人如果不去阻止整艘大船下沉，最终淹死的只会是平民百姓。 - 英国年轻男性就业危机：适龄年轻男性中约有七分之一（约 14.3%）目前处于失业或脱离工作状态。 - Gary 提出的“救生艇隐喻”：社会财富收缩期，富裕阶层总能保全自身后代，如果不通过系统性变革阻止下沉，沉没的将是整个底层与中产阶级。 - 政治参与的迫切性：Gary 强调普通人必须像当年的祖父母辈一样站出来争取政治权利，否则像 Daniel 这样的精英商人会主导一切规则。 --- ### [01:46:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6367s) “追随天赋”的谎言与新旧双轨经济 Steven 进一步追问，如果年轻人想摆脱出身的贫困阶层，到底应该怎么做。Gary 坦诚地表示自己其实不适合给出个人成功学建议。他坦白自己从小就有一种罕见的天赋——数学极度优异，他只是顺应了这个特定优势进入金融交易行业。为了打破“只要有才华就能成功”的毒鸡汤，Gary 讲了自己亲姐姐的故事：他的姐姐同样出身贫寒，是一名极有才华的诗人，还曾围绕说唱歌手 Dizzee Rascal 的首张专辑创作过一部轰动的烘焙音乐剧；她拥有两个学位，工作无比拼命，但至今依然在为支付房租苦苦挣扎。Gary 直言：“除非你来自富贵人家，否则在现实中‘追随激情与天赋’极少能让你实现财务自由。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 双轨经济对比 accDescr: 对比传统衰退经济与新兴数字经济的演变与特征 subgraph Dying["走向萎缩的工业经济"] A["传统工厂 / 传统办公室职位"] --> B["被自动化、AI 算法取代"] B --> C["岗位跨国转移，收入增长停滞"] end subgraph Emerging["正在爆发的数字经济"] D["个人品牌 / 数字化创作者"] --> E["接入复利或经常性收入模型"] E --> F["站在资金最密集的洪流旁边"] end ``` 针对 Gary 的观点，Daniel 提出了“新旧双轨经济并存”的理论框架。他指出，当前世界同时运转着两个平行的经济体：一个是正在走向死亡的工业革命传统经济（包含被自动化取代的办公室与工厂岗位），另一个则是蓬勃生长的数字创业经济。Daniel 指出，Gary 过去所从事的金融交易行业如今也正在走向衰落，大量的初级交易员与 IT 人员正被人工智能和自动化系统彻底替代。Daniel 给年轻人的核心建议是：“如果你想在经济上获得成功，就必须站在离最大资金池最近的地方。” - 工业时代经济的黄昏：传统办公室文员、生产线工作正加速被 AI、机器人替代或外包全球化。 - 免费学习与创业门槛降低：现在通过 YouTube 免费学习技能、加入天使投资社区和利用软件工具启动公司的成本降到了历史最低点。 - 对 Gary 模式的复盘：Daniel 指出 Gary 自身也是新经济的受益者——在互联网发布内容、树立个人品牌并绑定订阅式的经常性收入（Recurring Revenue），尽管 Gary 补充反驳称自己此前曾免费无薪工作了整整四年，普通人很难模仿。 --- ### [01:49:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6542s) “在泰坦尼克号上推荐股票”：个人奋斗与系统改革之争 Daniel 进一步强调了个人能动性（Personal Agency）的决定性力量，警告年轻人千万不要陷入受害者心态。他认为每个人都必须打好自己手中的牌：“无论你在地球上的处境多么糟糕，总有人牌比你好，也总有人牌比你更烂。你不能坐在那里干等世界经济制度被别人重构。”如果年轻人把全部希望寄托在“等待 Gary 替大家推翻体制”上，那就是在自寻死路。 Gary 随即以极具情绪张力的论述进行了反驳。他警告称，一个只强调极端个人主义、漠视整体制度弊病的社会，最终会彻底丧失解决系统性问题的能力。Gary 激动地说道：“我就是靠押注社会崩溃、中产阶级覆灭赚到几百万英镑的，但我绝不想在沉没的‘泰坦尼克号’头等舱里给别人推荐股票！”他呼吁英国与美国公众认清残酷现实，在社交媒体（YouTube、Instagram、TikTok）上广泛传播经济学真相，推动像上一辈人那样的政治维权行动，通过投票迫使政客向底层劳动者减税、向超级富豪的资产课税。当 Steven 询问在现实生活中普通人是否仍应承担个人责任、拼命工作赚钱时，Gary 给予了毫不犹豫的肯定回答。他澄清外界对自己最大的误解就是“反对个人奋斗”：“你读过我的书《交易游戏》（The Trading Game），你觉得我是一个反对野心的人吗？我当年也是拼了老命才赚到那些钱的。”他强调，底层百姓如果不去拼搏，在生活成本高企的今天甚至连冬季取暖费都付不起；个人拼搏与推动体制变革不仅不矛盾，而且缺一不可。 - 政治行动路径：广泛传播真实财富分配数据，支持向超级富豪资产加税、降低普通劳动所得税的政治诉求。 - 拒绝受害者思维 vs 警惕原子化个人主义：Daniel 强调发挥手牌极限、杜绝怨天尤人；Gary 则强调必须将个人努力与公民维权结合，避免社会走向两极分化导致的彻底崩溃。 - Gary 的澄清：坚决否认反抱负（Anti-ambition）标签，主张全力支持年轻人通过努力工作致富，同时必须修补破损的系统机制。 ### [01:52:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6733s) 精英圈子、实体经济与“白手起家”的残酷幻象加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）言辞激烈地指出，当前社会几乎阻断了普通年轻人向上流动的通道。他结合切身经历回顾道：“我读过伦敦政经（LSE），上过牛津，进过伦敦金融城，接触过媒体和政界——位于金字塔顶端的人充斥着一大群有钱的蠢才。”他质疑系统根本不愿让出身平凡的聪明孩子跻身这些精英空间。对此，丹尼尔·普里斯利（Daniel Priestley）反驳称加里混淆了概念。丹尼尔指出，加里所说的只是两种极其狭隘的精英圈子：顶尖大学与高阶金融衍生品交易。实体经济是由企业家创造的，银行系统属于一阶衍生，而加里曾从事的利率交易则是“经济的二阶衍生投机”。普通人根本不想成为金融衍生品操盘手，绝大多数人的初衷是创办一家能雇佣员工、不断壮大并获得成功的企业。当加里追问“创业对穷人来说真有高概率致富的可能吗”时，丹尼尔引用了一组数据力挺创业的社会价值： - 全球超高净值人群（Ultra High Net Worth Individuals）中，约有 65% 为白手起家（Self-made）。 - 约 19% 的人财富主要来源于继承。 - 约 16% 的人虽继承了财富，但通过自己的商业运作实现了显著增值。 - 整个经济体其实只需 1% 极具行动力的企业家带动，就能改善全盘局势。加里随即予以重击。他表示，那 65% 的白手起家富豪不过是“资本主义黄金时代”的产物。他提到自己在东伦敦伊尔福德（Ilford）的移民社区长大，身边的巴基斯坦和印度裔朋友白手起家、辛勤打拼并购置资产，但那个普通人只要肯干就能积累财富的时代已经彻底终结了。加里带着嘲讽对丹尼尔说，如果创业真有那么容易，那所有读者买下丹尼尔的书读完就能成为百万富翁，可现实中绝大多数读者根本发不了财。丹尼尔则回击加里陷入了幸存者偏差的傲慢：“你做学术拿到顶级文凭，做银行交易年薪两百万，写书登上《星期日泰晤士报》畅销榜，做自媒体坐拥 80 万粉丝。你碰过的每样东西都变成了金子，现在你却坐在那里对大众说‘时代结束了，只有我够聪明能办到，你们不够聪明所以做不到’。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 阶层流动与经济层级的认知分歧 accDescr: 对比丹尼尔的实体经济创业观与加里的经济阶层固化观 subgraph Daniel["丹尼尔的实体经济视角"] direction TB D1["实体经济：企业家创业创造就业与价值"] --> D2["一阶衍生：银行系统提供信贷"] D2 --> D3["二阶衍生：金融利率投机（加里身处的极客圈）"] D1 -.-> D4["65% 超高净值人群属于白手起家"] end subgraph Gary["加里的财富吸噬视角"] direction TB G1["资本主义黄金时代终结（靠努力置产的窗口关闭）"] --> G2["社会财富被顶层极少数人抽走"] G2 --> G3["年轻人财务自由与组建家庭的比例骤降"] end ``` ### [01:55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6911s) 现行教育制度的落后与“泰坦尼克号上的甲板椅” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）介入讨论，将焦点引向底层教育体系的脱节。他以加里那位热爱写诗的妹妹为例：在传统体系下，诗人很难找到高收益市场；但如果从现代商业逻辑来看，她完全可以运营 Instagram 页面——就像靠励志优美文字年入数千万的杰·谢蒂（Jay Shetty）那样，或是依托 YouTube 的去中心化媒介放大影响力。史蒂芬尖锐地指出，学校至今还在强迫学生死记硬背连 ChatGPT 闭着眼睛都能解出的“勾股定理”，却对互联网经济、电商创业和现代技术只字不提。他分享了自己叛逆的少年经历： - 上学时因为一心在校内倒买倒卖做生意，史蒂芬被学校直接扔进了隔离惩戒室（Exclusion Unit）。 - 他的校长后来在全国电视节目上公开承认，当初取消开除决定只是因为史蒂芬替学校赚了太多钱。 - 史蒂芬患有 ADHD（注意力缺陷多动障碍），无法在传统课堂中坐定听课；而他的哥哥杰森（Jason）擅长数学并考入伦敦政经（LSE），在体制内备受赞赏。 - 这种传统评价体系一度让年轻的史蒂芬认定自己是个彻头彻尾的失败者，直到后来走上互联网创业道路才彻底改写人生。史蒂芬呼吁，必须对教育系统进行彻底重构，去嘉奖和培养那些对互联网、商业与科技充满热情的孩子。然而加里对此做出了冷峻的类比：“你提议的教育改革，就像是在‘泰坦尼克号’即将沉没时去重新摆放甲板上的桌椅。”加里强调，教育细节当然可以改进，但如果放任中产阶级财富被顶层持续吸走这一根源性系统问题不管，“我可以极其肯定地告诉你，再过 70 年，这个国家将有 95% 到 98% 的人口彻底陷入贫困。” ### [01:59:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7149s) 史蒂芬自述至暗时刻：贫穷深渊的切肤之痛面对加里描绘的残酷前景，史蒂芬表达了完全的赞同。他承认，财富绝不能任由极少数顶层垄断，因为庞大的财富积累必然伴随着另一端的被剥夺。为了证明自己并非高高在上不知民间疾苦，史蒂芬深情回忆了整整 10 年前他在曼彻斯特莫斯赛德（Moss Side）逼仄房间里的真实困境： - 当时他与父母彻底断绝了联系，桌上堆满了县法院判决书（CCJ 追债函）和执达吏（法警）的逼债通知。 - 生活窘迫到了极点，他不得不去偷“芝加哥城”（Chicago Town）冷冻披萨充饥，甚至连打印一份求职者津贴（Jobseeker's Allowance）申请表都走投无路。 - 他甚至曾打电话叫外卖，试图在送餐司机到达时好说歹说求对方把食物白送给自己。史蒂芬动情地表示，那种身陷绝境、看不到出路的绝望感他终生难忘。他深知底层人民面对的系统性绞杀有多残酷，但也正是基于这种刻骨铭心的经历，他才执着于探讨：在庞大系统崩塌的阴影下，年轻人究竟该在个体层面上如何自救。 ### [01:59:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7192s) 商业环境、遗产税与阶级流动的争鸣斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）坦言，人们不可能干等着议会里的政客来拯救自己的生活，必须寻求个人层面的破局之道；但他同样关注宏观经济环境。作为在伦敦和曼彻斯特雇用了数百名年轻员工的企业家，斯蒂芬警告称，如果英国对创业者的营商环境越来越不友好，势必会迫使许多人离开。他直言，若政策环境允许，五年后自己的公司本可以在英国再创造 500 个就业岗位，但激进的税收提议可能会扼杀这种意愿。加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）随即调侃道：“值得指出的事实是，我们目前根本没对财富征税，而你斯蒂芬反正都打算离开这个国家了。”斯蒂芬立刻反驳澄清自己始终是英国的税务居民，税款一分不少地交在英国，并且作为《龙穴之创业投资》（Dragons' Den）的投资人，正持续将大笔资金注入英国本土企业。加里坚称自己的主张非常明确：仅仅针对极高净值的财富征税。他打趣道，极富阶层总会像狄更斯小说里的人物一样叫嚣着要把“工厂和企业扔进大海”，但这掩盖不了普通工薪阶层正承担着 20%、30%、40% 甚至 50% 沉重税率的事实，富人理应贡献其公平的份额。对此，斯蒂芬表达了一个颇具争议的观点：他认为自己确实应该缴纳更多税款，甚至坚决反对将数以千万计的巨额资产传承给子女。在斯蒂芬看来，让下一代含着金汤匙继承大笔财富，实际上剥夺了他们从逆境中拼搏成长的机会。丹尼尔·普里斯利（Daniel Priestley）提醒英国现行遗产税率已高达 40%，斯蒂芬则回应“税率应该更高”，加里也附和道，绝不能自欺欺人地以为现实中富人们没有通过各种架构避开这些继承税。 - **斯蒂芬的企业布局**：在伦敦与曼彻斯特拥有数百名以年轻人为主的团队，并预计未来五年内可进一步增加 500 个英国本地就业岗位。 - **加里的征税立场**：重申“只针对超高净值群体征收财富税”，减轻普通工薪劳动者的负担。 - **两代财富传承的分歧**：斯蒂芬认为子女若继承千万级资产等同于“剥夺”了他们经历奋斗的人生体验；现行 40% 的遗产税在富人阶层中往往存在广泛的避税筹划。 --- ### [02:02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7346s) 中产阶级萎缩对文化与消费市场的冲击加里借由自己亲妹妹的处境切入宏观经济的结构性困境。他的妹妹聪明且工作勤勉，独立运营着自己的戏剧演出业务，但加里希望看到的不是靠自己私下塞钱接济，而是一个劳动者靠双手就能过体面生活的健康社会。加里回顾道，20 世纪 60 年代英国之所以能够诞生举世瞩目的艺术与音乐浪潮，是因为当时存在一个蓬勃发展的中产阶级，他们手里有余钱购买新潮时装和黑胶唱片，进而反哺了创意生态；反观当下，中产阶级连付日常账单都捉襟见肘，戏剧等传统大众文化彻底沦为少数富豪的专属消费，平民大众则只能转向极其廉价的消遣方式。消费市场也因此彻底两极分化——要么是极致廉价的快时尚，要么是令人咋舌的顶级奢侈品。对比之下，贫富差距较小的日本，普通百姓也能随时享用到高水准的平民餐饮，因为健康的资本主义本应为大众创造优质供给。丹尼尔随即追问大众娱乐的转移趋势，指出观众现在更多是在免费观看像加里这样的 YouTube 频道。加里透露，在很长一段时间里自己甚至是在贴钱运营频道，直到近几个月在覆盖了剪辑等专业成本后才开始产生微薄收益，外界往往严重高估了做内容的收益。丹尼尔以此类比创业者的艰辛：普通创业者往往要经历两到五年暗无天日、毫无回报的残酷挣扎，而一旦历经千辛万苦公司做到了上千万英镑的估值，政府却跳出来说“只要你成功了，我就要拿走一大块”，这在心理上对创业者是极其沉重的打击。丹尼尔进一步指出，若企业在早期多轮融资中，投资人因英国严苛的反财富税制而拒绝注资英国本土，创业者只能被迫将企业迁移海外；而加里则坚信，只要通过减税让英国普通消费者的钱包鼓起来，庞大的消费购买力自会逼得资本不得不重返英国投资。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 阶级结构对消费生态与企业投资的影响 accDescr: 对比中产阶级强劲与萎缩两种经济生态下，消费市场、艺术文化及资本投向的截然不同走势。 subgraph Healthy["健康经济形态（如1960年代英国 / 当代日本）"] A["合理的税负分配"] --> B["强劲的中产阶级购买力"] B --> C["高品质大众消费与多元文化艺术"] C --> D["倒逼企业与资本投资本土消费市场"] end subgraph Distorted["当前两极分化形态"] E["工薪与中产阶层税负沉重"] --> F["普通家庭现金流枯竭"] F --> G["市场撕裂：极端廉价品 vs 顶级奢靡品"] F --> H["艺术与实体消费沦为极少数富人特权"] end ``` --- ### [02:04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7480s) 商业赞助：Intuit 与 WHOOP 品牌推介节目中插播了两个品牌赞助广告：斯蒂芬首先推荐了科技平台 **Intuit**。他指出，追求卓越职业发展的核心是置身于顶尖人才汇聚的环境，与借助数据和 AI 推动创新的顶尖技术人员共事。Intuit 旗下拥有 TurboTax、Credit Karma、QuickBooks 以及 Mailchimp 等行业标杆产品，正通过 AI 驱动的专家级平台服务全球约 1 亿消费者和小微企业，帮助用户守护并增加财富。斯蒂芬特别强调，Intuit 倡导快速试错实验、聚焦攻克客户复杂难题的使命感文化，与他自己管理企业的理念高度契合。该公司在亚特兰大、纽约、圣地亚哥、旧金山湾区和多伦多等地均设有办公室，并提供混合办公模式。随后，斯蒂芬介绍了自己作为投资人的智能穿戴设备品牌 **WHOOP**。斯蒂芬分享了自己近期养成的日常跑步习惯，并阐述科学训练的核心不仅在于加大强度，更在于“更聪明地训练”。WHOOP 能够在运动开始前根据身体恢复评分（Recovery Score）评估机体负荷承受力。斯蒂芬援引了一项名为“Project PR”的运动研究成果：依照 WHOOP 恢复数据调整训练节奏的跑者，其 5 公里成绩平均提升了 2 分 40 秒，与此同时伤病风险降低了超过 30%，且这一切是在减少总训练量的前提下达成的。 - **Intuit 核心矩阵**：集成 TurboTax、Credit Karma、QuickBooks 和 Mailchimp，服务全球约 1 亿用户与企业。 - **Project PR 研究数据**：依据生理恢复指数调整训练后，5 公里跑步成绩平均缩短 2 分 40 秒，运动损伤率下降超 30%。 --- ### [02:06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7609s) 千万英镑门槛与“资产流动性”之辩：资本与土地回到辩论核心，斯蒂芬梳理了双方争议的前提：加里团队主张推动的税改底线，是将拥有超过 **1000 万英镑（£10M）** 净资产的人群定义为超高净值群体，并对该门槛以上的财富开征重税。辩论的焦点由此转移到“即便理念成立，在实操层面究竟能否落实”。丹尼尔当即反驳道，英国顶层 1% 的纳税人目前已经承担了全英国 30% 的所得税总额；加里立刻打断并纠正概念混淆：这只是“收入最高的 1% 纳税人”，绝不等于“英国最富有的前 1% 资产持有者”。丹尼尔强调，餐巾纸上推演出来的乌托邦式“税收公平”在实践中几乎不可行，因为现代财富具有极强的全球流动性，在远程办公与全球资产配置时代，富人和高净值资本随时可以拔腿走人。加里随即反唇相讥：“那英国的房子呢？土地能流动吗？你能把这片国土从大西洋里连根拔起扔掉吗？”面对加里关于对不动产征税的诘问，丹尼尔反驳称，自己认识的真正顶级富豪极少有人单纯囤积大量普通住宅；英国全境约 78% 的房产实际上掌握在婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）手中，这些人不过是在 1992 年左右购置了一套自住房产并随着时代红利自然升值而已。 - **财富税起征门槛**：加里团队方案明确以 1000 万英镑净资产为基准线。 - **税收统计口径争议**：丹尼尔指出的“前 1% 人群承担 30% 税收”指的是基于工作与经营的个人所得税纳税人，而非存量财富持有者。 - **资产流动性与土地属性**：丹尼尔主张现代资本与创业人才随时可全球迁移；加里则指出以土地、房产为代表的物理不动产根本无法外逃，具有绝对的属地税收锚定价值。 - **英国房产持有分布**：丹尼尔指出英国 78% 的住房存量为老一代工薪/婴儿潮家庭自住持有，并非被少数超级富豪集中垄断。 ### [02:07:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7679s) 财富继承的神话与中产阶级的真正危机 Gary Stevenson 和 Daniel Priestley 围绕资产所有权展开了激烈交锋。Gary 指出，即便考虑到抵押贷款，住房所有权的分布也是极度不平等的，但这已经是所有资产中分布“相对最平均”的一项了；至于商业地产、土地和自然资源，普通年轻人根本无缘拥有。Daniel 随即反驳称，这些商业地产大部分是由养老基金（Pension funds）持有的，因此大众实际上通过养老金间接持有这些资产。Gary 立即犀利追问：“养老金的分配结构是怎样的？前 1% 的富人占有了多大比例的养老金？”Daniel 坦言自己没有具体数据，承认财富确实在向顶层集中，但他抛出了一个核心论点：富人群体并非铁板一块的静态群体。他援引一项关于 1900 年顶级富豪家族的研究指出，当年大多数显赫的富人家族在今天都已经衰落甚至沦为贫困；如果他们能守住当年的财富份额，今天世界上会多出 16,000 名亿万富翁。银行财富管理部门设立了专门的“家族传承规划”（Succession planning），但他们在这方面往往表现极差，财富很难跨代维系。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富再分配路径与经济分歧 accDescr: 对比历史上暴力摧毁财富与现代通过税收及创业实现再分配的不同逻辑路径。 subgraph Historical["历史教训：暴力再分配"] H1["两次世界大战 & 种族屠杀"] --> H2["物理摧毁与财富强制稀释"] H2 --> H3["中产阶级短暂崛起"] end subgraph Paths["当代路径分歧"] P1["Daniel Priestley: 自由市场创业"] P2["Gary Stevenson: 征收财富税"] end subgraph Targets["核心诉求"] T1["缩减国家干预，鼓励企业家精神"] T2["对富豪征税1%，防止中产阶层坍塌"] end Historical -.-> Paths P1 --> T1 P2 --> T2 ``` Gary 立即点破了 20 世纪财富分布改善的残酷本质：在上个世纪，是两次世界大战和大屠杀（Holocaust）彻底洗牌并再分配了财富。Daniel 赞同绝不希望历史悲剧重演，并强调自己同样渴望一个富裕强大的中产阶级。然而，当 Gary 质问“那财富到底从何而来”时，Daniel 坚信答案是依靠企业家在对财富创造友好的经济体中去拼搏。Gary 感到不可思议，反讽历届政府哪一次不是在高喊“增长、增长、增长”，但这套逻辑对底层普通人根本没用。Daniel 则坚持，问题恰恰在于政府需要退后，必须缩减国家规模、减少干预。 - 资产分布现实：商业地产与土地高度集中，普通大众主要依靠养老金间接持有，但养老金份额本身在富人与普通人之间极不平衡。 - 家族财富传承困境：由于代际传承规划极难成功，1900 年代的富豪家族多数未能延续顶级财富；若全数保留，全球如今会多出 16,000 名亿万富翁。 - 历史再分配原因：20 世纪中产阶级的出现，本质上是战争与灾难打破了既有阶层固化，而非单纯的自然稀释。 --- ### [02:09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7780s) 精简政府还是重振中产？英美模式的争辩讨论转向了美国近期的激进改革方向。Daniel 提醒观众密切关注唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）和埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的做法，因为他们正在践行精简政府的理念。主持人 Steven Bartlett 顺势向 Gary 提问：英国经济增长乏力，为何不借鉴在经济扩张上看似成功得多的美国模式？Gary 承认，在谈及“精简国家机构”时，政客总喜欢拿极度浪费的政府大楼当借口，打击腐败和清除行政浪费他百分之百支持；但英国经历了多年的财政紧缩（Austerity），削减开支的实质是地方公共服务瘫痪、警力缩减、教育受损以及青年救助服务被砍。盲目砍掉国家职能、解雇大量人员，最终受害的是依靠政府救助养活孩子的单亲妈妈。 Gary 指出，单靠削减政府根本无法解决危机。他直言，英国如今连基础住房都在全面衰退腐朽，根本原因在于房屋持有者是兜里没钱的普通人。为了具象化中产阶层崩塌的后果，Gary 举了知名 YouTuber MrBeast（野兽先生）在非洲做慈善的例子：MrBeast 只需花 500 英镑就能治愈一名原本会终生失明的儿童，非洲儿童之所以失明，并非医疗技术不可及，而是他们根本没有这 500 英镑。Gary 警告，若中产阶级被彻底掏空，英国也将滑向极度贫富分化的深渊——正如他的朋友在印度街头看到的肢体溃烂的穷人一样。只有普通中产阶级手里有钱，社会上才会涌现出对各类商品和服务的庞大需求，也才能撑起 Daniel 所倡导的商业与创业环境。被问及是否应该对 Daniel 这样的企业家征税时，Gary 明确了财富税的实际测算：如果某人身家上亿英镑，按 5% 的年回报率每年可获得 500 万英镑被动收入；即便征收 1% 的财富税（100 万英镑），其身家依旧在不断膨胀。他强调，这无关道德审判，而是冷静残酷的经济学推导，“即便向亿万富翁征税 1%，他们也依然能够挤压其余阶层，这只是我曾靠下注赚了大钱的硬核经济分析”。 - 英国紧缩政策的后果：公共服务、教育、地方治安及青年服务遭系统性削减，并未换来经济繁荣。 - 购买力与商业的底层逻辑：中产阶级的购买力是所有商业机会的基石；没有购买力，最基础的社会福祉（如儿童眼科救治、房屋修缮）都会停摆。 - 财富税的实际负荷：针对超富阶层（如身家 1 亿英镑以上）征收 1% 财富税，在 5% 的基础投资回报率下，富豪每年仍有数百万英镑净收益。 --- ### [02:12:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=7943s) 严冬将至：年轻人自救指南与底层抗争策略在最后的总结陈词阶段，Steven Bartlett 请 Gary 分别从“当代英国年轻人的个体生存”与“政府决策者该做什么”两个维度给出建议。Gary 毫不掩饰对未来的悲观预期，直言形势不仅不会好转，而且会“在短期内急剧恶化”（gets much much worse）。贫困将迅速蔓延，年轻人赚取可观收入将变得极其困难甚至近乎不可能。他郑重提醒年轻人，在规划个人财务和组建家庭之前，必须对这一残酷现实做好心理准备，并警惕随之而来的严重心理健康危机。谈及个人应对方案，Gary 赞同 Daniel 提出的勤奋工作与终身学习，但指出了残酷的阶层限制：由于生活成本重压，出身贫寒的年轻人已经失去了从事艺术、人文学科的资格，他们交不起账单，不得不被迫转向人工智能（AI）、计算机技术或社交媒体（尽管社媒对绝大多数人根本不赚钱）。Gary 勉励年轻人：“如果你在这个时代能够赚到足够的钱养家糊口，你就应该为自己感到无比骄傲。”他强调，祖辈和父辈的医疗、教育、住房和食物不是从天上掉下来的，而是通过政治抗争争取来的；如果年轻一代不参与政治博弈，既得利益集团就会把控规则，让子孙后代陷入长期贫困。关于政客的作用，Gary 直言绝大部分政客本身极其富有，生活优渥无虞，在这场不平等危机中他们处于收益端，“从顶层往下看，这场危机美妙极了”。因此，Gary 明确表示自己不会乞求政客大发慈悲，他的目标是通过互联网建立拥有 500 万追随者的公众力量，以舆论和民意“霸凌”并倒逼政客做出让步。最后，面对 Steven 询问其未来是否会亲自投身政坛的试探，Gary 回应道，虽然他无意竞选议员（MP）、财政大臣（Chancellor）或首相（Prime Minister），但如果未来某一天这被证明是解决这一结构性死结的最佳途径，他将对此保持开放态度。 - 年轻人现实应对：放弃不切实际的幻想，选择能支付账单的高技术专业（如 AI、计算机），把能养活家庭视作一项了不起的成就。 - 政治与民意动员：政客由于自身阶层利益不会主动纠错；唯有组织并动员数百万普通民众，才能形成倒逼制度改革的实际政治威慑力。 - 政治抱负的态度：当下以公众启蒙和民间运动为主，但如果未来必须进入体制内参政才能解决贫富鸿沟，不排除直接竞选公职的可能。 ### [02:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8171s) 政治不是足球赛：加里对政治竞选与党派对立的警示史蒂文询问加里·史蒂文森（Gary Stevenson）是否有意竞选公职或成为英国首相。加里直言不讳地表示，这绝非自己的“A计划”。他坦言，自己其实对目前所拥有的公众知名度感到相当不适，甚至这种关注度让他倍感压力，在节目录制前他们还私下聊过这一话题。他强调自己根本不想当首相或国会议员（MP），但他对当前推动的事业无比认真。如果有朝一日他认为参选是推动变革的最佳方式，他会考虑，但目前他更希望“在场外影响议员和政客”。当被问及普通民众到底该把选票投给谁时，加里给出了极为严肃的告诫：“政治不是足球赛（Politics is not football）。”他痛批当前把政治当成球队死忠粉对决的风气，强调这根本无关工党（Labour）、保守党（Conservative）、共和党（Republican）或民主党（Democrat）的阵营标签。现实是普通人正在失去自己的住房，孩子正在滑向贫困。加里大胆做出预测：无论是美国的前总统特朗普（Donald Trump）与共和党，还是英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）与工党，尽管身处所谓的不同政治光谱两端，最终“都会失败，因为他们都没有对不断扩大的财富不平等采取实际行动”。加里断言几年后大家可以再把他请回节目检验这一预言。加里进一步指出，狂热的派系分裂（factionalism）正在对社会造成难以置信的伤害，尤其在美国，政治对立背后充斥着深仇大恨。他指着身旁的丹尼尔说，自己和丹尼尔虽然观点截然不同，但录完节目后大家会握手言欢，彼此之间没有任何仇恨。但如果公众允许自己被撕裂、与半个国家的人陷入种族和性别的分裂对抗中，“他们（特权阶层）就会赢”。他告诫选民，唯一的标准是看谁能真正保护普通人的住房与资产；如果选民在大选前感到迷茫，可以关注他的频道《Gary's Economics》，他届时会提供分析。 ### [02:17:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8271s) 丹尼尔的结辩：科技冲击、经济自由与超级个体的新机遇丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）随后发表了自己的结辩，兼顾了宏观社会与个人微观层面。他首先盛赞加里的著作《交易游戏》（*The Trading Game*），称无论读者是否热爱经济学，这都是一部精彩绝伦的故事，自己花了两三天便一口气读完，甚至直言这部作品未来拍成电影也会极具看点。丹尼尔表示，自己在很多问题上赞同加里的观察：中产阶级确实在瓦解，且局势大概率会进一步恶化。源自成熟工业革命时期的传统中产岗位正在崩塌，全球化和技术正在彻底重构财富分配规则。但在丹尼尔看来，财富不平等本身只是一张“计分板”，背后的真正推手是科技。科技将机会分散到全球各个角落，而当前各国政府的体量和税收负担已处于历史最高水平。丹尼尔指出，在数字化时代，财富具备了前所未有的流动性，“这无关公平与否，而关乎在现实中你究竟能执行得了什么”。对于经营纯数字业务、可在全球任何地方生活办公的高净值人群，试图强行课税极难落地。在宏观维度上，丹尼尔援引数据指出，政府精简干预的“经济自由”与低贫困率之间存在强相关性；相反，一旦政府变得庞大、推行严苛的高税收与繁琐监管，贫困率往往会从 10% 飙升至 30%，激增两倍。