rich

The trader-turned-campaigner argues that drastic steps need to be taken to close the UK’s huge wealth gap

Millionaire trader-turned-inequality campaigner Gary Stevenson is proposing a 2% annual tax on all those who have wealth above £10million in the UK.

The TV presenter will set out his argument in a Channel 4 programme in which he explores the growing concentration of wealth in Britain. He says that the UK’s poorest billionaire, with a wealth of just £1billion, makes £50 million a year in passive income at a rate of just 5%. That is nearly £1million every week, without getting out of bed.

And Gary, 40, argues that if nothing changes, the concentration of wealth at the top will only accelerate. “If this continues, it is inevitable that the billionaires and the super-rich will own a larger and larger share of the real wealth of this country, meaning other groups in society, the working class, the middle class, and the government will progressively own less and less.

“If we do not do anything about this system then very, very quickly the billionaires will own everything, and you will own nothing.”

In the UK, the richest 56 people have equal wealth to 27million people. In 2025 alone, the average billionaire grew their wealth by £231million. Meanwhile wages, in real terms, are lower than they were almost 20 years ago and the average student debt in England has soared from £3,200 in 2000 to £53,000 today.

Taxing wealth rather than income is not a new idea – Norway, Switzerland and Spain already have wealth taxes. Under his proposal, a person worth £11 million would pay £20,000 in tax a year, while some one worth one billion would pay £20 million.

Some estimates suggest that this system could raise £24billion annually, enough to fund the NHS, build affordable housing or cut taxes for workers who are on lower incomes.

A poll of 4,142 British adults found that 75% of the public support a wealth tax along with many experts. Gabriel Zucman, Professor of Economics, tells Gary: “There is a problem in our tax systems which is that the very rich have lower effective tax rates than the rest of the population.”

But there are plenty of billionaires, aristocrats, tax experts and finance influencers who argue against it. In the programme Reform party donor and billionaire entrepreneur Bassim Haidar – whose wealth is growing at around 12% a year, says that if it happened, he’d sell his businesses and quit Britain. “I would exit completely. Yeah, even if I sell them at a loss, I don’t care, cause it becomes a matter of principle. Wealth is mobile, so I’ll walk away. And listen, I’ll take a hit for one year, that’s fine. But then I’ll go, and I’ll never come back.”

Gary, who grew up in Ilford, east London, the son of a postman, thinks Haidar is scaremongering. “Rich people generate the majority of their income from owning assets. Your house, your supermarket, the farms that grow your food, the power plants that create your energy,” he argues. “Many wealthy people own assets which are fundamentally fixed to this country.”

He also discovers wealthy people who are quite happy to give a bit more. Julia Davies, who made her fortune building an accessories business and is a member of a group called Patriotic Millionaires, is one of them: “We’ve got to stop normalising this idea that it is normal to try and avoid contributing to public services and infrastructure, if you can massively afford to do that. I’m a millionaire, I’m not going anywhere. Why would I uproot myself and my family just to avoid contributing a bit more?”

– How to Get Filthy Rich with Gary Stevenson, Wednesday 8 July, 9pm, Channel 4

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

A hypnotizing deep dish of star wattage, family meltdowns, racial tensions and Texas-sized steaks served for breakfast, George Stevens’ 1956 drama was taken extremely seriously in its moment — 10 Oscar nominations seriously. The most notable of those were for Rock Hudson and, competing against him in lead actor, a posthumously honored James Dean. Taken together, the two represent a fascinating dichotomy that was happening in screen acting, a burrowing into psychology that was leaving other more traditional stars behind. (Elizabeth Taylor and Mercedes McCambridge make for another great pairing in the movie.) Roughly 25 years later, the film would inspire the TV series “Dallas,” even down to having a main character with the initials J.R. Go luxuriate in the original epic.

“Giant” is playing Sunday at the Academy Museum. Tickets here.

Before her death in 1993, Mabel McKay — one of the last living dreamers of the Pomo Indian people — shared a prophecy while driving through the Sonoma hills. One day, this paradise would burn.

“Everything is going to go dry. Everything will burn. That’s my latest vision,” she said, gesturing to the idyllic landscape.

Startled, writer Greg Sarris asked what could be done to stop it.

