Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Rory Sutherland drops a sharp observation about the double-income trap that a lot of people quietly feel but rarely say out loud. It started as a nice option: two salaries, more money, better life. But over time it became something else. House prices rose to absorb the extra income....

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

461,017 subscribers

79,560 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Rory Sutherland made a quietly devastating observation about one of the biggest societal shifts of the last 50 years. He said the move to the double-income household started as an option but quickly became an obligation. The big winners? Governments (twice as many people to tax) and property owners (now two salaries were needed to buy a house). The big loser? The family itself, which lost roughly 35 hours of discretionary leisure time per week — with no real increase in living standards, because the extra money was largely soaked up by higher house prices and taxes. It’s a classic example of how something that begins as liberation can quietly turn into a new form of constraint. Longitudinal studies on happiness and time use (including data from the American Time Use Survey and OECD reports) show that the sharp rise in dual-earner households correlated with stagnant or declining leisure time for families, while subjective well-being metrics for parents have not risen in line with the additional income — supporting the idea that much of the gain was captured by housing costs and taxation rather than improved quality of life. It’s a reminder to look carefully at changes that society presents as inevitable progress. What do you think — has the double-income model delivered more freedom or more pressure for most families?
0:56

Rory Sutherland made a quietly devastating observation about one of the biggest societal shifts of the last 50 years. He said the move to the double-income household started as an option but quickly became an obligation. The big winners? Governments (twice as many people to tax) and property owners (now two salaries were needed to buy a house). The big loser? The family itself, which lost roughly 35 hours of discretionary leisure time per week — with no real increase in living standards, because the extra money was largely soaked up by higher house prices and taxes. It’s a classic example of how something that begins as liberation can quietly turn into a new form of constraint. Longitudinal studies on happiness and time use (including data from the American Time Use Survey and OECD reports) show that the sharp rise in dual-earner households correlated with stagnant or declining leisure time for families, while subjective well-being metrics for parents have not risen in line with the additional income — supporting the idea that much of the gain was captured by housing costs and taxation rather than improved quality of life. It’s a reminder to look carefully at changes that society presents as inevitable progress. What do you think — has the double-income model delivered more freedom or more pressure for most families?

Camus

386,076 views • 4 months ago

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?
5:14

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?

Codie Sanchez

509,831 views • 2 years ago

Why Ordinary Life Became a Luxury What this graphic is really showing is the slow transformation of what an ordinary life costs. In 1990, a household could still imagine that one decent income might carry most of the structure of adulthood. A home, children, health insurance, some expectation of education, some room left over for living. By 2026, income is much higher in nominal terms, but the things that define stability have risen much faster. The numbers on the paycheck grew. The purchasing power attached to them did not keep pace. That distinction matters because people do not experience the economy through GDP or nominal wages. They experience it through the mortgage payment, the insurance deduction, the tuition bill, the grocery cart and the question of whether another child would require another bedroom, another car, another decade of financial strain. Over time, the dollar has lost purchasing power, but not evenly. The cost of technology fell. Entertainment became cheap and abundant. At the same time, housing, health care and education became increasingly expensive. The things we can live without became easier to afford. The things around which we build a life became harder. And that changes families. The second income was once something that could create additional security. Now, for many households, it is necessary simply to maintain the same basic standard of living. Two people work because the mortgage requires two people working. Health insurance assumes continued employment. Childcare exists because both parents have to remain employed in order to pay for the house and the childcare that allows them to remain employed. It becomes circular. A family can earn more money than its parents ever imagined and still feel less secure because every dollar has already been assigned somewhere before it arrives. This is part of why marriage, children and homeownership increasingly happen later. These decisions have become financial decisions in a way they were not always experienced before. People calculate whether they can afford the second child. They calculate whether one parent can stay home. They calculate whether losing a job for six months would mean losing the house. None of this means earlier generations had easy lives. They faced recessions, high interest rates, layoffs, wars and their own forms of insecurity. What changed is the amount of leverage required to reproduce what used to look like an ordinary middle class life. And leverage changes people. It makes households more productive but also more fragile. It makes careers harder to leave, marriages more economically intertwined and mistakes more expensive. It narrows the space between doing fine and being in trouble. That may be the deeper story behind the graphic. The modern household has more dollars, more technology and more access to credit than the household of 1990. But it often has less freedom to stop earning. The erosion of purchasing power did not just change what money buys. It changed how families live, when they marry, whether they have children, how much risk they can tolerate and how dependent ordinary life has become on two uninterrupted incomes. The finish line moved, but so did the consequences of falling behind.
0:46