然而在微观个体层面，他认为如今是有抱负者开启创业的最好时代： - **极低的创业门槛**：创建公司的软硬件成本处于历史最低点。 - **自媒体与影响力变现**：任何人都能够像加里那样创作内容、积累受众，并探索多元化的变现路径。 - **全球交付能力**：个体可以打造产品与服务并一键卖向全球。 - **三代白手起家的范例**：史蒂文在二十多岁和三十多岁两次白手起家成为百万富翁；加里在二十多岁跻身顶级交易员并在三十多岁成为畅销书作家与顶流创作者；丹尼尔自己在二十多岁、三十多岁乃至四十多岁连续创业成功。丹尼尔强调，三位同龄人在一间屋子里反复实现这一跃迁在过去是不可思议的，这证明了时代蕴藏的超级红利，只是这些技能学校从未传授，每个人都必须主动完成自我技能重塑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 丹尼尔关于宏观约束与微观机遇的分析框架 accDescr: 流程图展示了丹尼尔对于技术冲击下宏观挑战与微观个体创业机遇的对比逻辑 subgraph Macro["宏观趋势 (挑战与现实)"] T["技术变革与全球化"] --> M["传统中产岗位瓦解"] T --> Mob["资本与数字业务极速流动"] Mob --> Tax["高税收监管导致资本外逃 贫困率可能翻倍"] end subgraph Micro["微观个体 (超级个体机遇)"] T --> LowCost["创业成本降至历史最低"] LowCost --> Build["内容创作 / 建立受众 / 全球交付"] Build --> Wealth["打破阶层固化 (白手起家)"] end ``` ### [02:20:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8440s) 选票投向何方？对特朗普政策前景与全球资本流动的分歧史蒂文将话题拉回到政策选择上，向丹尼尔提问：丹尼尔在整场对话中的许多政策构想（例如欢迎百万富翁、营商友好型环境、削减政府浪费等），似乎与特朗普（Donald Trump）以及埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所主导的“政府效率部”（DOGE）的政策路线高度契合，那么选民是否应该为此类政策买单？特朗普的路线又能否成功？丹尼尔赞同加里关于“政治不是站队支持某支足球队”的观点，主张所有人应成为“摇摆选民”（swing voter），在每次选举中让政客拼尽全力争取自己的选票，而不是把信任白白奉送给任何党派。面对史蒂文要他给出预测的邀请，丹尼尔指出： - 特朗普正在制定极具进取心的游戏规则，通过“黄金签证”等通道，不计一切代价吸引全球的富豪、创业者与投资者涌入美国。 - 如果这套战略的衡量标准是中产阶级是否变得更富裕，丹尼尔认为这确实可能带来美国本土生活水准的提升。 - 然而这对富豪流出的国家而言将是一场灾难。在英国等国家，最富有的 1% 人口贡献了约 30% 的税收收入，一旦这批高净值人群因严苛税制离开，庞大的公共账单将被迫转嫁分摊到留下的普通纳税人头上。 ### [02:21:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8515s) 寻找共识与破局之道：史蒂文·巴特利特的总结与推荐在节目尾声，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向两位嘉宾致谢。他表示自己是两人的忠实拥趸，经常观看加里的视频，这帮助他在主流网络与社交平台言论之外，获得了一个审视世界与经济运行的全新视角。史蒂文由衷赞佩加里与丹尼尔能够在观点激荡中彼此倾听、共同探寻答案。史蒂文特别强调，网络上充斥着大量探讨创业、个人财务和如何赚钱的声音，但极其缺乏像加里这样深入剖析财富不平等底层逻辑、并尝试给出集体性与社会性系统解决方案的声音。尽管加里与丹尼尔在不平等的成因与解法上分歧严重，但两人拥有一个核心共识： - 大家都希望英国能够走出困境并生存下去。 - 国家的出路绝非让少数超级富豪攫取更多财富，而是必须恢复社会阶层流动性（social mobility），让处在社会底层的人拥有创造机会与获得成功的路径。史蒂文向观众大力推荐了加里的频道《Gary's Economics》以及他的自传体畅销书《交易游戏》（*The Trading Game*）。加里补充道，该书已连续四周高居《星期日泰晤士报》（*The Sunday Times*）畅销榜第一名。史蒂文赞叹这一成绩的同时，指出外界对该书的评价往往在“震撼难忘”与“令人心碎”之间交织，精准道出了当下经济现实的残酷一面。最后，史蒂文也推荐了丹尼尔·普里斯特利的著作《创业革命》（*Entrepreneur Revolution*）以及其官方网站上的商业工具与资源，为这场兼具微观奋斗与宏观批判的深刻辩论画上了圆满句号。 ### [02:24:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8653s) 辩论尾声与赞助商 Perfect Ted 介绍在激烈而富有洞察力的经济讨论告一段落之际，主持人 Steven Bartlett 提到了 Daniel Priestley 的个人网站 danielpriestley.com，并对 Gary Stevenson 和 Daniel Priestley 两人的倾囊相授与宝贵时间表示由衷的感谢。两位嘉宾也相互致谢，感谢主持人搭建了这样一个难得的对话平台，让两种截然不同却高度互补的经济学与商业视角得以碰撞。随后，Steven 切入播客赞助环节，介绍了当前风靡全球的抹茶饮品以及由他个人投资超过七位数（百万英镑以上）的抹茶品牌 Perfect Ted。Steven 指出，如今无论走到世界哪个角落，抹茶都越来越受欢迎，而消费者在 Blank Street Coffee 和 Joe & The Juice 等全球知名连锁咖啡厅喝到的抹茶，正是由 Perfect Ted 供应的。除了线下咖啡店，消费者现在也能用摆在他面前的风味抹茶粉，在数秒内于家中以极低成本冲泡出高品质饮品。与市面上常见苦涩、带青草腥味的廉价抹茶不同，Perfect Ted 选用的是源自日本的礼道级（Ceremonial grade）抹茶，口感顺滑且自带天然甘甜。Steven 强调，如果有人觉得自己不爱喝抹茶，大概率只是因为还没尝试过 Perfect Ted。目前该品牌在英国各大主流超市均有销售，包括 Tesco、Sainsbury's、Holland & Barrett 和 Waitrose；荷兰消费者可在 Albert Heijn 购买，美国消费者则可通过 Amazon 订购，或直接在其官网使用专属折扣码享受首单优惠。 - **品牌合作渠道**：Blank Street Coffee、Joe & The Juice 等国际咖啡连锁。 - **商超零售网络**：英国（Tesco、Sainsbury's、Holland & Barrett、Waitrose）、荷兰（Albert Heijn）、美国（Amazon）。 - **产品特点**：日本原产礼道级抹茶原料，主打顺滑无涩味与自然回甘，支持家庭即冲。 --- ### [02:25:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=8722s) 订阅呼吁与节目承诺在节目的最后，Steven Bartlett 向长期收听节目的听众分享了一组令人震惊的后台数据：在经常收听《The Diary Of A CEO》的忠实听众中，竟然有高达 53% 的人尚未点击订阅按钮。针对这一现象，Steven 诚恳地向大家发起请求：如果听众喜欢这档节目、认可团队的付出并希望给予支持，最简单且完全免费的方式就是顺手点击“订阅”（Subscribe）。作为对观众支持的回馈，Steven 郑重承诺，他和整个团队将竭尽全力确保节目的质量每周都有所提升——他们会认真倾听受众的每一条反馈，尽全力邀请听众最想见到的重磅嘉宾，持续带来深刻、坦诚且富有价值的高水平对谈。 - **核心数据**：经常收听节目的观众中约有 53% 尚未订阅频道。 - **团队承诺**：持续吸收社群反馈，全力邀约受众心仪的嘉宾，不断打磨并提升每期节目的制作水准。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=0s) 我受够了那些千万富翁跑去对连暖气都开不起的孩子们说：‘你只是需要更有创业精神。’这太病态了，Dan，这简直令人作呕！ — Gary Stevenson > [07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=441s) 这是最好的时代，这是最坏的时代。 — Daniel Priestley > [25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=1558s) 我们应该对公众坦白。资本主义已经结束了，我们赢了！干得漂亮史蒂文，干得漂亮丹尼尔，干得漂亮加里！一切都结束了。我们的孩子会大富大贵，而他们的孩子将一贫如洗。他们去缴纳沉重的税负，而我们这帮富人会合法避税。我年复一年靠押注这种贫富分化继续赚大钱——我们为什么还要对他们撒谎？ — Gary Stevenson > [37:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2234s) 凭什么我辛苦工作挣钱要交 60% 的税，别人平白继承 100 亿却分文不纳？ — Gary Stevenson > [48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=2881s) 听着，这帮人又不是甘道夫……有时候我们必须去做一些事情，不是因为它们容易，而是因为它们艰难。这才是让一个富裕国家真正富有的原因，这才是保护普通人的方式。 — Gary Stevenson > [01:19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=4781s) 我想让你，Daniel，反驳一下你自己的论点。因为当我们在探讨这个问题的解决方案是‘去创业、要有企业家精神’时，你必须明白，这套逻辑或许对拥有我们这种大脑、这种思维方式、风险承受力或者创伤背景的人有用，但并不是每个人生来都是这种构造。 — Steven Bartlett > [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5081s) 听着，Steven，过去这 70 年绝不是历史的常态。在欧美，像我父亲那样在邮局上班、拿着低于全国平均工资的薪水，就能买得起房、抚养一整个家庭，这在整个人类历史上、在全世界范围内都是极不正常的！ — Gary Stevenson > [01:34:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5664s) 我是这张桌子上唯一一个真正反对‘财富再分配’的人！因为残酷的再分配此时此刻就正在我们眼皮底下发生——中产阶级正在失去资产，政府正在失去资产，而所有这些资产正以惊人的速度被极少数超级富豪巧取豪夺。我所倡导的，是立刻阻止这场将财富从英美普通家庭抽离的逆向再分配！ — Gary Stevenson > [01:34:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=5664s) Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes — Gary Stevenson > [01:49:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6542s) 我就是靠押注社会崩溃、中产阶级覆灭赚到几百万英镑的，但我绝不想在沉没的‘泰坦尼克号’头等舱里给别人推荐股票！ — Gary Stevenson > [01:55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6911s) 你提议的教育改革，就像是在‘泰坦尼克号’即将沉没时去重新摆放甲板上的桌椅。 — Gary Stevenson > [01:55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas&t=6911s) 我可以极其肯定地告诉你，再过 70 年，这个国家将有 95% 到 98% 的人口彻底陷入贫困。 — Gary Stevenson ## Mentioned Gary Stevenson, Daniel Priestley, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Citibank, London School of Economics (LSE), The Trading Game, Lehman Brothers, Bank of England, Hugh Grosvenor (Duke of Westminster), Grosvenor Estate, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Magnificent 7, Zoom, Microsoft, Amazon (AWS), Shopify, YouTube, S&P 500, FTSE 100, Facebook, Starbucks, HMRC, NHS, ElevenLabs, OpenAI, Fixer, Rishi Sunak, Infosys, Steve Jobs, Apple, WeWork, Airbnb, Fiverr, Gymshark, Ben Francis, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, IMF, HDB (建屋发展局), Theodore Roosevelt, Standard Oil, Audible, Google, Gmail, Balenciaga, Flight Cast, Intuit, WHOOP, MrBeast, Keir Starmer, The Sunday Times, Perfect Ted ## Video description Is the economy on the brink of collapse? Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley break down the emergency financial crisis no one is talking about The Diary Of A CEO’s economics debate is joined by 2 experts: Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley. Gary Stevenson is a British economist, former financial trader, and author of The Trading Game. Daniel Priestly is an award-winning serial entrepreneur who has written 5 books on starting and scaling businesses. 00:00 Intro 02:04 Who Is Gary Stevenson? 07:19 Who Is Daniel Priestley? 09:53 The Importance of Economic Freedom 11:46 Who Are We Blaming for the Economic Situation? 13:22 The UK & US Debt We're Carrying From COVID 17:34 Is There Financial Security for Most of Us in 2025? 26:03 What Does Gary Think of Daniel's Views? 28:47 The Current Homeownership Situation 34:11 US vs UK Market With Building Technology 36:28 Taxing Billionaires 40:52 Do You Tax Their Value or the Countries Where They Trade? 45:25 Why Are Millionaires Leaving the UK? 48:39 Stopping Profit Shifting of Companies 52:29 How $10M+ Companies Avoid Taxes 57:51 Where Is the Biggest Amount of Money Going? 59:56 How to Bring Big Tech Companies and Entrepreneurs to the UK 01:04:34 Are Tax Evasions Causing Issues With NHS, Education, and Higher Crime? 01:10:20 Why Poor People Are Struggling to Build Wealth 01:19:39 Ads 01:20:43 How to Create Wealth in the Economy 01:37:07 Monopolies 01:40:08 Advice to Younger People 01:47:01 Take Action: Play the Cards You Are Dealt 01:51:35 Do We Have Personal Responsibility to Change This? 01:53:55 Is the Current Education System Failing Us? 02:00:45 Inheritance Taxes 02:04:40 Ads 02:09:55 America's Approach to Building Wealth 02:12:23 What to Do At An Individual & Government Level Research Document: https://stevenbartlett.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/DOAC-debate-Gary-Daniel-Independent-research.pdf Follow Gary: YouTube - https://g2ul0.app.link/xdrUsPgERRb Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/OoThWmfERRb Follow Daniel: X - https://g2ul0.app.link/3ui4EJjERRb Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/Wa2RfsaHRRb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/jUbxNu8GRRb Watch the episodes on Youtube - https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACEpisodes My new book! 'The 33 Laws Of Business & Life' is out now - https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACBook You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Fiverr - http://fiverr.com/diary with code DIARY for 10% off your first order WHOOP - https://JOIN.WHOOP.COM/CEO Intuit - https://www.intuit.com/careers/ Perfect Ted - https://www.perfectted.com with code DIARY40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yohVh4qcas)

Source quotes

[0:00] Gary Stevenson: 我受够了那些千万富翁跑去对连暖气都开不起的孩子们说：‘你只是需要更有创业精神。’这太病态了，Dan，这简直令人作呕！ [7:21] Daniel Priestley: 这是最好的时代，这是最坏的时代。 [25:58] Gary Stevenson: 我们应该对公众坦白。资本主义已经结束了，我们赢了！干得漂亮史蒂文，干得漂亮丹尼尔，干得漂亮加里！一切都结束了。我们的孩子会大富大贵，而他们的孩子将一贫如洗。他们去缴纳沉重的税负，而我们这帮富人会合法避税。我年复一年靠押注这种贫富分化继续赚大钱——我们为什么还要对他们撒谎？ [37:14] Gary Stevenson: 凭什么我辛苦工作挣钱要交 60% 的税，别人平白继承 100 亿却分文不纳？ [48:01] Gary Stevenson: 听着，这帮人又不是甘道夫……有时候我们必须去做一些事情，不是因为它们容易，而是因为它们艰难。这才是让一个富裕国家真正富有的原因，这才是保护普通人的方式。 [79:41] Steven Bartlett: 我想让你，Daniel，反驳一下你自己的论点。因为当我们在探讨这个问题的解决方案是‘去创业、要有企业家精神’时，你必须明白，这套逻辑或许对拥有我们这种大脑、这种思维方式、风险承受力或者创伤背景的人有用，但并不是每个人生来都是这种构造。 [84:41] Gary Stevenson: 听着，Steven，过去这 70 年绝不是历史的常态。在欧美，像我父亲那样在邮局上班、拿着低于全国平均工资的薪水，就能买得起房、抚养一整个家庭，这在整个人类历史上、在全世界范围内都是极不正常的！ [94:24] Gary Stevenson: 我是这张桌子上唯一一个真正反对‘财富再分配’的人！因为残酷的再分配此时此刻就正在我们眼皮底下发生——中产阶级正在失去资产，政府正在失去资产，而所有这些资产正以惊人的速度被极少数超级富豪巧取豪夺。我所倡导的，是立刻阻止这场将财富从英美普通家庭抽离的逆向再分配！ [94:24] Gary Stevenson: Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes [109:02] Gary Stevenson: 我就是靠押注社会崩溃、中产阶级覆灭赚到几百万英镑的，但我绝不想在沉没的‘泰坦尼克号’头等舱里给别人推荐股票！ [115:11] Gary Stevenson: 你提议的教育改革，就像是在‘泰坦尼克号’即将沉没时去重新摆放甲板上的桌椅。 [115:11] Gary Stevenson: 我可以极其肯定地告诉你，再过 70 年，这个国家将有 95% 到 98% 的人口彻底陷入贫困。

Source quotes

[13:22] Gary Stevenson: At the beginning of COVID, we knew governments across the world were going to be giving out tens of trillions of pounds, dollars, euros... Nobody even thought to ask who's going to get tens of trillions richer. Nobody in the Conservatives, nobody in Labour, nobody in the Republicans, nobody in Democrats, nobody in the media... It's almost beautiful. It's unbelievable. [26:03] Gary Stevenson: I make money by being right on the economy... I know you're probably a wealthy man, you probably don't want to pay high taxes... but we exist in an economy where wealth is being extracted out of the middle class, out of the working class, very, very rapidly. It's benefiting people like the three of us at this table... our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor. And I just think we should be honest with them. Capitalism's finished. We won. Well done Stephen, well done Daniel, well done Gary. It's over now. Our kids will be rich, their kids will be poor... Why are we lying to them? [33:26] Gary Stevenson: I worked my tits off and I paid... 50% top rate tax plus National Insurance—60%—to bring my family out of poverty at the same time the Duke of Westminster inherited 10 billion and paid nothing. Do you think that's fair? [39:21] Daniel Priestley: It strikes me as very strange that the government... is chasing down moms and dads who sell a few things on eBay... but Facebook's fine to pretend to be in Ireland. [46:21] Gary Stevenson: Isn't it a bit more like if there were 10 of us at dinner, and there was one guy who came to dinner on the condition he wouldn't pay? [64:34] Gary Stevenson: If you allow British people who own 300 million pounds of British assets to technically live in Monaco and not pay tax, then you will get crime and you will have dirty streets and you will have a bad healthcare system. [72:20] Gary Stevenson: I'm sick of multi-millionaires telling kids who can't afford to turn the heating on 'you just need to be more entrepreneurial.' It's sick, Dan! It gives people mental illness. Tell them the truth: our generation took the opportunities, and now it is almost impossible to get out of poverty. [74:05] Daniel Priestley: The thing that I know that gives people mental health issues is feeling that they have no agency in their life... To me, if I had have come across your content at 19, 20 years old, I would have been screwed. [78:08] Daniel Priestley: Technology does three things: it makes jobs more simple which makes them replaceable, it makes jobs global where you can move them anywhere else, and then ultimately it automates the job altogether and gets rid of it. [80:43] Daniel Priestley: It's only 1% of people who pay 30% of the taxes, and 10% of people who pay 60% of the taxes. So you only need one in a hundred to actually create something that's valuable. [84:41] Gary Stevenson: The last 70 years are not normal... The only time we've ever really been able to provide decent living conditions for ordinary working people was the period after the war where we massively redistributed wealth. Gary Stevenson: Freedom for the heron is death for the fishes. If we have complete freedom, multi-millionaires like you and me will get richer... and we will eat the middle class. [97:07] Daniel Priestley: Billionaires have two big fears... Number two is high taxes; number one is that startup entrepreneur who disrupts their business. [107:01] Daniel Priestley: You cannot sit around waiting for the economic system of the world to be changed. You have to say, 'These are the cards I was born with... I'm going to play the cards that I've been dealt.' Personal agency is what gets people to feel good about their life. [132:23] Gary Stevenson: If you don't play politics, I guarantee you the other side will play politics and that means your kids and your grandkids live in poverty.