“You live the best way you know how,” McKay replied.

Since her passing, Sonoma County experienced the most destructive wildfires in California history in 2017, only for another, more destructive fire to surpass it a year later. “She always used to say, ‘Whether you believe it or not, it’s true,’” Sarris recalls.

McKay and her visions are the inspiration behind Sarris’ latest work. His first novel in 28 years, “The Last Human Bear,” is loosely based on the spiritual leader McKay, whose wisdom and companionship served as a refuge to Sarris during a tumultuous childhood in Sonoma County.

A reluctant casino mogul

On a Monday morning in California, Sarris sits in his sleek office at the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in Rohnert Park. Sarris, 74, has served as chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria for more than 30 years. In his office, diplomas and academic certificates crowd the walls. A framed poster for the 2023 film “Joan Baez: I Am a Noise” hangs nearby — she’s a close friend. Behind him, an American flag ripples in the distance outside the window, blurred by the summer heat.

Just up the road sits a multibillion-dollar tribe-owned casino, Graton Resort & Casino — a project the writer oversees. “I had never been in a casino. I have a PhD in modern thought and literature from Stanford,” says Sarris.

How does an accomplished author find himself at the helm of a multibillion-dollar casino enterprise? It’s a question that still puzzles Sarris. “I told them if we can raise our people and become a platform for social justice and environmental stewardship to benefit Indian and non-Indian alike, I’ll do it.”

Before his stint as a reluctant casino mogul, Sarris was a prolific author and university professor at UCLA and Sonoma State. In 2023, he was appointed a regent of the University of California by Gavin Newsom. Over the course of his career, he published six books, and his novel “Grand Avenue” became an HBO original film in 1996.

California’s Native history: revisited

From early in his career, Sarris wanted to depict Indians as he knew them, rather than as Hollywood depicted them. “We’ve been erased by Hollywood, because the idea of Indians has always been Plains Indians or Southwest,” Sarris explains. “It’s easier for Americans to access Buffalo Bill.”

“California Indians have always been left out of the picture,” says Sarris.

“The Last Human Bear” is Sarris’ latest attempt to revive the legacy of California’s Native history. The novel follows Mary Hatcher, a Pomo Indian in Sonoma County, from Prohibition through the 21st century. It’s told in the first person through Hatcher’s compelling voice as she narrates the horror and heartbreak of her lifetime over the course of a century, echoing William Faulkner’s literary style, which influenced Sarris.

“I’m curious why you want to know about me,” reads the first line. The novel unfolds like an oral storytelling tradition, driven by a voice that Sarris painstakingly crafted, evoking his conversation with McKay. “The voice comes. I have to call it, almost like a spirit,” says Sarris. “I wanted it to feel like an oral story.”

Hatcher — a Pomo shape-shifter who dodges prejudice by passing as Mexican in the novel — is a thorny protagonist, often cunning, scheming and unforgiving. “An American Indian woman is as richly complicated as anybody else. I wanted to show this rich and complicated character who’s negotiated a history that she’s showing you,” says Sarris.

Acclaimed Northern California writer and activist Rebecca Solnit, who has authored 17 books and is a friend of Sarris’, says that she was fascinated by his ability to evoke so many aspects of female life in “The Last Human Bear.” Solnit was especially moved by Sarris’ rendering of California’s tragic history. “It’s shocking, given how rich California’s Indigenous cultures were — 99 different language groups, mythologies, belief systems and linguistic traditions. Every North American Indigenous language family is represented in California. It’s weird how this history has been erased, and how horrific what happened was.”

Climate change and ongoing ecological disasters have made Indigenous perspectives more vital than ever, the author argues. “I think Indigenous people have been hugely influential in giving us a point of view in which we were never separate from nature,” she says. According to Solnit, Sarris’ novels are part of a broader resurgence of interest in Native culture.

In the early chapters of the “The Last Human Bear,” the protagonist gets a job on a ranch by posing as Mexican, since Indians were forbidden from working as housekeepers. What follows is a tale of tension, deception and a forbidden love that sours, reminiscent of Brontë novels.