Why Ordinary Life Became a Luxury What this graphic is really showing is the slow transformation of what an ordinary life costs. In 1990, a household could still imagine that one decent income might carry most of the structure of adulthood. A home, children, health insurance, some expectation of education, some room left over for living. By 2026, income is much higher in nominal terms, but the things that define stability have risen much faster. The numbers on the paycheck grew. The purchasing power attached to them did not keep pace. That distinction matters because people do not experience the economy through GDP or nominal wages. They experience it through the mortgage payment, the insurance deduction, the tuition bill, the grocery cart and the question of whether another child would require another bedroom, another car, another decade of financial strain. Over time, the dollar has lost purchasing power, but not evenly. The cost of technology fell. Entertainment became cheap and abundant. At the same time, housing, health care and education became increasingly expensive. The things we can live without became easier to afford. The things around which we build a life became harder. And that changes families. The second income was once something that could create additional security. Now, for many households, it is necessary simply to maintain the same basic standard of living. Two people work because the mortgage requires two people working. Health insurance assumes continued employment. Childcare exists because both parents have to remain employed in order to pay for the house and the childcare that allows them to remain employed. It becomes circular. A family can earn more money than its parents ever imagined and still feel less secure because every dollar has already been assigned somewhere before it arrives. This is part of why marriage, children and homeownership increasingly happen later. These decisions have become financial decisions in a way they were not always experienced before. People calculate whether they can afford the second child. They calculate whether one parent can stay home. They calculate whether losing a job for six months would mean losing the house. None of this means earlier generations had easy lives. They faced recessions, high interest rates, layoffs, wars and their own forms of insecurity. What changed is the amount of leverage required to reproduce what used to look like an ordinary middle class life. And leverage changes people. It makes households more productive but also more fragile. It makes careers harder to leave, marriages more economically intertwined and mistakes more expensive. It narrows the space between doing fine and being in trouble. That may be the deeper story behind the graphic. The modern household has more dollars, more technology and more access to credit than the household of 1990. But it often has less freedom to stop earning. The erosion of purchasing power did not just change what money buys. It changed how families live, when they marry, whether they have children, how much risk they can tolerate and how dependent ordinary life has become on two uninterrupted incomes. The finish line moved, but so did the consequences of falling behind.

EndGame Macro

11,313 views • 2 days ago

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?
0:36

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?

Camus

16,695 views • 2 months ago

Now this is crazy Developer reveals Beverly California housing complex where homes start at $5 million and go up to $25 million are required to have low income Now they aren’t selling because people paying $20 million for a home don’t want to live next to low income “There's a building that one of my clients lives in on Beverly, and the city required them to put middle income, low income housing in the building, even though the building is a building for billionaires. So it starts at $5 million, it goes up to $25 million. So the building has had a very difficult time selling units because a lot of people don't wanna have low income in their building that they're spending $20 million on, 'cause they're paying an HOA of like, $15,000 a month. — So there may be 30 units for sale and maybe 10 units that are low income. But of those 30 units for sale, maybe only five or six people live there full time. So it's actually a building more predominantly lived in by low income than by billionaires. And the low income pays zero HOA fees”
0:50