Original transcript

[0:00] I'm I'm sick of multi-millionaires [0:02] telling kids who can't afford to turn [0:03] the heating on you just need to be more [0:05] entrepreneurial it's sick Dan it's sick [0:07] well your video where you talk about if [0:09] you don't have a rich dad you're screwed [0:10] well to me if I had have come across [0:12] your content at 19 20 years old I would [0:14] have been screwed my friends can't feed [0:17] their kids okay if it was that easy why [0:19] is everybody not doing it I'll tell you [0:20] why people aren't doing it it's because [0:23] you like to say one thing back on [0:25] that today's debate is fiery to say the [0:29] least but important nonetheless as I sat [0:31] down with two leading experts in wealth [0:33] and Entrepreneurship and the economy to [0:35] discuss the state of the US the state of [0:37] the UK and the Western World do you [0:39] think the reason the average Brit [0:41] American are getting poorer is because [0:42] they don't know how to create wealth no [0:44] the reason people are getting poorer is [0:46] because of big governments record levels [0:48] of taxes an outdated schooling system [0:50] technology and remote working you sure [0:52] about that how do you disagree with [0:54] those opinions living standards are [0:55] falling because of growing wealth in [0:57] equality if you allow the rich to get [0:58] richer they squeeze the middle class and [1:00] the poor class out of things like [1:01] housing let's cut tax on people who are [1:03] working hard and let's raise tax on the [1:05] richest and most powerful people in the [1:06] world that's an overly simplified view [1:08] of things we now have a th000 [1:09] millionaires a month leaving which means [1:11] every ordinary person who pays 10 grand [1:13] a year in tax will now have to pay 20 [1:15] grand a year in tax you end up cutting [1:17] off your nose to spite your face if we [1:19] are a country that don't try and do [1:20] things which are necessary because they [1:22] are hard then our kids will live in [1:24] poverty what do you want people to do [1:26] there's a lot of different ways Backle [1:28] up this has always blown my mind a [1:31] little bit 53% of you that listen to the [1:33] show regularly haven't yet subscribed to [1:35] the show so could I ask you for a favor [1:38] before we start if you like the show and [1:39] you like what we do here and you want to [1:40] support us the free simple way that you [1:42] can do just that is by hitting the [1:43] Subscribe button and my commitment to [1:45] you is if you do that then I'll do [1:47] everything in my power me and my team to [1:49] make sure that this show is better for [1:50] you every single week we'll listen to [1:52] your feedback we'll find the guest that [1:54] you want me to speak to and we'll [1:55] continue to do what we do thank you so [1:57] much [2:01] Gary [2:03] Daniel Daniel you've been on the show a [2:05] few times before so I want to start with [2:07] Gary and understand a little bit about [2:08] your backstory and who you are and [2:10] having been through the trading game and [2:12] read and watched many many of your [2:13] videos over time I have a a sort of deep [2:15] understanding of that but for anyone [2:16] that doesn't know you can you give me a [2:18] picture of the context that um has [2:21] brought you to where you are today [2:22] writing about the things you're writing [2:24] about today and running the YouTube [2:25] channel and speaking to the subject [2:26] matter that you're speaking about today [2:27] take me right back and give me as much [2:29] as you possibly can okay so my name is [2:32] Gary Stevenson uh I was born in a place [2:34] called ilford which is in outer East [2:36] London quite a poor family little [2:39] Terrace House by the railway you know [2:40] playing football in the streets kind of [2:42] stuff [2:43] um always very good at maths since I was [2:46] a kid very talented Master student [2:48] eventually able to get into the London [2:49] School of Economics which is an [2:51] extremely Elite University economics [2:54] University in the center of London which [2:57] is basically a kind of investment [3:00] banking boot camp got a job as a Trader [3:03] started working full-time as a [3:06] short-term interest rates Trader at City [3:08] Bank in London in June [3:11] 2008 when I was 21 obviously yeah [3:13] exactly that's just before the big [3:15] credit crash the big Leman crisis and I [3:17] watched the Leman Crisis happen in front [3:19] of my eyes I was um short-term interest [3:21] rate trading is basically like [3:23] short-term loans and during the credit [3:25] crisis what credit crisis is is nobody [3:27] can borrow any money so like short-term [3:28] loans become really really important [3:29] important my desk which was like [3:31] historically an unfashionable area of [3:32] trading became like the center of the [3:35] crisis or one of the centers of the [3:36] crisis people started making tons of [3:38] money um I was working with all these [3:40] crazy people and you can imagine me like [3:42] I turn up 21 years old and then like [3:44] within three months like everyone around [3:46] me is making a ton of money during the [3:48] credit crisis but what really interested [3:50] me was what happened after the crisis [3:53] itself which was so we're betting on [3:56] interest [3:57] rates long story short interest rates [4:00] come down when the economy is weak and [4:02] they go up when the economy is strong or [4:04] when the economy is overheating from an [4:05] inflation perspective in 2018 all the [4:08] interest rates go to zero so suddenly [4:10] our job is basically predicting and [4:13] betting on when will those interest [4:15] rates go back up which is when will the [4:17] economy recover and this is super [4:20] interesting right in [4:22] 2008 because all the interest rates went [4:24] to zero so quickly like before 2008 it's [4:26] important to remember rates would move [4:27] from like five and a half to five and a [4:29] quarter and then here in 2008 everywhere [4:31] in the world slashing to zero Bo half a [4:33] percent exactly and everybody all the [4:35] economists were like wow this is going [4:36] to cause a massive recovery because they [4:38] thought that interest rates were [4:39] powerful and everybody predicted that [4:42] rates would come back up in 2009 which [4:44] of course we knowed they didn't then [4:46] everybody predicted that rates would go [4:47] up in 2010 which we now know they didn't [4:50] and then at the beginning of 2011 [4:53] everybody was predicting rates would [4:54] definitely go up this year and this to [4:56] me was so interesting so interesting [5:00] because you know I studied master and [5:02] economics at one of the best economics [5:04] universities in the world and now I'm [5:06] working with these traders who are [5:07] getting paid millions of pounds a year [5:09] million pounds a year to predict the [5:10] economy to predict the interest rates [5:12] and everybody is wrong year after year [5:16] after year and this [5:18] was I was so amazing to me for a couple [5:21] of reasons first of all it's like wow [5:23] like this is a big thing that we as a [5:25] society should understand and like we're [5:27] getting it wrong but secondly [5:30] if all of the best guys in the world are [5:31] getting this wrong then if I can figure [5:33] this out I can make a ton of money here [5:37] G how much money did you make for City [5:39] Bank at the age of 24 years old that [5:42] year so that year 2011 I put this big [5:46] bet on that it would get worse forever [5:48] and I was City bank's most profitable [5:50] Trader in the world that year and I made [5:52] them just over $ 35 million you made [5:54] them $35 million you eventually decide [5:56] to leave City Bank yeah why [6:00] I mean I think that's an interesting [6:01] question right you know in the sense [6:03] that I've just explained to you what [6:05] happened which is I made a ton of money [6:08] by betting on the collapse of Western [6:13] Society uh I did it in 2011 I did it [6:16] again in 2012 [6:19] um I would prefer for it not to collapse [6:23] step and I'm trying to stop it from [6:27] collapsing when you say it collapsing [6:29] what exactly you're referring to that [6:31] you you don't want to [6:32] collapse so you you born in Botswana [6:35] right yeah do you still have family [6:36] there um I've got family in Nigeria [6:39] which is where my my family are from I [6:40] was born in Botswana because we were [6:41] visiting there but got family in Africa [6:43] do you go to Nigeria much no I I've got [6:45] home in Cape Town in South Africa so I [6:47] see the it's a great place if you want [6:49] to see inequality I think there [6:53] is a naivity in in in this country in [6:56] places like the US that the kind of [6:58] inequality the kind of broad poverty [7:02] that you see in places like South Africa [7:04] in places like Nigeria in places like [7:06] India can't happen [7:08] here it will happen here that is the [7:11] future of this country that is the [7:12] future of the US and I'm not just saying [7:14] that I'm betting on it and I've been [7:15] betting on it for 15 years and I've been [7:17] right for 15 years that is what I'm [7:19] trying to avoid [7:21] Daniel where did you come from yeah so I [7:24] grew up in Australia um and I was born [7:27] to low-income family I grew up in a [7:29] place that had 24% Unemployment uh [7:32] pretty much the only jobs or [7:34] opportunities around me were things like [7:37] uh the trades building construction Pest [7:40] Control um hospitality and tourism um so [7:44] uh at 14 I got a job at McDonald's and [7:46] then I'm got a job in a bar and Pizza [7:48] Hut delivery driving and I discover [7:51] entrepreneurship so I discover books [7:52] about entrepreneurship and I discovered [7:54] that some people make millions similar [7:55] to yourself you saw Canary WF I read a [7:57] book about business ownership and as we [8:00] sit here today can you give me the [8:02] overview of your business success since [8:04] then yeah so I now have a group of [8:07] companies that I've either started or [8:08] bought um there's I've just sold a [8:09] company so there's seven companies in [8:11] the group um I've started a couple of [8:13] software companies one of our companies [8:15] is now the fastest growing one of the [8:16] fastest growing companies in the UK um [8:19] we you know we're a software business uh [8:21] I've got a couple of agencies I've got a [8:24] Education and Training business and [8:26] where when you think about the UK and [8:28] broadly the Western world today [8:29] what is your assessment of where we're [8:31] at as a country and what's concerning [8:33] you because Gary expressed quite [8:34] articulately that his big concern is [8:36] that because of wealth INE equality [8:37] we're going to end up in a similar [8:39] position to the likes of India what are [8:41] you concerned about I agree that it [8:43] wasn't that long ago that we had real [8:46] serious wealth inequality in this [8:47] country there are amazing photos from [8:50] like a 100 years ago of kids working in [8:52] mines and kids doing oyster shocking and [8:54] all this horrible work and um you know [8:57] there's a there's a book Charles Dickens [8:59] wrot wrote called The Tale of Two Cities [9:01] and the opening line of the book is it [9:03] was the best of times it was the worst [9:04] of times and I think we've actually [9:06] gotten to that point here where some [9:08] people in the UK it's the best of times [9:10] if you uh like in your situation you're [9:12] you know you're booming you're a [9:13] globally successful business um I've got [9:16] a globally successful business and then [9:18] there are a lot of people who completely [9:20] cannot relate to this their you know [9:22] Energy prices are now the most expensive [9:24] in the Western World house prices are [9:26] completely unaffordable it used to be [9:28] used to take 3 years to for a deposit [9:30] it's now 20 years if you you know [9:31] theoretically 20 years if you can save [9:33] for a deposit food prices are through [9:35] the roof so we're we're in a really diff [9:37] like for anyone who is not tapped into [9:40] digital economy fast growth and all of [9:41] that sort of stuff life is getting [9:43] harder and worse um and things are [9:46] collapsing um if you if you would um go [9:49] with that the there is a predictable [9:52] path countries go on and there's this [9:54] thing called the economic freedom index [9:56] and the economic freedom index basically [9:57] says how economically free are you how [9:59] how much access do you have to free [10:01] markets um do can you start a business [10:03] can you scale a business um does [10:05] anything inhibit your ability to run [10:07] your own life countries that have high [10:10] degrees of economic freedom have very [10:12] low poverty they have widespread [10:14] affluence and countries that have low [10:16] economic freedoms have high poverty and [10:18] it can be the difference between less [10:20] than 10% right up to 70% poverty rates [10:24] um and when countries go on a path [10:26] towards economic freedom poverty just [10:28] drops so India for examp example has [10:29] been on that path and they announced [10:31] today that they've almost eradicated uh [10:33] abject poverty or extreme poverty um the [10:36] UK went on that path of low economic [10:38] freedom to high economic freedom and we [10:40] saw poverty rates come right down but in [10:43] 2008 when the global financial crisis [10:45] happened one of the things that happened [10:47] is the government said we need to step [10:49] in and we need to take charge and [10:51] everyone said please do um so they came [10:53] in and they said all right we're going [10:54] to ramp up debt ramp up taxes uh to pay [10:57] for the debt and we're also going to put [10:58] it all regul in and unfortunately that [11:01] starts to reduce economic freedom then [11:03] the pandemic happens and they say oh [11:05] we're going to spend more money again [11:07] through debt we're going to have more uh [11:10] taxes more regulations less economic [11:12] freedom so the UK we went from an 82 [11:15] when I arrived in 2006 went from 82 out [11:18] of 100 down to 68 out of 100 so we're [11:20] less economically free and predictably [11:23] what we will always see happen if you [11:25] lower people's economic freedom more [11:28] poverty [11:29] uh less affluence uh the Millionaires [11:32] and the wealth creators leave uh the [11:35] people who are stuck in um dead end jobs [11:38] uh or no jobs get incredibly frustrated [11:41] everyone starts looking for someone to [11:43] blame people are angry and they're like [11:44] who do we blame and who do they blame [11:48] it's very different because in the US we [11:50] blame us blam someone different to the [11:52] UK so we have a historical cultural [11:54] memory in the UK we have a cultural [11:56] memory that the people to blame are the [11:58] rich so so uh we have landlords and uh [12:01] aristocracy and the landed gentry those [12:04] guys are to blame right so blame the [12:06] rich is what we say in the UK in the US [12:09] they have a very different view their [12:11] cultural memory is that they're [12:12] anti-government they want limited [12:14] government in 2023 there was this song [12:17] that came out called uh rich men north [12:19] of uh Richmond and it was the number one [12:21] song in America and the lyrics of the [12:24] song basically says people in Washington [12:26] do not care about working people um they [12:28] ATT taxing everything we touch you can't [12:31] earn money they depreciate the dollar um [12:34] they tax tax tax tax tax and they want [12:36] to control Our Lives those are the [12:37] lyrics of the songs controlling our [12:39] lives and taxing us so the American uh [12:43] reaction to this is who's to blame [12:45] government so we want smaller government [12:47] we want a department of government [12:49] efficiency to come in we want someone as [12:51] a wrecking ball who will come in and [12:53] smash government the British instinct is [12:56] hate the rich it must be the Rich's [12:58] fault so when we look for like all all [13:01] of the Western countries that [13:02] implemented lower economic [13:04] freedoms created more poverty less [13:07] affluence and more disruption to their [13:10] economies so both us and UK for example [13:13] and Australia as well but both sides of [13:16] the pond want someone to blame it's just [13:18] that the Americans blame government and [13:20] we blame the rich Gary I'm sure you you [13:22] have a lot to to say there I know you [13:25] both use the word collapsing so you [13:26] agree that there's a problem here but I [13:28] think you from studying both of your [13:30] sort of perspectives you think that this [13:34] the solution and the cause of the [13:35] problem is different I mean I put bets [13:37] on I put bets on I put bet that's what I [13:40] do I put bets on um at the beginning of [13:44] covid we knew the government was going [13:45] to give enormous amount of money out um [13:48] total amount of money now UK government [13:49] deficit since the beginning of Co is is1 [13:51] trillion pounds US number is $4 [13:54] trillion that's you know £20,000 per UK [13:58] adult [13:59] my background is I understand that when [14:02] the distribution gets worse when [14:04] inequality gets worse living standards [14:05] full so when when the UK government was [14:09] going to give a trillion pounds out all [14:10] I wanted to know was who's going to end [14:12] up with that money that's all I wanted [14:14] to know and um I mean the US number 13 [14:16] trillion 14 trillion is just outlandish [14:19] but I think the most amazing thing I've [14:21] ever seen in my whole [14:23] life was that at the beginning of Co the [14:26] very beginning of Co we knew governments [14:28] across the world we're going to be [14:29] giving out tens of trillions of pounds [14:31] dollars [14:32] Euros nobody even thought to ask who's [14:36] going to get tens of trillions richer [14:38] nobody in the conservatives nobody in [14:40] labor nobody in the Republicans nobody [14:42] in Democrats nobody in the media nobody [14:44] in Academia nobody the central banks [14:46] nobody asked this it's [14:48] it's it's it's almost beautiful it's [14:51] it's unbelievable it's unbeliev so I I [14:53] sat down and I did I did the analysis at [14:54] the beginning because lockdown is [14:57] essentially Banning the spending of the [14:58] rich [14:59] and replacing that spending of the rich [15:01] with printed money from government what [15:03] happens is the government gives workers [15:05] money they use that money to pay their [15:07] bills to pay their rent pay their [15:08] mortgage it goes to the rich the rich [15:10] can't spend it because they're locked [15:11] indoors and what you get is essentially [15:14] an enormous amount of money from the [15:15] government to the poor to the rich and [15:17] this massive massive transfer of wealth [15:19] um that was obviously going that was so [15:22] obviously going to happen at the [15:23] beginning of Co nobody discussed it [15:25] which I think is itself [15:27] amazing let me ask you a question right [15:29] if we were now to pause the economy for [15:32] 2 years and during that pause massively [15:35] increase wealth inequality what do you [15:37] think would happen to Broad living [15:39] conditions when we [15:41] unpaused see one of the things that I [15:43] think happened during the pandemic is [15:47] everything went digital and um [15:50] entrepreneurs and investors did actually [15:52] think about what would happen the [15:53] investors immediately boomed stocks like [15:56] zoom and uh Microsoft and we ended up [15:59] with the Magnificent 7 um I don't know [16:02] if you you know there's seven big tech [16:04] companies in the USA market and those [16:07] big seven companies have gone from five [16:09] trillion valuation to 17 TR trillion [16:12] valuation uh in the time of the pandemic [16:15] and if you think about what did the [16:16] pandemic do uh everyone had to work from [16:19] home so we all had to have Microsoft [16:21] subscriptions everyone went onto website [16:23] so we all went to AWS uh Amazon we all [16:26] started buying and learning how to buy [16:27] from Amazon rather than buying from from [16:29] our local high streets every business in [16:31] the world figured out how to run their [16:32] business remotely uh we had this massive [16:35] transformation it wasn't it was like [16:37] it's actually a wholesale transformation [16:38] of society that we all learned how to [16:40] live and work differently um I saw a [16:43] boom in entrepreneurship so what I saw [16:45] as an entrepreneur accelerator um [16:47] someone who runs an entrepreneur [16:48] accelerator is just there was this [16:50] sudden boom in people launching [16:52] businesses uh setting up Shopify [16:55] accounts setting up YouTube uh [16:57] businesses so the money really has moved [17:01] from the traditional economy the 2019 [17:04] High Street economy over to the digital [17:06] economy and what we see is that the [17:08] investors know what's going on and they [17:10] just invest in This Magnificent Seven [17:11] company I think 50% of the gains of the [17:13] S&P 500 is tech companies um so all the [17:16] money just goes flooding into the the [17:18] technology companies my my belief is [17:20] that technolog is really dividing people [17:22] that essentially if you take anyone from [17:24] any background if they work in [17:26] technology uh if they're in Media Tech [17:28] Finance any of that stuff that operates [17:30] online they tend to actually do pretty [17:33] pretty well after the pandemic I ask you [17:34] a question yeah go for do you think the [17:37] average Brit American Australian whoever [17:40] the person out there is watching if they [17:41] quit their job and go work in Tech do [17:43] you think they'll be able to get [17:44] Financial Security relatively [17:48] easily depends when you defi Define [17:50] Financial Security the issue with house [17:52] prices the ability to raise a family [17:54] have a home yeah so having a home is a [17:56] big issue right so here's here's what I [17:59] here's what I see with houses cuz houses [18:01] annoy me as well my dad bought a house [18:03] for [18:04] $188,000 which is about £10,000 or less [18:06] than £10,000 and it's probably worth [18:08] over a million dollars um uh today so [18:11] something went wrong and and this by the [18:13] way is not UK specific uh the socialist [18:16] countries had house prices go through [18:18] the roof if you go to Norway or Sweden [18:19] their house prices grew by 600% uh in [18:22] then it's happening everywhere it's not [18:25] specific to anywhere it's happening [18:26] everywhere but but what happened what [18:27] what has definitely in the UK is we [18:30] actually have um a housing traffic jam [18:32] so in this country in the UK we have 9.5 [18:37] million homes that have two or more [18:39] spare bedrooms big family homes have two [18:42] or more spare bedrooms and when you look [18:43] into who owns those houses 78% of [18:45] housing wealth is Baby Boomers um and [18:48] now anecdotally I take my kids [18:49] trick-or-treating at uh Halloween and we [18:52] go down a street that is big family [18:54] homes and you go knock on the doors and [18:55] it's all people over 65 right and living [18:59] in a big family home with empty spare [19:01] bedrooms we you think the average [19:02] American over 65 is living luxuriously [19:05] the average American over 65 so more [19:08] than half of the US economy is in the [19:09] hands of baby boomers right so they own [19:12] all the houses the the houses got bought [19:14] up cheap baby boomers still own those [19:17] houses to this day the big family homes [19:19] with multiple spare bedrooms are empty [19:22] um and now that creates this traffic jam [19:25] people my age my grandparents yeah they [19:27] all owned property [19:31] all four of [19:32] them died with [19:34] nothing um because that wealth which [19:37] they had in in property was was used in [19:41] equity release schemes they they it was [19:43] used in paying through their retirement [19:45] it was used in End of Life Care um do [19:48] you think when those old people die [19:49] young people today will be rich there is [19:53] half the economy held by baby burus it's [19:55] either going to be passed down or passed [19:59] into the age care industry or passed [20:01] into the but the issue of why we can't [20:03] get homes two things government [20:06] massively inflated the value of homes [20:08] through debt so they just in injected [20:10] like low interest rates that you [20:11] involved in who who is the debt to well [20:13] the debt is to anyone who can take out [20:14] Al loan because if a 0% interest rates [20:16] or 2% interest R you think it's the debt [20:18] is the ordinary families do you think [20:19] ordinary families are the creditors when [20:20] you say ordinary families you mean [20:23] bottom third so if your average British [20:24] or American family now has half a [20:26] million pounds of debt crit it's anyone [20:29] who could get their at that particular [20:31] time anyone who could get their hands on [20:33] a loan to buy a house but who has the [20:35] credit who has who is on the other side [20:36] of the debt so if the average British [20:38] family million P banking license does [20:40] the average British family have half [20:41] million pound of credit well a lot of [20:43] people have got a lot of equity in their [20:44] home now you think the average British [20:46] family is sitting on half a million [20:47] pound cash I'd love to look at the what [20:48] the actual number is but it's a couple [20:50] hundred thousand worth of equity 78 what [20:52] about the credit on the line credit on [20:54] the line owns the credit on the line in [20:56] mind it's disproportionately older [20:57] people so [20:59] think the average British old person is [21:00] sitting on million millions of pounds of [21:02] cash not millions of cash no equity well [21:04] someone is on the other side of just one [21:05] say the difference the difference is if [21:07] you inflate the value of a house you [21:08] don't have cash you have a house that's [21:10] worth a lot of money so 78% of home [21:13] ownership wealth is in the hands of [21:14] people over 65 now it's baby boomer [21:16] generation and they got a great gift [21:19] from the government which is the [21:20] government said we're going to just give [21:22] free loans away if someone previously [21:25] could have only afforded to take out a [21:26] 200 Grand loan with low interest rates [21:28] they can afford a 300 Grand L do you [21:30] think it's okay that the average British [21:33] or American young person will never own [21:35] any wealth the issue is not whether it's [21:37] okay or not the issue is what do you do [21:38] about it I do you own wealth I've got [21:40] wealth yeah you own wealth but depends [21:42] what you call Wealth I do so do we three [21:45] multimillionaires do we think it's okay [21:47] that the average Brit or American young [21:49] person will never own any wealth that to [21:51] me that's because I don't think that's [21:52] okay to me that's not the debate is it [21:54] okay it's not well it it's not okay no [21:57] we want widespread would you rather that [21:59] the people who currently are [22:01] multi-millionaires would you rather that [22:02] all of the world was owned by their kids [22:04] I think that the way you see the world [22:07] as a Trader is that the world is a zero [22:09] sum game and that there's basically the [22:12] pi is a fixed pi and it gets sliced up [22:15] how fast is the growing now there's [22:16] something like this what's UK GDP growth [22:18] at the moment yeah it's not it's not [22:20] high right 1% how much did your wealth [22:22] grow in the last year uh exponentially [22:24] okay so if our weals my wealth probably [22:26] grew about 20% in the last year maybe 30 [22:28] okay okay if our worlds are growing 30% [22:31] and the economy is growing at 1% where [22:33] is it coming from if it's not coming [22:34] from our viewers so I'll tell you where [22:36] my wealth comes from my wealth comes [22:38] from building technology companies and [22:40] the way it works is pretty weird which [22:43] is that I invent something out of my [22:46] head and I go to investors and I say to [22:49] the investors here's what we're going to [22:51] create and I give them a spreadsheet and [22:53] then they say we'll give you a couple [22:55] hundred grand to get started which is [22:56] called seed Capital but on paper makes [22:59] me worth a couple of million right but [23:02] there there's nothing has been taken [23:03] from anyone at this point uh the [23:05] investors have said okay we'll invest [23:07] some money then as the business succeeds [23:09] some more investors come along and they [23:11] say we'll give you a little bit more [23:12] money to keep growing it um and I'm [23:14] innovating something new and let's say [23:17] investors come in and give me a million [23:19] pounds and for 10% of the company and [23:21] the rest of the company's worth 9 [23:22] million or $9 million right so I'm not [23:26] stealing something from the existing [23:27] economy I'm bringing something from [23:29] outside of the economy into the economy [23:31] um and my quote unquote net worth is [23:34] growing exponentially because investors [23:38] say we'll give you a little bit of money [23:40] that values the rest of the pie at a lot [23:42] of money but there's everyone's getting [23:45] richer in the in the wealth create [23:48] there's where there's wealth extraction [23:49] which is what Traders do they extract [23:51] from the existing economy um and they [23:53] bet on uh the economy and then there's [23:55] wealth creation which what entrepreneurs [23:56] do they come up with new ideas better [23:58] ways of doing things and they build [24:00] wealth so do you think the reason our [24:03] viewers the average Brit American are [24:05] getting poorer is because they don't [24:07] know how to create wealth no the reason [24:09] people are getting poorer is because [24:11] economic freedoms are being eroded when [24:13] we have high economic that with taxes [24:15] well anything that imp it could be [24:16] anything that impacts economic freedom [24:19] so uh taxes and regulations are big was [24:21] economic freedom higher in the 50s uh [24:24] 50s was okay so 50s was a interesting [24:28] time we we were in food Russians in this [24:31] country till uh 1956 so we had 10 years [24:33] of food rations after the war um we had [24:36] a labor shortage uh because only really [24:39] men worked women hadn't entered the [24:40] workforce in Mass um there had been [24:43] three or 400,000 men killed in war so we [24:46] actually had this big labor shortage the [24:48] whole country needed to rebuild because [24:50] of the blitz had bombed it so we had [24:51] this huge need for economic activity and [24:54] not enough people to do it we only had [24:55] 2% unemployment people who had had their [24:58] blown off were put to work at that [25:00] particular time so we had this boom this [25:03] postwar boom and we also had the postwar [25:05] baby boom which drove consumption uh and [25:07] then when we got to the 60s we had the [25:09] Roaring 60s or the um The Swinging 60s [25:12] right pretty amazing time in Britain and [25:14] Along Comes high taxes uh and they put [25:17] up the taxes massively at the end of the [25:20] 60s um and it pretty much crashed the [25:22] economy one of the things that happened [25:23] so what were the tax rates in the 50s [25:25] well they went up as high as 80 to 90% [25:28] uh for the top for the top ear I think [25:29] it was in the 60s you sure about that I [25:32] think the 50s are unique what is the [25:33] answer feel like you they went up off [25:35] the wall they went up after the war well [25:37] in the US actually tax rates started got [25:38] before the war but also the size of [25:41] government as a percentage of GDP was [25:43] like 30% it was a tiny like we're we're [25:45] now 45% of the UK economy is government [25:48] spending we have got a mass who funds [25:51] that spending debt they the bank of [25:54] England allows them to print endless [25:55] amounts of debt which deflates Gary I [25:58] want to get your opinion here cuz you're [26:00] asking a lot of questions but I actually [26:01] don't know your opinion I just want to [26:03] know what Daniel thinks and I