Why Bad Investors Still Get Better Results Than You

The 1% make 4 times more money than you while holding the exact same assets. You see, most people think building wealth is about finding the right assets, getting lucky, right? But the 1% know it's about the structure, right?

Even if you get lucky and you pick the right winner and you hold it in the wrong structure, you'll still be behind people who bought something worse than you did but held it in the right way.

Now, there's 4 components to that structure, 4 components that can take you from an underperforming asset and turn it into the biggest winner on your balance sheet.

So in this video, I'm going to break it all down for you so you can steal it.

We're going to compare assets to assets. Then we'll look at the structure that you put them in, and then that same structure across every asset that you own so you can run it on your own. You ready?

Let's go.

All right, this is going to be a fun one. I'm going to show you how it's not about the right asset. It's about the right structure that you hold them. And we're going to use this article from Bloomberg Magazine. I'm going to call them out. It's going to be fun for me. And the most important thing is, like, you have to be so careful who you let speak into your life, who you let speak into your kids' lives, your family lives. But you have to be careful who you take advice from. And I typically ask, like, if I take your advice, will I end up like you? And so here's Bloomberg, like a trusted financial source. And this article, we'll go through that. OK, but I want to break this down. And then I'm going to show you the right way to do this so you can steal this and you can juice up the returns on all your assets. You don't have to pick the right winners. OK, so the first thing is this article came out here. And they're talking about homes no longer being the best place for your money. Okay, this came out July 15th, 2026. So just recently written by Allison Schrager.

Shout out to her.

Go ahead and tag her in this video so she can learn something here. Now, she writes this column on Bloomberg, like authority on financial topics apparently. She's a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute. serious credentials. Author, multiple times author. An Economist Walks Into a Brothel. I don't know what that means. Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk. Okay, understand risk, whatever. Okay. Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute, writes for Bloomberg, all these different things. And you would think you could trust the information, but let's just go through this for a second. So she's making a claim that houses are not the best place for money. So first of all, I would say that owning your own personal residence is not a very good financial decision. There's a million reasons why you buy your own personal home. It's not the best financial decision. So I might sort of agree with her on there, but she's dead wrong. I'll break it down why. But let's just talk about owning homes, owning real estate in general. Okay, so what she got wrong here is she talked about comparing home returns versus the stock market. Okay, so this is an excerpt from the article there she's using. I'm going to use her own, her own article. The median home price in Nantucket, Nantucket, Massachusetts— this is not like The median home in the United States. This is a very elite, what I would call trophy asset location, Nantucket, Massachusetts. And she said that the median home price in Nantucket is nearly $4 million today, nearly $4 million for the median. And it was $500,000 in 1995, 30 years ago.

Right.

This sounds like a stunning increase in one of the hottest and least accessible real estate markets in the world. So one of the hottest markets in the world, as she's talking about. So it sounds like a stunning increase. from $500,000 to $4 million in 30 years. Amazing, right? Well, maybe, maybe not, because she goes on. In the article, she goes on to say that, well, it's not that good because while that sounds like a stunning increase, maybe it's not because what's even more stunning, she says, is the stock market.

The stock market's way better apparently.

If you had invested the same amount of money, the same $500,000 into the S&P 500 index, just put it into the index, not real estate, in the same time period in 1995, you'd have more than $8.2 million today, even more if you had reinvested the dividends that you had earned.

Okay?

So what she's doing is she's saying, hey, look, homes are not a good investment. They're not the investment they used to be. They're probably not the best place for you to invest your money because look, if you put it in the same $500,000 deployed into real estate in Nantucket would be $4 million. And the same $500,000 in stocks would be in the S&P 500 would would be $8.2 million, about double in stocks. So she seems to be counter-arguing what I'm making the claim in this. It's not the assets, it's the structure. But this is where she gets it exactly wrong. So while her math is correct, she has the complete wrong assumptions. Now, you would think as a senior fellow and someone who writes for Bloomberg, they would understand this. But there's a wrong assumption here. And that wrong assumption is cash. Let me break this down for you. Okay. The case that I'm making for you is it's all about the structure. It's always about the structure and not the assets themselves. Let me show you what I'm talking about. So what she's doing is she's comparing assets. And, and, you know, I'm a Bitcoin guy, so in the Bitcoin space you hear this all the time. Bitcoin is better than real estate. No, real estate's better than Bitcoin.