Now this is crazy Developer reveals Beverly California housing complex where homes start at $5 million and go up to $25 million are required to have low income Now they aren’t selling because people paying $20 million for a home don’t want to live next to low income “There's a building that one of my clients lives in on Beverly, and the city required them to put middle income, low income housing in the building, even though the building is a building for billionaires. So it starts at $5 million, it goes up to $25 million. So the building has had a very difficult time selling units because a lot of people don't wanna have low income in their building that they're spending $20 million on, 'cause they're paying an HOA of like, $15,000 a month. — So there may be 30 units for sale and maybe 10 units that are low income. But of those 30 units for sale, maybe only five or six people live there full time. So it's actually a building more predominantly lived in by low income than by billionaires. And the low income pays zero HOA fees”

Wall Street Apes

666,334 views • 7 months ago

The Biggest Tax Reform in Living Memory! A trust is basically a structure where the income doesn’t sit in your personal name. It sits in the trust, and each year, that income can be distributed to different people in the family. So instead of one person earning everything and paying top tax, it gets spread out. This is how the wealthy pay less tax - legally. The advantage is simple. You can legally reduce the overall tax by allocating income to people on lower tax rates. That’s why people who’ve got good advice and set things up properly have been able to keep more of what they earn, while also adding a layer of asset protection at the same time. #australianeconomy #budget #trustfund
1:41

The Biggest Tax Reform in Living Memory! A trust is basically a structure where the income doesn’t sit in your personal name. It sits in the trust, and each year, that income can be distributed to different people in the family. So instead of one person earning everything and paying top tax, it gets spread out. This is how the wealthy pay less tax - legally. The advantage is simple. You can legally reduce the overall tax by allocating income to people on lower tax rates. That’s why people who’ve got good advice and set things up properly have been able to keep more of what they earn, while also adding a layer of asset protection at the same time. #australianeconomy #budget #trustfund

TOM PANOS

16,068 views • 3 months ago

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:
2:10

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:

CTrefugees

123,821 views • 2 months ago

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.
0:20

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.

Rob Henderson

23,588 views • 9 months ago

Population Collapse Problem Solved Hungary passed - Giving women a 25% reduction in income tax for EACH CHILD she has FOR LIFE - Large loans for new married couples, 25% of the loan is forgiven per child, 4 kids = 100% loan forgiven - Marriages have doubled - Divorces have halved - Abortions have more than halved Turns out people do want to get married and have children, they just can’t afford it “Hungarians have done some interesting stuff. If you're a couple that marries before the age of 30, you get a large loan. For every child you have, 25% of the loan is written off. So if you have 4 children, the loan is completely written off. They're spending about 5% of GDP on this, very expensive, but if you eliminated stupid and costly climate commitment, lots of foreign aid to countries who hate us, and the money we spend on battery farming foreign nationals in social housing and asylum accommodation, we might be able to make it and it would be a much more sound investment. They've also said to women, if you have children, for each child you have, 25% of income tax will be knocked off for life. So that means that by the time that you have raised your kids and grown up, if you're running a little business on the side or you decide to go work full time, you are never gonna pay income tax again. So you get a second lease on life the moment your kids have left to go to university and had children of their own. — The encouraging metrics for the long term is that divorces have halved, abortions have more than halved, marriages have more than doubled. And that was during lockdown where every single other country in Europe, all of those metrics were flatlining and decreasing.”
1:02

Population Collapse Problem Solved Hungary passed - Giving women a 25% reduction in income tax for EACH CHILD she has FOR LIFE - Large loans for new married couples, 25% of the loan is forgiven per child, 4 kids = 100% loan forgiven - Marriages have doubled - Divorces have halved - Abortions have more than halved Turns out people do want to get married and have children, they just can’t afford it “Hungarians have done some interesting stuff. If you're a couple that marries before the age of 30, you get a large loan. For every child you have, 25% of the loan is written off. So if you have 4 children, the loan is completely written off. They're spending about 5% of GDP on this, very expensive, but if you eliminated stupid and costly climate commitment, lots of foreign aid to countries who hate us, and the money we spend on battery farming foreign nationals in social housing and asylum accommodation, we might be able to make it and it would be a much more sound investment. They've also said to women, if you have children, for each child you have, 25% of income tax will be knocked off for life. So that means that by the time that you have raised your kids and grown up, if you're running a little business on the side or you decide to go work full time, you are never gonna pay income tax again. So you get a second lease on life the moment your kids have left to go to university and had children of their own. — The encouraging metrics for the long term is that divorces have halved, abortions have more than halved, marriages have more than doubled. And that was during lockdown where every single other country in Europe, all of those metrics were flatlining and decreasing.”