Sarris hopes that the novel illuminates an uncomfortable history of Sonoma County that remains largely invisible, looming beneath the soil of wine country. The novel offers “a history of this county that a lot of people haven’t seen,” says Sarris.

“There were more Indian people right where we’re sitting per capita than anywhere else in the entire New World outside Mexico City, which was the Aztec capital,” says Sarris. “The genocide was so horrendous.”

Identity, revenge and a search for home are themes that arise throughout the novel — subjects Sarris knows well in his own life.

Uncovering a hidden Native heritage

In 1952, Sarris’ teenage mother gave him up for adoption, her family hoping to evade the embarrassment of their Jewish daughter becoming pregnant by a Native American Filipino man. Sarris grew up in a white family in Santa Rosa alongside three siblings. His adopted father, George Sarris, became abusive, causing Greg to flee the house with his adopted mother’s blessing. “God bless her. She let me go out and live on ranches and run with other people to get away from him.”

It was in these formative years that Greg became acquainted with Native American people in Santa Rosa, always feeling a mysterious pull toward them. It was these years that also shaped his sensibility as a writer. “I was a lost kid on the streets, so I was always paying attention to everyone, listening, and people would tell me stories.”

Native Americans lived on the fringe of town, often practicing healing ceremonies that were frowned upon by white Catholic families in the suburbs Sarris explains. “When I was 15, I met Mabel McKay, who I wrote the book about. I knew she did some of those strange things that I heard about, but I liked her,” he says. “I had no idea that I was related to these people. I thought I was a mixed-blood Mexican or Spanish.”

At age 30, Sarris uncovered the identities of his birth parents and learned of his Native heritage. He learned his birth mother was buried in a pauper’s grave at the Calvary Catholic Cemetery in Santa Rosa, with “nothing to mark her grave but an upside-down horseshoe that has her name in it.” In the opening pages of the novel, a dedication to her: Bunny Hartman.

Excitedly, Sarris presented proof of his Indian heritage to McKay, his trusted confidant. “I thought it was a big deal that I had Indian blood,” says Sarris. He showed McKay a photo of his father, which she met with indifference. Naturally, Sarris was disappointed. “She told me something later: ‘You’re never any more Indian than your experience.’”

A lifelong outsider

Questions surrounding the legitimacy of Sarris’ heritage haunted him for decades and ultimately informed the novel. Being adopted by a white family, only to be shunned by the Native community, perpetuated his lifelong feeling of being an outsider. “I keep thinking maybe I just got in with this group of people and my Indian relatives so that I would feel rejected again,” he says. “We gravitate towards what we know as home emotionally.”

“I didn’t grow up on a reservation. I’m fair-skinned,” he says. “Being adopted, it feeds into that feeling of not being good enough,” he says, adding: “Illegitimacy is a medicine in the end.”

In the Native American literary community, Sarris has often felt excluded from discourse. When in doubt, he reminds himself of his involvement with the tribe. “Who among them have done this much for their people?” he asks. “Who among them has given this much time and sacrificed a writing career for their people?”

Jane Fonda, the two-time Academy Award-winning actress and activist, struck up a friendship with Sarris through a shared cause. “We met during the campaign to secure health and safety setbacks that would finally prevent oil wells from being drilled within 3,200 feet of a community. Greg and the federated tribes helped us win that fight against Big Oil,” Fonda explained in an email.

“I can tell from his books and my time with him that he embodies indigenous wisdom and beliefs,” Fonda says. “I see Greg Sarris as a man who embodies the best of two worlds — the mercantile culture of Western civilization and the indigenous world that knows we are part of nature and interdependent with it. It’s a rare and valuable combination.”

Inside the polarizing casino kingdom

The Graton Resort & Casino, launched by Sarris over 12 years ago, now plays a vital role in supporting the Pomo Indian community. “I promised early on: roof over everyone’s head, an insurance policy in every pocket and a college degree paid for,” he says. “We give $2.5 million a year in perpetuity to the University of California, so that all California Indians can go to the University of California tuition-free.” The casino has funded theater programs, youth writing intensives and revenue sharing with neighboring tribes.