But it's doing the same thing.

It's comparing assets to assets, but it's ignoring the key piece of the structure. So she went ahead and threw this chart up here, and again, the The math is correct. So it's a compelling argument. The American dream is stocks now, she said. The American dream used to be homes. She says it's now stocks. Property ownership is no longer the main way to build wealth because apparently, again, to the case she's making, it's in stocks. And she says the people interviewed—

and again, be careful who you let speak into your life—

because the people interviewed for a recent Bloomberg News story on building wealth said that the stock market is a better bet. Whose information are you going to take? I'm just going to take some random people's opinion that talked to Bloomberg Magazine? So they said it's a better bet. And this chart shows you the blue bean real estate and the black bean stock market. So you can see it had a lower entry price here and it ended up higher here. So it outperformed, right? From what is this, 2011 through 2026. Okay, sounds pretty good, but that's only part of the story. Now, I love this part. I have to bring it up, what she says here, because she mentions the key piece, but then she completely disregards it. What does she say here? She says the US, so granted, if you're in Canada or Australia or Europe, it's not as good. You still have this as an option, so don't turn the video off yet. But in the US, the US encourages families to buy. And so they do that by putting policies into place, incentives. The policies include mortgage interest tax deduction. So I talk a lot about how taxes are not punishment. Taxes are incentives for us to do things. So if you buy a piece of real estate, you get incentivized with mortgage interest tax deduction and other subsidies. So like the government sort of owns a lot of the mortgage companies. They'll push the rates down and things like that. That make up what— here's what she says. Financial abomination of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. And a financial abomination. Now, if you're in Australia or, or Canada or in Europe or whatever, do you wish you could get a 30-year fixed low-interest-rate mortgage? If so, drop that in the comments down below. She calls it abomination. My guess is the whole world wishes they could get it. And what she says here is stock returns trounced those from housing. Trounced. Did double, right? 100% better. Okay, so again, the error in her ways, financial analyst, a senior fellow, her error is that she compared assets to assets. But again, it's the structure in which we buy them. Here's what we mean by that. So for example, if I have $500K that I'm investing, yes, I can put that into a home or I could put that into stocks. So I have $500,000 of each and one, the home went up to $4 million, And the stocks went up to $8 million. Okay. But that's not how you buy, because to the point that she's making, the abomination of a 30-year mortgage. And what that allows me to do is it allows me to take my $500K and get a 30-year mortgage, which means I could put 10% down. I could put 20% down, sometimes even less, sometimes 5% down. Let's use 20% as a number. Now, my $500,000 would allow me to buy $2.5 million of real estate. Or it would allow me to buy 5 $500,000 homes. However you want to look at that. So I'm not buying one for one. I'm going to buy 5 homes or one $2.5 million home. Okay. Makes sense. So now what does that do to our numbers? If I could buy a $2.5 million home or 5 $500,000 homes, let's just take a look real quick. I'll readjust the math. So it's a real apples to apples using her 30-year abomination, of course, the mortgage. So if we had equal capital from 1995 to 2006, same time frame, we're gonna do the same amount of money, the same $500,000, uh, 31 years, and we're going to use the exact same market. We're going to stick in Nantucket. Okay, here's what we're talking about. So we deploy it in the S&P 500, $500,000, or real estate. But again, I'm putting it— I'm using leverage, so I have $500,000 down payments. The mortgage on the S&P 500 is none, obviously, because I paid cash. Over here, I have $400,000 of debt. On the value of 2026 only, I have about $8.2 million. So $8.2 million, that's what the stocks are worth 31 years later. The real estate though, because of the leverage, is worth $20 million. So you can see how it starts being different. Now the value 2026 total return would be about $12 million if I had reinvested all the stock dividends. And on the real estate, I'm still at about $20 million. So what you can see is a big difference. After-tax returns. Well, then the stocks, in order to get the liquidity, I'm selling it. So now I have tax owed on exit, $2.6 million on tax. So after-tax returns are $8.9, or let's call it $9 million. Where over here, I have reinvested net cash flow because it's a rental property. I'm reinvesting the income that comes into it. I'm not going to exit it because with real estate, I can 1031 my tax into another property, which means I have $21 million. After tax. So instead of 9, I have 21. It's a pretty big difference. And it's just as simple as looking at— I'm using the abomination of the 30-year mortgage, as she called out. Again, I don't know how our senior fellow Bloomberg writer misses this, but again, be very careful who you get your advice from. Okay, let's take a look at why this works and how you can steal this. Okay? Because it's not just about real estate. So there's 4 components of the structure in that deal. The difference of the real estate deal versus the stocks. Okay, so number one, we got the leverage. So the leverage is the abomination, the 30-year mortgage. The leverage is the debt, the margin that allows me to control more assets with a little bit. So with $100,000, I can control a $500,000 property. With $500,000, I control a $2.5 million property. So number one, leverage. Okay, now the beauty of the leverage, especially the 30-year abomination mortgage, is I get fixed debt for 30 years. So You know, I locked in some loans that were around 3% a few years ago. Today they're about 6%. But even at 6%, we have the cost of living going up at 10% a year. But imagine over 10, 20 years what that payment becomes over time. So I get the benefit of inflation-destroyed debt. So the leverage partially gets wiped out by inflation, which is of course why the government wants so much of it. Okay. Second, I get income. What does that mean? The tenants of my real estate property provide income and they're the ones paying down the debt for me. So yes, I took on debt. I used leverage to do that so I control more asset, but someone else pays it for me. When I bought the stocks, I just bought them. I owned 100% of them, but there was no leverage and there was no one giving me additional money for that. Number 3, I get depreciation. And depreciation, what happens with that is back to those tax incentives that she talks about, how terrible those are. The tax incentives allow me to now write off part of my income, keeping more of my hard-earned money. Now, if I take some of that hard-earned money that I would typically give to the IRS at the end of the year, and I get to keep it and I get to reinvest that, over the 30-year loan, then that really increases my returns. Then I get appreciation. That means the property goes up in value over time. The median US appreciation number is about 5% right now. Obviously, a trophy property like Nantucket is going to do much better, but it's market by market. The US is about 5%. Okay. And again, that's Nantucket. So that's 4 components: the leverage, the income, the depreciation, the appreciation. 4 buckets. But the question is, if that's the structure and that's what makes real estate so much better than stocks— again, we compare them apples to apples, the stocks perform better. Compare them apples to apples, Bitcoin did better. But if I can use the right structure with the real estate, it outperforms by a long shot, more than 4 times, about 5 times better. So the question is then, how do you use a similar structure for other assets? How would I use that for The S&P 500? How would I use it for my Bitcoin and things like that? All right, now real quick, uh, there's a link down in the description down below.

