I can't tell what's worse: intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. Mitt Romney mentioned a number of 47% during his presidential campaign and that number was mostly true. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romne...
People love to talk about the marginal tax rates but not the average tax rates. And I think that’s right because the conversation should be focused on the wealthiest people.
> On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways.
That's an irrelevant diversion though, because the measure that matters when discussing the fairness of taxes is how much people are left with at the end after paying whatever taxes they pay, including sales tax, income tax, and any other kind of tax. And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none, and for the people for whom a wealth tax would even apply the answer is unimaginable amounts.
That's not all that matters. The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society. And thinking that billionaires will just take a wealth tax as served, and perhaps will ask "can I have some more" is one way to think about this, but probably not the best way. A better way to think is that action might be followed by reaction. There is no manifest destiny for California to be the epicenter of tech.
California already has very high taxes. I think marginal tax rates are higher in California than for UK tax residents, certainly for CGT, and roughly similar for income tax.
I'd say the fact that California remains the epicenter of tech despite its high taxes suggests concentration of talent matters far more than tax rates.
Sure, the government has that goal too. But the government has many tools, and using taxes for that is using the wrong tool. Or maybe you think that billionaires owe us not only to pay taxes, but also to play nice, and pay those taxes with a smile on their face?
Billionares shouldn't exist. We shouldn't just tax them for the revenue. We should tax them to limit the undemocratic power that comes with excessive wealth.
Considering the alternative for them over the past millennia has been, inevitably that they get caught, hanged, quartered, beaten and other various violent methods: yes, they should smile, they're buying their lives with all that money :)
> The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society.
Both are important reasons for taxes.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." (often attributed to Louis Brandeis, though he probably never said exactly the quote)
Taxation is one of the primary tools for avoiding destructive levels of wealth concentration.
Of course, the wealthy decry this as unfair wealth redistribution but all governments engage in constant wealth redistribution.
In the US we happen to have decided (since the Reagan era) that through increasingly regressive taxes the redistribution will almost always function upwards, ultimately resulting in the oligarchical dismantling of our government that we find ourselves in today.
There is no consensus on what is "fair" to tax, you can find people arguing from 0% to 100%. And if we're talking about measures of fairness. A much better measure is something like trying to maximise the median living standard without sacrificing any one demographic.
> And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none...
So... where are the real resources coming from then? Because if these people aren't using them to support their living standards they must be doing something else. If we give one person enough money out of the tax pot to pay rent, that means the resources were redeployed from somewhere else that was about 1-rentworth of something.
Because I agree that the taxes aren't going to come out of the wealthy's living standards, but the implications of that in practice are not good.
> If we give one person enough money out of the tax pot to pay rent, that means the resources were redeployed from somewhere else that was about 1-rentworth of something.
Yes, and that "somewhere else" is others' excess profit.
That excess profit comes from (a) inventing or investing capital with a return or (b) paying less for goods / labor than they can be sold for.
Capitalist profit has always been equal parts ingenuity and fucking other people over, and as most often implemented makes no discrimination between the two.
The bargain by which this has traditionally been squared is "the person who made the profit gets to keep some of it" + "they pay the rest in taxes to support the society they're successful in and depend on."
Unfortunately over the years this has continually been eroded by capital's invasion into democracy, with the express purpose of neutering the latter part of that bargain.
Those who would be hit with a wealth tax are incensed by it precisely because it would be less avoidable than the myriad of loopholes that have been engineered into income taxes.
And in terms of real resources - who do you expect to have less and what do you expect them to have less of? Because "excess profit" is an economic concept, not a real thing.
By using progressive taxes, either wealth or income, those who benefited from the current system get to keep some of those excess benefits, while keeping less than they would under a no tax system.
Excess profit is a stupid fairy tale told by the bearded idiot. It is literally impossible to not retroactively 'exploit' somebody. Not just in the practical 'need to know what the end user will do with it to avoid them making an excess profit' but if the value changes over time they need to somehow predict that perfectly or else be guilty of exploitation. The notion itself always assumes that the capitalist should get absolutely nothing because he isn't doing "real work" and then ignores how things fall apart without them, or how much that the worker would have to do to substitute for them.
Ironically the communists have managed to out-greed the capitalists through this one fantastical concepts. Capitalists accept that they need to pay people to get their inputs and try to make the most of it one way or another. Communists are kept up at night at by the thought that somebody else may have made a penny off of their labor, and think that they need to murder them for it.
The "excess" in "excess profits" means profits greater than what a fully-competitive, perfect market would allow.
No one would be paying Apple or Google 30% of their revenue if there were infinite alternative app distribution options.
The essence of post-capitalism is that a lack of market intervention allows monopolies to not just grow (probably fine in limited niches with regulatory bounds) but also to rent seek without investing and adding value.
So yes, profit is a motivational force that has outperformed all others to date in aligning individual action with market desires.
But the excess profit era the US has been sliding towards for decades is not a free market.
When was the last time a large corporation was forcibly broken up?
Pick a target amount of inequity. Act to hit that goal. Adjust as needed.
