He's become so round you'll rarely see him do anything but lay in a recliner in his recent interviews. Seeing his old videos where he was capable of pacing back and forth like a lunatic is almost a breath of fresh air
When I don't know about something he sounds believable. Then when he comments on something I'm really knowledgeable in I'm immediately thinking he's full of shit.
Tbh that's not even an interesting view like it's counter-intuitive, just interesting that no one else has the same view.
Like duh, in the 1950's, widely regarded as the golden age for America, the super rich were taxed like close to 90% and society was thriving. Small businesses could operare with margins that were effective enough to buy a house and support an entire family.
To avoid tax, the wealthy would spend their money instead of hoarding it, and when that money was spent it had to go somewhere. That keeps the economy flowing, with money going to either small businesses, or to the government through tax who then spend that money on infrastructure upgrades.
And since Reaganomics (trickle down economics) that all went away. "If we tax them less then they will have more money to spend, so they will spend more money which goes to everyone." But they already were. Now, without tax reduction influencing their spending decisions, the rich can just keep the money that they were goihg to spend, removing those dollars from circulation.
Super wealthy individuals pay the same amount of money they would have paid anyway to avoid tax, but instead it's spent on lobbyists whose sole job is to make sure the government never increases the taxes on the super rich ever again.
Like this is pretty much square goes into the square-shaped hole level problem solving and it's astonishing that no one really takes any steps to just solve this very simple issue.
>To avoid tax, the wealthy would spend their money instead of hoarding it
As far as I know US tax code has never let you spend money to dodge taxes. That would be a cool way to balance things, but I think we all know no one would ever really pay taxes again.
Employee pay, benefits, bonuses, and new equipment are all things that a business can deduct.
Also, the ultra wealthy used to build parks, museums, concert halls, libraries and schools as tax deductions lots of ways to pay some of that money back to yourself.
All the business deductions don’t really apply here since we were talking about personal tax rate.
And the ultra wealthy still do stuff like that today. Buffet is the largest single charitable giver ever, the Gates have nearly eradicated polio which is probably more good than a library, etc.
Trickle down economics reduced personal income tax rates for the wealthy, incentivising them to keep more money in theor personal account. When their personal income had a high tax rate, that money would instead be invested into businesses or charities on an incredibly wide scale.
Since those changes, the two examples you've given of the ultra wealthy are correct, however, nowadays its more of "I'm rich and bored... might as well do this just because I want to. Oh, there is also a little tax incentive, that's neat."
Whereas before, if you were ultra wealthy, you would be financially stupid not to donate or reinvest in businesses. You could keep your money if you wanted, but then it's lost through tax. Now it's the reverse. Keeping your money, if you are ultra wealthy, is financially in your best interest. You can donate or reinvest if you want to, but it is not nearly as widespread across the ultra wealthy today as it was in the past, and it is entirely due to how much lower personal income tax rates have been reduced.
I am used to a different tax law region but I am pretty sure you got deductibles and ways to use your money to write off losses etc. Tax evasion is probably still an issue.
Yes, it funnels money from the rich back to the poor via social safety nets, government jobs, etc. who then put it back into the economy by spending it
For businesses sure, but that hasn’t changed. Famously Warren Buffett paid less in taxes than his secretary because all the rich people just keep their money in their businesses.
Let's say its the 60s and your boomer business earned 1 billion dollars, and the government is going to take 500m in taxes. You would be better served reinvesting that in your business - buying new equipment, building new facilities, giving bonuses to top employees for retention as you can then add that to your accounting to reduce your profits. Your business is strengthened and you lose nearly as much in taxes.
I mean the common complaint today is that rich people are doing that, it’s the whole build borrow die thing. Rich people tend to be relatively cash poor to dodge taxes.
Not really. Typically you're almost always better keeping money and paying taxes than donating it.
Investments, yes - kind of. First, long-term capital gains reducing the taxes owed when sold at a specific time. If you can hold your stocks long enough and use it for passive income you effectively reduce what is your tax rate in that context. There's better ways to go about it though.
What the really wealthy people do is use stocks as collateral for loans. The APR for the loans is typically lower than the returns of the stock yearly. With this in mind, it's cheaper to pay the interest on the loans rather than sell the stock as it prevents you from having to pay any capital gains tax. From there, when you die your heirs can get a step-up in tax basis. This means that they don't pay any capital gains that you earned and can choose to keep or sell the stock with no impact. There's still inheritance tax but there's ways to minimize that too. They can then perpetuate the same style of living off credit while growing richer.
The rich don't really pay taxes, they pay interest.
Yes. Because they would spend money investing and donating stuff, because investing reduced your taxable income so much.
If they didn't do that, then their effective tax rate would have been 90%.