I'll put a QR code on the screen right here.

Hopefully you can see that.

And if you want to see how these types of strategies apply to your own specific situation, if you'd like my team to like walk through your numbers like I just showed here and help you build a personalized wealth operating system, just go ahead and scan that QR code on the screen right here or the link in the description, put it in your application, then come right back because I've still got more important parts of this video to get through.

Well, as I said, it was never the asset, it was always the structure. Now, the thing with real estate is that real estate has it baked in. It's built in, right? Most people already know this, especially for the United States. Most people know this. You don't think about paying cash for the home. You're going to get a loan. Most people think the way to build wealth is with rental properties. You don't think you have to save all the money to buy the rental property cash. You're going to use a loan. And the baked-in part, the government abomination mortgage, but the tax depreciation incentives, right? The income that comes from the tenants, all those things. It's all baked in. If we want to apply it to other assets, we have to think about pushing it forward, have to build it on our own. But if you want to understand more about the structure, again, because the government pre-installed it on real estate, how do we build this out for ourself? Okay, so here's how we do it. We'd use the same 4 components. Again, we have the leverage, the income, and the depreciation, and of course, the 1031 exchange or the never sell, never pay taxes. Okay, so again, in real estate, it's baked in, but let's say that I wanted to apply it. We'll just jump to Bitcoin. my favorite asset. And let's talk about how we could do it there. Now, what most people think is that, oh, well, what Mark is saying is I should get leverage on my Bitcoin and I should buy more Bitcoin. That sounds really risky because it's super volatile. And what if the market—

It's not what I'm saying. The beauty of using leverage on real estate is I get a 30-year fixed loan. There's no volatility.