On the car ride to the casino, Sarris is riffing on his friendship with Grateful Dead member Mickey Hart, who bought Sarris a quarter horse as a gift. In the casino, Sarris eagerly greets his employees with a friendliness that betrays his repeated insistence that he’s a reclusive writer. He points out blown-glass flower sculptures, an embellishment he once saw at the Four Seasons in Paris. He walks past the baccarat room, where he hosts high rollers from Beijing, whom he boasts, “play $100,000 in a hand.”

Early on, news of the casino’s construction caused waves of controversy across Sonoma County — some of which resulted in death threats against Sarris’ life. Concerns that a casino would invite debauchery into the county circulated, which Sarris points out is ironic for a community predicated on wine: “Beyond whether gambling is right or wrong, what is implicit is their privilege and elitism,” says Sarris. “People were getting scared because these brown people, who were the poorest in Sonoma County, are suddenly going to have power.”

Admittedly, Sarris says their newfound wealth has not been without repercussions in the tribe. “People who have been traumatized with generational poverty are the most vulnerable to the lure of materialism,” he says.

When time catches up

In the final chapters of “The Human Bear,” the protagonist, at the end of her life, recalls: “Human Bears often like to even the score before they die.” Revenge is futile, she concludes. “If I was going to avenge our people, I would have to poison nearabout all of history.”

Sarris recalls a similar epiphany he had speaking with McKay. He explains Pomo Indians believed that each action had a consequence. “Ethnographers always said we’re a culture predicated on black magic and fear. No, we were cultures predicated on profound respect for the complexity of all life,” says Sarris.

Then, white men came and seemingly bent the laws of natural order. “The Kashaya Pomo word for white people was ‘miracles’, because they came in and killed everything and did all these things. Nothing could come back to them,” says Sarris.

He explained to McKay that he thought of the white man’s fate differently. “Look, there’s no water. There’s no air. Everything’s poison,” he says, gesturing around him to this vast, broken world. “It’s all come back. It just took time.”

Connors is a culture journalist from Sonoma County. She covers books, food, entertainment and offbeat Los Angeles. She’s currently at work on a book of essays about tourism in all its forms.

The Rich House, Poor House mum had to turn down a job that would change her life

A single mum living on £98 a week was forced to turn down a life-changing opportunity.

Steph recently appeared on Rich House, Poor House and was offered a job but she had no choice but to refuse the offer due to a family issue and unable to take on the long commute.

Alongside her mother Gail and her daughters – 12-year-old Amelia and seven-year-old Darcey, they swapped lives with wealthy Mr Whippy owner Joe Sealey on the Channel 5 series and their worlds couldn’t be more different.

At the time, Joe traded his six-bedroom estate – complete with cinema room, gym and indoor pool – for seven days in Steph’s three bedroom council house with a damaged ground floor and mould spreading through Amelia’s room.

Despite working six days a week from home in telesales, Steph struggles to cover essential costs. Once fundamental household expenses are paid, they’re left with just £98 per week for all other needs.

At the end of the swap, she was given a life-changing opportunity as Joe offered her a position on his sales team with a starting salary of £60,000 a year.

However Steph has revealed that she’s had to make the heartbreaking decision and turn down the job offer after the office moved to a different location.

Giving viewers an update, she took to her TikTok and explained that the relocation means she would have had to do a four hour round commute, which she says wouldn’t work due to being a single mum and her mum’s health deteriorating.

She said: “In relation to the job, I agree with all of you that it’s an amazing opportunity. Sadly due to the main office relocation it would mean a four hour round trip commuting for me, to be able to go there and take that job offer up.”

During the swap, Steph had no choice but to send her mum home after she became too unwell to continue with the programme and it seems her health is still a concern for Steph.

Steph explained: “As you all know I’m a single mum, I’ve got two beautiful girls. My amazing mum, whose health is not great, it’s not massively improved since the show, so it’s not viable for me to be able to travel a four hour round trip.

“I need to be closer to my girls and my mum but again it was an amazing opportunity that was put forward. Sadly the location did change in between and it’s just not viable for me to do that

“But I just again wanted to say a huge thank you to Joe, my production team, Channel 5 and most importantly every single one of you. It’s not easy to put yourself out there.”

Following a successful business meeting on the show, Steth was promised £20,000 from the initial sales proceeds but unfortunately the sale still hasn’t gone thorough.