Wall Street Apes

1,295,360 views • 1 year ago

“Scandal-ridden telco Optus, the world’s biggest meat producer, global tech firms and huge gas producers are among a host of major companies earning billions of dollars a year but paying zero income tax. The latest corporate transparency report from the Australian Taxation Office revealed a string of mostly multinational firms continue to pay no or very little tax on income in Australia, including household names such as Netflix, Apple and Microsoft. Singapore Telecom, the locally registered owner of Optus, earned $8.2bn in 2023-24, but reported zero taxable income and paid no tax on that, the ATO data showed. Tax minimisation was most evident among multinational firms, but wasn’t only the domain of hi-tech firms. The Brazilian-owned JBS Global Meat Holdings earned $19.7bn in Australia in 2023-24 – putting it just inside the top 20 businesses by income. But it paid zero tax on that income.” •••••••••••••••••••••••••• It is a national disgrace that our politicians are allowing this to happen. They can’t feign ignorance as I highlighted these rorts consistently throughout my time as a Senator. On my tour I have been explaining to Australians how is the only party that actually has a policy and know-how to stop offshore profit shifting. It is absolutely criminal that hard working Australians are paying more income tax every year while our politicians do nothing about offshore profit shifting.
2:19

“Scandal-ridden telco Optus, the world’s biggest meat producer, global tech firms and huge gas producers are among a host of major companies earning billions of dollars a year but paying zero income tax. The latest corporate transparency report from the Australian Taxation Office revealed a string of mostly multinational firms continue to pay no or very little tax on income in Australia, including household names such as Netflix, Apple and Microsoft. Singapore Telecom, the locally registered owner of Optus, earned $8.2bn in 2023-24, but reported zero taxable income and paid no tax on that, the ATO data showed. Tax minimisation was most evident among multinational firms, but wasn’t only the domain of hi-tech firms. The Brazilian-owned JBS Global Meat Holdings earned $19.7bn in Australia in 2023-24 – putting it just inside the top 20 businesses by income. But it paid zero tax on that income.” •••••••••••••••••••••••••• It is a national disgrace that our politicians are allowing this to happen. They can’t feign ignorance as I highlighted these rorts consistently throughout my time as a Senator. On my tour I have been explaining to Australians how is the only party that actually has a policy and know-how to stop offshore profit shifting. It is absolutely criminal that hard working Australians are paying more income tax every year while our politicians do nothing about offshore profit shifting.

Gerard Rennick

21,042 views • 10 months ago

Bill Maher tells British comedian Jack Whitehall that England now spends more on welfare than it collects in income tax. £333,000,000,000 out. £331,000,000,000 in. MAHER: "England just got way too woke on a bunch of crazy shit... They passed a milestone where the amount of money they’re giving out in welfare is, for the first time, more than what they take in in taxes." [Whitehall's eyebrows shoot up] MAHER: "Every third eligible-to-work man is not working. They’re 'on disability.' And some people really are... but NOT THAT MANY."
0:33

Bill Maher tells British comedian Jack Whitehall that England now spends more on welfare than it collects in income tax. £333,000,000,000 out. £331,000,000,000 in. MAHER: "England just got way too woke on a bunch of crazy shit... They passed a milestone where the amount of money they’re giving out in welfare is, for the first time, more than what they take in in taxes." [Whitehall's eyebrows shoot up] MAHER: "Every third eligible-to-work man is not working. They’re 'on disability.' And some people really are... but NOT THAT MANY."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