There's no, there's no margin calls. I have 30 years. And sure, home prices go up and down, but over 30 years, most likely that home will go up. That's the beauty of that. Also, the interest on that is tax deductible. So what we'd want to do, we'd want to use leverage on one asset like real estate, a 30-year fixed loan, non-callable, and I could use that leverage over onto Bitcoin. Okay, so now we are using debt, but not on the volatile asset that can swing 30%, 40% at a time. We're using it on a traditional asset like real estate that most people feel comfortable doing it. Okay, then what? Well, then what about income? Yeah, but Mark, the problem with Bitcoin is there's no income. It's just an asset.

It's like gold.

Now, certainly you could like loan it out and earn some yield on it. I highly recommend do not doing that. But again, if I use the real estate with my Bitcoin and I leverage the real estate, which gave me the 30-year fixed loan, the real estate is also producing income. So the income from the real estate property is now paying off the debt that I have over here on the Bitcoin. Same thing. It's the income. I'm importing it. I'm importing the income from one asset to another. What about the depreciation? Because you certainly can't— you can't write off Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just an asset. Well, I can get the depreciation from the real estate property for sure. But what I can also do is I can buy Bitcoin mining equipment. Mining. And the Bitcoin mining equipment is equipment. It's computers. And I can use 100% bonus depreciation on that and use that depreciation to cancel out my taxable income. And then finally, the last one, the 1031. So with real estate, I don't have to pay tax unlike the stocks. I have to pay tax when I sell them. But with the real estate, 1031 allows me to roll the capital gains over so I don't have to pay tax. Well, the original 1031 is you just don't sell. So over here, we don't sell, you know, buy, borrow, die, and we access liquidity against the asset without having to sell it. So this is the benefit of using structure together with multiple assets. And then I could walk you through with stocks.

I could walk you through with gold or any other asset that you want.

We don't have time for that. But you understand there's 4 parts to structure. But the key piece here is it's not all within one single asset. It's how do I get all of the different assets that I have in my portfolio to work together in one structured way so they can all benefit? This way, I don't have to be watching Twitter and Reddit all day. I don't have to be on YouTube videos chasing crypto pump and dumps and penny stocks. I don't have to be option trading till 3 in the morning at night. You can just buy regular traditional assets, put them into the correct structure, and you can get outsized returns like I've seen. Okay, and really where this comes in is something you hear me talk about quite often is most people, when I say most, I mean almost everybody except for the 1%, let's call it the 99%. What they do is they invest horizontally. So they have their $100 and they're going to put their, you know, they're going to put, you know, 30% into stocks, And they're going to put their 40% into bonds. And they're going to keep 20% of cash. And then maybe they'll take 5% of their portfolio, and they'll do some moonshots. So I'm going to get into the SpaceX IPO, which, by the way, is down like 50%. But I'm going to get into some of these moonshots right here. But even if those hit, even if you double this, it only increased this tiny little piece of your portfolio. And when you average out those returns, it barely moves your portfolio forward.

Yeah.

The structure that we're talking about is different, where what we're doing is we're investing vertically. So now $1 is being deployed over and over and over. So instead of averaging out, I get the benefit of multiplication. And so that's why it's not the asset, it's the structure in which you hold them. Just like real estate, break it down into the 4 parts and think about how you can apply it to every other asset you own, because— This is one of those things like once you see it, you can't unsee it.

The rich don't avoid taxes. They get the IRS to fund the assets that make them richer.

Now you've been told the opposite your whole life, right? That taxes are just the bill that you have to pay for earning money.

And that the wealthy, they have some sort of like loopholes or something that they do to get out of it that you don't have. That's not it.