Steph added: “Since filming last year, Joe has been tirelessly working with Kaspas trying to get the deal across the line, that obviously you would have seen me go and do the sales pitch for. At the moment, that hasn’t been completed but I know Joe is still working in the background trying to get that over the line for us.”

You can stream Rich House, Poor Holiday on Channel 5

SACRAMENTO —  The Democrats’ mantra this election year — especially among wannabe governors — is that the richest Californians should “pay their fair share.” But by any objective measurement, they already do.

I’m referring to state taxes, not federal. It’s a valid argument that the most prosperous Americans should kick in more to the federal government, particularly after President Trump and the Republican Congress lowered taxes for the wealthy, who already had a pretty good deal.

But it’s a different story in California, where state government lives off the well-heeled. Yet, never-satisfied liberal Democrats and public employee unions constantly cry for more.

In fact, an unexpected surge of $16.8 billion in state tax revenue, mostly due to the stock market boom and capital gains earnings, is bailing out Gov. Gavin Newsom and allowing him to claim a balanced budget as he prepares to depart Sacramento and run for president in 2028.

The state Franchise Tax Board recently reported which income groups pony up the most taxes. The more money you earn, the steeper your income tax burden. Of course, that’s the way it should be. But California pushes its progressive tax system to the extreme.

We’ve got by far the highest state income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%.

In 2024, the latest year for which there’s complete data, the top 1% of California taxpayers accounted for 40% of the total state income tax revenue, the FTB reported. But they earned just 24% of the taxable income. To be in the top 1%, your annual earnings had to be at least $973,000.

The top 0.1% kicked in 21% of the tax, while earning 12% of the income. To be in that megarich class, you needed annual earnings of at least $4.7 million.

By contrast, middle-class families with incomes between $73,000 and $139,000 paid 9% of the state’s income tax take.

This doesn’t mean we should weep for the rich and demand more from the struggling lower middle class.

But the problem with Sacramento living off the wealthiest taxpayers is that they’re unreliable. Their fortunes flourish in boom times and fall when the economy busts. When the stock market sneezes, California state government catches pneumonia.

If the state treasury is overflowing, Democratic lawmakers tend to spend freely, expanding programs and creating new ones. Then when the cache inevitably shrinks in bad times, the policymakers’ usual response is to essentially turn their eyes.

Rather than sharply whack spending and raise taxes, they gimmick up the budget with borrowing, deferred spending and crossed fingers. And they dig the hole deeper.

For decades, under Democratic and Republican governors, we’ve sorely needed to update our archaic tax system to make it less volatile and more dependable.

A reform that makes lots of sense is to extend the sales tax to services primarily used by businesses. They could deduct the cost on their federal tax returns. And California state and local governments would steadily collect several billion dollars annually. Some income and sales tax rates could even be lowered.

California also has the nation’s highest state sales tax rate at 7.25%. Combining state and local sales tax rates, we have the seventh-highest at 8.99%.

Taxing deductible business services makes sense to many politicians — but only privately. They’re too weak-kneed to seriously consider it in public. There’d be winners and losers and high political risks.

When Xavier Becerra, the current Democratic front-runner in the June 2 gubernatorial primary, entered the race a year ago, I asked him about extending the sales tax to services, as all other states do. He wanted nothing to do with it.

“We need to stabilize our tax system in California with a more steady source of revenue,” he told me. “But I’m not a fan of the sales tax to begin with. It lands on working families.”

He was not interested in exploring a possible tax on services that didn’t hit working families.

Becerra, a former California attorney general and U.S. health secretary, added: “Before we start exploring new taxes, we should explore existing budget spending. We have to scrub the budget.”

In revising his new budget proposal last week, Newsom proposed $5.1 billion in modest tax hikes on businesses — even as unanticipated revenue was surging. He asked the Legislature for a limit on corporate tax credits and a tax on digital software.

He also proposed to trim $3.7 billion from Medi-Cal healthcare for the poor.

Newsom proposed spending $349.9 billion in the next fiscal year and asserted that budgets would be balanced for 18 months. But after that, he and practically everyone else in Sacramento foresee deficit spending without extensive fiscal restructuring.