Now they don't have to do that and pay less tax than even 45%. So why would they contribute to society for no benefit, since the tax cuts aren't that big in comparison to the personal tax rate anymore?
We should bring back time when the rich would fund arts and science rsther than just hoard money, and through spending that money they would get immortality, by being remembered in history
Theres like some rich dude Ludovico Sforza from italy, theres some buildings and streets named after him, in his free time he invested his money in to arts and science for example funding some random dude called DaVinci.
Yes. I agree. Because people would see their tax bill was very high and thought "I could save a lot of money on taxes if I instead paid my workers a bonus this year or bought more up-to-date equipment, and yeah I'll still lose the money but at least I get to choose where it goes."
So they would reinvest in their business or donate to charities/pay for a new hospital. Their effective tax rate would be reduced. If they didn't do that, they would have paid much more in taxes.
im also a fan of trickle up economics, you can easily argue lower class individuals are also fundamentally incentivized to spend any extra dispensable income instead of saving it
For me its the coockies in the hotel. I flew couple times with lufthansa, they gave me some free chocolate and water. The other tile i flex with Brussel airlines, its in the same price bracket, they gave me jack shit. You know wich airline i al using from now on ?
He's really interesting because he presents a less quantifiable view of economic theory - which is very anti mainstream as western economics had shifted towards quantifiable mathematical theories since the death of the Austrian school.
Even modern behaviouralists often try and quantity behavioural assumptions.
For what it's worth, I've been in sales & marketing for a long time. As far as I can see, Rory isn't selling a seminar or course or anything, he's just sharing his perspective on how counter-intuitive people's purchasing decisions can be.
I don't understand why people are acting outraged in this thread. This dude has an opinion on the economics of human decision making, yet the people in this thread are inexplicably livid about it.
I was genuinely curious lol. I never felt like he was trying to sell anyone anything outside a historical stories(that’s what videos of him are filtered to me). I’ll have to look in the comments.
He just reframes things from a human behaviour point of view. Some of it is just satire because though there is some truth to what he's saying it's just outlandish to try his methods.
What do you think I should Google in order to find out about this guy?
Based on the info in the post there is nothing to go on. Even in the comments ppl just say “British yapper”, like that’s gonna give me anything useful to search
Genuinely who the hell is this guy. I see him absolutely everywhere and not a single video has ever mentioned his name or his credentials. He’s always just yapping about random grade school level “economic theory” that always just boils down to “if you run a better company you make more money.”
Stone-Pickaxe@reddit
I love this guy. He's so round.
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit (OP)
But when I'm round and everyone calls me a fat shit.
southern_boy@reddit
Ya gotta carry it symmetrically ⚪
Mushiren_@reddit
gooberphta@reddit
Just do ten sets of these before bed and in a week you'll be slim
Rambozo77@reddit
Actually, that would feel amazing.
lolopiro@reddit
round shit
Tasty-Window@reddit
Absolute unit
Wack_photgraphy@reddit
He's become so round you'll rarely see him do anything but lay in a recliner in his recent interviews. Seeing his old videos where he was capable of pacing back and forth like a lunatic is almost a breath of fresh air
Therabidmonkey@reddit
When I don't know about something he sounds believable. Then when he comments on something I'm really knowledgeable in I'm immediately thinking he's full of shit.
ProfNoob1000@reddit
He is a marketing guru. His whole stick is making you believe what he says.
But that aside he still has some interesting views. Like taxing the superrich is good for buisness.
throwaway8675-309@reddit
Tbh that's not even an interesting view like it's counter-intuitive, just interesting that no one else has the same view.
Like duh, in the 1950's, widely regarded as the golden age for America, the super rich were taxed like close to 90% and society was thriving. Small businesses could operare with margins that were effective enough to buy a house and support an entire family.
To avoid tax, the wealthy would spend their money instead of hoarding it, and when that money was spent it had to go somewhere. That keeps the economy flowing, with money going to either small businesses, or to the government through tax who then spend that money on infrastructure upgrades.
And since Reaganomics (trickle down economics) that all went away. "If we tax them less then they will have more money to spend, so they will spend more money which goes to everyone." But they already were. Now, without tax reduction influencing their spending decisions, the rich can just keep the money that they were goihg to spend, removing those dollars from circulation.
Super wealthy individuals pay the same amount of money they would have paid anyway to avoid tax, but instead it's spent on lobbyists whose sole job is to make sure the government never increases the taxes on the super rich ever again.
Like this is pretty much square goes into the square-shaped hole level problem solving and it's astonishing that no one really takes any steps to just solve this very simple issue.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
>To avoid tax, the wealthy would spend their money instead of hoarding it
As far as I know US tax code has never let you spend money to dodge taxes. That would be a cool way to balance things, but I think we all know no one would ever really pay taxes again.
Electronic_Warning49@reddit
Employee pay, benefits, bonuses, and new equipment are all things that a business can deduct.