They don't have a different tax code.

It's the same one. They just read it differently. They've been doing what they were taught. And you've been doing what you were taught. Because buried in over 7,000 pages of tax code, you'll see that it's full of ways that the government will literally pay you to own all kinds of assets. But there's 3 signs that tell you when one of these is sitting right in front of you or not. Now, if you learn how to spot those, then the tax code stops looking like a bill and it starts looking like a shopping list instead. Everything I'm about to show you, I've done myself, right? This is how I've built most of my own balance sheet. So this is not theory. This is from actual practice. It's not something that I read in a book, right? The actual moves I've used to take money that was headed to the IRS and turn it into assets that I still own today. So when I say the government will pay you to own the right things, I'm not guessing about this.

Okay?

I've cashed the checks and I want to show you. And stick with me to the end because I'm going to show you how to find your own number, the exact amount the government is set to take from you this year, And what that same number could turn into if you kept it instead. Now, that part alone is worth the next few minutes on its own. So let's go. The trap is that almost everybody is in it.

They don't realize it, right?

They don't realize it because there's just two ways to move through the money system, and most people only know about one of those. Now, the first one is the track that you were put on as a kid, right? Your whole life you were raised for this one: go to school. Get the job, earn a paycheck, and the second that paycheck hits, then the government takes its cut off the top, right? So you get taxed first, and then you live on what's left over. And then, you know, hopefully you try to save a little bit of that at the end, and then you hope that it's enough. Okay? That's what we call the consumer track, right? The tax code doesn't just ignore that track, it punishes it. It doesn't want you on that track. If you earn your money from a paycheck, you get taxed at the highest rates there are. You get taxed first before you even get to get a dollar, before you even get to spend a single dollar. Now, if you're a high earner, by the time you add up federal, state, payroll, the rest, more than half of what you make can be taken from you before you even get to build anything. Now, I'm guessing anybody watching this video probably has a CPA or some sort of tax professional that helps you. And you probably like your CPA, right? You think he does a good job for you. But understand what a CPA actually is. A CPA is a historian, right? They'll tell you what happened, right? I bring 'em all my stuff at the end of the year.

They look through it and they go, well, here's what happened.

They add up what you earned last year. They might maybe suggest a couple things that you could do after the fact, like, you know, hey, put a little bit into IRA to defer some taxes. And then they tell you what you owe, right? So they're looking in the rearview mirror. They're telling you what happened. You see, but nobody taught you the other track, right? Your school didn't teach it to you. Your job doesn't teach it to you. The historian doing your taxes, they don't teach it to you. And that's not your fault. It's not their fault, right? That's not their job. And you've been doing exactly what they taught you to do, right? But the tax code was never written for the person earning the paycheck, the consumer.

The tax code was written for the person who owns the assets, right?

That's the whole secret here. The code rewards owners. So the entire game, the only game, the only move that actually changes your taxes is to become one. Now, before you turn this video off, guess what? You don't have to quit your job to do that.

You, you don't have to already be rich, right?

You can earn a W-2 paycheck and still cross over to the owner's side of the column on the same income, right? What happens is you have to start putting it to work the way an owner does. The paycheck doesn't disappear. You just stop being only a consumer of it and you become an owner with it. That's the difference. That's the switch. That's the switch this whole video is about, getting you onto the other side of the code that was actually written for you, not against you. It was written for you to use, right? Because the tax code, it's thousands of pages long and almost none of it is about what you owe. The tiny part, that's the bill.

The rest of it all, That's instructions.

It's the government telling you in writing exactly what it'll pay you to build. Now, almost nobody reads that part, but the owners do. How do owners read it? What are they seeing that you don't see? Well, first of all, they read it, you don't. But if we read it, there's 3 signs. When all 3 show up together, you're looking at one, okay? Something the government will pay you to own. Now, I call these 3 signatures of a wealth subsidy, a wealth subsidy. Learn them once and then you'll start to see them everywhere. Okay, so sign number one, what you're looking for: the government needs something built that it can't build itself. All right, what does that mean? Well, the government doesn't build anything. The government doesn't build houses, it doesn't build power plants, it doesn't build data centers, it doesn't invent technology, it doesn't drill wells, it, it doesn't build factories.