want our [26:05] viewers to be able to research Daniel's [26:06] opinions but how how do you disagree [26:08] with those opinions listen Daniel's a [26:10] businessman he's obviously a very [26:12] successful businessman you know I I've [26:13] not been any I'm not a businessman I'm [26:15] not going to pretend to be a businessman [26:16] I'm an economist I make money by being [26:18] right on the economy Daniel's a good [26:19] businessman and I'm right on the economy [26:21] you know it's a simple as that basically [26:23] you know I'm not a good businessman but [26:24] I've got 15 years of being right on this [26:26] on the economy and look and I know [26:28] you're probably a wealthy man you [26:30] probably don't want to pay high taxes [26:31] you probably don't want your kids to pay [26:32] high taxes but we exist in an economy [26:35] where wealth is being extracted out of [26:37] the middle class out of the working [26:39] class very very rapidly it's benefiting [26:41] people like the three of us at this [26:42] table it will benefit our kids you know [26:45] our kids will be rich their kids will be [26:46] poor and I just think we should be [26:48] honest with them capitalism's finished [26:50] we won well done Stephen well done [26:53] Daniel well done Gary it's over now our [26:55] kids will be rich their kids will be [26:57] poor they'll pay the tax taxes we won't [26:59] pay the taxes we'll avoid it I'll make [27:01] money betting on it year after year why [27:03] are we lying to them why are we lying to [27:06] them yeah I I think that's an overly [27:08] simplified view of things I don't an [27:09] overly simplified view of things that [27:10] has made me a multimillionaire yeah well [27:12] look entrepreneurs take bets on the [27:13] economy as well we take bets differently [27:16] um when we start a company we're betting [27:18] on how the econ the average British and [27:20] American worker at the 50th percentile [27:23] do you think their kids will be richer [27:24] than they are it depends if we have [27:26] economic freedom or not right we're [27:28] going to have a split test on this right [27:30] we're going to have a split test we're [27:31] going to have the UK seems like we're [27:34] going to have more taxes more [27:36] regulations and it seems like the us is [27:38] going to have less taxes and less [27:39] regulations here's what I've noticed [27:41] I've noticed that places like Singapore [27:43] that have small governments um have got [27:46] widespread affluence there's not a lot [27:47] of poverty in Singapore yeah except for [27:49] the cleaners living in the closets yeah [27:51] you know uh look but we don't count them [27:53] in the statistics just like we don't [27:55] count our viewers that that's not [27:57] widespread in well there's a lot of [27:59] people W I've seen them in the closets [28:01] I've seen them in the closets there are [28:03] there are some but they're not [28:05] singaporeans well also you only count [28:07] the rich ones look the the also the [28:10] issue is is that they've come from even [28:13] worse conditions in many cases people [28:15] mve to Singapore for an increase in [28:17] lifestyle right the um you could take [28:21] Ireland or Switzerland right [28:23] economically free places Ireland was [28:24] economically in a disaster in think the [28:26] average Irish person lives well well the [28:29] their [28:30] economy their economy almost collapsed [28:33] in 2011 and they went down the road of [28:36] lower taxes lower regulations and they [28:38] attracted all sorts of businesses into [28:40] the economy and do you think that works [28:41] well for the average Irishman who [28:43] doesn't own a home in Dublin the the if [28:45] you measure everything by Home Ownership [28:47] I'm measuring people by the average I [28:49] want to know what the average man or [28:51] woman today lives that by the way I I'm [28:54] also Furious about the home ownership [28:55] thing everyone is um I think it's [28:59] utterly ridiculous the way like the idea [29:02] that homes are now worth 10 times the [29:03] average wage all of that difference is I [29:06] blame government for that uh I blame [29:08] high taxes where they've because of high [29:10] taxes they can take out more debt they [29:12] can then inflate the economy do you [29:14] think if we shrink the government if we [29:16] start to slash government spending do [29:17] you think that would improve living [29:19] conditions well the UK government is 45% [29:21] of the economy like that's a huge [29:23] government it's think using additions [29:25] will increase in the next few years [29:27] because we have US Government now that's [29:29] planning to slash the US government well [29:31] that's what the US voters have asked for [29:33] do you think it would improve living [29:34] conditions uh do I think it'll improve [29:38] the average American if they're smaller [29:39] government yeah I trust market so you [29:41] think the average US American will be [29:42] rich in years than the here what I trust [29:44] I trust economic freedom if people have [29:46] freedom they create better decisions for [29:48] their own life there's two ways to make [29:50] decisions right there's two ways you [29:51] have freedom I got less freedom than I [29:53] did when I ared just because my sister [29:55] can't pay the rent is that freedom the [29:58] if you're living in a country she can't [29:59] to live in the city that she was born in [30:02] I I agree you and I agree on the problem [30:04] you keep bringing back to the problem I [30:06] keep bringing it back to people because [30:07] the people who watch We're millionaires [30:09] okay the people who watch us are mostly [30:10] not [30:11] millionaires is life going to get better [30:13] for them they life will get better if [30:16] you are connected to the most productive [30:18] parts of the economy um if you pretend [30:21] that it's 1955 and you recreate the [30:23] postwar era conditions if you try to go [30:26] back to 1955 I don't think that's going [30:28] to work so so let me ask on that then [30:29] the point about if you're connected to [30:31] the most productive parts of the economy [30:32] I was quite um quite surprised when I [30:35] was doing some research on this to find [30:36] that there's quite big differences [30:37] between the UK and the US in terms of [30:39] GDP growth in Q4 2024 the US economy [30:42] grew by 6% while the UK growth was 0.1% [30:46] so they're doing significantly better in [30:48] that regard US GDP per head stands at [30:51] $82,000 per head whereas the UK stands [30:53] at $49,000 per head and stock market [30:56] performance which is an indication of I [30:57] guess what ever Rose by 300% in the US [31:00] whereas the footsy 100 declined by 20% [31:03] Which is the UK stock market [31:05] productivity growth since 2018 [31:07] productivity increased by 30% in the [31:10] United States which has outpaced the the [31:12] UK and lastly income growth since 2007 [31:15] American income per head has increased [31:17] by 72% while it has decreased in by 2% [31:22] in the UK in dollar terms so they seem [31:24] to be doing better from if you just look [31:26] at the economy um why is that is that [31:30] because they lean more into technology [31:32] and Innovation and Entrepreneurship and [31:34] is it because of the things you were [31:35] saying earlier about their attitude [31:36] towards the Govern like reduced [31:39] government spending versus tax the rich [31:41] why I'm Keen to hear Gary's view on this [31:43] because I understand yours because [31:44] you've just said it yeah I think these [31:46] are great statistics um and of course [31:48] the US has a strong reput reputation for [31:51] being very free markets and being very [31:53] small states in the last 5 years 10 [31:56] years 15 years [31:58] we've had a UK government that has been [31:59] aggressively slashing the state and the [32:02] US State's bigger than ever it's 45% of [32:04] the economy and the us we had a [32:07] government in the last four years which [32:08] has been running a massive massive [32:10] deficit so in that period of [32:14] time it appears the government which has [32:16] been aggressively increasing its deficit [32:19] has massively overperformed the [32:21] government which has been aggressively [32:22] slashing the [32:23] state that's what it looks to be from [32:25] the last I mean b Joe Biden in [32:27] enormously increased the deficit [32:29] enormously and the conservatives were [32:30] austerity government for 14 years which [32:33] one seems to have given the better [32:35] numbers well I mean there were austerity [32:37] in name only they went from 30% uh the [32:40] state was 30% of GDP to 45% of [32:43] government services haveed now they're [32:45] the government is terrible at doing most [32:47] things that's the problem you you you [32:49] don't want you don't think that spending [32:51] on government service has been slashed [32:54] let me let me zoom out a little you [32:55] think the police spending has been [32:56] slashed OH police spending is definitely [32:58] do you know where it ends up it ends up [33:00] with like big corporates uh big [33:03] Consulting who get paid $50 million to [33:06] produce a report to tell government some [33:08] thing right all of these big I won't [33:10] name names but all the big consulting [33:12] firms they're all blood suckers to [33:14] government they they know that the money [33:16] is in the government and they set up [33:19] business models to extract that money [33:20] from government uh and it also is in the [33:23] financial trading side of things the one [33:26] of the issues that we've got right and [33:27] this is a big big issue as well cuz you [33:29] care about wealth inequality one of the [33:30] biggest issues I see is that during the [33:32] pandemic we all learned to work remotely [33:35] and remotor became the norm and what I [33:37] see at the moment is huge amounts of [33:39] what would have been normal British jobs [33:41] are going to the Philippines going to [33:43] India going to uh Vietnam people who [33:45] work remotely now we now have a thousand [33:48] millionaires a month leaving to go to [33:50] Dubai we have 120,000 British people [33:53] living in Dubai uh in in that economy [33:56] the world's become incredibly mobile and [33:59] one of the things that's happening is [34:01] that what would have previously been [34:03] good British jobs uh are getting moved [34:06] overseas to lower cost countries and [34:08] that's technology that drives that wedge [34:10] the US is very smart in that they've [34:12] built a technology Powerhouse and the UK [34:15] has completely lost our technology [34:16] industry our tech industry is in Decline [34:18] same same across Europe China and the us [34:22] know that the game is Tech and they've [34:24] basically pulling all the tech company [34:26] into the into their uh borders and [34:29] what's happening a lot is the erosion of [34:31] good jobs and the erosion of of just [34:33] normal well-paying uh jobs because they [34:38] they're going and it's a bit of a [34:39] self-fulfilling Loop that the more we [34:42] lose millionaires the tax burden falls [34:44] on everyone else so they put the taxes [34:46] up and then the millionaires say oh the [34:48] taxes are too high so they leave um I've [34:50] watched some of the most incredible [34:51] entrepreneurs that you would want here [34:53] that would employ your sister at a high [34:54] rate um and they've picked up and left [34:57] cuz the taxes are too high so you saying [34:58] we should tax working people less well [35:02] the the the overall government has to be [35:05] smaller uh you can't whoever what do you [35:07] want to cut in the government if you uh [35:10] yeah I mean you'd have to Child Services [35:12] we'd have to no police no education NHS [35:16] all I know is this pensions you go to [35:18] Switzerland they SP single mothers 25% [35:21] disabled benefits what do you want to [35:22] cut hold up all I know is in Switzerland [35:24] I tell you what I want the government is [35:26] TA on those entrepreneurs and raise the [35:29] taxes on the billionaires because I [35:31] worked my tits off how many billionaires [35:33] are in the UK there's a lot of [35:35] billionaires in the UK 150 yeah so tax [35:37] them more what do they pay listen I went [35:39] my tits off and I paid it was 50% top [35:41] rate tax 50% top rate tax plus National [35:44] Insurance 60% million to bring my family [35:46] out of poverty at the same time the Duke [35:48] of Westminster inherited 10 billion and [35:51] paid nothing do you think that's fair [35:52] that's not true okay why is it not true [35:55] because the Duke of Westminster is one [35:57] of the highest tax payers in the country [35:58] what does he pay well on the trust the [36:00] groer estate uh they don't pay [36:02] inheritance tax because trusts can't die [36:05] they pay something called periodic taxes [36:07] which how much 6% every 10 years 6% so [36:10] they pay 0.6% so I paid 16% and this guy [36:13] pays 0.6% apples with apples inheritance [36:16] tax is 40% across the course of your [36:18] life if a trust is uh if a person lives [36:21] who owns a trust for 70 years then 6% [36:25] time 7 would be 42 so they actually pay [36:28] more so he pays 0.6% a year Pro 0.6% [36:33] that would be the same as what percent [36:34] did I pay per no no no but that's 60% so [36:36] you're saying I pay what 60 of a 0.6 [36:39] what 100 times the tax not comparing [36:41] apples with apples wait why is it not [36:43] apples with apples this guy pays 0.6% a [36:45] year I paid 60% a year that's [36:47] inheritance tax I paid that 60% every [36:49] year Daniel every year I paid you're pay [36:51] income tax so why have I du P more than [36:55] the Duke of Westminster pays income tax [36:56] he probably he probably makes your bill [36:59] blush yeah think can pay his income tax [37:01] yeah well if he's going to live he has [37:03] to withdraw money to have his income he [37:05] also let me give you a list of all the [37:07] taxes he would pay he'd pay income tax [37:09] corporate tax he'd pay stamp Duty when [37:11] he buys a building he pays uh uh any of [37:14] the other taxes vat when he spends money [37:16] all the same taxes apply to a duuk as [37:18] they apply to anybody else so you think [37:20] he pays income tax on on the income on [37:21] that any income he draws okay well our [37:23] viewers can research whether he pays [37:24] income tax on his income because I don't [37:26] think he does [37:28] it's in a trust but the only difference [37:30] with the trust versus income is that the [37:33] trust pays periodic tax versus [37:36] inheritance tax 0.6% but we're only [37:38] talking inherit that that's just one [37:40] type of tax you think he's paying 60% on [37:43] his income he's one of the highest [37:44] taxpayers in the UK I'm not like his big [37:46] fan club but the truth is he's one of [37:48] the highest taxpayers in the UK um he's [37:50] one of the biggest Employers in the UK [37:51] he's one of the like one of the biggest [37:53] land owners in the UK land owners in the [37:54] UK right uh so uh the the issue is is [37:58] does he pay tax all the same taxes that [38:00] apply to you apply to him uh and if you [38:02] want to set up a trust you can also pay [38:03] periodic taxes as well um which would be [38:06] on top of all the other taxes so what [38:08] would you say but it's just not true [38:10] that he doesn't pay tax no what would [38:11] you say this guy has inherit 1010 [38:13] million P so he's worth 10 billion PS [38:16] what would you say will be the total [38:17] amount of tax he will pay in his [38:18] lifetime well I know that just the [38:20] smallest if I make 10 million I pay 60% [38:23] just one sec you're not you're talking [38:26] about income versus the transfer of an [38:29] estate so why why is it that the be 10 [38:32] million P just you're comparing your [38:34] income yeah versus the amount he [38:36] inherited which is not a fair thing [38:38] that's not income that's his income he [38:40] inheritance is not income so wait wait [38:42] wait wait wait wa so if I get given1 [38:44] billion I don't pay any tax but if I [38:46] work for10 billion I pay 60% well if you [38:49] inherit this is the tax system that you [38:50] want you'll end up in a system where the [38:53] kids of the richual own everything [38:55] that's what I'm saying that's what I'm [38:56] saying and that's fun because that's our [38:58] kids you're not telling the truth about [38:59] his let's support it let's have a tax [39:01] system where your kids and my kids and [39:03] Steven's kids are multimillionaires and [39:05] these guys out there can't afford to [39:06] feed their kids and put the heat in [39:08] that's not what I'm saying but that's [39:09] what you will get that is what you will [39:10] get that's listen that's what I'm [39:12] betting on that's fine because I'll make [39:14] money in the markets it's fine and [39:15] you'll make money and you'll make money [39:16] it's our viewers who will be poor and [39:18] that's fine that's fine that's fine for [39:19] us let's let's explore the other [39:21] alternative right so let's say tax the [39:22] rich right so let's play the game of tax [39:24] the rich tax the owners not the workers [39:26] the owners [39:28] so the issue that we have with the rich [39:31] is that is the number one most valuable [39:33] Assets in the economy now in tangible [39:35] assets so there's this chart called the [39:37] S&P 500 of the 500 richest countries in [39:40] the country uh in the world in the US [39:42] sorry um in [39:45] 1970s 75% of the value of the S&P 500 [39:49] was physical assets like property um and [39:52] today it's less than 10% uh it's closer [39:54] to 5% you think that housing is not [39:56] particularly important just just let's [39:58] stick stick with what I'm saying okay [40:00] the the the PowerHouse the engine room [40:02] of the economy is digital assets and [40:05] that's reflected in uh the S&P 500 for [40:07] example which is 95% intangible assets [40:11] one of the issues that we have is that [40:12] the richest people are completely mobile [40:14] now so they can be absolutely anywhere [40:16] in the world so if you come up with this [40:18] idea of let's tax richest people 1% if a [40:22] tiny proportion of them leave we're all [40:24] in trouble so this really rich guys [40:27] M what do they own companies and why are [40:32] those companies worth money because [40:34] investors say they are and where do the [40:36] revenues come from globally okay the [40:38] issue is is that these companies operate [40:40] globally now so take my company for [40:42] example my company has 8,000 customers [40:45] in 150 countries okay we could be [40:48] anywhere if you P what country is your [40:50] biggest single Revenue Source probably [40:51] the US now let's say you move to Cayman [40:55] Island and the US says we're going to [40:57] tax your Revenue at point of sale M what [41:01] can you do well that's different right [41:04] because that's not taxing billionaires [41:05] that's taxing [41:07] companies see when you say tax the rich [41:09] on their wealth yeah that's different to [41:12] saying tax companies a consumption tax [41:14] oh but you just said the're Rich owned [41:15] companies you said that's what they own [41:16] yeah but you're saying how do you tax [41:18] them right so do they do you tax their [41:20] wealth which is what they own or do you [41:23] tax the companies where they trade um [41:25] typically consumption taxes get passed [41:27] on to Consumers it's not consumption tax [41:29] it's the tax on the ownership yeah but [41:31] if you simply say when you're doing [41:32] revenues then that's a consumption we [41:34] start to tax if we start to taxit by the [41:38] way I'm not exactly against you on on [41:40] companies I think it's disgusting that a [41:43] British company can can take out a [41:45] Facebook ad to sell to a British [41:48] consumer a British product and Facebook [41:51] pretends to be in Ireland on that [41:52] transaction um and Amazon you can buy [41:55] something on Amazon in Britain from a [41:56] British supplier from a British [41:57] warehouse and Amazon pretends to be in [41:59] Luxembourg in that situation and that [42:01] sucks right like that that does not seem [42:04] fair and it strikes me as very strange [42:06] that the government is okay with that [42:08] right now the government is chasing down [42:10] moms and dads who sell a few things on [42:12] eBay uh and chasing them for taxes but [42:15] they don't talk to eBay uh they they [42:18] they're paranoid about someone doing a [42:20] little bit of a side hustle on Facebook [42:22] but Facebook's fine to pretend to be an [42:23] Ireland so I don't agree with all of all [42:25] of that right like I think where missing [42:27] some serious tricks here but the idea [42:30] with taxing billionaires at wealth [42:33] billionaires will just leave they just [42:34] get up and leave and and not just [42:36] billionaires but what the billionaires [42:38] own what the billionaires own companies [42:40] and where do companies get their money [42:41] from revenues and where do the revenues [42:43] come from purchasing people purchasing [42:46] where do those people live all over the [42:49] world we can tax them at that point [42:50] that's consumption tax this is the thing [42:52] that's a consumption tax no it's not [42:54] it's V is a tax on Revenue tax these [42:56] guys on profits based on where the [42:57] revenues come from so it's very easy to [42:59] move profits internationally see Steven [43:02] had a uh Starbucks cup when he buys that [43:04] Starbucks yeah it's bought from a [43:06] British company who licenses the [43:09] Starbucks logo from Luxembourg or [43:12] somewhere like that so 15% so here we [43:15] are saying oh we're going to tax their [43:16] profits they say ah I wish we were [43:18] profitable sorry unfortunately we had to [43:20] do that licensing deal with that [43:21] International I know how profit shifting [43:23] works okay so are you you think are you [43:25] telling [43:26] me compan selling to the UK the US [43:30] enormous amount of of profit in the US [43:32] and they turn around and say actually [43:33] our profit is not in the US the [43:35] difference you think the US is in is is [43:37] incapable of going and looking if that's [43:38] seeing where they really where the [43:39] profit is I'm not saying that you can't [43:41] do this I'm saying that the benefits of [43:43] doing it it's so hard to tax wealth for [43:46] example or it's so hard to tax uh [43:49] Millionaires and billionaires that that [43:51] you end up cutting off your nose despite [43:52] your face um for every like if we [43:57] Britain for example and we build a brand [43:59] which is that we're anti- wealth we [44:01] don't want you to ever have more than 10 [44:02] million if you've got more than 10 [44:04] million we punish you every young [44:06] entrepreneur who comes to me and says [44:07] dan do you think I should start a [44:08] company here in this country I'm going [44:10] to say well if you do uh they'll take it [44:14] as soon as you start to make it they'll [44:15] take it as soon as if you're successful [44:17] if you get investment they're going to [44:18] tax you at your wealth if you sell the [44:21] company they're going to take it off you [44:23] I'm going to basically say to that young [44:24] entrepreneur don't build your business [44:26] in brit go start it somewhere that [44:28] they're more proactive and positive [44:30] towards entrepreneurs are we seeing that [44:32] now with this they call it the [44:33] millionaire Exodus which is for people [44:35] that don't know the UK has set to lose [44:37] the greatest proportion of millionaires [44:38] in the world um this Parliament I'll put [44:40] a graph on the screen which is this one [44:42] here this one here and that little red [44:46] line here is US losing all of our [44:49] millionaires at the moment and in 2024 [44:51] it's an estimated that 10,800 high net [44:54] worth individuals left the UK which is [44:57] 57% increase from the previous year [44:59] which means that 1 millionaire is [45:01] departing every 45 minutes the UK [45:03] millionaire Exodus is equal to losing [45:06] 530,000 average taxpayers and another [45:10] stat the top 10% of earners in the US [45:12] account for nearly half of all consumer [45:14] spending the top 1% of income taxpayers [45:16] in the UK are projected to contribute [45:18] about 30% of total income tax from 2024 [45:21] to [45:22] 2025 why are all these millionaires [45:24] running away well it's not because [45:26] they're taxing their world because we [45:27] don't have any wealth taxes why why do [45:29] you think they're leaving I think the [45:31] reason they're leaving is because the UK [45:32] economy is is really really weak because [45:34] the UK consumer is really really weak [45:36] because you've absolutely crushed the [45:37] spending power of your average British [45:39] family your average British family can [45:41] barely afford to feed the kids and turn [45:43] the heating on so why are you going to [45:44] start a business here when the customers [45:46] are absolutely impoverished look it [45:47] corresponds with a new tax that we [45:49] brought in which was um we ended the [45:51] non-dom scheme so the non-dom scheme [45:54] basically said if you're living in the [45:55] UK but you've got businesses all over [45:57] the world uh then we only tax you on [46:00] what you've got in the UK um and if you [46:02] die in the UK uh we'll only tax you on [46:05] your UK assets for inheritance tax if [46:07] you're a non-dom uh but if you die in [46:09] the UK and you've got uh wealth in India [46:12] once that nonon scheme ended they [46:14] basically said we will tax you on [46:16] everything globally if you're an [46:17] economic uh if you're a tax resident in [46:19] the UK everything you've got globally we [46:21] want 40% of it so unfortunately every [46:23] wealth manager contacted their clients [46:25] and said you can't stay here you're [46:27] going to have to get out um it's it's [46:29] gotten really bad a th000 people a month [46:30] are leaving and in the UK 1% of people [46:33] pay 30% of the taxes 10% of people pay [46:36] 60% of the taxes and you imagine if [46:38] we're sitting out at dinner and there's [46:40] 10 of us out to dinner and one person [46:42] says hey I've got this I get I'll get [46:44] 60% of the bill tonight we say to them [46:47] no it should be 70% should be 80% and [46:49] they say you know what I'll get up and [46:51] leave so they leave everyone else's bill [46:54] just doubled so what's going to happen [46:56] is if we drive the millionaires out of [46:57] this country everyone every ordinary [47:00] normal person who pays 10 grand a year [47:02] in tax will now have to pay 20 grand a [47:03] year in tax so the reason they left [47:05] because we used to allow them to not pay [47:07] tax and we Ta on their Global incomes on [47:10] their Global isn't it a bit more like if [47:11] we were 10 of us at dinner and there was [47:13] one guy who came on to dinner on the [47:15] condition he wouldn't pay their leaves [47:17] because these guys weren't paying tax [47:18] anyway the reason they left is because [47:20] they weren't paying tax it's like saying [47:22] um it's like saying hey I'll pay 60% of [47:25] this table and they say at the table hey [47:27] wait a second we also want you to pay [47:29] for everything that's happening at other [47:30] restaurants as well isn't it a bit more [47:33] like these guys we're stretching on a [47:36] condition you you yourself said the [47:38] reason why they left is because we let [47:40] them live here on the condition that [47:42] they didn't have to pay taxes on their [47:43] Global yeah taxes matter right so why [47:46] why is everyone going to Dubai Dubai [47:48] they're going there because there's no [47:49] tax these guys they live in Dubai their [47:51] money comes from the West they are [47:53] making money from the West while your [47:55] average Western ordinary person watching [47:57] this show now cannot afford to buy a [47:59] house cannot afford to have a family we [48:01] can tax those revenues at the point of [48:04] sale why do we allow these it's a called [48:06] a consumption tax no it's not it's a tax [48:08] on tax on profit not tax on consumption [48:10] you just said at point of sale which [48:11] means it's a consumption tax based on [48:13] the profits you look at how much profit [48:15] they where the profits exactly it's not [48:17] consumption tax what I'm saying so no so [48:19] if you tax profits yeah right then those [48:23] profits have to accumulate in that [48:25] country and because of the digital [48:27] ecosystem that we now have the world we [48:29] now live in I can lease the database off [48:32] of my company in Luxembourg I can uh [48:35] license the I can license my logo from [48:38] understand how profit [48:39] shifting listen these guys are not [48:41] gandal you just say we don't accept [48:43] profit shifting we don't need to accept [48:46] profit shifting China does not accept [48:47] profit shifting we did not accept profit [48:49] shifting 50 years ago we do not have to [48:51] accept profit shifting but you have a [48:54] government class who are extremely [48:55] wealthy and a media class are extremely [48:57] wealthy saying it's impossible to tax [48:59] rich people and I would like to say I [49:00] will agree 100% it is difficult to tax [49:03] rich people it is very very very [49:06] difficult to tax rich people I don't I [49:07] don't come here saying I want to tax [49:09] rich people because it's easy I know [49:11] it's hard I know probably I'm going to [49:13] lose I know our viewers kids will live [49:15] in Desperate poverty I know that I do [49:17] this because it is hard if we are a [49:19] country which says to ourselves we don't [49:21] try and do things which are necessary to [49:24] keep our kids out of poverty because [49:25] they are hard then our kids will live in [49:28] poverty I don't need to be here I'm a [49:29] multimillionaire just like you I could [49:31] be in the Philippines drinking panac [49:32] laders I come in here because I come [49:34] from a poor background and it's ordinary [49:36] families like my family like the kids I [49:38] grew up with whose kids are going to be [49:40] in poverty it's difficult but it is [49:42] necessary sometimes we have to do things [49:45] not because they're easy but because [49:47] they are hard that is what makes a rich [49:50] country rich and that is what protects [49:53] ordinary people listen our grandparents [49:55] lived in poverty did they say let's not [49:57] change it because it's hard no they [49:59] didn't they fought and they demanded [50:01] they demanded Health Care education [50:03] housing food and they got it they got it [50:06] that's why my parents could live a good [50:08] quality life they got those things they [50:10] got those things and they were aware [50:12] that in order to do that you could not [50:14] allow the super rich who have been [50:16] living lives of luxury for hundreds and [50:17] hundreds of years to eat everything [50:19] while ordinary families couldn't afford [50:21] to feed their kids I know it's difficult [50:23] I know it's difficult and I know I'm [50:24] probably going to lose I know that I [50:25] know I'm probably going to lose and that [50:26] means our viewers will be poor but I do [50:28] it anyway because I do not want this [50:30] country that I grew up in to fall into [50:32] desperate poverty I agree with you on [50:34] the passion and I agree with you on the [50:36] problem I don't agree with you on the [50:39] solution because in 2019 we be kids in [50:43] 2020 and that's not what I'm saying in [50:45] 2020 we made a decision globally to shut [50:48] down the economy and we taught everyone [50:50] that they can live and work from [50:51] anywhere the biggest threat to [50:52] everything you're saying is remote [50:54] working the fact that we can live and [50:56] work work from anywhere our grandparents [50:59] their boss if their boss owned a company [51:01] that company had to physically be in the [51:02] country and the boss had to physically [51:04] be in the country if we look at today [51:07] there are plenty of fitness trainers who [51:08] work for a gym and the owner of that gym [51:10] is somewhere overseas plenty of people [51:12] work in live work in a restaurant and [51:14] the owner of the restaurant lives [51:15] overseas you can live in you can run a [51:17] business from anywhere in the world [51:18] right now so the problem that we face is [51:21] that you're describing on one hand you [51:25] say we need to tax it at the point of [51:27] sale which is a consumption tax and not [51:29] tax on profit okay and then you say a [51:31] tax on profit and then you say oh but [51:33] then we'll stop profit shifting by the [51:35] way I'm also actually all for this idea [51:37] of stopping profit I I've already said I [51:39] think it's utterly ridiculous the way [51:42] that many of these global companies are [51:44] treated and if we don't stop that then [51:46] all the money just flows out to the tech [51:48] companies um so I'm I'm with you on that [51:50] but when you say tax the rich the actual [51:53] people who own the companies those [51:55] people can be anywhere right now so but [51:58] but their revenues can't their customers [52:00] their customers are where their [52:01] customers are their customers are where [52:03] their customers are listen Amazon [52:05] doesn't pay any UK tax doesn't pay any [52:07] us tax where are the customers in the UK [52:08] and Us in UK US do you really think it's [52:11] impossible for us to tax that well [52:12] you're talking about taxing people at 10 [52:14] million plus right so this is a lot of [52:16] startup entrepreneurs Jeff Bez is a lot [52:18] more than 10 million jez Jeff worth a [52:20] lot more than you talk about anyone [52:23] above 10 million is on your radar you [52:25] don't want people worth 11 million [52:27] pounds we pay more I'm not just talk [52:28] it's not that Dan if you you you're [52:30] worth more than 10 million pounds so if [52:32] we tax people [52:33] on as Gary says that have more than 10 [52:36] million what are your options to avoid [52:38] say if your objective was to avoid that [52:41] what options do you have look if if my [52:43] objective was to avoid it I pass a board [52:45] resolution that we're moving the head [52:47] office somewhere else yeah um we move [52:49] the intellectual property somewhere else [52:51] I pick up and move my family somewhere [52:53] else and within about a week or two [52:55] we've got a we work office somewhere [52:57] else I've got a new house on Airbnb [52:59] somewhere else and I cut ties with the [53:02] UK and I'm non- tax resident here and I [53:05] can I have a digital business I can [53:07] literally make my head office anywhere [53:08] in the world if there was a particular [53:10] country that turned hostile towards uh [53:13] our operations they not have to withdraw [53:15] service from that thing you know so that [53:17] that's possible but it's unlikely that [53:19] that would actually happen but [53:21] ultimately if I choose to get up and [53:22] leave then I get up and leave now the [53:25] the the bigger issue is would I have [53:26] even come here in the first place and [53:28] then there's another issue and here's [53:30] the other issue Gary for you you've just [53:32] had 750,000 subscribers to your YouTube [53:35] channel 820 it's 8:20 right so it's [53:38] going up fast I could have one of my [53:41] analysts at a consulting company do [53:44] valuation of your brand and do valuation [53:46] of your YouTube channel we could say [53:48] this is a fast growth media company and [53:50] it's worth 11 million right so we could [53:53] come up with a forecast and a projection [53:55] and we say Gary's economics is actually [53:57] a new Fast growth media brand it's worth [54:00] 11 million now your channel now you have [54:02] to pay 100 Grand a year in extra taxes [54:04] because you're a millionaire sorry 1% on [54:06] wealth above 10 million on 11 million is [54:09] going to be 10 grand taxes oh you're [54:11] saying only on the part above that's how [54:13] taxes work so it's not on everything [54:14] it's okay so it's a it's a marginal tax [54:16] that's how taxes work it's so okay so [54:20] but is it fair that like who gets to [54:22] decide what wealth Is wealth and what [54:24] it's worth because wealth let's just hit [54:26] me out wealth is a a technical term for [54:28] unrealized gains right it's not real uh [54:32] you know someone buys a house for 20 [54:34] grand and it's worth 200 Grand uh [54:37] they've still got the same house but now [54:38] they've got wealth um if someone starts [54:41] a business and a tiny little seed [54:43] investor puts in a little angel [54:45] investment uh now they've got wealth on [54:47] paper but who gets to say what is wealth [54:50] um like for [54:52] example if you introduce wealth taxes [54:54] theoretically that will actually reduce [54:56] the value of wealth of things anyway [54:58] because things in inside that economy [55:00] are now subject to a disadvantage so [55:03] therefore investors will be unlikely to [55:05] invest in them to a certain point and [55:07] also people start cutting and dodging [55:10] and weaving and ducking and weaving so [55:11] they say oh our UK operations worth 10 [55:13] million so we're now going to start a [55:15] second company over in some other [55:17] country and make sure that that's where [55:19] the wealth accumulates so it's [55:20] incredibly difficult because it is just [55:22] unrealized gains I know I know it's [55:24] difficult yeah I know I know these guys [55:26] have the best accountants I I know it's [55:27] difficult I know so what if there was an [55:28] easier solution if there was an easier [55:31] solution I would support that you know [55:32] what I mean it's called it's called [55:34] economic freedom the economic freedom [55:35] index okay well just tell the viewers [55:38] that give them more economic freedom and [55:39] then they'll be rich yeah so this this [55:40] diagram here basically says the most [55:42] free countries have less than 10% [55:45] poverty in fact less than 7% poverty as [55:47] soon as you reduce economic freedom it [55:49] jumps to 30% poverty you reduce economic [55:51] freedom again and it jumps up to huge [55:54] huge amounts of poverty so the these [55:56] countries here are the least [55:57] economically free and these countries [55:59] are the most economically free the [56:00] countries that get in the way of your [56:02] economic freedom have more poverty and [56:05] the countries that let people make [56:06] decisions for their own life what you're [56:08] saying is if the governments of our [56:10] countries cut taxes on us the three [56:12] multimillionaire sitting at this table [56:14] that will improve the lives of the [56:17] ordinary British and American give a [56:19] real life example to feed their kids [56:20] I'll give you a real life example uh I [56:22] know of a company that was going to give [56:24] pay Rises to its employees and then [56:25] National Insurance went up and instead [56:27] of National Insurance is a tax on [56:28] employment yeah I'm saying to reduce [56:30] that I'm saying to reduce tax on I want [56:32] your viewers the viewers here to be [56:34] paying less tax while multimillionaires [56:36] pay more tax good in theory but of if [56:40] you could tax rich people 1% of their [56:42] wealth above 10 million uh I did a back [56:45] of a napkin cap calculation you might be [56:47] able to get 20 billion yeah right that's [56:49] if they don't leave that's if they don't [56:51] respond to it if they just happily pay [56:52] it you get 20 billion that's less than a [56:54] week worth of current government [56:55] spending [56:57] so the government's out of control 1.2 [56:59] trillion a year of government spending [57:01] is now what they spend okay so let's cut [57:03] that get that 20 billion and cut the [57:05] taxes for the viewers cut their income [57:08] tax so that works out about 250 a year [57:11] okay so let's do more let's make it 60 [57:13] billion so then you tax 3% above wealth [57:16] yeah do that right and then you also [57:18] bring it down this is what governments [57:19] do make five or six yeah and then and [57:22] that's what they did that's what they [57:23] did in the second world war and that's [57:24] why my dad could afford a house actually [57:26] that's not why you could afford a house [57:28] okay well who's buy if Ordinary People [57:30] are losing their houses and the wealth [57:31] which they are yeah and we're getting [57:33] richer yeah who is it who is now owning [57:35] the houses if it is not us the [57:37] government used to own the houses and [57:38] then they sold the government wealth is [57:40] collapsing government wealth is [57:41] collapsing but what they did is they [57:42] sold the houses to the people okay but [57:44] but ordinary middle is also you can only [57:47] do that once and they did it for the [57:48] baby so you think it's our viewers who [57:50] have got my houses now who where is the [57:52] wealth going Daniel where is the wealth [57:54] going who has the wealth now who is [57:56] getting rich who is getting the wealth [57:57] that is lost by our viewers I'll tell [57:59] you where the biggest amounts of money [58:00] are going the biggest amounts of money [58:02] uh since the pandemic uh 11 trillion [58:05] went just to the value of seven [58:07] companies that own te technology so the [58:09] biggest seven companies in the USA 11 [58:12] trillion has and you don't want their [58:14] billionaire owners to pay more tax well [58:16] would that help the UK well if you use [58:18] that money to reduce tax on working [58:20] people then it it would help yeah they [58:22] own shares in the USA they're US [58:24] citizens so that doesn't help us here [58:27] but it will help the American Consumer [58:28] and then we can export the American [58:30] Consumer and it will mean the American [58:31] Consumer has money and then it will show [58:32] British people how much you can achieve [58:34] by taxing Super Rich we can raise tax on [58:36] our Super Rich here and then what I want [58:39] is these guys to be taxed so much that [58:40] they start to sell assets and then [58:42] ordinary British people can buy assets [58:44] again because what I want is our viewers [58:46] to be able to own things to be able to [58:48] own their own homes I when I hear this [58:51] um I admissibly don't know as much about [58:53] these issues as you guys do but when I [58:54] hear that there's these seven tech [58:56] companies in the US my brain goes can't [58:59] we have one here yeah yeah can't we [59:02] start and then so my brain goes how what [59:04] conditions do we have to create ones [59:06] that we had yeah what conditions do we [59:07] have to create to have one of those [59:09] seven tech companies here especially in [59:10] this sort of AI World we're heading [59:12] towards where when I was reading through [59:13] the stats most of the investment in AI [59:16] which is going to be hugely [59:17] destabilizing across every industry from [59:19] driving to to any form of knowledge work [59:22] even podcasting I can play your podcast [59:24] now yeah which sounds exactly like me [59:26] which has a 4.6 star rating on Apple [59:29] which was written by AI in my voice [59:31] published by AI Wild and the and who's [59:34] acing the value there well it's a [59:35] company in America called 11 labs and [59:37] it's bloody open Ai and I why why can't [59:41] we have those companies here we need [59:42] them here because China and the US are [59:44] dominating this next [59:45] Revolution um and I I worry as a [59:49] bystander that if we don't create [59:51] entrepreneurship friendly environments [59:53] here we're going to we are going to [59:55] become Indian yeah M so you if you want [59:58] businesses that to thrive you don't need [60:01] just a good environment for [60:03] entrepreneurs you also need people to [60:06] have money that they can spend MH and we [60:09] are in a country where [60:10] increasingly most of the people out [60:12] there have almost nothing left over at [60:14] the end of the month they can barely pay [60:16] the bills those companies are selling [60:17] globally right so they don't need any [60:19] particular company to do well they just [60:21] they sell to anywhere so like open AI [60:23] chat GPT we're all using that Bloody [60:25] product and pay our 20 $30 a month yeah [60:27] where do they actually get their money [60:28] from right they get their money from [60:29] selling data to to to the rich right my [60:32] point was making the environment more [60:34] friendly for entrepreneurs because when [60:35] I start a company I am at a I can't [60:37] explain the disadvantage I'm at at the [60:39] moment if I start that kind of company [60:40] here in the UK there's no investors and [60:43] then all the talent seems to flock over [60:44] to San Francisco so the the guys that [60:46] built the British guys that built an AI [60:49] company called fixer which I was going [60:50] to invest in all British Lads from [60:51] London they went over to San Francisco [60:53] they're like 25y olds they've just [60:55] raised at a 60 million valuation they're [60:57] in this room this building in San [61:00] Francisco full of entrepreneurs and [61:02] they're pumping knowledge and capital [61:03] into this room with all due respect [61:05] Stephen you're not a great example for [61:07] the fact that it's impossible to start a [61:09] successful online brand in the UK facts [61:11] um but I also realized that the problem [61:13] of of but he started when things were [61:16] different but I I also realized I don't [61:17] like using personal examples because [61:19] there's a huge amount of privilege and [61:21] okay is there a chat gbt in Germany No [61:24] is there a chat gbt in in France no is [61:27] there a chat GPT in Australia no no is [61:29] there a chat GPT in ja it's China and [61:31] one sec SEC yeah exactly what you have [61:33] here is an extremely low labor extremely [61:36] high Capital model which employs [61:37] extremely few people across the entire [61:39] world that is focused in basically two [61:41] cities yeah good luck competing with [61:44] that H how do we create an environment [61:46] where the UK can start to build some of [61:48] these companies which are going to [61:49] capitalize on this next technological [61:51] Revolution how if you were prime [61:52] minister what would you do I think you [61:55] need to look realistically about what [61:56] companies do we have a chance of growing [61:57] you know I'm not an expert in AI but I [61:59] think trying to compete with San [62:01] Francisco in London would will probably [62:03] not work why try try and do it you know [62:06] try and do it and listen I know that you [62:08] can get a lot of likes saying let's just [62:10] invest in AI let's just invest only one [62:11] city in the world outside of China has [62:13] Managed IT China has Managed IT by [62:14] basically State capitalism you know this [62:16] is very similar in a sense to what we [62:17] had with micro Electronics in Japan in [62:19] the 8S right when you have a new [62:21] industry especially these industries [62:22] which are very Capital intense and don't [62:24] employ many people you get a first move [62:26] Advantage they tend to win eventually [62:29] often they get undercut by cheaper [62:30] Rivals and that does happen you know [62:31] that does happen and you might stand in [62:33] AI I don't think AI is going to become a [62:35] massive massive employer of course you [62:38] know a lot of countries are going to be [62:39] like because basically it sounds good [62:41] we're going to invest in I we're going [62:42] to invest in AI personally I think we [62:44] should be looking at what does the [62:45] British person need you know we live in [62:47] a country where the housing stock is [62:49] falling apart if if we say AI when we [62:52] talk about AI I think we're actually [62:53] talking about technology because even a [62:56] podcast like a podcast like this you [62:57] don't think this of this as an AI [62:59] company but actually now the editing [63:01] process the scripting process the [63:03] transcription process even YouTube [63:05] itself is an AI company so it's it's [63:08] really technology we're speaking about [63:09] here and I'm wondering why we can't [63:10] create a better environment in the UK to [63:13] start launching and building some of [63:14] these technology companies we've even [63:16] seen I think we should and I think we [63:17] should be looking we should be look at [63:18] reducing taxes on people who who work [63:21] and make money this is what I've been [63:22] saying for the whole time what about [63:24] people what about people who start [63:25] companies [63:26] yeah we should reduce their taxes on the [63:27] income that they make but then if they [63:29] start owning A50 million pound company [63:31] are you telling me if you come to me and [63:32] I say all right you want to start a [63:34] company we we tax you very very little [63:36] on a company that you start if that [63:37] company becomes worth 20 30 40 million [63:39] quid then we're going to start taxing [63:40] you you're going to come and say to me [63:42] oh no sorry 50 million is not enough for [63:43] me so can I ask a question on that so um [63:46] my company was was valued at x 50 [63:49] whatever 100 Millions um congratulations [63:52] I still had because I hadn't had an exit [63:54] event yeah I still had 101,000 20,000 in [63:59] my bank account are you saying at the [64:01] point when I sell the company or are you [64:02] saying just because I have shares from [64:04] the company I think you can structure it [64:06] a number of ways you can structure a [64:07] number of ways my preferred way is to [64:09] stop people from hoarding enormous a of [64:11] wealth for enormous amounts of time [64:13] that's my that's basically my preferred [64:15] method there's also the wealth tax [64:16] method there's also capital gains as a [64:18] method there's a lot of different ways [64:19] it there's a lot of different ways but [64:21] you have to deal with the problem of if [64:23] you do not do not tax very wealthy [64:24] individuals and very wealthy families [64:26] their share of the pie will obviously [64:28] goow over time and they will and they [64:30] are as we are watching squeezing our [64:32] ordinary families you have to deal with [64:34] that my friend sold his company in the [64:35] UK it's a company everybody knows um and [64:38] he I remember him saying to me at the [64:39] time it was in the middle of the [64:40] pandemic he got this big exit event I [64:42] think he'd made 300 million and he goes [64:44] I'm off I go where you going he goes I'm [64:46] going to go to Dubai in Monaco and live [64:48] between the two and I I said explain to [64:50] me why he goes well the amount of tax [64:51] I'd have to pay in the UK is equivalent [64:53] to me paying 20 million rent in the UK [64:55] for the next six or seven years which [64:57] he'd have to stay here for so he he went [65:00] and he pops back in every now and then [65:02] but it meant that he could keep that 150 [65:05] million whatever tax he would pay never [65:07] had to pay it to the UK is living this [65:09] highflying life now in Dubai drops into [65:12] Monaco every now and then um and I [65:14] remember him saying to me well Steve I'd [65:16] have to pay 20 million rent a year to [65:18] live here and he went on to say the UK [65:20] product is just isn't worth it he goes [65:21] crime I'm going to get my Rolex robbed [65:23] off me he goes um the healthare system [65:26] isn't the best the education system [65:27] isn't necessarily the best and the [65:29] particular one was crime which is I'll [65:31] get I'll get i'll get mugged walking [65:33] through yeah London streets Stephen if [65:36] you allow British people who own 300 [65:38] million pound of British assets to [65:40] technically live in Monaco and not pay [65:42] tax then you will get crime and you will [65:44] have dirty streets and you will have a [65:46] bad Health Care system and you will have [65:47] education because if you give all of the [65:49] wealth to a group of people who do not [65:51] tax there will be nothing left to [65:53] provide things like healthcare and [65:54] education for ordinary people it's not [65:56] unconnected these people are not [65:57] technically living there they're moving [65:59] out my friends have moved out of the [66:01] country they don't come back to the UK [66:03] they've left and they leave with their [66:04] they built a company here they glob P [66:08] tax they typically build globally [66:09] business it's not that they P it was a [66:11] global they don't pay no tax they pay [66:14] extortionate amounts of tax right anyone [66:16] who's here is paying extraordinary taxes [66:18] more than they've ever paid before 1% [66:21] pays 30% 10% pays 60% of 1 trillion a [66:26] year gu 300 million how much tax Rec [66:28] he's paid in his life I have no idea I [66:32] have no idea his business was Global [66:33] that his biggest customer was the US [66:35] it's I pay 60% and our viewers will pay [66:37] 30 40 50% do you think it's fair that [66:39] your 300 million guy pays his two or [66:41] three I have no idea what he pays well [66:43] it sounds like he didn't pay 50% well he [66:46] dashed when before he got the tax bill [66:48] but why did we allow it why did we allow [66:50] I I'm not allowed to not pay my tax what [66:51] could you have done to you are allowed [66:53] to when you were in Japan you wouldn't [66:54] have paid UK taxes [66:56] yeah because I was working in Japan and [66:58] I pay Japanese taxes because you're [66:59] living in Japan this is the thing people [67:01] can live wherever they want now so but [67:04] we're talking about this is I think we [67:06] should stop obfuscating tax on people's [67:09] work from tax on the ass they uh so I'm [67:12] talking about entrepreneurs work [67:13] generates wealth so when if I if I ear a [67:16] billion pound of British houses yeah and [67:19] then I say I live in Dubai yeah and I'm [67:22] getting the rent on a billion pounds of [67:24] houses which would probably be something [67:25] like like that's going to be something [67:27] like 50 million a year so I'm getting 60 [67:30] 50 60 million a year of rent from [67:32] British people yeah and that gets paid [67:34] to me from British people yeah and I pay [67:36] and I don't pay tax I live in Dubai do [67:38] you think that's fair no all right so [67:40] let's change that let's let's make [67:41] people pay tax on on their world [67:44] regardless where they live yeah the [67:45] question would be though how would you [67:47] tax people right and how would you [67:49] actually structure it because regardless [67:51] of what you feel like is fair this is [67:52] the thing it's not about fairness it's [67:54] about what you can pragmatic and [67:55] practically do in the modern economy you [67:58] might say oh I actually like for example [68:00] if we said what's fair a lot of people [68:02] would say a flat tax is fair you make [68:03] one pound you pay 20% you make a million [68:05] pounds you pay 20% make 100 million [68:07] pounds you pay 20% so a lot of people [68:08] would say the fairest tax system would [68:10] just be a flat tax on everything right [68:12] that would be a fair thing it's [68:13] pragmatically can you do it is it [68:15] actually good for society should people [68:17] be excluded from that so it's not about [68:19] fairness it's about pragmatically what [68:21] can you get away with all right well [68:22] pragmatically what we can get away with [68:23] is desperate poverty for our viewers [68:25] kids if you want to have can we zoom out [68:28] just a minute right I want to zoom out [68:29] let's Zoom away from our viewers kids [68:31] forget about them they're not I got I'm [68:33] a dad right I got three kids you're you [68:35] are a multimillionaire dad you probably [68:37] don't have the same problems as our [68:38] viewers do you know that do you know [68:40] that kids born into the top have a 60% [68:42] chance of dropping out of the top right [68:44] 60% that's the number it's called [68:46] persistence you can Google it um the [68:48] persistence rates is actually only 40% [68:51] for the richest so which means 60% drop [68:53] out in the second you think kids have a [68:55] 60% chance of living in poverty POS not [68:57] poverty do you know what's interesting [68:59] we're all trying to aim at the same goal [69:01] I think here I'm not sure we are but [69:03] well that's fair that's fair maybe we're [69:04] not I suspect some of us are maybe [69:06] trying to protect our kids I want [69:08] widespread affluence through the [69:09] technological Revolution that's [69:10] happening and I don't want the people [69:12] who create that to want to go somewhere [69:14] else so you agree with me that we should [69:16] cut tax on wealth creators and raise tax [69:18] on wealth [69:20] orders uh well broadly okay so let's do [69:23] it let's cut on people who are making [69:25] let cut tax on people who are working [69:27] hard creating a good product making a [69:29] good income and let's raise tax on [69:31] people who are sitting there on 20 30 40 [69:33] 100 200 500 million pounds of assets [69:36] that they're going to give to their kids [69:37] and they're going to use to dominate [69:38] society and squeeze out the middle class [69:39] so who's an example of someone who's [69:41] hoarding wealth she so his family owns a [69:45] tech company [69:46] his wife's dad owns a tech compan which [69:49] he will inherit and his kids will [69:50] inherit his net worth that is quoted is [69:53] based upon his wife's but that company [69:55] already exists yeah it's created now [69:58] yeah it's worth billions but they they [70:00] have to reinvent that business every two [70:01] years like it's a so you think that the [70:04] reason you think that if R's [70:06] father-in-law stopped managing the [70:08] company it would be valueless no I think [70:10] it it it hires hundreds of thousands of [70:13] people and it's you know it's a big [70:14] company I don't know a lot about that [70:15] particular company but I know it's a [70:17] tech company Steve Jobs died okay is [70:19] Apple valueless no let's not pretend [70:22] that these creators are the sole reason [70:24] these companies are are valuable sure [70:26] you know and what we're talking about in [70:27] many cases you know I was a Trader okay [70:32] and I'm worth a millions of quid and you [70:33] know now that is just assets I just own [70:35] the assets I own the assets and that [70:37] will grow and it will grow and it will [70:38] grow and it will grow and that will [70:40] squeeze out and squeeze out and squeeze [70:41] out and squeeze out our viewers and I'll [70:43] give that to my kids they don't even [70:44] need to work they wouldn't even have [70:46] even have to work they could just live [70:47] on I could live on off the wealth is [70:49] that what you want do uh do you think [70:52] there are any opportunities for people [70:54] today like if you're born into a poor [70:56] family do you think it's possible that [70:59] housing being and we can both agree [71:02] agree on that but do you think there are [71:04] new opportunities that didn't exist for [71:05] our parents or grandparents but they do [71:07] exist for people today I think the [71:09] reality is for kids from poor [71:11] backgrounds it is almost [71:14] impossible to realistically get even [71:16] Financial Security never mind wealth but [71:18] why do you think you could do it I could [71:20] do it he could do it but you don't think [71:22] other people could do it well the first [71:24] thing is I'm 38 now so I'm not not a kid [71:26] nowadays um listen I want every Mass [71:29] competition I've ever been in you know [71:30] what I mean since I was a little kid I [71:31] didn't even have a desk in my house you [71:33] know I was one of the top students at [71:35] LC and I still had to win my job by [71:38] cheating in a card game you know that's [71:39] the world that we live in I don't think [71:40] that's a very replicable strategy and [71:42] it's very easy for People Like Us who've [71:44] made money to say oh AR we did it aren't [71:46] we great go out and you know you've said [71:47] that you think if young people go and [71:49] work in Tech business they can get [71:50] Financial Security if it was that easy [71:52] they'd all be doing it you know they're [71:53] not idiots our viewers are not idiots [71:54] they're trying trying they're trying [71:56] they want to find the good opportunities [71:58] and they work listen I speak I'm the one [72:00] saying they're idiots you're the one who [72:02] says that they can't do it anymore I I [72:04] see people do it all the time like I'm [72:06] working in entrepreneurs people from [72:07] poor backgrounds and so so then so but [72:10] then why are I VI you think all of our [72:12] if it was that easy why is everybody not [72:14] doing it I'll tell you why people aren't [72:15] doing it we went through a schooling [72:16] system that taught us how to get an [72:18] office job okay right we went through a [72:20] schooling system to prepare us for a uh [72:22] a world that doesn't really exist [72:24] anymore which is the Industrial [72:25] Revolution world and you have to go [72:27] through a process of figuring out how it [72:30] really works so what what I see is the [72:33] most often the people who do really well [72:35] financially who are young they dropped [72:37] out of school they dropped out of [72:38] University they started learning how to [72:40] do things uh by doing their own research [72:42] they start their own business or [72:43] co-found a business they take a very [72:45] alternative path uh none of that was [72:48] taught to us at school none of it's [72:50] taught to us in normal society we have a [72:52] school system that manufactures people [72:54] for a set of skills that are not [72:56] particularly valuable anymore and we [72:57] also get them in debt for those skills [72:59] um when people Sid step that and say [73:03] okay I'm not going to get into [73:03] University debt I'm just going to go off [73:05] and actually figure out how the world [73:07] works there's actually loads of [73:09] opportunities okay so I guess we've [73:11] sorted it then all our viewers need to [73:13] do is go and buy Dan's book become an [73:16] entrepreneur and become a millionaire [73:17] it's that easy why W you guys doing it [73:19] to begin with they're idiots the viewers [73:21] are idiots they should be just being [73:22] more entrepreneurial it's as simple as [73:24] that more entrepreneurial start a [73:25] business listen I come from East London [73:27] okay my friends can't feed their kids [73:30] okay and if it was as simple as going [73:32] out and be an entrepreneur I can bet you [73:35] they would do it I can bet you they [73:36] would do it let us I'm sick of [73:39] multi-millionaires telling kids who [73:41] can't afford to turn the heating on you [73:42] just need to be more entrepreneurial [73:44] it's sick Dan it's sick I this gives [73:46] people mental illness it gives people [73:48] mental illness tell them the truth okay [73:50] we your older generation we took the [73:52] opportunities and now is almost [73:54] impossible to out of poverty and don't [73:56] just don't just stand up and wave you [73:57] know your millions of pounds in front of [73:58] them and say if you entrepreneurial like [74:00] me you could do it you could have it [74:02] because it's sick because they can't [74:03] they can't feed their kids down they [74:05] can't turn the heating on don't tell [74:07] them to be more entrepreneurial fix the [74:09] system that drives more and more and [74:11] more of them into poverty every [74:13] generation I find it very strange that [74:15] you think it would be easier to fix the [74:17] entire global economic system than to [74:19] start a business and fix your own [74:20] personal economics the the thing that [74:23] the thing that I know that gives people [74:25] mental health issues is feeling that [74:26] they have no agency in their life that [74:28] they can't do anything your video where [74:30] you talk about if you don't have a rich [74:31] dad you're screwed there's no such thing [74:33] as meritocracy you're never going to be [74:35] successful to me if I had have come [74:36] across your content at 19 20 years old I [74:39] would have been screwed I was so I'm so [74:41] glad that I came across people who said [74:45] Daniel you weren't born into a a rich [74:47] family you don't have any Bank of mom [74:48] and dad but it's cheap and easier than [74:51] ever to start a business start by [74:53] working for someone who's got a business [74:55] then figure out what's your opportunity [74:58] and there's a way there is a way I've [75:01] actually worked with a lot of teenagers [75:03] from poor backgrounds and one of the [75:05] things we do is we tell them if it's [75:07] possible for someone else it is possible [75:08] for you um I also worked in rural Uganda [75:11] um with a charity that did uh work with [75:14] the poorest of the poor um one of the [75:16] most incredible things I ever saw was a [75:18] woman who started [75:20] out literally picking food out of a [75:22] trash uh pile um and she was basically [75:27] sh they they shared with her how to [75:29] start a chicken business which then [75:30] ended up as a pig business which then [75:31] ended up as a cattle business and she [75:33] ended up uh making uh hiring 15 16 [75:38] people in her local community the power [75:40] of Entrepreneurship is that starting [75:42] with nothing you can [75:43] actually make improvements I'm not [75:45] saying everyone ends up as a millionaire [75:47] and I'm not saying everyone ends up uh [75:49] equal but I'm saying you can make [75:50] improvements in your life and the thing [75:52] that causes mental health issues is the [75:54] feeling of having no agency or no [75:55] control over your circumstances until [75:57] the world changes the whole economic [76:01] system I never told people don't work [76:03] hard I never once said that never once [76:05] said that never said that you said if [76:06] your dad wasn't Rich you'll never be [76:07] rich which is true in 99.9% of cases [76:10] I've never told people don't work hard [76:12] true 99% I've never told people don't [76:14] work hard okay and listen if you think [76:16] that ugandans should be more [76:17] entrepreneurial I've never been to [76:18] Uganda maybe that's the problem out [76:20] there maybe that's the problem in [76:21] Nigeria maybe that's the problem in [76:22] India listen I've never said don't work [76:24] hard okay when I brought my book out [76:26] last year the hardback I was at some [76:28] event and I come out I was drinking [76:29] London Bridge and uh I come out late it [76:31] was like it was like 1:00 a.m. and um [76:35] some guy come up to me when I was [76:36] unlocking my bike some guy from [76:39] Newcastle which is the northeast of [76:41] England it's this quite a poor town [76:42] there's a lot of workingclass people [76:44] there and um he said I've been watching [76:47] you on [76:48] YouTube and um I love your stuff and um [76:52] this guy started crying this guy start [76:54] crying on the street right in front of [76:56] me he's like I work so hard Gary I work [76:59] two jobs um my mom's sick and I'm trying [77:03] to help I'm trying to support and and I [77:04] don't understand why and and I'm sorry [77:07] that I'm [77:08] crying but nobody ever told me that it [77:11] wasn't my fault before that's what he [77:13] said to me okay and listen listen I [77:16] believe 100% aspiration ambition [77:19] entrepreneurial spirit I would never say [77:21] see a kid that has that and say turn it [77:22] off okay but the flip side of your if [77:25] you just work hard enough you can make [77:26] it is if you didn't make it it's because [77:29] you didn't work hard enough and it's [77:30] your fault and I would like you to sit [77:32] and think very hard before you send that [77:34] message to young men and young women in [77:35] our [77:37] society meritocracy doesn't mean that [77:40] everyone uh ends up with the same result [77:44] what what I'm trying to what here's what [77:45] I'm trying to achieve I'm trying to [77:46] achieve the people who have ambition who [77:48] can go for it are incentivized to do it [77:50] and incentivized to build jobs and build [77:52] companies about the ones that just want [77:54] to work hard and have a good family and [77:55] take care of them and have a home and be [77:57] able to turn the heating on and be able [77:58] to Financial Security they need to work [78:00] for business don't they they need to [78:01] work for you yeah P they need to work [78:03] they need to work for a business some [78:05] business right if someone doesn't create [78:07] that business then where do they work [78:08] for we now have by the way we now have [78:10] 11% of 11% of working age people are now [78:13] declared too sick to work right we have [78:16] a huge problem in the UK we also have [78:18] 25% of uh people who are working age [78:21] don't work uh it's one in seven men [78:24] don't work work at all do you think [78:25] they're lazy Dan I think the system is [78:27] collapsing do you think think the system [78:29] is average British American working is [78:31] lazy what I think is happening is that [78:33] the technology companies are totally [78:35] transforming and disrupting everything [78:37] um and what happened is around the [78:39] post-war era we had good jobs we had um [78:43] you could work in a local thing what's [78:45] happening now is that jobs are going to [78:47] the Philippines they're going to uh [78:49] techn technology does three things it [78:52] makes jobs more simple which makes them [78:54] replaceable [78:55] it makes jobs Global where you can move [78:57] them to anywhere else and then [78:58] ultimately it automates the job Al [79:00] together and gets rid of it uh through [79:02] code and software and what's really [79:04] going on in the last especially 5 years [79:06] since the pandemic is technology has [79:09] decimated the existing systems uh that [79:12] we all relied upon when we grew up and [79:14] when I say the uh education system isn't [79:17] really working it's still pretending [79:19] that there are office jobs available for [79:21] people when they graduate and it's still [79:22] pretending that there's like 1950 [79:25] scenarios available when actually my [79:28] kids are going to be disrupted by AI [79:30] everyone's kids are going to be [79:31] disrupted by AI um you know these sorts [79:33] of things are the are the things that [79:35] really we we also need to be talking [79:37] about to all the founders and small [79:39] business owners listening I think you [79:41] need to hear this it's an update from my [79:43] sponsor Fiverr they've just launched [79:45] something called Fiverr go and in short [79:47] it's a huge game changer for you and [79:50] your team it's a tool that's been [79:51] created to help Freelancers train and [79:53] control a personalized AI tool specific [79:57] to them and in their style which means [80:00] that fiver Freelancers and their clients [80:02] can now generate unique work almost [80:04] instantly purely by combining their own [80:06] unique style of freelance Talent with [80:08] personalized AI technology the big [80:11] unlock for me here is time and getting [80:13] more of it back what might have taken me [80:15] a few days or a week can now be done in [80:17] seconds with five ago you get what you [80:19] want and you get it straight away and if [80:21] you need tweaks the original Talent is [80:23] on hand for fine [80:25] fivo is already available across 60 [80:27] categories and that number is growing [80:29] rapidly if it's something you'd like to [80:31] tap into head to fiver.com diary now and [80:34] explore fiveo use code diary for 10% off [80:37] your first order this is the moment [80:39] where AI superpower meets human talent I [80:43] I want to take this back to a point you [80:44] were talking about earlier which is [80:45] about personal agency because I would [80:47] like you Daniel to give the counter to [80:49] your own argument because I want to make [80:51] sure when we're talking about solutions [80:53] to this problem start a business be [80:57] entrepreneurial you can also understand [80:59] how that might that works for people [81:02] with our brains and our mindset and [81:04] whatever we had that made us do that our [81:05] risk appetite our trauma whatever it [81:07] might be but not everybody is wide in [81:10] such a way so that's not necessarily the [81:12] best solution for and also we sit here [81:14] with a bit of hindsight bias where we we [81:15] were lucky and it worked out for us but [81:18] when you look at the stats around [81:19] businesses succeeding what you know the [81:20] stat it's like 90% of businesses fail so [81:23] most of them are failing [81:25] the ones that emerge from that people [81:26] like me then we have a bias where we go [81:28] well it work for us you do it too I [81:30] don't come from money so I have the same [81:32] bias like I watched well I've I've built [81:34] I've built from scratch several times [81:35] because I got disrupted several times so [81:37] I've had to start with nothing several [81:38] times and build but you started type of [81:41] person right and when we say start from [81:42] nothing you actually started with a [81:43] wealth of information and the whole game [81:45] in building building Capital [81:47] intellectual Capital having been through [81:48] it before being around that Mentor that [81:50] gave you the information also having [81:51] access to a great market like having [81:53] access to a free market is is a big [81:54] thing I was born in Australia and I [81:56] moved to London at the peak of London's [81:58] economic freedom so this can't be [81:59] broadly applicable advice can it uh well [82:03] I think personal agency is broadly [82:05] applicable the idea I got this friend of [82:07] mine who woke up one day he went out [82:09] clubbing went out to a nightclub felt [82:11] sick collapsed woke up and they had [82:13] chopped off all four limbs right so uh [82:16] he had quadruple ampute um he was 19 [82:19] years old so he wakes up in bed and he [82:21] basically says I'm a quadruple ampute I [82:23] was I was fine 48 hours ago and now I'm [82:26] a qu quadruple amputee and he decides to [82:28] make this decision in the in the [82:30] hospital room um that this is going to [82:32] be the best thing that ever happened to [82:33] him and he makes that decision right [82:35] even that is a consequence of his him [82:38] and his wiring what I'm trying to [82:40] understand but he ended up he ended up [82:41] starting a clinic and it's a [82:42] multi-million dollar Clinic I mean it's [82:44] incredible what can do the rule it's [82:47] incredible what people but you only need [82:49] a few people to succeed and the whole [82:50] economy starts to improve we we actually [82:53] in this UK we only at the peak of our [82:55] entrepreneurial like blitzing it where [82:58] we're doing so well there was only [83:00] 40,000 scale UPS 40,000 companies were [83:03] creating jobs growth higher wages um [83:06] investment into the company into the [83:08] country you know it's only 1% of people [83:11] who pay 30% of the taxes and 10% of [83:14] people who pay 60% of the taxes so you [83:15] only need one in a 100 to actually [83:18] create something that's valuable and you [83:20] get an extra 30% of taxes but so so that [83:23] again is we need this one that advice [83:24] for the what the people that end up [83:25] getting into that 1% but who does [83:27] everyone else work for like all jobs [83:29] growth comes from entrepreneurs so what [83:31] are you saying to those the 199% there [83:33] are you saying go get a job well you you [83:35] need wealth creators in the economy who [83:37] are building something like you take um [83:41] gym shark people who work at gym shark [83:44] they're super glad that this guy started [83:46] the company they're really happy that [83:47] there's a company otherwise where would [83:49] they go what would they work where would [83:51] they work so if Ben decides that he [83:53] doesn't want to start that company in [83:55] the UK um or if he gets to 10 million [83:58] and [83:58] stops uh then all of those additional [84:01] jobs are are toast they're all gone so [84:03] you encouraging the entrepreneurial [84:05] you're not encouraging everyone to [84:06] become an entrepreneur you're saying [84:08] those that have those that bias or that [84:11] I'm saying we need a system that [84:13] encourages the people who can to do um [84:15] and what about everybody else well every [84:17] the flow on effect is that that creates [84:19] jobs that creates wealth in the economy [84:22] um and free markets lift everybody up [84:25] um free markets just means that [84:26] everyone's trading with everyone um you [84:29] know it starts to like the whole thing I [84:30] mean it's it's just a tail as oldest [84:32] time as soon as economies are free and [84:34] there are entrepreneurs starting things [84:36] and growing things everyone's life [84:38] improves everyone life get better um and [84:41] what's your what part of that do you [84:42] disagree with Gary I think it's it [84:45] doesn't work it doesn't work the only [84:48] period listen the last 70 years are not [84:50] normal Stephen the last 70 years are not [84:52] normal the last 70 years in Europe and [84:53] the US where ordinary people like my dad [84:56] could work for the post office on less [84:57] than average wage and buy a house and [84:59] support family it's not normal it's not [85:00] normal in the world and it's not normal [85:02] in history most countries in the world [85:04] do not like that most countries have a a [85:07] small Super Rich Elite and a very large [85:09] group of extremely poor people that's [85:11] most of the country and it's most of [85:13] history in this country and it's most of [85:14] history in the US you know yeah we talk [85:17] about Charles Dickens I read hard times [85:20] I read hard times and this is written in [85:21] the 19th century when Britain was like [85:23] the industrial super of the whole world [85:25] and at the time the government was [85:27] talking about should we tax these [85:28] industrialists and the industrialists [85:29] were saying if you tax us we'll throw [85:31] our factories into the sea and it just [85:34] reminds me you know the only time we've [85:37] ever really been able to provide decent [85:39] living conditions for ordinary working [85:41] people was the period after the war [85:43] where we massively redistributed wealth [85:44] and and now we're losing that that [85:47] holding of wealth in of the middle class [85:49] can you acknowledge though that that was [85:50] a completely different time as it [85:51] relates to being able to it was a [85:53] different time but you [85:54] I could you know of techy Nigeria today [85:57] Brazil today the UK 300 years ago France [86:00] 200 years ago there is only one specific [86:02] time that we have ever successfully [86:04] provided broad living standards for [86:06] ordinary people and it was a period of [86:08] time we protected a broadly equal wealth [86:11] distribution and tax the rich at very [86:13] high rates and you can acknowledge that [86:14] that's extremely hard to do because the [86:16] nature of the economy 100% 100 that's [86:19] the reason why all of our grandparents [86:20] and our great-grandparents and our great [86:22] great grandparents lived in poverty and [86:23] that's why I know I'm probably going to [86:24] lose and that's why I bet on the economy [86:27] getting worse and that's why I know [86:28] poverty is going to increase because it [86:29] was extremely difficult to get the [86:31] unusually fair share for ordinary [86:33] working people and I know we're losing [86:35] the argument and I know that farage will [86:37] win and I know that Trump will win and I [86:38] know that and I know that things will [86:40] get worse I don't think I'm going to win [86:41] so if you if you know you're promoting a [86:44] a strategy that is not going to work and [86:47] it sounds like you think is [86:48] incredibly almost impossible then why [86:52] would you not be more practical in your [86:54] solution Stephen if it was impossible I [86:56] wouldn't be here think it's possible of [86:59] course it's possible of course it's [87:00] possible but you believe you're not [87:01] going to win I'm a betting man Steve I'm [87:03] a betting man I put my bets on you know [87:05] I am if I get okay look okay so my [87:08] YouTube channel is growing really really [87:09] quickly and you know I'm obviously like [87:10] starting a bit of a movement and there's [87:12] a lot of political support and if it [87:13] keeps growing we'll get more political [87:14] support at the end of the day I'm trying [87:16] to tax the richest and most powerful [87:17] people in the world and most of these [87:20] people will come out and attack me and [87:21] they'll try and stop me and I do not [87:23] have billions of pounds hundreds of [87:25] millions of pounds to use to support my [87:26] YouTube channel I'm counting on ordinary [87:29] people like your viewers to support and [87:30] share my message now listen for most of [87:32] history that has not worked and for most [87:34] of History ordinary families live in [87:36] poverty I don't think it's impossible [87:38] that we Ordinary People can win and get [87:40] a fair share but I think it's worth [87:42] fighting for Steve so I fight for it [87:43] anyway he's he's right that for most of [87:45] History you've had the super Elite and [87:47] then everyone else is down here and it's [87:50] massive wealth inequality is almost the [87:52] normal uh for the last five thousand [87:54] years and almost everywhere uh you've [87:57] got kings queens dukes and peasants and [88:00] surfs down there there have been [88:02] economic situations that have been [88:04] different uh Dubai is a really strange [88:06] situation it's a desert it's in [88:09] inhospitable to live in it's the last [88:11] place in the world most people would [88:12] think or choose that they would want to [88:14] be and yet it's one of the most [88:15] economically rich places in the world [88:17] right now they actually didn't start [88:19] with oil wealth they were able to borrow [88:20] money to build Dubai but the low tax [88:23] environment has now attracted raed some [88:24] of the world's most talented people to [88:26] go and build technology companies there [88:27] and if you I don't know have you been [88:28] there recently I've been to Dubai few [88:30] years AG now but I've been so at the [88:32] moment it is the most thriving [88:34] entrepreneurial community on Earth [88:36] outside of the US but probably even [88:38] rivaling the US that there are investors [88:40] there's entrepreneurs and the wealth is [88:42] going through the roof um I've got two [88:45] friends who are personal trainers [88:46] fitness trainers one fitness trainer has [88:48] decided to stop working uh more hours [88:51] because he's hit 50 Grand a year and he [88:53] now gets taxed at 40% so he's basically [88:55] decided he's going to earn right up to [88:57] 50,000 and then stop working and then [89:00] the other fitness trainer went to Dubai [89:02] launched an online uh Fitness uh [89:04] community and has just bought a $350,000 [89:07] Ferrari uh and one entrepreneur is super [89:11] pumped and super excited about building [89:12] a business because he's not over taxed [89:15] the other entrepreneur has literally [89:16] said I'm not willing to do this because [89:18] of how much I have to pay just want to [89:19] be clear I've always campaigned for [89:20] lower taxes on rich on working people [89:22] always always so but here's but here's [89:24] the thing right if I was ask you you've [89:26] just become one of the best selling [89:27] authors in the country if your publisher [89:30] came to you and said because you're in [89:31] the top 1% of our authors we're going to [89:34] Harve your royalties uh if you sign a [89:36] second book with us you wouldn't sign a [89:38] second book with them you go to another [89:39] publisher who says we'll pay you more [89:41] royalties because you're so successful I [89:43] would have written this book for free [89:44] then I would have written this book for [89:45] free in fact the first time I got off of [89:47] a deal I said I said don't pay me an [89:49] advance then give you royalties away why [89:52] well because if what I'm saying all [89:54] right fine I'll give my royalties away [89:55] I'll shut my YouTube channel down I'm [89:58] saying we respond to incentives that if [90:00] your publisher if penguin came to you [90:02] and said book number two you get half [90:04] royalties because you're in the top 1% [90:07] would you sign with penguin or would you [90:08] go someone El from a 2 million job a [90:10] year to run a YouTube channel do you [90:12] think I do the work that I do for money [90:14] I'm not talking about that you do it for [90:16] money I'm just saying if you had the [90:17] option to sign between two publishing [90:19] contracts right and all things being [90:21] equal one's going to penalize you for [90:23] being in the to 1% and the other one's [90:25] going to reward you for being in the top [90:26] 1% would you you of course you would go [90:28] with the normal like if all things being [90:30] equal you want to write a second book [90:31] anyway it's the same for entrepreneurs [90:34] when entrepreneurs start companies we [90:36] can either start them in high tax [90:37] economies or with a stroke of a pen [90:39] start them in low tax I think the rich [90:42] world is going to have to start [90:43] rethinking the fact that it allows [90:45] people to very very wealthy people to [90:48] own enormous amounts of their physical [90:50] wealth go live overseas and not pay tax [90:52] I think that has to be Revisited for [90:53] sure because what you're saying is I [90:56] want the benefit of being able to sell [90:57] to the US market and the UK Market but I [90:59] don't want the obligation of having to [91:00] pay us and UK taxes and you are correct [91:02] that at the moment the US and UK [91:04] governments allow that and I think [91:05] that's US taxes you on worldwide income [91:07] well only a small amount right so I [91:09] think that realistically I think that [91:12] the US and UK governments have to stop [91:13] that but the way I see it the US and UK [91:16] governments and increasing a lot of [91:17] global governments are kind of being [91:19] bought up by the elites and you know we [91:21] have ELO musk is basically the President [91:23] right and we had richy sunak who father [91:24] was one of the richest men in the world [91:25] like if you're richy sunak who for our [91:28] American viewers was our prime minister [91:29] until very recently his father is one of [91:31] the richest men in the world he's got [91:33] 700 million personal wealth he's going [91:34] to be making 3040 million pound passive [91:36] income and you're getting paid 130 Grand [91:39] de to be prime minister when you're [91:40] making policy do you think maybe I'll [91:43] ask my father-in-law at once you know [91:46] the fact is what you're seeing here is [91:48] if you allow the rich I'm I'm never ever [91:50] against entrepreneurship I'm not against [91:52] people getting rich if you allow the [91:53] rich to get richer and richer and richer [91:55] they squeeze the middle class and they [91:57] squeeze the poor class out of things [91:59] like housing of things like space in [92:00] cities of things like energy and of [92:02] things like owning a sharing government [92:04] and media do you acknowledge that [92:06] countries that adopt a anti-ri big [92:09] government approach tend to collapse [92:12] what like like this country in the [92:14] 60s we needed a US bailout we needed an [92:17] IMF bailout in 1976 but the US did the [92:19] same thing the US had even higher taxes [92:20] than us we we basically like you take [92:23] you take all the countries that where [92:25] the government becomes big they meddle [92:26] with your life they're involved in every [92:28] decision right half the economy I mean [92:30] here's one other the things this period [92:31] is known as the Golden Age of capitalism [92:33] it's the period of time when which [92:36] period thisi 50 years off the second [92:38] world war oh it's the Golden Age of [92:39] middle class to be middle class you [92:42] don't care about the middle class no no [92:43] of course I do the the but the 70 years [92:46] after the World War II yeah where the [92:49] government sold off all of its houses to [92:50] middle class people so we got housing [92:52] wealth but you can only do that trick [92:54] once right so you can only sell off all [92:56] the houses to everyone once which is why [92:58] all the Baby Boomers own them well the [93:00] living s is collapsed after the houses [93:02] were sold there was a long period where [93:04] the houses weren't sold between the [93:05] second world war and the 80s pinpo [93:07] living standards collapsing well I think [93:09] there's a few obviously big moments I [93:11] think 2008 is a big moment I think Co is [93:13] a big moment I think it's the 80s where [93:15] you start to see the wealth distribution [93:16] go what matters is actually the [93:18] distribution itself so once you change [93:19] the tax system it takes a bit of time [93:22] for the wealth distribution to change [93:24] but once you start for me the big thing [93:25] is is the loss of wealth holding I want [93:27] ordinary families to be able to hold [93:29] wealth and once you lose that you lose a [93:31] middle class and you will not find me a [93:33] single country in in the world now or [93:35] the history of the world that has [93:37] provided good broad living standards [93:39] without allowing ordinary families to [93:41] own assets yeah I agree and take [93:44] Singapore for example where everyone's [93:45] encouraged to own properties they've got [93:47] an amazing system in Singapore they've [93:48] taken this a massive government by the [93:50] way enormous government 25% of GDP they [93:53] they own they own the houses they have a [93:55] weal f they own all the houses they [93:57] don't own all the houses they have a a [93:58] sovereign wealth fund that circulates [94:00] houses through they've they own the hous [94:02] they' solved they've solved Singapore [94:03] owns the house they own the Singapore [94:05] government owns an enormous share of the [94:06] houses so do you think we should own [94:09] pension Pension funds people uh they [94:11] force not force their citizens but they [94:14] uh direct their citizens into Home [94:16] Ownership you don't think Singapore and [94:17] government owns a large sh I just know [94:19] that the Singaporean government's only [94:20] 25% of the economy but big sh of the [94:22] housing stock 75 the economy is I would [94:24] like to say by the way just to be really [94:26] clear I've never ever once advocated for [94:28] big government never a single time big [94:31] government I want higher taxes on the [94:33] wealth orders so we can tax wealth [94:35] creators and working people less I don't [94:37] want to Big A government I want our [94:38] viewers to have more money I want our [94:40] viewers to have more money and also I [94:42] want to tax those super rich so that [94:44] they stop squeezing ordinary families [94:46] out of asset ownership it just yeah it [94:48] see it it seems like an obvious solution [94:51] it seems like yeah it's good solution it [94:53] seems like like hey who's got the money [94:56] rich people not the money the assets the [94:58] asset who's got the assets rich people [95:00] then let's just take them off them and [95:02] no no no I don't want I don't want to [95:03] redistribute I'm I'm I am the only [95:05] person in this table anti- [95:06] redistribution because the [95:07] redistribution is happening in front of [95:09] our eyes the middle class is losing its [95:11] assets government is losing its assets [95:13] those assets are being accumulated by [95:14] the rich I want to stop the [95:16] redistribution please please I'm I am [95:19] the most anti- rist redistribution [95:21] person in this game we need to stop the [95:23] redistribu of wealth away from ordinary [95:25] British and American families so the [95:28] difference is for me it's very simple [95:30] which is I really truly believe that [95:32] free markets and low governments and [95:35] less taxes creates more wealth in the [95:36] middle and freedom for the Heron is [95:38] death for the fishes if we have complete [95:41] Freedom multi-millionaires like you and [95:43] me will get richer and richer and richer [95:44] every year and we will squeeze out and [95:46] we will eat the middle class ask you [95:48] though if wealth inequality could be [95:50] solved but everyone does worse is that a [95:53] good solu obviously not the whole reason [95:55] I do this because I don't want Ordinary [95:56] People toap into public this is about [95:58] people being able to feed their kids so [96:00] wealth inequality is not the problem [96:01] it's collapsing living stand that's [96:03] quite contorted I mean quite contorted [96:07] Logic the problem isaps living standards [96:09] I am somebody who has made millions of [96:11] pounds by understanding the simple fact [96:13] that living standards are falling [96:14] because of growing wealth INE equality [96:16] so living standards if they were to [96:18] increase but they were super rich yeah [96:21] is that a problem I think you do need to [96:23] be worried about us extremely wealthy [96:27] Elites yeah I think what's interesting [96:29] you look at the the founding of the [96:30] United States these guys the founding of [96:33] the United States conceptually is really [96:34] based on these ideas of distribution of [96:36] power that's why you have the president [96:38] and the house and the Senate and you [96:39] have this independent Judiciary they're [96:41] like we cannot allow power to become [96:43] concentrated because they came from a [96:45] Europe which had extremely concentrated [96:47] power and extremely wealthy Elites and [96:49] extremely broad poverty so I think that [96:52] allowing a small group of Society to [96:54] increasingly monopolize power and wealth [96:56] over time is obviously something we [96:58] should be worried about but primarily [97:00] the reason I worry about wealth [97:01] inequality is because I see and I bet on [97:04] and I make money on the fact that it [97:06] causes living standards to Fall by the [97:08] way I I actually really agree with you [97:09] and the founding fathers of the US they [97:11] did um especially around the 1900s they [97:14] did want to break up monopolies and [97:15] break up monopolies was one of the big [97:17] things that um they did trust busting uh [97:19] where they broke up Standard Oil and all [97:21] of those sorts of things one thing I do [97:23] really really see happening at the [97:24] moment is that we have a stupid outdated [97:27] definition of monopolies where we use [97:30] monopolies the same way they used it [97:32] when they had the oil uh companies that [97:35] owned all the oil in the technology [97:38] World a monopoly is formed through an [97:39] ecosystem so Amazon for example owning [97:43] AWS and Audible and this and this and [97:46] this and Whole Foods it creates a a [97:49] fortress that's almost impossible to um [97:52] to compete with and Google owning [97:54] YouTube and Gmail and all of this they [97:57] create these fortresses through [97:58] ecosystems one of the things that I do [98:00] think we need to look at is compulsory [98:03] breakup of big Tech once you hit a [98:05] certain time because it's very difficult [98:07] because do you know billionaires have [98:10] two big fears right keep them up at [98:12] night uh having nightmares number two is [98:14] high taxes number one is that startup [98:17] entrepreneur who disrupts their business [98:18] and they want to kill that early you [98:20] know Steve Jobs at 24 years old [98:22] disrupted IBM um and Jeff Bezos [98:26] disrupted Walmart so they are terrified [98:30] of entrepreneurs in the middle um and [98:32] they want to create government [98:33] regulations to say hey you know what [98:35] let's cap entrepreneurs at 10 million [98:37] you can get to 10 million it's okay for [98:39] us we're way past that point but Gary's [98:41] our guy because he's going to cap [98:42] everyone I never said cap anyone at 10 [98:44] million by the way what do you think [98:45] will happen people stop as soon as you [98:47] have wealth taxes people just give up [98:49] they just don't want telling me our [98:50] viewers if if they said if they knew [98:51] they could build a 20 30 million SS [98:54] ridiculous they knew they would have to [98:55] pay 20 if you if you're if you're worth [98:57] 30 million 1% above is 200 Grand a year [98:59] so if I said if you you can have a 30 [99:01] million pound company TR just bear in [99:03] mind right you make 5% a year on your [99:06] wealth right so if you got 300 million [99:07] pound company you're going to be making [99:08] 15 million pound a year and I'm turning [99:10] to you and I'm going to say you know [99:11] you've got to pay 200 Grand a year on [99:13] your 50 million pound revenue and [99:14] they're