773,356 views • 25 days ago

Farewell to International Space Station! This is truly a special place, special mission, and special team that makes it happen. It is a bittersweet departure today – I have a keen awareness that I may never be back here, and even if I was, it would be at a different time with a different crew. This chapter is over. Spaceflight has always been a life goal, and it has turned into a life-fulfilling endeavor – but not for the reasons I thought growing up. When I was young, I pictured the launch, the incredible ball of fire and the acceleration, the spacewalks (how could you not wonder what it’s like to be in that suit?), and I was fascinated by the shuttles, capsules, and stations. But as I complete this second mission living and working in space, what draws me to this job is the people. Experiences like this are amazing, but the relationships we build that make it possible are the “why.” Every day, this mission depends on people from all over the world, of different nationalities, races, religions, and cultures. It depends on government and commercial entities, it depends on all political parties, and it depends on commitment to an unchanged goal over many years and decades. It depends on people dedicated to being part of something bigger than themselves, whose names may never be known but who wake up every day to make the world a better place and to be part of something they will be proud to tell their grandkids about. History will look kindly upon them. Humans have always had a propensity to explore … across lands and oceans, up mountains, and into the sky. We as a species will never stop wondering what else is out there, and what it would be like to go. But then, in the words of TS Elliot, “…at the end of all our exploring, will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time.” Crew-10 is on its way home.
0:55

Farewell to International Space Station! This is truly a special place, special mission, and special team that makes it happen. It is a bittersweet departure today – I have a keen awareness that I may never be back here, and even if I was, it would be at a different time with a different crew. This chapter is over. Spaceflight has always been a life goal, and it has turned into a life-fulfilling endeavor – but not for the reasons I thought growing up. When I was young, I pictured the launch, the incredible ball of fire and the acceleration, the spacewalks (how could you not wonder what it’s like to be in that suit?), and I was fascinated by the shuttles, capsules, and stations. But as I complete this second mission living and working in space, what draws me to this job is the people. Experiences like this are amazing, but the relationships we build that make it possible are the “why.” Every day, this mission depends on people from all over the world, of different nationalities, races, religions, and cultures. It depends on government and commercial entities, it depends on all political parties, and it depends on commitment to an unchanged goal over many years and decades. It depends on people dedicated to being part of something bigger than themselves, whose names may never be known but who wake up every day to make the world a better place and to be part of something they will be proud to tell their grandkids about. History will look kindly upon them. Humans have always had a propensity to explore … across lands and oceans, up mountains, and into the sky. We as a species will never stop wondering what else is out there, and what it would be like to go. But then, in the words of TS Elliot, “…at the end of all our exploring, will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time.” Crew-10 is on its way home.

COL Anne McClain

69,039 views • 1 year ago

Victoria Derbyshire, "You want to spend a lot of public services and welfare, is the wealth tax a panacea, is that fair?" Zack Polanski, "I don't present it as a panacea. It's not close to a panacea, it's just the start of the things we need to do" "We need to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "Right now, if you're a cleaner, you could be paying more than than the person who owns the building you're working in" "We need to tax unearned wealth as much as we tax earned income" Victoria Derbyshire, "When you look at other countries around Europe who spend more on public services and have better public services as a result, they tend to tax the income of everyone, including lower and middle income earners. Maybe you have to say to people we all have to pay for this" Zack Polanski, "It's right that we start our focus on the super wealthy. Once we start to move to a better footing as a society where we have better infrastructure and services, it is legitimate to say paying tax is patriotic" "We should be proud of contributing to this country. making sure we have an NHS that works. Public transport that works" "Yes, everyone will have to pay for that, but ultimately this is about where is the biggest burden, and that should be on the people with the broadest shoulders"
1:17

Victoria Derbyshire, "You want to spend a lot of public services and welfare, is the wealth tax a panacea, is that fair?" Zack Polanski, "I don't present it as a panacea. It's not close to a panacea, it's just the start of the things we need to do" "We need to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "Right now, if you're a cleaner, you could be paying more than than the person who owns the building you're working in" "We need to tax unearned wealth as much as we tax earned income" Victoria Derbyshire, "When you look at other countries around Europe who spend more on public services and have better public services as a result, they tend to tax the income of everyone, including lower and middle income earners. Maybe you have to say to people we all have to pay for this" Zack Polanski, "It's right that we start our focus on the super wealthy. Once we start to move to a better footing as a society where we have better infrastructure and services, it is legitimate to say paying tax is patriotic" "We should be proud of contributing to this country. making sure we have an NHS that works. Public transport that works" "Yes, everyone will have to pay for that, but ultimately this is about where is the biggest burden, and that should be on the people with the broadest shoulders"