Also, the ultra wealthy used to build parks, museums, concert halls, libraries and schools as tax deductions lots of ways to pay some of that money back to yourself.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
All the business deductions don’t really apply here since we were talking about personal tax rate.
And the ultra wealthy still do stuff like that today. Buffet is the largest single charitable giver ever, the Gates have nearly eradicated polio which is probably more good than a library, etc.
fookreddit22@reddit
Slightly over 3000 billionaires hold over $20t. Got any more anecdotes about billionaires being charitable.
throwaway8675-309@reddit
They very much do apply.
Trickle down economics reduced personal income tax rates for the wealthy, incentivising them to keep more money in theor personal account. When their personal income had a high tax rate, that money would instead be invested into businesses or charities on an incredibly wide scale.
Since those changes, the two examples you've given of the ultra wealthy are correct, however, nowadays its more of "I'm rich and bored... might as well do this just because I want to. Oh, there is also a little tax incentive, that's neat."
Whereas before, if you were ultra wealthy, you would be financially stupid not to donate or reinvest in businesses. You could keep your money if you wanted, but then it's lost through tax. Now it's the reverse. Keeping your money, if you are ultra wealthy, is financially in your best interest. You can donate or reinvest if you want to, but it is not nearly as widespread across the ultra wealthy today as it was in the past, and it is entirely due to how much lower personal income tax rates have been reduced.
Opaldes@reddit
I am used to a different tax law region but I am pretty sure you got deductibles and ways to use your money to write off losses etc. Tax evasion is probably still an issue.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
You don’t get to write off losses as a private person. You can reduce taxes through charity that was it back then.
LeatherDescription26@reddit
Yes but then that money would circulate better which is what taxes are supposed to facilitate in the post fiat era.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
Is that what you think the point of taxes is?
LeatherDescription26@reddit
Yes, it funnels money from the rich back to the poor via social safety nets, government jobs, etc. who then put it back into the economy by spending it
Buttfranklin2000@reddit
Isn't business expenses somewhat deductible from taxes in the US? I mean, it's a no-brainer, it stipulates and rewards expansion and growth.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
For businesses sure, but that hasn’t changed. Famously Warren Buffett paid less in taxes than his secretary because all the rich people just keep their money in their businesses.
JMM123@reddit
They mean investing it in their business
Let's say its the 60s and your boomer business earned 1 billion dollars, and the government is going to take 500m in taxes. You would be better served reinvesting that in your business - buying new equipment, building new facilities, giving bonuses to top employees for retention as you can then add that to your accounting to reduce your profits. Your business is strengthened and you lose nearly as much in taxes.
AmbitiousEconomics@reddit
I mean the common complaint today is that rich people are doing that, it’s the whole build borrow die thing. Rich people tend to be relatively cash poor to dodge taxes.
duckiegooseman@reddit
Aren't investments and donations regularly used avoid tax right now?
Shike@reddit
Not really. Typically you're almost always better keeping money and paying taxes than donating it.
Investments, yes - kind of. First, long-term capital gains reducing the taxes owed when sold at a specific time. If you can hold your stocks long enough and use it for passive income you effectively reduce what is your tax rate in that context. There's better ways to go about it though.
What the really wealthy people do is use stocks as collateral for loans. The APR for the loans is typically lower than the returns of the stock yearly. With this in mind, it's cheaper to pay the interest on the loans rather than sell the stock as it prevents you from having to pay any capital gains tax. From there, when you die your heirs can get a step-up in tax basis. This means that they don't pay any capital gains that you earned and can choose to keep or sell the stock with no impact. There's still inheritance tax but there's ways to minimize that too. They can then perpetuate the same style of living off credit while growing richer.
The rich don't really pay taxes, they pay interest.
ohyousoretro@reddit
They weren't actually paying 90%, the effective tax rate was like 45%.
throwaway8675-309@reddit
Yes. Because they would spend money investing and donating stuff, because investing reduced your taxable income so much.
If they didn't do that, then their effective tax rate would have been 90%.
Now they don't have to do that and pay less tax than even 45%. So why would they contribute to society for no benefit, since the tax cuts aren't that big in comparison to the personal tax rate anymore?
assasin1598@reddit
We should bring back time when the rich would fund arts and science rsther than just hoard money, and through spending that money they would get immortality, by being remembered in history
Theres like some rich dude Ludovico Sforza from italy, theres some buildings and streets named after him, in his free time he invested his money in to arts and science for example funding some random dude called DaVinci.
SuperGrandNovice@reddit
Effective tax rate has fluctuated about 10% at most including in periods of war.
throwaway8675-309@reddit
Yes. I agree. Because people would see their tax bill was very high and thought "I could save a lot of money on taxes if I instead paid my workers a bonus this year or bought more up-to-date equipment, and yeah I'll still lose the money but at least I get to choose where it goes."