For example, I advocate restoring our gini coefficient from the current 0.48 (?) back to 1970s era 0.35. People smarter than me will figure out how to best measure inequity, ideal targets, and implementation details.
Arguing about all the misc tax rates, purposefully ignoring the macro, is an obfuscation strategy to prevent taking any action at all. Straight out of the CIA's field guide on sabotage.
There is very little debate that you should be taxed proportionally to your total wealth; I.e. that the rich should pay more than the poor. In fact the only people trying to debate this are the rich who want to avoid paying back towards the society that enabled their success.
> I.e. that the rich should pay more than the poor
How else could it work? The poor don't have enough money to tax them. That's why they're poor. Schemes where the rich don't get taxed are systems that tend towards the 0% tax for everyone end of the spectrum.
Social Security tax is the only tax that has a limit. Medicare tax applies to all wages and high earners even pay an extra percentage.
SS tax has a limit because benefits are also limited. It is a forced retirement plan where if you live long enough, you might get back what you paid in.
It’s 15.3% counting both sides, and capped. And it’s the only “tax” that is paid back, at progressive rates, because it’s a retirement annuity not an income tax.
If the government mandates it under threat of violence, it’s called a tax.
It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax.
But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county).
Renters will always pay one way or another. You can name it wealth tax or property tax or house tax. It doesn't matter -- the result will be higher rent.
The point of my post was to indicate that just because you're a home owner (rather than a renter) does not make you special.
Property taxes are not wealth taxes, but fees for services rendered by the local government. Both home owners and renters (may) benefit from those fees.
In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?
Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.
This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?
And even if the house represents negative wealth - same property taxes apply to a house regardless of whether the owner owns it outright with no mortgage (wealthy) or if they're paying 8% interest on an underwater mortgage (negative wealth). And, unlike VCs, property taxes are paid - often for decades - before one even sees if they'll even realize any wealth from the estimated value of their home that they pay tax on.
> intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
I consider this fine, because proponents of a wealth tax consistently omit that it will ultimately be the middle class who pays the tax... the ultra-wealthy and wealthy can afford sophisticated strategies to render a wealth tax ineffective against them, and if that doesn't work they can just move somewhere else. Income tax was the same.
If you paid attention to proponents of a wealth tax in the US, you would be aware that they only ever suggest it for vast wealths of like $10 million+.
The Bay Area is one of the most expensive parts of the United States and $10M still means you own half a dozen houses. I’d say that’s reasonably “wealthy” from the perspective of the majority of the population who struggle to afford even one.
Anyone who owns two $500k houses is wealthy in 2026. I used to own two worth less than that and didn’t consider myself wealthy, but I was by the statistics.
Even that is subject to shenanigans... above a certain level of wealth the overhead of establishing companies, tax residencies, and complex debt arrangements become a rounding error.
Some of the mechanisms are loopholes, that might be closed l. But many start to interact with international business regulations that exist for considered reasons, and are harder to change even if it is serving as a loophole.
You end up with only the small wealth (one lifetime as a skilled professional) group getting caught
Sanction them and their companies. Sanction countries that accept these anti-society misanthropes. Bar them from the US and any territories, encourage our allies to bar them as well. Investigate those companies for crimes to the full extent of the law.
Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.
As has happened in nearly every European state with wealth taxes. But the elephant in the room is that these policies give the same ineffective, corrupt and entirely worthless politicians even more money to "manage". The very definition of delusional wishful thinking.
this is the key fact. If a wealth tax were enacted and a responsible group were endowed with the money we might reap some value from a wealth tax. Giving American Politicians more tax money is like giving a heroine addict more heroine.
If the ultra wealthy move out a few people will lose their jobs (their family office, some accountants, some property managers will work the same job for someone else). But overall people will not be worse off.
We have been doing this exact experiment in Seattle sine 2024 when Bozos moved out. And last month Howard Schultz moved out as well. The sky did not fall.
Another example- did the average Londoner get better off when Russian oligarch parked their money in London in early 2000s? And likewise - was the average Londoner worse off when that money was frozen in Jan 2022 when Ukrainian war started? Not really…
You also lose the jobs the wealthy were paying for, and the taxes those employees would have paid, and the sales tax the wealthy are no longer paying, and so on.
There was no tax revenue to begin with-nobody paid income taxes in WA before the millionaire tax. The jobs the rich will take with are few and very specialized: tax accountants, security people, some administrative assistants. When billionaires leave whoever mowed their lawn or cleaned their pool will do the same job - for the next owner.
What the politicians will do with these taxes does not matter to me. The only thing I dispute is this sense of doom because, of my god, Bill Gates and Andy Jassy and Howard Schultz and Ballmer will pick up their toys and leave.
London is a highly housing-constrained city, so the most important way of answering this question is, what affect did freezing Russian oligarch money in Jan 2022 have on the London housing market? If it made housing cheaper or otherwise more available, it was good for the average Londoner; and if it did the opposite it was bad. I have no idea which effect dominated or if it even made an appreciable difference compared to everything else that affects the London housing market.
The level of delusional wishful thinking here defies belief. Seattle and all other US "left" strongholds are decomposing and falling apart, with parts of these cities worse off than the third world. Instead of realizing that it's ineffective, incompetent and detached from reality politicians that have brought ruin and misery, you want to hand them even more money.
