Pronunciation scoring isn't supported on this browser — you can still record and listen back.
Thelefthasalwayssupportedprogressivetaxation,
Translating…
Turn on Record to capture your voice and get scored
Line 1/147
Summary
Two Economist reporters discuss why Gen Z is fixated on taxing billionaires, exploring wealth inequality, property taxation, and the real economic trade-offs of wealth taxes.
Present perfect for recent change — "it's really striking that Gen Z is obsessed with billionaires. Do you understand why in one generation that jump happened?" Uses present perfect to connect past action to present relevance, emphasizing how something new has become noticeable.
Conditional structures for hypothetical trade-offs — "you would start losing out on innovation. That would be a real issue." The would-clause expresses likely consequences of a hypothetical wealth tax, a key structure for policy discussion.
Negation with "hasn't" + past participle — "wealth inequality is high, but hasn't got dramatically higher in the past few few years." Contrasts static inequality with the absence of recent change, showing British English usage.
About this video
This Economist video features a debate between two policy experts examining the recent shift in left-wing politics: where once the left campaigned for broad tax cuts across society, Gen Z has become almost exclusively focused on targeting billionaires. The speakers analyse a concrete example—New York's new pied-à-terre tax on luxury properties worth over $5 million—to ground the discussion in real policy rather than slogans. One presenter defends certain taxation ideas as legitimate, while the other raises genuine economic concerns: that wealth taxes historically haven't worked well, that high earner mobility and innovation losses are real costs, and that the billionaire category itself is somewhat arbitrary for serious tax policy.
This is excellent shadowing material for upper-intermediate learners because the speakers use conversational English with natural hesitations ("um," "uh"), repeated phrases, and informal connectors ("I mean," "you know"), making it realistic and not artificially scripted. The pace is measured enough to follow, yet intellectually rich with policy vocabulary and nuanced argument structures. The exchange models how native speakers genuinely explore disagreement: acknowledging valid points ("I think Zoran has a point"), conceding weakness in their own side ("I must admit like we would disagree with almost everything"), and building on each other's ideas rather than talking past one another.
Suited to B1–B2 learners interested in economics, politics, or social issues, this video teaches you how to follow and produce debate language, policy terminology, and the softer argumentative phrases that make disagreement sound reasonable rather than hostile.
Idioms & expressions
play controversial — to take a deliberately debatable or provocative stance to provoke discussion; "I'm going to play controversial here. I actually don't think that all of these taxation ideas are necessarily that bad."
latch onto — to seize on or focus heavily on something; "I wonder if the reason that the Greens haven't really latched onto that is because it's such a kind of social media led political movement."
for want of a better word — used when you don't have the perfect term but the one you're using is close enough; "a more for want of a better word kind of serious conversation."
reach peak [something] — to arrive at the maximum level or saturation point of something; "do you think that we've now reached peak billionaire tax discussion?"
make sense — to be logical or reasonable; "it it doesn't make any sense to start only at that cut off."
talking past each other — communicating without genuine exchange or understanding (implied in the contrast); the speakers model not doing this through acknowledgment.
