[s1k3b8]

The difference between US and "a lot of European countries" is that we have global financial power and they don't. If the US truly wanted to have a wealth tax, we can make it globally binding for US companies/citizens. Meaning you can't offshore it or hide it "legally" in foreign nations because we'd sanction both the individual and the nation. No tax haven or nation can afford to risk being banned from US markets and the international financial system which the US created and controls. But the US is a captive nation controlled by the wealthy, so I won't be holding my breath for a wealth tax.

[chillacy]

Even ignoring people offshoring wealth, it's still fairly expensive for the IRS to audit assets for the wealthy, especially things like art (how many expensive paintings do you have and what are they worth now?), private equity (how will series-A startup founders pay their tax?), or intellectual property (how much are Rihanna's songs worth?).

Ultimately I'm skeptical, because there isn't a good model of it working well anywhere else, or even at smaller scales. If the argument is that it only works at the largest scales with 100% buy-in... that's an awfully risky policy.

And among economists it's basically Saez and Zucman vs everyone else, not particularly promising. This is at least the most reasonable position I found, which is that it might work but we shouldn't rely on it to raise as much as we expect: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/elizabeth-warre...