Mercifully, we may now be at “peak Gary”, but there seems to be an endless appetite for the sort of slop he has been feeding the unfortunate for many years…
If you have not yet heard of Gary Stevenson, consider yourself lucky.
The self-styled “world’s top trader” turned leading economist has been a fixture on social media for years, published a bestselling autobiography, and now has an hour-long Channel 4 documentary to his name.
Along the way, Stevenson’s advocacy of a “wealth tax” has gained many fans, including senior figures in both the Green Party and Labour. Think of Greta Thunberg, but with a focus on inequality rather than the environment.
Stevenson’s backstory is impressive and his passion for tackling perceived injustices is admirable. But no serious economist would be as uninterested in the detail or as ignorant of the data. This is where everything quickly unravels.
Indeed, every time Stevenson comes up against someone who really knows what they are talking about, his arguments soon fall apart. (See these clips of maulings by Daniel Priestley, Kristian Niemietz and, perhaps now most famously, by Dan Neidle.)
At the risk of joining a pile on, here’s my take…
Stevenson’s pitch is that “the growing wealth gap” is at the root of many of the UK’s problems. Even worse, growing asset-price inequality is set to trigger some sort of economic and social meltdown. Fortunately, he has a simple solution: “tax the filthy rich”.
There are three fatal flaws here. First, the facts simply do not support the claim that inequality is spiralling out of control. “Vibes” are not evidence.
“Fair tax” campaigners often start with some striking statistic to show that wealth is very unevenly distributed. We can debate the reasons why, and whether this is a problem. But this uneven distribution is nothing new. The trends over time also tell a different story.
According to the World Inequality Database, the share of wealth owned by the richest one percent of the UK population fell steadily from more than 70 percent in 1900 to a historic low of around 18 percent in the early 1980s. This share has since edged up only slightly, to around 21 percent in 2024. Crucially, it remains low by past standards and compared to many other countries.
The picture is much the same for other measures of both wealth and income inequality, most of which have barely changed for decades. It is therefore hard to see how “the growing wealth gap” can have any explanatory power.
Second, even if you buy Stevenson’s narrative, his proposed solution would barely touch the sides. He has latched on to the idea of an additional annual wealth tax of two percent on net assets above £10 million. Even based on some heroically optimistic assumptions, this might only raise £10 billion a year.
This would make no meaningful difference to anything. Total household wealth is of the order of £15,000 billion (depending on the definition and source), so redistributing £10 billion a year would have next to no impact on inequality.
Nor would it transform the public finances. £10 billion would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the government’s current revenues, which are about £1,300 billion a year, or compared to spending, which is about £1,400 billion.
Third, there are many more practical solutions to the problems that Stevenson does correctly identify, including the difficulties of getting on the housing ladder and saving enough for a comfortable retirement. Rather than demonising a handful of rich people, policy should focus on allowing more homes to be built and encouraging more saving into private pensions.
Indeed, Stevenson’s proposed solution would make the UK’s economic and fiscal problems even worse.
The UK already raises more from wealth-related taxes than any other OECD economy. There is overwhelming evidence that higher taxes on wealth are anti-growth and that they could even reduce government revenues. There are good reasons why so many other countries have abandoned them. (See this IEA report for more.)
Stevenson is just as sloppy on almost everything else. I could spend hours explaining where and why he is wrong on Covid support, QE, the housing market, the difference between income and wealth, the current UK tax system… but life is too short.
Mercifully, we may now be at “peak Gary”. Stevenson’s documentary has been widely panned (including by the Guardian), and he has hinted that he is done. But other social media influencers will surely emerge to fill the gap.
There is an unhealthy appetite for this sort of slop. Many polls (including this latest one from YouGov) suggest that a “wealth tax” would be popular, even when voters are faced with the reality that it is unlikely to raise any money. Other “bash the rich” policies are similarly popular, including caps on executive pay and the equalisation of capital gains and income tax.
Sadly, it is much easier to look for villains to blame and simplistic solutions than it is to do the hard work to understand the real problems – and how to fix them.
You can follow me on X (formerly Twitter) @julianhjessop and on Bluesky.
I also post regularly on Substack
Plain-speaking Economics 