going to say you know what I'm [99:15] not going to start a business I don't [99:16] want to be worth 30 million quid this is [99:18] you know this is ridiculous you know [99:20] nobody is going to say oh my God I don't [99:22] want to be multi multimillionaire [99:24] because in 20 years time I'll have to [99:26] pay 1% taxes but most Traders most [99:29] Traders are earning what most people [99:30] earn in lifetime Traders can earn in a [99:32] year most Traders don't stop talk about [99:36] that a lot in my book right so most [99:37] Traders just keep going entrepreneurs [99:39] are the same that they're motivated to [99:42] keep going but when you have Wealth [99:44] Advisors and investors saying do not [99:46] build a company in the UK because [99:48] they're anti- wealth L I'm not trying to [99:51] make the UK anti- wealth I'm not trying [99:52] to make the UK and anti wealth I think [99:55] the UK and the US need to be looking at [99:57] a situation where you cannot allow [99:59] people who own enormous businesses that [100:01] sell to your country to live in Dubai to [100:04] live in the Cayman Islands and not pay [100:05] tax and I I don't think that's a [100:07] controversial position I've got a [100:08] question for both of you which is if you [100:10] are a young person and you're 18 years [100:12] old now and that you're listening to [100:14] this but your objective really is an [100:15] individualistic one you want to get rich [100:17] and you have a great future for you and [100:18] your family like all all of us have been [100:20] able to do what would your advice be to [100:22] them Gary at this moment in time this is [100:26] such a hard question I know Dan's angry [100:28] at me for what I put in my video how to [100:29] get rich um somebody came around to my [100:31] house and asked me this other day [100:32] obviously I get asked it a lot because [100:35] stupidly I'm very public about the fact [100:36] that I'm rich um what I did is not [100:39] replicable what I did is not replicable [100:41] it's not I'm sorry I'm sorry but it's [100:43] not people always say why don't you [100:44] teach me to trade like it's hard it's [100:47] hard trading and it's dangerous and I [100:48] think a lot of young men are getting [100:49] sort of sold into trading and becoming [100:51] gambling addicts um [100:54] you know work hard and I would I [100:56] wouldn't even say don't become an [100:57] entrepr I've never ever said these [100:59] things work hard you know if you think [101:01] that you have an opportunity in Tech [101:02] entrepreneurship go for it understand [101:04] it's risky I think that sometimes this [101:06] message just become an entrepreneur and [101:07] you make it is a bit dangerous because I [101:09] think most people who try to become [101:10] entrepreneurs fail and I think it's [101:12] super super dangerous the reality is and [101:14] you know maybe D like this maybe you [101:16] won't like this I think it is very very [101:18] difficult for a young man or a young [101:20] woman from a poor family to become rich [101:24] and I think it's increasingly hard even [101:26] to just get those basics of Financial [101:27] Security so listen obviously reduce your [101:30] spending if you can don't buy into this [101:32] like Balenciaga stay away from [101:34] that [101:36] but work hard study hard try to get a [101:38] good job but also understand we are [101:41] shrinking the seats on the Lifeboat [101:42] that's what we're doing we used to allow [101:44] 50% to be secure then it's 40% then it's [101:47] 30% then it's 20% you know you got [101:49] family in Nigeria if a young person from [101:52] like shanty town in Nigeria I came to [101:53] you and said Stephen what could I do to [101:55] get rich you would have to say to him [101:57] realistically listen you are in a [101:59] difficult situation here you need to [102:01] work really really hard but if you are [102:03] able to make enough money to to support [102:05] a family be proud of yourself what I [102:07] would actually say to them so yeah I [102:08] have got family in Nigeria um for people [102:10] that don't know I'm by Blood half [102:12] Nigerian I would say to them that [102:15] knowledge is really your life raft so [102:18] obviously there's a big Tech boom [102:20] happening in Nigeria which is liberating [102:21] a lot of people from that situation so I [102:23] would try and tell them to get on the [102:25] life raft that is like knowledge of this [102:28] new Revolution so from Nigeria you can [102:30] learn to code and then the the great [102:32] thing now is that we're we literally [102:33] have actually this is quite interesting [102:35] we're building a tech company in San [102:36] Francisco called flight cast it's live [102:38] everyone can go look at at flight.com [102:39] and the lead developer oh and guest [102:42] radar the lead developer of guest radar [102:44] is a Nigerian guy but how many of those [102:46] jobs in the Nigerian Tech sector are [102:49] going to kids that grew up in the shanty [102:50] towns I have no idea cuz I worked in [102:54] people ask me tell me how to do what you [102:56] did all right I worked in Canary Warf [102:58] it's in East London I could see the [102:59] building from my house going up there [103:02] was not a single other kid from East [103:04] London the whole time I was there do you [103:07] know to Dan's point about this remote [103:09] work Revolution where like work now has [103:12] you can work from anywhere and in our [103:13] company third web San Francisco me some [103:16] of the stuff that we now have are in the [103:18] Philippines because they just have like [103:19] great creatives there it's obviously [103:21] more cost effective isn't this a huge [103:23] part of what's going on in our economy [103:25] this this digitalization and this [103:34] remotify B your workers in the [103:35] Philippines very very well [103:39] um most of these people they used to [103:43] have a half decent wage on office and [103:46] now they're locked in their bedrooms [103:47] barely paying the bills yeah um in the [103:49] Philippines not in the Philippines the [103:51] Philippine guys are balling out control [103:53] no I'm saying the Philippines is booming [103:55] at the moment so you think the average [103:57] person in the Philippines is living a [103:58] luxurious life have you if you uh what's [104:00] happening at the moment do you think the [104:02] average person in the Philippines is [104:03] living a luxurious life there is there [104:05] is this thing called remote foreign [104:06] workers and this is a huge boom and the [104:10] economic the kidchen move to the [104:11] Philippines then it's great you get [104:13] great quality of life in the Philippines [104:15] you know when I looked at the thums of [104:16] Manila they should just get J they I [104:18] don't know why they're not getting the [104:18] laptops out uh the the poverty in the [104:21] Philippines is horrific I'm listen [104:23] Philippines a beautiful country an [104:24] amazing country I love the Philippines [104:26] number in there at at a rate that's [104:28] never what is the life like for your [104:30] average Filipino well would you agree [104:32] though that their economy is just [104:33] getting flooded with money at the moment [104:35] like money is flowing in there money is [104:36] flowing in but it is not giving a good [104:38] quality of life your average Filipino [104:40] that's not true remote foreign workers [104:42] well we can remote foreign workers [104:44] Filipino viewers to tell us [104:46] what's can actually support the often [104:48] support their en a look I don't know [104:50] what the average wages in the phili just [104:51] to bring it back to this point though so [104:52] I wanted to know from Gary he said work [104:55] hard if you're a young guy listening to [104:57] this now um I was reading this really [104:58] interesting article yesterday from the I [105:00] think it was from major newspaper [105:01] talking about the lost boys and it goes [105:03] to show that I think it's one in seven [105:05] young men that is at a working age now [105:07] are out of work so there's lots of talk [105:10] around young men in particular and how [105:11] they're struggling you'd say work hard [105:12] Gary You' say work hard no blena but the [105:15] big thing the big thing is recognize the [105:19] situation that you're in and I would [105:20] encourage them to support my work and [105:23] follow my channel because the lifeboats [105:25] are shrinking and trust me we're going [105:28] to get out kids in the lifeboats and we [105:30] all know that all right and if those [105:31] life boates are shrinking if you don't [105:34] if you don't stop the from going [105:35] down it is not you and you and me who [105:38] are going to go down we will be fine if [105:40] you don't fight the political fight I [105:41] guarantee you people like Daniel will so [105:43] you're saying that they should also get [105:45] involved in the political fight you have [105:46] to you have to that's what our [105:47] grandparents did Grand if they want to [105:50] become millionaires like you and me and [105:51] Dan well it sounds like Dan's got better [105:53] advice for that than I do okay well I'm [105:55] going to ask Dan as well but I just [105:56] wondering I'm wondering how your your [105:58] advice ties into sort of [106:01] like the young the young person who's [106:03] trying to liberate themselves from where [106:05] you came from or where I came from you [106:07] know what I don't think I'm the guy to [106:08] say that man because you know I had this [106:11] unusual gift from a young age I was very [106:13] very very good at maths and I just [106:14] followed that um and you know you know [106:17] my sister she's a poet and she wrote a [106:20] really successful Grime of musical about [106:22] DIY R's first album all right she comes [106:25] from obviously the same family as me [106:26] poor family she works so hard she works [106:29] so so hard two degrees she can barely [106:33] pay the rent all right so I don't want [106:35] to turn around to our young kids and say [106:37] well I've got this Talent follow your [106:38] talent because it doesn't work Stephen [106:41] true it doesn't work yeah wait my sister [106:44] does great work but financially for [106:46] young people following your passion [106:48] following your talent unless you come [106:49] from Rich family realistically very very [106:52] really works and I know it worked for [106:54] the three of us at this table but let's [106:55] not pretend that everyone experiences [106:58] the same things that we experienced what [106:59] would you say to that D and what's your [107:01] answer I think there's two economies [107:02] going on at the moment there's a dying [107:04] economy which is the Industrial [107:05] Revolution economy um and that is all [107:08] the office jobs and the factory jobs and [107:10] all of that sort of stuff which is very [107:11] much being automated away and moved [107:13] globally um and at the same time there's [107:15] this new bubbling up digital economy um [107:18] which I'd call the entrepreneur economy [107:19] or the digital economy um both of these [107:22] economies are kind of Co coexisting [107:23] one's going like that one's going uh [107:25] like that um and if you want to be [107:29] economically successful you need to [107:31] stand next to the biggest piles of money [107:33] that you can um you know unfortunately [107:35] being a poet uh doesn't pay a lot of [107:38] money and we all know that that's not a [107:39] surprise if you came from a very rich [107:41] family and you were a poet you'd [107:42] probably be one of the 60% who fell out [107:44] of a rich family uh as well um if you [107:48] want to be economically successful you [107:49] need to say what is the thing that's [107:51] economically booming right now Gary saw [107:54] the finance industry at that particular [107:56] time but if we actually look at the [107:58] finance industry now it's in Decline um [108:00] and trading is being rep uh replaced by [108:02] AI robots um people who worked in your [108:06] career are going to be replaced by uh it [108:10] systems that basically do similar jobs [108:12] it's going to be you know these things [108:13] happen we're going through a massive uh [108:16] technological change but at the same [108:18] time it's never been easier to learn [108:22] skills for free uh on YouTube it's never [108:24] been easier to join communities where [108:26] you can get mentoring and get support [108:28] there are communities of angel investors [108:30] who do invest in in startups uh it's [108:33] never been cheaper or easier to start a [108:35] company there's never been more software [108:37] and Technology to scale and grow you [108:39] know in just a in a short space of time [108:41] I would say do what Gary's done Gary [108:43] publishes online he's built a personal [108:45] brand he's attached it to a recurring [108:47] Revenue model uh he's got yeah I also [108:49] worked for three for free for four years [108:51] I'm not sure how replicable that is you [108:53] know so build a personal brand attach it [108:56] to a business model that is that is [108:58] where money is Flowing um these are [109:00] these are positive things you can do we [109:02] all have to play the cards we're dealt [109:04] you can always find someone who's done [109:05] better with better cards or someone [109:07] who's been dealt better cards and you [109:08] can always find someone who's been dealt [109:10] worse a cards no matter who you are on [109:11] the planet there's someone better [109:12] there's someone worse you have to play [109:14] the cards that you dealt you cannot sit [109:16] around waiting for the economic system [109:18] of the world to be changed you have to [109:20] say you know what these are the cards I [109:22] was born at this particular time in this [109:24] these circumstances these are my [109:26] strengths these are my weaknesses I'm [109:27] going to play the cards that i' I've [109:28] dealt um personal agency is what gets [109:32] people to feel good about their life to [109:35] make progress and as soon as you play [109:37] the victim mindset soon as you say oh [109:39] you know what the answer to all my [109:41] prayers is Gary's going to change the [109:43] system uh you're in serious trouble can [109:45] I just say one thing back on that um if [109:48] we become a society of of individuals [109:50] who think only individually and and [109:52] never consider broader societal problems [109:55] we will become a society that becomes [109:57] unable to fix societal [110:00] problems I'm somebody who has made [110:02] millions of pounds betting on the [110:04] collapse of society the collapse of the [110:05] middle class um I don't want to be [110:08] giving stock tips on the Titanic okay I [110:12] I understand I understand that we live [110:14] in individualized societies and and it's [110:15] not popular to say hey you need to [110:16] protect your Society um if you don't [110:19] protect your Society your Society is [110:20] going to collapse and and the British [110:22] public the American public have a choice [110:24] to make here here to protect these what [110:26] do you want people to do I want them to [110:27] get involved with watch my channel [110:29] subscribe to my channel content on [110:31] YouTube Instagram Tik Tok share it with [110:33] your friends share it with your mom [110:35] understand and then push for change push [110:37] for change like our grandparents did [110:39] push the politicians to tax working [110:42] people less and tax extremely wealthy [110:44] wealth orders more so vote for the [110:46] greens vote for whoever gives you that [110:48] whoever gives you your share of the PIP [110:50] basic listen this is not football okay [110:51] I'm not here M of the GRE I'm here to [110:54] protect the working class so that's [110:56] their sort of that would be their social [110:57] and sort of um political energy would be [111:01] to stand up and fight but in their in [111:03] their personal lives are you telling [111:04] them to start businesses take big risks [111:06] work really hard go for it because they [111:08] can also I would defer to you guys on [111:10] that you know I'm not a businessman I'm [111:11] an economist that's what I am you know I [111:13] made my money by being an economist I'm [111:15] a very very good Economist my [111:16] predictions will be right people can go [111:18] and watch my predictions at the [111:19] beginning of covid I predicted the [111:21] entire Co crisis exactly correctly in [111:23] May 2020 you know this is you know I'm [111:26] good at this I'm and listen I'm never [111:28] going to come here and say I'm a better [111:29] businessman than you and I don't I'm [111:30] pretty sure that I'm not I'm a very very [111:33] very good Economist this will happen is [111:35] there something that I can do if I'm sat [111:37] here listening at home I understand [111:38] everything you said I believe everything [111:39] you said I I I believe that it's going [111:41] to get worse for me do you think I [111:44] should still take responsibility of my [111:46] situation and fight to make my life [111:49] richer better moreful 100% 100 100% cuz [111:53] you you know and I'm sure you know if [111:55] you're average British or American if [111:56] you don't do that you're not going to be [111:58] able to turn the heating on you have to [112:00] do it you have to do it and I've never [112:01] once you I think my opinions are often [112:03] mischaracterized to being anti- ambition [112:05] you've read my book do you think I'm [112:06] anti- ambition no I work my tits off to [112:08] make money and I want every single young [112:10] person in this country to be able to [112:11] make money if they want to if that's [112:13] what they want to work towards but we've [112:14] created a society where it's almost [112:16] impossible for young listen I've been [112:18] there I've been at LC I've been at [112:19] Oxford I've been in the city I've been [112:21] in the media I've been in politics all [112:22] all of the guys at the top are a bunch [112:24] of Rich idiots we are not allowing these [112:27] smart kids from ordinary backgrounds to [112:29] get into those spaces why why do we [112:31] pretend we're not doing that do that I [112:32] disagree with that you're talking about [112:34] two types of elite spaces Elite space of [112:37] elite universities yeah and you're [112:39] talking about the elite space of [112:41] derivatives trading there's the real [112:43] economy yeah where entrepreneurs do [112:45] their work then there's the first [112:46] derivative which is the banking system [112:48] and then there's the second derivative [112:50] which is rates Traders like yourself [112:52] right these are these These are places [112:54] that normal people don't want to end up [112:57] most normal people who grow up in normal [112:59] households don't uh wake up one day and [113:01] say I want to be a rates Trader on a [113:04] double derivative of the economy making [113:05] bets most people want to start a [113:07] business that employs people and they [113:08] want to grow that business and be [113:10] successful do you think that starting a [113:12] business is a realistic High success [113:16] probability chance of ordinary poor [113:18] people becoming rich I I know that [113:20] economies Thrive when entrepreneurs are [113:22] active [113:23] and it's not just the entrepreneurs they [113:25] create is our viewers can do and most of [113:28] them will end up rich you only need 1% [113:30] to improve the whole economy there's a [113:31] really interesting stat that says [113:32] globally around 65% of ultra high net [113:34] worth individuals are [113:36] self-made approximately 19% primarily [113:39] primarily inherited their wealth and [113:41] about 16% inherited wealth but [113:43] significantly grew it through their own [113:44] Ventures so 65% of the ultra high worth [113:47] individuals globally are self-made does [113:50] that not mean that if I want to become [113:52] an ultra high Networth person it's going [113:54] to come down to listen we are just come [113:56] off the back of the golden age of [113:58] capitalism when ordinary people like my [114:00] dad you know I grew up in ilford it's in [114:01] East London it's a very immigrant area [114:03] most of my friends I grew up with come [114:04] from Pakistani Indian immigrant [114:06] backgrounds they come over with nothing [114:08] they worked really hard they made money [114:10] they had their own assets we had a [114:11] period where Ordinary People could make [114:14] money and could make wealth so obviously [114:15] we are now in a period where there are [114:17] rich people who made money during that [114:19] period but it's over now I'm seeing [114:20] ordinary people making money all the [114:22] time okay so you're telling our viewers [114:23] they're idiots why are they not making [114:24] money I'm not telling anyone they're an [114:26] idiot I'm saying that if it's that easy [114:28] okay all right fine go and buy Dan's [114:30] book read it and become a millionaire [114:31] because Dan thinks it's easy to become a [114:34] millionaire being an entrepreneur but I [114:36] suspect having not been an entrepreneur [114:38] that most of the people who've read your [114:39] book are not millionaires everything [114:40] you've touched has turned to Gold you [114:42] turned yourself to Academia you got an [114:45] amazing qualification you turned [114:47] yourself to banking you became 2 million [114:49] a year you turned yourself to being a [114:50] writer you become Sunday Times [114:51] bestseller you turn yourself to content [114:53] creating you get 800,000 followers and [114:56] you and now you sit there after all of [114:58] that evidence and say oh no it's all [115:00] over guys it's all I'm smart enough to [115:02] do it but you guys are not smart enough [115:03] to do if if you think you can teach [115:05] you've got your book if you think you [115:06] canach you say you're smart enough but [115:09] they're not smart enough I I wonder if [115:11] um we do have a bit of an education [115:13] problem at the at the heart of this [115:15] because I was thinking about your sister [115:16] and I was like right if I was the CEO of [115:17] Gary's sister what would I do there's [115:19] two things I do right now the first is [115:21] okay where's where what what Marketplace [115:24] is really valuing an ability to write [115:26] and write an impactful way I go write [115:27] you need to start an Instagram page [115:29] because I've seen what happened with J [115:30] sh this guy's pulling in tens of [115:31] millions a year because he took like you [115:33] know nice words that were motivational [115:36] poetic put them on there and I also [115:37] YouTube needs to get to YouTube because [115:40] if she can talk like you then she's [115:42] going to do exceptionally well on [115:43] YouTube as well um but the old there's [115:46] not going to be a great economy [115:48] necessarily for someone who's doing [115:50] poetry in many other places other than [115:52] one I'm saying is the internet but in [115:53] school we don't teach this there's no [115:55] YouTube class for YouTube and and it's [115:58] such a huge part of the economy I mean I [116:00] mean me and you have seen that it's [116:01] there's been this decentralization of [116:03] media where the megaphone was growing at [116:05] 20% a year the me the megaphone was [116:07] people watching start a YouTube become [116:09] ENT it's the Internet isn't e I'm not [116:11] say works for most people stepen for [116:13] most people no it doesn't work it [116:15] doesn't work why are we pretending it [116:17] does but I what what I what I would say [116:19] is if in school we taught young kids a [116:21] couple new things and we stopped [116:23] teaching them about Pythagoras's Theorem [116:25] which by the way chat gbt is going to do [116:26] for you with your eyes closed and we [116:28] taught them about the new economy of the [116:30] internet about the ability to start a [116:32] shop and I it's crazy that I the school [116:36] system was designed in such a way where [116:37] they put me in exclusion unit because I [116:38] was so preoccupied with doing business [116:40] deals at school and my Headmaster came [116:42] on T National TV on what I lied to and [116:44] said yeah we unexp beled him eventually [116:46] because he made the school so much money [116:47] but the system was punishing me for [116:49] Entre for entrepreneurship and it wasn't [116:52] teaching me anything about the the new [116:54] economy which is which is technology St [116:56] do you think it matters if the [116:58] percentage of young people who are able [116:59] to Achieve Financial Freedom and have a [117:02] family is shrinking so do I think it [117:04] matters if the percentage of young [117:05] people that are able [117:07] to are you saying attain wealth and have [117:09] a family yeah Achieve Financial Freedom [117:11] and have a family I think that's a [117:12] really big problem listen I think that's [117:14] a really big problem I agree I know [117:16] listen and I know you've got this [117:18] podcast and I know you inspire young [117:19] people and I think that's a good thing I [117:20] think it's a good thing that you inspire [117:21] young people to go out and work hard and [117:23] try and Achieve something but I'm an [117:25] economist and what I see is the [117:27] percentage of young people who make it [117:28] shrinking and I think if you combine [117:29] those two things you reach a really [117:31] dangerous place because we go and tell [117:33] the young people it's there for you to [117:34] start a business and at the same time [117:36] the number of people who make it is 10% [117:38] 5% 2% 1% and there will always be that [117:41] one person who makes it there will [117:42] always be that Steven Bartley in every [117:43] country in the world who's making it [117:44] through you know what I'm saying but the [117:46] systematic issue matters Stephen C can [117:48] we can we not change the education [117:50] system so that when I was 16 and they [117:53] threw me in the exclusion unit which [117:54] made me which would could so easily have [117:56] made me think that I was a failure [117:58] because my brothers who went Jason went [118:00] to LSC okay and became very much like [118:02] you and now works in my company um [118:05] managing my investments he in that [118:07] education system was rewarded so I sat [118:10] there as a kid thinking rich and [118:11] successful my older brother Jason [118:13] because he can do maths and I thought [118:14] I'm going to be a failure because I like [118:16] this thing called entrepreneurship and I [118:17] have ADHD so I can't pay attention in [118:19] lessons what I'm saying is if the [118:20] education system was designed in such a [118:21] way where people like me who were [118:23] entrepreneurial who were interested in [118:24] the internet and couldn't stop playing [118:26] video games were clapped for and said oh [118:28] my God double down on that yeah um I [118:31] think the net benefit when you think [118:33] about what the backbone of the economy [118:35] is which is entrepreneurs starting [118:36] businesses would be profound for this [118:39] country here yeah but that but but I I [118:41] think that I believe there needs to be [118:43] such a radical overhaul of our education [118:45] system if we want to stand a chance of [118:47] capitalizing on what the economy is [118:49] today yeah I I think I think you could [118:51] probably change the education system in [118:53] a lot of ways that could improve it but [118:54] you're kind of changing the education [118:56] system on the Titanic what my my [118:58] perspective is I can tell you with a [118:59] very very high rate of certainty if you [119:01] don't fix this problem of the wealth [119:02] being sucked out of the middle class 95 [119:05] 98% of people will be in poverty in this [119:07] country in 70 years I agree with you [119:09] this is the thing I agree that you can't [119:12] have a group of people at the very top [119:13] that own all the assets and all the [119:15] money or else I mean it's going to come [119:16] from somewhere and I remember the day [119:18] that I printed off the jobseekers [119:20] allowance form when I was stealing [119:21] Chicago town piz 10 years ago in my room [119:23] in Mosside in Manchester I remember what [119:25] it feels like to not have my parents [119:27] speaking to me to be have all these ccj [119:30] letters and baith letters on my desk and [119:32] really have no answer how how to get out [119:35] of the situation to the point that I was [119:36] like shoplifting I'd call the justy [119:38] driver and then trying to persuade him [119:39] just to give me the food that was that [119:41] was that was 10 years ago for me so I I [119:43] it's not I've not forgotten the the [119:45] those years of my life so I understand [119:47] what it is to be in that situation and [119:50] on an individual level I need need some [119:52] answers because I'm not going to wait [119:54] for these people in the [119:56] parliament to fix my life for me so I [119:58] need some individual answers and then I [119:59] do also care about the bigger picture so [120:01] I'm not like here as someone that just [120:03] wants to acrew loads of wealth myself of [120:06] course listen let's be honest no one [120:08] like there's not many human beings that [120:09] wouldn't like more money so I try and [120:11] acknowledge that bias but what I'm the [120:14] the the the big issue I have is is is [120:17] how and from my personal experience as [120:20] someone that now employs hundreds and [120:22] hundreds and hundreds of people here in [120:23] London up in Manchester in our offices I [120:26] there are a set of things that would [120:28] make me leave this country if it became [120:30] increasingly less uh friendly to [120:32] entrepreneurs I reckon if we come back [120:34] here in 5 years time I reckon I'll [120:36] employ 500 more people in the UK and [120:39] actually as you look around this room [120:40] you can see the age of them these are [120:41] young people yeah um there are things [120:44] you could do to make me not do that I [120:45] mean it's probably worth pointing out [120:47] that we're not taxing wealth and you're [120:48] leaving the country anyway Stephen no I [120:50] haven't left the country okay you're [120:51] going I'm I'm a tax resident here I pay [120:53] my taxes here and I have zero intent in [120:55] changing that I'm also on Dragon you [120:57] know so we're investing a lot of money [120:58] in UK businesses but listen I want to [121:01] raise I want to tax only high levels of [121:04] wealth only high levels of wealth and [121:06] listen don't get me wrong I understand [121:07] very rich people will complain and very [121:08] rich people will say just like they did [121:10] in Dickens I'm going to throw my [121:11] businesses I'm going to throw my taxes [121:13] my my businesses and my factories into [121:15] the sea Stephen your viewers are here [121:18] you listen Steven your viewers are here [121:20] you are a very wealthy person they are [121:21] are paying 20 30 40 50% you should be [121:24] paying your fair share Stephen you [121:26] should I think that I should [121:30] pay more tax especially when um I don't [121:34] think my kids should get should should [121:36] benefit from my wealth and maybe this is [121:37] a controversial opinion but I actually [121:38] don't I don't think I should be able to [121:41] pass down my assets to my children you [121:43] can't it's 40% tax I think it should be [121:45] more 4 yeah let's not pretend rich [121:48] people don't successfully pass their ass [121:49] their children I'm just telling you now [121:51] I do think I'd be robbing my children of [121:53] something from the background that I [121:54] came from if my CH my child gets [121:57] if my child has gets tens of millions [121:59] let's say even when I die I don't think [122:01] that should happen well I agree people [122:03] say when I talk about my sister people [122:04] like why don't you just give your sister [122:05] a load of money listen my sister works [122:07] hard she's a smart person she works hard [122:09] she produces good work I want to live in [122:11] a society where people like my sister [122:14] are able to support themselves with the [122:15] work that they do but we we're [122:16] destroying that Society who would pay [122:18] her the the customers you know this the [122:22] situ so you want her to start a business [122:24] she is a business