Farrukh

80,309 views • 9 months ago

On 4th of July Independence Day, you should know the Income Tax was deemed Unconstitutional “There's no income tax in America until the Civil War. An emergency one Lincoln pushed after the Civil War, it's repealed 1892. They tried to have a peacetime income tax, it’s declared unconstitutional Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, the 16th Amendment in 1913. It's a 1% tax on the top 1% richest people in the country. It's not to tax the people, it’s to go after those robber barons. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, J. Paul Getty's, the Astors. It would be sort of like today that only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and George Soros, that's what the tax is for. And so you have Taft, pushing through a corporate income tax. And only the extreme wealthy owned corporate stock, so it was a backdoor way to get at them. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for inheritance tax, because only the extreme wealthy had an inheritance worth leaving. But finally, Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, which is the 1% tax on the top 1% richest people.” And today this is all applied to everyone Let me clearly break down the order of events: During the Civil War era (1861–1872) The first federal income tax was enacted during the Civil War under Lincoln. It was a temporary wartime measure. It was repealed in 1872, The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in Springer v. United States In 1894 there was another peacetime attempt at an income tax. Congress passed a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000 as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The Supreme Court struck it down in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. They again said it was unconstitutional So next in 1913 Congress forces an income tax on us with the 16th Amendment But what else happened in 1913? The federal reserve was established We had a central banking takeover and that same year they passed the income tax to steal from all of us This should have never been allowed to happened, the income tax was ruled unconstitutional It’s time to set Americans free and abolish the income tax
1:52

On 4th of July Independence Day, you should know the Income Tax was deemed Unconstitutional “There's no income tax in America until the Civil War. An emergency one Lincoln pushed after the Civil War, it's repealed 1892. They tried to have a peacetime income tax, it’s declared unconstitutional Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, the 16th Amendment in 1913. It's a 1% tax on the top 1% richest people in the country. It's not to tax the people, it’s to go after those robber barons. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, J. Paul Getty's, the Astors. It would be sort of like today that only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and George Soros, that's what the tax is for. And so you have Taft, pushing through a corporate income tax. And only the extreme wealthy owned corporate stock, so it was a backdoor way to get at them. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for inheritance tax, because only the extreme wealthy had an inheritance worth leaving. But finally, Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, which is the 1% tax on the top 1% richest people.” And today this is all applied to everyone Let me clearly break down the order of events: During the Civil War era (1861–1872) The first federal income tax was enacted during the Civil War under Lincoln. It was a temporary wartime measure. It was repealed in 1872, The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in Springer v. United States In 1894 there was another peacetime attempt at an income tax. Congress passed a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000 as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The Supreme Court struck it down in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. They again said it was unconstitutional So next in 1913 Congress forces an income tax on us with the 16th Amendment But what else happened in 1913? The federal reserve was established We had a central banking takeover and that same year they passed the income tax to steal from all of us This should have never been allowed to happened, the income tax was ruled unconstitutional It’s time to set Americans free and abolish the income tax

Wall Street Apes

161,222 views • 1 month ago

A men had eight acres… and instead of building a massive house, he did something no one expected. He went to Home Depot, bought a simple shed, and turned it into his entire home. Not temporary, intentional. Then he added a pool. A trampoline. Space, freedom, and a setup that looked simple on the outside… but completely different from what people imagine “success” should look like. At first, people laughed. A shed? Really? But the more you look at it, the more it flips the script. No huge mortgage. No overwhelming maintenance. Just land, privacy, and a lifestyle he actually chose. It’s not flashy, but it’s his. And somehow, that makes it feel bigger than a house ever could. Now everyone’s asking the same thing; is this crazy… or kind of genius? Sometimes the best life isn’t the biggest one; it’s the one that actually works for you. If you had the land to do this… would you build a traditional house, or take a risk and live completely differently?
0:59