It can't do any of that.

The government doesn't produce. You do. Companies do. Investors do, but the government needs all of it, right? Like, look at what the country is racing to build out right now. It's racing to build out AI data centers right now, right? They're trying to build out data centers the size of small cities, and they need the power to run those data centers. It's trying to pull manufacturing back onshore. So that means building, you know, new factories, automation.

They're trying to bring chips back, right?

They want to make chips here in America instead of overseas. It's pushing to produce more energy at home for all that, right? The government can't build a single one of those things, but it needs all of them, right? And it needs them fast. It needs jobs from all of those. So it does the only thing it can do. It rewrites the rules to pay whoever shows up to build them. Faster approvals, better tax treatment, and all that makes the math work out. Money left on the table for the people who deploy capital into exactly these things, the things the government wants, not because it's generous, Because it's desperate, right? That's sign number one. Find the thing the country needs built and can't build itself, because that's where the checks—

that's where the checks are.

That's where the checks come in. Sign number two: the instructions are published in the open. Okay, so again, this is not a loophole, right?

It's not—

it's not a scam or a gimmick.

It's not a loophole.

It's not a gray area. It's not some— not some trick that your, you know, rich uncle's attorney knows. Hear me clearly on this part: it's written down. It's published policy. It's been sitting in the tax code in plain English for decades. Now, the reason why it feels like a secret is that almost nobody reads it, right? The consumer sees a bill and they look away, but the owner sees the same page and they read the instructions. The owner sees the incentives, the same document, but 2 completely different things depending on who's holding it. All right. So that's sign number 2. Sign number 3. It pays the owner who deploys the capital, not the worker who owns the paycheck.

Go back to the 2 tracks, all right?

The worker earns and gets taxed first, but the owner deploys capital into the thing that the government wants and it gets paid for it. Same dollars moving through the system, but completely different treatment of those dollars. Now, here's how the payment actually comes. It's not a check in the mail. It comes through depreciation. It comes through tax credits. Now, the mechanics have names, and the names don't really matter for right now, but what matters is the shape. You see, you put capital into the asset that the government wants you to, and it lets you keep money that you would've handed over, right? So it credits you for that. You own the asset now, and you keep the money, both. Now, the deepest version of sign number 3 is the one that I set up earlier. The system rewards the balance sheet, not the paycheck, right? It rewards the person who owns assets and issues credit against them, over the person who earns income and gets taxed on it. That's what crossing over to the owner side actually means. Once you're there, the whole code flips into your favor. All right. So there it is. The government needs it built. The instructions are published in advance and it pays the owner, not the earner. Now, when all 3 of those things line up at the same time, you found one. You found something the government will run. So let's say that you've got— let's say that you have $70,000 this year that you're going to pay to the government on your taxes.

Okay.

So that's the bill. That's what you'd normally just hand over. $70,000 gone. But I don't know if I want to give it up. I'd rather have an asset that compounds. So I read the code like an owner does instead, and I figure out that that same $70,000, that 70 grand becomes the down payment on an asset the government wanted built anyway. The money that was leaving my life forever, now I can put it inside something that I can own forever. That asset's still yours. The taxes that you were going to pay, you keep it working because you did the thing the government was trying to pay people to do. Now, let's break down what we're actually trying to do here, right? I'm not trying to tell you how to structure it. I'm not trying to tell you what to buy or how the financing works. Okay? That's part of it, right? But that part takes real precision. It's very specific. It's the part where people get it wrong and could get into trouble.

Okay?

It's not like a quick YouTube video. That's the part you need help with. But what I, what I do want to do is tell you a few of the moves that I actually use. I want to give you the one thing that makes each one work. So let's look at a couple. So real estate, for example, real estate's great. Short-term rentals specifically. The unlock is that if you materially participate, which short-term rentals you do, then the depreciation can hit your active income. So if you're a W-2, this works for you instead of being trapped where most people You know, most people have it trapped. Also energy. So like oil and gas, when you fund a drilling project, a big chunk of it counts as intangible drilling costs, and those come off in year 1. Also clean energy, solar, you get 2 things at once. You get a tax credit and you get depreciation on the same system. So I can write off like a credit against my taxes, but then an actual credit against the money that I owe. Now the credits, that's the rare one because it comes off your taxes Dollar for dollar.