But you don’t hear a peep about that from leading Democratic candidates running to replace Newsom. Most are talking about imposing significantly higher business taxes to pay for new or expanded programs.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer wants to close “the corporate tax loophole.” What he’s talking about is gutting Proposition 13’s property tax breaks for commercial holdings. He’d make it easier to reassess when partners sell their portions of a property — a commonly called “split roll” that would treat commercial property differently than residential.

That was tried in 2020 and rejected by voters.

Steyer also supports the billionaire tax that’s expected to be on the November ballot. It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires.

To their credit, no other gubernatorial candidate supports this misguided proposal. Practically all the $100-billion windfall would flow solely into healthcare while causing fed-up super wealthy to flee the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter would raise taxes on the most profitable corporations to pay for free child care and college tuition. They’re both good causes but of questionable fiscal feasibility right now.

Rather than pushing rich investors and job creators out of state, we should be encouraging them to stick it out in California and continue to pay their fair share.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Who won and who lost in Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate? Our columnists weigh in
TikTok dough: The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear
The L.A. Times Special: Steyer campaign staffer linked to video of rival Katie Porter berating staff

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swapped wedding budgets

A Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding bride couldn’t believe the “extravagant” price of her big day.

During the first episode of the new Channel 5 series, which aired on Sunday (May 3), two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swap budgets for their weddings.

One duo, who are used to the finer things in life, had to plan a wedding on a small budget, meanwhile the other pair had a lot of money to burn.

Taking part in the experiment was millionaire couple Col and Raz, who gave up their unlimited budget to Janet and Gary, who have spent years scraping and saving and even a modest wedding felt out of reach.

Gary and Janet, who live in Salford, have been madly in love since meeting at a health care call centre 11-years-ago. Gary popped the big question while on a romantic holiday two-years-ago.

Since then, they have been excited to walk down the aisle however the pair’s low paid jobs in customer services make it a struggle to make ends meet.

To bring in extra money Gary works as a wedding singer but even with the second job their combined disposable income is just £157 a week, so their big day dreams have been put on hold.

It was a completely different story for Essex couple Col, 37 and Raz, 34, who are used to champagne lifestyles and money is no issue to them.

The couple have only been together for two years but Col, who owns multiple businesses, revealed that it was love at first sight after meeting at an event.

Ever since Col proposed, Raz has been planning her big day and it hasn’t included cutting down on anything. The bride had dreams of an elegant princess wedding and Col wanted a big party with free flowing drinks.

The couple wanted to swap budgets because they both revealed that they hadn’t always had the finer things in life and grew up without a lot of money.

Getting stuck into their wedding planning, Col and Raz were left speechless after finding out that they had just £3,500 to cover everything, meanwhile Gary and Janet couldn’t believe their eyes after getting an unlimited budget.

At first, Col and Raz struggled to get everything they needed with their small budget especially after bride Raz went over budget with her dress. After a few bumps in the road and some help from family members they managed to pull through and overall enjoyed their special day.

Meanwhile Janet and Gary felt like they’d won the lottery and made the most of their unlimited budget. The couple splashed out on a £17,000 venue and £5,000 enchanted forest. Janet spent £3,000 on her dream wedding dress and even had a singer for their reception celebration. The couple enjoyed their lavish wedding surrounded by their friends and family.

Things took an emotional turn after both couples reunited following their wedding swap as Janet broke down in tears after finding out how much she spent on her wedding.

After opening an envelope revealing the price of the wedding, Gary gasped as he revealed: £50,118.60.” He then joked: “What was the 60p on?”

Janet was visibly moved as she said: “There are so many people in the world that have got nothing that..” The bride broke down as she admitted: “It upsets me actually, to spend that kind of money on one day. It’s extravagant, it’s too much.” Gary comforted his wife as he said: “Do you know what though, you work hard all your life and it’s nice to get something back.”

You can catch up on Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding on Channel 5

BEYONCE and hubby Jay-Z are looking to move to France — after ditching plans for a UK home.

The music power couple, who abandoned househunting in the Cotswolds due to concerns about flooding, are said to be eyeing up a stunning chateau near Bordeaux.

Crazy In Love singer Beyoncé, 44, and Jay-Z, 56, are already huge fans of the famous wine region – with the 99 Problems rapper celebrating his birthday there in 2023.

