Written By:
- Date published:
6:05 am, November 26th, 2025 - 12 comments
Categories: economy, tax -
Tags: Gary Stevenson, guyon espiner
Ex-trader, now people’s economist, Gary Stevenson on 30 with Guyon Espiner does thirty minutes of plain language demystification of wealth and economics.
One of Stevenson’s central premises is if we don’t tax wealthy people, they eventually outcompete everyone else. If governments don’t tax wealth, they will have to tax the middle class or shut down welfare. This is the path the UK is on and one New Zealand should be taking heed of.
Espiner asks him about New Zealand having no CGT, and cutting inheritance tax in the 90s.
You know, really by rights, New Zealand should be a rich country because there’s not a lot of people there. There’s a phenomenal amount of natural wealth per person. It can sustain a good quality of life for every single person in the country.
The problem you have is once you start cutting those taxes on the richest, the rich very very quickly start to increase their share of the wealth and inevitably that starts to squeeze people out.
You know, I think people in New Zealand, you know, you should look at what happens to countries in Africa, Latin America, you know, countries, huge countries with enormous amounts of natural resources where people should be rich, but they allow inequality to spiral out of control. You know, I think the problem you have is your ordinary person doesn’t realise that if I cut inheritance tax for the very very rich, then they will out compete my kids for the house that they need.
They don’t realize that, you know, they think we live in an infinite economy. They don’t realize that if you don’t tax the rich, the rich will squeeze you out.
The people in power who are discussing whether to have wealth taxes, are wealthy. Those groups (politicians, economists and journalists) don’t include poor people or people from poor backgrounds, and they do very well out of economic inequality crises.
So, I think there is an incentive problem here. I think the politicians whose job it is to fix this problem, they benefit from the situation. And this is why I stopped writing for the Guardian and I stopped writing for the Broad Sheets and I moved to YouTube because I don’t think we are going to get this wealth tax from a group of politicians who benefit from inequality.
I turn to YouTube because I want to speak to the public because the people who are going to be hurt here is going to be your ordinary man or woman on the street working a regular job, paying regular bills in a regular house. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’m on YouTube. I want to speak to the public. You know, I do not think that the economists and the politicians who in most cases are rich and comfortable are going to give this to the British public or the New Zealand public.
So, I’m here to speak to the New Zealand public and tell them the fire engines are not coming. If you want to fix the economy, you need to demand this of your politicians. You need to demand this yourselves.
And yes, he addresses capital flight (billionaires can leave, but governments can tax the assets they own anyway. Governments should co-ordinate on this internationally).
Good post weka.
At first it is disconcerting to hear what Stevenson says in the accent he has. But it is the words that matter and those words come from experience.
Stevenson was the world's top currency trader and got there because of his smarts and analysis.
He realized that orthodox theories and thinking (low interest rates 'improve' an economy) were incorrect. This is partly because the economists move in their own insulated circles. They don't know the reality of the majority of us.
As to the disincentives from pollies to change the situation (tax the wealthy, proper reform of banking) these act in two corrosive ways. Obviously nothing changes and the distrust of institutions/ undermining of democracy continues unabated.
We are so long overdue tightening up of the lobbyist/parliament revolving door, party donations and (say it quietly) a restraint of trade for former MPs.
2 year stand down/cooling off period before taking that cushy directorship.
I recommend his book The Trading Game A Confession. I listened to it on Spotify.
Yes, as you say , it's the words that matter and they make sense.There's got to be a fresh way of getting that message across.
A grand new idea we can get behind, rather than politicians saying the same punch/ counterpunch cliches
OMG makes his squillions of pounds as a leech, then does the book tour scolding the proles in the Colonies for that same wealth desire and we ought to be Scandinavia.
Cockney hypocrisy writ large.
A real left winger, FDR, appointed Joseph Kennedy to run the crooked market place and clean it up.
@Ad @2 Must be something in his message you don’t like when the messenger is attacked.
So in the world of here and now politics after the next election we need somebform of CG Tax. Just like climate change issues we cannot afford another 3 years of a COC. Whether its a CG tax lite or a comprehensive tax, we need one. The light version as labour proposes is a start. Will bring in an estimated $1 billion i have seen suggested. Tbats about 40% of what a faorly comprehensive CG tax will yield. What should be in and out of a full tax others better placed than I to decide but my feeling exclude kiwisaver amd other retirement funds which meet a legitemacy test. Cannot see whyb"investment" chattels like art, cars or similar should be excluded. Anyway even $2.5 billion will not massively shift the dial on wealth inequality. It will ensure the lights cam be kept on in health, education and state housing though. What more we want or need is the next debate but we need the CG tax one won first imo
Labour have estimated that their CGT will bring in an average of 700m per year over the first four years. And yesterday Chris Hipkins admitted in an interview with Tova O'Brien that it might not bring in that much.
Even 1b is trivial relative to the size of the NZ economy
[“And yesterday Chris Hipkins admitted in an interview with Tova O’Brien that it might not bring in that much.”
Did he now? Please provide a link with time stamp where Chris Hipkins specifically admitted that. With an election year coming up the Mods will take a hard(er) line on claims without evidence, so here’s your opportunity to keep your commenting privilege alive and it’s your only warning given that you’ve been banned for this before – Incognito]
Mod note
This is the video. It is about halfway through from memory. The quote below is from the Stuff website and accompanies the video. Not sure how to do a time stamp.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360900195/watch-winston-peters-prime-minister-chris-hipkins-whats-grabs-coalition-talks-next-election-and
– Stuff
That’s not good enough. You made a specific claim, so give the exact time stamp, i.e. the time point in the video – don’t play dumb now – that backs up your claim. The onus is on you, not me or anybody else. You’re wasting Mod time and BTW, that interview was today, not yesterday, as you wrongly stated.
I watched the video again and it is about nine and a half minutes through where he concedes the tax may not bring in as much as predicted. Hipkins says that they will still go ahead with the three free doctors visits even if the CGT won't cover the cost. But won't say where the money will come from if the CGT won't cover it.
The Stuff intro to the video says:
"Hipkins also concedes the party’s capital gains tax may not make as much money as Labour has predicted so does that put the free doctors visits it’s supposed to pay for at risk?"
Not a fair summary.
The forecast $700Mpa was/is based on the historic average and not one made by Labour.
The discussion was based around what would happen, if it was less than $700M in a year.
Given there is no requirement to run a surplus, debt or from what is called a spare allocation for new spending in the budget.
If the following year the CGT is above $700M, they have spare money for such as debt.
The journalist was trying to compare it to 2018, when government did not bring in a manifesto policy of cheaper doctors visits, as it had yet to be funded.
I asked this question
cheaper doctors visits promise of 2017 nz?
AI (summary) says