Also, one of my favorites I talk about quite often is Bitcoin mining.

The machines, they're equipment, at least in the eyes of the tax code. So they qualify for the first-year depreciation. And then the asset, it produces Bitcoin for me every year. Okay. That's 4 different things that the government's literally paying people to invest, paying people to build out right now. And these are all things that I've put my own money into. What I'm showing you here is the shape. The $70,000, it doesn't have to leave. It can become something that you own, right? That's the whole move here. So watch what that one move does over time. Now, don't use my number. Use your own number. Whatever you paid the government last year, think about that.

How much did you pay last year?

That's your number. Hold it in your head. I'll run my own number, but maybe write your own down. Okay? Let's say that's $70,000 that I kept instead of handing it over. Now, I let that $70,000 sit in an asset. And it compounds. Let's say that it compounds at 10% a year. Call it what the market's done over the long run. Okay? Now that $70,000 turns into roughly $180,000 in 10 years. Leave it at 20 years, it's now $470,000 from one year's tax bill, one $70,000 decision. The person who handed it over to the government got nothing. The person who kept it working got almost half a million dollars. That's doing it once. Now do what owners actually do. They don't do this one time. They do it every single year. If you've got that $70 grand of tax on the table every year, and every year you route it just like I talked about into assets instead of handing it over, then in 10 years, you've moved $700 grand off the government's table and into your own assets, money that would have otherwise would have just been gone. And now you have $700 grand in assets that's compounding right now. That's, that's $700 grand before we even count a single dollar of growth stacking on top of it. Now go back to your number, however many years you've been working and handing that, that number over. That's the version of this that already happened to you. That's the cost of reading the code like a consumer. But the good news is, the good news is the next 10 years haven't been written yet. So you can take the same income, The whole time, right? Two people, same paycheck, same life. One hands the tax over every year. One lives on and lives on what's left. The other routes it into things that they own, and they let it stack up. So run that out, and the two of them—they're they're not living the same life anymore, right? They they made the same amount of money, but one spent a decade feeding the government. The other spent a decade building a balance sheet, and nothing about that required earning a single dollar more. See, that's the key part here. It's not about working harder. It's not about earning more. It's about making your money work harder and earn more. It's 2 people with the same income, just a different approach. They stopped being a consumer of the money and became an owner with the money. Okay? Now, at the beginning of the video, I told you that I'd show you how to find your own number. So here it is. This is the one thing that I want you to actually do from this video, right? Whether you ever watch another video of mine or not, let's just do this.

If you want, grab a pen and paper, pause this right now.

I'll wait. Open up your phone, pull up last year's tax return, maybe, maybe an email from your accountant, or just make your best guess, whatever you've got.

Okay?

Find the number that you sent to the government.

Get the real figure. Try to get it as close as possible, even if you have to guess, but try to get as close as possible.

Got it? Okay, good. Okay. That number is not a bill anymore. You know what it actually is now? That's your budget. That's the capital you have every single year. And you can use that capital to redirect it into any asset that the government at least will pay you to own. Now, most people never realize that they have that budget because they hand it over before they even see it. But now you saw it.

Now, here's the part that should hopefully— hopefully this bothers you.

Hopefully this makes you a little bit angry. The number isn't once, it's every year. Again, do nothing different, right? Don't have to work any harder. Don't do anything different but write that same check again next year and the year after. The same money gone on repeat for the rest of your working life. Now run it through the 3 signs. 1, the government needs it built. 2, the instructions are published. 3, it pays the owner, not the earner. Now take that one number and just ask a different question. Not how do I pay less tax? The question you want to ask is What does the government want built badly enough they'll pay me to own it? It's that question, the way you ask the question that puts you ahead of almost everybody else that you know, and it's yours to keep free starting right now.