Sources say the US pair are looking at a 16th century estate boasting 10 bedrooms and eight bathrooms, nestled in a commune.

Locals have told how the area is abuzz with talk of the A-listers joining their community – which is described as the French equivalent to the Cotswolds.

Businesses have reportedly been sworn to secrecy about the couple’s potential arrival.

One local said: “Everyone is talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z moving to the area.

“It’s all been shrouded in secrecy, with local businesses and tradespeople forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, but theirs are the names on everyone’s lips.”

Residents have reported a recent surge in private planes landing at the closest airport.

One source also told how a job description has gone on a local noticeboard for an experienced property manager working with VIP clients at an historic estate.

One of the requirements for the role is “absolute discretion”.

The superstar couple — worth a combined £1.5billion — were said to be buying a £7.5million 58-acre plot in the Cotswolds, following the footsteps of several celebrities.

Planning permission was secured for the seven-bedroom property.

But insiders said the pair, who have three children together, turned their backs on the area after learning it was prone to flooding.

A source told The Sun: “Beyonce and Jay-Z buying this plot of land was the talk of the Cotswolds, so many locals were excited about them moving in.

“But the plan appears to have fallen through.”

Despite their snub the Cotswolds have attracted a raft of celebrities including Ellie Goulding, James Blunt, Kate Moss, Amanda Holden, Tom Cruise, Liam Gallagher and Lily Allen.

TV host Ellen Degeneres and wife Portia de Rossi also moved to the area and renovated a farmhouse which they are selling for £22.5million.

One family on Rich House, Poor House decided to ‘break a rule’ halfway through the swap

*Warning: Contains spoilers for the latest episode of Rich House, Poor House*

A Rich House Poor House couple have broken one major show rule.

The hit Channel 5 series sees two families from opposite ends of the wealth divide swap homes, budgets, and lives for a week.

They both experience a dramatic shift in perspective as they step into each other’s worlds but one family appeared to break a rule as they left the property halfway through the swap.

During Sunday’s (April 19) episode, millionaire hotel owners Gez and Rosy Chetal swapped their luxury life with the Bloor family.

In Norfolk, John and wife Ann, live with their three children in a three-bedroom rented terrace house. After basic household bills they have just £79 a week to spend on everything else from food and travel to fun.

Mum Ann works as a cook in a mental health care home, meanwhile husband John works long hours as a bus driver, but they both have a passion for cooking.

Despite both grafting hard, the couple struggle to make ends meet and have previously gone bankrupt for £36k, but they dream of running a music café of their own one day.

Experiencing how the wealthiest 1% live, they exchanged homes for a week with hotel owners Gez and Rosy Chetal, who lived in their luxurious £1.7m 11-bedroom bespoke hotel with their 19-year-old daughter Saanchi.

Given his demanding lifestyle as an entrepreneur, the couple wanted to use the swap as a way for them to spend some quality time together and have a break from their business.

They swapped their hotel— complete with a wine cellar, a large dining room and private chef for a week-long stay in the Bloor family’s house.

While Gez and Rosy were forced to manage on a weekly budget of £79, John, wife Ann and their children got a taste of luxury living with £1,800 to spend.

However, not long into the swap it was clear that the Bloor family struggled to adjust to their new environment living in a hotel as Ann admitted: “My kids are not comfortable.”

After a restless night, Ann was visibly moved as she told husband John: “The children are really uncomfortable. They can’t be in their pyjamas because it’s a hotel, they can’t just go and get a drink, they can’t just go and get a sandwich.” John jumped in and added: “It’s not a home is it?”

Turning to John, Ann explained: “It’s nothing about the hotel. If it was just me and you.. I’d absolutely love it but actually to me we can’t really stay in the hotel.”

The couple then made a big decision and decided to abandon the hotel and use the remaining budget to book a luxury Airbnb, that cost a whopping £1,200.

When the two families finally reunited at the end of their swap, Ann went on to say: “We loved the hotel, unfortunately the children didn’t. They felt very separated from us.” Gez added: “It’s just a big house really, with 11 rooms.”

Rich House, Poor House airs Sunday night from 9pm on Channel 5