So they would reinvest in their business or donate to charities/pay for a new hospital. Their effective tax rate would be reduced. If they didn't do that, they would have paid much more in taxes.
PixelatedMike@reddit
im also a fan of trickle up economics, you can easily argue lower class individuals are also fundamentally incentivized to spend any extra dispensable income instead of saving it
FloZone@reddit
The actual trickle down is forcing rich people to spend their money. Funny how that works.
BadArtijoke@reddit
But having a brain is communism
Jigglepirate@reddit
Stick
dontknowanyname111@reddit
For me its the coockies in the hotel. I flew couple times with lufthansa, they gave me some free chocolate and water. The other tile i flex with Brussel airlines, its in the same price bracket, they gave me jack shit. You know wich airline i al using from now on ?
GeoffreyGeoffson@reddit
He's really interesting because he presents a less quantifiable view of economic theory - which is very anti mainstream as western economics had shifted towards quantifiable mathematical theories since the death of the Austrian school.
Even modern behaviouralists often try and quantity behavioural assumptions.
Stlr_Mn@reddit
Like what? This is the first time I’ve heard he is full of it
ColdIceZero@reddit
For what it's worth, I've been in sales & marketing for a long time. As far as I can see, Rory isn't selling a seminar or course or anything, he's just sharing his perspective on how counter-intuitive people's purchasing decisions can be.
I don't understand why people are acting outraged in this thread. This dude has an opinion on the economics of human decision making, yet the people in this thread are inexplicably livid about it.
Stlr_Mn@reddit
I was genuinely curious lol. I never felt like he was trying to sell anyone anything outside a historical stories(that’s what videos of him are filtered to me). I’ll have to look in the comments.
marino1310@reddit
You’ve basically summed up how I feel listening to Musk lmao
lllGrapeApelll@reddit
He just reframes things from a human behaviour point of view. Some of it is just satire because though there is some truth to what he's saying it's just outlandish to try his methods.
Wack_photgraphy@reddit
Welcome to the big leagues kid
TheFurryofFury@reddit
I don't know if Five Guys actually puts extra fries in the bag (it's expensive af) but this guy says they do.
AusCro@reddit
He's right about like 80% of what he talks about though. 20% is pure bs, but legit some people like him are really needed when talking to engineers
Hanna_Bjorn@reddit
Require_context_hat.jpg
kamiloslav@reddit
PlentyOMangos@reddit
What do you think I should Google in order to find out about this guy?
Based on the info in the post there is nothing to go on. Even in the comments ppl just say “British yapper”, like that’s gonna give me anything useful to search
Xerxes65@reddit
Rory Sutherland
kamiloslav@reddit
Just found the most recent "I require context" type image to visualize the comment above
moverwhomovesthings@reddit
Clyde-MacTavish@reddit
British yapper.
Kiwi_Doodle@reddit
Can we get slightly more context?
Altruistic-Local-541@reddit
round british yapper
lesecksybrian@reddit
10% less context
Altruistic-Local-541@reddit
not average weight british yapper
lesecksybrian@reddit
Excellent
i_want_to_be_unique@reddit
Genuinely who the hell is this guy. I see him absolutely everywhere and not a single video has ever mentioned his name or his credentials. He’s always just yapping about random grade school level “economic theory” that always just boils down to “if you run a better company you make more money.”
PerfectMend@reddit
Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman of Ogilvy, one of the biggest Marketing agencies in the world that has clients like Coca Cola, IBM, Nestle, etc.
Remember the share a Coke campaign, with names on Coke bottles for example? That was Ogilvy’s work.
FrogOnABus@reddit
Oh shit, oh fuck! If I see my name on a plastic bottle, I’m going to cum.
Vegan-Meth@reddit
Rory Sutherland: professional sleverer
BadArtijoke@reddit
FINALLY TELL US WHO THE HELL THIS FAT FUCK IS JESUS CHRIST
Dabonthebees420@reddit
Rory Sutherland, he's a VP at Ogilvy and a noted Ad/Marketing Man
romulusnr@reddit
Is this a whoosh? I think its a whoosh.
Somebody is confusing commodification with function
Meme_Pope@reddit
Idk, I love when this guy pops up in my algorithm. It’s comfy having some fat British guy Britsplain things to me
Malus131@reddit
I just need to go to the pub for that. Or look in a mirror TBF.
Meme_Pope@reddit
Damn, British people really can just have that whenever they want. Like women feeling their own boobs
The_Noremac42@reddit
I never even bothered setting up my bed frame. My mattress just sits directly on the floor. I haven't stubbed a toe in months!
vividpup5535@reddit
Bro I can’t believe how often I see this random guy, explaining something simple as if it’s the first time.