yeah yeah and I want [122:26] people like her to be to be taxed less [122:28] so that what I want is ordinary working [122:30] people to be tax less so they have more [122:32] money in their pocket listen the reason [122:34] we had the thriving art scene in the 60s [122:36] is because we had a thriving middle [122:37] class that could go and buy the new [122:39] fashions and buy the new records and [122:40] then that created this thriving art [122:42] scene now we have a middle class which [122:44] is struggling to pay the bills so they [122:45] can't they can't buy stuff they you know [122:48] my syst makes theater shows the only [122:49] people who go to the theater are rich [122:51] people now but back back in the day you [122:52] know theater was something that was more [122:53] accessible you want you want the Arts [122:55] I've got to mate use a fashion designer [122:57] right nowadays there's all of the [122:59] business is super fast super cheap super [123:02] disposable fashion or unbelievably [123:04] expensive high-end because that's the [123:05] economy we've created I want you go to [123:07] Japan which is a less unequal Society [123:09] the restaurants are good quality [123:10] restaurants for ordinary people because [123:13] a good capitalist Society will produce [123:15] things for the people with money in the [123:17] case of theater where have the theater [123:19] consumers moved to where are they [123:21] getting their entertainment now well [123:23] what you have is a very rich group of [123:25] people who will still go to the theater [123:26] and they will pay a lot but then you [123:27] have a large group of people who are [123:29] relatively cash scarce and they will try [123:32] to get their entertainment in cheaper [123:33] ways of course you know what I mean [123:35] they're spending their time watching [123:36] your YouTube channel well exactly my you [123:38] which is Free by the way yeah but you [123:39] get paid from it you get the YouTube [123:41] Honest it's only in the last couple of [123:42] months that I started to make any money [123:44] because I don't do my own um editing so [123:46] and you I mean you'll know but in the [123:48] first few years you're paying yourself [123:49] to do it you know what I mean like I [123:51] think people some times massively [123:53] overestimate the amount of money this is [123:54] entrepreneurs entrepreneurs go through 2 [123:56] three four 5 years worth of struggle to [123:58] get to the point where they're [123:59] successful and it feels pretty horrific [124:02] that you say oh finally when I make it [124:04] you take it um and then the advisers to [124:07] entrepreneurs just 10 million is quite a [124:10] lot of money so you know you can be [124:12] worth 9 million and not be paying [124:14] anything more but what if I just raise 1 [124:16] million for investment into my company [124:18] but that then like I do if I'm if if I'm [124:21] raising money all the way along and my [124:23] investors are saying I'm sorry I don't [124:25] invest in the UK economy because it's [124:26] wealth taxes and all that sort of stuff [124:28] it's anti- wealth uh and then I just [124:30] have to move my company overseas well I [124:32] want to create a situation where the UK [124:33] consumer is so strong that you have to [124:35] invest in the UK you don't have to be [124:37] here to sell to [124:38] them if you're looking to take the next [124:40] step in your Tech Career you'll want to [124:42] hear about our sponsor Inuit I've always [124:44] believed that if you want to do your [124:46] best work you have to put yourself in [124:48] the right environment you want to work [124:50] with the best you want to work with the [124:51] best tech technologists who are leading [124:52] Innovation with data and Ai and this is [124:55] what you can expect into it they're [124:56] growing their Tech careers building an [124:58] AI driven expert platform that connects [125:01] people to all the money they deserve The [125:04] Cutting Edge Tech they are developing in [125:05] products like Turbo Tax Credit Karma [125:07] Quick Books and MailChimp are helping [125:09] around a 100 million customers and [125:10] businesses put more money in their [125:12] Pockets having a mission-driven culture [125:15] is something I really align with because [125:17] it's all about solving complex customer [125:19] problems with rapid experimentation to [125:21] move faster [125:22] quite similar to the culture I want to [125:23] Foster at my companies if this sounds [125:25] like you and you want to grow your Tech [125:27] Career working alongside the best check [125:30] out intuit.com careers they also offer [125:33] hybrid work and a very inclusive culture [125:35] with offices in Atlanta New York San [125:37] Diego the Bay Area Toronto and around [125:40] the world head over to in [125:43] nitc careers to explore their [125:45] opportunities quick one I want to talk [125:47] to you about our sponsor whoop a [125:49] business I'm also an investor in and if [125:51] you follow me on Instagram you probably [125:53] noticed that recently I've picked up [125:55] running which I'm very much enjoying and [125:56] it started out as a challenge but it's [125:58] now evolved into something I do almost [126:01] daily it is one of those things that's [126:02] pushing me to be better every single day [126:04] but here's the thing to me progress [126:06] isn't just about pushing harder it's [126:07] also about training in a smarter way [126:09] which is where my whoop comes in whoop [126:12] doesn't just track my workouts it tells [126:14] me how ready my body is to take them on [126:16] before I've even started the workout a [126:18] few years ago we ran a study called [126:20] project p are and it found that Runners [126:22] who adjusted their training based on [126:24] their recovery scores improved their 5K [126:27] times by an average of 2 minutes and 40 [126:30] seconds while reducing injury Risk by [126:32] over 30% and they did it while training [126:35] less so if you're looking for this type [126:37] of guidance when it comes to your [126:38] training head over to join. woop.com CEO [126:41] and get a 30-day trial with zero [126:43] commitment that's join. woop.com [126:46] CEO let me know how you get on so so do [126:49] we all agree on this premise though that [126:51] Gary's saying which is the very the [126:52] ultra Rich which we can classify as [126:55] being worth more than you're saying we [126:57] say 10 10 million is the line that we [126:58] campaign for okay we we think that they [127:01] should pay a greater share of the tax [127:04] and then the qu if you agree with that [127:05] premise the question then becomes yes [127:07] but how yeah well they already do 1% pay [127:11] 30% I want to be clear that's the top 1% [127:14] of taxpayers which is not the top 1% of [127:16] richest people mind you I'm also not [127:19] necessarily saying um what's fair I'm [127:21] saying what's practically possible right [127:23] so like you could you could come up with [127:26] the world's most Fair on a back of a [127:28] napkin this is what's fair but whether [127:30] you can implement it is a very difficult [127:31] thing the problem is wealth is [127:33] completely mobile now it's really you [127:35] can live work from [127:36] anywhere the houses Dan yeah it's land [127:40] is that mobile you going rip you can't [127:41] rip the country out of the out of the [127:43] sea there's very few I've never met any [127:45] seriously wealthy people who own a lot [127:47] of houses you honestly think that the [127:49] entire housing stock of the UK is not [127:52] valuable yeah no it is but 78% is owned [127:55] by Baby Boomers they just own they've [127:57] they've bought a house in 1992 they own [127:59] the house personally I think that that [128:01] house ownership especially when you [128:02] consider mortgages is relatively [128:04] unequally distributed that is by the way [128:06] the most equally distribut young people [128:08] have now had the commercial property the [128:09] land the natural by Pension funds so [128:12] you're the viewers own it do they no [128:13] they're owned by if they own a pension [128:15] fun most of those commercial what the [128:17] distribution of Pion what is the [128:18] distribution of Pensions what percentage [128:20] of Pensions is owned by top 1% the I [128:23] wouldn't know off the top of my head but [128:24] with pensions but I know I know that OB [128:26] obviously wealth concentrates at the top [128:29] but here's the one thing keep in mind [128:31] wealthy group are not necessarily a [128:32] static group there was a study of the [128:35] richest people in 1900 and most of those [128:39] families are poor today or they they've [128:41] gone down in value today uh if the [128:44] richest people in 1900 had have just [128:45] simply kept their wealth there'd be [128:47] 16,000 more billionaires but but they [128:50] they don't um you know in Wealth [128:52] Management in Banks yeah they have this [128:54] thing called the um succession planning [128:56] so succession planning is where they try [128:58] and figure out how to not to screw it up [129:00] across generations and they're they're [129:01] notoriously bad at it it's very hard to [129:04] keep wealth in Generations down in the [129:06] 20th [129:07] century we had two world wars and a [129:10] holocaust that redistributed [129:13] wealth I would prefer not to have that [129:15] again yeah yeah yeah I'm with you I want [129:18] a affluent middle class I I really do so [129:20] where's the we going to come from you [129:21] want to just you're going to create your [129:22] entrepreneurs [129:24] entrepreneur entrepreneur economies that [129:26] are friendly towards wealth creation and [129:28] Entrepreneurship was the last time you [129:30] had a government that wasn't let's grow [129:32] let's grow let's [129:33] grow it's not working for the people [129:35] Daniel no the problem is is that they [129:37] need to step back they need to let [129:38] shrink let shrink let shrink our viewers [129:41] should keep close ey on Donald Trump and [129:43] Elon Musk because they're doing what [129:44] you're asking it'll be interesting to [129:45] see what happens right it's too soon to [129:47] tell if you were trying to grow the UK [129:49] economy would you not take America [129:51] approach because they seem to be much [129:53] more successful at growing growing their [129:54] economy I think I mean of course when we [129:56] talk about slashing of the state they're [129:58] going to use these examples like oh [129:59] there's this wasteful government [130:00] building everybody wants to slash [130:02] government waste of course I'm not going [130:03] to fight against slashing government [130:05] waste um I'm from the UK you know I saw [130:08] the austerity years I've seen what's [130:10] happened to local Services I've seen [130:11] what's happened to things like the [130:12] police like like education you know [130:14] especially things like Youth Services um [130:17] you slash the state you fire a load of [130:20] people you know [130:22] what does the state okay yeah if you can [130:24] get rid of State corruption yes 100% if [130:26] you can get rid of State waste 100% you [130:29] know this is how single moms feed their [130:31] kids [130:32] Stephen you want to stop that no I'm [130:35] saying that slashing the [130:37] state I don't think it's going to work [130:40] um to be honest I think tariffs is is [130:42] not an uninteresting discussion I think [130:44] yeah of course tax avoidance is [130:46] something you need to get rid of really [130:48] I would like to take a step back look at [130:50] the country and say what is the state of [130:52] the country what what the people need [130:55] you know we have a country here where [130:57] the housing stock is falling apart and [130:58] we're letting it fall apart because [130:59] those houses are owned by ordinary [131:01] people who don't have any money if you [131:04] want the country to work for ordinary [131:05] people you need Ordinary People to have [131:07] money I'm always reminded of Mr Beast he [131:09] goes to places in Africa and he spends [131:11] 500 quid and he gives a kid eyesight who [131:13] would have been blind for the rest of [131:14] their life for 500 quid why are kids in [131:17] Africa blind who could be given sight [131:20] for 500 quid because they don't have any [131:23] money this is what happens when you [131:25] drain your middle class you this will [131:27] end up like that you know you know I've [131:29] got a friend who went to India last week [131:31] he said there were people lying on the [131:33] street outside with rotting limbs you [131:35] know that is what happens when you when [131:36] you disempower when you take the money [131:38] away from your middle class you've got [131:40] to protect the middle class if the [131:41] middle class had money then there would [131:44] be unbelievable business opportunities [131:46] for selling goods and services like your [131:48] business to the middle class so would [131:50] you tax Daniel more [131:51] I don't know if Daniel's worth more than [131:53] 10 million pounds it sounds like he is [131:54] um is I mean I think I want to make it [131:57] clear right you people you make 5% on [131:59] your wealth so if Daniel's worth 100 [132:01] million he's making £5 million we're [132:03] only trying to tax you 1% I think if you [132:04] are worth 100 million you're making 5 [132:06] million pound passive income you can [132:08] afford to pay a million pound tax a year [132:09] you're going to still keep getting rich [132:11] the truth is even if we were to tax [132:13] these billionaires 1% a year they would [132:15] still squeeze the rest out this is not [132:17] this is not about morality this is just [132:19] cold hard economic analysis that I have [132:21] made a lot of money betting on so [132:22] closing arguments then chaps um I'll [132:25] start with you Gary based on everything [132:27] we've discussed today um what is I'm [132:30] going to ask you to to give me two [132:31] perspectives which is if I'm a young [132:34] individual in this country right now [132:36] what should I do to protect myself and [132:37] my family and to feed my family what [132:39] kind of behaviors what strategy should I [132:41] drop there but also then from a [132:43] government level I know we have some [132:44] politicians that listen because they [132:45] message me what should politicians be [132:47] doing to to fix the issue that we're all [132:50] clearly identify which is the collaps of [132:52] the middle class the collaps of sort of [132:53] working-class people and the the the [132:55] increased wealth of the rich I think [132:58] what I would like young people to [133:00] understand is that this gets worse this [133:03] getss much much worse it will get much [133:05] worse um relatively quickly uh poverty [133:08] will increase relatively quickly it will [133:10] become [133:11] increasingly difficult almost impossible [133:13] to make any serious money prepare [133:15] yourself for that prepare yourself when [133:17] you consider your finances when you [133:18] consider your plans for having a family [133:20] um [133:21] this gets worse and it's going to be [133:23] really really hard it's going to be a [133:24] big mental health problem for a lot of [133:26] young people um so speak to people and [133:28] understand that um my YouTube videos are [133:30] there G's economics people don't [133:31] understand what's happening um after [133:34] that you've got to do all the right [133:36] things yeah I mean I don't disagree with [133:37] you you've got to work hard you've got [133:39] to study the right things um I I think [133:40] it's a great shame we have made subjects [133:43] like the Arts um a thing which you [133:46] you're not allowed if you come from po [133:47] poor backgrounds you cannot work in arts [133:49] I'm sorry you can't pay the bills you [133:50] can't so you have to go and study Ai and [133:54] Computing and you know maybe social [133:55] media although we have to be honest [133:57] social media doesn't pay for most people [134:00] um you have to realize the reality of [134:02] your situation it's very very very very [134:06] bad that doesn't mean you don't work [134:08] that doesn't mean you don't Aspire you [134:09] work damn hard because you have to but [134:11] if you manage to make enough money to [134:12] even support a family you should be [134:13] proud of yourself that that's the number [134:15] one thing um but [134:18] recognize this can be changed this can [134:20] be changed our grandparents our [134:22] great-grandparents fought for our [134:24] biggest share of the pie and they got it [134:26] they got Healthcare they got education [134:27] they got housing they got food our young [134:31] people can have that as well but they [134:32] won't get it unless they fight for it so [134:34] I would encourage people [134:36] to educate themselves support my work [134:39] get involved politically but also work [134:41] hard support your friends and family try [134:43] and make money because you'll have [134:45] to if you don't play politics I [134:47] guarantee you the other side will play [134:49] politics and that means your kids and [134:52] your grandkids live in poverty so you [134:54] have to do both with regards to [134:56] politicians um I got mixed feelings [134:59] about a lot of politicians the truth is [135:01] I think a lot of politicians are very [135:02] rich and and ultimately they don't care [135:04] they're protected a crisis of inequality [135:07] looks fantastic from the top and I think [135:09] that's why the three of us can sit here [135:10] and say things will be fine because for [135:12] us they will be fine and for our kids [135:13] they will be fine but for our viewers [135:15] kids they won't be fine um the [135:16] politicians are not going to try and [135:17] save you I'm going to try and make sure [135:20] they do it but I don't think they will [135:21] listen my plan is not to get concessions [135:24] from politicians my plan is to get 5 [135:27] million followers on the internet and [135:28] Bully the politicians so that they have [135:30] to give us what we need so I would [135:32] support people to get behind me get [135:35] behind my campaign but also understand [135:37] what's happening educate your friends [135:39] and your family and just crucially to [135:41] understand this is going to be a long [135:43] fight so be strong keep your people [135:46] around you but be ready for what's to [135:48] come I am I see hint and some of the [135:51] things you've said recently of you going [135:53] into politics yourself at some point [135:55] Stephen I'm in politics but I me [135:57] politics actively listen I I do not want [135:59] to be an MP I do not want to be [136:01] Chancellor I do not want to be prime [136:03] minister if we get to a point where I [136:05] feel that that is something that is [136:06] achieved when is the best way to fix [136:08] this problem I will be open to it this [136:11] is not plan a this is not you know would [136:14] you like to be prime minister I suspect [136:15] probably not right like this is I'll be [136:17] honest I I am quite uncomfortable with [136:20] even the level of um public profile that [136:22] I have at the moment which is you know [136:23] it's much less than what you have but it [136:25] stresses me out and it's weird we spoke [136:26] about it before we were shooting um I [136:29] don't want to can you imagine I I don't [136:31] want to be prime minister I don't want [136:32] to be an MP um but I'm serious about [136:35] this work that I do and if we reach a [136:36] point that I think that is the best way [136:39] to do it I will consider it but I would [136:41] much rather be able to influence the MPS [136:44] from the sideline to influence the [136:45] politicians from the sidelines and for [136:46] that person you just gave advice to who [136:47] should they be voting for well we don't [136:49] have an election for listen [136:51] politics is not football politics is not [136:53] football okay this is not about I'm [136:55] labor I'm conservative I'm Republican [136:57] I'm Democrat you're losing your houses [136:58] here you you're losing your houses your [136:59] kids will be in poverty and you're going [137:01] to see both Trump and the Republicans [137:03] and Karma and labor who are supposed to [137:06] be on the opposite side of the political [137:07] spectrum they will both fail because [137:09] they will not take action on growing [137:11] wealth inequality and I'll be right on [137:12] that you know bring me back in a few [137:14] years I'll be right on that and um that [137:16] shows you it's not about I think this [137:19] factionalism is unbelievable damaging to [137:21] our societies especially in the US where [137:23] there's so much hatred behind it where [137:25] suddenly I'm on this side you're on that [137:26] side we're going to shake hands after [137:28] this nothing we will you know it's [137:29] there's no hatred here but if you allow [137:31] yourself to be divided from half of your [137:33] country and you allow we're seeing it [137:35] growing tensions racial tensions gender [137:37] tensions if you allow yourself to be [137:40] divided they will win they will win so [137:42] you need to vote for whoever is going to [137:44] protect your houses and if you want to [137:46] know who that is come and check Gary's [137:48] economics before the election and I will [137:49] tell you who it's going to be [137:51] Daniel nice closing arguments personal [137:54] and social a a few things um I read [137:57] Gary's bookin it's brilliant and [137:59] regardless of um regardless of whether [138:02] you actually like economics it's a [138:04] brilliant story it's a really I read it [138:05] in about two or three days um and it'll [138:08] it'll eventually be a good movie as well [138:10] um I agree with a lot of what Gary's [138:12] saying um there is a collapse of the [138:13] middle class uh and it probably will get [138:16] worse uh and the traditional middle [138:19] class jobs that came out of the back of [138:21] the Industrial Age mature Industrial [138:23] Revolution system th those are [138:25] collapsing and it's globalizing we're [138:27] seeing technology move opportunities all [138:29] over the world um and wealth inequality [138:33] it has a cause uh wealth inequality [138:36] itself is a scoreboard and there's a [138:38] cause for what led up to wealth [138:39] inequality and the cause in my mind is [138:41] technology technology is moving the [138:44] those opportunities around and it's [138:45] changing things we already have big [138:47] governments we have huge amounts of [138:49] taxes we're at record levels of tax taes [138:51] um uh wealth has never been more mobile [138:55] it's not about what's fair it's about [138:56] what you can practically get away with [138:58] it's about what you can actually [138:59] Implement um and uh it's going to be [139:02] very very as Gary said it's going to be [139:04] very very very hard to tax people who [139:06] have digital businesses who can live and [139:07] work from anywhere I know that firsthand [139:10] um that it's incredibly mobile with that [139:13] said at a micro level oh sorry at a [139:15] macro level big picture we do know that [139:18] there is a correlation between economic [139:20] freedom where the government gets out of [139:21] your way and low poverty rates and we [139:24] know that as soon as governments become [139:26] big uh high taxes High regulations it [139:29] actually drops down a category and we [139:31] see poverty goes up from 10% to 30% so [139:34] triples um so constricting economic [139:37] freedom is never a good idea uh if you [139:39] look at the data at a micro level [139:42] there's never been a greater opportunity [139:44] for anyone who's ambitious and [139:46] entrepreneurial to go and start a [139:47] company it's cheaper than ever to start [139:49] a company you can do what Gary's done [139:52] which is publish content build a [139:54] following uh figure out how to monetize [139:56] it uh you can create products and [139:58] services and sell them to anywhere in [140:00] the world um you're an example of [140:02] someone who started with nothing and [140:03] became a millionaire in your 20s and [140:05] then again in your 30s with a completely [140:06] different thing he became a millionaire [140:08] in his 20s and then again in his 30s [140:10] is's a bestselling author and a content [140:12] creator I did it in my 20s my 30s and [140:14] now my 40s um starting from scratch so [140:18] it's it's not normal that three guys our [140:20] agage could have done that over and over [140:22] again it's because we are living in a [140:24] time where there is incredible [140:26] opportunities but you have to be tapped [140:27] into those opportunities you never heard [140:29] about it at school you never heard about [140:31] it at University you're going to have to [140:32] learn the skills to get tapped into [140:34] those OPP opportunities but there are [140:37] definitely ways that you can succeed in [140:39] the world that we're living in and on [140:40] that macro Point who should we be voting [140:42] for because some of your thinking in [140:44] policy suggestions through this [140:45] conversation align more with Trump Elon [140:48] the American Mission now where they're [140:50] welcoming millionaires they're trying to [140:51] create a really entrepreneurship [140:52] friendly environment they're doing the [140:54] Doge dismantling of sort of government [140:56] waste I I agree with Gary it's not [140:58] football you don't have a team you swing [141:00] you should be a swing voter you should [141:01] vote every single election you should [141:04] make them work hard for your vote and [141:06] you should is Trump going to succeed [141:07] though you should see it's too soon to [141:09] tell but he made a prediction so I'm [141:10] inviting you to make a prediction he [141:12] said five years time we come back here [141:13] we're going to see that Trump I think I [141:14] think a lot of very wealthy people are [141:16] going to move move to the USA um you're [141:18] going to get a lot of people from all [141:19] over the world he's playing to win and [141:21] he wants rich people and entrepreneurs [141:23] and investors to come into the US and be [141:25] based there he's creating golden visas [141:27] and open visas and the success metric [141:29] here is the middle class get richer and [141:32] more affluent what I actually think will [141:35] happen as a result of all of that you [141:36] will see Rising living standards in the [141:38] USA and you'll see a detriment to the [141:42] places where those people live it's not [141:44] a good thing to have the people who pay [141:47] the majority of the taxes which is 1% of [141:49] people paying 30% of taxes if those [141:51] people leave the bills get spread across [141:53] everybody else well we'll have to do a [141:55] part two and we shall see um I want to [141:58] thank you both for the work that you do [142:00] because I'm a big fan of both of you I [142:01] watch Gary's videos all the time helps [142:03] me to understand another perspective on [142:05] what I'm typically hearing out out on [142:06] the Internet or that I hear on Twitter [142:08] about what's going on in the world and I [142:10] think I really respect and admire people [142:12] that can do what both of you have done [142:13] today which is to exchange and listen to [142:16] ideas in the pursuit of answers uh and [142:18] that's why I'd highly recommend anybody [142:20] regardless of whether you agree with [142:21] everything or some things or or or just [142:23] a little bit to go and follow Gary's [142:26] Channel on YouTube called Gary's [142:27] economics because it's a great source of [142:30] information from someone who has done it [142:32] from understands the world from another [142:33] perspective but also someone who's [142:35] providing a narrative which I actually [142:37] think there's we kind of talked about [142:38] before you started there's a big gap in [142:40] the market for there are a lot of people [142:42] like me and Dan out on the internet that [142:43] are talking about entrepreneurship and [142:44] finance and how to make money but there [142:46] aren't enough people talking about [142:48] wealth inequality from the perspective [142:49] as Gary sees [142:51] um and that are providing more sort of [142:53] uh collectivist and sort of society [142:56] wide Solutions and answers and sort of [142:59] explanations as to why that's ultimately [143:01] happening I do think I do think because [143:04] I know you Dan I hope I know myself I do [143:07] think that we we all want the UK to [143:11] survive and I think we all believe that [143:13] the way that the UK survives isn't [143:15] necessarily a couple of ultra rich [143:16] people getting more money it is sort of [143:19] social mobility and it's allowing people [143:21] that are at the very bottom to create [143:23] opportunities and to succeed we all [143:24] agree upon that even if we agree [143:26] disagree sorry on the causes and the [143:28] solutions to that um I'd also highly [143:31] recommend everybody to go check out the [143:32] trading game because everybody's talking [143:33] about this this book and I think it's [143:35] what four weeks at the moment on the [143:37] Sunday Times besteller list four weeks [143:38] number one number one four weeks number [143:40] one which is an incredible achievement [143:42] but it speaks to what's in this book the [143:44] way that the story is told but also the [143:46] timeliness of this message so I'd highly [143:48] recommend everybody to go check it out [143:49] I'm going to put a link below so that [143:51] everybody can go and do it and if you [143:52] just look at some of the um the the [143:54] testimonials for this book it's profound [143:56] I hear people describe it as like [143:58] Unforgettable on one end and then sad on [144:00] the other end because that's the nature [144:02] of the reality it speaks to and I highly [144:03] recommend everybody to go check out Dan [144:05] priestley's entreprene Revolution but [144:07] also your website has all of your [144:09] resources and tools on it so I'll link [144:10] that on the screen what's the uh Danel [144:13] priest.com Danel priest.com thank you [144:15] both for your generosity really really [144:16] appreciate it thanks for bringing us [144:18] together no matter where in the world it [144:21] seems like everyone is drinking matcha [144:23] and there's a good chance that that [144:24] matcha you're drinking is made by a [144:26] company that I've invested more than [144:27] seven figures in who are a sponsor of [144:29] this podcast called perfect Ted because [144:32] they're the brand used globally by cafes [144:34] like blank Street Coffee and Joe and the [144:36] juice and many many more not only can [144:38] you get perfect Ted match in cafes but [144:40] you can now also make it at home much [144:43] cheaper in seconds using our flavored [144:45] matcha powders that I have here in front [144:46] of me perfect Ted matcher is ceremonial [144:49] grade and source from Japan it is smooth [144:52] it is naturally sweet not like those [144:53] bitter grassy matches that I tried [144:56] before perfect Ted and if you are one of [144:57] those people that have told yourself you [144:59] don't like matcha it's probably because [145:01] you haven't tried our perfect Ted matcha [145:03] and you can find perfect Ted matcha in [145:05] the UK and Tesco sainsbury Holland and [145:07] Barett and in waitrose or Albert Hine if [145:10] you're in the Netherlands and on Amazon [145:12] in the USA or'll get the full range [145:14] online at perfect ted.com where you can [145:17] get 40% off your first order with code [145:19] Steve even [145:22] 40 this has always blown my mind a [145:24] little bit 53% of you that listen to [145:27] this show regularly haven't yet [145:28] subscribed to the show so could I ask [145:30] you for a favor if you like the show and [145:32] you like what we do here and you want to [145:33] support us the free simple way that you [145:35] can do just that is by hitting the [145:36] Subscribe button and my commitment to [145:38] you is if you do that then I'll do [145:40] everything in my power me and my team to [145:41] make sure that this show is better for [145:43] you every single week we'll listen to [145:45] your feedback we'll find the guest that [145:46] you want me to speak to and we'll [145:48] continue to do what we do thank you so [145:50] much much [145:53] [Music] [146:10] [Music]