YouTube has long been choc-a-bloc with quality documentary makers filming with minimal bedroom setups, splicing stock footage with fun effects. These films cut through to audiences who feel alienated by traditional journalism, but who crave something more thorough than Instagram Reels and TikToks. This is the audience Gary Stevenson aimed to reach when he set up his channel in 2020, and began filming his ‘kitchen-table lecture’ style videos which “explain what is happening in the economy in a way that is understandable and accessible for ordinary people”.
While many filmmakers have gone from traditional documentary-making to producing work for YouTube (such as Benjamin Zand and Andrew Callaghan), it is rarer to see a filmmaker make the jump the other way. Gary’s new film HOW TO GET FILTHY RICH marks a change in his creative direction. The release coincides with a hiatus for the weekly videos on his YouTube channel which – with 1.6 million subscribers – has made him a household name in contemporary British politics. This hiatus has come about as he shifts to more active campaigning in favour of a Wealth Tax to solve what he sees as the continuous decline of the UK economy caused by growing inequality.
“This change in focus has seen Stevenson engage much more with the political establishment, to both defend his policy campaign and promote it to new audiences.”
This change in focus has seen Stevenson engage much more with the political establishment, to both defend his policy campaign and promote it to new audiences. He has appeared on News Night, The Rest is Politics and Question Time, and has been in discussion with various party political people, underscoring his success in getting Wealth Taxes into the national conversation. HOW TO GET FILTHY RICH is an extension of his effort to reach new audiences. The film is not a polemic, and aims to engage rather than lecture: it provides an accessible explanation of the macroeconomic state of the country and invites the viewer to consider Wealth Taxes as a solution.
The first half of the film sets out the pressing issue of inequality and its implications for the continuing decline in living standards in the UK, going beyond Stevenson’s usual video-essay style. We travel with him up and down the country as he speaks to people about their financial situation. Everywhere the feeling is the same: people are doing what should be enough, they are working hard in a good job, but are still struggling to make ends meet. This is contrasted by Bassim Haidar, who we visit in his luxury apartment overlooking Hyde Park. He keeps his multi-millions in bank accounts where it grows every year by at least 12% without him having to lift a finger.
“Stevenson’s key point is that inequality is more than a problem to be solved, it is the driving force behind the decline in living standards that has been happening across decades.”
Stevenson’s key point is that inequality is more than a problem to be solved, it is the driving force behind the decline in living standards that has been happening across decades. As the very richest exponentially accumulate more wealth just by virtue of having it, they acquire more assets, depleting the volume of assets available to everyone else. Through conversations with his dad, and with pupils at his old school, he paints a picture of how much more difficult financial conditions have become through the generations. The success here is that Stevenson manages to present macroeconomics, a traditionally exceptionally inaccessible subject, in a way that draws on people’s experiences and what they can observe around them in their families and wider communities.
“The film hammers home that financial struggles are not personal failings, but a tiny part of a much larger story of decline.”
The film hammers home that financial struggles are not personal failings, but a tiny part of a much larger story of decline. The solution is not to turn to individuals such as influencer Samuel Leeds, who was described by Stella Creasy MP in the House of Commons as a “charlatan” who was “farming dodgy advice for clicks”. With an interview of Leeds, Stevenson is primarily addressing young men who feel emasculated and powerless in the face of depleting economic opportunities, who are the frequent target of people such as Leeds (indeed, the title of the film may have been chosen to appeal to this demographic). In the inetrview, Stevenson puts his Theroux-style training to the test in a section of the film that feels reminiscent of fellow Mindhouse doc LOUIS THEROUX: INSIDE THE MANOSPHERE.
The solution proposed is an unavoidable tax of 2% on all wealth above £10 million, Gary argues. Only the last fifteen minutes of the film are dedicated to defending this idea, involving a combative interview with tax lawyer Dan Neidle. To an inattentive viewer, Stevenson perhaps fails to defend against criticism. However, it is obvious that Neidle is coming from a different place to Stevenson, and does not appreciate long-term decline in living standards caused by growing inequality as an existential issue in the same way. Throughout the film, Stevenson’s opponents come at him with fire, and he responds by being Mr Nice Guy, always willing to listen and to try to understand their position. The issue is that this does not always come across the best on-screen, where lengthy conversations are edited down, and witty comebacks supposedly win debates.
In a Q&A after the premiere of HOW TO GET FILTHY RICH at Sheffield Doc/Fest, Stevenson exclaimed that he feels proud of the film. He should be: while he fails to have many of the ‘gotcha’ moments he may have wanted, the documentary is an engaging and original look at the decline in living standards and the beginnings of working out what to do about it.
Editorial note: This article was originally published on September 30th, 2026 with a reference to Samuel Leeds as an example of “fraudulent ‘financial advisors'”. Representatives of Samuel Leeds got in touch with TAKE ONE to point out “there is no facial [sic] basis sufficient to substantiate that description” which presents “a serious characterisation of fraud as fact“. The term “fraudulent” has been removed. The article was updated on October 5th, 2026. It was also pointed out Leeds “does not hold himself out as a financial advisor“, and, indeed, he does not appear to use this term in his many videos and courses giving advice about property finances, and this has also been removed. The article now instead directly quotes observations from parliamentary record and debate where Samuel Leeds is mentioned. It has also been reported he trained as an ‘illusionist’ before his current popularity as an influencer.