Parts of these cities worse off than the third world? Have you been to a third world country? Or Seattle, for that matter?
The commonly scapegoated cities in the United States are not experiencing third world conditions. Appalachia is experiencing third world conditions. Hollowed out rust belt cities in the Midwest are experiencing third world conditions. These areas are not run by lefty politicians. The United States has a systemic problem, not a local one.
And yes, the systemic problem is that there are a tiny number of ultra wealthy people with wildly outsized influence on the government of the United States, doing everything they can to reduce the amount they need to pay in taxes while simultaneously ensuring they extract the maximum amount of profit from the US government's wildly excessive expenditures.
> Seattle and all other US "left" strongholds are decomposing and falling apart, with parts of these cities worse off than the third world
You can tell this is true because property values have plummeted and nobody wants to live there any more, right? Or, since that’s not true at all, possibly the people who craft the media you consume are not being fully honest.
I don’t really care about whatever taxes the politicians will heap on the rich. My point is that if the rich leave it will not the economic calamity so many pundits forecast. Life will go on without rich people.
Just look at Oregon for example. It’s a lot like WA state but without the billionaires. And it is a really nice place to live. If WA state ends up like Oregon I won’t mind.
The ultra rich are desperate to maintain their exclusive access to essentially pay no taxes through their "Buy, Borrow, Die" strategy (if you don't understand what that is you should stop and read this: https://gemini.google.com/share/e230bcecaaeb) and so they are using scare tactics / gaslighting around wealth taxes because a wealth tax would disrupt this essentially zero tax strategy.
"Buy, borrow, die" is a bit of a bogeyman of the Left; it's not a common strategy for HNW or UHNW individuals, and to the extent it is used, there are much better ways to close it than a wealth tax, which is coarse and rife with implementation issues.
The main implementation issue with a wealth tax is that it doesn’t at all interact with the capital gains tax. It’s easy to fix the implementation issue by integrating the wealth tax into the capital gains tax (call it unrealized capital gains tax for starters), make the tax refundable when an asset loses value, and netting it against the actual capital gains tax.
With this framing, the wealth tax isn’t a new tax; it is only prepaying the capital gains tax instead of allowing it to be deferred forever.
at least all financial assets (stocks, etc) are easy to assess value so why not start with that? same with gold, silver etc. Some minimal amount you can make it nontaxable to reduce administrative burden.
this a million times. Land easy, already being taxed. Any regulated financial instrument, also easy, take the minimum average yearly price of held assets. Tricky things like privately held companies, maybe we solve that one later, but even then there are valuations made at various points, anchor to those, be conservative in every case. If the gov primarily exists to enforce property rights... then people should pay in proportion to the rights that are being enforced on their behalf.
You seem to forget that given the way taxes work, eventually, anyone, with any amount of money, will be considered "wealthy" because we'll keep running out of other people's money.
You're wealthy, or the definition will change to include you. The spice must flow.
>because we'll keep running out of other people's money.
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, for two reasons. For one, as even Paul points out in the piece, a wealth tax below what's practically a risk free return on capital (~5%) doesn't eat into the capital stock, it simply means wealth grows slower, but still increases.
Secondly, there's no monotonous historical direction towards higher wealth taxes, in fact the opposite. We're living in an age of low wealth taxation, with only half a dozen countries or so, if I'm not mistaken, imposing one at all.
The risk free rate of return is usually only a point or two above inflation, and I’d argue that real wealth, rather than nominal wealth, is the true measure to look at to determine whether someone’s position has improved, stayed flat, or decreased.
> it simply means wealth grows slower, but still increases
But what does this mean? If you have a load of money in some companies, that's helping to fund their activities, and the companies' share price goes up a bit, you haven't gained any money. And you won't gain any until you sell some shares, which is already taxed.
The debt doesn't just go away, and interest is paid on it. It's not "free". Etrade's best rate is 10.45%. If your stocks go bust, you're still on the hook for the margin debt.
That’s not how it works, though. Buy, borrow, die doesn’t rely on retail margin rates. It’s closer to 3-5%.
Assets are used as collateral for loans that don’t require any repayment until death. Generally the borrower can borrow up to 75% of their collateralized asset, and that loan is not taxed. When they die the assets are passed to heirs and stepped up to their current value as the new cost basis. They’re sold to repay the loan and interest. No taxes paid on the loan “income”, no taxes paid on the capital gains, 3-5% interest paid for the outstanding balance of the loan and I’m sure some of that gets taxed. Because the collateralized asset stays invested the entire time, it usually grows faster than the interest that will eventually be paid.
That's even better. You just transfer beneficial ownership and route dividends to a different bank account. And now you have a LOT more Americans literally invested in Amazon/X/Meta's success. But poor Jeff, he did have to sell his yacht (no, the other one).
Don't speak to loudly of this fact, otherwise some leftist politician could come to the conclusion that human capital – the discounted cash flow of one's future labor income – should be taxed as wealth, too.
People love to talk about the marginal tax rates but not the average tax rates. And I think that’s right because the conversation should be focused on the wealthiest people.