A men had eight acres… and instead of building a massive house, he did something no one expected. He went to Home Depot, bought a simple shed, and turned it into his entire home. Not temporary, intentional. Then he added a pool. A trampoline. Space, freedom, and a setup that looked simple on the outside… but completely different from what people imagine “success” should look like. At first, people laughed. A shed? Really? But the more you look at it, the more it flips the script. No huge mortgage. No overwhelming maintenance. Just land, privacy, and a lifestyle he actually chose. It’s not flashy, but it’s his. And somehow, that makes it feel bigger than a house ever could. Now everyone’s asking the same thing; is this crazy… or kind of genius? Sometimes the best life isn’t the biggest one; it’s the one that actually works for you. If you had the land to do this… would you build a traditional house, or take a risk and live completely differently?

Dr.L

991,501 views • 3 months ago

Joe Rogan and Abigail Shrier nailed a truth that feels increasingly rare to say out loud. In our safer, more comfortable era, the threshold for what counts as 'trauma' has dropped hard. Rogan put it simply: the 'worst thing that’s ever happened to you' is totally relative — a dented car can feel like the end of the world if that’s your biggest reference point. Shrier took it further: throughout human history, people lost parents, siblings, homes, and jobs… yet most rebuilt, formed families, showed up for work, and kept living. Resilience was the norm. Today we’re often telling kids that normal life struggles equal trauma they may never fully overcome. This conversation made me pause. It seems like many of us have turned ordinary setbacks into major emotional events. Our comfort might be quietly training people to be more fragile than generations that faced far worse. If we keep labeling everyday hardship as trauma, we risk raising people who lack the toughness that helped humanity survive real adversity for centuries. Have we over-diagnosed trauma and under-taught resilience — or is modern life actually harder on the mind?
2:31

Joe Rogan and Abigail Shrier nailed a truth that feels increasingly rare to say out loud. In our safer, more comfortable era, the threshold for what counts as 'trauma' has dropped hard. Rogan put it simply: the 'worst thing that’s ever happened to you' is totally relative — a dented car can feel like the end of the world if that’s your biggest reference point. Shrier took it further: throughout human history, people lost parents, siblings, homes, and jobs… yet most rebuilt, formed families, showed up for work, and kept living. Resilience was the norm. Today we’re often telling kids that normal life struggles equal trauma they may never fully overcome. This conversation made me pause. It seems like many of us have turned ordinary setbacks into major emotional events. Our comfort might be quietly training people to be more fragile than generations that faced far worse. If we keep labeling everyday hardship as trauma, we risk raising people who lack the toughness that helped humanity survive real adversity for centuries. Have we over-diagnosed trauma and under-taught resilience — or is modern life actually harder on the mind?

Camus

101,368 views • 3 months ago

A woman recently shared a side-by-side comparison of her Walmart receipt from 2011 and a similar shopping trip today and the difference was hard to ignore. What once cost around $100 now rings up closer to $150, turning an ordinary grocery run into a moment of disbelief. It wasn’t just numbers on paper, it was the feeling that something familiar had quietly become harder to afford. Behind that reaction is a broader reality. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that prices for “food at home” have risen by roughly 55% since 2011. While individual items vary, the overall trend is clear: the same cart of essentials costs significantly more today. For many households, that increase isn’t abstract, it shows up every week at checkout. What makes this resonate is how personal it feels. Groceries aren’t a luxury, they’re a constant. And when those costs rise, people notice immediately. Her comparison wasn’t just about inflation; it was about the quiet pressure families feel trying to keep up. It leaves a simple but powerful question: how much more can everyday life stretch before something has to give?
3:18

