[charlesdm]

I'm all for higher taxes on capital, maybe with some exceptions on the amount of capital gains tax to pay on your first €10m. But honestly, a wealth tax is just demotivating. Not every wealthy person invests their new found riches. It makes sense only to tax gains from investments, but only gains. Not making money on your capital? No problem, you don't pay. If you are, you do pay extra tax. I don't even think it's a bad idea to group income and capital gains together, as long as you can offset losses from capital against taxes on income.

Second point against a pure wealth tax: some of that wealth might be tied up in very illiquid assets (say, a castle worth €20m), meaning you might not be able to keep them because you have to pay the annual wealth tax. Or in say, art, which can be highly volatile in its valuation. This will automatically lead to disputes with tax authorities about valuations, etc etc. Not exactly fun to deal with + it's hard to enforce/verify

[rayiner]

I think wealth is a very natural thing to tax. The state creates and guarantees to protect a property right in land/personal effects/corporate equity/etc. In return, it taxes you 1-2% of the value of that property right each year.

[charlesdm]

With the exception of the US, who taxes its citizens globally, I would assume this would push many people to move abroad to a country without a wealth tax. France is great and all, but I wouldn't want to be a tax resident there. If you're worth €50m, it's just too expensive.

Given you already paid capital gains tax (or income tax) when you generated that wealth, there's also the double taxation component. Wealth taxes (at least to me) seem like a great way to punish people who are doing well.

At the end of the day, we're living in a globalised world, where borders matter less and less (at least in the west).

[SilasX]

Doesn't seem natural to me, in that most wealth is indivisible, non-fungible, etc. It's the "oh, just give me half the baby" problem writ large.

That said, land value tax and seigniorage seem like the best taxes on many metrics.

[wyager]

This is a literal protection racket. Usually people at least make the effort to use euphemisms so it's not so obvious.

[humanrebar]

> Second point against a pure wealth tax: some of that wealth might be tied up in very illiquid assets

Isn't this an argument against real estate taxes in general, which are universally accepted? There are mechanisms to recover those taxes eventually.

[jmorrow977]

Right. For example, if we don't like the idea of someone with wealth but no income needing to sell off part of their land or stocks every year, we could attach a debt to them that would be paid later when they eventually do sell some of their assets, or upon their death, etc. This could be arranged like a government loan with a low fixed interest rate, so if they wait 10 years to pay their taxes they'd owe their taxes plus some reasonable interest rate.