A woman recently shared a side-by-side comparison of her Walmart receipt from 2011 and a similar shopping trip today and the difference was hard to ignore. What once cost around $100 now rings up closer to $150, turning an ordinary grocery run into a moment of disbelief. It wasn’t just numbers on paper, it was the feeling that something familiar had quietly become harder to afford. Behind that reaction is a broader reality. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that prices for “food at home” have risen by roughly 55% since 2011. While individual items vary, the overall trend is clear: the same cart of essentials costs significantly more today. For many households, that increase isn’t abstract, it shows up every week at checkout. What makes this resonate is how personal it feels. Groceries aren’t a luxury, they’re a constant. And when those costs rise, people notice immediately. Her comparison wasn’t just about inflation; it was about the quiet pressure families feel trying to keep up. It leaves a simple but powerful question: how much more can everyday life stretch before something has to give?

Dr. CZ

59,707 views • 3 months ago

Tax, tax, tax. It’s all Labour know, it’s all Labour do. Now we potentially have 2 more, 1 for sure. There will be a 22% across the board tax on an interest earned from cash in stocks & shares ISA’s. Bear in mind this is money you have invested that you already paid income tax on and put into an ISA because you were told it was tax free. Then there is a strong suggestion that when Burnham comes in he will immediately put up Capital Gains Tax to match income tax. Thus killing any incentive or motivation to invest in or grow your assets. Tax is there for one reason only. To make the country function well and better people’s lives. We have the highest taxes ever now….but look around you. I defy you to find a single solitary piece of your life or this country that those taxes have improved!!! My advice is….find legal ways to pay as little as you possibly can!!
4:58

Tax, tax, tax. It’s all Labour know, it’s all Labour do. Now we potentially have 2 more, 1 for sure. There will be a 22% across the board tax on an interest earned from cash in stocks & shares ISA’s. Bear in mind this is money you have invested that you already paid income tax on and put into an ISA because you were told it was tax free. Then there is a strong suggestion that when Burnham comes in he will immediately put up Capital Gains Tax to match income tax. Thus killing any incentive or motivation to invest in or grow your assets. Tax is there for one reason only. To make the country function well and better people’s lives. We have the highest taxes ever now….but look around you. I defy you to find a single solitary piece of your life or this country that those taxes have improved!!! My advice is….find legal ways to pay as little as you possibly can!!

John Hannam

46,485 views • 1 month ago

This started like a normal dating story… and turned into something nobody expected! She made a New Year’s resolution: say yes to more dates. No overthinking. No backing out. Just show up and see what happens. So she agrees to a first date with “Matt from Hinge.” At first? Nothing crazy. Just a good date. But then… it keeps going. Second date; better than the first. Third date; now they’re painting together at her place. And suddenly, what started as “just give it a chance” is turning into something real… fast. That’s the part that caught people off guard. Because let’s be honest; most dating stories don’t go like this. Most fade out, get awkward, or never make it past date one. But this? This feels different. It makes you wonder… Is this what happens when you actually give people a real chance instead of overthinking everything? Or is this just one of those rare situations that actually works out? Be honest; do you think saying “yes” more often could actually change your dating life… or would it just lead to more bad dates? And how soon is TOO soon for things to start getting serious?
2:06

This started like a normal dating story… and turned into something nobody expected! She made a New Year’s resolution: say yes to more dates. No overthinking. No backing out. Just show up and see what happens. So she agrees to a first date with “Matt from Hinge.” At first? Nothing crazy. Just a good date. But then… it keeps going. Second date; better than the first. Third date; now they’re painting together at her place. And suddenly, what started as “just give it a chance” is turning into something real… fast. That’s the part that caught people off guard. Because let’s be honest; most dating stories don’t go like this. Most fade out, get awkward, or never make it past date one. But this? This feels different. It makes you wonder… Is this what happens when you actually give people a real chance instead of overthinking everything? Or is this just one of those rare situations that actually works out? Be honest; do you think saying “yes” more often could actually change your dating life… or would it just lead to more bad dates? And how soon is TOO soon for things to start getting serious?

Dr.L

2,023,517 views • 4 months ago

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 views • 6 months ago